1

Rashi to Chulin 8 amud 2 takes the unusual step of mentioning the practical halacha that he derived from the g'mara. He says that, because the g'mara came to no conclusion about what to do with an animal slaughtered with a non-kosher (taken from a non-Jew) knife, one must deal with the carcass according to the stricter of the two opinions in the g'mara. He then adds that, because the g'mara had asked only what to do if someone already slaughtered with such a knife, one may not slaughter with such a knife.

How does this ruling fit with the passage on amud 1 on which Rav Nachman says one may slaughter with such a knife?

1
  • Rashi's ruling seems reasonable at first glance, since it's presupposed by two amora'im that it's forbidden, one of whom is Rav (and הלכה כרב באיסורי) – b a Feb 18 '20 at 0:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .