Chullin Daf 9 צולין דַף 9

Shmuel says the butcher must inspect the סימנים after shechitah to ensure they were properly cut. If he did not, Rebbe Elazar bar Rebbe Yannai says it is considered a טריפה, and forbidden to eat, but a Baraisa teaches that it is a נבילה, and is מטמא through being carried. This machlokes stems from Rav Huna’s principle: בהמה בחייה בחזקת איסור עומדת – an animal during its lifetime is established as prohibited (Rashi explains that it was forbidden in consumption as אבר מן החי), עד שיודע לך במה נשחטה – until it becomes known to you how it was shechted, i.e., that it was properly shechted. Thus, the Baraisa holds that if the סימנים were not inspected, בחזקת איסור קיימא – it remains in its established prohibited state (i.e., the principle of חזקה dictates to assume the animal remains prohibited, and was not shechted properly), והשתא מתה היא – and now it is dead. A dead animal which was not shechted is a נבילה, and is מטמא. Rebbe Elazar bar Rebbe Yannai holds: בחזקת איסור אמרינן – although we say the animal is established in a prohibited state, בחזקת טומאה לא אמרינן – we do not say it is established in a state of tumah, since it was not tamei during its lifetime. Therefore, its status is similar to a טריפה.

Rav Huna said an animal is בחזקת איסור until it is known that it was properly shechted. He added: נשחטה – But once it was shechted, בחזקת היתר עומדת – it is established in a permitted state עד שיודע לך במה נטרפה – until it becomes known to you how it became a tereifah. He did not simply say that it becomes permitted when it is shechted, in order to teach דאע"ג דאיתיליד בה ריעותא – that even if a cause for suspicion arose that it may have been a טריפה before shechitah, it is still assumed to be permitted. This applies to the question Rebbe Abba asked Rav Huna: בא זאב ונטל בני מעים – if a wolf came and took the intestines, what is the halachah? This question is revised to be: נטלן והחזירן כשהן נקובין – if it took [the intestines] and returned them punctured, are we concerned that שמא במקום נקב נקב – perhaps [the wolf’s teeth] punctured a spot of the intestine which had a pre-existing hole, and the animal was a טריפה, or do we assume the holes were created by the wolf? Rav Huna answered that we are not concerned there were pre-existing holes, and rely on the animal’s חזקה that it was not a טריפה.

Rebbe Abba challenged Rav Huna from a Baraisa which teaches that if one saw a bird pecking at a fig, or a mouse puncturing watermelons, we are concerned that the hole was made where there was already a pre-existing hole made by a poisonous snake, and the fruit may not be eaten!? Rav Huna replied: מי קא מדמית איסורא לסכנתא – are you comparing prohibitions to danger?! סכנה שאני – Danger is different, and is treated more stringently than concern for a possible prohibition. Rava questioned this distinction: מאי שנא ספק סכנתא לחומרא – what is different about danger, that a doubtful case of danger is decided stringently? But ספק איסורא נמי לחומרא – a doubtful case of prohibition is also decided stringently!

Amoraim seek to disprove Rava from two cases of ספק טומאה which are ruled tahor, in contrast to a ספק of מים מגולים – exposed waters, which are forbidden. Rava replies that these are unique laws derived from הלכה למשה מסיני. However, the Gemara eventually proves that חמירא סכנתא מאיסורא – danger is treated more stringently than a question of prohibition.