POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Chulin 9
CHULIN 9-10 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs.
Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the fourth Yahrzeit of her father, Reb
Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Weiner), who passed away 18 Teves 5760. May the
merit of supporting and advancing Talmud study during the week of his
Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.
11) IMPORTANT THINGS TO KNOW
(i) Question: If so, why can't we put the flank on top?
12) CHECKING AFTER SLAUGHTER
(ii) Answer: In handling the flank, the butcher breaks the
(iii) (Rav Yehudah citing Rav): A Chacham must train himself to
do 3 things: to sign his name, slaughter and circumcision.
(iv) (Rav Chananya citing Rav): He must also know to make the
knot of Tefilin, the blessing of Chasanim, and Tzitzis.
1. Rav Yehudah held that these are common, the Chacham
need not train himself to learn them.
(v) (Rav Yehudah): Any butcher that does not know the laws of
slaughter, it is forbidden to eat from his slaughter;
1. The laws (things which disqualify slaughter) are:
pausing; chopping the signs (not in a back and forth
motion); inserting the knife between the &signs and
cutting; not completing the slaughter in the ring of
the windpipe in the slaughter began; and uprooting
one of the signs from its place.
(vi) Question: What is he teaching - all of these are explicit in
(vii) Answer: Even if we have seen the butcher slaughter nicely 2
or 3 times, we may not rely on his slaughter.
1. Since he does not know the laws, he may have paused
or chopped without realizing.
(i) (Rav Yehudah): The butcher must check the signs after
13) ARE WE MORE STRINGENT BY PHYSICAL DANGERS?
1. Support (Rav Yosef - Beraisa - R. Shimon): If he
paused the time needed for checking....
(ii) Rejection (Abaye): No - it means the time for the Chacham
(of the city) to check the knife.
à. Suggestion: This means the time for checking the
(iii) Objection: But this time varies (depending how far away the
(iv) Correction: Rather, the time for the butcher himself to
check the knife (when he is the Chacham).
(v) Question: What is the law if the signs were not checked?
(vi) Answer #1 (R. Elazar ben Antigonus): It is as a trf, and it
is forbidden to eat.
(vii) Answer #2 (Beraisa): It is a Neveilah, and it conveys
Tum'ah to one who moves it.
(viii) The 2 opinions argue regarding Rav Huna's law.
1. (Rav Huna): An animal is forbidden (to eat) when it
is alive - after death, we assume it is still
forbidden unless we know that it was slaughtered
(ix) (Rav Huna): An animal is forbidden (to eat) when it is alive
- after death, we assume it is still forbidden unless we know
that it was slaughtered properly;
à. A slaughtered animal - we assume it is permitted,
unless we know that it was a trf.
2. The Beraisa says that we assume it is still
forbidden, i.e. it is a Neveilah;
3. R. Elazar ben Antigonus says that we know that it
was forbidden to eat, so we assume it is still
forbidden to eat; but we do not have a source to say
that it conveys Tum'ah.
(x) A slaughtered animal - we assume it is permitted, unless
we know that it was a trf.
(xi) Question: Why didn't Rav Huna simply say 'it is permitted,
(unless we know that it was slaughtered properly)'?
(xii) Answer: To teach, even if we have grounds to suspect that
it was a trf, we assume it is Kosher.
1. Question (R. Aba): A wolf took the innards of a
slaughtered animal - what is the law?
à. Objection: If they are not here - what is the
2. Correction: Rather - if it punctured the innards of
a slaughtered animal - what is the law?
à. Objection: If we know that it punctured them - what is
3. Correction: Rather - if it took the innards of a
slaughtered animal, and returned them punctured -
what is the law?
à. Are we concerned that there was already a hole where
the wolf bit?
4. Answer (Rav Huna): We are not concerned.
(i) Question (Beraisa): If one saw a bird pecking at a fig,
or a mouse making holes in a watermelon, we are concerned
that there was already a hole there from a snake, and the
food must not be eaten.
(ii) Answer (Rav Huna): You cannot ask from there - we are more
stringent by danger than by prohibitions!
(iii) Question (Rava): What is the difference? In both cases, we
are stringent when in doubt!
(iv) Counter-question (Abaye): You cannot say we are equally
1. By a doubtful case of Tum'ah in a public domain, we
are lenient; by a doubtful case of exposed water, we
(v) Answer (Rava): Tum'ah in a public domain is an exception
- it is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai, to learn from
1. By Sotah we are only stringent by doubtful cases in
a private domain (i.e. seclusion) - also by Tum'ah,
we are only stringent by doubtful cases in a private
(vi) Question (Rav Simi - Mishnah): A weasel was walking among
loaves of Terumah, holding a dead rodent in its mouth; we are
unsure if the rodent touched the loaves - we say, the loaves
1. By a doubtful case of exposed water, we are
(vii) Answer: The case of the weasel is also an exception - it is
a tradition from Moshe from Sinai, to learn from Sotah!
1. By Sotah we are only stringent when the party that
doubtfully became Tamei (the woman) has
understanding to answer questions - also by Tum'ah,
we are only stringent by such cases.
(viii) (Rav Ashi - Beraisa): A flask (with water to be sanctified
with ashes of the red heifer) was left open and was found
covered - it is Tamei, we assume that a Tamei person covered
(ix) If it was left covered and was found open - in any of the
following cases, the water may not be sanctified with ashes of
the red heifer:
1. (It is in a place that) a weasel can drink from it;
(x) (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): The reason why we are concerned
for people in the first case, and for rodents in the
second case, is because it is the way of rodents to
expose things, not to cover them.
2. According to R. Gamliel - a snake can drink from it;
3. Dew descended at night.