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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 15, 2019 | ื˜ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Chullin 49

A thorn that is found in various parts of the animal – can one assume it came through a duct and didn’t pierce anything on its way or not? Are there cases when one can assume that a whole found in the animal was created after the shechitaย and therefore the animal would be kosher? Rabbiย  Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva debate 2 issues – are fats on the stomach permitted or forbidden and how were the kohanim themselves blessed (if they bless the peoople – what about themselves). Can fats inside the animal be an effective seal for a tear? Can one be lenient based on the principle – the Torah has compassion for the money of the people of Israel.


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

ื‘ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ืžืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืฉื ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื˜ืจืคื” ื•ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื—ื–ื™ ืื™ ืงื•ืคื ืœื‘ืจ ืื™ ืงื•ืคื ืœื’ื™ื•

embedded in the thickness of the wall of the reticulum, where the halakha is as follows: If the needle protrudes from one side, i.e., the inner side of the stomach wall, the animal is kosher, but if it protrudes from both sides, it is a tereifa; and if it protrudes only on the inside we do not say: See if the eye of the needle is facing outward or if the eye of the needle is facing inward? Rather, the animal is deemed kosher even if the eye is facing outward, and that is not considered evidence that the needle perforated through the gullet into the chest cavity and then perforated the thickness of the reticulum.

ืืžืจื™ ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืื•ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืžืฉืงื™ื ืื™ืžื ืื•ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืžืฉืงื™ื ื“ื—ืงื•ื”

The Sages say in response: There, in the case of the reticulum, since there are food and liquid present, one may say that the food and liquid pushed the eye of the needle through the stomach wall. Therefore, even if the eye points outward, one may still presume that the needle came from the inside, and the animal is kosher.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื—ื˜ื ื“ืื™ืฉืชื›ื— ื‘ืกืžืคื•ื ื ืจื‘ื” ื“ื›ื‘ื“ื ื”ื•ื ื ืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื˜ืจื™ืฃ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืžื ื™ื•ืžื™ ืžื›ืฉืจ ืืชื• ืฉื™ื™ืœื•ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืฉืงื™ืœื• ื’ืœื™ืžื ื“ื˜ืจื•ืคืื™

The Gemara relates that there was a certain needle that was found in the large duct of a liver. Huna Mar, son of Rav Idi, deemed the animal a tereifa, while Rav Adda bar Minyumi deemed it kosher. They came and asked Ravina about the issue, and he said to them: Take the robe of those who deemed it a tereifa. They must pay restitution to the owner of the animal, who was wrongfully forced to discard his kosher meat.

ื”ื”ื™ื ืงืฉื™ืชื ื“ืื™ืฉืชื›ื— ื‘ืžืจื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื•ื“ืื™ ืกื™ืžืคื•ื ื ื ืงื˜ ื•ืืชืื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ืงื ื ืคืงื ืžื™ืจื‘ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ืœ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ื“ื™ืงืœื ืื‘ืœ ื“ื–ื™ืชื ืžื™ื‘ื–ืข ื‘ื–ืข

The Gemara relates that there was a certain date pit that was found in a gallbladder. Rav Ashi said: When we were in the house of Rav Kahana as students, he would say with regard to such a case: This date pit certainly took the route of the duct connecting the liver and gallbladder and came through it to the gallbladder, as it is not sharp enough to have perforated the gallbladder from without. Even though it is large enough that it does not exit the gallbladder if one tries to squeeze it into the duct, one may still assume that the movements of the animalโ€™s body gradually cause it to slip through the duct. The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only to the pit of a palm, i.e., of a date, but the pit of an olive is pointed. Therefore, one must be concerned that it has pierced the wall of the gallbladder, rendering the animal a tereifa.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืžื” ื ืงืจื ืฉืžื” ืจื™ืื” ืฉืžืื™ืจื” ืืช ื”ืขื™ื ื™ื ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืกืžื ื™ืŸ

ยง The Gemara returns to its discussion of the lung: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Why is the lung called reiโ€™a in Hebrew? Because it lights up [meโ€™ira] the eyes of one who eats it. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yoแธฅanan referring to a lung eaten as is, or is he referring to a lung eaten only through its treatment with certain substances?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ื•ื–ื ื‘ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืจื™ืื” ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื™ื ืงื˜ ื‘ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืœื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืœื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืกืžื ื™ืŸ

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from that which Rav Huna bar Yehuda says: A goose may be purchased for a dinar, but its lung may be purchased for four dinars. And if it should enter your mind that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan is referring to eating the lung without treating it, one has no incentive to buy a lung separately for more money. Let him buy the whole goose for a dinar and eat the lung that comes included. Rather, it must be that the lung gains special properties only through treatment with certain substances, and this treatment is the reason for the higher price.

ืื™ื ืงื‘ื” ืจื™ืื” ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืžืžืฉืžืฉื ื™ื“ื™ื” ื“ื˜ื‘ื—ื ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ืื• ืœื ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ื ืชืŸ ืืžืจ ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืœื ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืชืœื™ื ืŸ

ยง The Gemara asks: If the lung is perforated where the hand of the butcher handles it after slaughter, do we attribute the perforation to the butcherโ€™s handling, or do we not attribute the perforation to the handling, in which case the animal is a tereifa? Rav Adda bar Natan says: We attribute it to the butcherโ€™s handling, while Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, says: We do not attribute it to the handling. And the halakha is that we attribute it to the handling.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืื‘ื ืžืจื™ืฉื™ ื›ืœื™ ื“ืจืคืจื ื”ื•ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ืืžืจื•ื” ืงืžื™ื” ืœื”ื ื“ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ื•ืœื ืงื‘ืœื”

Rav Shmuel, son of Rabbi Abbahu, said: My father was one of the heads of the kalla lectures of Rafram, and he said: We attribute it to the handling. They said this halakha of Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, who held the opposite, before Rav Shmuel, and he did not accept it.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืื‘ื ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ื”ื ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื–ืื‘

Rav Mesharshiyya said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Grandfather, i.e., Rav Adda bar Natan, as we attribute perforations to a wolf. If slaughtered meat is recovered from a wolf and found to have a perforation that would have rendered the animal a tereifa, one may attribute the perforation to the wolf and presume that it did not exist beforehand.

ืžื•ืจื ื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืจ ื“ื•ืกืื™ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืคืจื™ืฉ

Furthermore, if a perforation was caused by a worm [murana], Rav Yosef bar Dosai and the Rabbis disagree. One says that the worm emerged from the lung and perforated it before the slaughter, and the animal is a tereifa, and one says that it emerged after the slaughter, and the animal is kosher. And the halakha is that one presumes that it emerged after the slaughter.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉืชื™ื ืงื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืขื“ ืฉืชื™ื ืงื‘ ืœืกืžืคื•ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ

ยง The mishna states: Rabbi Shimon says: An animal with a perforated lung is not a tereifa until it is perforated through to the bronchi. With regard to this, Rabba bar Taแธฅlifa says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: Rabbi Shimon meant specifically that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the large bronchus, from which the smaller bronchi branch out.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืœื•ืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืœื•ืš ืขืจื‘ืื” ืงืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงืืžืจ

The Gemara relates that Rav Aแธฅa bar Abba sat before Rav Huna, and he was sitting and saying: Rabbi Malokh says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Huna said to him: Are you saying this in the name of Malokh the Arab? He says that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

ื›ื™ ืกืœื™ืง ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืœื•ืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ ื“ืžืจ ื“ืื ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืื™ืงืœืขื™ื ืŸ ืœืืชืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืœื•ืš ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืืžืจ ืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ื•ืืช ืžื” ื‘ื™ื“ืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

The Gemara continues: When Rabbi Zeira went up to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rav Beivai, who was sitting and saying: Rabbi Malokh says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Zeira said to him: On the Masterโ€™s life, I and Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba and Rav Asi visited the place of residence of Rabbi Malokh, and we said to him: Did the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? And he said to us: I said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Beivai asked Rabbi Zeira: And you, what more do you have in your possession on this matter? Rabbi Zeira said to him: This is what Rabbi Yitzแธฅak bar Ami says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

The Gemara rules: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Any perforation of the membranes of the lung renders the animal a tereifa.

ื ื™ืงื‘ื” ื”ืงื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ื—ืœื‘ ืฉืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืงื‘ื” ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื”ื’ื• ื‘ื• ื”ื™ืชืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืื‘ื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืกื™ืžื ื™ืš ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ื›ื”ื ื™

ยง The mishna states: If the abomasum was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. Concerning this, Rabbi Yitzแธฅak bar Naแธฅmani says that Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to fat that is on the abomasum, the priests accustomed themselves to consider it permitted, and they would eat it along with the rest of the abomasum, which was given to them from non-sacred animals as one of the gifts of the priesthood. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that he says in the name of his forefathers. And since there is a disagreement between the Sages with regard to this issue, your mnemonic to remember the lenient opinion is the idiom: Yishmael the priest generally helps the priests.

ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื” ืชื‘ืจื›ื• ืืช ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืœืžื“ื ื• ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืคื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ืขืฆืžืŸ ืœื ืœืžื“ื ื• ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืื ื™ ืื‘ืจื›ื ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื‘ืจื›ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ืจืš ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื

The Gemara clarifies: What is this, i.e., where does Rabbi Yishmael help the priests? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the priestly benediction: โ€œSo you shall bless the children of Israelโ€ (Numbers 6:23). Rabbi Yishmael says: We learn from this verse about a blessing for Israel from the mouth of the priests, but we have not learned about a blessing for the priests themselves. When it says afterward with regard to the priests: โ€œAnd they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless themโ€ (Numbers 6:27), you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, blesses the priests.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœืžื“ื ื• ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืคื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžืคื™ ื’ื‘ื•ืจื” ืœื ืœืžื“ื ื• ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืื ื™ ืื‘ืจื›ื ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื‘ืจื›ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืžืกื›ื™ื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื

Rabbi Akiva says a different interpretation: We learned from the verse about a blessing for Israel from the mouth of the priests, but we have not learned about a blessing for Israel from the mouth of the Almighty. When it says afterward: โ€œAnd they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them,โ€ you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, affirms their blessing. The word โ€œthemโ€ is referring to Israel.

ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžื•ืื‘ืจื›ื” ืžื‘ืจื›ื™ืš

The Gemara asks: But then from where does Rabbi Akiva learn about a blessing for the priests? Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: He learns it from Godโ€™s promise to Abraham: โ€œAnd I will bless them that bless youโ€ (Genesis 12:3). All who bless the Jewish people are blessed themselves.

ื•ืžืื™ ืžืกื™ื™ืข ื›ื”ื ื™ ื“ืžื•ืงื™ ืœื” ืœื‘ืจื›ืช ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืจื›ื” ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ

The Gemara asks: And in what sense does only Rabbi Yishmael help the priests, given that Rabbi Akiva concedes that the priests are also blessed? The Gemara responds: He helps the priests in the sense that he establishes the blessing for the priests in the same place, the same verse, that one finds the blessing of Israel, indicating that they receive the same blessing.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืื‘ื•ืชื™ื• ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ืืฉืจ ืขืœ ื”ืงืจื‘

It was stated that the priests accustomed themselves to permit the fat on the abomasum, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yishmael that he says in the name of his forefathers. The Gemara clarifies: What is this statement? As it is taught in a baraita that when the verse states with regard to forbidden fats mentioned in the Torah: โ€œAll the fat that is upon the innardsโ€ (Leviticus 3:3),

ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื—ืœื‘ ืฉืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื“ืงื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื—ืœื‘ ืฉืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื‘ื”

the word โ€œallโ€ serves to include the fat that is on the small intestines; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The word โ€œallโ€ serves to include the fat that is on the abomasum. According to Rabbi Yishmael, the fat of the abomasum is permitted.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืืช ื”ื—ืœื‘ ืืฉืจ ืขืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื” ื—ืœื‘ ื”ืžื›ืกื” ืืช ื”ืงืจื‘ ืงืจื•ื ื•ื ืงืœืฃ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืงืจื•ื ื•ื ืงืœืฃ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžื” ื—ืœื‘ ื”ืžื›ืกื” ืืช ื”ืงืจื‘ ืชื•ืชื‘ ืงืจื•ื ื•ื ืงืœืฃ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืชื•ืชื‘ ืงืจื•ื ื•ื ืงืœืฃ

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: The verse states: โ€œThe fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is upon the innardsโ€ (Leviticus 3:3). Rabbi Shimon, i.e., Rabbi Yishmael, says: Just as the fat that covers the innards possesses a membrane, and that membrane is easily peeled off, so too, all fat possessing a membrane and whose membrane is easily peeled is forbidden, including the fat on the abomasum. Rabbi Akiva says: Just as the fat that covers the innards is spread out loosely over them, and it possesses a membrane, and the membrane is easily peeled off, so too, all fat that is spread out loosely, and possesses a membrane, and whose membrane is easily peeled, e.g., the fat on the intestines, is forbidden. The fat on the abomasum is fixed tightly and is therefore permitted. It would seem from this baraita that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael contradict themselves.

ืฉืœื— ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืš ื”ื™ื ื”ืฆืขื” ืฉืœ ืžืฉื ื” ื•ืื™ืคื•ืš ืงืžื™ื™ืชื

Ravin sent an answer in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Such is the proper layout of the mishna, i.e., the baraita. The latter attribution of the opinions is correct, and one must reverse the attribution of opinions in the first baraita. Accordingly, Rabbi Akiva deems the fat on the intestines prohibited, while Rabbi Yishmael deems the fat on the abomasum prohibited as well.

ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ืืคื›ืช ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ืื™ืคื•ืš ื‘ืชืจื™ื™ืชื ืฉืื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžื” ื“ื•ื•ืงื

The Gemara asks: What did you see that led you to reverse the first baraita? Why not reverse the second baraita instead? The Gemara responds: The second baraita here is different, since it teaches using the formula: Just as. Because it takes care to specifically provide the textual justifications for the opinions, it is presumably accurate about the attributions as well.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืื‘ื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืœื™ื” ืœื ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, how can Rabbi Oshaya claim above that the priests acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? It was actually in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Rabbi Oshaya meant only that Rabbi Yishmael says the lenient opinion in the name of his forefathers, but Rabbi Yishmael himself does not hold accordingly, and he considers the fat of the abomasum forbidden.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืœื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืกื•ืชื ื˜ืžื ืื™ื ื• ืกื•ืชื ื•ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ืกื•ืชื

ยง The Gemara discusses a connection between the issue of fats and that of tereifot: Rav says: Kosher fat effectively seals a perforation that it covers, and the animal is not rendered a tereifa. Non-kosher fat does not effectively seal a perforation, and the animal is a tereifa. And Rav Sheshet says: Both this and that fat effectively seal a perforation.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื—ืœื‘ ื—ื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ื•ืงื ืืžืจ ื—ืœื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืกื•ืชื ื•ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื”ื•ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื”ื“ืง ื•ื”ืื™ ืœื ืžื”ื“ืง

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to the fat of an undomesticated animal, all of which is permitted for consumption, what is the halakha? Shall one say that Rav specifically said that kosher fat seals a perforation, and since this too, i.e., all the fat of an undomesticated animal, is kosher, it is all considered an effective seal? Or perhaps Rav specified that permitted fat of a domesticated animal seals a perforation only because it is firmly attached. But this, the fat on the innards of an undomesticated animal, is not firmly attached, and it is not an effective seal, even though it is permitted for consumption.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื ื”ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืื”ื“ื•ืงื™ ืœื ืžื”ื“ืง

Abaye said: Why does Rabbi Zeira raise this dilemma? Granted that the fat of the innards is permitted for consumption, but still, it is not firmly attached and clearly does not form an effective seal.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื ืงื‘ ื“ืกืชืžื” ื—ืœื‘ ื˜ืžื ื“ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืžืื™ ื ื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืœื” ื—ื“ื ื“ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื—ืœื‘ ื˜ืžื ื ืžื™ ืกื•ืชื ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื—ืกื” ืขืœ ืžืžื•ื ื ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืจื‘ื ืจื‘ ื•ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื—ืกื” ืขืœ ืžืžื•ื ืŸ ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ

The Gemara relates: There was a certain perforation that was sealed by non-kosher fat that came before Rava. Rava said: With regard to what need we be concerned? First, doesnโ€™t Rav Sheshet say: Non-kosher fat also effectively seals a perforation? And furthermore, in general, the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people, and it is appropriate to rule leniently in this regard. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But there is also the opinion of Rav that non-kosher fat does not seal a perforation, and this dispute concerns a prohibition by Torah law, and yet you say that the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people? One cannot rely on this principle to rule in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to such matters.

ืžื ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื ื“ื•ืงื ืื™ื’ืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืกืชืงื ื“ื“ื•ื‘ืฉื ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืžืื™ ื ื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืœื” ื—ื“ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืฉืงื™ื ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืžื™ื ื•ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ืฉืืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉืงื™ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื—ืกื” ืขืœ ืžืžื•ื ื ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืจื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืกื›ื ืช ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื—ืกื” ืขืœ ืžืžื•ื ื ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ

The Gemara relates a similar episode: Manyumin the jug maker had a jug [bisteka] full of honey that was left uncovered, and he was concerned it might have been contaminated by snake venom. He came before Rava to inquire as to the halakha. Rava said: With regard to what need we be concerned? First, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 8:4): Three liquids are prohibited due to exposure: Wine, water, and milk; and all other liquids are permitted. Honey, therefore, is permitted. And furthermore, the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said to Rava: But there is also the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that exposed honey is prohibited, and this dispute concerns a matter of mortal danger, and yet you say that the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people?

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ืฆื™ืจ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฅ ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ืžื•ืจื™ื™ืก ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื ื™ ืจืื™ืชื™ ื ื—ืฉ ืฉืฉืชื” ืฆื™ืจ ื‘ืฆื™ื“ืŸ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืฉื˜ื™ื ื”ื•ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืจืื™ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื•ื˜ื™ื

The Gemara clarifies: What is this opinion of Rabbi Shimon? As it is taught in a baraita: Five liquids are not subject to the prohibition of exposure, since snakes do not drink from them: Fish brine, vinegar, oil, honey, and fish gravy [morayes] made from fish brine mixed with oil and salt. Rabbi Shimon says: Even they are subject to prohibition due to exposure. And Rabbi Shimon said: I once saw a snake that drank fish brine in Tzaidan. The Rabbis said to him: That snake was strange, i.e., it behaved differently than other snakes, and one does not bring a proof from strange creatures.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ ืžื™ื”ืช ื‘ืฆื™ืจ ื“ื”ื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืœื”ื• ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ื ืฉื“ื• ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฆื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ ืžื™ื”ื ื‘ื“ื‘ืฉ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืงืื™ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืกืจ ื‘ื“ื‘ืฉ

Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak: Concede to me, at least, with regard to fish brine that it is not prohibited by exposure, as when Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, and the Sages would have a case of exposure of some liquid, they would cast it into fish brine. The sharpness of the brine neutralizes the snake venom. Accordingly, just as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to fish brine, so too it is not in accordance with his opinion with regard to honey. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said to him: Concede to me, at least, with regard to honey that it is prohibited by exposure, as Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita: And likewise, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would deem exposed honey prohibited.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื—ืœื‘ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ื›ื›ื•ื‘ืข ืื™ื ื• ืกื•ืชื ื”ื™ื›ื ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื—ื™ื˜ื™ ื“ื›ืจื›ืฉื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื˜ืจืคืฉื ื“ืœื™ื‘ื

The Gemara returns to the initial discussion with regard to fats and perforations: Rav Naแธฅman says: Permitted fat that is made like a hat does not effectively seal a perforation, even though it is permitted for consumption. The Gemara clarifies: Where is this fat? Some say it is the grains of fat found on the rectum, which, if perforated, renders the animal a tereifa. And some say that it is the membrane surrounding the heart, which, if perforated to the chambers, renders the animal a tereifa.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืžืขื™ืช ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื—ื™ืžืฆื ื•ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ืžืฆื ื—ื“ ืกืชื™ื ื•ื—ื“ ืœื ืกืชื™ื ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ื”ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ื•ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ืžืฆื ืกืชื™ื ื—ื™ืžืฆื ืœื ืกืชื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื˜ื‘ื•ืช ื•ืกื™ืžื ื™ืš ื™ืคื” ื›ื— ื”ื‘ืŸ ืžื›ื— ื”ืื‘

ยง Rava said: I heard from Rav Naแธฅman about two fats found on the abomasum, in different places. One is called the แธฅimtza and one the bar แธฅimtza, meaning: Son of แธฅimtza. One effectively seals a perforation of the abomasum, and one does not effectively seal a perforation of the abomasum. But I do not know which of them is which. Rav Huna bar แธคinnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Naแธฅman, said: The bar แธฅimtza seals; the แธฅimtza does not seal. Rav Tavot said: And your mnemonic is: The power of the son is greater than the power of the father.

ื”ื™ ื—ื™ืžืฆื ื•ื”ื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ืžืฆื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื™ื ื”ื• ืžื™ื›ืœ ืื›ืœื™

The Gemara asks: Which is the แธฅimtza and which is the bar แธฅimtza? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from that which Rav Naแธฅman says with regard to one of the fats on the abomasum. Can it be that they, the residents of Eretz Yisrael, eat it, considering it permitted for consumption,

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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 49

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 49

ื‘ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ืžืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืฉื ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื˜ืจืคื” ื•ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื—ื–ื™ ืื™ ืงื•ืคื ืœื‘ืจ ืื™ ืงื•ืคื ืœื’ื™ื•

embedded in the thickness of the wall of the reticulum, where the halakha is as follows: If the needle protrudes from one side, i.e., the inner side of the stomach wall, the animal is kosher, but if it protrudes from both sides, it is a tereifa; and if it protrudes only on the inside we do not say: See if the eye of the needle is facing outward or if the eye of the needle is facing inward? Rather, the animal is deemed kosher even if the eye is facing outward, and that is not considered evidence that the needle perforated through the gullet into the chest cavity and then perforated the thickness of the reticulum.

ืืžืจื™ ื”ืชื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืื•ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืžืฉืงื™ื ืื™ืžื ืื•ื›ืœื™ื ื•ืžืฉืงื™ื ื“ื—ืงื•ื”

The Sages say in response: There, in the case of the reticulum, since there are food and liquid present, one may say that the food and liquid pushed the eye of the needle through the stomach wall. Therefore, even if the eye points outward, one may still presume that the needle came from the inside, and the animal is kosher.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืžื—ื˜ื ื“ืื™ืฉืชื›ื— ื‘ืกืžืคื•ื ื ืจื‘ื” ื“ื›ื‘ื“ื ื”ื•ื ื ืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื˜ืจื™ืฃ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืžื ื™ื•ืžื™ ืžื›ืฉืจ ืืชื• ืฉื™ื™ืœื•ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืฉืงื™ืœื• ื’ืœื™ืžื ื“ื˜ืจื•ืคืื™

The Gemara relates that there was a certain needle that was found in the large duct of a liver. Huna Mar, son of Rav Idi, deemed the animal a tereifa, while Rav Adda bar Minyumi deemed it kosher. They came and asked Ravina about the issue, and he said to them: Take the robe of those who deemed it a tereifa. They must pay restitution to the owner of the animal, who was wrongfully forced to discard his kosher meat.

ื”ื”ื™ื ืงืฉื™ืชื ื“ืื™ืฉืชื›ื— ื‘ืžืจื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืืžืจ ื”ื ื•ื“ืื™ ืกื™ืžืคื•ื ื ื ืงื˜ ื•ืืชืื™ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื ืงื ื ืคืงื ืžื™ืจื‘ืœ ื”ื•ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ืœ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ื“ื™ืงืœื ืื‘ืœ ื“ื–ื™ืชื ืžื™ื‘ื–ืข ื‘ื–ืข

The Gemara relates that there was a certain date pit that was found in a gallbladder. Rav Ashi said: When we were in the house of Rav Kahana as students, he would say with regard to such a case: This date pit certainly took the route of the duct connecting the liver and gallbladder and came through it to the gallbladder, as it is not sharp enough to have perforated the gallbladder from without. Even though it is large enough that it does not exit the gallbladder if one tries to squeeze it into the duct, one may still assume that the movements of the animalโ€™s body gradually cause it to slip through the duct. The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only to the pit of a palm, i.e., of a date, but the pit of an olive is pointed. Therefore, one must be concerned that it has pierced the wall of the gallbladder, rendering the animal a tereifa.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืžื” ื ืงืจื ืฉืžื” ืจื™ืื” ืฉืžืื™ืจื” ืืช ื”ืขื™ื ื™ื ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืกืžื ื™ืŸ

ยง The Gemara returns to its discussion of the lung: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Why is the lung called reiโ€™a in Hebrew? Because it lights up [meโ€™ira] the eyes of one who eats it. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yoแธฅanan referring to a lung eaten as is, or is he referring to a lung eaten only through its treatment with certain substances?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ื•ื–ื ื‘ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืจื™ืื” ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื™ื ืงื˜ ื‘ื–ื•ื–ื ื•ืœื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืœื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืกืžื ื™ืŸ

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from that which Rav Huna bar Yehuda says: A goose may be purchased for a dinar, but its lung may be purchased for four dinars. And if it should enter your mind that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan is referring to eating the lung without treating it, one has no incentive to buy a lung separately for more money. Let him buy the whole goose for a dinar and eat the lung that comes included. Rather, it must be that the lung gains special properties only through treatment with certain substances, and this treatment is the reason for the higher price.

ืื™ื ืงื‘ื” ืจื™ืื” ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืžืžืฉืžืฉื ื™ื“ื™ื” ื“ื˜ื‘ื—ื ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ืื• ืœื ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ื ืชืŸ ืืžืจ ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืœื ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืชืœื™ื ืŸ

ยง The Gemara asks: If the lung is perforated where the hand of the butcher handles it after slaughter, do we attribute the perforation to the butcherโ€™s handling, or do we not attribute the perforation to the handling, in which case the animal is a tereifa? Rav Adda bar Natan says: We attribute it to the butcherโ€™s handling, while Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, says: We do not attribute it to the handling. And the halakha is that we attribute it to the handling.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืื‘ื ืžืจื™ืฉื™ ื›ืœื™ ื“ืจืคืจื ื”ื•ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ืืžืจื•ื” ืงืžื™ื” ืœื”ื ื“ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ื•ืœื ืงื‘ืœื”

Rav Shmuel, son of Rabbi Abbahu, said: My father was one of the heads of the kalla lectures of Rafram, and he said: We attribute it to the handling. They said this halakha of Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, who held the opposite, before Rav Shmuel, and he did not accept it.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืื‘ื ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ื”ื ืชืœื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื–ืื‘

Rav Mesharshiyya said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Grandfather, i.e., Rav Adda bar Natan, as we attribute perforations to a wolf. If slaughtered meat is recovered from a wolf and found to have a perforation that would have rendered the animal a tereifa, one may attribute the perforation to the wolf and presume that it did not exist beforehand.

ืžื•ืจื ื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืจ ื“ื•ืกืื™ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืคืจื™ืฉ

Furthermore, if a perforation was caused by a worm [murana], Rav Yosef bar Dosai and the Rabbis disagree. One says that the worm emerged from the lung and perforated it before the slaughter, and the animal is a tereifa, and one says that it emerged after the slaughter, and the animal is kosher. And the halakha is that one presumes that it emerged after the slaughter.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉืชื™ื ืงื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืขื“ ืฉืชื™ื ืงื‘ ืœืกืžืคื•ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ

ยง The mishna states: Rabbi Shimon says: An animal with a perforated lung is not a tereifa until it is perforated through to the bronchi. With regard to this, Rabba bar Taแธฅlifa says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: Rabbi Shimon meant specifically that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the large bronchus, from which the smaller bronchi branch out.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืœื•ืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืœื•ืš ืขืจื‘ืื” ืงืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงืืžืจ

The Gemara relates that Rav Aแธฅa bar Abba sat before Rav Huna, and he was sitting and saying: Rabbi Malokh says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Huna said to him: Are you saying this in the name of Malokh the Arab? He says that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

ื›ื™ ืกืœื™ืง ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืœื•ืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ ื“ืžืจ ื“ืื ื ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื•ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืื™ืงืœืขื™ื ืŸ ืœืืชืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืœื•ืš ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืืžืจ ืœืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ื•ืืช ืžื” ื‘ื™ื“ืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

The Gemara continues: When Rabbi Zeira went up to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rav Beivai, who was sitting and saying: Rabbi Malokh says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Zeira said to him: On the Masterโ€™s life, I and Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba and Rav Asi visited the place of residence of Rabbi Malokh, and we said to him: Did the Master say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? And he said to us: I said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Beivai asked Rabbi Zeira: And you, what more do you have in your possession on this matter? Rabbi Zeira said to him: This is what Rabbi Yitzแธฅak bar Ami says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

The Gemara rules: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Any perforation of the membranes of the lung renders the animal a tereifa.

ื ื™ืงื‘ื” ื”ืงื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ื—ืœื‘ ืฉืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืงื‘ื” ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื”ื’ื• ื‘ื• ื”ื™ืชืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืื‘ื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืกื™ืžื ื™ืš ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ื›ื”ื ื™

ยง The mishna states: If the abomasum was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. Concerning this, Rabbi Yitzแธฅak bar Naแธฅmani says that Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to fat that is on the abomasum, the priests accustomed themselves to consider it permitted, and they would eat it along with the rest of the abomasum, which was given to them from non-sacred animals as one of the gifts of the priesthood. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael that he says in the name of his forefathers. And since there is a disagreement between the Sages with regard to this issue, your mnemonic to remember the lenient opinion is the idiom: Yishmael the priest generally helps the priests.

ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื” ืชื‘ืจื›ื• ืืช ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืœืžื“ื ื• ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืคื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ืขืฆืžืŸ ืœื ืœืžื“ื ื• ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืื ื™ ืื‘ืจื›ื ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื‘ืจื›ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ืจืš ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื

The Gemara clarifies: What is this, i.e., where does Rabbi Yishmael help the priests? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the priestly benediction: โ€œSo you shall bless the children of Israelโ€ (Numbers 6:23). Rabbi Yishmael says: We learn from this verse about a blessing for Israel from the mouth of the priests, but we have not learned about a blessing for the priests themselves. When it says afterward with regard to the priests: โ€œAnd they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless themโ€ (Numbers 6:27), you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, blesses the priests.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœืžื“ื ื• ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžืคื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžืคื™ ื’ื‘ื•ืจื” ืœื ืœืžื“ื ื• ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืื ื™ ืื‘ืจื›ื ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื‘ืจื›ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืžืกื›ื™ื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื

Rabbi Akiva says a different interpretation: We learned from the verse about a blessing for Israel from the mouth of the priests, but we have not learned about a blessing for Israel from the mouth of the Almighty. When it says afterward: โ€œAnd they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them,โ€ you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, affirms their blessing. The word โ€œthemโ€ is referring to Israel.

ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื‘ืจื›ื” ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžื•ืื‘ืจื›ื” ืžื‘ืจื›ื™ืš

The Gemara asks: But then from where does Rabbi Akiva learn about a blessing for the priests? Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: He learns it from Godโ€™s promise to Abraham: โ€œAnd I will bless them that bless youโ€ (Genesis 12:3). All who bless the Jewish people are blessed themselves.

ื•ืžืื™ ืžืกื™ื™ืข ื›ื”ื ื™ ื“ืžื•ืงื™ ืœื” ืœื‘ืจื›ืช ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืจื›ื” ื“ื™ืฉืจืืœ

The Gemara asks: And in what sense does only Rabbi Yishmael help the priests, given that Rabbi Akiva concedes that the priests are also blessed? The Gemara responds: He helps the priests in the sense that he establishes the blessing for the priests in the same place, the same verse, that one finds the blessing of Israel, indicating that they receive the same blessing.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืื‘ื•ืชื™ื• ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ืืฉืจ ืขืœ ื”ืงืจื‘

It was stated that the priests accustomed themselves to permit the fat on the abomasum, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yishmael that he says in the name of his forefathers. The Gemara clarifies: What is this statement? As it is taught in a baraita that when the verse states with regard to forbidden fats mentioned in the Torah: โ€œAll the fat that is upon the innardsโ€ (Leviticus 3:3),

ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื—ืœื‘ ืฉืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ื“ืงื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื—ืœื‘ ืฉืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื‘ื”

the word โ€œallโ€ serves to include the fat that is on the small intestines; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The word โ€œallโ€ serves to include the fat that is on the abomasum. According to Rabbi Yishmael, the fat of the abomasum is permitted.

ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื™ ืืช ื”ื—ืœื‘ ืืฉืจ ืขืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื” ื—ืœื‘ ื”ืžื›ืกื” ืืช ื”ืงืจื‘ ืงืจื•ื ื•ื ืงืœืฃ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืงืจื•ื ื•ื ืงืœืฃ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžื” ื—ืœื‘ ื”ืžื›ืกื” ืืช ื”ืงืจื‘ ืชื•ืชื‘ ืงืจื•ื ื•ื ืงืœืฃ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืชื•ืชื‘ ืงืจื•ื ื•ื ืงืœืฃ

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: The verse states: โ€œThe fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is upon the innardsโ€ (Leviticus 3:3). Rabbi Shimon, i.e., Rabbi Yishmael, says: Just as the fat that covers the innards possesses a membrane, and that membrane is easily peeled off, so too, all fat possessing a membrane and whose membrane is easily peeled is forbidden, including the fat on the abomasum. Rabbi Akiva says: Just as the fat that covers the innards is spread out loosely over them, and it possesses a membrane, and the membrane is easily peeled off, so too, all fat that is spread out loosely, and possesses a membrane, and whose membrane is easily peeled, e.g., the fat on the intestines, is forbidden. The fat on the abomasum is fixed tightly and is therefore permitted. It would seem from this baraita that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael contradict themselves.

ืฉืœื— ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืš ื”ื™ื ื”ืฆืขื” ืฉืœ ืžืฉื ื” ื•ืื™ืคื•ืš ืงืžื™ื™ืชื

Ravin sent an answer in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Such is the proper layout of the mishna, i.e., the baraita. The latter attribution of the opinions is correct, and one must reverse the attribution of opinions in the first baraita. Accordingly, Rabbi Akiva deems the fat on the intestines prohibited, while Rabbi Yishmael deems the fat on the abomasum prohibited as well.

ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ืืคื›ืช ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ืื™ืคื•ืš ื‘ืชืจื™ื™ืชื ืฉืื ื™ ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžื” ื“ื•ื•ืงื

The Gemara asks: What did you see that led you to reverse the first baraita? Why not reverse the second baraita instead? The Gemara responds: The second baraita here is different, since it teaches using the formula: Just as. Because it takes care to specifically provide the textual justifications for the opinions, it is presumably accurate about the attributions as well.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืฉืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืื‘ื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืœื™ื” ืœื ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, how can Rabbi Oshaya claim above that the priests acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? It was actually in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Rabbi Oshaya meant only that Rabbi Yishmael says the lenient opinion in the name of his forefathers, but Rabbi Yishmael himself does not hold accordingly, and he considers the fat of the abomasum forbidden.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืœื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืกื•ืชื ื˜ืžื ืื™ื ื• ืกื•ืชื ื•ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื–ื” ืกื•ืชื

ยง The Gemara discusses a connection between the issue of fats and that of tereifot: Rav says: Kosher fat effectively seals a perforation that it covers, and the animal is not rendered a tereifa. Non-kosher fat does not effectively seal a perforation, and the animal is a tereifa. And Rav Sheshet says: Both this and that fat effectively seal a perforation.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื—ืœื‘ ื—ื™ื” ืžืื™ ื“ื•ืงื ืืžืจ ื—ืœื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืกื•ืชื ื•ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื”ื•ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืžื”ื“ืง ื•ื”ืื™ ืœื ืžื”ื“ืง

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to the fat of an undomesticated animal, all of which is permitted for consumption, what is the halakha? Shall one say that Rav specifically said that kosher fat seals a perforation, and since this too, i.e., all the fat of an undomesticated animal, is kosher, it is all considered an effective seal? Or perhaps Rav specified that permitted fat of a domesticated animal seals a perforation only because it is firmly attached. But this, the fat on the innards of an undomesticated animal, is not firmly attached, and it is not an effective seal, even though it is permitted for consumption.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžืื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื ื”ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืื”ื“ื•ืงื™ ืœื ืžื”ื“ืง

Abaye said: Why does Rabbi Zeira raise this dilemma? Granted that the fat of the innards is permitted for consumption, but still, it is not firmly attached and clearly does not form an effective seal.

ื”ื”ื•ื ื ืงื‘ ื“ืกืชืžื” ื—ืœื‘ ื˜ืžื ื“ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืžืื™ ื ื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืœื” ื—ื“ื ื“ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื—ืœื‘ ื˜ืžื ื ืžื™ ืกื•ืชื ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื—ืกื” ืขืœ ืžืžื•ื ื ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœืจื‘ื ืจื‘ ื•ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื—ืกื” ืขืœ ืžืžื•ื ืŸ ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ

The Gemara relates: There was a certain perforation that was sealed by non-kosher fat that came before Rava. Rava said: With regard to what need we be concerned? First, doesnโ€™t Rav Sheshet say: Non-kosher fat also effectively seals a perforation? And furthermore, in general, the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people, and it is appropriate to rule leniently in this regard. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But there is also the opinion of Rav that non-kosher fat does not seal a perforation, and this dispute concerns a prohibition by Torah law, and yet you say that the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people? One cannot rely on this principle to rule in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to such matters.

ืžื ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื ื“ื•ืงื ืื™ื’ืœื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืกืชืงื ื“ื“ื•ื‘ืฉื ืืชื ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืžืื™ ื ื™ื—ื•ืฉ ืœื” ื—ื“ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืฉืงื™ื ืืกื•ืจื™ื ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ื”ื™ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืžื™ื ื•ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ืฉืืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืžืฉืงื™ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ื ื•ืขื•ื“ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื—ืกื” ืขืœ ืžืžื•ื ื ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืจื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืกื›ื ืช ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื—ืกื” ืขืœ ืžืžื•ื ื ืฉืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ

The Gemara relates a similar episode: Manyumin the jug maker had a jug [bisteka] full of honey that was left uncovered, and he was concerned it might have been contaminated by snake venom. He came before Rava to inquire as to the halakha. Rava said: With regard to what need we be concerned? First, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 8:4): Three liquids are prohibited due to exposure: Wine, water, and milk; and all other liquids are permitted. Honey, therefore, is permitted. And furthermore, the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said to Rava: But there is also the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that exposed honey is prohibited, and this dispute concerns a matter of mortal danger, and yet you say that the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people?

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ืฆื™ืจ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฅ ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืฉ ื•ืžื•ืจื™ื™ืก ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื ื™ ืจืื™ืชื™ ื ื—ืฉ ืฉืฉืชื” ืฆื™ืจ ื‘ืฆื™ื“ืŸ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืฉื˜ื™ื ื”ื•ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืจืื™ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื•ื˜ื™ื

The Gemara clarifies: What is this opinion of Rabbi Shimon? As it is taught in a baraita: Five liquids are not subject to the prohibition of exposure, since snakes do not drink from them: Fish brine, vinegar, oil, honey, and fish gravy [morayes] made from fish brine mixed with oil and salt. Rabbi Shimon says: Even they are subject to prohibition due to exposure. And Rabbi Shimon said: I once saw a snake that drank fish brine in Tzaidan. The Rabbis said to him: That snake was strange, i.e., it behaved differently than other snakes, and one does not bring a proof from strange creatures.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ ืžื™ื”ืช ื‘ืฆื™ืจ ื“ื”ื ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืœื”ื• ื’ื™ืœื•ื™ื ืฉื“ื• ืœื™ื” ื‘ืฆื™ืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ ืžื™ื”ื ื‘ื“ื‘ืฉ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืงืื™ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืกืจ ื‘ื“ื‘ืฉ

Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak: Concede to me, at least, with regard to fish brine that it is not prohibited by exposure, as when Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, and the Sages would have a case of exposure of some liquid, they would cast it into fish brine. The sharpness of the brine neutralizes the snake venom. Accordingly, just as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to fish brine, so too it is not in accordance with his opinion with regard to honey. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said to him: Concede to me, at least, with regard to honey that it is prohibited by exposure, as Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita: And likewise, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would deem exposed honey prohibited.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื—ืœื‘ ื”ืขืฉื•ื™ ื›ื›ื•ื‘ืข ืื™ื ื• ืกื•ืชื ื”ื™ื›ื ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื—ื™ื˜ื™ ื“ื›ืจื›ืฉื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื˜ืจืคืฉื ื“ืœื™ื‘ื

The Gemara returns to the initial discussion with regard to fats and perforations: Rav Naแธฅman says: Permitted fat that is made like a hat does not effectively seal a perforation, even though it is permitted for consumption. The Gemara clarifies: Where is this fat? Some say it is the grains of fat found on the rectum, which, if perforated, renders the animal a tereifa. And some say that it is the membrane surrounding the heart, which, if perforated to the chambers, renders the animal a tereifa.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืฉืžืขื™ืช ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืชืจืชื™ ื—ื™ืžืฆื ื•ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ืžืฆื ื—ื“ ืกืชื™ื ื•ื—ื“ ืœื ืกืชื™ื ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขื ื ื”ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ื•ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ืžืฆื ืกืชื™ื ื—ื™ืžืฆื ืœื ืกืชื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื˜ื‘ื•ืช ื•ืกื™ืžื ื™ืš ื™ืคื” ื›ื— ื”ื‘ืŸ ืžื›ื— ื”ืื‘

ยง Rava said: I heard from Rav Naแธฅman about two fats found on the abomasum, in different places. One is called the แธฅimtza and one the bar แธฅimtza, meaning: Son of แธฅimtza. One effectively seals a perforation of the abomasum, and one does not effectively seal a perforation of the abomasum. But I do not know which of them is which. Rav Huna bar แธคinnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Naแธฅman, said: The bar แธฅimtza seals; the แธฅimtza does not seal. Rav Tavot said: And your mnemonic is: The power of the son is greater than the power of the father.

ื”ื™ ื—ื™ืžืฆื ื•ื”ื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ืžืฆื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืื™ื ื”ื• ืžื™ื›ืœ ืื›ืœื™

The Gemara asks: Which is the แธฅimtza and which is the bar แธฅimtza? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from that which Rav Naแธฅman says with regard to one of the fats on the abomasum. Can it be that they, the residents of Eretz Yisrael, eat it, considering it permitted for consumption,

Scroll To Top