חולין 9 — Soncino English Talmud

¹is there not a membrane above [the fat]? — [This membrane,] since it is handled by the butcher, crumbles away. Again Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A scholar must learn three things, viz.: writing, shechitah, and circumcision. R. Hanania b. Shelemia said in the name of Rab, He must also learn the art of forming the knot of the Tefillin, the benedictions recited at the marriage ceremony, and the art of binding the Zizith. And the other [Rab Judah]? — [He says], These are frequent. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: One may not eat of the slaughtering of any butcher who does not know the rules of shechitah. And these are the rules of shechitah: [the rules as to] pausing, pressing, thrusting, deflecting, and tearing. Why is it necessary to teach us this? Have we not learnt about each of these [elsewhere]? — It is only necessary for the case where one [not knowing the rules] slaughtered two or three times in our presence correctly. You might argue that since on those occasions he slaughtered correctly so now, too, he will slaughter correctly. It is therefore necessary to teach you that [he may not slaughter because,] since he does not know the rules, it may sometimes happen that he will pause or press, and will not know [that it is wrong to do so]. Again Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The butcher must examine the organs of the throat after slaughtering. R. Joseph remarked: We have learnt the same [in a Mishnah]: R. Simeon says. If one paused for the time taken to examine . . . Now does it not mean the time taken to examine the organs [of the throat]? — Abaye replied: No; thus did R. Johanan say: It means the time taken for the Sage to examine [the knife]. If this is the meaning, then the rule would vary according to circumstances? — Rather [the meaning is]: The time taken for a butcher [who is himself] a Sage to examine [the knife]. If one did not examine [the organs of the throat after slaughtering], what is the law? — R. Eliezer b. Antigonus ruled in the name of R. Eliezer son of R. Jannai: The animal is trefah and may not be eaten. In a Baraitha it was taught: The animal is nebelah and defiles one who carries it. On what principle do they differ? — On the principle laid down by R. Huna, who said: An animal while alive is presumed to be forbidden [and, therefore, remains forbidden when dead] until it becomes known to you that it was ritually slaughtered; once ritually slaughtered, it is presumed to be permitted until it becomes known to you how it became trefah. The one reasons thus: It is presumed to be forbidden, and now that it is dead [it is nebelah and therefore defiles]. The other reasons thus: The presumption holds good only in respect of the prohibition [to be eaten], but there is no presumption in respect of defilement. The text [above stated]: ‘R. Huna said: An animal while alive is presumed to be forbidden [and, therefore, remains forbidden when dead] until it becomes known to you that it was ritually slaughtered; once ritually slaughtered, it is presumed to be permitted until it becomes known to you how it became trefah’. Should he not [simply] have said: ‘Once ritually slaughtered it is permitted’? — He teaches you this: That even if something happened to the animal to impair its status [it is nevertheless permitted]. For example, the question which was put to R. Huna by R. Abba: If a wolf came and carried away the intestines [of a slaughtered animal], what is the law? [You ask] ‘carried away’! Then they are not here! — Rather, say: ‘and perforated the intestines’. ‘Perforated the intestines’! Then it is evident that the wolf did it! Rather say: ‘carried away the intestines and brought them back perforated’ — Now, what is the law? Are we to apprehend that the wolf inserted [its teeth] in a perforation that was there previously, or not? — R. Huna replied: We do not apprehend that it inserted [its teeth] in a perforation. [R. Abba] thereupon raised an objection [from the following Baraitha]: If one saw a bird nibbling at a fig or a mouse nibbling at a melon,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵃnote:For all fat is enclosed in a membrane so that there can be no harm when placing the fat of the loins on top of other meat.
^ᵇnote:V. Glos. When properly tied the knot in the Tefillin worn on the head forms the shape of the Hebrew letter Daleth and that of the letter Yod in the Tefillin worn on the hand.
^ᶜnote:V. Keth. 8b.
^ᵈnote:V. Glos.
^ᵉnote:I.e., the latter three acquirements. These being matters of common knowledge, it is not the special duty of a scholar to learn them. According to another explanation. ‘these’ refers to the accomplishments enumerated by Rab Judah. A scholar should particularly acquire these arts because he will be frequently called upon to practise them.
^ᶠnote:The infringement of any of these rules invalidates the shechitah and renders the animal nebelah (v. Glos.).
^ᵍnote:Heb. vhhva. There should be no pause or interruption while the slaughtering is being performed. The knife should be kept in continuous motion, forward and backward, until the organs or the greater part of them are cut through. V. infra 32a.
^ʰnote:Heb. vxrs. The knife must be moved horizontally across the throat and must not be pressed downwards. V. infra 30b.
^ⁱnote:Heb. vskj. During the act of slaughtering the whole of the knife must be visible. If e.g., one thrust the knife into the side of the throat and thus cut the organs, the slaughtering would be invalid, since the knife would have been covered either by the organs or the skin of the throat. V. infra 32a.
^ʲnote:Heb. vnrdv. The slaughtering must be performed within a certain prescribed region in the throat of the animal. If the knife cut anywhere outside this region the slaughtering would be invalid. V. infra 18a.
^ᵏnote:Heb. ruehg. Various interpretations have been suggested as to the meaning of this term. According to Rashi it means: tearing out the windpipe after having cut through the gullet; V. infra 32a. According to Halakoth Gedoloth it means: cutting through the organs after the windpipe has been dislocated or torn out of its position; v, infra 85a. According to Tosaf. s.v. uvkuf it means: slaughtering with a notched knife, which tears and does not cut the organs. V. article by Dr. S. Daiches in Hazafeh vol. 12, pp. 255-8 where it is shown that the Halakoth Gedoloth in fact agrees with Rashi.
^ˡnote:To satisfy himself that they have been properly and sufficiently cut through.
^ᵐnote:V. infra 32a.
^ⁿnote:It would depend upon whether the Sage was close by or far away; in the latter case the time for examination must, of necessity, be longer than in the former case.
^ᵒnote:V. Glos.
^ᵖnote:Since it is not permitted to eat a limb or flesh cut off from a living animal. This being so, the animal retains its status of being forbidden food until we have definite proof that it has been properly slaughtered. Once, however, we know that an animal has been ritually slaughtered the presumption that it is permitted food will not be rebutted without proof that some internal defect has made it trefah.
^ᵠnote:The Baraitha.
^ʳnote:Following the general rule that any dead animal which has not been ritually slaughtered is nebelah and therefore defiles.
^ˢnote:R. Eliezer son of R. Jannai.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘we say’.
^ᵘnote:R. Eliezer's argument is: The animal is now forbidden only because of the presumption which arose during its lifetime. Now, during its lifetime the animal was forbidden only to be eaten; it certainly could not defile. The effect, therefore, of the presumption can only be to render the animal forbidden to be eaten and not that it should defile.
^ᵛnote:Why speak of a presumption at all?
^ʷnote:E.g., if some defect or disorder is now found in the animal, and there is a doubt whether it was there before the slaughtering or not, the animal is permitted because of the principle stated by R. Huna.
^ˣnote:If the intestines have been carried away we have no reason to apprehend that there was any defect in them.
^ʸnote:In which case the animal would be trefah.
^ᶻnote:Because of the presumption that, once ritually slaughtered, the animal is permitted until it becomes known how it became trefah.

²one must apprehend that it was nibbling in a pre-existing hole! — He replied: How can you compare what is forbidden ritually with what is forbidden on account of possible danger to life! In the latter case we are certainly more apprehensive. Said Raba: What difference is there? Whenever there arises a doubt concerning a prohibition based on danger to life the stricter view is preferred, and the same is the case with regard to a doubt in connection with a ritual prohibition! — Said Abaye to him, Is there then no difference between laws concerning danger to life and laws concerning ritual prohibitions? But let us see! Whenever there is a doubt regarding any object whether it is clean or unclean, if such doubt arose in a public place, it is deemed clean; but whenever there is a doubt regarding water that was left uncovered it is deemed to be forbidden. He answered: In the case of uncleanness the rule is derived by analogy from the case of a woman suspected of adultery, viz., as [the doubt in connection with] the suspected woman can only occur in a private place. so [every doubt in connection with] uncleanness must have occurred in a private place. R. Shimi raised an objection: [We have learnt:] If a weasel has a [dead] reptile in its mouth, and walks over loaves of terumah, and it is doubtful whether the reptile came into contact with the loaves or not, they are deemed clean. Yet in the case of water left uncovered, if there is any doubt about it, it is forbidden? — Here again, the rule [in the case of uncleanness] is derived by analogy from the case of a woman suspected of adultery, viz., as [the doubt in connection with] the suspected woman [relates to a person that] has understanding to be questioned about it, so every doubt in connection with uncleanness must relate to such as have understanding to be questioned about it. Come and hear: If a man left uncovered a bowl [containing purification water] and came and found it covered, it is regarded as unclean, for I can say that an unclean person entered and covered it. If he left it covered and came and found it uncovered, and a weasel or, even a snake, according to R. Gamaliel — could have drunk from it, or if dew fell on it during the night. the water is invalid. And R. Joshua b. Levi said: What is the reason for this?14^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ

^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., , a hole made by a snake in which it deposited poison; the fruit is, therefore, prohibited to be eaten on account of this danger.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. D.S. a.l. Cur. edd.: Said Raba to him (R. Huna).
^ᵃᶜnote:Laws relating to uncleanness come under the category of ritual prohibitions, while the rule concerning waters left uncovered belongs to the class of laws concerning danger to life. The danger in this case is that a snake may have drunk from the water.
^ᵃᵈnote:Where this woman has been in seclusion with her paramour. It is only in such cases that the suspicion is well founded and the woman must undergo the ordeal of the bitter waters, v. Num. V. 11ff. Seclusion with a paramour in a public place is not considered an act of infidelity.
^ᵃᵉnote:And it is only in such cases that the law regards the object as unclean, v. A.Z. 36b. It is thus only because of the analogy drawn from the case of the suspected woman that a doubt of uncleanness in a public place constitutes an exception to the general rule that wherever doubt arises in cases of ritual prohibitions, as well as danger to life, the law adopts the stricter view.
^ᵃᶠnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᵍnote:Even though the doubt arose in a private place; v. Toh. IV, 2, ‘Ed. II, 7.
^ᵃʰnote:The suspected woman could, if she so desired, answer the question whether she was defiled or not.
^ᵃⁱnote:And it is only in such cases that the law regards the person as unclean. Thus a further exception to the general rule is admitted in the case of a doubt regarding uncleanness arising in connection, with anything other than a human being. In the case of the weasel the loaves cannot be asked whether or not they have been defiled.
^ᵃʲnote:V. Num. chap. XIX.
^ᵃᵏnote:R. Gamaliel holds the view that a snake also invalidates the purification water by drinking therefrom, because it spits back the water it drinks into the bowl, and this action invalidates the water because of the reasons given in n. 9, infra.
^ᵃˡnote:And might have fallen into the water. V. MS.M. cur. edd. ‘into it’.
^ᵃᵐnote:But not unclean. V. Parah IX, 3, where it is taught that if a weasel drinks from purification water it becomes invalid, because the weasel, when drinking, laps up the water. Lapping or spitting invalidates the purification water either because it disturbs the water and it is considered as though the water were put to some work, or because by lapping or spitting the water drips back out of the mouth into the bowl, and it is regarded as though the water were poured out of another vessel into the original bowl, and this is not permitted, for according to the biblical injunction there must be living water in the bowl; v. Num. XIX, 17.
^ᵃⁿnote:That in the second case (where the bowl was found uncovered) the water is merely invalid, whereas in the first case (where the bowl was found covered) it is also regarded as unclean.