Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 13, 2018 | 讛壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 16

What is the status of an item that was detached and then became attached to the ground – is it treated like an attached or detached item – as regards idol worship, susceptibility to impurities, and shchita? What are 5 things one cannot do with a stalk of a reed? What types of things can one not use for wiping in the bathroom? Why? The debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva is brought regarding basar taava聽– and what the laws were regarding meat in the desert.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 诪讞讜讘专 诪注讬拽专讜 诇转诇讜砖 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞讘专讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Ostensibly, the two clauses of the baraita are difficult, as they contradict each other, since the first clause states that slaughter with a blade that is attached is valid and the latter clause states that slaughter is not valid. Rather, must one not conclude from it that there is a difference between a case where the blade was attached from the outset and a case where the blade was detached and ultimately he reattached it? The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from it.

讗诪专 诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诪讜讻谞讬 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘住专谞讗 讚驻讞专讗 讛讗 讘住专谞讗 讚诪讬讗

The Master said: In the case of one who slaughters with a mechanism of a wheel with a knife attached to it, his slaughter is valid. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that his slaughter is not valid? The Gemara answers: This contradiction is not difficult. This baraita, which rules that the slaughter is valid, is in a case where the knife was attached to a potter鈥檚 wheel, whose movement is generated by the potter pressing on a pedal. Since the slaughter was performed by the force of the person鈥檚 actions, the slaughter is valid. That baraita, which rules that the slaughter is not valid, is in a case where the knife was attached to a waterwheel. Since the slaughter was not performed by the force of the person鈥檚 actions, the slaughter is not valid.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘住专谞讗 讚诪讬讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讞 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 讘讻讞 砖谞讬

And if you wish, say instead: The rulings of both this baraita and that baraita are in a case where the knife was attached to a waterwheel, and the contradiction is not difficult. This baraita, which rules that the slaughter is valid, is in a case where the movement of the slaughter was generated by primary force, as the person releases the water that turns the wheel, and on that initial turn of the wheel the knife slaughters the animal. That baraita, which rules that the slaughter is not valid, is in a case where the slaughter was generated by secondary force, as the knife slaughters the animal on the second turn of the wheel.

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讻驻转讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜讗砖拽讬诇 注诇讬讛 讘讬讚拽讗 讚诪讬讗 讜诪讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讬专讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讛谞讬 讘讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讻讞 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讻讞 砖谞讬 讙专诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

And this is like that which Rav Pappa says: In the case of a certain person who bound another and diverted a flow [bidka] of water upon him and he died, the one who diverted the water is liable for his murder. What is the reason? It is because those were his arrows that were effective in his murder. And this matter applies in a case where he killed the other person by primary force, as the person was proximate to him and was directly drowned by the water. But if the person was further away and was killed by secondary force after the water flowed on its own, it is not by his direct action; rather, it is merely an indirect action, and he is exempt.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讜拽讗诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讜讗 讘转诇讜砖 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽讞 讗转 讛诪讗讻诇转 诇砖讞讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讬讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗讗讜驻转讗 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗 拽专讗 拽讗诪专 拽专讗 讝专讬讝讜转讬讛 讚讗讘专讛诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav sat behind Rabbi 岣yya, and Rabbi 岣yya sat before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed specifically with a blade that is detached? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son鈥 (Genesis 22:10). Rav said to Rabbi 岣yya: What is he saying? Rabbi 岣yya said to Rav: He is saying an incorrect reason, comparable to the letter vav that is written on the rough surface of a tree trunk [a鈥檜fta]. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi say a verse as proof for his statement? The Gemara answers: The verse teaches us the diligence of Abraham, who had a knife prepared to slaughter Isaac. It does not teach any halakha concerning ritual slaughter.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 转诇讜砖 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞讘专讜 诇注谞讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讬 转诇讜砖 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛诪砖转讞讜讛 诇讘讬转 砖诇讜 讗住专讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讜讬 诪讞讜讘专 讗诇讛讬讛诐 注诇 讛讛专讬诐 讜诇讗 讛讛专讬诐 讗诇讛讬讛诐

搂 Apropos the issue of slaughter with a detached blade, Rava said: It is obvious to me that concerning an item that was detached and ultimately one attached it, with regard to the matter of idol worship its halakhic status is that of a detached item, as the Master says: One who bows to his house has rendered it forbidden as an object of idol worship. And if it enters your mind to say that its halakhic status is that of an attached item, it is written with regard to idolatry: 鈥淭heir gods, upon the high mountains鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:2), from which it is derived: But the mountains are not their gods, as items attached to the ground are never rendered forbidden as objects of idol worship. The halakhic status of a house built from stones that were detached is that of a detached item.

诇注谞讬谉 讛讻砖专 讝专注讬诐 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜驻讛 拽注专讛 注诇 讛讻讜转诇 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讜讚讞 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬诇拽讛 讛讻讜转诇 讗讬谞讜 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

With regard to the matter of rendering seeds susceptible to ritual impurity, there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 4:3): In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall while it is raining so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, if the water from the bowl then falls onto produce, that is under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). The water has the halakhic status of a liquid that he poured of his own volition on fruit and seeds. Consequently, it renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. But if he placed the bowl there so that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥 Since he had no intent to use the water, it is not considered to have entered the bowl of his own volition, and it does not render produce susceptible to impurity.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讜讚讞 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞 讛讻讜转诇 讗讬谉 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

This mishna itself is difficult, as the inferences from the first clause and the latter clause are contradictory. In the first clause you said: In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, that is under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed,鈥 and the water renders produce susceptible to impurity. By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed by means of the bowl, that is not under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥 That water would not render produce susceptible to impurity, because the intent was for the water to rinse the wall, which is an item attached to the ground.

讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬诇拽讛 讛讻讜转诇 讗讬谞讜 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞 讛讻讜转诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

And then the mishna teaches in the latter clause: If he placed the bowl so that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥 By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed, that is under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed,鈥 as a wall has the status of a detached item, since it was built from stones that were detached.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 讞讚 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讛讗 讘讻讜转诇 诪注专讛 讛讗 讘讻讜转诇 讘谞讬谉

Rabbi Elazar said: This mishna is disjointed; the tanna who taught this first clause did not teach that second clause. There is a tannaitic dispute whether the status of a wall that is built from detached stones is that of an attached item or a detached item. Rav Pappa said: The entire mishna is the opinion of one tanna: This first clause is in the case of the wall of a cave, which is attached from the outset; that latter clause is in the case of the wall of a building, which is built from stones that were detached from the ground.

讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讜驻讛 拽注专讛 注诇 讛讻讜转诇 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讜讚讞 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞 讛讻讜转诇 讗讬谉 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

And this is what the mishna is saying: In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, that is under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed,鈥 and the water renders produce susceptible to impurity. By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed by means of the bowl, that is not under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讜转诇 诪注专讛 讗讘诇 讘讻讜转诇 讘谞讬谉 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬诇拽讛 讛讻讜转诇 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞 讛讻讜转诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of the wall of a cave, which was always attached to the ground. But in the case of the wall of a building, whose stones were detached and subsequently reattached, if he places the bowl so that the wall will not be damaged, that is when it is not under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥 But if he places the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed, that is under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥

讘注讬 专讘讗

Rava raises a dilemma:

转诇讜砖 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞讘专讜 诇注谞讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬

In the case of a blade that was detached and ultimately one attached it, with regard to slaughter, what is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 爪讜专 讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 拽谞讛 注讜诇讛 诪讗诇讬讜 讜砖讞讟 讘讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: If there was a flint emerging from a wall or a reed arising from the ground on its own and he slaughtered with it, his slaughter is not valid. Since the wall itself was made from stones that were detached and subsequently reattached, the slaughter is not valid.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻讜转诇 诪注专讛 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚拽谞讛 注讜诇讛 诪讗诇讬讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects that proof: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with the case of the wall of a cave that was always attached. The language of the baraita is also precise in support of that explanation, as the tanna teaches the case of the flint emerging from a wall juxtaposed to, and therefore similar to, the case of a reed arising from the ground on its own, which was also always attached. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case.

转讗 砖诪注 谞注抓 住讻讬谉 讘讻讜转诇 讜砖讞讟 讘讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 砖讗谞讬 住讻讬谉 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: If one embedded a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid. The knife was detached and then reattached, and the slaughter is valid. The Gemara rejects the proof: The reason that the slaughter is valid is that a knife is different, as he does not subsume it to the wall.

转讗 砖诪注 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讚诇诪讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 诇讛 诪讗讬 诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 住讻讬谉 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from an earlier point in that baraita: If one slaughtered with an item that is attached to the ground, his slaughter is valid. This is a case where it was detached and then attached, as later in the baraita a case is cited when the blade was always attached and the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara rejects the proof: Perhaps the phrase that follows in the baraita: If one embedded a knife in a wall, is explaining the previous case. And accordingly, what is the meaning of attached to the ground? It is in the case of a knife, as he does not subsume it to the wall. But if he embedded a flint in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter would be valid. Therefore, there is no proof from this baraita.

讗诪专 诪专 谞注抓 住讻讬谉 讘讻讜转诇 讜砖讞讟 讘讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛住讻讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讘诇 住讻讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬讚专讜住

The Master said in the baraita: If one embedded a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid. Rav Anan says that Shmuel says: The tanna taught this halakha only in a case where the knife is above and the animal鈥檚 neck is below, and he raises the animal鈥檚 head and draws it back and forth on the blade. But in a case where the knife is below and the animal鈥檚 neck is above, the slaughter is not valid because we are concerned lest he press the knife, due to the weight of the animal, thereby cutting the simanim without drawing the knife back and forth, which invalidates the slaughter.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讬谉 砖讛住讻讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 砖讛住讻讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讟讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in the baraita: With any item that cuts, one may slaughter, whether with a blade that is attached to the ground or with a blade that is detached from the ground; whether the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above or the knife is above and the neck of the animal is below?

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 住讻讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讘转诇讜砖 住讻讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讘诪讞讜讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘注讜驻讗 讚拽诇讬诇

Rav Zevid said: The baraita is taught disjunctively: In the case where the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above, the slaughter is valid when the blade is detached. In the case where the knife is above and the neck of the animal is below, the slaughter is valid even when the blade is attached. Rav Pappa said: The baraita that teaches that one may slaughter even when the attached knife is below is referring to slaughter of a bird, which is light, and there is no concern that the weight of the bird will cause the slaughterer to press the bird鈥檚 neck onto the knife.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘拽专讜诪讬转 砖诇 拽谞讛 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谉 诪诇讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讞转讻讬谉 讘讛 讘砖专 讜讗讬谉 诪讞爪爪讬谉 讘讛 砖讬谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讬诐 讘讛

Rav 岣sda says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says, and some say it was taught in a baraita: Five matters were said with regard to the stalk of a reed, which is used for cutting due to its sharpness. One may neither slaughter with it, due to the concern that splinters will be separated and become embedded in the simanim, invalidating the slaughter; nor circumcise with it for the same reason, due to the potential danger; nor cut meat with it, lest splinters become embedded in the meat and endanger one who eats it; nor pick one鈥檚 teeth with it, lest he wound himself; nor wipe with it after relieving oneself.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讬谉 讘爪讜专 讘讬谉 讘讝讻讜讻讬转 讘讬谉 讘拽专讜诪讬转 砖诇 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘住讬诪讜谞讗 讚讗讙诪讗

The baraita teaches: One may neither slaughter with it. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: With any sharp object one may slaughter an animal, whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed? Rav Pappa said: There, the reference is to a specific type of reed that grows in a marsh, which becomes a smooth, hard surface when it dries.

讜讗讬谉 诪讞转讻讬谉 讘讛 讘砖专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讞转讱 讘讛 拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 讚讝讬讙讬 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讞转讱 讘讛 注讜驻讗 讚专讻讬讱

The baraita teaches: Nor cut meat with it. Rav Pappa cuts with the stalk of a reed the innards of fish, which are transparent, such that any splinters would be obvious. Rabba bar Rav Huna cuts with it the meat of a bird, which is soft and will not cause the stalk of the reed to splinter.

讜讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讬谉 讘讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛诪拽谞讞 讘讚讘专 砖讛讗讜专 砖讜诇讟转 讘讜 砖讬谞讬讜 谞讜砖专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽讬谞讜讞 驻讬 诪讻讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The baraita teaches: Nor wipe with it after relieving oneself. The Gemara objects: Derive that one may not wipe with it because the Master said: One who wipes with an object that is flammable, his lower teeth, i.e., the rectum that holds the intestines in place, fall out. Rav Pappa said in explanation: The reference in the baraita is not to wiping after relieving oneself. Rather, we are speaking with regard to wiping the blood or dirt from the opening of a wound.

讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讛讻诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讜祝

搂 The mishna teaches: All slaughter [hakkol sho岣tin] and one may always slaughter. The Gemara interprets the phrase: All slaughter [hakkol sho岣tin], to mean all animals are included in the mitzva of slaughter, and even a bird.

诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讬专讞讬讘 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗转 讙讘讜诇讱 讻讗砖专 讚讘专 诇讱 讜讗诪专转 讗讻诇讛 讘砖专 讜讙讜壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讛转讬专 诇讛诐 讘砖专 转讗讜讛

With regard to the statement: One may always slaughter, who is the tanna who taught this halakha? Rabba said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hen the Lord your God shall expand your border, as He has promised you, and you shall say: I will eat flesh鈥you may eat flesh with all the desire of your soul鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:20), Rabbi Yishmael says: The verse comes only to permit consumption of the non-sacrificial meat of desire to the Jewish people.

砖讘转讞诇讛 谞讗住专 诇讛诐 讘砖专 转讗讜讛 诪砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讗专抓 讛讜转专 诇讛诐 讘砖专 转讗讜讛

As, at the outset, the meat of desire was forbidden to them, and anyone who wanted to eat meat would sacrifice the animal as an offering. After the priest sprinkled the blood, it was permitted for one to eat the meat. When they entered into Eretz Yisrael, the meat of desire was permitted for them, and they could slaughter and eat meat wherever they chose.

讜注讻砖讬讜 砖讙诇讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝专讜 诇讗讬住讜专谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讻讱 砖谞讬谞讜 诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉

Rabba added: And now that the Jewish people were exiled, might one have thought that they return to their initial prohibition? Therefore, we learned in the mishna: One may always slaughter non-sacrificial meat.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬转住专 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讜 诪拽专讘讬 诇诪砖讻谉 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬砖转专讜 讚讛讜讜 诪专讞拽讬 诪诪砖讻谉

Rav Yosef objects to this. If so, this phrase: One may always slaughter, is inappropriate; the tanna should have taught: One may always slaughter and eat, as the matter of permission primarily relates to eating the meat, not to slaughtering the animal. And furthermore, initially, what is the reason that the meat of desire was forbidden? It was because in the wilderness, they were proximate to the Tabernacle and could partake of sacrificial meat from the table of God. And ultimately, what is the reason that the meat of desire was permitted? The reason was that in Eretz Yisrael they were distant from the Tabernacle.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 16

拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 诪讞讜讘专 诪注讬拽专讜 诇转诇讜砖 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞讘专讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Ostensibly, the two clauses of the baraita are difficult, as they contradict each other, since the first clause states that slaughter with a blade that is attached is valid and the latter clause states that slaughter is not valid. Rather, must one not conclude from it that there is a difference between a case where the blade was attached from the outset and a case where the blade was detached and ultimately he reattached it? The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from it.

讗诪专 诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诪讜讻谞讬 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘住专谞讗 讚驻讞专讗 讛讗 讘住专谞讗 讚诪讬讗

The Master said: In the case of one who slaughters with a mechanism of a wheel with a knife attached to it, his slaughter is valid. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that his slaughter is not valid? The Gemara answers: This contradiction is not difficult. This baraita, which rules that the slaughter is valid, is in a case where the knife was attached to a potter鈥檚 wheel, whose movement is generated by the potter pressing on a pedal. Since the slaughter was performed by the force of the person鈥檚 actions, the slaughter is valid. That baraita, which rules that the slaughter is not valid, is in a case where the knife was attached to a waterwheel. Since the slaughter was not performed by the force of the person鈥檚 actions, the slaughter is not valid.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘住专谞讗 讚诪讬讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讞 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 讘讻讞 砖谞讬

And if you wish, say instead: The rulings of both this baraita and that baraita are in a case where the knife was attached to a waterwheel, and the contradiction is not difficult. This baraita, which rules that the slaughter is valid, is in a case where the movement of the slaughter was generated by primary force, as the person releases the water that turns the wheel, and on that initial turn of the wheel the knife slaughters the animal. That baraita, which rules that the slaughter is not valid, is in a case where the slaughter was generated by secondary force, as the knife slaughters the animal on the second turn of the wheel.

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讻驻转讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讜讗砖拽讬诇 注诇讬讛 讘讬讚拽讗 讚诪讬讗 讜诪讬转 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讬专讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讛谞讬 讘讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讻讞 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讻讞 砖谞讬 讙专诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

And this is like that which Rav Pappa says: In the case of a certain person who bound another and diverted a flow [bidka] of water upon him and he died, the one who diverted the water is liable for his murder. What is the reason? It is because those were his arrows that were effective in his murder. And this matter applies in a case where he killed the other person by primary force, as the person was proximate to him and was directly drowned by the water. But if the person was further away and was killed by secondary force after the water flowed on its own, it is not by his direct action; rather, it is merely an indirect action, and he is exempt.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讜专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讜拽讗诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讜讗 讘转诇讜砖 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬拽讞 讗转 讛诪讗讻诇转 诇砖讞讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讬讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗讗讜驻转讗 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗 拽专讗 拽讗诪专 拽专讗 讝专讬讝讜转讬讛 讚讗讘专讛诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav sat behind Rabbi 岣yya, and Rabbi 岣yya sat before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed specifically with a blade that is detached? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son鈥 (Genesis 22:10). Rav said to Rabbi 岣yya: What is he saying? Rabbi 岣yya said to Rav: He is saying an incorrect reason, comparable to the letter vav that is written on the rough surface of a tree trunk [a鈥檜fta]. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi say a verse as proof for his statement? The Gemara answers: The verse teaches us the diligence of Abraham, who had a knife prepared to slaughter Isaac. It does not teach any halakha concerning ritual slaughter.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 转诇讜砖 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞讘专讜 诇注谞讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讬 转诇讜砖 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛诪砖转讞讜讛 诇讘讬转 砖诇讜 讗住专讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛讜讬 诪讞讜讘专 讗诇讛讬讛诐 注诇 讛讛专讬诐 讜诇讗 讛讛专讬诐 讗诇讛讬讛诐

搂 Apropos the issue of slaughter with a detached blade, Rava said: It is obvious to me that concerning an item that was detached and ultimately one attached it, with regard to the matter of idol worship its halakhic status is that of a detached item, as the Master says: One who bows to his house has rendered it forbidden as an object of idol worship. And if it enters your mind to say that its halakhic status is that of an attached item, it is written with regard to idolatry: 鈥淭heir gods, upon the high mountains鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:2), from which it is derived: But the mountains are not their gods, as items attached to the ground are never rendered forbidden as objects of idol worship. The halakhic status of a house built from stones that were detached is that of a detached item.

诇注谞讬谉 讛讻砖专 讝专注讬诐 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜驻讛 拽注专讛 注诇 讛讻讜转诇 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讜讚讞 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬诇拽讛 讛讻讜转诇 讗讬谞讜 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

With regard to the matter of rendering seeds susceptible to ritual impurity, there is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as we learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 4:3): In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall while it is raining so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, if the water from the bowl then falls onto produce, that is under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). The water has the halakhic status of a liquid that he poured of his own volition on fruit and seeds. Consequently, it renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. But if he placed the bowl there so that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥 Since he had no intent to use the water, it is not considered to have entered the bowl of his own volition, and it does not render produce susceptible to impurity.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讜讚讞 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞 讛讻讜转诇 讗讬谉 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

This mishna itself is difficult, as the inferences from the first clause and the latter clause are contradictory. In the first clause you said: In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, that is under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed,鈥 and the water renders produce susceptible to impurity. By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed by means of the bowl, that is not under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥 That water would not render produce susceptible to impurity, because the intent was for the water to rinse the wall, which is an item attached to the ground.

讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬诇拽讛 讛讻讜转诇 讗讬谞讜 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞 讛讻讜转诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

And then the mishna teaches in the latter clause: If he placed the bowl so that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥 By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed, that is under the rubric of the verse: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed,鈥 as a wall has the status of a detached item, since it was built from stones that were detached.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转讘专讗 诪讬 砖砖谞讛 讝讜 诇讗 砖谞讛 讝讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 讞讚 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讛讗 讘讻讜转诇 诪注专讛 讛讗 讘讻讜转诇 讘谞讬谉

Rabbi Elazar said: This mishna is disjointed; the tanna who taught this first clause did not teach that second clause. There is a tannaitic dispute whether the status of a wall that is built from detached stones is that of an attached item or a detached item. Rav Pappa said: The entire mishna is the opinion of one tanna: This first clause is in the case of the wall of a cave, which is attached from the outset; that latter clause is in the case of the wall of a building, which is built from stones that were detached from the ground.

讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讻讜驻讛 拽注专讛 注诇 讛讻讜转诇 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讜讚讞 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞 讛讻讜转诇 讗讬谉 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

And this is what the mishna is saying: In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, that is under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed,鈥 and the water renders produce susceptible to impurity. By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed by means of the bowl, that is not under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讜转诇 诪注专讛 讗讘诇 讘讻讜转诇 讘谞讬谉 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬诇拽讛 讛讻讜转诇 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讛讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖讬讜讚讞 讛讻讜转诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of the wall of a cave, which was always attached to the ground. But in the case of the wall of a building, whose stones were detached and subsequently reattached, if he places the bowl so that the wall will not be damaged, that is when it is not under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥 But if he places the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed, that is under the rubric of the verse 鈥渂ut when water is placed upon the seed.鈥

讘注讬 专讘讗

Rava raises a dilemma:

转诇讜砖 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞讘专讜 诇注谞讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诪讗讬

In the case of a blade that was detached and ultimately one attached it, with regard to slaughter, what is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讛 爪讜专 讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 拽谞讛 注讜诇讛 诪讗诇讬讜 讜砖讞讟 讘讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: If there was a flint emerging from a wall or a reed arising from the ground on its own and he slaughtered with it, his slaughter is not valid. Since the wall itself was made from stones that were detached and subsequently reattached, the slaughter is not valid.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻讜转诇 诪注专讛 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚拽谞讛 注讜诇讛 诪讗诇讬讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects that proof: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with the case of the wall of a cave that was always attached. The language of the baraita is also precise in support of that explanation, as the tanna teaches the case of the flint emerging from a wall juxtaposed to, and therefore similar to, the case of a reed arising from the ground on its own, which was also always attached. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case.

转讗 砖诪注 谞注抓 住讻讬谉 讘讻讜转诇 讜砖讞讟 讘讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 砖讗谞讬 住讻讬谉 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: If one embedded a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid. The knife was detached and then reattached, and the slaughter is valid. The Gemara rejects the proof: The reason that the slaughter is valid is that a knife is different, as he does not subsume it to the wall.

转讗 砖诪注 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讚诇诪讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 诇讛 诪讗讬 诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 住讻讬谉 讚诇讗 诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from an earlier point in that baraita: If one slaughtered with an item that is attached to the ground, his slaughter is valid. This is a case where it was detached and then attached, as later in the baraita a case is cited when the blade was always attached and the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara rejects the proof: Perhaps the phrase that follows in the baraita: If one embedded a knife in a wall, is explaining the previous case. And accordingly, what is the meaning of attached to the ground? It is in the case of a knife, as he does not subsume it to the wall. But if he embedded a flint in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter would be valid. Therefore, there is no proof from this baraita.

讗诪专 诪专 谞注抓 住讻讬谉 讘讻讜转诇 讜砖讞讟 讘讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讛住讻讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讘诇 住讻讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬讚专讜住

The Master said in the baraita: If one embedded a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid. Rav Anan says that Shmuel says: The tanna taught this halakha only in a case where the knife is above and the animal鈥檚 neck is below, and he raises the animal鈥檚 head and draws it back and forth on the blade. But in a case where the knife is below and the animal鈥檚 neck is above, the slaughter is not valid because we are concerned lest he press the knife, due to the weight of the animal, thereby cutting the simanim without drawing the knife back and forth, which invalidates the slaughter.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讬谉 砖讛住讻讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 砖讛住讻讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讟讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in the baraita: With any item that cuts, one may slaughter, whether with a blade that is attached to the ground or with a blade that is detached from the ground; whether the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above or the knife is above and the neck of the animal is below?

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬 住讻讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讘转诇讜砖 住讻讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讘诪讞讜讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘注讜驻讗 讚拽诇讬诇

Rav Zevid said: The baraita is taught disjunctively: In the case where the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above, the slaughter is valid when the blade is detached. In the case where the knife is above and the neck of the animal is below, the slaughter is valid even when the blade is attached. Rav Pappa said: The baraita that teaches that one may slaughter even when the attached knife is below is referring to slaughter of a bird, which is light, and there is no concern that the weight of the bird will cause the slaughterer to press the bird鈥檚 neck onto the knife.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘拽专讜诪讬转 砖诇 拽谞讛 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谉 诪诇讬谉 讘讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讞转讻讬谉 讘讛 讘砖专 讜讗讬谉 诪讞爪爪讬谉 讘讛 砖讬谞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讬诐 讘讛

Rav 岣sda says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says, and some say it was taught in a baraita: Five matters were said with regard to the stalk of a reed, which is used for cutting due to its sharpness. One may neither slaughter with it, due to the concern that splinters will be separated and become embedded in the simanim, invalidating the slaughter; nor circumcise with it for the same reason, due to the potential danger; nor cut meat with it, lest splinters become embedded in the meat and endanger one who eats it; nor pick one鈥檚 teeth with it, lest he wound himself; nor wipe with it after relieving oneself.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讬谉 讘爪讜专 讘讬谉 讘讝讻讜讻讬转 讘讬谉 讘拽专讜诪讬转 砖诇 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘住讬诪讜谞讗 讚讗讙诪讗

The baraita teaches: One may neither slaughter with it. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: With any sharp object one may slaughter an animal, whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed? Rav Pappa said: There, the reference is to a specific type of reed that grows in a marsh, which becomes a smooth, hard surface when it dries.

讜讗讬谉 诪讞转讻讬谉 讘讛 讘砖专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讞转讱 讘讛 拽专讘讬 讚讙讬诐 讚讝讬讙讬 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讞转讱 讘讛 注讜驻讗 讚专讻讬讱

The baraita teaches: Nor cut meat with it. Rav Pappa cuts with the stalk of a reed the innards of fish, which are transparent, such that any splinters would be obvious. Rabba bar Rav Huna cuts with it the meat of a bird, which is soft and will not cause the stalk of the reed to splinter.

讜讗讬谉 诪拽谞讞讬谉 讘讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛诪拽谞讞 讘讚讘专 砖讛讗讜专 砖讜诇讟转 讘讜 砖讬谞讬讜 谞讜砖专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽讬谞讜讞 驻讬 诪讻讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The baraita teaches: Nor wipe with it after relieving oneself. The Gemara objects: Derive that one may not wipe with it because the Master said: One who wipes with an object that is flammable, his lower teeth, i.e., the rectum that holds the intestines in place, fall out. Rav Pappa said in explanation: The reference in the baraita is not to wiping after relieving oneself. Rather, we are speaking with regard to wiping the blood or dirt from the opening of a wound.

讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讛讻诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讜祝

搂 The mishna teaches: All slaughter [hakkol sho岣tin] and one may always slaughter. The Gemara interprets the phrase: All slaughter [hakkol sho岣tin], to mean all animals are included in the mitzva of slaughter, and even a bird.

诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讬专讞讬讘 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗转 讙讘讜诇讱 讻讗砖专 讚讘专 诇讱 讜讗诪专转 讗讻诇讛 讘砖专 讜讙讜壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讛转讬专 诇讛诐 讘砖专 转讗讜讛

With regard to the statement: One may always slaughter, who is the tanna who taught this halakha? Rabba said: It is Rabbi Yishmael, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hen the Lord your God shall expand your border, as He has promised you, and you shall say: I will eat flesh鈥you may eat flesh with all the desire of your soul鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:20), Rabbi Yishmael says: The verse comes only to permit consumption of the non-sacrificial meat of desire to the Jewish people.

砖讘转讞诇讛 谞讗住专 诇讛诐 讘砖专 转讗讜讛 诪砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讗专抓 讛讜转专 诇讛诐 讘砖专 转讗讜讛

As, at the outset, the meat of desire was forbidden to them, and anyone who wanted to eat meat would sacrifice the animal as an offering. After the priest sprinkled the blood, it was permitted for one to eat the meat. When they entered into Eretz Yisrael, the meat of desire was permitted for them, and they could slaughter and eat meat wherever they chose.

讜注讻砖讬讜 砖讙诇讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝专讜 诇讗讬住讜专谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讻讱 砖谞讬谞讜 诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉

Rabba added: And now that the Jewish people were exiled, might one have thought that they return to their initial prohibition? Therefore, we learned in the mishna: One may always slaughter non-sacrificial meat.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬转住专 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讜 诪拽专讘讬 诇诪砖讻谉 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬砖转专讜 讚讛讜讜 诪专讞拽讬 诪诪砖讻谉

Rav Yosef objects to this. If so, this phrase: One may always slaughter, is inappropriate; the tanna should have taught: One may always slaughter and eat, as the matter of permission primarily relates to eating the meat, not to slaughtering the animal. And furthermore, initially, what is the reason that the meat of desire was forbidden? It was because in the wilderness, they were proximate to the Tabernacle and could partake of sacrificial meat from the table of God. And ultimately, what is the reason that the meat of desire was permitted? The reason was that in Eretz Yisrael they were distant from the Tabernacle.

Scroll To Top