Talking Talmud

Given that the knife for shechitah cannot be notched, there was an event when a knife was discovered to be notched after it was used to slaughter 13 animals. But if he only discovered that to be the case after the last animal's shechitah, then maybe it became notched along the process and the first animal(s) were not a problem. The big - and perhaps indeterminable - question is when did the knife received its notch? All of which leads to the conclusion that the knife must be checked (for notches and whatnot) before each and every act of shechitah. Also, investigating the source of "chazakah" (the given status of a thing unless or until proven otherwise). Beginning with the example of tzara'at, in the case of a house. But what if that tzara'at is behind the door? Or in a dark house? The question of whether there's a tzara'at lesion to find does not require spotlighting the whole house in the search! Note that the source of establishing a given is in the context of tzara'at, and not kashrut, but it's not the first time they are linked.

A Torah scholar must learn 3 skills: writing, kosher slaughtering, and circumcision. And 3 additional things are subject to dispute - whether they are skills that are required or commonplace: tying the knot of tefillin, the blessing for the wedding, and tying tzitzit. Also, standards of presumption regarding an animal: while it's alive, the presumption is that it's not going to be kosher. Once it's slaughtered correctly, then the presumption is that the animal IS kosher, unless a blemish is discovered. Also, what if a wolf bite is clear on the innards of an animal - but perhaps it's a puncture after the shechitah? Or might the bite have obscured a hole that would have made the animal a treyfa? What about a snake's poison? But the wolf/intestine is a concern of a prohibition! And the snake concern is about danger, which requires greater stringency!

If you heat a knife to white-hot, the shechitah done with that knife is kosher, because it was already sharp enough before it was hot. The concern is whether the slaughtering was done with the knife's blade or if it was done via the heat and a burn. The Gemara contrasts the issues that pertain here to the details of tzara'at, which has a long-standing tradition "halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai" regarding the measure of impurity. Plus the details of shechitah as applied to a case of tzara'at. Also, the 3 knives that the butcher needs to cut the meat and the forbidden fats, and to keep the forbidden from contaminating the permitted. Plus, distinctive indications regarding which knife was which.

Does produce from Beit She'an need tithing? How is this even a question - Beit She'an is clearly part of the land of Israel. Note the Gemara's initial focus on how a sage isn't going to change his mind -- with various interpretations of the Hebrew term used here to note that he won't be dissuaded. Back to Beit She'an - it all goes to the human consecration (and re-consecration) of the land as essential to the holiness that results in land-based mitzvot, and the decisions made for the sake of the local poor. [Who's Who: Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair] Also, a story of the animals of the righteous. With a story of R. Pinchas ben Yair being able to split the river (for easier passage) - and with allusions to the splitting of the Red Sea -because of his own stance that it should - and God granted the miracle. Which rolls into a story about a stubborn donkey who wouldn't eat non-tithed barley. Plus, the concerns about preventing the suffering of animals and the righteous who take up their cause. Plus, Rabbi Hanina's statement that any injury or suffering in this world was decreed on high - with all the accompanying theological conundrum.

A story involving R. Asi and R. Zeira about eggs that were cooked on wine - did that combination carry a risk of "demai" (possibly untithed produce)? Where even R. Asi wasn't thinking about this concern - and how God prevents error by those who are righteous. Which leads us into the ongoing discussion of mixtures or combinations. Also, what about the concern of the population of those unschooled (am ha-aretz) in the halakhic arena of tithing? What if the person who is ignorant switches out that food, perhaps out of concern that it goes bad, or one's personal status of being impure/pure to be protective. That is, one's intent could be entirely on target, but the action is still problematic for a potentially demai mixture.