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.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Chullin 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?
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I’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.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
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.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
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!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
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!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
Chullin 9
ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ·ΦΌΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧͺ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ²Χ Φ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ§ΦΆΧ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ€Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ° β ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
Β§ 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 αΈ€ananya 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ· ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨.
Β§ 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.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ! ΧΦΈΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨; ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ° Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨, Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ¨, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ’.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ²Χ Φ·Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ§ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ§ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ?
Β§ 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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ§ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ, Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ§ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
Abaye said to him: No, this is what Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ§, ΧΦ·ΧΧ? Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧ‘ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ, Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ. Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨, Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ°Χ€ΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ; ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ.
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.
ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ, Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ°Χ€ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ΄! ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ.
Β§ 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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ?
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?
Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ?! ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ·Χ?! ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ Φ·Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅Χ Χ Φ°Χ§ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΆΧ§ΦΆΧ Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ·Χ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ?
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?
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ°ΧΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΆΧ§ΦΆΧ Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ·Χ.
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.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ¦Φ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ§Φ΅ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ§Φ΅ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ,
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,
ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ°ΧΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΆΧ§ΦΆΧ Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ·Χ.
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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ? Χ‘Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ Φ΅Χ! ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ? Χ‘Φ°Χ€Φ΅Χ§ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ? Χ‘Φ°Χ€Φ΅Χ§ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ!
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?
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ°Χ€Φ΅Χ§ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ β Χ‘Φ°Χ€Φ΅ΧΧ§ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ°Χ€Φ΅Χ§ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ!
Abaye said to Rava: And is there no difference between prohibition and danger? But isnβt 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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦ΄Χ: Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€Φ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β Χ‘ΦΈΧ€Φ΅Χ§ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ’, Χ‘ΦΈΧ€Φ΅Χ§ ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ’ β Χ‘Φ°Χ€Φ΅ΧΧ§ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ°Χ€Φ΅Χ§ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ!
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.
ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΅Χ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ, ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’: Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ‘ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦ΄Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΧΦΉ Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ·Χ?
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?
Follow
