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 prohibitions!
(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 hole.
15) DOUBTS THAT ARISE AFTER SLAUGHTER
(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.
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 properly.
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.
(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;
1. Here, he certainly immersed, and we are unsure if there was a blockage, and we assume that what is doubtful occurred!
(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 us!
(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?
à. Suggestion: Our case (in which Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue).
(xiii) Answer: No – It includes when we are unsure if he paused or pressed during the slaughter.
10b—————————————10b

(xiv) Question: Why is that invalid, but not our case?
(xv) Answer: There, there was a problem in the animal itself; in our case, there is not (only in the knife).
16) HOW DO WE RULE?
(i) The law is as Rav Huna when the knife was not used to cut bones afterwards;
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.
2. Opinion #1 – Rejection: It can even be as Rav Chisda – the first animal was permitted, the rest were forbidden.
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!
(v) Rav Kahana required butchers to check their knives after every slaughter.
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 of subsequent animals.
3. Question: If so, (the checking is to permit the meat) – we should require a Chacham to check the knife!
4. Answer: 1 witness (i.e. the butcher himself) is believed to testify about what is permitted and forbidden.
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.
17) ONE WITNESS IS BELIEVED TO SAY WHAT IS PERMITTED OR FORBIDDEN
(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!
2. Rejection: It must be, the principle of following Chazakah allows us to assume that the plague is still large enough!
(iii) Question (Rav Acha bar Yakov): Perhaps the Kohen exited the house walking backwards, and saw the plague the whole time!
(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.
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!)
(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 called ‘leaving’!
(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 closes it.
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 required size!)