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 10
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.
14) EXPOSED LIQUIDS
(i) By a case of exposed water, we are concerned that a snake
drank from it (even if it was exposed the whole time, and
we have no evidence that anything happened at all) - this
shows, we are more stringent by danger than by
15) DOUBTS THAT ARISE AFTER SLAUGHTER
(ii) (Mishnah): 3 liquids are forbidden if they were exposed:
water, wine and milk;
1. If they are exposed for the amount of time it takes
for a snake to come from a nearby hiding place and
drink, they may not be drunk.
2. Question: What is considered a nearby place?
3. Answer (R. Yitzchak, brei d'Rav Yehudah): To come
from under the handle of the flask, and drink.
4. Objection: If they were only exposed for the time to
come and drink - if a snake drank, one would still
see it (for it had no time to return)!
5. Correction: Rather, they must be exposed for the
time of a snake to come, drink and return to its
(i) (Rav Huna): After slaughter, the knife was found to be
blemished - even if the knife was used to break bones the
entire day (after the slaughter, before it was checked),
the slaughter is invalid - we are concerned that the
knife became blemished when it cut the animal's skin,
before cutting the signs;
(ii) (Rav Chisda): The animal is permitted - we assume that it
became blemished when cutting a bone.
1. We understand Rav Huna - he holds as his teaching.
(iii) Question (Rava): A Tamei man immersed, and later found an
obstruction on his body. Even if he was working the whole day
(after immersing) with the substance he found on his body, the
immersion does not count, unless he is sure that there was no
blockage when he immersed;
2. (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
3. Question: Why is Rav Chisda's reason?
4. Answer: A bone certainly can blemish the knife -
perhaps the skin can. We attribute (the blemish) to
something certain, not to something doubtful.
1. Here, he certainly immersed, and we are unsure if
there was a blockage, and we assume that what is
(iv) Answer: That case is different - the man was known to be
Tamei, we leave him in his status quo.
(v) Question: Here also, the animal was forbidden to eat
before slaughter, we should leave it in its status quo,
and say the slaughter was invalid!
(vi) Answer: You cannot say that - it is slaughtered in front of
(vii) Question: Also here, the man immersed in front of us!
(viii) Answer: By the man, something (the blockage) suggests that
the immersion may have been invalid.
(ix) Question: Also by slaughter, the blemish on the knife
suggests that the slaughter may have been invalid!
(x) Answer: There, the blemish is not on the party in
question (the animal itself) - by immersion, the blockage
is on the man himself.
(xi) Question (Beraisa): If one slaughtered the Vesht, and then
the Kaneh was uprooted, it is Kosher; if the Kaneh was
uprooted before cutting the Vesht, it is invalid;
(xii) If one found the Kaneh uprooted, and does not know if this
happened before or after cutting the Vesht - any doubtful
slaughter is invalid.
1. Question: What do the words 'any doubtful slaughter
is invalid' come to include?
(xiii) Answer: No - It includes when we are unsure if he paused
or pressed during the slaughter.
à. Suggestion: Our case (in which Rav Huna and Rav Chisda
(xiv) Question: Why is that invalid, but not our case?
16) HOW DO WE RULE?
(xv) Answer: There, there was a problem in the animal itself; in
our case, there is not (only in the knife).
(i) The law is as Rav Huna when the knife was not used to cut
17) ONE WITNESS IS BELIEVED TO SAY WHAT IS PERMITTED OR FORBIDDEN
1. The law is as Rav Chisda when the knife was used to
cut bones afterwards.
(ii) Question: If we must rule as Rav Huna when the knife was not
used to cut bones afterwards, it must be that Rav Chisda
argues - to what will he attribute the blemish in the knife?
(iii) Answer: It became blemished by the backbone.
(iv) There was a case; Rav Yosef declared 13 animals to be
forbidden because of a blemish found in the knife after they
were all slaughtered.
1. Suggestion: This must be as Rav Huna; also the first
animal was forbidden.
(v) Rav Kahana required butchers to check their knives after
2. Opinion #1 - Rejection: It can even be as Rav Chisda
- the first animal was permitted, the rest were
3. Opinion #2: No, it must be as Rav Huna, for Rav
Chisda is lenient to say that the knife became
blemished on the backbone;
à. If so he should also be lenient to say that it became
blemished on the backbone of the last animal,
and all are permitted!
1. Suggestion: He holds as Rav Huna; if a blemish is
found, this disqualifies the previous slaughter.
2. Rejection: No, he can hold as Rav Chisda - even if a
blemish is found, we attribute it to the backbone,
the slaughter was Kosher;
à. The knife must be checked to avoid invalid slaughter
3. Question: If so, (the checking is to permit the
meat) - we should require a Chacham to check the
4. Answer: 1 witness (i.e. the butcher himself) is
believed to testify about what is permitted and
5. Question: If so, a Chacham should not be needed to
check the knife before slaughtering either!
6. Answer: Correct! R. Yochanan taught, the only reason
we require the Chacham to check the knife is for the
honor of the Chacham.
(i) Question: Chachamim say that when in doubt, we go after
Chazakah (the status quo) - what is the source for this?
(ii) Answer (R. Yochanan): "The Kohen will leave the house, to
the entrance; he will close the house for 7 days (he declares
it to be leprous)".
1. Suggestion: Perhaps as he left, the plague got
smaller, and it is now smaller than the size needed
to make a house leprous!
(iii) Question (Rav Acha bar Yakov): Perhaps the Kohen exited the
house walking backwards, and saw the plague the whole time!
2. Rejection: It must be, the principle of following
Chazakah allows us to assume that the plague is
still large enough!
(iv) Answer #1 (Abaye): The Torah says, he will leave the house -
walking backwards is not called 'leaving'.
(v) Answer #2 (Abaye): If the plague is in back of the door,
in any case he cannot see it after exiting!
1. Suggestion: Perhaps he will make an opening in the
door to see the plague.
(vi) Objection (Rava - to Answer #1): It says that the Kohen
Gadol leaves the Kodesh ha'Kadoshim - yet the Mishnah says, he
exits the way he entered - we see, walking backwards is not
2. Rejection (Mishnah): We do not make a window in a
dark house to enable the Kohen to see the plague.
(And the same applies here!)
(vii) Objection (Rava - to Answer #2): Perhaps we do not make an
opening to see if a discoloration in the wall is truly a
plague - but once a plague was seen, we make a window to see
if it is still the proper size!
(viii) Question (against Rav Acha bar Yakov - Beraisa): "The
Kohen will leave the house" - one might have thought, he
returns to his own house and (later returns to) close (the
house) - "To the entrance";
1. Since it says "To the entrance", one might have
thought, he stands in the doorway and closes - "From
the house", he must fully leave the house.
à. To fulfill this, he stands outside the doorway and
2. "And he will close the house" - this includes, if he
returned to his own house and closed, or closed it
from inside the plagued house, it gets the law of a
leprous house. (Even though he cannot see the plague
from his own house, he may assume it still has the