The gemara discusses uses of knives that were used for various purposes – can they be used for shechita or cutting meat, i.e. knives used to idol worship? or slaughtering a treifa?
Chullin 8
December 05, 2018 | כ״ז בכסלו תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 8
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לִיבֵּן סַכִּין וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, חִידּוּדָהּ קוֹדֵם לְלִיבּוּנָהּ. וְהָאִיכָּא צְדָדִין? בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה מִירְוָוח רָוַוח.
§ Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: If one heated a knife until it became white hot [libben] and slaughtered an animal with it, his slaughter is valid, as cutting the relevant simanim with the knife’s sharp blade preceded the effect of its white heat. Had the effect of the heat preceded the cutting, the animal would have been rendered a tereifa, an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, before the slaughter was completed, by searing the windpipe and the gullet. The Gemara asks: But aren’t there the sides of the knife, which burn the throat and render the animal a tereifa? The Gemara answers: The area of the slaughter in the throat parts immediately after the incision, and the tissue on either side of the incision is not seared by the white-hot blade.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לִיבֵּן שַׁפּוּד וְהִכָּה בּוֹ, מִשּׁוּם שְׁחִין נִדּוֹן אוֹ מִשּׁוּם מִכְוָה נִדּוֹן?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one heated a skewer [shappud] until it became white hot and struck a person with it, and after the wound healed a leprous mark developed, is that mark adjudged as a leprous boil or is it adjudged as a leprous burn?
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ – לְכִדְתַנְיָא: שְׁחִין וּמִכְוָה מְטַמְּאִין בְּשָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד, בִּשְׁנֵי סִימָנִין – בְּשֵׂעָר לָבָן וּבְפִסְיוֹן, וְלָמָּה חִלְּקָן הַכָּתוּב? לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה.
What is the practical difference whether it is adjudged a boil or a burn? The difference is for that which is taught in a baraita: Both a leprous boil and a leprous burn become impure during one week of quarantine with two symptoms: With white hair that grows in the leprous mark and with spreading of the leprous mark. And why did the verse divide them into two separate passages even though their halakhic status is the same? The verse divided them to say that they do not join together to constitute the requisite measure of impure leprous marks. Rather, there is impurity only if the boil or the burn constitutes that measure individually.
וְתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ שְׁחִין וְאֵיזֶהוּ מִכְוָה? לָקָה בְּעֵץ, בְּאֶבֶן, בְּגֶפֶת, בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא, וּבְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא מֵחֲמַת הָאוּר, לְאֵתוֹיֵי אֲבָר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – זֶהוּ שְׁחִין. וְאֵיזֶהוּ מִכְוָה? נִכְוָה בְּגַחֶלֶת, בְּרֶמֶץ, בְּסִיד רוֹתֵחַ, בְּגִפְסִיס רוֹתֵחַ, וּבְכׇל דָּבָר הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת הָאוּר, לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַמֵּי הָאוּר – זוֹ הִיא מִכְוָה.
And it is taught in a baraita: Which wound is a boil and which is a burn? If one was struck with wood, with a stone, with pomace, with the hot springs of Tiberias, or with any item that is not heated by fire, a phrase that serves to include lead that was mined from its source in the ground, which is occasionally hot enough to burn a person, this impression left on the skin is a boil. And which wound is a burn? If one was burned with a coal, with hot ashes, with boiling limestone, with boiling gypsum [begippesit], or with any item that is heated by fire, a phrase that serves to include water heated by fire, this impression left on the skin is a burn.
וְתַנְיָא: שְׁחִין וּמִכְוָה, אִם שְׁחִין קוֹדֵם לַמִּכְוָה – בִּטֵּל מִכְוָה אֶת הַשְּׁחִין, וְאִם מִכְוָה קוֹדֶמֶת לַשְּׁחִין – בִּטֵּל שְׁחִין אֶת הַמִּכְוָה.
And it is taught in a baraita: If there is a boil and a burn on the same place on the skin and a leprous mark developed, the later wound determines the nature of the leprosy. Therefore, if the boil preceded the burn, the burn nullifies the boil and the mark is a leprous burn. And if the burn preceded the boil, the boil nullifies the burn and the mark is a leprous boil.
וְהָכָא, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן דַּהֲוָה בֵּיהּ חֲצִי גְּרִיס שְׁחִין מֵעִיקָּרָא, וְלִיבֵּן שַׁפּוּד וְהִכָּה בּוֹ, וּנְפַק בֵּיהּ חֲצִי גְּרִיס אַחֵר.
And here, where the dilemma was raised whether the mark that develops from being struck with a hot skewer is a boil or a burn, what are the circumstances? It is a case where initially there was a boil half the size of a split bean on the person’s skin, and one heated a skewer until it became white hot and struck him with it, and another mark half the size of a split bean emerged on the skin there.
מַאי חַבְטָא? קָדֵים וְאָתֵי הַבְלָא וּמְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ לְחַבְטָא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ שְׁחִין וּמִכְוָה, וְלָא מִצְטָרְפִין; אוֹ דִלְמָא הַבְלָא קָדֵים, וְאָתֵי חַבְטָא וּמְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ לְהַבְלָא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ שְׁחִין וּשְׁחִין, וּמִצְטָרֵף?
The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: What is the halakha? Does the effect of the blow come first and then the effect of the heat comes and nullifies the effect of the blow, and it is a half-measure boil and a half-measure burn and they do not join together to constitute a full measure? Or perhaps the effect of the heat comes first and then the effect of the blow comes and nullifies the effect of the heat, and it is a half-measure boil and a half-measure boil and they join together.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לִיבֵּן סַכִּין וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה, חִידּוּדָהּ קוֹדֵם לְלִיבּוּנָהּ. אַלְמָא חַבְטָא קָדֵים! חִדּוּד שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: If one heated a knife until it became white hot and slaughtered an animal with it, his slaughter is valid, as cutting the relevant simanim with the knife’s sharp blade preceded the effect of its white heat. Apparently, the effect of the blow comes first. The Gemara rejects that proof: Cutting with a sharp blade is different from striking with a blunt object, and only in the case of a blade does the cut precede the effect of the heat.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לִיבֵּן שַׁפּוּד וְהִכָּה בּוֹ – נִדּוֹן מִשּׁוּם מִכְוַת אֵשׁ, אַלְמָא חַבְטָא קָדֵים! הָתָם נָמֵי, דְּבַרְזֵייהּ מִיבְרָז, דְּהַיְינוּ חִדּוּד.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: If one heated a skewer until it became white hot and struck a person with it and after the wound healed a leprous mark developed, that mark is adjudged as a leprous burn caused by fire. Apparently, the effect of the blow precedes the effect of the burn. The Gemara rejects that proof: There too, the reference is to a case where he stabbed the skin with the skewer, which is the same as cutting with a sharp blade.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: סַכִּין שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מוּתָּר לִשְׁחוֹט בָּהּ, וְאָסוּר לַחְתּוֹךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. מוּתָּר לִשְׁחוֹט בָּהּ – מְקַלְקֵל הוּא, וְאָסוּר לַחְתּוֹךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר – מְתַקֵּן הוּא.
§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to a knife used for idol worship, it is permitted to slaughter an animal with it, but it is prohibited to cut meat with it. It is permitted to slaughter an animal with it because slaughtering it is a destructive action vis-à-vis the animal, which is worth more when it is alive. But it is prohibited to cut meat with it, because once the animal is slaughtered, cutting it is a constructive action that renders the meat manageable.
אָמַר רָבָא: פְּעָמִים שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט אָסוּר – בִּמְסוּכֶּנֶת, וּמְחַתֵּךְ מוּתָּר – בְּאַטְמֵי דְּקָיְימָן לְקוּרְבָּנָא.
Rava said: There are times when it is prohibited for one who slaughters an animal to use a knife used for idol worship, e.g., in the case of an animal that is in danger, meaning that it is about to die. If he does not slaughter the animal it would become an unslaughtered carcass and depreciate in value. And there are times when it is permitted for one who cuts meat to use a knife of idol worship, e.g., in the case of an animal whose thighs are intended to be sent as a gift to a person of stature. Cutting it into pieces would render it unfit for this purpose, thereby diminishing its value.
וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם שַׁמְנוּנִית דְּאִיסּוּרָא!
The Gemara challenges: And derive that it is prohibited to use a knife used for idol worship, not because benefit from it is prohibited, but due to the residue of fat of forbidden carcasses on the knife.
בַּחֲדָשָׁה.
The Gemara rejects that possibility: Rav Naḥman is referring to the case of a new knife on which there is no residue.
חֲדָשָׁה, בֵּין לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּין לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֵן, וּמְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵינָן אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דִּפְסַק בֵּיהּ גְּוָוזָא לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, בִּישָׁנָה שֶׁלִּיבְּנָהּ בָּאוּר.
The Gemara challenges: If it is a new knife, both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to Rabbi Akiva, who disagreed about whether an idol is forbidden from the moment that one crafts it or from the moment that one worships it, a knife is merely in the category of accessories of idol worship, and accessories of idol worship are forbidden only after they are used for idol worship. The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that the reference is to a case where he cut a branch [gevaza] for idol worship with the knife, which leaves no residue. And if you wish, say instead that Rav Naḥman is referring to the case of an old knife that he burned until it became white hot in the fire, and therefore, there is no residue on the knife.
אִתְּמַר: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, רַב אָמַר: קוֹלֵף, וְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: מֵדִיחַ. לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה צוֹנֵן, וּמָר סָבַר: בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה רוֹתֵחַ.
§ It was stated: With regard to one who slaughters an animal with the knife of gentiles, Rav says: He peels off a layer of the flesh from the place on the animal where the knife touched the flesh and the forbidden residue on the knife was absorbed. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: He rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this, that one Sage, Rabba bar bar Ḥana, holds: The area of the slaughter on the throat is cold and does not absorb the forbidden residue, and therefore rinsing is sufficient. And one Sage, Rav, holds: The area of the slaughter on the throat is hot and therefore it absorbs the forbidden residue.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה רוֹתֵחַ הוּא; מַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹלֵף – שַׁפִּיר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מֵדִיחַ – אַיְּידֵי דִּטְרִידִי סִימָנִין לְאַפּוֹקֵי דָּם לָא בָּלְעִי.
The Gemara rejects that suggestion: No, it is possible that everyone holds that the area of the slaughter on the throat is hot. For the one who says that he peels off a layer, it works out well, and the one who says that he rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh holds that since the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, are occupied with discharging blood, they do not absorb the residue.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה צוֹנֵן. מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵדִיחַ – שַׁפִּיר, מַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹלֵף – אַגַּב דּוּחְקָא דְסַכִּינָא בָּלַע.
There are those who say that everyone holds that the area of the slaughter on the throat is cold. For the one who says that he rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh, it works out well, and the one who says that he peels off a layer holds that although that area is cold, due to the pressure of the knife on the throat, the flesh absorbs the residue.
סַכִּין טְרֵיפָה, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: בְּחַמִּין, וְחַד אָמַר: בְּצוֹנֵן, וְהִלְכְתָא: אֲפִילּוּ בְּצוֹנֵן, וְאִי אִיכָּא בְּלִיתָא דִּפְרָסָא לְמִיכְפְּרֵיהּ, לָא צְרִיךְ.
§ With regard to a knife with which an animal that is a tereifa was slaughtered, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree. One says: One purges it in hot water to remove the absorptions from the tereifa, and one says: One rinses it in cold water, and that is sufficient. And the halakha is: One may rinse it even in cold water. And if there is a tattered piece of a curtain with which to wipe the knife, one need not rinse it.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּחַמִּין, מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָלְעָה אִיסּוּרָא? דְּהֶיתֵּירָא נָמֵי בָּלְעָה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי! אֵימַת בָּלְעָה? לְכִי חָיְימָא. אֵימַת קָא חָיְימָא? לְכִי גָמְרָה שְׁחִיטָה, הָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא הֶיתֵּירָא הֲוָה.
And according to the one who says that one purges it in hot water, what is the reason that he must do so; is it due to the premise that the knife absorbed forbidden residue? That reasoning should not be limited to a case where he slaughtered a tereifa. A knife with which he slaughtered an animal that is permitted should also require purging, because it absorbed residue from the limb from a living animal before the slaughter was completed. The Gemara answers: When is there concern that the knife absorbed the residue? It is when the throat grows warm. When does it grow warm? It is at the point when the slaughter is complete. At that moment, it is already permitted.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַטַּבָּח צָרִיךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה סַכִּינִין, אַחַת שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ חֲלָבִים.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The slaughterer requires three knives, one with which he slaughters the animal, and one with which he cuts meat, and one with which he cuts forbidden fats. One may not use the same knife for cutting the meat and the forbidden fats due to the residue on the knife after cutting the forbidden fats.
וְלִיתַקֵּן לֵיהּ חֲדָא, וְלִיחְתּוֹךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, וַהֲדַר לִיחְתּוֹךְ בַּהּ חֲלָבִים? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְתּוֹךְ חֲלָבִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּשָׂר. הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מִיחַלַּף לֵיהּ! כֵּיוָן דְּאַצְרְכִינְהוּ תְּרֵי – אִית לֵיהּ הֶיכֵּרָא.
The Gemara suggests: And let him designate one knife for cutting both the meat and forbidden fats and cut meat with it and then cut forbidden fats with it. In this manner the forbidden residue on the knife will not affect the meat. The Gemara explains: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree prohibiting the use of one knife to cut meat and then forbidden fats lest he also cut forbidden fats and cut meat thereafter. The Gemara challenges: Now too, after the decree mandating separate knives there is a concern that they will be confused for him and he will use the knife that cut the forbidden fats to cut the meat. The Gemara explains: Since the Sages required him to have two knives, he has a conspicuous marker on one of the knives that will prevent confusion.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַטַּבָּח צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שֶׁל מַיִם, אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים. וְנִיתַקֵּן לֵיהּ חֲדָא, וּנְדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר וַהֲדַר נְדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יָדִיחַ חֲלָבִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּשָׂר. הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מִיחַלְּפִי לֵיהּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאַצְרְכִינֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי אִית לֵיהּ הֶיכֵּרָא.
And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The slaughterer requires two vessels of water, one with which he rinses meat and one with which he rinses forbidden fats. The Gemara suggests: And let him designate one vessel and rinse meat with the water in the vessel and then rinse forbidden fats with the water in the same vessel. The Gemara explains: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree to prohibit doing so lest he rinse fats and rinse meat thereafter. The Gemara challenges: Now too, after the decree mandating separate vessels there is a concern that they will be confused for him and he will rinse meat in the vessel in which he rinsed fats. The Gemara answers: Since the Sages required him to have two vessels, he has a conspicuous marker on one of the vessels that will prevent confusion.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: לָא לִיסְחוֹף אִינִישׁ כַּפְלֵי עִילָּוֵי בִּישְׂרָא, דְּדָאֵיב תַּרְבָּא וּבָלַע בִּישְׂרָא.
§ Ameimar says in the name of Rav Pappa: A person should not place [lisḥof] the flanks of an animal atop other meat so that the forbidden fats that are attached to the flanks are in contact with the other meat, due to the fact that the forbidden fat liquefies and flows and the meat absorbs it.
אִי הָכִי, כִּי תְּרִיצִי נָמֵי דָּאֵיב תַּרְבָּא וּבָלַע בִּשְׂרָא? קְרָמָא מַפְסֵיק מִתַּתַּאי! אִי הָכִי
The Gemara raises an objection: If so, and that is a concern, when the flanks are placed in their typical manner [teritzi] as well, with the forbidden fat above the meat of the flanks, the forbidden fat flows and the meat of the flanks absorbs it. The Gemara explains: The membrane between the forbidden fat and the meat of the flanks interposes from below and prevents absorption of the forbidden fat. The Gemara challenges: If so,
Follow 
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.
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
Chullin 8
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לִיבֵּן סַכִּין וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, חִידּוּדָהּ קוֹדֵם לְלִיבּוּנָהּ. וְהָאִיכָּא צְדָדִין? בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה מִירְוָוח רָוַוח.
§ Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: If one heated a knife until it became white hot [libben] and slaughtered an animal with it, his slaughter is valid, as cutting the relevant simanim with the knife’s sharp blade preceded the effect of its white heat. Had the effect of the heat preceded the cutting, the animal would have been rendered a tereifa, an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, before the slaughter was completed, by searing the windpipe and the gullet. The Gemara asks: But aren’t there the sides of the knife, which burn the throat and render the animal a tereifa? The Gemara answers: The area of the slaughter in the throat parts immediately after the incision, and the tissue on either side of the incision is not seared by the white-hot blade.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לִיבֵּן שַׁפּוּד וְהִכָּה בּוֹ, מִשּׁוּם שְׁחִין נִדּוֹן אוֹ מִשּׁוּם מִכְוָה נִדּוֹן?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one heated a skewer [shappud] until it became white hot and struck a person with it, and after the wound healed a leprous mark developed, is that mark adjudged as a leprous boil or is it adjudged as a leprous burn?
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ – לְכִדְתַנְיָא: שְׁחִין וּמִכְוָה מְטַמְּאִין בְּשָׁבוּעַ אֶחָד, בִּשְׁנֵי סִימָנִין – בְּשֵׂעָר לָבָן וּבְפִסְיוֹן, וְלָמָּה חִלְּקָן הַכָּתוּב? לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה.
What is the practical difference whether it is adjudged a boil or a burn? The difference is for that which is taught in a baraita: Both a leprous boil and a leprous burn become impure during one week of quarantine with two symptoms: With white hair that grows in the leprous mark and with spreading of the leprous mark. And why did the verse divide them into two separate passages even though their halakhic status is the same? The verse divided them to say that they do not join together to constitute the requisite measure of impure leprous marks. Rather, there is impurity only if the boil or the burn constitutes that measure individually.
וְתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ שְׁחִין וְאֵיזֶהוּ מִכְוָה? לָקָה בְּעֵץ, בְּאֶבֶן, בְּגֶפֶת, בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא, וּבְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא מֵחֲמַת הָאוּר, לְאֵתוֹיֵי אֲבָר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – זֶהוּ שְׁחִין. וְאֵיזֶהוּ מִכְוָה? נִכְוָה בְּגַחֶלֶת, בְּרֶמֶץ, בְּסִיד רוֹתֵחַ, בְּגִפְסִיס רוֹתֵחַ, וּבְכׇל דָּבָר הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת הָאוּר, לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַמֵּי הָאוּר – זוֹ הִיא מִכְוָה.
And it is taught in a baraita: Which wound is a boil and which is a burn? If one was struck with wood, with a stone, with pomace, with the hot springs of Tiberias, or with any item that is not heated by fire, a phrase that serves to include lead that was mined from its source in the ground, which is occasionally hot enough to burn a person, this impression left on the skin is a boil. And which wound is a burn? If one was burned with a coal, with hot ashes, with boiling limestone, with boiling gypsum [begippesit], or with any item that is heated by fire, a phrase that serves to include water heated by fire, this impression left on the skin is a burn.
וְתַנְיָא: שְׁחִין וּמִכְוָה, אִם שְׁחִין קוֹדֵם לַמִּכְוָה – בִּטֵּל מִכְוָה אֶת הַשְּׁחִין, וְאִם מִכְוָה קוֹדֶמֶת לַשְּׁחִין – בִּטֵּל שְׁחִין אֶת הַמִּכְוָה.
And it is taught in a baraita: If there is a boil and a burn on the same place on the skin and a leprous mark developed, the later wound determines the nature of the leprosy. Therefore, if the boil preceded the burn, the burn nullifies the boil and the mark is a leprous burn. And if the burn preceded the boil, the boil nullifies the burn and the mark is a leprous boil.
וְהָכָא, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן דַּהֲוָה בֵּיהּ חֲצִי גְּרִיס שְׁחִין מֵעִיקָּרָא, וְלִיבֵּן שַׁפּוּד וְהִכָּה בּוֹ, וּנְפַק בֵּיהּ חֲצִי גְּרִיס אַחֵר.
And here, where the dilemma was raised whether the mark that develops from being struck with a hot skewer is a boil or a burn, what are the circumstances? It is a case where initially there was a boil half the size of a split bean on the person’s skin, and one heated a skewer until it became white hot and struck him with it, and another mark half the size of a split bean emerged on the skin there.
מַאי חַבְטָא? קָדֵים וְאָתֵי הַבְלָא וּמְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ לְחַבְטָא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ שְׁחִין וּמִכְוָה, וְלָא מִצְטָרְפִין; אוֹ דִלְמָא הַבְלָא קָדֵים, וְאָתֵי חַבְטָא וּמְבַטֵּל לֵיהּ לְהַבְלָא, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ שְׁחִין וּשְׁחִין, וּמִצְטָרֵף?
The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: What is the halakha? Does the effect of the blow come first and then the effect of the heat comes and nullifies the effect of the blow, and it is a half-measure boil and a half-measure burn and they do not join together to constitute a full measure? Or perhaps the effect of the heat comes first and then the effect of the blow comes and nullifies the effect of the heat, and it is a half-measure boil and a half-measure boil and they join together.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לִיבֵּן סַכִּין וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁירָה, חִידּוּדָהּ קוֹדֵם לְלִיבּוּנָהּ. אַלְמָא חַבְטָא קָדֵים! חִדּוּד שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which Rabbi Zeira says that Shmuel says: If one heated a knife until it became white hot and slaughtered an animal with it, his slaughter is valid, as cutting the relevant simanim with the knife’s sharp blade preceded the effect of its white heat. Apparently, the effect of the blow comes first. The Gemara rejects that proof: Cutting with a sharp blade is different from striking with a blunt object, and only in the case of a blade does the cut precede the effect of the heat.
תָּא שְׁמַע: לִיבֵּן שַׁפּוּד וְהִכָּה בּוֹ – נִדּוֹן מִשּׁוּם מִכְוַת אֵשׁ, אַלְמָא חַבְטָא קָדֵים! הָתָם נָמֵי, דְּבַרְזֵייהּ מִיבְרָז, דְּהַיְינוּ חִדּוּד.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: If one heated a skewer until it became white hot and struck a person with it and after the wound healed a leprous mark developed, that mark is adjudged as a leprous burn caused by fire. Apparently, the effect of the blow precedes the effect of the burn. The Gemara rejects that proof: There too, the reference is to a case where he stabbed the skin with the skewer, which is the same as cutting with a sharp blade.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: סַכִּין שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מוּתָּר לִשְׁחוֹט בָּהּ, וְאָסוּר לַחְתּוֹךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. מוּתָּר לִשְׁחוֹט בָּהּ – מְקַלְקֵל הוּא, וְאָסוּר לַחְתּוֹךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר – מְתַקֵּן הוּא.
§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: With regard to a knife used for idol worship, it is permitted to slaughter an animal with it, but it is prohibited to cut meat with it. It is permitted to slaughter an animal with it because slaughtering it is a destructive action vis-à-vis the animal, which is worth more when it is alive. But it is prohibited to cut meat with it, because once the animal is slaughtered, cutting it is a constructive action that renders the meat manageable.
אָמַר רָבָא: פְּעָמִים שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט אָסוּר – בִּמְסוּכֶּנֶת, וּמְחַתֵּךְ מוּתָּר – בְּאַטְמֵי דְּקָיְימָן לְקוּרְבָּנָא.
Rava said: There are times when it is prohibited for one who slaughters an animal to use a knife used for idol worship, e.g., in the case of an animal that is in danger, meaning that it is about to die. If he does not slaughter the animal it would become an unslaughtered carcass and depreciate in value. And there are times when it is permitted for one who cuts meat to use a knife of idol worship, e.g., in the case of an animal whose thighs are intended to be sent as a gift to a person of stature. Cutting it into pieces would render it unfit for this purpose, thereby diminishing its value.
וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם שַׁמְנוּנִית דְּאִיסּוּרָא!
The Gemara challenges: And derive that it is prohibited to use a knife used for idol worship, not because benefit from it is prohibited, but due to the residue of fat of forbidden carcasses on the knife.
בַּחֲדָשָׁה.
The Gemara rejects that possibility: Rav Naḥman is referring to the case of a new knife on which there is no residue.
חֲדָשָׁה, בֵּין לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּין לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֵן, וּמְשַׁמְּשֵׁי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵינָן אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיֵּעָבֵדוּ! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דִּפְסַק בֵּיהּ גְּוָוזָא לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, בִּישָׁנָה שֶׁלִּיבְּנָהּ בָּאוּר.
The Gemara challenges: If it is a new knife, both according to Rabbi Yishmael and according to Rabbi Akiva, who disagreed about whether an idol is forbidden from the moment that one crafts it or from the moment that one worships it, a knife is merely in the category of accessories of idol worship, and accessories of idol worship are forbidden only after they are used for idol worship. The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that the reference is to a case where he cut a branch [gevaza] for idol worship with the knife, which leaves no residue. And if you wish, say instead that Rav Naḥman is referring to the case of an old knife that he burned until it became white hot in the fire, and therefore, there is no residue on the knife.
אִתְּמַר: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, רַב אָמַר: קוֹלֵף, וְרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: מֵדִיחַ. לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה צוֹנֵן, וּמָר סָבַר: בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה רוֹתֵחַ.
§ It was stated: With regard to one who slaughters an animal with the knife of gentiles, Rav says: He peels off a layer of the flesh from the place on the animal where the knife touched the flesh and the forbidden residue on the knife was absorbed. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: He rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this, that one Sage, Rabba bar bar Ḥana, holds: The area of the slaughter on the throat is cold and does not absorb the forbidden residue, and therefore rinsing is sufficient. And one Sage, Rav, holds: The area of the slaughter on the throat is hot and therefore it absorbs the forbidden residue.
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה רוֹתֵחַ הוּא; מַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹלֵף – שַׁפִּיר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מֵדִיחַ – אַיְּידֵי דִּטְרִידִי סִימָנִין לְאַפּוֹקֵי דָּם לָא בָּלְעִי.
The Gemara rejects that suggestion: No, it is possible that everyone holds that the area of the slaughter on the throat is hot. For the one who says that he peels off a layer, it works out well, and the one who says that he rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh holds that since the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, are occupied with discharging blood, they do not absorb the residue.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה צוֹנֵן. מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵדִיחַ – שַׁפִּיר, מַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹלֵף – אַגַּב דּוּחְקָא דְסַכִּינָא בָּלַע.
There are those who say that everyone holds that the area of the slaughter on the throat is cold. For the one who says that he rinses the place where the knife touched the flesh, it works out well, and the one who says that he peels off a layer holds that although that area is cold, due to the pressure of the knife on the throat, the flesh absorbs the residue.
סַכִּין טְרֵיפָה, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: בְּחַמִּין, וְחַד אָמַר: בְּצוֹנֵן, וְהִלְכְתָא: אֲפִילּוּ בְּצוֹנֵן, וְאִי אִיכָּא בְּלִיתָא דִּפְרָסָא לְמִיכְפְּרֵיהּ, לָא צְרִיךְ.
§ With regard to a knife with which an animal that is a tereifa was slaughtered, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree. One says: One purges it in hot water to remove the absorptions from the tereifa, and one says: One rinses it in cold water, and that is sufficient. And the halakha is: One may rinse it even in cold water. And if there is a tattered piece of a curtain with which to wipe the knife, one need not rinse it.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּחַמִּין, מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָלְעָה אִיסּוּרָא? דְּהֶיתֵּירָא נָמֵי בָּלְעָה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי! אֵימַת בָּלְעָה? לְכִי חָיְימָא. אֵימַת קָא חָיְימָא? לְכִי גָמְרָה שְׁחִיטָה, הָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא הֶיתֵּירָא הֲוָה.
And according to the one who says that one purges it in hot water, what is the reason that he must do so; is it due to the premise that the knife absorbed forbidden residue? That reasoning should not be limited to a case where he slaughtered a tereifa. A knife with which he slaughtered an animal that is permitted should also require purging, because it absorbed residue from the limb from a living animal before the slaughter was completed. The Gemara answers: When is there concern that the knife absorbed the residue? It is when the throat grows warm. When does it grow warm? It is at the point when the slaughter is complete. At that moment, it is already permitted.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַטַּבָּח צָרִיךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה סַכִּינִין, אַחַת שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ חֲלָבִים.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The slaughterer requires three knives, one with which he slaughters the animal, and one with which he cuts meat, and one with which he cuts forbidden fats. One may not use the same knife for cutting the meat and the forbidden fats due to the residue on the knife after cutting the forbidden fats.
וְלִיתַקֵּן לֵיהּ חֲדָא, וְלִיחְתּוֹךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, וַהֲדַר לִיחְתּוֹךְ בַּהּ חֲלָבִים? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַחְתּוֹךְ חֲלָבִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּשָׂר. הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מִיחַלַּף לֵיהּ! כֵּיוָן דְּאַצְרְכִינְהוּ תְּרֵי – אִית לֵיהּ הֶיכֵּרָא.
The Gemara suggests: And let him designate one knife for cutting both the meat and forbidden fats and cut meat with it and then cut forbidden fats with it. In this manner the forbidden residue on the knife will not affect the meat. The Gemara explains: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree prohibiting the use of one knife to cut meat and then forbidden fats lest he also cut forbidden fats and cut meat thereafter. The Gemara challenges: Now too, after the decree mandating separate knives there is a concern that they will be confused for him and he will use the knife that cut the forbidden fats to cut the meat. The Gemara explains: Since the Sages required him to have two knives, he has a conspicuous marker on one of the knives that will prevent confusion.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַטַּבָּח צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שֶׁל מַיִם, אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים. וְנִיתַקֵּן לֵיהּ חֲדָא, וּנְדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר וַהֲדַר נְדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יָדִיחַ חֲלָבִים וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּשָׂר. הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מִיחַלְּפִי לֵיהּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאַצְרְכִינֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי אִית לֵיהּ הֶיכֵּרָא.
And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The slaughterer requires two vessels of water, one with which he rinses meat and one with which he rinses forbidden fats. The Gemara suggests: And let him designate one vessel and rinse meat with the water in the vessel and then rinse forbidden fats with the water in the same vessel. The Gemara explains: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree to prohibit doing so lest he rinse fats and rinse meat thereafter. The Gemara challenges: Now too, after the decree mandating separate vessels there is a concern that they will be confused for him and he will rinse meat in the vessel in which he rinsed fats. The Gemara answers: Since the Sages required him to have two vessels, he has a conspicuous marker on one of the vessels that will prevent confusion.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: לָא לִיסְחוֹף אִינִישׁ כַּפְלֵי עִילָּוֵי בִּישְׂרָא, דְּדָאֵיב תַּרְבָּא וּבָלַע בִּישְׂרָא.
§ Ameimar says in the name of Rav Pappa: A person should not place [lisḥof] the flanks of an animal atop other meat so that the forbidden fats that are attached to the flanks are in contact with the other meat, due to the fact that the forbidden fat liquefies and flows and the meat absorbs it.
אִי הָכִי, כִּי תְּרִיצִי נָמֵי דָּאֵיב תַּרְבָּא וּבָלַע בִּשְׂרָא? קְרָמָא מַפְסֵיק מִתַּתַּאי! אִי הָכִי
The Gemara raises an objection: If so, and that is a concern, when the flanks are placed in their typical manner [teritzi] as well, with the forbidden fat above the meat of the flanks, the forbidden fat flows and the meat of the flanks absorbs it. The Gemara explains: The membrane between the forbidden fat and the meat of the flanks interposes from below and prevents absorption of the forbidden fat. The Gemara challenges: If so,
Follow
