## Chullin Daf 10a

###### Chullin 10a:1
[Chullin 10a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:1)

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּרְכָּן שֶׁל שְׁרָצִים לְגַלּוֹת, וְאֵין דַּרְכָּן לְכַסּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **due to** the fact **that it is** the typical **manner of creeping animals to expose** the contents of a vessel so that they may drink. Therefore, the exposure of the water is attributed to a creeping animal or to a ritually pure person. By contrast, in a case where he left the vessel exposed and found it covered, the concern is that it was an impure man who covered it, since **it is not** the typical **manner of** creeping animals **to cover** exposed vessels. Evidently, with regard to prohibition or ritual impurity, there are circumstances of uncertainty when the ruling is lenient.


###### Chullin 10a:2
[Chullin 10a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:2)

אִי נָמֵי, טַעְמָא דְּהִנִּיחָהּ מְגוּלָּה וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ מְכוּסָּה, מְכוּסָּה וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ מְגוּלָּה, הָא מְצָאָהּ כְּמָה שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ – לָא טוּמְאָה אִיכָּא וְלָא פְּסוּלָא אִיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** it can be inferred from the *baraita* that **the reason** the contents of the vessel are impure or disqualified, respectively, is **that he left it exposed and came** back **and found it covered** or that he left it **covered and came** back **and found it exposed. But** if **he found** the vessel just **as he left it, there is neither impurity nor disqualification.**


###### Chullin 10a:3
[Chullin 10a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:3)

וְאִילּוּ סְפֵק מַיִם מְגוּלִּים אֲסוּרִין, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חֲמִירָא סַכַּנְתָּא מֵאִיסּוּרָא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in a situation of **uncertainty** where he left **exposed water** and then came and found the vessel exposed, the water is **forbidden** under all circumstances. **Learn from it** that **danger is more severe than prohibition.** The Gemara affirms: Indeed, **learn from it.**


###### Chullin 10a:4
[Chullin 10a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:4)

תְּנַן הָתָם: שְׁלֹשָׁה מַשְׁקִין אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם גִּלּוּי – מַיִם, וְיַיִן, וְחָלָב. כַּמָּה יִשְׁהוּ וְיִהְיוּ אֲסוּרִין? כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּצֵא הָרַחַשׁ מִמָּקוֹם קָרוֹב וְיִשְׁתֶּה. וְכַמָּה מָקוֹם קָרוֹב? אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִתַּחַת אוֹזֶן כְּלִי וְיִשְׁתֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in a mishna **there** (*Terumot* 8:4): **Three liquids are forbidden due to exposure: Water, wine, and milk. How long shall they remain** exposed **and** their contents **will be forbidden?** It is a period **equivalent** to the time necessary so **that a snake could emerge from a proximate place and drink. And how** far away is considered **a proximate place? Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said:** Even a period **equivalent** to the time necessary **so that** a snake **could emerge from beneath the handle of the vessel and drink.**


###### Chullin 10a:5
[Chullin 10a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:5)

יִשְׁתֶּה? הָא קָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא, יִשְׁתֶּה וְיַחֲזוֹר לְחוֹרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If it is only the time necessary for the snake to emerge and **drink, doesn’t one see** the snake drink, in which case there is no uncertainty? **Rather,** it is a period equivalent to the time necessary for a snake to emerge from a proximate place, **drink, and return to its hole.** If one left exposed liquid unattended for that interval, it is possible that the snake drank the liquid unseen by the owner of the liquid.


###### Chullin 10a:6
[Chullin 10a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:6)

אִיתְּמַר: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין וְנִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אֲפִילּוּ שִׁיבֵּר בָּהּ עֲצָמוֹת כׇּל הַיּוֹם – פְּסוּלָה, חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא בָּעוֹר נִפְגְּמָה. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁמָּא בְּעֶצֶם נִפְגְּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** With regard to **one who slaughters** an animal **with a knife that was** afterward **found** to be **notched, Rav Huna says: Even** if, after the slaughter and before the knife was examined, **he broke bones with** the knife **all day,** the slaughter is **not valid,** as **we are concerned that perhaps** the knife **became notched on the hide** of the neck. **And Rav Ḥisda says:** The slaughter is **valid,** as **perhaps** it was **on the bone** that he broke with the knife after the slaughter that **it became notched.**


###### Chullin 10a:7
[Chullin 10a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:7)

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַב הוּנָא כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ, אֶלָּא רַב חִסְדָּא מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר לָךְ: עֶצֶם – וַדַּאי פּוֹגֵם, עוֹר – סָפֵק פּוֹגֵם סָפֵק לָא פּוֹגֵם, הָוֵי סָפֵק וּוַדַּאי, וְאֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, Rav Huna** stated his opinion **in accordance with his *halakha*** cited earlier (9a): An animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition until it becomes known in what manner it was slaughtered. **But** as for **Rav Ḥisda, what is the reason** for his ruling that the slaughter is valid? The Gemara answers that Rav Ḥisda could have **said to you: A bone certainly notches** the knife, but with regard to **hide,** it is **uncertain** whether it **notches** the knife and **uncertain** whether it **does not notch** it. This **is** a case of **certainty and uncertainty, and** the principle is that **an uncertainty does not override a certainty.**


###### Chullin 10a:8
[Chullin 10a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:8)

מֵתִיב רָבָא לְסַיּוֹעֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא: טָבַל וְעָלָה, וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּבָר חוֹצֵץ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְעַסֵּק בְּאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ – לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ טְבִילָה, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר: ״בָּרִי לִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה עָלַי קוֹדֶם לָכֵן״. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּוַדַּאי טָבַל, סָפֵק הֲוָה עֲלֵיהּ סָפֵק לָא הֲוָה עֲלֵיהּ, וְקָאָתֵי סָפֵק וּמוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda **to support** the opinion of **Rav Huna,** from a *baraita*: If **one immersed and emerged** from the ritual bath **and an interposing item was** later **found on him,** then **even if he had been engaged in** handling **that same type** of item for **the entire day** after his immersion, **the immersion does not fulfill his** obligation. This is so **until he will say:** It is **clear to me that** this interposition **was not on me beforehand. And here** it is a case **where he certainly immersed,** and it is **uncertain** whether the interposition **was on him** at that time and **uncertain** whether it **was not on him, and** nevertheless, contrary to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, the **uncertainty overrides** the **certainty.**


###### Chullin 10a:9
[Chullin 10a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:9)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: הַעֲמֵד טָמֵא עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ, וְאֵימַר לֹא טָבַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof: It **is different there, as it can be said: Establish** the status of **the impure** person **on** the basis of **his presumptive status** of impurity, **and say** that **he did not immerse** properly.


###### Chullin 10a:10
[Chullin 10a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:10)

הָכָא נָמֵי, הַעֲמֵד בְּהֵמָה עַל חֶזְקָתָהּ, וְאֵימַר לֹא נִשְׁחֲטָה! הֲרֵי שְׁחוּטָה לְפָנֶיךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Here too, establish** the status of **the animal on** the basis of **its presumptive status** of prohibition **and say** that **it was not slaughtered** properly. Why does Rav Ḥisda rule that it is permitted? The Gemara explains: That status has been undermined, as the **slaughtered** animal **is before you.** There is no indication that the slaughter was not valid, and most slaughtered animals are slaughtered properly.


###### Chullin 10a:11
[Chullin 10a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:11)

הָכָא נָמֵי, הֲרֵי טָבַל לְפָנֶיךָ! הָא אִיתְיְלִידָא בֵּיהּ רֵיעוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Here too,** in the case of immersion, the status of impurity is undermined, as the person who **has immersed** is **before you.** The Gemara explains: The case of immersion is different, as **a flaw developed in** the presumptive validity of the immersion, since there is an interposition.


###### Chullin 10a:12
[Chullin 10a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:12)

הָכָא נָמֵי אִיתְיְלִידָא בַּהּ רֵיעוּתָא! סַכִּין אִיתְרְעַאי, בְּהֵמָה לָא אִיתְרְעַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Here too, a flaw developed in** the presumptive validity of slaughter, as the knife is notched. The Gemara explains: In the case of slaughter, **the knife became flawed,** but **the animal did not become flawed.** Therefore, the animal assumes the presumptive status of permissibility. By contrast, in the case of immersion, the interposition was found on the person, thereby nullifying his presumptive status of purity.


###### Chullin 10a:13
[Chullin 10a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:13)

מֵיתִיבִי: שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּשֶׁט וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה, נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּשֶׁט – פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda from a *baraita*: The slaughter of a bird is valid with the cutting of one *siman*, the windpipe or the gullet. Therefore, if **one cut the gullet, and the windpipe was displaced thereafter,** the slaughter is **valid.** If **the windpipe was displaced and one cut the gullet thereafter,** the slaughter is **not valid.**


###### Chullin 10a:14
[Chullin 10a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:14)

שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּשֶׁט (ונמצא) [וְנִמְצֵאת] הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת שְׁמוּטָה, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמְטָה אִם לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמְטָה, זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְאָמְרוּ: כׇּל סְפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one cut the gullet, and the windpipe was found displaced, and he does not know whether** the windpipe **was displaced before the slaughter** or **whether** it **was displaced after the slaughter; that was** the **incident** that came before the Sages, **and they said:** In **any** case of **uncertainty with regard to slaughter,** the slaughter is **not valid.**


###### Chullin 10a:15
[Chullin 10a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/10a:15)

כׇּל סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לָאו לְאֵתוֹיֵי כְּהַאי גַוְונָא? לָא, לְאֵתוֹיֵי סָפֵק שָׁהָה, סָפֵק דָּרַס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to the expansive formulation: With regard to **any** case of **uncertainty with regard to slaughter, what** does it serve **to add?** Does it **not** serve **to add a case like this** one where there is uncertainty whether the knife was notched before or after the slaughter? The Gemara answers: **No,** it serves **to add** a case of **uncertainty** whether **he interrupted** the slaughter in the middle, or **uncertainty** whether **he pressed** the knife on the *simanim*. If he did either, it invalidates the slaughter.