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 week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
There is a dispute between Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav and Rav Chanania bar Shlemia in the name of Rav regarding which practical skills a Torah scholar must master through repetition. The first opinion lists writing, slaughtering, and circumcision, while the second adds the knot of the tefillin, the sheva berakhot, and the tying of tzitzit.
Rav Yehuda quotes two further statements in the name of Shmuel. The first is that a slaughterer must be expert in the laws of shechita; otherwise, the meat may not be eaten. Since meat can be disqualified for five specific reasons, an unlearned slaughterer might perform an invalid slaughter without realizing it.
The second statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel is that a slaughterer must inspect the two simanim (the windpipe and gullet) to ensure they were properly severed. While Rav Yosef attempts to provide a proof for this requirement, Abaye rejects it. The Gemara discusses the status of meat that was not inspected, debating whether it is classified as a treifa or a neveila. Both positions are rooted in their interpretation of Rav Huna’s principle: a living animal is presumed forbidden until it is proven that a valid shechita was performed, but once slaughtered properly, it is presumed kosher until proven to be a treifa.
The Gemara then analyzes the second half of Rav Huna’s statement, inferring that an animal remains kosher even if there is an unproven concern that it might be a treifa. This is illustrated by a case where a wolf takes an internal organ and returns it with a hole; we do not assume the hole existed prior to the wolf’s intervention. Rabbi Abba challenges this from a ruling regarding food nibbled by creatures, where we fear teh hole where they are nibbling was a pre-existing hole from a snake who may have injected venom into it. To resolve this, Rav Huna distinguishes between matters of danger and matters of ritual prohibition (issur). While Rava rejects this distinction, arguing that stringency regarding danger should imply stringency regarding prohibitions, Abaye accepts the differentiation, citing proofs from the laws of impurity. After Rava rejects Abaye’s proof and Rav Shimi raises a difficulty with Rava’s position that the Gemara resolves, Rav Ashi concludes by bringing support for Rav Huna’s position.
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Chullin 9
מֵעִילַּאי נָמֵי קְרָמָא אִיכָּא? אַיְּידֵי דִּמְמַשְׁמְשָׁא יְדָא דְּטַבָּחָא מִפַּתַּת.
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.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: תַּלְמִיד חָכָם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּלְמוֹד שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים: כְּתָב, שְׁחִיטָה, וּמִילָה. וְרַב חֲנַנְיָא בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: אַף קֶשֶׁר שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין, וּבִרְכַּת חֲתָנִים, וְצִיצִית. וְאִידַּךְ – הָנֵי שְׁכִיחָן.
§ 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 Ḥananya 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.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל טַבָּח שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה: שְׁהִיָּיה, דְּרָסָה, חֲלָדָה, הַגְרָמָה, וְעִיקּוּר.
§ 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.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? כּוּלְּהוּ תְּנִינְהוּ! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְפָנֵינוּ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים וּשְׁחַט שַׁפִּיר; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִדְּאִידַּךְ שְׁחַט שַׁפִּיר, הַאי נָמֵי שְׁחַט שַׁפִּיר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא גְּמִר, זִימְנִין דְּשָׁהֵי וְדָרֵיס וְלָא יָדַע.
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.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַטַּבָּח צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּבְדּוֹק בַּסִּימָנִים לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי בִּיקּוּר. מַאי לָאו כְּדֵי בִּיקּוּר סִימָנִין?
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּדֵי בִּיקּוּר חָכָם. אִם כֵּן, נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִים! אֶלָּא, כְּדֵי בִּיקּוּר טַבָּח חָכָם.
Abaye said to him: No, this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
לֹא בָּדַק, מַאי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: נְבֵלָה, וּמְטַמְּאָה בְּמַשָּׂא.
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.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בִּדְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר: בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ בְּחֶזְקַת אִיסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת, עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לָךְ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה. נִשְׁחֲטָה – הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת הֶיתֵּר, עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לָךְ בַּמֶּה נִטְרְפָה.
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.
מָר סָבַר: בְּחֶזְקַת אִיסּוּר קָיְימָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא מֵתָה הִיא; וּמָר סָבַר: בְּחֶזְקַת אִיסּוּר אָמְרִינַן, בְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה לָא אָמְרִינַן.
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.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ בְּחֶזְקַת אִיסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לָךְ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה, נִשְׁחֲטָה – בְּחֶזְקַת הֶיתֵּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לָךְ בַּמֶּה נִטְרְפָה. וְלֵימָא: ״נִשְׁחֲטָה הוּתְּרָה״! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיתְיְלִיד בַּהּ רֵיעוּתָא.
§ 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.
כְּדִבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא מֵרַב הוּנָא: בָּא זְאֵב וְנָטַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם, מַהוּ?
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?
נָטַל?! הָא לֵיתַנְהוּ, אֶלָּא נָקַב בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים מַהוּ? נָקַב?! הָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּהוּא נַקְבִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא נְטָלָן וְהֶחְזִירָן כְּשֶׁהֵן נְקוּבִין, מַהוּ? מִי חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב נָקַב, אוֹ לָא?
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב נָקַב.
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.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: רָאָה צִפּוֹר הַמְנַקֵּר בִּתְאֵנָה וְעַכְבָּר הַמְנַקֵּר בָּאֲבַטִּיחִים,
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,
חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב נָקַב.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי קָא מְדַמֵּית אִיסּוּרָא לְסַכַּנְתָּא? סַכָּנָה שָׁאנֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מַאי שְׁנָא? סְפֵק סַכַּנְתָּא לְחוּמְרָא? סְפֵק אִיסּוּרָא נָמֵי לְחוּמְרָא!
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלָא שָׁאנֵי בֵּין אִיסּוּרָא לְסַכַּנְתָּא? וְהָא אִילּוּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר, וְאִילּוּ סְפֵק מַיִם מְגוּלִּין – אֲסוּרִין!
Abaye said to Rava: And is there no difference between prohibition and danger? But isn’t 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ מִסּוֹטָה, מָה סוֹטָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד – אַף טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד.
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.
מֵתִיב רַב שִׁימִי: שֶׁרֶץ בְּפִי חוּלְדָּה, וְחוּלְדָּה מְהַלֶּכֶת עַל גַּבֵּי כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה – סָפֵק נָגַע, סָפֵק לֹא נָגַע – סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר, וְאִילּוּ סְפֵק מַיִם מְגוּלִּין אֲסוּרִין!
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.
הָתָם נָמֵי הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ מִסּוֹטָה: מָה סוֹטָה דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל.
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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: צְלוֹחִית שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ מְגוּלָּה וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ מְכוּסָּה – טְמֵאָה, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם טָמֵא נִכְנַס לְשָׁם וְכִיסָּהּ.
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.
הִנִּיחָהּ מְכוּסָּה וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ מְגוּלָּה, אִם יְכוֹלָה חוּלְדָּה לִשְׁתּוֹת מִמֶּנָּה, אוֹ נָחָשׁ לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אוֹ שֶׁיָּרַד בָּהּ טַל בַּלַּיְלָה – פְּסוּלָה.
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.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מָה טַעַם?
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?
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 started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
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.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, 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
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
New York, United States
Blacksburg, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, 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.
Newton, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
Chullin 9
מֵעִילַּאי נָמֵי קְרָמָא אִיכָּא? אַיְּידֵי דִּמְמַשְׁמְשָׁא יְדָא דְּטַבָּחָא מִפַּתַּת.
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.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: תַּלְמִיד חָכָם צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּלְמוֹד שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים: כְּתָב, שְׁחִיטָה, וּמִילָה. וְרַב חֲנַנְיָא בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: אַף קֶשֶׁר שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין, וּבִרְכַּת חֲתָנִים, וְצִיצִית. וְאִידַּךְ – הָנֵי שְׁכִיחָן.
§ 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 Ḥananya 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.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל טַבָּח שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה: שְׁהִיָּיה, דְּרָסָה, חֲלָדָה, הַגְרָמָה, וְעִיקּוּר.
§ 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.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? כּוּלְּהוּ תְּנִינְהוּ! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְפָנֵינוּ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים וּשְׁחַט שַׁפִּיר; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִדְּאִידַּךְ שְׁחַט שַׁפִּיר, הַאי נָמֵי שְׁחַט שַׁפִּיר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא גְּמִר, זִימְנִין דְּשָׁהֵי וְדָרֵיס וְלָא יָדַע.
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.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַטַּבָּח צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּבְדּוֹק בַּסִּימָנִים לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי בִּיקּוּר. מַאי לָאו כְּדֵי בִּיקּוּר סִימָנִין?
§ 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּדֵי בִּיקּוּר חָכָם. אִם כֵּן, נָתַתָּ דְּבָרֶיךָ לְשִׁיעוּרִים! אֶלָּא, כְּדֵי בִּיקּוּר טַבָּח חָכָם.
Abaye said to him: No, this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
לֹא בָּדַק, מַאי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: נְבֵלָה, וּמְטַמְּאָה בְּמַשָּׂא.
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.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בִּדְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר: בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ בְּחֶזְקַת אִיסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת, עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לָךְ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה. נִשְׁחֲטָה – הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת הֶיתֵּר, עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לָךְ בַּמֶּה נִטְרְפָה.
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.
מָר סָבַר: בְּחֶזְקַת אִיסּוּר קָיְימָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא מֵתָה הִיא; וּמָר סָבַר: בְּחֶזְקַת אִיסּוּר אָמְרִינַן, בְּחֶזְקַת טוּמְאָה לָא אָמְרִינַן.
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.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ בְּחֶזְקַת אִיסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לָךְ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה, נִשְׁחֲטָה – בְּחֶזְקַת הֶיתֵּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לָךְ בַּמֶּה נִטְרְפָה. וְלֵימָא: ״נִשְׁחֲטָה הוּתְּרָה״! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיתְיְלִיד בַּהּ רֵיעוּתָא.
§ 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.
כְּדִבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא מֵרַב הוּנָא: בָּא זְאֵב וְנָטַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם, מַהוּ?
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?
נָטַל?! הָא לֵיתַנְהוּ, אֶלָּא נָקַב בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים מַהוּ? נָקַב?! הָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּהוּא נַקְבִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא נְטָלָן וְהֶחְזִירָן כְּשֶׁהֵן נְקוּבִין, מַהוּ? מִי חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב נָקַב, אוֹ לָא?
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב נָקַב.
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.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: רָאָה צִפּוֹר הַמְנַקֵּר בִּתְאֵנָה וְעַכְבָּר הַמְנַקֵּר בָּאֲבַטִּיחִים,
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,
חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב נָקַב.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי קָא מְדַמֵּית אִיסּוּרָא לְסַכַּנְתָּא? סַכָּנָה שָׁאנֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מַאי שְׁנָא? סְפֵק סַכַּנְתָּא לְחוּמְרָא? סְפֵק אִיסּוּרָא נָמֵי לְחוּמְרָא!
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלָא שָׁאנֵי בֵּין אִיסּוּרָא לְסַכַּנְתָּא? וְהָא אִילּוּ סְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר, וְאִילּוּ סְפֵק מַיִם מְגוּלִּין – אֲסוּרִין!
Abaye said to Rava: And is there no difference between prohibition and danger? But isn’t 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ מִסּוֹטָה, מָה סוֹטָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד – אַף טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד.
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.
מֵתִיב רַב שִׁימִי: שֶׁרֶץ בְּפִי חוּלְדָּה, וְחוּלְדָּה מְהַלֶּכֶת עַל גַּבֵּי כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה – סָפֵק נָגַע, סָפֵק לֹא נָגַע – סְפֵיקוֹ טָהוֹר, וְאִילּוּ סְפֵק מַיִם מְגוּלִּין אֲסוּרִין!
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.
הָתָם נָמֵי הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ מִסּוֹטָה: מָה סוֹטָה דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ דַּעַת לִישָּׁאֵל.
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.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, תָּא שְׁמַע: צְלוֹחִית שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ מְגוּלָּה וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ מְכוּסָּה – טְמֵאָה, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: אָדָם טָמֵא נִכְנַס לְשָׁם וְכִיסָּהּ.
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.
הִנִּיחָהּ מְכוּסָּה וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ מְגוּלָּה, אִם יְכוֹלָה חוּלְדָּה לִשְׁתּוֹת מִמֶּנָּה, אוֹ נָחָשׁ לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אוֹ שֶׁיָּרַד בָּהּ טַל בַּלַּיְלָה – פְּסוּלָה.
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.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מָה טַעַם?
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?
