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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 6, 2018 | 讻状讞 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

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

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

Chullin 9

What are laws that a Torah scholar needs to learn? A slaughterer needs to check the simanim after the shechita. If there is a concern after the shechita that the animal was possibly a treifa, one can still eat the meat as it was already permitted and it maintains its permitted status. However, this case is compared to a case where there is concern regarding potential danger.


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

诪注讬诇讗讬 谞诪讬 拽专诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚诪诪砖诪砖讗 讬讚讗 讚讟讘讞讗 诪驻转转

from above too there is a membrane that should prevent the forbidden fat from flowing onto the piece of meat even if the forbidden fat is placed directly upon it. The Gemara explains: Since the hand of the slaughterer touches the upper membrane, that membrane disintegrates and the forbidden fat flows onto the meat.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 爪专讬讱 砖讬诇诪讜讚 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讻转讘 砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪讬诇讛 讜专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 讗祝 拽砖专 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讘专讻转 讞转谞讬诐 讜爪讬爪讬转 讜讗讬讚讱 讛谞讬 砖讻讬讞谉

And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A Torah scholar is required to learn the requisite skills to perform three matters: Writing, so that he will be able to write texts on various occasions, ritual slaughter, and circumcision. And Rav 岣nanya bar Shelamya says in the name of Rav: He must also learn to tie the knot of the phylacteries, and to recite the blessing of the grooms by heart and with the traditional intonation, and to tie ritual fringes to the corners of a garment. The Gemara notes: And the other amora, Rav Yehuda, holds that those skills are commonplace and do not require special training.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讟讘讞 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讛诇讻讜转 砖讞讬讟讛 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪砖讞讬讟转讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛诇讻讜转 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讬讬讛 讚专住讛 讞诇讚讛 讛讙专诪讛 讜注讬拽讜专

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to any slaughterer who does not know the halakhot of ritual slaughter, it is prohibited to eat from his slaughter. And these are the halakhot of ritual slaughter: Interrupting the slaughter, pressing the knife, concealing the knife under the windpipe or the gullet in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讜诇讛讜 转谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖砖讞讟 诇驻谞讬谞讜 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 讜砖讞讟 砖驻讬专 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讚讗讬讚讱 砖讞讟 砖驻讬专 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讞讟 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讙诪专 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚砖讛讬 讜讚专讬住 讜诇讗 讬讚注

The Gemara asks: What is the novelty in what Rav is teaching us? We learned all of them in the mishnayot in the second chapter of this tractate, and therefore it is obvious that a slaughterer who does not know these halakhot is not qualified. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where the slaughterer slaughtered before us twice or three times and slaughtered well. Lest you say: From the fact that he slaughtered the other animals well, this animal he also slaughtered well; therefore, Rav teaches us: Since he did not learn the halakhot, sometimes it happens that he interrupts the slaughter or presses the knife, and he does not know that he invalidated the slaughter.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讟讘讞 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讚讜拽 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 砖讛讛 讻讚讬 讘讬拽讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讚讬 讘讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬谉

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The slaughterer must examine the simanim, the windpipe and the gullet, after completing the slaughter. Rav Yosef said: We learn in a mishna (32a) as well: Rabbi Shimon says: The slaughter is not valid if he interrupted the slaughter for an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination. What, is it not an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination of the simanim? Apparently, one is obligated to examine the simanim.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 讘讬拽讜专 讞讻诐 讗诐 讻谉 谞转转 讚讘专讬诐 诇砖讬注讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 讘讬拽讜专 讟讘讞 讞讻诐

Abaye said to him: No, this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination of the knife, as the Sages instituted that one must take the knife to be examined by a Torah scholar prior to slaughtering the animal. Rav Yosef said to him: If so, you have rendered your statement subject to circumstances, as sometimes the Torah scholar is near and sometimes the Torah scholar is far, and the time required for examination varies accordingly. Rather, it is an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination performed by a slaughterer who is a Torah scholar. In that case, the travel time is not factored, just the time of the examination, which does not vary.

诇讗 讘讚拽 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讜讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 谞讘诇讛 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗

The Gemara asks: If the slaughterer did not examine the simanim after completing slaughter of the animal, what is the halakha? Rabbi Eliezer ben Antigonus says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yannai: The halakhic status of the slaughtered animal is that of a tereifa, and it is forbidden for consumption, but it does not impart impurity. It was taught in a baraita: Its halakhic status is that of an unslaughtered carcass, and it imparts impurity by means of carrying it.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 讘讞讝拽转 讗讬住讜专 注讜诪讚转 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞砖讞讟讛 谞砖讞讟讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘讞讝拽转 讛讬转专 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞讟专驻讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the application of the halakha stated by Rav Huna, who says: An animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, as it is prohibited to eat a living animal, and it continues to have this status even after its death until it will become known to you in what manner it was slaughtered, i.e., whether it was properly slaughtered. Once the animal was slaughtered, it exists with the presumptive status of permissibility until it will become known to you in what manner it was rendered a tereifa.

诪专 住讘专 讘讞讝拽转 讗讬住讜专 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛砖转讗 诪转讛 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讞讝拽转 讗讬住讜专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

It is with regard to the application of this halakha that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yannai, and the tanna of the baraita disagree in a case where the slaughterer did not examine the simanim after completing the slaughter. One Sage holds: Since it has not been verified that the animal was slaughtered properly, the animal exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, and since now it is dead, it assumes the status of an unslaughtered carcass and imparts impurity. And one Sage holds: With regard to the presumptive status of prohibition, we say that the animal is forbidden until it is verified that it was slaughtered properly; with regard to the presumptive status of ritual impurity we do not say that the animal is impure, as a living animal is not ritually impure.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 讘讞讝拽转 讗讬住讜专 注讜诪讚转 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞砖讞讟讛 谞砖讞讟讛 讘讞讝拽转 讛讬转专 注讜诪讚转 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞讟专驻讛 讜诇讬诪讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜转专讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转讬诇讬讚 讘讛 专讬注讜转讗

搂 The Gemara proceeds to analyze the matter itself. Rav Huna says: An animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition until it will become known to you in what manner it was slaughtered. Once the animal was slaughtered, it exists with the presumptive status of permissibility until it will become known to you in what manner it was rendered a tereifa. The Gemara challenges this: And let us say that once the animal was slaughtered, it became permitted, instead of saying that it exists with the presumptive status of permissibility. The Gemara explains: This teaches us that even if a flaw developed in the animal that raises uncertainty with regard to its permitted status, it retains its presumptive status of permissibility.

讻讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗 讝讗讘 讜谞讟诇 讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 诪讛讜

As Rabbi Abba raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If a wolf came and took the innards of a slaughtered animal, what is the halakha?

谞讟诇 讛讗 诇讬转谞讛讜 讗诇讗 谞拽讘 讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐 诪讛讜 谞拽讘 讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚讛讜讗 谞拽讘讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 谞讟诇谉 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 讻砖讛谉 谞拽讜讘讬谉 诪讛讜 诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 谞拽讘 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Took? In that case the innards are not there, and therefore there is no way of seeing an indication of a flaw. Rather, the dilemma is: In a case where a wolf perforated the innards of a slaughtered animal, what is the halakha? The Gemara challenges: Perforated? We see that the wolf perforated them and in that case too there is no indication of a flaw. Rather, the dilemma is: In a case where a wolf took the innards and returned them when they are perforated, what is the halakha? Are we concerned that perhaps the wolf perforated the innards in the place of a preexisting perforation and the animal was a tereifa from the outset, or is that possibility not a concern?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 谞拽讘

Rav Huna said to Rabbi Abba: One is not concerned that perhaps the wolf perforated the innards in the place of a preexisting perforation, because one relies on the presumptive status of permissibility.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讗讛 爪驻讜专 讛诪谞拽专 讘转讗谞讛 讜注讻讘专 讛诪谞拽专 讘讗讘讟讬讞讬诐

Rabbi Abba raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna: If one saw a bird pecking at a fig or a mouse gnawing at melons,

讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 谞拽讘

one is concerned that perhaps the bird or the mouse perforated it in the place of the preexisting perforation caused by a snake, and it is prohibited to eat the fig or the melon, due to the danger that the snake might have left its venom.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转 讗讬住讜专讗 诇住讻谞转讗 住讻谞讛 砖讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住驻拽 住讻谞转讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 住驻拽 讗讬住讜专讗 谞诪讬 诇讞讜诪专讗

Rav Huna said to Rabbi Abba: Are you comparing danger to prohibition? Danger is different, and one rules stringently in cases involving danger. Rava said to him: What is different about the fact that the ruling in cases of uncertainty involving danger is stringent, given that in cases of uncertainty involving prohibition the ruling is also stringent?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 诇住讻谞转讗 讜讛讗 讗讬诇讜 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬诇讜 住驻拽 诪讬诐 诪讙讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

Abaye said to Rava: And is there no difference between prohibition and danger? But isn鈥檛 it the halakha that in a case of uncertainty involving ritual impurity in the public domain, its uncertain impurity leaves it pure, while in a case of uncertainty involving water that is exposed and therefore susceptible to a snake leaving venom in it, the water is forbidden.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诪住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗祝 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

Rava said to Abaye: There, in the case of ritual impurity in the public domain, the Sages learned this halakha through tradition from the case of a sota, a woman who enters into seclusion with a particular man after her husband warns her not to. She is forbidden to her husband even though there is uncertainty whether or not she committed adultery. Just as a sota is forbidden only in a case of uncertainty in the private domain, as there is no seclusion in the public domain; so too with regard to ritual impurity, one becomes ritually impure in a case of uncertainty only in the private domain.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖讬诪讬 砖专抓 讘驻讬 讞讜诇讚讛 讜讞讜诇讚讛 诪讛诇讻转 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 住驻拽 谞讙注 住驻拽 诇讗 谞讙注 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬诇讜 住驻拽 诪讬诐 诪讙讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

Rav Shimi raises an objection to the opinion of Rava from a mishna (Teharot 4:2): If the carcass of a creeping animal was in the mouth of a weasel, and that weasel was walking on loaves of teruma, and there is uncertainty whether the creeping animal touched the loaves and uncertainty whether it did not touch the loaves, its uncertain impurity leaves it pure, while in a case of uncertainty involving water that is exposed and therefore susceptible to a snake leaving venom in it, the water is forbidden.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诪住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讛 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇

The Gemara answers: There too, the halakha is derived from the case of a sota. Just as the uncertainty in the case of sota involves an entity that has consciousness in order for her to be asked whether she was unfaithful and is forbidden to her husband, so too here, only uncertainty involving an entity that has consciousness in order for it to be asked whether the loaves were rendered impure would become impure. The weasel does not have that consciousness.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 爪诇讜讞讬转 砖讛谞讬讞讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诪讻讜住讛 讟诪讗讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 讟诪讗 谞讻谞住 诇砖诐 讜讻讬住讛

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear additional proof that danger is more severe than prohibition (see mishna Para 11:1): In the case of a flask of purification water that one left exposed and he came back and found it covered, it is ritually impure, as I say: An impure man entered into there and covered it, and in the course of doing so he rendered the vessel and its contents impure.

讛谞讬讞讛 诪讻讜住讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讛 讞讜诇讚讛 诇砖转讜转 诪诪谞讛 讗讜 谞讞砖 诇讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜 砖讬专讚 讘讛 讟诇 讘诇讬诇讛 驻住讜诇讛

In a case where one left the vessel covered and came back and found it exposed, if it is in a place where a weasel could drink from it, or a snake according to the statement of Rabban Gamliel, or if there is concern that dew fell into it at night, the purification waters are disqualified for sprinkling in the process of purification of a person impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, due to the concern that the saliva of the weasel or the dew, which are unfit for sprinkling, intermingled with it. Nevertheless, the water is not impure.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讛 讟注诐

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the reason that there is no concern that a ritually impure person exposed the waters and rendered them impure?

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Chullin 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 9

诪注讬诇讗讬 谞诪讬 拽专诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚诪诪砖诪砖讗 讬讚讗 讚讟讘讞讗 诪驻转转

from above too there is a membrane that should prevent the forbidden fat from flowing onto the piece of meat even if the forbidden fat is placed directly upon it. The Gemara explains: Since the hand of the slaughterer touches the upper membrane, that membrane disintegrates and the forbidden fat flows onto the meat.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 爪专讬讱 砖讬诇诪讜讚 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 讻转讘 砖讞讬讟讛 讜诪讬诇讛 讜专讘 讞谞谞讬讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 讗祝 拽砖专 砖诇 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜讘专讻转 讞转谞讬诐 讜爪讬爪讬转 讜讗讬讚讱 讛谞讬 砖讻讬讞谉

And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A Torah scholar is required to learn the requisite skills to perform three matters: Writing, so that he will be able to write texts on various occasions, ritual slaughter, and circumcision. And Rav 岣nanya bar Shelamya says in the name of Rav: He must also learn to tie the knot of the phylacteries, and to recite the blessing of the grooms by heart and with the traditional intonation, and to tie ritual fringes to the corners of a garment. The Gemara notes: And the other amora, Rav Yehuda, holds that those skills are commonplace and do not require special training.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 讟讘讞 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讛诇讻讜转 砖讞讬讟讛 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪砖讞讬讟转讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讛诇讻讜转 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讛讬讬讛 讚专住讛 讞诇讚讛 讛讙专诪讛 讜注讬拽讜专

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to any slaughterer who does not know the halakhot of ritual slaughter, it is prohibited to eat from his slaughter. And these are the halakhot of ritual slaughter: Interrupting the slaughter, pressing the knife, concealing the knife under the windpipe or the gullet in the course of an inverted slaughter, diverting the knife from the place of slaughter, and ripping the simanim from their place before cutting them.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讜诇讛讜 转谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖砖讞讟 诇驻谞讬谞讜 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 驻注诪讬诐 讜砖讞讟 砖驻讬专 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讚讗讬讚讱 砖讞讟 砖驻讬专 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讞讟 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讙诪专 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚砖讛讬 讜讚专讬住 讜诇讗 讬讚注

The Gemara asks: What is the novelty in what Rav is teaching us? We learned all of them in the mishnayot in the second chapter of this tractate, and therefore it is obvious that a slaughterer who does not know these halakhot is not qualified. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where the slaughterer slaughtered before us twice or three times and slaughtered well. Lest you say: From the fact that he slaughtered the other animals well, this animal he also slaughtered well; therefore, Rav teaches us: Since he did not learn the halakhot, sometimes it happens that he interrupts the slaughter or presses the knife, and he does not know that he invalidated the slaughter.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讟讘讞 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讚讜拽 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗诐 砖讛讛 讻讚讬 讘讬拽讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讚讬 讘讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬谉

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The slaughterer must examine the simanim, the windpipe and the gullet, after completing the slaughter. Rav Yosef said: We learn in a mishna (32a) as well: Rabbi Shimon says: The slaughter is not valid if he interrupted the slaughter for an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination. What, is it not an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination of the simanim? Apparently, one is obligated to examine the simanim.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 讘讬拽讜专 讞讻诐 讗诐 讻谉 谞转转 讚讘专讬诐 诇砖讬注讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 讘讬拽讜专 讟讘讞 讞讻诐

Abaye said to him: No, this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination of the knife, as the Sages instituted that one must take the knife to be examined by a Torah scholar prior to slaughtering the animal. Rav Yosef said to him: If so, you have rendered your statement subject to circumstances, as sometimes the Torah scholar is near and sometimes the Torah scholar is far, and the time required for examination varies accordingly. Rather, it is an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination performed by a slaughterer who is a Torah scholar. In that case, the travel time is not factored, just the time of the examination, which does not vary.

诇讗 讘讚拽 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讜讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 谞讘诇讛 讜诪讟诪讗讛 讘诪砖讗

The Gemara asks: If the slaughterer did not examine the simanim after completing slaughter of the animal, what is the halakha? Rabbi Eliezer ben Antigonus says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yannai: The halakhic status of the slaughtered animal is that of a tereifa, and it is forbidden for consumption, but it does not impart impurity. It was taught in a baraita: Its halakhic status is that of an unslaughtered carcass, and it imparts impurity by means of carrying it.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 讘讞讝拽转 讗讬住讜专 注讜诪讚转 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞砖讞讟讛 谞砖讞讟讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘讞讝拽转 讛讬转专 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞讟专驻讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the application of the halakha stated by Rav Huna, who says: An animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, as it is prohibited to eat a living animal, and it continues to have this status even after its death until it will become known to you in what manner it was slaughtered, i.e., whether it was properly slaughtered. Once the animal was slaughtered, it exists with the presumptive status of permissibility until it will become known to you in what manner it was rendered a tereifa.

诪专 住讘专 讘讞讝拽转 讗讬住讜专 拽讬讬诪讗 讜讛砖转讗 诪转讛 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讞讝拽转 讗讬住讜专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讞讝拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

It is with regard to the application of this halakha that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yannai, and the tanna of the baraita disagree in a case where the slaughterer did not examine the simanim after completing the slaughter. One Sage holds: Since it has not been verified that the animal was slaughtered properly, the animal exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, and since now it is dead, it assumes the status of an unslaughtered carcass and imparts impurity. And one Sage holds: With regard to the presumptive status of prohibition, we say that the animal is forbidden until it is verified that it was slaughtered properly; with regard to the presumptive status of ritual impurity we do not say that the animal is impure, as a living animal is not ritually impure.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 讘讞讝拽转 讗讬住讜专 注讜诪讚转 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞砖讞讟讛 谞砖讞讟讛 讘讞讝拽转 讛讬转专 注讜诪讚转 注讚 砖讬讜讚注 诇讱 讘诪讛 谞讟专驻讛 讜诇讬诪讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜转专讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转讬诇讬讚 讘讛 专讬注讜转讗

搂 The Gemara proceeds to analyze the matter itself. Rav Huna says: An animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition until it will become known to you in what manner it was slaughtered. Once the animal was slaughtered, it exists with the presumptive status of permissibility until it will become known to you in what manner it was rendered a tereifa. The Gemara challenges this: And let us say that once the animal was slaughtered, it became permitted, instead of saying that it exists with the presumptive status of permissibility. The Gemara explains: This teaches us that even if a flaw developed in the animal that raises uncertainty with regard to its permitted status, it retains its presumptive status of permissibility.

讻讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讗 讝讗讘 讜谞讟诇 讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 诪讛讜

As Rabbi Abba raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: If a wolf came and took the innards of a slaughtered animal, what is the halakha?

谞讟诇 讛讗 诇讬转谞讛讜 讗诇讗 谞拽讘 讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐 诪讛讜 谞拽讘 讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚讛讜讗 谞拽讘讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 谞讟诇谉 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 讻砖讛谉 谞拽讜讘讬谉 诪讛讜 诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 谞拽讘 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Took? In that case the innards are not there, and therefore there is no way of seeing an indication of a flaw. Rather, the dilemma is: In a case where a wolf perforated the innards of a slaughtered animal, what is the halakha? The Gemara challenges: Perforated? We see that the wolf perforated them and in that case too there is no indication of a flaw. Rather, the dilemma is: In a case where a wolf took the innards and returned them when they are perforated, what is the halakha? Are we concerned that perhaps the wolf perforated the innards in the place of a preexisting perforation and the animal was a tereifa from the outset, or is that possibility not a concern?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 谞拽讘

Rav Huna said to Rabbi Abba: One is not concerned that perhaps the wolf perforated the innards in the place of a preexisting perforation, because one relies on the presumptive status of permissibility.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讗讛 爪驻讜专 讛诪谞拽专 讘转讗谞讛 讜注讻讘专 讛诪谞拽专 讘讗讘讟讬讞讬诐

Rabbi Abba raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna: If one saw a bird pecking at a fig or a mouse gnawing at melons,

讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 谞拽讘 谞拽讘

one is concerned that perhaps the bird or the mouse perforated it in the place of the preexisting perforation caused by a snake, and it is prohibited to eat the fig or the melon, due to the danger that the snake might have left its venom.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转 讗讬住讜专讗 诇住讻谞转讗 住讻谞讛 砖讗谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住驻拽 住讻谞转讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 住驻拽 讗讬住讜专讗 谞诪讬 诇讞讜诪专讗

Rav Huna said to Rabbi Abba: Are you comparing danger to prohibition? Danger is different, and one rules stringently in cases involving danger. Rava said to him: What is different about the fact that the ruling in cases of uncertainty involving danger is stringent, given that in cases of uncertainty involving prohibition the ruling is also stringent?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讗讬住讜专讗 诇住讻谞转讗 讜讛讗 讗讬诇讜 住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬诇讜 住驻拽 诪讬诐 诪讙讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

Abaye said to Rava: And is there no difference between prohibition and danger? But isn鈥檛 it the halakha that in a case of uncertainty involving ritual impurity in the public domain, its uncertain impurity leaves it pure, while in a case of uncertainty involving water that is exposed and therefore susceptible to a snake leaving venom in it, the water is forbidden.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诪住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗祝 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

Rava said to Abaye: There, in the case of ritual impurity in the public domain, the Sages learned this halakha through tradition from the case of a sota, a woman who enters into seclusion with a particular man after her husband warns her not to. She is forbidden to her husband even though there is uncertainty whether or not she committed adultery. Just as a sota is forbidden only in a case of uncertainty in the private domain, as there is no seclusion in the public domain; so too with regard to ritual impurity, one becomes ritually impure in a case of uncertainty only in the private domain.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖讬诪讬 砖专抓 讘驻讬 讞讜诇讚讛 讜讞讜诇讚讛 诪讛诇讻转 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 住驻拽 谞讙注 住驻拽 诇讗 谞讙注 住驻讬拽讜 讟讛讜专 讜讗讬诇讜 住驻拽 诪讬诐 诪讙讜诇讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉

Rav Shimi raises an objection to the opinion of Rava from a mishna (Teharot 4:2): If the carcass of a creeping animal was in the mouth of a weasel, and that weasel was walking on loaves of teruma, and there is uncertainty whether the creeping animal touched the loaves and uncertainty whether it did not touch the loaves, its uncertain impurity leaves it pure, while in a case of uncertainty involving water that is exposed and therefore susceptible to a snake leaving venom in it, the water is forbidden.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诪住讜讟讛 诪讛 住讜讟讛 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讛 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讚注转 诇讬砖讗诇

The Gemara answers: There too, the halakha is derived from the case of a sota. Just as the uncertainty in the case of sota involves an entity that has consciousness in order for her to be asked whether she was unfaithful and is forbidden to her husband, so too here, only uncertainty involving an entity that has consciousness in order for it to be asked whether the loaves were rendered impure would become impure. The weasel does not have that consciousness.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 爪诇讜讞讬转 砖讛谞讬讞讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诪讻讜住讛 讟诪讗讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 讟诪讗 谞讻谞住 诇砖诐 讜讻讬住讛

Rav Ashi said: Come and hear additional proof that danger is more severe than prohibition (see mishna Para 11:1): In the case of a flask of purification water that one left exposed and he came back and found it covered, it is ritually impure, as I say: An impure man entered into there and covered it, and in the course of doing so he rendered the vessel and its contents impure.

讛谞讬讞讛 诪讻讜住讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诪讙讜诇讛 讗诐 讬讻讜诇讛 讞讜诇讚讛 诇砖转讜转 诪诪谞讛 讗讜 谞讞砖 诇讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜 砖讬专讚 讘讛 讟诇 讘诇讬诇讛 驻住讜诇讛

In a case where one left the vessel covered and came back and found it exposed, if it is in a place where a weasel could drink from it, or a snake according to the statement of Rabban Gamliel, or if there is concern that dew fell into it at night, the purification waters are disqualified for sprinkling in the process of purification of a person impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, due to the concern that the saliva of the weasel or the dew, which are unfit for sprinkling, intermingled with it. Nevertheless, the water is not impure.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讛 讟注诐

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the reason that there is no concern that a ritually impure person exposed the waters and rendered them impure?

Scroll To Top