Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Shmuel that if one heats a knife and uses it for slaughtering, the animal is not considered a treifa. Although the heat could potentially damage the animal, the sharp edge of the blade severs the windpipe and gullet before the heat from the sides of the blade can cause a burn.
A question is raised regarding a person who strikes another with a hot knife, resulting in a leprous mark: is this classified as a boil (shechin) or a burn (michve)? The Gemara explores the practical halakhic implications of this distinction. Two sources are brought to resolve the matter – the first being the aforementioned statement of Rabbi Zeira – but the Gemara distinguishes between the cases and reaches no definitive conclusion.
The Gemara then transitions to a discussion regarding benefit from knives used for idol worship, detailing when they are forbidden or permitted. It further addresses the status of meat slaughtered with a knife previously used for non-kosher slaughter, as well as the process for kashering a knife used on a treifa.
Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav notes that a slaughterer should maintain three distinct knives: one dedicated solely to slaughtering, one for cutting meat, and one for removing cheilev (forbidden fats).
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Mark Baker in honor of Shoshana Bluma. “Shabbat Shalom. With much love.”
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,
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 was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
Bronx, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
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.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
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.
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Jerusalem, Israel
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,
