Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 10, 2019 | 讚壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 44

More details of treifot are discussed. The gemara聽brings various cases where rabbis paskened about cases and several questions are raised which relate to core issues regarding methodology of issuing聽halachic聽rulings.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讛讻住讬诇 讘讞砖讱 讛讜诇讱 讗诇讗 讗讬 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻拽讜诇讬讛谉 讜讻讞讜诪专讬讛谉 讗讬 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻拽讜诇讬讛谉 讜讻讞讜诪专讬讛谉

And one who wishes to adopt both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: 鈥淭he fool walks in darkness鈥 (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, one should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诇注讜诇诐 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讜讛专讜爪讛 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讬注砖讛

The Gemara objects to the wording of the baraita: This baraita itself is difficult. First you say that the halakha is always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, and then you teach that one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 讘转 拽讜诇 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讘转 拽讜诇

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, the statement that a person may act as he wishes was made before the Divine Voice emerged and announced that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel. There, the statement that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel was made after the Divine Voice issued this ruling.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诇讗讞专 讘转 拽讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖讙讬讞讬谉 讘讘转 拽讜诇

And if you wish, say instead that even the statement that a person may act as he wishes was made after the Divine Voice announced that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel, and this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: One disregards a Divine Voice that attempts to intervene in matters of halakha. According to him, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel has not yet been decided.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara notes: In any case, Rava鈥檚 ruling is difficult. How could he rule in accordance with two contradictory stringencies in order to deem the animal a tereifa?

讗诪专 专讘 讟讘讜转 讻讜诇讛 讻专讘 注讘讚讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 讚讻讬讬诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜讜砖讟 谞转谞讜 [讘讜] 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬注讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 诇讗讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讜拽讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜

Rav Tavut said: Rava acted entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rav. As when Rami bar Ye岣zkel came, he said: Do not listen to those principles that Rav Yehuda, my brother, formulated in the name of Rav. Although Rav holds that a perforation of any part of the entrance of the gullet renders an animal a tereifa, this is not because it is a location fit for slaughter. Rather, this is what Rav said: The Sages gave a measure defining the portion of the gullet that is valid for slaughter. By inference, one learns that the entrance of the gullet is not a location fit for slaughter. And nevertheless, he says that a perforation in any amount renders the animal a tereifa.

诇诪注诇讛 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讚 讻讚讬 转驻讬住转 讬讚 诇诪讟讛 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 注讚 讻讚讬 砖讬砖注讬专

Since it was mentioned that the Sages gave a measure defining the portion of the gullet that is valid for slaughter, the Gemara asks: How far up the gullet is the upper boundary for valid slaughter? Rav Na岣an said: It is until the point that there remains only sufficient space for a hand to grip the gullet. The Gemara asks: How far down is the lower boundary? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Until the gullet becomes hairy, i.e., until the opening of the rumen, whose lining is hairy.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讙谞讬讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讟驻讞 讘讜讜砖讟 住诪讜讱 诇讻专住 讝讛讜 讻专住 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讗诪讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 砖讞讟 讘讻专住 拽讗 砖讞讬讟

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Ravina say that Geneiva says in the name of Rav: The lowermost handbreadth in the gullet, adjacent to the rumen, this is the inner rumen? If so, why does Rav Na岣an permit slaughter until the opening of the rumen? When one slaughters within the bottom handbreadth, he is slaughtering in the rumen, and his slaughter should be invalid.

讗讬诪讗 讟驻讞 讘讻专住 住诪讜讱 诇讜讜砖讟 讝讛讜 讻专住 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讘转讜专讗 讚诪砖注讬专 讟驻讬

Rather, say that Rav鈥檚 statement should be amended, as follows: The uppermost handbreadth in the rumen, adjacent to the gullet, this is the inner rumen, which is not a valid location for slaughter. By contrast, the lowermost handbreadth of the gullet is a valid location for slaughter. And if you wish, say instead that when Rav says that the lowermost handbreadth of the gullet is considered the rumen, he is referring specifically to a bull, which is especially hairy, and hairs appear even within the lowermost handbreadth of the gullet itself. By contrast, in other animals, the entire lower gullet is a valid location for slaughter.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 砖谞讬讟诇 讻讜诇讜 诪诇讞讬 讻砖专 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 谞讬讟诇 诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 讻砖专

Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: If the entrance of the gullet was completely detached from the jaw, the animal is kosher. And the tanna of the mishna also taught this later (54a): If the lower jaw was detached entirely, it is kosher.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 注讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬诐

Rav Pappa objects to this: How can Shmuel say that if the entrance of the gullet is detached the animal is kosher? But isn鈥檛 there ripping of the simanim, the gullet and the windpipe, from their place? This should render the animal a tereifa.

讜诇专讘 驻驻讗 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞讬讟诇 诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 讻砖专

The Gemara interjects: But according to Rav Pappa, the mishna is difficult as well, since it states: If the lower jaw was detached, it is kosher. If the lower jaw is detached, the windpipe and gullet will necessarily be detached as well, since they are attached to it.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬注拽讜专 讗讬注拽讜专讬 讛讗 讚讗讬讙讜诐 讗讬讙讜诪讬 诪注讬诇讜讬 住讬诪谞讬诐 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara responds: Granted, the mishna is not difficult for Rav Pappa. This halakha, that the ripping of the simanim renders the animal a tereifa, applies only when the simanim are completely ripped from the jaw. That statement of the mishna, that an animal whose jaw is detached is kosher, is referring to a case where the lower jaw is severed above its connection to the simanim, which themselves remain connected to the remaining flesh of the jaw. But the halakha that the ripping of the simanim renders the animal a tereifa is difficult for Shmuel. How can an animal remain kosher when the entrance of its gullet is removed, if this entails the ripping of the simanim?

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讻讜诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 专讜讘讜

The Gemara responds: Do not say that Shmuel deems the animal kosher if the entrance of the gullet was completely detached. Rather, say that he deems it kosher only if it was mostly detached.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 住讬诪谞讬诐 砖谞讚诇讚诇讜 讘专讜讘谉 讟专驻讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讗 讚讗拽驻诇 讗讬拽驻讜诇讬 讛转诐 讚讗驻专讜拽 讗驻专讜拽讬

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Shmuel says: Simanim that were detached in their majority render the animal a tereifa? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: This statement of Shmuel, that the animal is kosher even if the simanim are mostly detached, applies only to a case in which the entrance of the gullet was peeled off from the flesh of the jaw, such that the connected tissue is concentrated in one area. In such a case, the animal might recover. There, where Shmuel deems the animal a tereifa, he is referring to a case in which the simanim were forcibly separated [de鈥檌ppruk ipprukei] from the jaw and are connected only by a few discontinuous pieces of flesh. In such a case the animal cannot recover.

讜驻住讜拽转 讛讙专讙专转 转谞讗 讻诪讛 驻住讜拽转 讛讙专讙专转 讘专讜讘讛 讜讻诪讛 专讜讘讛 专讘 讗诪专

搂 The mishna states: Or an animal with a cut windpipe, cut across its width, is a tereifa. With regard to this the Sages taught: How much must the windpipe be cut to render the animal a tereifa? In its majority. And how much is its majority? Rav says:

专讜讘 注讜讘讬讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讜讘 讞诇诇讛

The majority of its width, counting the width of the wall of the windpipe itself, the thickness of which is uneven. And some say that Rav says: The majority of its space, the inner area of the cross section of the windpipe, not counting the width of the windpipe wall.

讛讛讬讗 驻住讜拽转 讛讙专讙专转 讚讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 讘讚讬拽 诇讛 讘专讜讘 注讜讘讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 诇讬诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讘专讜讘 讞诇诇讛 砖讚专讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讘讚拽讛 讘专讜讘 讞诇诇讛 讜讗讻砖专讛 讜讝讘谉 诪讬谞讛 讘转诇讬住专 讗讬住转讬专讬 驻砖讬讟讬 讘讬砖专讗

The Gemara recounts: There was a certain animal with a cut windpipe that came before Rav, i.e., it was brought for inspection to decide whether it was kosher. Rav was sitting and checking it to see if the windpipe had been cut in the majority of its width. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Didn鈥檛 you teach us, our teacher, that a cut windpipe is measured by the majority of its space? Rav sent the animal before Rabba bar bar 岣na, who checked it in the majority of its space and deemed it kosher, and purchased meat from it at the price of thirteen plain istera coins.

讜讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讻诐 砖讟讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 专砖讗讬 诇讟讛专 讗住专 讗讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 专砖讗讬 诇讛转讬专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚专讘 诇讗 讗住专 诪讬住专

The Gemara asks: And how could Rabba bar bar 岣na do this, i.e., deem permitted an animal that Rav was going to deem prohibited? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If a halakhic authority deemed an item impure, another halakhic authority is not allowed to deem it pure; likewise, if he prohibited it, another authority is not allowed to permit it? The Gemara responds: It is different here, since Rav did not actually prohibit the animal. He merely considered doing so, but he sent it to Rabba bar bar 岣na before issuing a formal ruling.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讬 讘讛 讞讻诐 讛讬讻讬 讗讻诇 诪讬谞讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗诪专 讗讛讛 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讛谞讛 谞驻砖讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讜谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪谞注讜专讬 讜注讚 注转讛 讜诇讗 讘讗 讘驻讬 讘砖专 驻讙讜诇

The Gemara asks: And once a halakhic authority has ruled with regard to the animal, even to permit it, how could Rabba bar bar 岣na eat from it? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hen I said: Alas, Lord God, my soul has not become impure; and from my youth until now I have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass, or a tereifa; and no piggul flesh came into my mouth鈥 (Ezekiel 4:14).

讛谞讛 谞驻砖讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讛专讛专转讬 讘讬讜诐 诇讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讘砖专 讻讜住 讻讜住 诪注讜诇诐 讜诇讗 讘讗 讘驻讬 讘砖专 驻讙讜诇 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讘讛诪讛 砖讛讜专讛 讘讛 讞讻诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讘讛诪讛 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 诪转谞讜转讬讛

The Sages interpreted the verse as follows: 鈥淢y soul has not been become impure鈥 means that I did not think of sexual thoughts during the day so as to come to the impurity of a seminal emission at night. 鈥淚 have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass, or a tereifa means that I never ate the flesh of an animal that was in danger of imminent death, leading one to say: Slaughter it, slaughter it quickly, before it dies. 鈥淎nd no piggul flesh came into my mouth,鈥 means that I never ate from an animal with regard to which there was uncertainty whether it is prohibited and a Sage issued a ruling to permit it. The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Natan: The phrase means that I never ate from an animal from which the gifts of the priesthood, the foreleg, jaw, and abomasum, were not separated. The above acts are technically permitted but unseemly. How, then, could Rabba bar bar 岣na consume the meat of this animal?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚转诇讬讗 讘住讘专讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讙诪专讬讛 住诪讱

The Gemara responds: This statement, that it is unseemly for a halakhic authority to rely on his own ruling to permit the meat, applies only to a matter that depends on reasoning. Rabba bar bar 岣na relied on his learning, i.e., a received tradition. There is nothing unseemly about relying upon a received tradition.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 讚谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讝讬讻讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讟讬诪讗 讜讟讬讛专 讗住专 讜讛转讬专 讜讻谉 讛注讚讬诐 砖讛注讬讚讜 讻讜诇谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讬拽讞 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讛专讞拽 诪谉 讛讻讬注讜专 讜诪谉 讛讚讜诪讛 诇讜

The Gemara objects: But let one derive that Rabba bar bar 岣na should not have purchased the meat due to suspicion, as it is taught in a baraita: If one issued a judgment, acquitted or convicted, deemed impure or pure, prohibited or permitted; or if witnesses testified with regard to a case, in all of these instances the judges or witnesses are allowed to purchase the item that they deemed permitted. But the Sages said: Distance yourself from unseemliness and from things similar to it. If so, Rabba bar bar 岣na should not have purchased the meat that he himself permitted.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讝讘讬谉 诪砖讜诪讗 讛讻讗 诪转拽诇讗 诪讜讻讞 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讛 砖专讗 讟专驻转讗 讜讝讘谉 诪讬谞讛 讘讬砖专讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讘讗 砖专讬 讘讜讻专讗 讜诇讗 讝讘谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讘讬砖专讗

The Gemara responds: This statement applies only to an item that is sold based on an appraisal of its value and not by standard measure. In such cases onlookers might suspect that the judge is receiving a favorable price in return for his judgment. But here, the weight of the meat proves that the judge is not receiving a discount, but is paying the standard price. This is like that incident where Rabba permitted a possible tereifa for consumption and bought meat from it. His wife, the daughter of Rav 岣sda, said to him: Father permitted a firstborn animal, declaring that it possessed a blemish that renders it permitted for consumption, but did not buy meat from it. Why are you acting differently?

讗诪专 诇讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗砖讜诪讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讛讻讗 诪转拽诇讗 诪讜讻讞 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讜诪爪讗 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讗讜诪爪讗 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讝讘谞讜 诇讬

Rabba said to her: That matter applies to a firstborn, which is sold based on appraisal of its value. Here, the weight of the meat proves that I am paying the standard price and not unfairly deriving benefit from my judgment. What suspicion is there in this case? Will people suspect me because I received a superior piece of meat? Every day they sell me a superior piece of meat.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讝讛讜 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讝讛 讛专讜讗讛 讟专驻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讜谞讗 诪转谞转 讬讞讬讛 讝讛 讛专讜讗讛 讟专驻讛 诇注爪诪讜

The Gemara cites an aphorism: Rav 岣sda says: Who is a Torah scholar? This is one who sees his own tereifa. In other words, when the status of his own animal is uncertain, he deems it prohibited without concern for his own monetary loss. And Rav 岣sda says: Who is referred to by the verse: 鈥淗e that hates gifts shall live鈥 (Proverbs 15:27)? This is one who sees his own tereifa. He is careful to avoid deriving benefit from that which is not his own, and even from items that are his concerning which it is questionable whether or not they are permitted.

讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讻诇 诪讬 砖拽讜专讗 讜砖讜谞讛 讜专讜讗讛 讟专驻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜砖讬诪砖 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讬讙讬注 讻驻讬讱 讻讬 转讗讻诇 讗砖专讬讱 讜讟讜讘 诇讱 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讝讜讻讛 讜谞讜讞诇 砖谞讬 注讜诇诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜讛注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讗砖专讬讱 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜讟讜讘 诇讱 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗

Mar Zutra taught in the name of Rav 岣sda: Anyone who reads the Torah and studies the Mishna, and sees his own tereifa, and has served Torah scholars to learn the ways of halakhic judgment, about him the verse states: 鈥淲hen you eat the labor of your hands, happy shall you be, and it shall be well with you鈥 (Psalms 128:2). Rav Zevid says: Such a person merits inheriting two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come. When the verse states: 鈥淗appy shall you be,鈥 it means in this world, and when it states: 鈥淎nd it shall be well with you,鈥 it is referring to the World-to-Come.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讬 讛讜讜 诪砖讚专讬 诇讬讛 诪讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 诪讬讚讬 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜讻讬 讛讜讜 诪讝诪谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讗 讘注讬 诪专 讚讗讬讞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讜谞讗 诪转谞讜转 讬讞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讬 诪砖讚专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讻讬 讛讜讜 诪讝诪谞讬谉 诇讬讛 讗讝讬诇 讗诪专

With regard to the verse: 鈥淗e that hates gifts shall live,鈥 the Gemara relates that when they would send Rabbi Elazar some gift from the house of the Nasi, he would not take it. And when they would invite him, he would not go there. When declining these offers, he said to them: Does Master not desire that I live? As it is written: 鈥淗e that hates gifts shall live.鈥 By contrast, when they would send a gift to Rabbi Zeira, he would not take it, but when they would invite him he would go. He said in explanation:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 44

诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讛讻住讬诇 讘讞砖讱 讛讜诇讱 讗诇讗 讗讬 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讻拽讜诇讬讛谉 讜讻讞讜诪专讬讛谉 讗讬 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻拽讜诇讬讛谉 讜讻讞讜诪专讬讛谉

And one who wishes to adopt both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: 鈥淭he fool walks in darkness鈥 (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, one should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诇注讜诇诐 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讜讛专讜爪讛 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讬注砖讛

The Gemara objects to the wording of the baraita: This baraita itself is difficult. First you say that the halakha is always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, and then you teach that one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 讘转 拽讜诇 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 讘转 拽讜诇

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, the statement that a person may act as he wishes was made before the Divine Voice emerged and announced that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel. There, the statement that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel was made after the Divine Voice issued this ruling.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诇讗讞专 讘转 拽讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪砖讙讬讞讬谉 讘讘转 拽讜诇

And if you wish, say instead that even the statement that a person may act as he wishes was made after the Divine Voice announced that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel, and this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: One disregards a Divine Voice that attempts to intervene in matters of halakha. According to him, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel has not yet been decided.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara notes: In any case, Rava鈥檚 ruling is difficult. How could he rule in accordance with two contradictory stringencies in order to deem the animal a tereifa?

讗诪专 专讘 讟讘讜转 讻讜诇讛 讻专讘 注讘讚讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 讚讻讬讬诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讞讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜讜砖讟 谞转谞讜 [讘讜] 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬注讜专 诪讻诇诇 讚转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 诇讗讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讜拽讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜

Rav Tavut said: Rava acted entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rav. As when Rami bar Ye岣zkel came, he said: Do not listen to those principles that Rav Yehuda, my brother, formulated in the name of Rav. Although Rav holds that a perforation of any part of the entrance of the gullet renders an animal a tereifa, this is not because it is a location fit for slaughter. Rather, this is what Rav said: The Sages gave a measure defining the portion of the gullet that is valid for slaughter. By inference, one learns that the entrance of the gullet is not a location fit for slaughter. And nevertheless, he says that a perforation in any amount renders the animal a tereifa.

诇诪注诇讛 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讚 讻讚讬 转驻讬住转 讬讚 诇诪讟讛 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 注讚 讻讚讬 砖讬砖注讬专

Since it was mentioned that the Sages gave a measure defining the portion of the gullet that is valid for slaughter, the Gemara asks: How far up the gullet is the upper boundary for valid slaughter? Rav Na岣an said: It is until the point that there remains only sufficient space for a hand to grip the gullet. The Gemara asks: How far down is the lower boundary? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Until the gullet becomes hairy, i.e., until the opening of the rumen, whose lining is hairy.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讙谞讬讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讟驻讞 讘讜讜砖讟 住诪讜讱 诇讻专住 讝讛讜 讻专住 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讗诪讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 砖讞讟 讘讻专住 拽讗 砖讞讬讟

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Ravina say that Geneiva says in the name of Rav: The lowermost handbreadth in the gullet, adjacent to the rumen, this is the inner rumen? If so, why does Rav Na岣an permit slaughter until the opening of the rumen? When one slaughters within the bottom handbreadth, he is slaughtering in the rumen, and his slaughter should be invalid.

讗讬诪讗 讟驻讞 讘讻专住 住诪讜讱 诇讜讜砖讟 讝讛讜 讻专住 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讘转讜专讗 讚诪砖注讬专 讟驻讬

Rather, say that Rav鈥檚 statement should be amended, as follows: The uppermost handbreadth in the rumen, adjacent to the gullet, this is the inner rumen, which is not a valid location for slaughter. By contrast, the lowermost handbreadth of the gullet is a valid location for slaughter. And if you wish, say instead that when Rav says that the lowermost handbreadth of the gullet is considered the rumen, he is referring specifically to a bull, which is especially hairy, and hairs appear even within the lowermost handbreadth of the gullet itself. By contrast, in other animals, the entire lower gullet is a valid location for slaughter.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 砖谞讬讟诇 讻讜诇讜 诪诇讞讬 讻砖专 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 谞讬讟诇 诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 讻砖专

Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: If the entrance of the gullet was completely detached from the jaw, the animal is kosher. And the tanna of the mishna also taught this later (54a): If the lower jaw was detached entirely, it is kosher.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 注讬拽讜专 住讬诪谞讬诐

Rav Pappa objects to this: How can Shmuel say that if the entrance of the gullet is detached the animal is kosher? But isn鈥檛 there ripping of the simanim, the gullet and the windpipe, from their place? This should render the animal a tereifa.

讜诇专讘 驻驻讗 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞讬讟诇 诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 讻砖专

The Gemara interjects: But according to Rav Pappa, the mishna is difficult as well, since it states: If the lower jaw was detached, it is kosher. If the lower jaw is detached, the windpipe and gullet will necessarily be detached as well, since they are attached to it.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬注拽讜专 讗讬注拽讜专讬 讛讗 讚讗讬讙讜诐 讗讬讙讜诪讬 诪注讬诇讜讬 住讬诪谞讬诐 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara responds: Granted, the mishna is not difficult for Rav Pappa. This halakha, that the ripping of the simanim renders the animal a tereifa, applies only when the simanim are completely ripped from the jaw. That statement of the mishna, that an animal whose jaw is detached is kosher, is referring to a case where the lower jaw is severed above its connection to the simanim, which themselves remain connected to the remaining flesh of the jaw. But the halakha that the ripping of the simanim renders the animal a tereifa is difficult for Shmuel. How can an animal remain kosher when the entrance of its gullet is removed, if this entails the ripping of the simanim?

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讻讜诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 专讜讘讜

The Gemara responds: Do not say that Shmuel deems the animal kosher if the entrance of the gullet was completely detached. Rather, say that he deems it kosher only if it was mostly detached.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 住讬诪谞讬诐 砖谞讚诇讚诇讜 讘专讜讘谉 讟专驻讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讛讗 讚讗拽驻诇 讗讬拽驻讜诇讬 讛转诐 讚讗驻专讜拽 讗驻专讜拽讬

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Shmuel says: Simanim that were detached in their majority render the animal a tereifa? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: This statement of Shmuel, that the animal is kosher even if the simanim are mostly detached, applies only to a case in which the entrance of the gullet was peeled off from the flesh of the jaw, such that the connected tissue is concentrated in one area. In such a case, the animal might recover. There, where Shmuel deems the animal a tereifa, he is referring to a case in which the simanim were forcibly separated [de鈥檌ppruk ipprukei] from the jaw and are connected only by a few discontinuous pieces of flesh. In such a case the animal cannot recover.

讜驻住讜拽转 讛讙专讙专转 转谞讗 讻诪讛 驻住讜拽转 讛讙专讙专转 讘专讜讘讛 讜讻诪讛 专讜讘讛 专讘 讗诪专

搂 The mishna states: Or an animal with a cut windpipe, cut across its width, is a tereifa. With regard to this the Sages taught: How much must the windpipe be cut to render the animal a tereifa? In its majority. And how much is its majority? Rav says:

专讜讘 注讜讘讬讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讜讘 讞诇诇讛

The majority of its width, counting the width of the wall of the windpipe itself, the thickness of which is uneven. And some say that Rav says: The majority of its space, the inner area of the cross section of the windpipe, not counting the width of the windpipe wall.

讛讛讬讗 驻住讜拽转 讛讙专讙专转 讚讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬转讬讘 讜拽讗 讘讚讬拽 诇讛 讘专讜讘 注讜讘讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 诇讬诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讘专讜讘 讞诇诇讛 砖讚专讬讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讘讚拽讛 讘专讜讘 讞诇诇讛 讜讗讻砖专讛 讜讝讘谉 诪讬谞讛 讘转诇讬住专 讗讬住转讬专讬 驻砖讬讟讬 讘讬砖专讗

The Gemara recounts: There was a certain animal with a cut windpipe that came before Rav, i.e., it was brought for inspection to decide whether it was kosher. Rav was sitting and checking it to see if the windpipe had been cut in the majority of its width. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Didn鈥檛 you teach us, our teacher, that a cut windpipe is measured by the majority of its space? Rav sent the animal before Rabba bar bar 岣na, who checked it in the majority of its space and deemed it kosher, and purchased meat from it at the price of thirteen plain istera coins.

讜讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讻诐 砖讟讬诪讗 讗讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 专砖讗讬 诇讟讛专 讗住专 讗讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 专砖讗讬 诇讛转讬专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚专讘 诇讗 讗住专 诪讬住专

The Gemara asks: And how could Rabba bar bar 岣na do this, i.e., deem permitted an animal that Rav was going to deem prohibited? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If a halakhic authority deemed an item impure, another halakhic authority is not allowed to deem it pure; likewise, if he prohibited it, another authority is not allowed to permit it? The Gemara responds: It is different here, since Rav did not actually prohibit the animal. He merely considered doing so, but he sent it to Rabba bar bar 岣na before issuing a formal ruling.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讬 讘讛 讞讻诐 讛讬讻讬 讗讻诇 诪讬谞讛 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗诪专 讗讛讛 讛壮 讗诇讛讬诐 讛谞讛 谞驻砖讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 讜谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪谞注讜专讬 讜注讚 注转讛 讜诇讗 讘讗 讘驻讬 讘砖专 驻讙讜诇

The Gemara asks: And once a halakhic authority has ruled with regard to the animal, even to permit it, how could Rabba bar bar 岣na eat from it? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hen I said: Alas, Lord God, my soul has not become impure; and from my youth until now I have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass, or a tereifa; and no piggul flesh came into my mouth鈥 (Ezekiel 4:14).

讛谞讛 谞驻砖讬 诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 砖诇讗 讛专讛专转讬 讘讬讜诐 诇讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 讘砖专 讻讜住 讻讜住 诪注讜诇诐 讜诇讗 讘讗 讘驻讬 讘砖专 驻讙讜诇 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讘讛诪讛 砖讛讜专讛 讘讛 讞讻诐 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 讗讻诇转讬 诪讘讛诪讛 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 诪转谞讜转讬讛

The Sages interpreted the verse as follows: 鈥淢y soul has not been become impure鈥 means that I did not think of sexual thoughts during the day so as to come to the impurity of a seminal emission at night. 鈥淚 have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass, or a tereifa means that I never ate the flesh of an animal that was in danger of imminent death, leading one to say: Slaughter it, slaughter it quickly, before it dies. 鈥淎nd no piggul flesh came into my mouth,鈥 means that I never ate from an animal with regard to which there was uncertainty whether it is prohibited and a Sage issued a ruling to permit it. The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Natan: The phrase means that I never ate from an animal from which the gifts of the priesthood, the foreleg, jaw, and abomasum, were not separated. The above acts are technically permitted but unseemly. How, then, could Rabba bar bar 岣na consume the meat of this animal?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚转诇讬讗 讘住讘专讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讙诪专讬讛 住诪讱

The Gemara responds: This statement, that it is unseemly for a halakhic authority to rely on his own ruling to permit the meat, applies only to a matter that depends on reasoning. Rabba bar bar 岣na relied on his learning, i.e., a received tradition. There is nothing unseemly about relying upon a received tradition.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞砖讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 讚谉 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讝讬讻讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讟讬诪讗 讜讟讬讛专 讗住专 讜讛转讬专 讜讻谉 讛注讚讬诐 砖讛注讬讚讜 讻讜诇谉 专砖讗讬谉 诇讬拽讞 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讛专讞拽 诪谉 讛讻讬注讜专 讜诪谉 讛讚讜诪讛 诇讜

The Gemara objects: But let one derive that Rabba bar bar 岣na should not have purchased the meat due to suspicion, as it is taught in a baraita: If one issued a judgment, acquitted or convicted, deemed impure or pure, prohibited or permitted; or if witnesses testified with regard to a case, in all of these instances the judges or witnesses are allowed to purchase the item that they deemed permitted. But the Sages said: Distance yourself from unseemliness and from things similar to it. If so, Rabba bar bar 岣na should not have purchased the meat that he himself permitted.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讝讘讬谉 诪砖讜诪讗 讛讻讗 诪转拽诇讗 诪讜讻讞 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讛 砖专讗 讟专驻转讗 讜讝讘谉 诪讬谞讛 讘讬砖专讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讘讗 砖专讬 讘讜讻专讗 讜诇讗 讝讘谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讘讬砖专讗

The Gemara responds: This statement applies only to an item that is sold based on an appraisal of its value and not by standard measure. In such cases onlookers might suspect that the judge is receiving a favorable price in return for his judgment. But here, the weight of the meat proves that the judge is not receiving a discount, but is paying the standard price. This is like that incident where Rabba permitted a possible tereifa for consumption and bought meat from it. His wife, the daughter of Rav 岣sda, said to him: Father permitted a firstborn animal, declaring that it possessed a blemish that renders it permitted for consumption, but did not buy meat from it. Why are you acting differently?

讗诪专 诇讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讜讻专讗 讚讗砖讜诪讗 诪讝讚讘谉 讛讻讗 诪转拽诇讗 诪讜讻讞 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讜诪爪讗 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讗讜诪爪讗 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讝讘谞讜 诇讬

Rabba said to her: That matter applies to a firstborn, which is sold based on appraisal of its value. Here, the weight of the meat proves that I am paying the standard price and not unfairly deriving benefit from my judgment. What suspicion is there in this case? Will people suspect me because I received a superior piece of meat? Every day they sell me a superior piece of meat.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讝讛讜 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讝讛 讛专讜讗讛 讟专驻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讝讛讜 砖讜谞讗 诪转谞转 讬讞讬讛 讝讛 讛专讜讗讛 讟专驻讛 诇注爪诪讜

The Gemara cites an aphorism: Rav 岣sda says: Who is a Torah scholar? This is one who sees his own tereifa. In other words, when the status of his own animal is uncertain, he deems it prohibited without concern for his own monetary loss. And Rav 岣sda says: Who is referred to by the verse: 鈥淗e that hates gifts shall live鈥 (Proverbs 15:27)? This is one who sees his own tereifa. He is careful to avoid deriving benefit from that which is not his own, and even from items that are his concerning which it is questionable whether or not they are permitted.

讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讻诇 诪讬 砖拽讜专讗 讜砖讜谞讛 讜专讜讗讛 讟专驻讛 诇注爪诪讜 讜砖讬诪砖 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讬讙讬注 讻驻讬讱 讻讬 转讗讻诇 讗砖专讬讱 讜讟讜讘 诇讱 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讝讜讻讛 讜谞讜讞诇 砖谞讬 注讜诇诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜讛注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讗砖专讬讱 讘注讜诇诐 讛讝讛 讜讟讜讘 诇讱 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗

Mar Zutra taught in the name of Rav 岣sda: Anyone who reads the Torah and studies the Mishna, and sees his own tereifa, and has served Torah scholars to learn the ways of halakhic judgment, about him the verse states: 鈥淲hen you eat the labor of your hands, happy shall you be, and it shall be well with you鈥 (Psalms 128:2). Rav Zevid says: Such a person merits inheriting two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come. When the verse states: 鈥淗appy shall you be,鈥 it means in this world, and when it states: 鈥淎nd it shall be well with you,鈥 it is referring to the World-to-Come.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讬 讛讜讜 诪砖讚专讬 诇讬讛 诪讘讬 谞砖讬讗讛 诪讬讚讬 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讜讻讬 讛讜讜 诪讝诪谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讗 讘注讬 诪专 讚讗讬讞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讜谞讗 诪转谞讜转 讬讞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讬 诪砖讚专讬 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖拽讬诇 讻讬 讛讜讜 诪讝诪谞讬谉 诇讬讛 讗讝讬诇 讗诪专

With regard to the verse: 鈥淗e that hates gifts shall live,鈥 the Gemara relates that when they would send Rabbi Elazar some gift from the house of the Nasi, he would not take it. And when they would invite him, he would not go there. When declining these offers, he said to them: Does Master not desire that I live? As it is written: 鈥淗e that hates gifts shall live.鈥 By contrast, when they would send a gift to Rabbi Zeira, he would not take it, but when they would invite him he would go. He said in explanation:

Scroll To Top