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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 5, 2018 | 讻状讝 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • 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 8

The gemara discusses uses of knives that were used for various purposes – can they be used for shechita or cutting meat, i.e. knives used to idol worship? or slaughtering a treifa?


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

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 讞讬讚讜讚讛 拽讜讚诐 诇诇讬讘讜谞讛 讜讛讗讬讻讗 爪讚讚讬谉 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 诪讬专讜讜讞 专讜讜讞

Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: If one heated a knife until it became white hot [libben] and slaughtered an animal with it, his slaughter is valid, as cutting the relevant simanim with the knife鈥檚 sharp blade preceded the effect of its white heat. Had the effect of the heat preceded the cutting, the animal would have been rendered a tereifa, an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, before the slaughter was completed, by searing the windpipe and the gullet. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there the sides of the knife, which burn the throat and render the animal a tereifa? The Gemara answers: The area of the slaughter in the throat parts immediately after the incision, and the tissue on either side of the incision is not seared by the white-hot blade.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讬讘谉 砖驻讜讚 讜讛讻讛 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讬谉 谞讚讜谉 讗讜 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讜讛 谞讚讜谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one heated a skewer [shappud] until it became white hot and struck a person with it, and after the wound healed a leprous mark developed, is that mark adjudged as a leprous boil or is it adjudged as a leprous burn?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖讞讬谉 讜诪讻讜讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘砖讘讜注 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘砖注专 诇讘谉 讜讘驻住讬讜谉 讜诇诪讛 讞诇拽谉 讛讻转讜讘 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛

What is the practical difference whether it is adjudged a boil or a burn? The difference is for that which is taught in a baraita: Both a leprous boil and a leprous burn become impure during one week of quarantine with two symptoms: With white hair that grows in the leprous mark and with spreading of the leprous mark. And why did the verse divide them into two separate passages even though their halakhic status is the same? The verse divided them to say that they do not join together to constitute the requisite measure of impure leprous marks. Rather, there is impurity only if the boil or the burn constitutes that measure individually.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讞讬谉 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讻讜讛 诇拽讛 讘注抓 讘讗讘谉 讘讙驻转 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讜讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诪讞诪转 讛讗讜专 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗讘专 诪注讬拽专讜 讝讛讜 砖讞讬谉 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讻讜讛 谞讻讜讛 讘讙讞诇转 讘专诪抓 讘住讬讚 专讜转讞 讘讙驻住讬转 专讜转讞 讜讘讻诇 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 讛讗讜专 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞诪讬 讛讗讜专 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讻讜讛

And it is taught in a baraita: Which wound is a boil and which is a burn? If one was struck with wood, with a stone, with pomace, with the hot springs of Tiberias, or with any item that is not heated by fire, a phrase that serves to include lead that was mined from its source in the ground, which is occasionally hot enough to burn a person, this impression left on the skin is a boil. And which wound is a burn? If one was burned with a coal, with hot ashes, with boiling limestone, with boiling gypsum [begippesit], or with any item that is heated by fire, a phrase that serves to include water heated by fire, this impression left on the skin is a burn.

讜转谞讬讗 砖讞讬谉 讜诪讻讜讛 讗诐 砖讞讬谉 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讻讜讛 讘讟诇 诪讻讜讛 讗转 讛砖讞讬谉 讜讗诐 诪讻讜讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇砖讞讬谉 讘讟诇 砖讞讬谉 讗转 讛诪讻讜讛

And it is taught in a baraita: If there is a boil and a burn on the same place on the skin and a leprous mark developed, the later wound determines the nature of the leprosy. Therefore, if the boil preceded the burn, the burn nullifies the boil and the mark is a leprous burn. And if the burn preceded the boil, the boil nullifies the burn and the mark is a leprous boil.

讜讛讻讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讛讜讛 讘讬讛 讞爪讬 讙专讬住 砖讞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诇讬讘谉 砖驻讜讚 讜讛讻讛 讘讜 讜谞驻拽 讘讬讛 讞爪讬 讙专讬住 讗讞专

And here, where the dilemma was raised whether the mark that develops from being struck with a hot skewer is a boil or a burn, what are the circumstances? It is a case where initially there was a boil half the size of a split bean on the person鈥檚 skin, and one heated a skewer until it became white hot and struck him with it, and another mark half the size of a split bean emerged on the skin there.

诪讗讬 讞讘讟讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讗转讬 讛讘诇讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛 诇讞讘讟讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讞讬谉 讜诪讻讜讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讘诇讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讗转讬 讞讘讟讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛 诇讛讘诇讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讞讬谉 讜砖讞讬谉 讜诪爪讟专祝

The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: What is the halakha? Does the effect of the blow come first and then the effect of the heat comes and nullifies the effect of the blow, and it is a half-measure boil and a half-measure burn and they do not join together to constitute a full measure? Or perhaps the effect of the heat comes first and then the effect of the blow comes and nullifies the effect of the heat, and it is a half-measure boil and a half-measure boil and they join together.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 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 讻砖讬专讛 讞讬讚讜讚讛 拽讜讚诐 诇诇讬讘讜谞讛 讗诇诪讗 讞讘讟讗 拽讚讬诐 讞讚讜讚 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: If one heated a knife until it became white hot and slaughtered an animal with it, his slaughter is valid, as cutting the relevant simanim with the knife鈥檚 sharp blade preceded the effect of its white heat. Apparently, the effect of the blow comes first. The Gemara rejects that proof: Cutting with a sharp blade is different from striking with a blunt object, and only in the case of a blade does the cut precede the effect of the heat.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讬讘谉 砖驻讜讚 讜讛讻讛 讘讜 谞讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讜转 讗砖 讗诇诪讗 讞讘讟讗 拽讚讬诐 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚讘专讝讬讬讛 诪讬讘专讝 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讞讚讜讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: If one heated a skewer until it became white hot and struck a person with it and after the wound healed a leprous mark developed, that mark is adjudged as a leprous burn caused by fire. Apparently, the effect of the blow precedes the effect of the burn. The Gemara rejects that proof: There too, the reference is to a case where he stabbed the skin with the skewer, which is the same as cutting with a sharp blade.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 住讻讬谉 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讜转专 诇砖讞讜讟 讘讛 讜讗住讜专 诇讞转讜讱 讘讛 讘砖专 诪讜转专 诇砖讞讜讟 讘讛 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 诇讞转讜讱 讘讛 讘砖专 诪转拽谉 讛讜讗

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to a knife used for idol worship, it is permitted to slaughter an animal with it, but it is prohibited to cut meat with it. It is permitted to slaughter an animal with it because slaughtering it is a destructive action vis-脿-vis the animal, which is worth more when it is alive. But it is prohibited to cut meat with it, because once the animal is slaughtered, cutting it is a constructive action that renders the meat manageable.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛砖讜讞讟 讗住讜专 讘诪住讜讻谞转 讜诪讞转讱 诪讜转专 讘讗讟诪讬 讚拽讬讬诪讬谉 诇拽讜专讘谞讗

Rava said: There are times when it is prohibited for one who slaughters an animal to use a knife used for idol worship, e.g., in the case of an animal that is in danger, meaning that it is about to die. If he does not slaughter the animal it would become an unslaughtered carcass and depreciate in value. And there are times when it is permitted for one who cuts meat to use a knife of idol worship, e.g., in the case of an animal whose thighs are intended to be sent as a gift to a person of stature. Cutting it into pieces would render it unfit for this purpose, thereby diminishing its value.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诪谞讜谞讬转 讚讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara challenges: And derive that it is prohibited to use a knife used for idol worship, not because benefit from it is prohibited, but due to the residue of fat of forbidden carcasses on the knife.

讘讞讚砖讛

The Gemara rejects that possibility: Rav Na岣an is referring to the case of a new knife on which there is no residue.

讞讚砖讛 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖诪砖讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛谉 讜诪砖诪砖讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谞谉 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚驻住拽 讘讬讛 讙讜讜讝讗 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讬砖谞讛 砖诇讬讘谞讛 讘讗讜专

The Gemara challenges: If it is a new knife, both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to Rabbi Akiva, who disagreed about whether an idol is forbidden from the moment that one crafts it or from the moment that one worships it, a knife is merely in the category of accessories of idol worship, and accessories of idol worship are forbidden only after they are used for idol worship. The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that the reference is to a case where he cut a branch [gevaza] for idol worship with the knife, which leaves no residue. And if you wish, say instead that Rav Na岣an is referring to the case of an old knife that he burned until it became white hot in the fire, and therefore, there is no residue on the knife.

讗转诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 讘住讻讬谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 拽讜诇祝 讜专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 诪讚讬讞 诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 爪讜谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 专讜转讞

It was stated: With regard to one who slaughters an animal with the knife of gentiles, Rav says: He peels off a layer of the flesh from the place on the animal where the knife touched the flesh and the forbidden residue on the knife was absorbed. And Rabba bar bar 岣na says: He rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this, that one Sage, Rabba bar bar 岣na, holds: The area of the slaughter on the throat is cold and does not absorb the forbidden residue, and therefore rinsing is sufficient. And one Sage, Rav, holds: The area of the slaughter on the throat is hot and therefore it absorbs the forbidden residue.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 专讜转讞 讛讜讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讜诇祝 砖驻讬专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讚讬讞 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讟专讬讚讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚诐 诇讗 讘诇注讬

The Gemara rejects that suggestion: No, it is possible that everyone holds that the area of the slaughter on the throat is hot. For the one who says that he peels off a layer, it works out well, and the one who says that he rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh holds that since the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, are occupied with discharging blood, they do not absorb the residue.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 爪讜谞谉 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讚讬讞 砖驻讬专 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讜诇祝 讗讙讘 讚讜讞拽讗 讚住讻讬谞讗 讘诇注

There are those who say that everyone holds that the area of the slaughter on the throat is cold. For the one who says that he rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh, it works out well, and the one who says that he peels off a layer holds that although that area is cold, due to the pressure of the knife on the throat, the flesh absorbs the residue.

住讻讬谉 讟专讬驻讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘爪讜谞谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘爪讜谞谉 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘诇讬转讗 讚驻专住讗 诇诪讬讻驻专讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱

With regard to a knife with which an animal that is a tereifa was slaughtered, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree. One says: One purges it in hot water to remove the absorptions from the tereifa, and one says: One rinses it in cold water, and that is sufficient. And the halakha is: One may rinse it even in cold water. And if there is a tattered piece of a curtain with which to wipe the knife, one need not rinse it.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讞诪讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘诇注讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讛讬转讬专讗 谞诪讬 讘诇注讛 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讗讬诪转 讘诇注讛 诇讻讬 讞讬讬诪讗 讗讬诪转 拽讗 讞讬讬诪讗 诇讻讬 讙诪专讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讛讬转讬专讗 讛讜讛

And according to the one who says that one purges it in hot water, what is the reason that he must do so; is it due to the premise that the knife absorbed forbidden residue? That reasoning should not be limited to a case where he slaughtered a tereifa. A knife with which he slaughtered an animal that is permitted should also require purging, because it absorbed residue from the limb from a living animal before the slaughter was completed. The Gemara answers: When is there concern that the knife absorbed the residue? It is when the throat grows warm. When does it grow warm? It is at the point when the slaughter is complete. At that moment, it is already permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讟讘讞 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 住讻讬谞讬谉 讗讞转 砖砖讜讞讟 讘讛 讜讗讞讚 砖诪讞转讱 讘讛 讘砖专 讜讗讞讚 砖诪讞转讱 讘讛 讞诇讘讬诐

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The slaughterer requires three knives, one with which he slaughters the animal, and one with which he cuts meat, and one with which he cuts forbidden fats. One may not use the same knife for cutting the meat and the forbidden fats due to the residue on the knife after cutting the forbidden fats.

讜诇讬转拽谉 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讜诇讬讞转讜讱 讘讛 讘砖专 讜讛讚专 诇讬讞转讜讱 讘讛 讞诇讘讬诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞转讜讱 讞诇讘讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖专 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讞诇祝 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗爪专讻讬谞讛讜 转专讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬讻专讗

The Gemara suggests: And let him designate one knife for cutting both the meat and forbidden fats and cut meat with it and then cut forbidden fats with it. In this manner the forbidden residue on the knife will not affect the meat. The Gemara explains: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree prohibiting the use of one knife to cut meat and then forbidden fats lest he also cut forbidden fats and cut meat thereafter. The Gemara challenges: Now too, after the decree mandating separate knives there is a concern that they will be confused for him and he will use the knife that cut the forbidden fats to cut the meat. The Gemara explains: Since the Sages required him to have two knives, he has a conspicuous marker on one of the knives that will prevent confusion.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讟讘讞 爪专讬讱 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 砖诇 诪讬诐 讗讞讚 砖诪讚讬讞 讘讜 讘砖专 讜讗讞讚 砖诪讚讬讞 讘讜 讞诇讘讬诐 讜谞讬转拽谉 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讜谞讚讬讞 讘讜 讘砖专 讜讛讚专 谞讚讬讞 讘讜 讞诇讘讬诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讚讬讞 讞诇讘讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖专 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讞诇驻讬 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗爪专讻讬谞讬讛 转专转讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬讻专讗

And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The slaughterer requires two vessels of water, one with which he rinses meat and one with which he rinses forbidden fats. The Gemara suggests: And let him designate one vessel and rinse meat with the water in the vessel and then rinse forbidden fats with the water in the same vessel. The Gemara explains: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree to prohibit doing so lest he rinse fats and rinse meat thereafter. The Gemara challenges: Now too, after the decree mandating separate vessels there is a concern that they will be confused for him and he will rinse meat in the vessel in which he rinsed fats. The Gemara answers: Since the Sages required him to have two vessels, he has a conspicuous marker on one of the vessels that will prevent confusion.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 诇讬住讞讜祝 讗讬谞讬砖 讻驻诇讬 注讬诇讜讬 讘讬砖专讗 讚讚讗讬讘 转专讘讗 讜讘诇注 讘讬砖专讗

Ameimar says in the name of Rav Pappa: A person should not place [lis岣f] the flanks of an animal atop other meat so that the forbidden fats that are attached to the flanks are in contact with the other meat, due to the fact that the forbidden fat liquefies and flows and the meat absorbs it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 转专讬爪讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讘 转专讘讗 讜讘诇注 讘砖专讗 拽专诪讗 诪驻住讬拽 诪转转讗讬 讗讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, and that is a concern, when the flanks are placed in their typical manner [teritzi] as well, with the forbidden fat above the meat of the flanks, the forbidden fat flows and the meat of the flanks absorbs it. The Gemara explains: The membrane between the forbidden fat and the meat of the flanks interposes from below and prevents absorption of the forbidden fat. The Gemara challenges: If so,

  • 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 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 8

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 讞讬讚讜讚讛 拽讜讚诐 诇诇讬讘讜谞讛 讜讛讗讬讻讗 爪讚讚讬谉 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 诪讬专讜讜讞 专讜讜讞

Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: If one heated a knife until it became white hot [libben] and slaughtered an animal with it, his slaughter is valid, as cutting the relevant simanim with the knife鈥檚 sharp blade preceded the effect of its white heat. Had the effect of the heat preceded the cutting, the animal would have been rendered a tereifa, an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, before the slaughter was completed, by searing the windpipe and the gullet. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there the sides of the knife, which burn the throat and render the animal a tereifa? The Gemara answers: The area of the slaughter in the throat parts immediately after the incision, and the tissue on either side of the incision is not seared by the white-hot blade.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讬讘谉 砖驻讜讚 讜讛讻讛 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讬谉 谞讚讜谉 讗讜 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讜讛 谞讚讜谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one heated a skewer [shappud] until it became white hot and struck a person with it, and after the wound healed a leprous mark developed, is that mark adjudged as a leprous boil or is it adjudged as a leprous burn?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 砖讞讬谉 讜诪讻讜讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘砖讘讜注 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘砖注专 诇讘谉 讜讘驻住讬讜谉 讜诇诪讛 讞诇拽谉 讛讻转讜讘 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛

What is the practical difference whether it is adjudged a boil or a burn? The difference is for that which is taught in a baraita: Both a leprous boil and a leprous burn become impure during one week of quarantine with two symptoms: With white hair that grows in the leprous mark and with spreading of the leprous mark. And why did the verse divide them into two separate passages even though their halakhic status is the same? The verse divided them to say that they do not join together to constitute the requisite measure of impure leprous marks. Rather, there is impurity only if the boil or the burn constitutes that measure individually.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讞讬谉 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讻讜讛 诇拽讛 讘注抓 讘讗讘谉 讘讙驻转 讘讞诪讬 讟讘专讬讗 讜讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诪讞诪转 讛讗讜专 诇讗转讜讬讬 讗讘专 诪注讬拽专讜 讝讛讜 砖讞讬谉 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讻讜讛 谞讻讜讛 讘讙讞诇转 讘专诪抓 讘住讬讚 专讜转讞 讘讙驻住讬转 专讜转讞 讜讘讻诇 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪讞诪转 讛讗讜专 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞诪讬 讛讗讜专 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讻讜讛

And it is taught in a baraita: Which wound is a boil and which is a burn? If one was struck with wood, with a stone, with pomace, with the hot springs of Tiberias, or with any item that is not heated by fire, a phrase that serves to include lead that was mined from its source in the ground, which is occasionally hot enough to burn a person, this impression left on the skin is a boil. And which wound is a burn? If one was burned with a coal, with hot ashes, with boiling limestone, with boiling gypsum [begippesit], or with any item that is heated by fire, a phrase that serves to include water heated by fire, this impression left on the skin is a burn.

讜转谞讬讗 砖讞讬谉 讜诪讻讜讛 讗诐 砖讞讬谉 拽讜讚诐 诇诪讻讜讛 讘讟诇 诪讻讜讛 讗转 讛砖讞讬谉 讜讗诐 诪讻讜讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇砖讞讬谉 讘讟诇 砖讞讬谉 讗转 讛诪讻讜讛

And it is taught in a baraita: If there is a boil and a burn on the same place on the skin and a leprous mark developed, the later wound determines the nature of the leprosy. Therefore, if the boil preceded the burn, the burn nullifies the boil and the mark is a leprous burn. And if the burn preceded the boil, the boil nullifies the burn and the mark is a leprous boil.

讜讛讻讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讛讜讛 讘讬讛 讞爪讬 讙专讬住 砖讞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诇讬讘谉 砖驻讜讚 讜讛讻讛 讘讜 讜谞驻拽 讘讬讛 讞爪讬 讙专讬住 讗讞专

And here, where the dilemma was raised whether the mark that develops from being struck with a hot skewer is a boil or a burn, what are the circumstances? It is a case where initially there was a boil half the size of a split bean on the person鈥檚 skin, and one heated a skewer until it became white hot and struck him with it, and another mark half the size of a split bean emerged on the skin there.

诪讗讬 讞讘讟讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讗转讬 讛讘诇讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛 诇讞讘讟讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讞讬谉 讜诪讻讜讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讘诇讗 拽讚讬诐 讜讗转讬 讞讘讟讗 讜诪讘讟诇 诇讬讛 诇讛讘诇讗 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讞讬谉 讜砖讞讬谉 讜诪爪讟专祝

The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: What is the halakha? Does the effect of the blow come first and then the effect of the heat comes and nullifies the effect of the blow, and it is a half-measure boil and a half-measure burn and they do not join together to constitute a full measure? Or perhaps the effect of the heat comes first and then the effect of the blow comes and nullifies the effect of the heat, and it is a half-measure boil and a half-measure boil and they join together.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 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 讻砖讬专讛 讞讬讚讜讚讛 拽讜讚诐 诇诇讬讘讜谞讛 讗诇诪讗 讞讘讟讗 拽讚讬诐 讞讚讜讚 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: If one heated a knife until it became white hot and slaughtered an animal with it, his slaughter is valid, as cutting the relevant simanim with the knife鈥檚 sharp blade preceded the effect of its white heat. Apparently, the effect of the blow comes first. The Gemara rejects that proof: Cutting with a sharp blade is different from striking with a blunt object, and only in the case of a blade does the cut precede the effect of the heat.

转讗 砖诪注 诇讬讘谉 砖驻讜讚 讜讛讻讛 讘讜 谞讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讻讜转 讗砖 讗诇诪讗 讞讘讟讗 拽讚讬诐 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讚讘专讝讬讬讛 诪讬讘专讝 讚讛讬讬谞讜 讞讚讜讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: If one heated a skewer until it became white hot and struck a person with it and after the wound healed a leprous mark developed, that mark is adjudged as a leprous burn caused by fire. Apparently, the effect of the blow precedes the effect of the burn. The Gemara rejects that proof: There too, the reference is to a case where he stabbed the skin with the skewer, which is the same as cutting with a sharp blade.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 住讻讬谉 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讜转专 诇砖讞讜讟 讘讛 讜讗住讜专 诇讞转讜讱 讘讛 讘砖专 诪讜转专 诇砖讞讜讟 讘讛 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗 讜讗住讜专 诇讞转讜讱 讘讛 讘砖专 诪转拽谉 讛讜讗

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to a knife used for idol worship, it is permitted to slaughter an animal with it, but it is prohibited to cut meat with it. It is permitted to slaughter an animal with it because slaughtering it is a destructive action vis-脿-vis the animal, which is worth more when it is alive. But it is prohibited to cut meat with it, because once the animal is slaughtered, cutting it is a constructive action that renders the meat manageable.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛砖讜讞讟 讗住讜专 讘诪住讜讻谞转 讜诪讞转讱 诪讜转专 讘讗讟诪讬 讚拽讬讬诪讬谉 诇拽讜专讘谞讗

Rava said: There are times when it is prohibited for one who slaughters an animal to use a knife used for idol worship, e.g., in the case of an animal that is in danger, meaning that it is about to die. If he does not slaughter the animal it would become an unslaughtered carcass and depreciate in value. And there are times when it is permitted for one who cuts meat to use a knife of idol worship, e.g., in the case of an animal whose thighs are intended to be sent as a gift to a person of stature. Cutting it into pieces would render it unfit for this purpose, thereby diminishing its value.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诪谞讜谞讬转 讚讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara challenges: And derive that it is prohibited to use a knife used for idol worship, not because benefit from it is prohibited, but due to the residue of fat of forbidden carcasses on the knife.

讘讞讚砖讛

The Gemara rejects that possibility: Rav Na岣an is referring to the case of a new knife on which there is no residue.

讞讚砖讛 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖诪砖讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛谉 讜诪砖诪砖讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谞谉 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讘讚讜 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚驻住拽 讘讬讛 讙讜讜讝讗 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讬砖谞讛 砖诇讬讘谞讛 讘讗讜专

The Gemara challenges: If it is a new knife, both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to Rabbi Akiva, who disagreed about whether an idol is forbidden from the moment that one crafts it or from the moment that one worships it, a knife is merely in the category of accessories of idol worship, and accessories of idol worship are forbidden only after they are used for idol worship. The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that the reference is to a case where he cut a branch [gevaza] for idol worship with the knife, which leaves no residue. And if you wish, say instead that Rav Na岣an is referring to the case of an old knife that he burned until it became white hot in the fire, and therefore, there is no residue on the knife.

讗转诪专 讛砖讜讞讟 讘住讻讬谉 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 拽讜诇祝 讜专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 诪讚讬讞 诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 爪讜谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 专讜转讞

It was stated: With regard to one who slaughters an animal with the knife of gentiles, Rav says: He peels off a layer of the flesh from the place on the animal where the knife touched the flesh and the forbidden residue on the knife was absorbed. And Rabba bar bar 岣na says: He rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this, that one Sage, Rabba bar bar 岣na, holds: The area of the slaughter on the throat is cold and does not absorb the forbidden residue, and therefore rinsing is sufficient. And one Sage, Rav, holds: The area of the slaughter on the throat is hot and therefore it absorbs the forbidden residue.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 专讜转讞 讛讜讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讜诇祝 砖驻讬专 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讚讬讞 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讟专讬讚讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讚诐 诇讗 讘诇注讬

The Gemara rejects that suggestion: No, it is possible that everyone holds that the area of the slaughter on the throat is hot. For the one who says that he peels off a layer, it works out well, and the one who says that he rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh holds that since the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, are occupied with discharging blood, they do not absorb the residue.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 爪讜谞谉 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讚讬讞 砖驻讬专 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讜诇祝 讗讙讘 讚讜讞拽讗 讚住讻讬谞讗 讘诇注

There are those who say that everyone holds that the area of the slaughter on the throat is cold. For the one who says that he rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh, it works out well, and the one who says that he peels off a layer holds that although that area is cold, due to the pressure of the knife on the throat, the flesh absorbs the residue.

住讻讬谉 讟专讬驻讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讘爪讜谞谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘爪讜谞谉 讜讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘诇讬转讗 讚驻专住讗 诇诪讬讻驻专讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讱

With regard to a knife with which an animal that is a tereifa was slaughtered, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree. One says: One purges it in hot water to remove the absorptions from the tereifa, and one says: One rinses it in cold water, and that is sufficient. And the halakha is: One may rinse it even in cold water. And if there is a tattered piece of a curtain with which to wipe the knife, one need not rinse it.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讞诪讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘诇注讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讛讬转讬专讗 谞诪讬 讘诇注讛 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讗讬诪转 讘诇注讛 诇讻讬 讞讬讬诪讗 讗讬诪转 拽讗 讞讬讬诪讗 诇讻讬 讙诪专讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 讛讬转讬专讗 讛讜讛

And according to the one who says that one purges it in hot water, what is the reason that he must do so; is it due to the premise that the knife absorbed forbidden residue? That reasoning should not be limited to a case where he slaughtered a tereifa. A knife with which he slaughtered an animal that is permitted should also require purging, because it absorbed residue from the limb from a living animal before the slaughter was completed. The Gemara answers: When is there concern that the knife absorbed the residue? It is when the throat grows warm. When does it grow warm? It is at the point when the slaughter is complete. At that moment, it is already permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讟讘讞 爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 住讻讬谞讬谉 讗讞转 砖砖讜讞讟 讘讛 讜讗讞讚 砖诪讞转讱 讘讛 讘砖专 讜讗讞讚 砖诪讞转讱 讘讛 讞诇讘讬诐

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The slaughterer requires three knives, one with which he slaughters the animal, and one with which he cuts meat, and one with which he cuts forbidden fats. One may not use the same knife for cutting the meat and the forbidden fats due to the residue on the knife after cutting the forbidden fats.

讜诇讬转拽谉 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讜诇讬讞转讜讱 讘讛 讘砖专 讜讛讚专 诇讬讞转讜讱 讘讛 讞诇讘讬诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讞转讜讱 讞诇讘讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖专 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讞诇祝 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗爪专讻讬谞讛讜 转专讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬讻专讗

The Gemara suggests: And let him designate one knife for cutting both the meat and forbidden fats and cut meat with it and then cut forbidden fats with it. In this manner the forbidden residue on the knife will not affect the meat. The Gemara explains: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree prohibiting the use of one knife to cut meat and then forbidden fats lest he also cut forbidden fats and cut meat thereafter. The Gemara challenges: Now too, after the decree mandating separate knives there is a concern that they will be confused for him and he will use the knife that cut the forbidden fats to cut the meat. The Gemara explains: Since the Sages required him to have two knives, he has a conspicuous marker on one of the knives that will prevent confusion.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讟讘讞 爪专讬讱 砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 砖诇 诪讬诐 讗讞讚 砖诪讚讬讞 讘讜 讘砖专 讜讗讞讚 砖诪讚讬讞 讘讜 讞诇讘讬诐 讜谞讬转拽谉 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讜谞讚讬讞 讘讜 讘砖专 讜讛讚专 谞讚讬讞 讘讜 讞诇讘讬诐 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讚讬讞 讞诇讘讬诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讘砖专 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讞诇驻讬 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗爪专讻讬谞讬讛 转专转讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讬讻专讗

And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The slaughterer requires two vessels of water, one with which he rinses meat and one with which he rinses forbidden fats. The Gemara suggests: And let him designate one vessel and rinse meat with the water in the vessel and then rinse forbidden fats with the water in the same vessel. The Gemara explains: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree to prohibit doing so lest he rinse fats and rinse meat thereafter. The Gemara challenges: Now too, after the decree mandating separate vessels there is a concern that they will be confused for him and he will rinse meat in the vessel in which he rinsed fats. The Gemara answers: Since the Sages required him to have two vessels, he has a conspicuous marker on one of the vessels that will prevent confusion.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 诇讬住讞讜祝 讗讬谞讬砖 讻驻诇讬 注讬诇讜讬 讘讬砖专讗 讚讚讗讬讘 转专讘讗 讜讘诇注 讘讬砖专讗

Ameimar says in the name of Rav Pappa: A person should not place [lis岣f] the flanks of an animal atop other meat so that the forbidden fats that are attached to the flanks are in contact with the other meat, due to the fact that the forbidden fat liquefies and flows and the meat absorbs it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 转专讬爪讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讘 转专讘讗 讜讘诇注 讘砖专讗 拽专诪讗 诪驻住讬拽 诪转转讗讬 讗讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, and that is a concern, when the flanks are placed in their typical manner [teritzi] as well, with the forbidden fat above the meat of the flanks, the forbidden fat flows and the meat of the flanks absorbs it. The Gemara explains: The membrane between the forbidden fat and the meat of the flanks interposes from below and prevents absorption of the forbidden fat. The Gemara challenges: If so,

Scroll To Top