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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 14, 2018 | 讜壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 17

Laws relating to problems in the knife.


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

讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛砖转讗 讚讗专讞讬拽讜 诇讛讜 讟驻讬

And, if so, all the more so now, in exile, when they are even more distant from the Temple, the meat of desire should be permitted. Consequently, it is unnecessary for the mishna to teach this halakha.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讬专讞拽 诪诪讱 讛诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讘讞专 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诇砖讜诐 砖诪讜 砖诐 讜讝讘讞转 诪讘拽专讱 讜诪爪讗谞讱 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 诇讛谉 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛 砖讘转讞诇讛 讛讜转专 诇讛谉 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛 诪砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讗专抓 谞讗住专 诇讛谉 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛

Rather, Rav Yosef said: The tanna who teaches this halakha is Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f the place that the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:21), Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to prohibit for them consumption of meat of an animal killed by means of stabbing rather than valid slaughter, as, initially, the meat of stabbing was permitted for them. When they entered into Eretz Yisrael, the meat of stabbing was forbidden to them, and it was permitted to eat the meat of an animal only after valid slaughter.

讜注讻砖讬讜 砖讙诇讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝专讜 诇讛转讬专谉 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

Rav Yosef added: And now that the Jewish people were exiled, might one have thought that stabbed animals are restored to their initial permitted state? Therefore, we learned in the mishna: One must always slaughter the animal to eat its meat.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讘砖专 转讗讜讛 诇讗 讗讬转住专 讻诇诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛 诇讗 讗讬砖转专讬 讻诇诇

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Akiva holds: The meat of desire was not forbidden at all, and Rabbi Yishmael holds: The meat of stabbing was not permitted at all.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讘谉 讛讘拽专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讜砖讞讟 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara asks a series of questions: Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of stabbing was forbidden in the wilderness, that is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the burnt offerings sacrificed in the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the young bull鈥 (Leviticus 1:5). But according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the meaning of: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter鈥? Why would he slaughter it if stabbing is permitted? The Gemara answers: Sacrificial animals are different, as slaughter is required in that case. By contrast, there was no obligation to slaughter non-sacrificial animals to eat their meat.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛爪讗谉 讜讘拽专 讬砖讞讟 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讛爪讗谉 讜讘拽专 讬砖讞讟 诇讛诐 讬谞讞专 诇讛诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 谞讞讬专讛 砖诇讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讞讬讟转谉

Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of stabbing was forbidden in the wilderness, that is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淲ill flocks and herds be slaughtered for them鈥 (Numbers 11:22), indicating that they slaughtered the animals in the wilderness. But according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the meaning of: 鈥淲ill flocks and herds be slaughtered for them鈥? Ostensibly, the words: Be stabbed for them, should have been written. The Gemara answers: In the wilderness, their stabbing is their slaughter.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讜谞转谞讘诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讜讛谞讜讞专 讜讛诪注拽专 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转

Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, that is the meaning of that which we learned in a mishna (85a) with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal and the slaughter is not valid and it became an unslaughtered carcass by his hand, and one who stabs an animal, and one who rips the simanim from their place before cutting them, invalidating the slaughter, is exempt from covering the blood. One must cover the blood of only an animal whose slaughter was valid. But according to Rabbi Akiva, why is one exempt from covering the blood of an animal that was stabbed, since in his opinion when they were commanded to cover blood, animals that were stabbed were permitted?

讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转住专 讗讬转住专

The Gemara answers: Since the meat of stabbing was forbidden, it was forbidden, and the halakhic status of stabbing is no longer that of slaughtering.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘砖专 转讗讜讛 诇讗 讗讬转住专 讻诇诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗讱 讻讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗转 讛爪讘讬 讜讗转 讛讗讬诇 讻谉 转讗讻诇谞讜 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 爪讘讬 讜讗讬诇 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 讛讜讬 砖专讬

Granted, according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of desire was not forbidden at all, that is the meaning of that which is written before they entered Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淗owever, as the gazelle and as the deer is eaten, so shall you eat of it, the pure and the impure may eat of it alike鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:22). This means that just as it is permitted to eat the meat of a gazelle and a deer in the wilderness in a state of ritual impurity, so may you eat them when you enter Eretz Yisrael, although at that point it will be prohibited to stab them and eat their meat, as their meat will be permitted only through slaughter. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of desire was forbidden in the wilderness, were the gazelle and the deer themselves permitted in the wilderness? They are not brought as offerings.

讻讬 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讛拽专讘讛 讗讘诇 讞讬讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讛拽专讘讛 诇讗 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara answers: When the Merciful One rendered the meat of desire forbidden, that was specifically the meat of a domesticated animal that is fit for sacrifice. But the Merciful One did not render forbidden undomesticated animals that are not fit for sacrifice.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讘专讬 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛 砖讛讻谞讬住讜 讬砖专讗诇 注诪讛谉 诇讗专抓 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of stabbing was permitted in the wilderness: With regard to the limbs of the meat of stabbing that the Jewish people took with them into Eretz Yisrael, what is their halakhic status?

讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讘注 砖讻讘砖讜 讛砖转讗 讚讘专 讟诪讗 讗讬砖转专讬 诇讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘转讬诐 诪诇讗讬诐 讻诇 讟讜讘 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻转诇讬 讚讞讝讬专讬 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛 诪讘注讬讗

The Gemara asks: When? With regard to what period does Rabbi Yirmeya raise his dilemma? If we say that the dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, now, non-kosher items were permitted for them during that period, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall be, when the Lord your God shall bring you into the land that He swore to your fathers, and houses full of all good things鈥and you shall eat and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:10鈥11), and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Cuts of pig meat [kotlei da岣zirei] that they found in the houses were permitted for them; is it necessary to say that the meat from the stabbing of a kosher animal was permitted?

讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讘注 砖讻讘砖讜 讻讬 讗砖转专讬 诇讛讜 砖诇诇 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讚讬讚讛讜 诇讗 讗讬砖转专讬 转讬拽讜

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 dilemma is with regard to the period thereafter. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, his dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, as perhaps when the forbidden food was permitted for them, it was specifically food from the spoils of gentiles, but their own forbidden food was not permitted. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖谞讬转 讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬诐 诪讗讬 诪砖谞讬转 诇讬讛

Rabba says: You explained the phrases in the mishna: All slaughter, and: One may always slaughter. In what way do you explain the phrase: One may slaughter with any item that cuts?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 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 讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛谞讱 拽转谞讬 讗讬 讛谞讱 讘砖讜讞讟讬谉 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讗讬 讛谞讱 讘谞砖讞讟讬谉 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘谞砖讞讟讬谉

And if you would say that it means: Whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed, but isn鈥檛 this phrase taught in a manner similar to those other phrases in the mishna? If these phrases: All slaughter, and: One may always slaughter, are referring to those that slaughter, this phrase too is referring to those that slaughter; and if those phrases are referring to those that are slaughtered, this phrase too is referring to those that are slaughtered. The first two phrases in the mishna were explained as referring to the animals that are slaughtered. The first phrase was interpreted to include birds, and the second phrase was interpreted as referring to the halakha that meat may be eaten only through slaughter of the animal.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻讜转讬 讜讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖 讛讙讙 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖 讛住驻讬谞讛 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

Rather, Rava said that the entire mishna is referring to those that slaughter. The initial phrase means everyone [hakkol] slaughters. Although an identical phrase was used in the first mishna (2a), both are necessary: One is to include a Samaritan and one is to include a Jewish transgressor. The second phrase: One may always slaughter, means both during the day and at night, both on a rooftop and atop a ship, and there is no concern that it will appear that he is slaughtering in an idolatrous manner to the hosts of heaven or to the god of the sea. The phrase: One may slaughter with any item that cuts, means: Whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed.

讞讜抓 诪诪讙诇 拽爪讬专 讜讛诪讙讬专讛 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 驻讙诐 讜砖讚专 驻讙诐 讜砖讚专 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讻诪讙讬专讛 砖谞讬谞讜

The mishna states: Except for the serrated side of the harvest sickle, and the saw. Shmuel鈥檚 father would notch a knife and send it to Eretz Yisrael to ask if it is fit for slaughter, and would notch a knife in a different manner and send it to Eretz Yisrael in order to determine the type of notch that invalidates slaughter. They sent to him from Eretz Yisrael that the principle is: We learned that the notch that invalidates slaughter is like a saw, whose teeth point upward, as it rips the simanim with every draw of the knife back and forth.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉

The Sages taught in a baraita:

住讻讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讛 驻讙讬诪讜转 讛专讘讛 转讬讚讜谉 讻诪讙讬专讛 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 驻讙讬诪讛 讗讞转 讗讜讙专转 驻住讜诇讛 诪住讜讻住讻转 讻砖专讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬讗 讗讜讙专转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬讗 诪住讜讻住讻转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜讙专转 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诪住讜讻住讻转 诪专讜讞 讗讞转

The status of a knife in which there are several notches is considered like that of a saw; and with regard to a knife in which there is only one notch, if it catches, the slaughter is unfit, but if it entangles [mesukhsekhet], the slaughter is fit. What are the circumstances of a notch that catches, and what are the circumstances of a notch that entangles? Rabbi Eliezer said: A notch that catches is one that has a sharp edge on two sides, while a notch that entangles is one that has a sharp edge on one side.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讚诪讜专砖讗 拽诪讗 诪讞诇讬砖 讜诪讜专砖讗 讘转专讗 讘讝注 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 谞诪讬 讞讜专驻讗 讚住讻讬谞讗 诪讞诇讬砖 诪讜专砖讗 讘讝注 讚拽讗讬诐 讗专讬砖讗 讚住讻讬谞讗 住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 讗讝诇讗 诪讞诇砖讗 讻讬 讗转讗 讘讝注 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗

The Gemara challenges this explanation: What is different about a notch with a sharp edge on two sides, where the first edge [moresha] compromises the neck by removing the hide and the flesh, and the latter edge rips the simanim; in the case of a notch with a sharp edge on one side too, the sharp tip of the knife compromises the neck and the edge of the notch rips the simanim. The Gemara explains: The reference is to a notch that stands at the top of the knife, which begins the slaughter. The Gemara objects: Ultimately, when the knife goes in one direction it compromises the neck and when it comes back in the other direction it rips the simanim. The Gemara explains: The reference is to a case where he drew the knife backward and did not draw it forward.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诇砖 诪讚讜转 讘住讻讬谉 讗讜讙专转 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛 诪住讜讻住讻转 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讘讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜讗诐 砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讘住讻讬谉 砖讜讞讟 讘讛 诇讻转讞诇讛

Rava says: There are three types of notches in a knife. If the notch catches, one may not slaughter with it, and if he slaughtered, his slaughter is not valid. If the notch entangles, one may not slaughter with it ab initio; and if he slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid after the fact. If the notch rises and falls in the knife and has no sharp edges, one may slaughter with it ab initio.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪住讜讻住讻转 驻住讜诇讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住讜讻住讻转 讻砖专讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛讘讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Ne岣mya, said to Rav Ashi: You said to us in the name of Rava that if the notch entangles, the slaughter is not valid. But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: If the notch entangles, the slaughter is valid? Rav Ashi answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Rava says that the slaughter is not valid, is in a case where he drew the knife back and forth. There, where Rava says that the slaughter is valid, is in a case where he drew the knife backward and did not draw it forward.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚诪讬讗 诇住讗住讗讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 诪讘砖专讬讛 讜讗讻诇讬谞谉

Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If the knife was similar to an awn of grain [sasa], which is not perfectly smooth but does not have actual notches, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi said to him: Who will give us from the meat of an animal slaughtered with that knife, and we will eat it.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讘讚讬拽转 住讻讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟转诐 讘讝讛 讜讗讻诇转诐

Rav 岣sda says: From where is it derived that examination of a knife is an obligation by Torah law? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to Saul鈥檚 instructions to the people: 鈥淎nd slaughter with this and eat鈥 (I聽Samuel 14:34), indicating that Saul gave them the knife only after ensuring that it was fit to slaughter their animals.

驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 谞拽讘 讟专讬驻讛 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讞讻诐 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛专讗讜转 住讻讬谉 诇讞讻诐 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚讜 砖诇 讞讻诐 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that a knife must be examined before slaughter? Since were one to create a perforation in the gullet, the animal would be a tereifa, therefore the knife requires examination to prevent that situation. The Gemara answers: We are saying that a source for the halakha that one must show the knife to a Torah scholar for examination is needed. The Gemara asks: Is that an obligation by Torah law? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the Sages said to show the knife to a Torah scholar only due to the requirement to show deference to the Torah scholar? The Gemara answers: Indeed, it is a requirement by rabbinic law, and the verse is cited as a mere support for that practice, not as a source.

讘诪注专讘讗 讘讚拽讬 诇讛 讘砖讬诪砖讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讘讚拽讜 诇讛 讘诪讬讗 专讘 砖砖转 讘讚拽 诇讛 讘专讬砖 诇讬砖谞讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讘讚拽 诇讛 讘讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛

The Gemara notes: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they examine the knife in the sun to determine whether there is a notch. In Neharde鈥檃 they examine the knife with water. They would place the blade on the surface of the water, and if there was a notch, it would noticeably alter the surface of the water. Rav Sheshet would examine it with the tip of his tongue. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov would examine it with a strand of hair. He would pass the strand over the blade of the knife and if there was a notch, it would be caught in that notch.

讘住讜专讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬砖专讗 讗讻诇讛 讘讬砖专讗 诇讘讚拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讘讬砖专讗 讜讗讟讜驻专讗 讜讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗

In Sura they say: The knife consumes the flesh; let the flesh examine the knife. Since the concern is that the knife will rip the flesh during the slaughter, it should be examined by passing it on the tongue or the fingertip. Rav Pappa said: The knife requires examination on the flesh, and on the fingernail, and on the three sides of the knife, i.e., the blade and the two sides of the knife.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪砖诪讱 讚讗诪专转 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讘讬砖专讗 讜讗讟讜驻专讗 讜讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬砖专讗 讜讗讟讜驻专讗 讗诪专讬 讜讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讘讬砖专讗 讜讗讟讜驻专讗 讜讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Rav Sama, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, said to us in your name that which you said to him in the name of Rava: The knife requires examination on the flesh, and on the fingernail, and on the three sides. Rav Ashi said to Ravina: On the flesh and on the fingernail I said, and on the three sides I did not say. There are those who say that Rav Ashi said to him: On the flesh and on the fingernail and on the three sides I said, and in the name of Rava I did not say.

专讘讬谞讗 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讬转讜 住讻讬谉 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诇讘讚拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘讬讚拽讗 讘讚拽讛 讗讟讜驻专讗 讜讗讘讬砖专讗 讜讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗

Ravina and Rav A岣, son of Rava, were sitting before Rav Ashi. People brought a knife before Rav Ashi to examine it. Rav Ashi said to Rav A岣, son of Rava: Examine it. He examined it on the fingernail, and on the flesh, and on the three sides. Rav Ashi said to him: Well done, and Rav Kahana likewise said that this is the way to examine a knife.

专讘 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讟讜驻专讗 讜讗讘讬砖专讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讬讘谉 住讻讬谉 讜砖讞讟 讘讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 砖讞讬讚讜讚讛 拽讜讚诐 诇诇讬讘讜谞讛 讜拽砖讬讗 诇谉 讛讗讬讻讗 爪讚讚讬谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 诪专讜讜讞 专讜讜讞 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 诪专讜讜讞 专讜讜讞

Rav Yeimar said: Examination on the fingernail and on the flesh is necessary, and examination on the three sides is not necessary. Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say that Shmuel says: If one heated a knife until it became white hot and slaughtered an animal with it, his slaughter is valid, as its sharp blade preceded the effect of its white heat; and it is difficult for us: But aren鈥檛 there the sides of the knife, which burn the throat and render the animal a tereifa? And we say: The area of the slaughter in the throat separates quickly after the incision, and the tissue on either side of the incision is not seared by the white hot blade. Here too, the area of slaughter separates quickly, and notches on the side of the knife do not come in contact with the simanim.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖诇砖 驻讙讬诪讜转 讛谉 驻讙讬诪转 注爪诐 讘驻住讞 驻讙讬诪转 讗讜讝谉 讘讘讻讜专 驻讙讬诪转 诪讜诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐

Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that there are three deficiencies with the same measure, as follows: The deficiency of a bone in the Paschal offering, with regard to which it is written: 鈥淣either shall you break a bone therein鈥 (Exodus 12:46); the deficiency of an ear in a firstborn animal that renders it blemished and unfit for sacrifice, in which case a priest may slaughter it anywhere and eat it; and the deficiency that constitutes a blemish in other forms of sacrificial animals.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗祝 驻讙讬诪转 住讻讬谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

And Rav 岣sda says: There is the deficiency of a knife as well. The Gemara asks: And the other amora, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, why does he not include the knife? The Gemara answers: He does not include it because he is not speaking with regard to non-sacred animals.

讜讻讜诇谉 驻讙讬诪转谉 讻讚讬 驻讙讬诪转 讛诪讝讘讞

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish continues: And with regard to all of these deficiencies, the measure of their deficiency is equivalent to the measure of deficiency that renders the altar unfit.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 17

讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛砖转讗 讚讗专讞讬拽讜 诇讛讜 讟驻讬

And, if so, all the more so now, in exile, when they are even more distant from the Temple, the meat of desire should be permitted. Consequently, it is unnecessary for the mishna to teach this halakha.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讬专讞拽 诪诪讱 讛诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬讘讞专 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诇砖讜诐 砖诪讜 砖诐 讜讝讘讞转 诪讘拽专讱 讜诪爪讗谞讱 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 诇讛谉 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛 砖讘转讞诇讛 讛讜转专 诇讛谉 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛 诪砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讗专抓 谞讗住专 诇讛谉 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛

Rather, Rav Yosef said: The tanna who teaches this halakha is Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f the place that the Lord your God shall choose to put His name there be too far from you, then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:21), Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to prohibit for them consumption of meat of an animal killed by means of stabbing rather than valid slaughter, as, initially, the meat of stabbing was permitted for them. When they entered into Eretz Yisrael, the meat of stabbing was forbidden to them, and it was permitted to eat the meat of an animal only after valid slaughter.

讜注讻砖讬讜 砖讙诇讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讞讝专讜 诇讛转讬专谉 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

Rav Yosef added: And now that the Jewish people were exiled, might one have thought that stabbed animals are restored to their initial permitted state? Therefore, we learned in the mishna: One must always slaughter the animal to eat its meat.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讘砖专 转讗讜讛 诇讗 讗讬转住专 讻诇诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛 诇讗 讗讬砖转专讬 讻诇诇

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Akiva holds: The meat of desire was not forbidden at all, and Rabbi Yishmael holds: The meat of stabbing was not permitted at all.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讘谉 讛讘拽专 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讜砖讞讟 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara asks a series of questions: Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of stabbing was forbidden in the wilderness, that is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the burnt offerings sacrificed in the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter the young bull鈥 (Leviticus 1:5). But according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the meaning of: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter鈥? Why would he slaughter it if stabbing is permitted? The Gemara answers: Sacrificial animals are different, as slaughter is required in that case. By contrast, there was no obligation to slaughter non-sacrificial animals to eat their meat.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讛爪讗谉 讜讘拽专 讬砖讞讟 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讗讬 讛爪讗谉 讜讘拽专 讬砖讞讟 诇讛诐 讬谞讞专 诇讛诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 谞讞讬专讛 砖诇讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讞讬讟转谉

Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of stabbing was forbidden in the wilderness, that is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淲ill flocks and herds be slaughtered for them鈥 (Numbers 11:22), indicating that they slaughtered the animals in the wilderness. But according to Rabbi Akiva, what is the meaning of: 鈥淲ill flocks and herds be slaughtered for them鈥? Ostensibly, the words: Be stabbed for them, should have been written. The Gemara answers: In the wilderness, their stabbing is their slaughter.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讜谞转谞讘诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讜讛谞讜讞专 讜讛诪注拽专 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转

Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, that is the meaning of that which we learned in a mishna (85a) with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal and the slaughter is not valid and it became an unslaughtered carcass by his hand, and one who stabs an animal, and one who rips the simanim from their place before cutting them, invalidating the slaughter, is exempt from covering the blood. One must cover the blood of only an animal whose slaughter was valid. But according to Rabbi Akiva, why is one exempt from covering the blood of an animal that was stabbed, since in his opinion when they were commanded to cover blood, animals that were stabbed were permitted?

讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转住专 讗讬转住专

The Gemara answers: Since the meat of stabbing was forbidden, it was forbidden, and the halakhic status of stabbing is no longer that of slaughtering.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘砖专 转讗讜讛 诇讗 讗讬转住专 讻诇诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗讱 讻讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗转 讛爪讘讬 讜讗转 讛讗讬诇 讻谉 转讗讻诇谞讜 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 爪讘讬 讜讗讬诇 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 讛讜讬 砖专讬

Granted, according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of desire was not forbidden at all, that is the meaning of that which is written before they entered Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淗owever, as the gazelle and as the deer is eaten, so shall you eat of it, the pure and the impure may eat of it alike鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:22). This means that just as it is permitted to eat the meat of a gazelle and a deer in the wilderness in a state of ritual impurity, so may you eat them when you enter Eretz Yisrael, although at that point it will be prohibited to stab them and eat their meat, as their meat will be permitted only through slaughter. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that the meat of desire was forbidden in the wilderness, were the gazelle and the deer themselves permitted in the wilderness? They are not brought as offerings.

讻讬 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讛拽专讘讛 讗讘诇 讞讬讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讛拽专讘讛 诇讗 讗住专 专讞诪谞讗

The Gemara answers: When the Merciful One rendered the meat of desire forbidden, that was specifically the meat of a domesticated animal that is fit for sacrifice. But the Merciful One did not render forbidden undomesticated animals that are not fit for sacrifice.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讘专讬 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛 砖讛讻谞讬住讜 讬砖专讗诇 注诪讛谉 诇讗专抓 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the meat of stabbing was permitted in the wilderness: With regard to the limbs of the meat of stabbing that the Jewish people took with them into Eretz Yisrael, what is their halakhic status?

讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讘注 砖讻讘砖讜 讛砖转讗 讚讘专 讟诪讗 讗讬砖转专讬 诇讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘转讬诐 诪诇讗讬诐 讻诇 讟讜讘 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻转诇讬 讚讞讝讬专讬 讘砖专 谞讞讬专讛 诪讘注讬讗

The Gemara asks: When? With regard to what period does Rabbi Yirmeya raise his dilemma? If we say that the dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, now, non-kosher items were permitted for them during that period, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall be, when the Lord your God shall bring you into the land that He swore to your fathers, and houses full of all good things鈥and you shall eat and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:10鈥11), and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Cuts of pig meat [kotlei da岣zirei] that they found in the houses were permitted for them; is it necessary to say that the meat from the stabbing of a kosher animal was permitted?

讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘砖讘注 砖讻讘砖讜 讻讬 讗砖转专讬 诇讛讜 砖诇诇 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讚讬讚讛讜 诇讗 讗讬砖转专讬 转讬拽讜

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 dilemma is with regard to the period thereafter. And if you wish, say instead: Actually, his dilemma is with regard to the seven years during which they conquered the land, as perhaps when the forbidden food was permitted for them, it was specifically food from the spoils of gentiles, but their own forbidden food was not permitted. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖谞讬转 讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬诐 诪讗讬 诪砖谞讬转 诇讬讛

Rabba says: You explained the phrases in the mishna: All slaughter, and: One may always slaughter. In what way do you explain the phrase: One may slaughter with any item that cuts?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 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 讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛谞讱 拽转谞讬 讗讬 讛谞讱 讘砖讜讞讟讬谉 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讗讬 讛谞讱 讘谞砖讞讟讬谉 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讘谞砖讞讟讬谉

And if you would say that it means: Whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed, but isn鈥檛 this phrase taught in a manner similar to those other phrases in the mishna? If these phrases: All slaughter, and: One may always slaughter, are referring to those that slaughter, this phrase too is referring to those that slaughter; and if those phrases are referring to those that are slaughtered, this phrase too is referring to those that are slaughtered. The first two phrases in the mishna were explained as referring to the animals that are slaughtered. The first phrase was interpreted to include birds, and the second phrase was interpreted as referring to the halakha that meat may be eaten only through slaughter of the animal.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讻讜转讬 讜讞讚讗 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖 讛讙讙 讘讬谉 讘专讗砖 讛住驻讬谞讛 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

Rather, Rava said that the entire mishna is referring to those that slaughter. The initial phrase means everyone [hakkol] slaughters. Although an identical phrase was used in the first mishna (2a), both are necessary: One is to include a Samaritan and one is to include a Jewish transgressor. The second phrase: One may always slaughter, means both during the day and at night, both on a rooftop and atop a ship, and there is no concern that it will appear that he is slaughtering in an idolatrous manner to the hosts of heaven or to the god of the sea. The phrase: One may slaughter with any item that cuts, means: Whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed.

讞讜抓 诪诪讙诇 拽爪讬专 讜讛诪讙讬专讛 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 驻讙诐 讜砖讚专 驻讙诐 讜砖讚专 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讻诪讙讬专讛 砖谞讬谞讜

The mishna states: Except for the serrated side of the harvest sickle, and the saw. Shmuel鈥檚 father would notch a knife and send it to Eretz Yisrael to ask if it is fit for slaughter, and would notch a knife in a different manner and send it to Eretz Yisrael in order to determine the type of notch that invalidates slaughter. They sent to him from Eretz Yisrael that the principle is: We learned that the notch that invalidates slaughter is like a saw, whose teeth point upward, as it rips the simanim with every draw of the knife back and forth.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉

The Sages taught in a baraita:

住讻讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讛 驻讙讬诪讜转 讛专讘讛 转讬讚讜谉 讻诪讙讬专讛 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讗诇讗 驻讙讬诪讛 讗讞转 讗讜讙专转 驻住讜诇讛 诪住讜讻住讻转 讻砖专讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬讗 讗讜讙专转 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬讗 诪住讜讻住讻转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜讙专转 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 诪住讜讻住讻转 诪专讜讞 讗讞转

The status of a knife in which there are several notches is considered like that of a saw; and with regard to a knife in which there is only one notch, if it catches, the slaughter is unfit, but if it entangles [mesukhsekhet], the slaughter is fit. What are the circumstances of a notch that catches, and what are the circumstances of a notch that entangles? Rabbi Eliezer said: A notch that catches is one that has a sharp edge on two sides, while a notch that entangles is one that has a sharp edge on one side.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖转讬 专讜讞讜转 讚诪讜专砖讗 拽诪讗 诪讞诇讬砖 讜诪讜专砖讗 讘转专讗 讘讝注 诪专讜讞 讗讞转 谞诪讬 讞讜专驻讗 讚住讻讬谞讗 诪讞诇讬砖 诪讜专砖讗 讘讝注 讚拽讗讬诐 讗专讬砖讗 讚住讻讬谞讗 住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 讗讝诇讗 诪讞诇砖讗 讻讬 讗转讗 讘讝注 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗

The Gemara challenges this explanation: What is different about a notch with a sharp edge on two sides, where the first edge [moresha] compromises the neck by removing the hide and the flesh, and the latter edge rips the simanim; in the case of a notch with a sharp edge on one side too, the sharp tip of the knife compromises the neck and the edge of the notch rips the simanim. The Gemara explains: The reference is to a notch that stands at the top of the knife, which begins the slaughter. The Gemara objects: Ultimately, when the knife goes in one direction it compromises the neck and when it comes back in the other direction it rips the simanim. The Gemara explains: The reference is to a case where he drew the knife backward and did not draw it forward.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诇砖 诪讚讜转 讘住讻讬谉 讗讜讙专转 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讜讗诐 砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛 诪住讜讻住讻转 诇讗 讬砖讞讜讟 讘讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜讗诐 砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讘住讻讬谉 砖讜讞讟 讘讛 诇讻转讞诇讛

Rava says: There are three types of notches in a knife. If the notch catches, one may not slaughter with it, and if he slaughtered, his slaughter is not valid. If the notch entangles, one may not slaughter with it ab initio; and if he slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid after the fact. If the notch rises and falls in the knife and has no sharp edges, one may slaughter with it ab initio.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪住讜讻住讻转 驻住讜诇讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住讜讻住讻转 讻砖专讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讜讛讘讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讜诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Ne岣mya, said to Rav Ashi: You said to us in the name of Rava that if the notch entangles, the slaughter is not valid. But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: If the notch entangles, the slaughter is valid? Rav Ashi answers: This is not difficult. Here, where Rava says that the slaughter is not valid, is in a case where he drew the knife back and forth. There, where Rava says that the slaughter is valid, is in a case where he drew the knife backward and did not draw it forward.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚诪讬讗 诇住讗住讗讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 诪讘砖专讬讛 讜讗讻诇讬谞谉

Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: If the knife was similar to an awn of grain [sasa], which is not perfectly smooth but does not have actual notches, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi said to him: Who will give us from the meat of an animal slaughtered with that knife, and we will eat it.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讘讚讬拽转 住讻讬谉 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讞讟转诐 讘讝讛 讜讗讻诇转诐

Rav 岣sda says: From where is it derived that examination of a knife is an obligation by Torah law? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to Saul鈥檚 instructions to the people: 鈥淎nd slaughter with this and eat鈥 (I聽Samuel 14:34), indicating that Saul gave them the knife only after ensuring that it was fit to slaughter their animals.

驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 谞拽讘 讟专讬驻讛 讘注讬讗 讘讚讬拽讛 诇讞讻诐 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛专讗讜转 住讻讬谉 诇讞讻诐 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚讜 砖诇 讞讻诐 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that a knife must be examined before slaughter? Since were one to create a perforation in the gullet, the animal would be a tereifa, therefore the knife requires examination to prevent that situation. The Gemara answers: We are saying that a source for the halakha that one must show the knife to a Torah scholar for examination is needed. The Gemara asks: Is that an obligation by Torah law? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that the Sages said to show the knife to a Torah scholar only due to the requirement to show deference to the Torah scholar? The Gemara answers: Indeed, it is a requirement by rabbinic law, and the verse is cited as a mere support for that practice, not as a source.

讘诪注专讘讗 讘讚拽讬 诇讛 讘砖讬诪砖讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讘讚拽讜 诇讛 讘诪讬讗 专讘 砖砖转 讘讚拽 诇讛 讘专讬砖 诇讬砖谞讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讘讚拽 诇讛 讘讞讜讟 讛砖注专讛

The Gemara notes: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they examine the knife in the sun to determine whether there is a notch. In Neharde鈥檃 they examine the knife with water. They would place the blade on the surface of the water, and if there was a notch, it would noticeably alter the surface of the water. Rav Sheshet would examine it with the tip of his tongue. Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov would examine it with a strand of hair. He would pass the strand over the blade of the knife and if there was a notch, it would be caught in that notch.

讘住讜专讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬砖专讗 讗讻诇讛 讘讬砖专讗 诇讘讚拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讘讬砖专讗 讜讗讟讜驻专讗 讜讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗

In Sura they say: The knife consumes the flesh; let the flesh examine the knife. Since the concern is that the knife will rip the flesh during the slaughter, it should be examined by passing it on the tongue or the fingertip. Rav Pappa said: The knife requires examination on the flesh, and on the fingernail, and on the three sides of the knife, i.e., the blade and the two sides of the knife.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇谉 专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪砖诪讱 讚讗诪专转 诇讬讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讚讬拽讛 讗讘讬砖专讗 讜讗讟讜驻专讗 讜讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬砖专讗 讜讗讟讜驻专讗 讗诪专讬 讜讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讘讬砖专讗 讜讗讟讜驻专讗 讜讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗 讗诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Rav Sama, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, said to us in your name that which you said to him in the name of Rava: The knife requires examination on the flesh, and on the fingernail, and on the three sides. Rav Ashi said to Ravina: On the flesh and on the fingernail I said, and on the three sides I did not say. There are those who say that Rav Ashi said to him: On the flesh and on the fingernail and on the three sides I said, and in the name of Rava I did not say.

专讘讬谞讗 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬讬转讜 住讻讬谉 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诇讘讚拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘讬讚拽讗 讘讚拽讛 讗讟讜驻专讗 讜讗讘讬砖专讗 讜讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗

Ravina and Rav A岣, son of Rava, were sitting before Rav Ashi. People brought a knife before Rav Ashi to examine it. Rav Ashi said to Rav A岣, son of Rava: Examine it. He examined it on the fingernail, and on the flesh, and on the three sides. Rav Ashi said to him: Well done, and Rav Kahana likewise said that this is the way to examine a knife.

专讘 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讟讜驻专讗 讜讗讘讬砖专讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗转诇转讗 专讜讞转讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讬讘谉 住讻讬谉 讜砖讞讟 讘讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 砖讞讬讚讜讚讛 拽讜讚诐 诇诇讬讘讜谞讛 讜拽砖讬讗 诇谉 讛讗讬讻讗 爪讚讚讬谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 诪专讜讜讞 专讜讜讞 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 诪专讜讜讞 专讜讜讞

Rav Yeimar said: Examination on the fingernail and on the flesh is necessary, and examination on the three sides is not necessary. Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say that Shmuel says: If one heated a knife until it became white hot and slaughtered an animal with it, his slaughter is valid, as its sharp blade preceded the effect of its white heat; and it is difficult for us: But aren鈥檛 there the sides of the knife, which burn the throat and render the animal a tereifa? And we say: The area of the slaughter in the throat separates quickly after the incision, and the tissue on either side of the incision is not seared by the white hot blade. Here too, the area of slaughter separates quickly, and notches on the side of the knife do not come in contact with the simanim.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖诇砖 驻讙讬诪讜转 讛谉 驻讙讬诪转 注爪诐 讘驻住讞 驻讙讬诪转 讗讜讝谉 讘讘讻讜专 驻讙讬诪转 诪讜诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐

Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that there are three deficiencies with the same measure, as follows: The deficiency of a bone in the Paschal offering, with regard to which it is written: 鈥淣either shall you break a bone therein鈥 (Exodus 12:46); the deficiency of an ear in a firstborn animal that renders it blemished and unfit for sacrifice, in which case a priest may slaughter it anywhere and eat it; and the deficiency that constitutes a blemish in other forms of sacrificial animals.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗祝 驻讙讬诪转 住讻讬谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讞讜诇讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

And Rav 岣sda says: There is the deficiency of a knife as well. The Gemara asks: And the other amora, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, why does he not include the knife? The Gemara answers: He does not include it because he is not speaking with regard to non-sacred animals.

讜讻讜诇谉 驻讙讬诪转谉 讻讚讬 驻讙讬诪转 讛诪讝讘讞

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish continues: And with regard to all of these deficiencies, the measure of their deficiency is equivalent to the measure of deficiency that renders the altar unfit.

Scroll To Top