## Chullin Daf 10b

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

וּמַאי שְׁנָא? הָתָם אִיתְיְלִידָא בַּהּ רֵיעוּתָא בִּבְהֵמָה, הָכָא סַכִּין אִיתְרְעַאי, בְּהֵמָה לָא אִיתְרְעַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in **what** way is uncertainty whether he interrupted the slaughter or pressed the knife **different** from uncertainty whether the knife became notched before or after the slaughter? The Gemara answers: **There,** in the case of uncertainty with regard to interruption or pressing, **the flaw developed in the animal,** and the slaughter is not valid. **Here,** in the case of uncertainty whether the knife became notched before or after the slaughter, **a flaw developed in the knife** but **a flaw did not develop in the animal,** and the slaughter is valid.


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

וְהִילְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, כְּשֶׁלֹּא שִׁיבֵּר בָּהּ עֶצֶם. וְהִילְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, כְּשֶׁשִּׁיבֵּר בָּהּ עֶצֶם. מִכְּלָל דְּרַב חִסְדָּא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא שִׁיבֵּר בָּהּ עֶצֶם? אֶלָּא בְּמַאי אִיפְּגִים? אֵימָא: בְּעֶצֶם דְּמַפְרֶקֶת אִיפְּגִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Huna** that the slaughter is not valid in a case **where he did not break a bone with** the knife. **And the *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Ḥisda** that the slaughter is valid in a case **where he broke a bone with** the knife. Learn **by inference that Rav Ḥisda** rules that the slaughter is valid **even if he did not break a bone with** the knife. The Gemara asks: **But** if he did not break bones, **on what was** the knife **notched?** It must have been on the hide. Why, then, is the slaughter valid? The Gemara answers: **Say** that **it was notched on the neck bone** after he completed slaughtering the animal.


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

הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא וְטָרַף רַב יוֹסֵף עַד תְּלֵיסַר חֵיוָתָא, כְּמַאן? כְּרַב הוּנָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּקַמַּיְיתָא? לָא, כְּרַב חִסְדָּא, וּלְבַר מִקַּמַּיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **There was an incident, and Rav Yosef deemed as many as thirteen animals *tereifot*** when he discovered the knife was notched after slaughtering the final animal. The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion did Rav Yosef issue his ruling? Is it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Huna,** who holds that the concern is that the knife was notched by the animal’s hide, **and** he ruled that **even the first** animal is forbidden? The Gemara answers: **No,** perhaps it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Ḥisda,** who holds that the notch is attributed to the neck bone, **and** they are all forbidden **except for the first** animal.


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם כְּרַב הוּנָא, דְּאִי כְּרַב חִסְדָּא, מִכְּדֵי מִתְלָא תָּלֵינַן, מִמַּאי דִּבְעֶצֶם דְּמַפְרֶקֶת דְּקַמַּיְיתָא אִיפְּגִים? דִּלְמָא בְּעֶצֶם דְּמַפְרֶקֶת דְּבָתְרָיְיתָא אִיפְּגִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **Actually,** it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Huna, as, if** it were **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Ḥisda, since we attribute** the notch to the neck bone as a leniency, **from where** is it ascertained **that** it is **on the neck bone of the first** animal that **it was notched? Perhaps** it is **on the neck bone of the last** animal that **it was notched,** and all of the animals are permitted.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: רַב כָּהֲנָא מַצְרֵיךְ בְּדִיקוּתָא בֵּין כֹּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא. כְּמַאן? כְּרַב הוּנָא, וּלְמִיפְסַל קַמַּיְיתָא? לָא, כְּרַב חִסְדָּא, וּלְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי בָּתְרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Rav Kahana requires an examination** of the knife **between each and every** act of slaughter. The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion did Rav Kahana issue his ruling? Is it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Huna, and** he stated the *halakha* **to invalidate** the slaughter of **the first** animal that he slaughtered if he discovers a notch in the knife? The Gemara answers: **No,** perhaps it is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Ḥisda,** according to the first of the two explanations of the ruling of Rav Yosef, who holds that if a notch is found it is attributed to the neck bone, **and** examination of the knife is required **to validate** the slaughter of **the next** animal.


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

אִי הָכִי, תִּיבְעֵי נָמֵי בְּדִיקַת חָכָם! עֵד אֶחָד נֶאֱמָן בְּאִיסּוּרִין. אִי הָכִי, מֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי לָא! הָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא אָמְרוּ לְהַרְאוֹת סַכִּין לְחָכָם אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל חָכָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **If so,** and the reference is to the examination before slaughter, the knife **should require the examination of a** Torah **scholar** that was required by the Sages. The Gemara explains: There is no need for a Sage to examine the knife, based on the principle: The testimony of **one witness,** in this case the slaughterer, **is deemed credible with regard to ritual matters.** The Gemara challenges: **If so, even from the outset,** examination of the knife by a Torah scholar should **also not** be required. The Gemara explains: **Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that the Sages **said to show** the **knife to a** Torah **scholar only due to** the requirement to show **deference to the Sage?** Once deference was shown before the initial slaughter, it is no longer necessary to do so.


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

מְנַָא הָא מִלְּתָא דַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן: אוֹקֵי מִילְּתָא אַחֶזְקֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the statement of Rav Huna that an animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, and therefore in cases of uncertainty whether the animal was properly slaughtered, one rules stringently and it is prohibited to eat its flesh, the Gemara asks: **From where is this matter that the Sages said: Establish** the status of **the matter on** the basis of **its presumptive status,** derived?


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

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן, אָמַר קְרָא ״וְיָצָא הַכֹּהֵן מִן הַבַּיִת אֶל פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת וְהִסְגִּיר אֶת הַבַּיִת שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״, דִּלְמָא אַדְּנָפֵיק וְאָתֵא בְּצַר לֵיהּ שִׁיעוּרָא! אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן אוֹקֵי אַחֶזְקֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said** that **Rabbi Yonatan said** that **the verse states** with regard to leprosy of houses that after a priest views a leprous mark: **“And the priest shall emerge from the house to the entrance of the house, and quarantine the house seven days”** (Leviticus 14:38). The Gemara asks: How can the priest quarantine the house based on his viewing the leprous mark? **Perhaps as he was emerging and coming** out of the house, the size of the leprous mark diminished and **it lacks** the requisite **measure** for leprosy. **Rather, is it not due to** the fact **that we say: Establish** the status of **the matter on** the basis of **its presumptive status?**


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: וְדִילְמָא כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא דֶּרֶךְ אֲחוֹרָיו, דְּקָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ כִּי נָפֵק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to** that proof: **And perhaps** the verse is referring to a case **where** the priest **emerged backward, as** in that case, the priest **sees** the leprous mark **as he emerges.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר, חֲדָא, דִּיצִיאָה דֶּרֶךְ אֲחוֹרָיו לֹא שְׁמָהּ יְצִיאָה, וְעוֹד, אֲחוֹרֵי הַדֶּלֶת מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּפָתַח בֵּיהּ כַּוְּותָא – וְהָתְנַן: בַּיִת אָפֵל אֵין פּוֹתְחִין בּוֹ חַלּוֹנוֹת לִרְאוֹת אֶת נִגְעוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him** that there are **two refutations of** that **statement. One** is **that emerging backward is not called emerging,** and the priest would not fulfill the verse “And the priest shall emerge from the house” by doing so. **And furthermore,** in a case where the leprous mark is **behind the door, what is there to say?** Even walking backward would not enable the priest to see it. **And if you would say that** the priest can **open a window in** the wall to enable him to see the leprous mark, **but didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Nega’im* 2:3): **In a dark house one may not open windows** to enable him **to see his leprous mark?**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ יְצִיאָה דֶּרֶךְ אֲחוֹרָיו לֹא שְׁמָהּ יְצִיאָה – כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים יוֹכִיחַ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ יְצִיאָה, וּתְנַן: יָצָא וּבָא לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ כְּנִיסָתוֹ. וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ בַּיִת אָפֵל אֵין פּוֹתְחִין בּוֹ חַלּוֹנוֹת לִרְאוֹת אֶת נִגְעוֹ – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אִיתַּחְזַק, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתַּחְזַק – אִיתַּחְזַק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Abaye: With regard to **that which you say: Emerging backward is not called emerging,** the case of the **High Priest on Yom Kippur will prove** that this is not so, **as emerging is written in his** regard (see Leviticus 16:18), **and we learned** in a mishna (*Yoma* 52b): The High Priest **emerged and came** out backward in the **manner of his entry,** facing the Ark in the Holy of Holies. **And** with regard to **that which you say: In a dark house, one may not open windows** to enable him **to see his leprous mark, this statement** applies only in a case **where** the existence of a leprous mark in the house **was not** yet **established;** but in a case **where** the existence of a leprous mark in the house **was** already **established, it was established,** and the priest may open a window to view it.


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

תַּנְיָא דְּלָא כְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, ״וְיָצָא הַכֹּהֵן מִן הַבַּיִת״ – יָכוֹל יֵלֵךְ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְיַסְגִּיר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita* **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov,** who suggested that the verse is referring to a case where the priest emerged from the house backward and therefore there is no proof that one lets the matter remain in its presumptive status. It is written: **“And the priest shall emerge from the house** to the entrance of the house and quarantine the house.” One **might** have thought that **he may go into his** own **house and quarantine** the house from there; therefore, **the verse states: “To the entrance of the house,”** referring to the house that is being quarantined.


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

אִי ״פֶּתַח הַבָּיִת״, יָכוֹל יַעֲמוֹד תַּחַת הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְיַסְגִּיר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִן הַבַּיִת״ – עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מִן הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ. הָא כֵּיצַד? עוֹמֵד בְּצַד הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וּמַסְגִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** he must emerge to **the entrance of the house,** one **might** have thought that **he may stand beneath the lintel and quarantine** the house; therefore, **the verse states: “From the house,”** indicating that he does not quarantine the house **until he emerges from the house in its entirety. How so? He stands alongside the lintel and quarantines** the house.


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

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הָלַךְ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְהִסְגִּיר, אוֹ שֶׁעָמַד בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת וְהִסְגִּיר, שֶׁהֶסְגֵּרוֹ מוּסְגָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִסְגִּיר אֶת הַבַּיִת״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: **And from where** is it derived **that if he went inside his** own **house and quarantined** the leprous house, **or that** if **he stood inside the** leprous **house and quarantined** it, **that his quarantine is** a valid **quarantine?** It is derived from that which **the verse states: “And quarantine the house,”** meaning **in any case.** Apparently, the quarantine is valid even if he is unable to see the leprous mark, as the mark remains in its previous presumptive status.


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

וְרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov** interprets the *baraita* in accordance with his opinion