Chullin 9b

חולין ט׳ ע״ב

Learn Chullin 9b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Chullin 9b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Can rules about danger (סכנה) be used to decide questions of prohibition (איסור)? A debate about how we handle uncertainty (ספק) in each area.

Overview

A ברייתא says that if a snake bit a fig or melon and a bird or mouse later pecked it, we worry the new hole is right on the snake's hole, so the fruit is forbidden. רב הונא says you cannot learn איסור from this, because סכנה is different. רבא asks what the difference is, since uncertain איסור is also treated strictly. אביי points to a real difference: uncertain טומאה in רשות הרבים is טהור, while uncertain exposed water is forbidden. רבא answers that the טומאה leniency is a special tradition learned from סוטה, which applies only in רשות היחיד. רב שימי challenges him with a weasel carrying a שרץ over loaves of תרומה, where the doubt is also treated as טהור. The גמרא answers that this too comes from סוטה: the strict rule applies only to something that can be asked, and a weasel cannot. רב אשי then brings a ברייתא about a flask of purification water. Left open and found covered, it is טמאה. Left covered and found open, it is only פסולה. רבי יהושע בן לוי asks why, and the answer comes on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (10)

1. ProofThe fruit case: we worry the new hole is on top of the old one
2. RejectionDanger is different from prohibition
3. Challengeרבא: both kinds of doubt are treated strictly anyway
4. Challengeאביי: impurity in public is lenient, exposed water is strict
5. Resolutionרבא: the impurity rule is a special tradition from סוטה
6. Challengeרב שימי's challenge from the weasel walking on loaves
7. ResolutionThe weasel case also comes from סוטה: only something that can be asked
8. Proofרב אשי's proof: a flask left open and found covered is טמא
9. ProofThe flask left covered and found open is only disqualified
10. QuestionWhy don't we suspect a טמא person opened the flask?