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 dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:


Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
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.
Chullin 9
ืืขืืืื ื ืื ืงืจืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืืฉืืฉื ืืื ืืืืื ืืคืชืช
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.
ืืืืจ ืจื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืชืืืื ืืื ืฆืจืื ืฉืืืืื ื’ ืืืจืื ืืชื ืฉืืืื ืืืืื ืืจื ืื ื ืื ืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืฉืืื ืืจื ืืืจ ืืฃ ืงืฉืจ ืฉื ืชืคืืืื ืืืจืืช ืืชื ืื ืืฆืืฆืืช ืืืืื ืื ื ืฉืืืื
ยง 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 แธคananya 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.
ืืืืจ ืจื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืื ืืื ืฉืืื ื ืืืืข ืืืืืช ืฉืืืื ืืกืืจ ืืืืื ืืฉืืืืชื ืืืื ืื ืืืืืช ืฉืืืื ืฉืืืื ืืจืกื ืืืื ืืืจืื ืืขืืงืืจ
ยง 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.
ืืื ืงื”ื ืืืืื ืชื ืื ืื ืื ืฆืจืืื ืฉืฉืื ืืคื ืื ื ื’ ืื’ ืคืขืืื ืืฉืื ืฉืคืืจ ืืื ืืชืืื ืืืืืื ืฉืื ืฉืคืืจ ืืื ื ืื ืฉืื ืฉืคืืจ ืงื”ื ืืืื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืื ืืฉืื ืืืจืืก ืืื ืืืข
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.
ืืืืจ ืจื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืืื ืฆืจืื ืฉืืืืืง ืืกืืื ืื ืืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืืกืฃ ืืฃ ืื ื ื ืื ืชื ืื ื ืจ”ืฉ ืืืืจ ืื ืฉืื ืืื ืืืงืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืงืืจ ืกืืื ืื
ยง 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.
ื”ื ืืืื ืื ืืื ื”ืจ ืืืื ื ืืื ืืืงืืจ ืืื ื”ื ื ืชืช ืืืจืื ืืฉืืขืืจืื ืืื ืืื ืืืงืืจ ืืื ืืื
Abaye said to him: No, this is what Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.
ืื ืืืง ืืื ืจ’ ืืืืขืืจ ืื ืื ืืืื ืืก ืืฉืื ืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืจ’ ืื ืื ืืืจ ืืจืคื ืืืกืืจื ืืืืืื ืืืชื ืืชื ืชื ื ื ืืื ืืืืืื ืืืฉื
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.
ืืืื ืงืืืคืืื ืืืจื ืืื ื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืืงืช ืืืกืืจ ืขืืืืช ืขื ืฉืืืืข ืื ืืื ื ืฉืืื ื ืฉืืื ืืจื ืืื ืืืืงืช ืืืชืจ ืขื ืฉืืืืข ืื ืืื ื ืืจืคื
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.
ืืจ ืกืืจ ืืืืงืช ืืืกืืจ ืงืืืื ืืืฉืชื ืืชื ืืื ืืืจ ืกืืจ ืืืืงืช ืืืกืืจ ืืืจืื ื ืืืืงืช ืืืืื ืื ืืืจืื ื
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.
ืืืคื ืืืจ ืจื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืืงืช ืืืกืืจ ืขืืืืช ืขื ืฉืืืืข ืื ืืื ื ืฉืืื ื ืฉืืื ืืืืงืช ืืืชืจ ืขืืืืช ืขื ืฉืืืืข ืื ืืื ื ืืจืคื ืืืืื ื ืฉืืื ืืืชืจื ืื ืงื”ื ืืืข”ื ืืืืชืืืื ืื ืจืืขืืชื
ยง 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.
ืืืืขื ืืื ืื ืจืื ืืื ืืจื ืืื ื ืื ืืื ืื ืื ืื ื ืืขืื ืืื
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?
ื ืื ืื ืืืชื ืื ืืื ื ืงื ืื ื ืืขืื ืืื ื ืงื ืื ืงื ืืืื ื ืืืื ื ืงืืื ืื ืืื ื ืืื ืืืืืืจื ืืฉืื ื ืงืืืื ืืื ืื ืืืืฉื’ ืฉืื ืืืงืื ื ืงื ื ืงื ืื ืื
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?
ื”ื ืืื ืืืฉืฉืื ืฉืื ืืืงืื ื ืงื ื ืงื
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.
ืืืชืืืื ืจืื ืฆืคืืจ ืืื ืงืจ ืืชืื ื ืืขืืืจ ืืื ืงืจ ืืืืืืืื
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,
ืืืฉืฉืื ืฉืื ืืืงืื ื ืงื ื ืงื
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.
ืืืจ ืืื ืื ืงื ืืืืืช ืืืกืืจื ืืกืื ืชื ืกืื ื ืฉืื ื ื”ื ืจืื ืืื ืฉื ื ืกืคืง ืกืื ืชื ืืืืืจื ืกืคืง ืืืกืืจื ื ืื ืืืืืจื
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?
ื”ื ืืืื ืืื ืฉืื ื ืืื ืืืกืืจื ืืกืื ืชื ืืื ืืืื ืกืคืง ืืืืื ืืจื”ืจ ืกืคืืงื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืกืคืง ืืื ืืืืืื ืืกืืจืื
Abaye said to Rava: And is there no difference between prohibition and danger? But isnโt 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.
ื”ื ืืชื ืืืืชื ืืืืจื ืื ืืกืืื ืื ืกืืื ืืจื”ื ืืฃ ืืืืื ืืจื”ื
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.
ืืชืื ืจื ืฉืืื ืฉืจืฅ ืืคื ืืืืื ืืืืืื ืืืืืช ืขื ืืื ืืืจืืช ืฉื ืชืจืืื ืกืคืง ื ืืข ืกืคืง ืื ื ืืข ืกืคืืงื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืกืคืง ืืื ืืืืืื ืืกืืจืื
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.
ืืชื ื ืื ืืืืชื ืืืืจื ืื ืืกืืื ืื ืกืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืฉ ืื ืืขืช ืืืฉืื ืืฃ ืืื ื ืื ืืืจ ืฉืืฉ ืื ืืขืช ืืืฉืื
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.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืฉื ืช”ืฉ ืฆืืืืืช ืฉืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืฆืื ืืืืกื ืืืื ืฉืื ื ืืืืจ ืืื ืืื ื ืื ืก ืืฉื ืืืืกื
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.
ืื ืืื ืืืืกื ืืื ืืืฆืื ืืืืื ืื ืืืืื ืืืืื ืืฉืชืืช ืืื ื ืื ื ืืฉ ืืืืจื ืจืื ืืืืืื ืื ืฉืืจื ืื ืื ืืืืื ืคืกืืื
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.
ืืืืจ ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืื ืืื ืื ืืขื
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?





















