Chullin 19

Chapter 19

א מפני שדרכן של שרצים לגלות ואין דרכן לכסות

1 Because it is the habit of reptiles to uncover [a vessel]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, in the second case the alternatives are (a) the bowl might have been uncovered by a reptile or by a clean person - in either case the water remains clean; (b) it might have been uncovered by an unclean person which would make the water unclean. The chances being more in favour of the first alternative, the water is regarded as clean on the principle of following the majority.');">1

ב (אי נמי טעמא דהניחה מגולה ובא ומצאה מכוסה מכוסה ובא ומצאה מגולה הא מצאה כמה שהניחה לא טומאה איכא ולא פסולה איכא)

2 but not to cover one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, in the first case, as the possibility of a reptile having covered the bowl is excluded, the only alternatives are that it was covered either by a clean person or by an unclean person; and as the one is not more probable than the other, the law adopts the stricter view and regards the water as unclean.');">2

ג ואילו ספק מים מגולים אסורין

3 .3

ד ש"מ

4 Whereas, in the case of water left uncovered, if there is any doubt about it, it is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the ground of danger to life. In cases regarding uncleanness however, it is clear from the foregoing statements that the law does not always adopt the stricter view; v. n. 2.');">4

ה חמירא סכנתא מאיסורא ש"מ

5 This, therefore, proves that regulations concerning danger to life are more stringent than ritual prohibitions.

ו תנן התם ג' משקין אסורין משום גלוי

6 It stands proved.

ז מים ויין וחלב

7 We have learnt elsewhere:5

ח כמה ישהו ויהיו אסורין

8 Three liquids are prohibited if left uncovered; water, wine and milk.6

ט כדי שיצא הרחש ממקום קרוב וישתה

9 How long must they have remained [uncovered] to become forbidden?

י וכמה מקום קרוב

10 Such time as it would take a reptile to come forth from a place near by and drink.

יא א"ר יצחק בריה דרב יהודה

11 What distance is meant by 'a place near by'?

יב כדי שיצא מתחת אוזן כלי וישתה

12 R'Isaac the son of Rab Judah explained: Such time as it would take a reptile to come Forth from under the handle of the vessel and drink therefrom.'

יג ישתה

13 And drink therefrom'! Then you see it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the time limit here laid down, it is clear that a man who came at the end of this period would see the reptile at the vessel, if any reptile had come; and there would therefore be no doubt but that the liquids had been poisoned. If, on the other hand, no reptile is seen, it is clear that no reptile could have been there in his absence.');">7

יד הא קא חזי ליה

14 - Rather; And drink therefrom and return to its hole.

טו אלא ישתה ויחזור לחורו:

15 It was stated: If a man slaughtered with a knife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed throughout the whole of this discussion that the knife was perfectly good at the beginning, i.e., it had been examined before the slaughtering and pronounced to be free from notches.');">8

טז איתמר

16 which was found afterwards to have a notch in it, R'Huna says, even if he broke bones with it the whole day long [after the slaughtering], the shechitah is invalid, because we apprehend that it became notched while cutting the skin [before actually cutting the throat].

יז השוחט בסכין ונמצאת פגומה אמר רב הונא

17 R'Hisda, however, says that the shechitah is valid, because we assume that it became notched by a bone.

יח אפילו שיבר בה עצמות כל היום פסולה חיישינן שמא בעור נפגמה

18 Now R'Huna's opinion is clear, it being in accordance with the principle he laid down above;9

יט ורב חסדא אמר

19 but what is the reason of R'Hisda's opinion? - He reasons thus: A bone certainly notches [the knife], whereas the skin may or may not notch [the knife]; there is thus a doubt against a certainty, and a doubt cannot set aside a certainty.

כ כשרה שמא בעצם נפגמה

20 Raba raised an objection [against R'Hisda], thereby supporting the opinion of R'Huna.

כא בשלמא רב הונא כשמעתיה אלא רב חסדא מאי טעמא

21 [It was taught: ] If a man immersed himself and came up,10

כב אמר לך

22 and then there was found something adhering to his body,11

כג עצם ודאי פוגם עור ספק פוגם ספק לא פוגם הוי ספק וודאי ואין ספק מוציא מידי ודאי

23 even though he was using that particular substance all day long [after his immersion], it is not regarded as a proper immersion unless he can declare: 'I am certain it was not upon me before [my immersion]' - Now in this case, he certainly immersed himself, and there is a doubt whether the substance was or was not upon him [before his immersion], yet the doubt sets aside the certainty! - This case is different, for one can say: Let the unclean person remain in his [unclean] status, and assume that there has been no immersion.

כד מתיב רבא לסיועיה לרב הונא

24 Well, then, in our case too, one can say: let the animal remain in its [forbidden] status, and assume that there has been no slaughtering? - Surely the animal is slaughtered before us.

כה טבל ועלה ונמצא עליו דבר חוצץ אע"פ שנתעסק באותו המין כל היום כולו לא עלתה לו טבילה עד שיאמר

25 But, here too, surely this man has immersed himself before us! In the latter case, something has happened to impair [his immersion].

כו ברי לי שלא היה עלי קודם לכן

26 But in the former case, too, something has happened to impair [the slaughtering]! - No; the defect is in the knife but not in the animal.

כז והא הכא דודאי טבל ספק הוה עליה ספק לא הוה עליה וקאתי ספק ומוציא מידי ודאי

27 An objection was raised: If one cut through the gullet12

כח שאני התם דאיכא למימר

28 and then the windpipe was torn away from its position, the slaughtering is valid.

כט העמד טמא על חזקתו ואימא לא טבל

29 If the windpipe was first torn away and then one cut through the gullet, the slaughtering is invalid.

ל ה"נ העמד בהמה על חזקתה ואימר לא נשחטה

30 If one cut through the gullet and then the windpipe was found to be torn away, and it is not known whether it was torn away before or after the slaughtering - this was an actual case [brought before the Rabbis], and they ruled: Any doubt whatsoever arising about the slaughtering makes it invalid.

לא הרי שחוטה לפניך

31 Now what is the scope of this rule?13

לב ה"נ הרי טבל לפניך

32 Does it not include the case mentioned above?14

לג הא איתילידא ביה ריעותא

33 - No.

לד ה"נ איתילידא בה ריעותא

34 It includes those cases where there is a doubt as to whether or not one paused or pressed [in the act of slaughtering].

לה סכין איתרעאי בהמה לא איתרעאי

לו מיתיבי

לז שחט את הושט ואח"כ נשמטה הגרגרת כשרה נשמטה הגרגרת ואח"כ שחט את הושט פסולה

לח שחט את הושט ונמצא הגרגרת שמוטה ואינו יודע אם קודם שחיטה נשמטה אם לאחר שחיטה נשמטה זה היה מעשה ואמרו

לט כל ספק בשחיטה פסול

מ כל ספק בשחיטה לאתויי מאי

מא לאו לאתויי כה"ג

מב לא לאתויי ספק שהה ספק דרס

Previous Chapter Next Chapter