Chullin 8a (ח.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: If one heated a knife

in fire

and slaughtered with it

while it was still hot

—his slaughter is valid.

Although there is reason to declare the animal non-kosher, because the heat of the knife burns the esophagus when it touches it during slaughter and perforates it—and a perforated esophagus is one of the eighteen conditions that render an animal a tereifa—nevertheless, the animal is kosher, because the cutting of the simanim, which is caused by the

sharpness

of the knife,

precedes

the burning of the esophagus caused by the

heating

of the knife. Once the slaughter has been completed, it is no longer possible for the animal to become a tereifa.

And we raise an objection:

But there are the sides

of the knife. When the heated knife enters the place of the cut, it burns the simanim on both sides before it cuts through most of them, and the slaughter is not yet completed until most of the simanim have been severed. It follows that the animal becomes a tereifa before the slaughter is completed!

And we answer:

The slaughtering site widens

as a result of the cutting by the sharp edge of the knife. The cut widens, and its two sides move away from the sides of the knife and do not touch the heated knife; rather, only the sharp edge of the knife touches the simanim during the actual cutting. Therefore, the heat of the knife does not perforate the simanim.

A patch of skin that had a boil or a burn, meaning that the flesh became heated because of the boil or burn, and the skin over it peeled away, then healed and developed a scab, and a leprous affliction appeared on it—is that affliction, which occurred over the boil or burn, distinct from an ordinary leprous affliction, as will be explained below.

They raised a dilemma before them: If one heated a spit and struck with it

with force against flesh, so that the place became heated both because of the blow and because of the heat of the fire, and afterward an affliction appeared in that place:

Does it

come under the category of a “boil”

because

it is classified

as such, since the place became heated because of the blow,

or does it come under the category of a “burn”

because

it is classified

as such, since the place became heated because of the fire? The alternatives underlying the dilemma will be explained below.

The Gemara asks:

What practical difference is there

as to which category it comes under? After all, a boil and a burn have the same laws!

And we explain:

This is relevant to that which was taught

as we learned in tractate Nega’im [3:4]: Afflictions that appeared in the place of a

boil or burn

differ in their laws from other afflictions in two respects.

The first is that they

render impure

only

during one week.

That is, unlike other afflictions: in the case of a boil or burn on which a leprous affliction appeared, the person is confined for only one week, and if the signs of impurity—a white hair or the spreading of the affliction—did not appear at the end of the first week, he immediately becomes pure. In the case of other afflictions, however, if no signs of impurity appeared at the end of the first week, he is confined for a second week, and only at its end does he become pure if no signs of impurity have appeared.

The second is that both of them render impure only

through two signs: a white hair

that appears in the place of the affliction,

and spreading

[expansion] of the affliction.

But the law of “living flesh” does not apply to them, which is a sign of impurity in an ordinary affliction [for if there is living flesh within the affliction, he is impure], because “living flesh” cannot occur in the place of a boil or burn.

In contrast, a se’et and a sapahat have three signs: spreading, living flesh, and a white hair.

And

since a boil and a burn have the same law,

why did the Torah divide them

into two passages?

To say that they do not combine with one another.

The requisite size of each is a gris [half a bean]. If there was an affliction measuring half the requisite size of a boil, and adjacent to it an affliction measuring half the requisite size of a burn, the two half-measures do not combine to constitute the requisite size of an affliction—not as a burn and not as a boil—and it does not render impure at all.

And we learned

[Nega’im 9:1]:

What is a “boil,” and what is a “burn”?

If he was struck by wood

or

by a stone

and the flesh became heated through the force of the blow, or his flesh came into contact with

olive press refuse

—waste

of olives, which is naturally hot—or his flesh was burned by the hot springs of Tiberias,

which are hot on their own,

or by anything that does not result from fire.

The meaning of “anything” is

to include lead,

which is

in its original state,

at the place where it is extracted, where it is hot—

this is a “boil.”

And what is a “burn”?

One burned by a coal

that has not yet gone out, or

by hot ashes

[ashes from a fire that are still hot],

by boiling lime

because of the fire, or

by hot gypsum

[a type of lime]

that is boiling, or by anything

hot

that comes because of fire.

The meaning of “anything” is

to include water heated by fire—

this is a burn.

And it was taught: If a boil and a burn

both occurred in the same place, then

if

the

boil occurred before the burn, the burn nullifies the boil,

and that place is classified as a burn.

And if the burn occurred before the boil, the boil nullifies the burn,

and it is classified as a boil.

For one always follows the latter occurrence. The practical difference is with regard to combining: If there was half a gris of a boil and afterward the person was struck by a burn in that same place, that place is again classified as a burn. Consequently, if later he is afflicted adjacent to that place by a burn measuring half a gris, the two combine. But if he is afflicted by a boil, they do not combine. And the same applies inversely.

And now we explain the dilemma that was raised:

Here,

in the case where we raised the dilemma concerning one who heated a spit and struck with it—which heat came first, the heat of the blow or the heat of the heating—

what are the circumstances

of the dilemma?

For example, there was

on a person

originally half a gris of a boil. And he heated a spit and struck with it

adjacent to the preexisting boil,

and another half a gris emerged in it.

This blow has the status of a boil because of the blow, and also the status of a burn, since the spit is hot because of fire. And our dilemma is:

What

came first?

Do we say that the heat resulting from the force of the

blow came first

and it is a boil,

and the heat comes

of the spit, which has the status of a burn,

and nullifies the blow,

so that it is classified as a burn, in accordance with the teaching that one follows the latter occurrence?

And

consequently,

it is

half a gris of

a boil

from before

and

half a gris of

a burn

because of the heating of the spit,

and they do not combine.

Or perhaps the heat

of the spit

came first

before its blow.

And the blow comes

which has the status of a boil,

and nullifies the heat,

so that it is classified as a boil.

And it is a boil and a boil, and they combine

the previous half-measure with the current half-measure to form a complete gris, and he becomes impure.

Come and hear: Rabbi Zeira said that Shmuel said: If one heated a knife and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid

because

its sharpness precedes its heating. It follows

that it is proven from here that

the blow

of the cutting

precedes

the burning of the esophagus by the heat of the knife. Otherwise, the animal would become a tereifa because the esophagus was burned before its slaughter.

If so, resolve the dilemma concerning one who struck with a heated spit: the blow came first, and afterward the heat came and nullified the blow, so that it is classified as a burn.

And we reject this:

The sharpness

of the knife

is different.

Since it is sharp, the heat of the fire within it is not strong, and its cutting precedes its heat. But when one strikes with a spit, it is possible that the heat comes first.

The Gemara attempts to resolve the matter from another beraita:

Come and hear

from that which was taught:

If one heated a spit and struck with it, he is classified as having suffered a burn from fire.

This is precisely our dilemma.

It follows that the blow came first,

and the heat came and nullified it.

And we reject this:

There too,

it is not proof, since it is speaking

of one who pierced him through and through.

He did not strike him forcefully; rather, he stabbed him,

which is sharpness.

It is not because the blow came first and we follow the latter occurrence. Rather, there was no blow at all, and therefore it is classified as a burn. But where both factors are present, the dilemma remains unresolved.

The dilemma is not resolved.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: A knife

that is used for the sacrifices

of idolatry may be used for slaughter, but it is forbidden to cut meat with it.

It may be used for slaughter,

even though objects used in the service of idolatry are forbidden to benefit from, since slaughter is not considered benefit, because

it is destructive.

While alive, the animal is worth more than after it has been slaughtered. While alive, it is destined for three purposes: offspring, plowing, and eating; whereas after slaughter, it is destined for only one purpose—eating.

But

it is forbidden to cut meat with it

because

it is improving.

Since it has already been slaughtered, it exists for this purpose.

Rava said: Sometimes

even

the slaughterer is forbidden

to slaughter with a knife of idolatry. This is the case, for example,

with

an animal that is

dangerously ill

and tending toward death, whose slaughter constitutes its improvement, since if he does not slaughter it, it will die and become an unslaughtered carcass.

And

sometimes even the

one who cuts is permitted

to cut with a knife of idolatry. This is the case, for example,

with atmei

[important cuts such as the thigh, shoulder, and breast]

that are fit for a sacrifice,

to send them as a gift to an important person. By cutting them, he diminishes and damages them, and this is therefore not considered benefit.

And we raise an objection:

And

even if there is no prohibition against benefiting from idolatry,

let it follow

that it is forbidden to cut with that knife

because of prohibited fat

from an unslaughtered carcass that was absorbed into the knife, since until now they used it to cut unslaughtered carcasses!?