Chullin

But what is the difference?1 — In the latter cases the defect has arisen in the animal, whereas in the above mentioned case the defect has arisen in the knife but not in the animal. The law is as R. Huna ruled2 where he did not break up bones [with the knife after slaughtering]. And the law is as R. Hisda ruled3 where he did break up bones. It follows that R. Hisda maintains his view even where no bones were broken up;4 then the question is: how did the knife become notched? — You can say: It became notched through striking the bone of the neck.5 There happened such a case6 and R. Joseph declared as many as thirteen animals to be trefah. Now, whose view did he follow? Did he follow R. Huna's view [and so declared them all trefah,] including the first animal?7 — No, he may have followed R. Hisda's view, and [so declared then, all trefah.] excepting the first animal.8 If you wish, however, I can say that he followed R. Huna's view, because if he followed R. Hisda's view, then, since R. Hisda adopts a lenient view, why is it suggested that the knife became notched through striking the neck-bone of the first animal? Should we not say that it became notched through striking the neck-bone of the last animal? 9 R. Aha the son of Raba told R. Ashi that R. Kahana required the knife to be examined after each animal that was slaughtered. Now, whose view did he adopt? Was it R. Huna's view, with the result that [if the knife were not examined between each animal that was slaughtered,] even the first animal would be trefah? — No. It was R. Hisda's view that he adopted,10 and [he therefore required the knife to be examined after each animal so that] even those slaughtered after [the first] should be permitted. If this is so, should not the knife be examined by a Sage?11 — [It is not necessary, for] one witness is believed in matters concerning ritual prohibition.12 If so, it should never be necessary.13 — Indeed, has not R. Johanan said that it is only out of respect to the Sage that it was ruled that one must present the knife to the Sage [for inspection]? Whence is derived the principle which the Rabbis have adopted, viz.: Determine every matter by its status?14 — R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan. It is derived from the verse: Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days. 15 Now may it not have happened that, while he was going out, the leprous spot diminished in size?16 [Yet we do not apprehend this] because we say: Determine every matter by its status.17 R. Aha b. Jacob demurred to this: Perhaps the priest in going out of the house walks backwards so that he can see [the spot] as he is leaving!18 — Abaye retorted: There are two answers to your objection. In the first place, going out backwards is not a ‘going out’.19 In the second place, what will you say when the leprous spot is behind the door?20 And if you say that he opens up a window [in the door]; have we not learnt: In a dark house one may not open up windows to inspect the leprous spot?21 — Said Raba to him, With regard to your statement that going out backwards is not a ‘going out’, the case of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement proves otherwise; for in that case, though it is written: And he shall go out,22 we have learnt: The High Priest goes out and leaves as he entered.23 And with regard to your reference to the statement that ‘in a dark house one may not open up windows to inspect the leprous spot’, this rule only applies when the leprosy has not yet been ascertained; but once the leprosy has been ascertained the matter is determined. 24 A [Baraitha] was taught which is not in agreement with the view of R. Aha b. Jacob: [Since it is written,] ‘Then the priest shall go out of the house’, you might think that he may go to his own house and shut up [the affected house from there].25 the verse therefore reads: ‘To the door of the house’. But if [we had only] ‘the door of the house’ to go by you might think that he may stand under the doorpost [of the affected house] and shut it up. The verse therefore reads: ‘Out of the house’, that is to say, he must go right out of the house. How is this done? He stands outside the doorpost and shuts it up. Moreover, whence do we know that if he went to his own home and shut it up [from there], or if he remained within the [affected] house and shut it up the shutting-up is valid? The verse therefore says. ‘And he shall shut tip the house’, implying that the shutting-up in whatever way effected [is valid].26 And R. Ahab. Jacob?27 — in the cases where there is a doubt as to pausing or pressing in the act of slaughtering, it is invalid? been completed and therefore the slaughtering is not affected thereby. the animals had been slaughtered the knife was found to be notched. slaughtered. It is therefore clear that at least the first animal had been properly slaughtered. On this view we must assume that the number of animals slaughtered was fourteen. examination, then it becomes necessary for a Sage to examine the knife, for there is a rule that the inspection of the knife before the slaughtering must be by a Sage; v. infra p. 85. from notches. slaughterer is trusted. they were last known to have had. there would be no necessity to shut up the house at all, and the act of ‘shutting up’ is consequently invalid. when the priest shut up the affected house from his own home, in which case it would be impossible for him to keep the leprous spot in view the whole time.