11) IMPORTANT THINGS TO KNOW

(i) Question: If so, why can’t we put the flank on top?
(ii) Answer: In handling the flank, the butcher breaks the membrane.
(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 the Mishnah!
(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.
12) CHECKING AFTER SLAUGHTER
(i) (Rav Yehudah): The butcher must check the signs after slaughter.
1. Support (Rav Yosef – Beraisa – R. Shimon): If he paused the time needed for checking….
à. Suggestion: This means the time for checking the signs.
(ii) Rejection (Abaye): No – it means the time for the Chacham (of the city) to check the knife.
(iii) Objection: But this time varies (depending how far away the Chacham is)!
(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 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.
(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;
(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 question?!
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 the question?!
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.
13) ARE WE MORE STRINGENT BY PHYSICAL DANGERS?
(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.
9b—————————————9b

(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 stringent!
1. By a doubtful case of Tum’ah in a public domain, we are lenient; by a doubtful case of exposed water, we are stringent!
(v) Answer (Rava): Tum’ah in a public domain is an exception – it is a tradition from Moshe from Sinai, to learn from Sotah.
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 domain.
(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 are Tahor.
1. By a doubtful case of exposed water, we are stringent!
(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 it;
(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;
2. According to R. Gamliel – a snake can drink from it; 3. Dew descended at night.
(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.