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?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Chullin 8
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לִיבֵּן סַכִּין וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, חִידּוּדָהּ קוֹדֵם לְלִיבּוּנָהּ. וְהָאִיכָּא צְדָדִין? בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה מִירְוָוח רָוַוח.
§ 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’s 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’t 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.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לִיבֵּן שַׁפּוּד וְהִכָּה בּוֹ, מִשּׁוּם שְׁחִין נִדּוֹן אוֹ מִשּׁוּם מִכְוָה נִדּוֹן?
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?
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ – לְכִדְתַנְיָא: שְׁחִין וּמִכְוָה מְטַמְּאִין בְּשָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד, בִּשְׁנֵי סִימָנִין – בְּשֵׂעָר לָבָן וּבְפִסְיוֹן, וְלָמָּה חִלְּקָן הַכָּתוּב? לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה.
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.
וְתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ שְׁחִין וְאֵיזֶהוּ מִכְוָה? לָקָה בְּעֵץ, בְּאֶבֶן, בְּגֶפֶת, בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא, וּבְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא מֵחֲמַת הָאוּר, לְאֵתוֹיֵי אֲבָר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – זֶהוּ שְׁחִין. וְאֵיזֶהוּ מִכְוָה? נִכְוָה בְּגַחֶלֶת, בְּרֶמֶץ, בְּסִיד רוֹתֵחַ, בְּגִפְסִיס רוֹתֵחַ, וּבְכׇל דָּבָר הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת הָאוּר, לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַמֵּי הָאוּר – זוֹ הִיא מִכְוָה.
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.
וְתַנְיָא: שְׁחִין וּמִכְוָה, אִם שְׁחִין קוֹדֵם לַמִּכְוָה – בִּטֵּל מִכְוָה אֶת הַשְּׁחִין, וְאִם מִכְוָה קוֹדֶמֶת לַשְּׁחִין – בִּטֵּל שְׁחִין אֶת הַמִּכְוָה.
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.
וְהָכָא, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן דַּהֲוָה בֵּיהּ חֲצִי גְּרִיס שְׁחִין מֵעִיקָּרָא, וְלִיבֵּן שַׁפּוּד וְהִכָּה בּוֹ, וּנְפַק בֵּיהּ חֲצִי גְּרִיס אַחֵר.
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’s 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.
מַאי חַבְטָא? קָדֵים וְאָתֵי הַבְלָא וּמְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ לְחַבְטָא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ שְׁחִין וּמִכְוָה, וְלָא מִצְטָרְפִין; אוֹ דִלְמָא הַבְלָא קָדֵים, וְאָתֵי חַבְטָא וּמְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ לְהַבְלָא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ שְׁחִין וּשְׁחִין, וּמִצְטָרֵף?
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לִיבֵּן סַכִּין וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה, חִידּוּדָהּ קוֹדֵם לְלִיבּוּנָהּ. אַלְמָא חַבְטָא קָדֵים! חִדּוּד שָׁאנֵי.
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’s 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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לִיבֵּן שַׁפּוּד וְהִכָּה בּוֹ – נִדּוֹן מִשּׁוּם מִכְוַת אֵשׁ, אַלְמָא חַבְטָא קָדֵים! הָתָם נָמֵי, דְּבַרְזֵייהּ מִיבְרָז, דְּהַיְינוּ חִדּוּד.
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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: סַכִּין שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מוּתָּר לִשְׁחוֹט בָּהּ, וְאָסוּר לַחְתּוֹךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. מוּתָּר לִשְׁחוֹט בָּהּ – מְקַלְקֵל הוּא, וְאָסוּר לַחְתּוֹךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר – מְתַקֵּן הוּא.
§ Rav Naḥman 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-à-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.
אָמַר רָבָא: פְּעָמִים שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט אָסוּר – בִּמְסוּכֶּנֶת, וּמְחַתֵּךְ מוּתָּר – בְּאַטְמֵי דְּקָיְימָן לְקוּרְבָּנָא.
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.
וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם שַׁמְנוּנִית דְּאִיסּוּרָא!
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.
בַּחֲדָשָׁה.
The Gemara rejects that possibility: Rav Naḥman is referring to the case of a new knife on which there is no residue.
חֲדָשָׁה, בֵּין לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּין לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֵן, וּמְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵינָן אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דִּפְסַק בֵּיהּ גְּוָוזָא לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, בִּישָׁנָה שֶׁלִּיבְּנָהּ בָּאוּר.
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 Naḥman 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.
אִתְּמַר: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, רַב אָמַר: קוֹלֵף, וְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: מֵדִיחַ. לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה צוֹנֵן, וּמָר סָבַר: בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה רוֹתֵחַ.
§ 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 Ḥana 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 Ḥana, 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.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה רוֹתֵחַ הוּא; מַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹלֵף – שַׁפִּיר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מֵדִיחַ – אַיְּידֵי דִּטְרִידִי סִימָנִין לְאַפּוֹקֵי דָּם לָא בָּלְעִי.
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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה צוֹנֵן. מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵדִיחַ – שַׁפִּיר, מַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹלֵף – אַגַּב דּוּחְקָא דְסַכִּינָא בָּלַע.
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.
סַכִּין טְרֵיפָה, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: בְּחַמִּין, וְחַד אָמַר: בְּצוֹנֵן, וְהִלְכְתָא: אֲפִילּוּ בְּצוֹנֵן, וְאִי אִיכָּא בְּלִיתָא דִּפְרָסָא לְמִיכְפְּרֵיהּ, לָא צְרִיךְ.
§ With regard to a knife with which an animal that is a tereifa was slaughtered, Rav Aḥa 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.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּחַמִּין, מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָלְעָה אִיסּוּרָא? דְּהֶיתֵּירָא נָמֵי בָּלְעָה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי! אֵימַת בָּלְעָה? לְכִי חָיְימָא. אֵימַת קָא חָיְימָא? לְכִי גָמְרָה שְׁחִיטָה, הָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא הֶיתֵּירָא הֲוָה.
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַטַּבָּח צָרִיךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה סַכִּינִין, אַחַת שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ חֲלָבִים.
§ 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.
וְלִיתַקֵּן לֵיהּ חֲדָא, וְלִיחְתּוֹךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, וַהֲדַר לִיחְתּוֹךְ בַּהּ חֲלָבִים? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְתּוֹךְ חֲלָבִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּשָׂר. הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מִיחַלַּף לֵיהּ! כֵּיוָן דְּאַצְרְכִינְהוּ תְּרֵי – אִית לֵיהּ הֶיכֵּרָא.
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.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַטַּבָּח צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שֶׁל מַיִם, אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים. וְנִיתַקֵּן לֵיהּ חֲדָא, וּנְדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר וַהֲדַר נְדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יָדִיחַ חֲלָבִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּשָׂר. הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מִיחַלְּפִי לֵיהּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאַצְרְכִינֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי אִית לֵיהּ הֶיכֵּרָא.
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.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: לָא לִיסְחוֹף אִינִישׁ כַּפְלֵי עִילָּוֵי בִּישְׂרָא, דְּדָאֵיב תַּרְבָּא וּבָלַע בִּישְׂרָא.
§ Ameimar says in the name of Rav Pappa: A person should not place [lisḥof] 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.
אִי הָכִי, כִּי תְּרִיצִי נָמֵי דָּאֵיב תַּרְבָּא וּבָלַע בִּשְׂרָא? קְרָמָא מַפְסֵיק מִתַּתַּאי! אִי הָכִי
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,
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
Chullin 8
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ? ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ·ΧΧ.
Β§ 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 knifeβs 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 arenβt 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.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ?
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?
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧΦΌΧ’Φ· ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅Χ Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ? ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ₯, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧ€ΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉ β ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ? Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ₯, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΦ·, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ‘ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΦ·, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ‘ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦΌΧ Φ°Χ€Φ·Χ§ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ‘ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨.
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 personβs 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.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ? Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ£?
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.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ! ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ Φ΅Χ.
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 knifeβs 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.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ β Χ Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ! ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ: Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨. ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ β ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ§Φ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ.
Β§ Rav NaαΈ₯man 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-Γ -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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ!
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.
ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ.
The Gemara rejects that possibility: Rav NaαΈ₯man is referring to the case of a new knife on which there is no residue.
ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ! ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ‘Φ·Χ§ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨.
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 NaαΈ₯man 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.
ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄Χ, Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ£, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·. ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΦ·.
Β§ 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 αΈ€ana 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 αΈ€ana, 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.
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΦ· ΧΧΦΌΧ; ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ£ β Χ©Φ·ΧΧ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· β ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ.
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.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· β Χ©Φ·ΧΧ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ£ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ’.
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.
Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ, Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦ΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦ΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ°.
Β§ With regard to a knife with which an animal that is a tereifa was slaughtered, Rav AαΈ₯a 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.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ! ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χͺ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Β§ 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ·Χ§Φ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨. ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ! ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ·Χ§Φ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨. ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
Β§ Ameimar says in the name of Rav Pappa: A person should not place [lisαΈ₯of] 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.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ? Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΧ! ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ
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,
Follow
