Chullin 8a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Shmuel: If he heated

in fire

a knife and slaughtered with it

while it was still boiling hot —

his slaughter is valid.

And although there is reason to declare the animal non-kosher, because the heat of the knife burns the esophagus when it touches it at the time of slaughter, and pierces it—and a pierced esophagus is one of the eighteen conditions that render an animal non-kosher—nevertheless, it is valid, because the cutting of the signs, which is done by reason of

the sharpness

of the knife, is

prior to the

burning of the esophagus caused by

the heating

of the knife. And after slaughter it is no longer possible for it to become non-kosher.

And we object:

But there are the sides

of the knife! And when the heated knife enters into the place of the cut, it burns the signs on both sides of them, before it cuts most of them; and the slaughter is still not completed until he slaughters most of the signs. It follows that the animal became non-kosher before the completion of the slaughter!?

And we answer:

The slaughtering place widens

through the cutting of the point of the knife. For 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 point of the knife touches the signs at the moment of the cutting itself. Therefore, the heat of the knife does not pierce the signs.

Skin in which there had been a boil or a burn, where the flesh became heated because of the boil or the burn, and the skin above it peeled off, and afterward it healed and formed a membrane, and a leprosy lesion appeared in it—the status of that lesion which is on the boil or on the burn is different from that of an ordinary leprosy lesion, as will be explained below.

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

forcefully upon the flesh, and the place became heated both because of the blow and because of the heat of the fire, and afterward a lesion appeared in that place,

whether

because of a “boil”

it

is judged,

since the place became heated because of the blow,

or because of a “burn”

it

is judged,

since the place became heated because of the fire? The sides of the dilemma will be explained below.

And the Gemara discusses:

What practical difference is there

as to what it is judged because of? After all, a boil and a burn are equal in their laws!?

And we explain:

For that which was taught,

as we learned in tractate Negaim [3:4]: Lesions that appeared in a place of

a boil and a burn

differ in their laws from other lesions in two matters.

The first is that they

render impure

only

for one week.

That is, in contrast to other lesions. In the case of a boil and a burn in which a leprosy lesion appeared, they are confined for only one week, and if the signs of impurity—white hairs or the spreading of the lesion—did not appear at the end of the first week, he immediately becomes pure. Whereas with other lesions, if signs of impurity did not appear at the end of the first week, he confines him for a second week, and only at its end does he become pure if signs of impurity did not appear.

And the second is that both render impure only

through two signs: through a white hair

that appears in the place of the lesion,

and through spreading

[through expansion] of the lesion.

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

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

And

since the law of a boil and a burn is one,

why did Scripture divide them

into two sections?

To say: They do not combine with one another.

For the measure of each one of them is the size of a gris [half a bean]. And if there was a lesion of half the measure from a boil, and adjacent to it a lesion of half the measure from a burn, the two halves of the measure do not combine to be considered the measure of a lesion, neither as a burn nor as a boil, and it does not render impure at all.

And we learned

[Negaim 9:1]:

Which is a “boil,” and which is a “burn”?

If he was struck by wood

and

by a stone

and the flesh became heated through the force of the blow, or his flesh touched

olive 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,

and by anything that did not come because of fire.

And the meaning of “anything” is

to include lead,

which is

from its source,

from the place from which it is extracted, for in that place it is hot—

this is a “boil.”

And which is a “burn”?

If he was burned by a coal

that had not yet gone out, or

by hot ashes

[ashes of a fire that are still hot],

by boiling lime

because of the fire, or

by gypsum

[a type of lime]

boiling, and by anything

hot

that comes because of fire.

And the meaning of “anything” is

to include water heated by fire—

this is a burn.

And it was taught: A boil and a burn

that both occurred in one place:

if

the

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

and that place is judged as a burn.

And if the burn preceded the boil, the boil nullifies the burn,

and it is judged as a boil.

For one always follows the last one. And there is a practical difference with regard to combination: if there was half a gris of a boil, and afterward he was struck in that same place by a burn, that place returns to be judged as a burn; consequently, if after some time he is struck adjacent to that place by a burn of half a gris, the two combine. But if he is struck by a boil, they do not combine. And likewise the reverse.

And now we explain that which we raised as a dilemma:

And here,

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 that which we raised as a dilemma?

For example, there was

in a person

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

adjacent to the earlier boil,

and another half a gris emerged in it.

And 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 we raised the dilemma:

what

came first?

Do we say that the heat 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,

and it is judged as a burn, as it was taught that one follows the last one.

And

consequently

it becomes

half a gris

of a boil

initially

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,

and it is judged as a boil.

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

the earlier half-measure with the half-measure of now to form a complete measure of a gris, and he becomes impure.

Come and hear: For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Shmuel: If he heated a knife and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid

because

its sharpness precedes its heating. Thus,

it is proven from here that

the blow

of the cutting

comes first

than the burning of the esophagus through the heat of the knife. For otherwise, the animal would become non-kosher because of the burning of the esophagus before its slaughter.

If so, resolve the dilemma concerning one who struck with a heated spit: the blow comes first, and afterward the heat comes and nullifies the blow, and it is judged as a burn.

And we reject this:

The sharpness

of the knife

is different.

For since it is sharp, the heat of the fire within it is not strong, and its cutting precedes its heat. But with a blow from a spit, it is possible that the heat comes first.

And the Gemara attempts to resolve this from another beraita:

Come and hear

from that which was taught:

If he heated a spit and struck with it, he is judged because of a fire-strike.

And this is precisely our dilemma.

Thus, the blow comes first,

and the heat comes and nullifies it.

And we reject:

There too

it is not proof, for it is speaking

of one who pierced by piercing.

He did not strike him forcefully, but rather pierced him,

that is, sharpness.

And it is not because the blow came first and we follow the last one; rather, there is no blow here at all, and therefore he is judged because of a burn. But where both of them are present, the dilemma still remains.

And the dilemma was not resolved.

Rav Naḥman said, Rabba bar Avuha said: A knife

that is used for sacrifices

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

It may be used for slaughter,

even though implements of avodah zarah are forbidden for benefit, since slaughter is not considered benefit, because

he is damaging.

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

But

it is forbidden to cut meat with it

because

he is improving.

For once he has already slaughtered it, it exists for this purpose.

Rava said: There are times when

even

the slaughterer is forbidden

to slaughter with a knife of avodah zarah. And this is the case

with

an animal that is

dangerously ill

and inclined to die, whose slaughter is its improvement. For if he does not slaughter it, it will die and become an unslaughtered carcass.

And

at times even the

one who cuts is permitted

to cut with a knife of avodah zarah. And this is the case with

valuable cuts

[important pieces such as a thigh, shoulder, and breast]

that are fit for an offering,

to send them as a gift to an important person. In this case, by cutting them he ruins and damages them, and this is not considered benefit.

And we object:

And

even if there is no prohibition of benefit from avodah zarah,

let it emerge

that it is forbidden to cut with that knife

because of forbidden fat

of an unslaughtered carcass that was absorbed into the knife. For until now they had cut unslaughtered carcasses with it!?