חולין 8 — Soncino English Talmud

¹R. Zera said in the name of Samuel: If one made a knife red-hot and slaughtered with it, the slaughtering is valid, because [the effect of] the sharp edge precedes [the effect of] the heat. But, what about the sides [of the knife]? — The cut opens wide. The following question was raised: If one made a spit red-hot and struck with it, is the resulting wound to be regarded as a boil or as a burning? But what is the difference between the two? Even as it has been taught: A boil and a burning, each is declared unclean within seven days by one of two symptoms: by white hair, or spreading. Why, then, did the Torah deal with them separately? To teach you that they cannot unite one with the other. And we have learnt: What is a boil, and what is a burning? A wound caused by wood, or stone, or olive-peat, or the hot springs of Tiberias, or any wound that is not caused by fire, including a wound caused by lead just taken from the mine, is a boil. And what is a burning? A burn caused by a live coal, or hot ashes, or boiling lime, or boiling gypsum, or any burn that is caused by fire, including a burn caused by water heated by fire, is a burning. And it was further taught: In the case of [a wound which is both] a boil and a burning, if the boil came first then the subsequent burning annuls the boil [and it is considered a burn]; but if the burning came first then the subsequent boil annuls the burn [and it is considered a boil]. Now the circumstances of our case are as follows: A man had a boil of the size of half a bean, and was struck close to it with a red-hot spit, another wound of the size of half a bean resulting, [making the whole wound the size of a whole bean]. In such a case how [are we to consider the resulting wound]? Did the force of the blow take effect first, and the burn caused by the glowing heat that followed annul the effect of the blow, so that the whole wound is composed of a boil and a burning [each to the extent of half a bean] which do not unite [to make him unclean]? Or did the glowing heat take effect first, and the force of the blow that followed annul the effect of the glowing heat, and consequently the whole wound is composed of two boils [each to the extent of half a bean] which unite [to make him unclean]? Come and hear: R. Zera said in the name of Samuel: If one made a knife red-hot and slaughtered with it, the slaughtering is valid, because the effect of the sharp edge precedes the effect of the heat. It thus proves that the force of the blow precedes [the glowing heat]! — No; in the case of a sharp edge it is different. Come and hear: If one was struck with a red-hot spit, the resulting wound is regarded as a ‘burning by fire’. It thus proves that the force of the blow precedes [the glowing heat]. — No; here too, the wound was made by a thrust with the point, which is a sharp edge. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: A knife which has been used in connection with idolatrous services may be used for slaughtering, but it may not be used for cutting up meat — ‘It may be used for slaughtering’, for thereby one impairs [the value]; ‘but it may not be used for cutting up meat’, for thereby one enhances [the value], Raba remarked: There are times when one may not slaughter with it, to wit, if the animal is at the point of death; and there are times when one may cut up meat with it, to wit, if the meat was in large pieces intended for a present. But should not the prohibition thereof be considered on account of the forbidden fat? 19^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:So that the throat is cut and not burnt.
^ᵇnote:They would scorch the organs of the throat before the requisite amount had been cut through, and then the slightest scorching of the gullet would invalidate the slaughtering.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘the place (or house) of slaughtering, i.e., the cut. The two sides of the cut spring apart as soon as the throat, which has been stretched taut, has been cut; therefore only the sharp edge touches the throat, but not the sides of the knife.
^ᵈnote:Which turned into leprosy.
^ᵉnote:Heb. ihja V. Lev. XIII, 18.
^ᶠnote:Heb. vufn V. Ibid. 24.
^ᵍnote:I.e., in what case is it of consequence whether the wound is regarded as a boil or a burn. The text proceeds to discuss the law as to boils and burns and provides an illustration of such a case.
^ʰnote:The appearance of white hair ill the wound, and the wound spreading further on the skin, are the symptoms, in cases of a burning or a boil, by which one is declared unclean as a leper. V. Lev. XIII, 18-28. Furthermore, if these wounds remained stationary for seven days they are declared clean, whereas with other leprous wounds it is necessary to keep them under observation for a further seven days. V. Lev. XIII, 5.
^ⁱnote:The minimum size of a leprous wound to be declared unclean is that of a bean. Leprous wounds of different classes cannot unite; e.g., a boil the size of half a bean next to a burning also the size of half a bean cannot unite to form together a leprous wound the size of a whole bean and make one unclean as a leper.
^ʲnote:This would not make him unclean as a leper.
^ᵏnote:The sharp edge of a knife, being thin and pointed, cannot contain great heat; therefore only in such cases can it be said that the heat follows the blow, but not elsewhere.
^ˡnote:V. Lev. XIII, 24.
^ᵐnote:And the case of a sharp edge is different, v. n. 1 .
^ⁿnote:It is forbidden to derive any benefit or advantage from idolatry or from that which is connected with idolatry.
^ᵒnote:A living animal is more useful and of more value than a slaughtered one; for, living, it may be used for breeding, for ploughing, and for food, but slaughtered, it has only its food value.
^ᵖnote:For after slaughtering it becomes necessary to cut up the meat.
^ᵠnote:By slaughtering an animal which is at the point of death one derives a gain, for otherwise it would have died and become carrion (which may not be eaten).
^ʳnote:In which case it has very little value if cut up in small pieces.
^ˢnote:Surely the knife should be forbidden to be used even for cutting up meat on account of the forbidden fat of carrion that it has absorbed in the past. This forbidden fat would now be imparted into the meat.

²— It was a new [knife]. If new, [it should not be prohibited at all, since] it is merely an appurtenance for the worship of idols, and appurtenances of idols, both according to R. Ishmael and R. Akiba, are not forbidden till actually used in idol worship. — If you wish I can answer: It was used for cutting up wood for the idol; or if you wish I can answer: It was an old knife which was cleansed in the fire. It was stated: If a man slaughtered with the knife of a Gentile, Rab says. He must pare (the flesh]; Rabbah b. Bar Hana says: He need only rinse it. Shall we say that their difference lies in this: One holds the view that the throat is cold. while the other holds the view that it is hot? No. All hold the view that the throat is hot; therefore, he who says: ‘he must pare it’, is clearly understood, but he who says that he need only rinse it [argues thus]: while the organs [of the throat] keep on spurting out blood they will not absorb [any fat from the knife]. Some there are who state as follows: All hold the view that the throat is cold; therefore, he who says: ‘he need only rinse it’.is clearly understood, but he who says that he must pare it [argues thus]: by reason of the pressure of the knife [the flesh] must absorb [to some extent]. A knife which was used for slaughtering an animal found to be trefah, is the subject of a dispute between R. Aha and Rabina. One says, [It must be cleansed] with hot water; the other says. [It may be cleansed even] with cold water. The law is: Even with cold water. And if there is at hand a piece of cloth wherewith to wipe [the knife], nothing more is required. Now what is the reason of the one who says that it must be cleansed with hot water? It is [is it not] because it absorbed forbidden fat? If so, even after slaughtering an animal which is permitted to be eaten it should also require [cleansing with hot water] because it absorbed [the fat] of the limbs of a living animal? — [It is not so;] for [the knife] absorbs [the fat] only when [the throat] is hot, and it becomes hot only at the end of the slaughtering when the animal is ritually permitted. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A butcher requires three separate knives, one for slaughtering, one for cutting meat, and one for cutting away the [forbidden] fat. But why should he not use the same knife first for cutting meat and then for cutting fat? — It is forbidden to do so lest he cut with it the fat first and then the meat. Well, even now, he might get them mixed! — No; since he must have two separate knives he will make a distinguishing mark on each. Again Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A butcher requires two separate pails of water, one in which he washes the meat and one in which he washes the fat. But why should he not use the same pail for washing in it first the meat and then the fat? — It is forbidden to do so lest he wash in it the fat first and then the meat. Well even now, he might get them mixed! — No; since he must have two separate pails he will make a distinguishing mark on each. Amemar said in the name of R. Papa: One should not place the loins on top of other meat for fear that the fat [attached to the loins] will run and will be absorbed by the meat. If so, why not apprehend the same even when the loins lie in their natural position, namely, that the fat [upon the loins] will run and will be absorbed by the flesh [of the loins]? — There is a membrane underneath [the fat of the loins] which separates it [from the flesh of the loins]. But then,^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵗnote:V. A.Z. 51b. These Rabbis differ in the case of a newly made idol as to whether it is prohibited immediately or only after it has been worshipped; but in the case of appurtenances of idols they agree that these are not prohibited until actually used in worship.
^ᵘnote:Therefore there is here no question of any forbidden fat.
^ᵛnote:The knife was thus cleansed and all the forbidden fat removed from it.
^ʷnote:I.e., he must cut away from the parts of the throat which came into contact with this knife a thin layer of flesh because of the fat of forbidden foods that was absorbed in the knife and was now transmitted to the flesh.
^ˣnote:MS.M: Samuel.
^ʸnote:Lit.. ‘the place of slaughtering’, I.e., the throat at the time of slaughtering is not sufficiently hot to absorb much from the knife and, therefore, Rabbah b. Bar Hana maintains that rinsing of the flesh in water is sufficient.
^ᶻnote:Rab's view. Therefore the flesh of the throat must be pared.
^ᵃᵃnote:Nevertheless, it is necessary to wash the flesh because of the forbidden fat that may have been on the surface of the knife.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᶜnote:Before slaughtering another animal with it.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘a shred of a curtain’.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., the fat of the trefah animal that had been slaughtered previously.
^ᵃᶠnote:The fat, as well as the flesh, of a living animal is forbidden, and therefore in the duration of the slaughtering before the requisite amount has been cut, the knife will have absorbed forbidden fat.
^ᵃᵍnote:Without first removing the fat from the knife. ‘Fat’ throughout the whole of this passage means forbidden fat.
^ᵃʰnote:As regards the third knife, the knife for slaughtering, there is no fear that he will use it for any other purpose because of the danger of damaging or notching it.
^ᵃⁱnote:The danger is that particles of the fat will remain in the water and will adhere to any meat washed in the same water.