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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 15, 2019 | 讟壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 shechita聽and therefore the animal would be kosher? Rabbi聽 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"

讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讻砖专讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讟专驻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讞讝讬 讗讬 拽讜驻讗 诇讘专 讗讬 拽讜驻讗 诇讙讬讜

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.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬诐 讚讞拽讜讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘住诪驻讜谞讗 专讘讛 讚讻讘讚讗 讛讜谞讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讟专讬祝 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诪讻砖专 讗转讜 砖讬讬诇讜讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖拽讬诇讜 讙诇讬诪讗 讚讟专讜驻讗讬

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.

讛讛讬讗 拽砖讬转讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘诪专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 住讬诪驻讜谞讗 谞拽讟 讜讗转讗讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 拽讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讬专讘诇 讛讜讗 讚专讘讬诇 诇讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讗讘诇 讚讝讬转讗 诪讬讘讝注 讘讝注

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 animal鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 专讬讗讛 砖诪讗讬专讛 讗转 讛注讬谞讬诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讜 注诇 讬讚讬 住诪谞讬谉

搂 The Gemara returns to its discussion of the lung: Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Why is the lung called rei鈥檃 in Hebrew? Because it lights up [me鈥檌ra] the eyes of one who eats it. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yo岣nan referring to a lung eaten as is, or is he referring to a lung eaten only through its treatment with certain substances?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜讜讝讗 讘讝讜讝讗 讜专讬讗讛 讚讬讚讛 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗讻讬诇讛 诇讬谞拽讟 讘讝讜讝讗 讜诇讬讻讜诇 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 住诪谞讬谉

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬谞拽讘讛 专讬讗讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诪诪砖诪砖讗 讬讚讬讛 讚讟讘讞讗 转诇讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 转诇讬谞谉 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 谞转谉 讗诪专 转诇讬谞谉 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讗 转诇讬谞谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 转诇讬谞谉

搂 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 butcher鈥檚 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 butcher鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讘讗 诪专讬砖讬 讻诇讬 讚专驻专诐 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 转诇讬谞谉 讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 诇讛讗 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛讗 转诇讬谞谉 讘讝讗讘

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.

诪讜专谞讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讚讜住讗讬 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 驻专讬砖 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 驻专讬砖 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 驻专讬砖

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖转讬谞拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 注讚 砖转讬谞拽讘 诇住诪驻讜谉 讙讚讜诇

搂 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 Ta岣ifa 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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪诇讜讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诇讜讱 注专讘讗讛 拽讗诪专转 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专

The Gemara relates that Rav A岣 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.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讘讬讘讬 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪诇讜讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬 讚诪专 讚讗谞讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗讬拽诇注讬谞谉 诇讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪诇讜讱 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讗诪专 诇谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讬 讜讗转 诪讛 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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 Master鈥檚 life, I and Rabbi 岣yya 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 Yitz岣k bar Ami says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讜讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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.

谞讬拽讘讛 讛拽讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 拽讘讛 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讛讙讜 讘讜 讛讬转专 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讛谞讗 诪住讬讬注 讻讛谞讬

搂 The mishna states: If the abomasum was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. Concerning this, Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani 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.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讛 转讘专讻讜 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇诪讚谞讜 讘专讻讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪驻讬 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讻讛谞讬诐 注爪诪谉 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讘专讻诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讘专讻讬谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讘专讱 诇讻讛谞讬诐

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: 鈥淪o you shall bless the children of Israel鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them鈥 (Numbers 6:27), you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, blesses the priests.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪讚谞讜 讘专讻讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪驻讬 讻讛谞讬诐 诪驻讬 讙讘讜专讛 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讘专讻诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讘专讻讬谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪住讻讬诐 注诇 讬讚诐

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: 鈥淎nd they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them,鈥 you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, affirms their blessing. The word 鈥渢hem鈥 is referring to Israel.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专讻讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讜讗讘专讻讛 诪讘专讻讬讱

The Gemara asks: But then from where does Rabbi Akiva learn about a blessing for the priests? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: He learns it from God鈥檚 promise to Abraham: 鈥淎nd I will bless them that bless you鈥 (Genesis 12:3). All who bless the Jewish people are blessed themselves.

讜诪讗讬 诪住讬讬注 讻讛谞讬 讚诪讜拽讬 诇讛 诇讘专讻转 讻讛谞讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讘专讻讛 讚讬砖专讗诇

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.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗转 讻诇 讛讞诇讘 讗砖专 注诇 讛拽专讘

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: 鈥淎ll the fat that is upon the innards鈥 (Leviticus 3:3),

讜讙讜壮 诇讛讘讬讗 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛讚拽讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讛讘讬讗 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛拽讘讛

the word 鈥渁ll鈥 serves to include the fat that is on the small intestines; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The word 鈥渁ll鈥 serves to include the fat that is on the abomasum. According to Rabbi Yishmael, the fat of the abomasum is permitted.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗转 讛讞诇讘 讗砖专 注诇 讛拽专讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讞诇讘 讛诪讻住讛 讗转 讛拽专讘 拽专讜诐 讜谞拽诇祝 讗祝 讻诇 拽专讜诐 讜谞拽诇祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讞诇讘 讛诪讻住讛 讗转 讛拽专讘 转讜转讘 拽专讜诐 讜谞拽诇祝 讗祝 讻诇 转讜转讘 拽专讜诐 讜谞拽诇祝

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭he fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is upon the innards鈥 (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.

砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讱 讛讬讗 讛爪注讛 砖诇 诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬驻讜讱 拽诪讬讬转讗

Ravin sent an answer in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗驻讻转 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讘转专讬讬转讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽转谞讬 诪讛 讚讜讜拽讗

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讘 讟讛讜专 住讜转诐 讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 住讜转诐 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 住讜转诐

搂 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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞诇讘 讞讬讛 诪讗讬 讚讜拽讗 讗诪专 讞诇讘 讟讛讜专 住讜转诐 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讛讚拽 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讚拽

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 谞讛讬 讚砖专讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讛讚讜拽讬 诇讗 诪讛讚拽

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.

讛讛讜讗 谞拽讘 讚住转诪讛 讞诇讘 讟诪讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讞讚讗 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讞诇讘 讟诪讗 谞诪讬 住讜转诐 讜注讜讚 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 专讘 讜讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

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, doesn鈥檛 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.

诪谞讬讜诪讬谉 讻谞讚讜拽讗 讗讬讙诇讬 诇讬讛 讘住转拽讗 讚讚讜讘砖讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讞讚讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 诪砖拽讬诐 讗住讜专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 讛讬讬谉 讜讛诪讬诐 讜讛讞诇讘 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讜注讜讚 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜住讻谞转 谞驻砖讜转 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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?

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 爪讬专 讜讞讜诪抓 砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讜诪讜专讬讬住 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 谞讞砖 砖砖转讛 爪讬专 讘爪讬讚谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讟讬讗 讛讜讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诪谉 讛砖讜讟讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讜讚讬 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讘爪讬专 讚讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 诇讛讜 讙讬诇讜讬讗 砖讚讜 诇讬讛 讘爪讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讜讚讬 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讘讚讘砖 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 讘讚讘砖

Rava said to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k: 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞诇讘 讛注砖讜讬 讻讻讜讘注 讗讬谞讜 住讜转诐 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞讬讟讬 讚讻专讻砖讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讟专驻砖讗 讚诇讬讘讗

The Gemara returns to the initial discussion with regard to fats and perforations: Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注讬转 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转专转讬 讞讬诪爪讗 讜讘专 讞讬诪爪讗 讞讚 住转讬诐 讜讞讚 诇讗 住转讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘专 讞讬诪爪讗 住转讬诐 讞讬诪爪讗 诇讗 住转讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讟讘讜转 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讘谉 诪讻讞 讛讗讘

Rava said: I heard from Rav Na岣an about two fats found on the abomasum, in different places. One is called the 岣mtza and one the bar 岣mtza, meaning: Son of 岣mtza. 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 岣nnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Na岣an, said: The bar 岣mtza seals; the 岣mtza does not seal. Rav Tavot said: And your mnemonic is: The power of the son is greater than the power of the father.

讛讬 讞讬诪爪讗 讜讛讬 讘专 讞讬诪爪讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谞讛讜 诪讬讻诇 讗讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: Which is the 岣mtza and which is the bar 岣mtza? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from that which Rav Na岣an 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 month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讻砖专讛 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讟专驻讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讞讝讬 讗讬 拽讜驻讗 诇讘专 讗讬 拽讜驻讗 诇讙讬讜

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.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬诐 讗讬诪讗 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬诐 讚讞拽讜讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘住诪驻讜谞讗 专讘讛 讚讻讘讚讗 讛讜谞讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讟专讬祝 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诪讻砖专 讗转讜 砖讬讬诇讜讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖拽讬诇讜 讙诇讬诪讗 讚讟专讜驻讗讬

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.

讛讛讬讗 拽砖讬转讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘诪专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 住讬诪驻讜谞讗 谞拽讟 讜讗转讗讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 拽讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讬专讘诇 讛讜讗 讚专讘讬诇 诇讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讗讘诇 讚讝讬转讗 诪讬讘讝注 讘讝注

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 animal鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 专讬讗讛 砖诪讗讬专讛 讗转 讛注讬谞讬诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讜 注诇 讬讚讬 住诪谞讬谉

搂 The Gemara returns to its discussion of the lung: Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Why is the lung called rei鈥檃 in Hebrew? Because it lights up [me鈥檌ra] the eyes of one who eats it. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yo岣nan referring to a lung eaten as is, or is he referring to a lung eaten only through its treatment with certain substances?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜讜讝讗 讘讝讜讝讗 讜专讬讗讛 讚讬讚讛 讘讗专讘注讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗讻讬诇讛 诇讬谞拽讟 讘讝讜讝讗 讜诇讬讻讜诇 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 住诪谞讬谉

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬谞拽讘讛 专讬讗讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诪诪砖诪砖讗 讬讚讬讛 讚讟讘讞讗 转诇讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讗 转诇讬谞谉 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 谞转谉 讗诪专 转诇讬谞谉 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讗 转诇讬谞谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 转诇讬谞谉

搂 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 butcher鈥檚 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 butcher鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讘讗 诪专讬砖讬 讻诇讬 讚专驻专诐 讛讜讛 讜讗诪专 转诇讬谞谉 讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 诇讛讗 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛讗 转诇讬谞谉 讘讝讗讘

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.

诪讜专谞讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讚讜住讗讬 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讗诪专 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 驻专讬砖 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 驻专讬砖 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛 驻专讬砖

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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖转讬谞拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 注讚 砖转讬谞拽讘 诇住诪驻讜谉 讙讚讜诇

搂 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 Ta岣ifa 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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讘讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪诇讜讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诇讜讱 注专讘讗讛 拽讗诪专转 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专

The Gemara relates that Rav A岣 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.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讘讬讘讬 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪诇讜讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬 讚诪专 讚讗谞讗 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗讬拽诇注讬谞谉 诇讗转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪诇讜讱 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专 诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讗诪专 诇谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讬 讜讗转 诪讛 讘讬讚讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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 Master鈥檚 life, I and Rabbi 岣yya 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 Yitz岣k bar Ami says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讜讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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.

谞讬拽讘讛 讛拽讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 拽讘讛 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讛讙讜 讘讜 讛讬转专 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讛谞讗 诪住讬讬注 讻讛谞讬

搂 The mishna states: If the abomasum was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. Concerning this, Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani 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.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讛 转讘专讻讜 讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇诪讚谞讜 讘专讻讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪驻讬 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讻讛谞讬诐 注爪诪谉 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讘专讻诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讘专讻讬谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讘专讱 诇讻讛谞讬诐

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: 鈥淪o you shall bless the children of Israel鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them鈥 (Numbers 6:27), you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, blesses the priests.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪讚谞讜 讘专讻讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪驻讬 讻讛谞讬诐 诪驻讬 讙讘讜专讛 诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讘专讻诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讘专讻讬谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪住讻讬诐 注诇 讬讚诐

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: 鈥淎nd they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them,鈥 you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, affirms their blessing. The word 鈥渢hem鈥 is referring to Israel.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专讻讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讜讗讘专讻讛 诪讘专讻讬讱

The Gemara asks: But then from where does Rabbi Akiva learn about a blessing for the priests? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: He learns it from God鈥檚 promise to Abraham: 鈥淎nd I will bless them that bless you鈥 (Genesis 12:3). All who bless the Jewish people are blessed themselves.

讜诪讗讬 诪住讬讬注 讻讛谞讬 讚诪讜拽讬 诇讛 诇讘专讻转 讻讛谞讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讘专讻讛 讚讬砖专讗诇

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.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗转 讻诇 讛讞诇讘 讗砖专 注诇 讛拽专讘

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: 鈥淎ll the fat that is upon the innards鈥 (Leviticus 3:3),

讜讙讜壮 诇讛讘讬讗 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛讚拽讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讛讘讬讗 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛拽讘讛

the word 鈥渁ll鈥 serves to include the fat that is on the small intestines; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The word 鈥渁ll鈥 serves to include the fat that is on the abomasum. According to Rabbi Yishmael, the fat of the abomasum is permitted.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗转 讛讞诇讘 讗砖专 注诇 讛拽专讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讞诇讘 讛诪讻住讛 讗转 讛拽专讘 拽专讜诐 讜谞拽诇祝 讗祝 讻诇 拽专讜诐 讜谞拽诇祝 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讞诇讘 讛诪讻住讛 讗转 讛拽专讘 转讜转讘 拽专讜诐 讜谞拽诇祝 讗祝 讻诇 转讜转讘 拽专讜诐 讜谞拽诇祝

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭he fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is upon the innards鈥 (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.

砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讱 讛讬讗 讛爪注讛 砖诇 诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬驻讜讱 拽诪讬讬转讗

Ravin sent an answer in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗驻讻转 拽诪讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讘转专讬讬转讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽转谞讬 诪讛 讚讜讜拽讗

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讘 讟讛讜专 住讜转诐 讟诪讗 讗讬谞讜 住讜转诐 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 住讜转诐

搂 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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讞诇讘 讞讬讛 诪讗讬 讚讜拽讗 讗诪专 讞诇讘 讟讛讜专 住讜转诐 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讟讛讜专 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讛讚拽 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讛讚拽

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 谞讛讬 讚砖专讬 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗讛讚讜拽讬 诇讗 诪讛讚拽

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.

讛讛讜讗 谞拽讘 讚住转诪讛 讞诇讘 讟诪讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讞讚讗 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讞诇讘 讟诪讗 谞诪讬 住讜转诐 讜注讜讚 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 专讘 讜讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

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, doesn鈥檛 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.

诪谞讬讜诪讬谉 讻谞讚讜拽讗 讗讬讙诇讬 诇讬讛 讘住转拽讗 讚讚讜讘砖讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讛 讞讚讗 讚转谞谉 砖诇砖讛 诪砖拽讬诐 讗住讜专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 讛讬讬谉 讜讛诪讬诐 讜讛讞诇讘 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬诐 讜注讜讚 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜住讻谞转 谞驻砖讜转 讜讗转 讗诪专转 讛转讜专讛 讞住讛 注诇 诪诪讜谞诐 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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?

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞诪砖讛 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 爪讬专 讜讞讜诪抓 砖诪谉 讜讚讘砖 讜诪讜专讬讬住 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讬诇讜讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 谞讞砖 砖砖转讛 爪讬专 讘爪讬讚谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讟讬讗 讛讜讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 诪谉 讛砖讜讟讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讜讚讬 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讘爪讬专 讚讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘谞谉 讻讬 讛讜讛 诇讛讜 讙讬诇讜讬讗 砖讚讜 诇讬讛 讘爪讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讜讚讬 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讘讚讘砖 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 拽讗讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜住专 讘讚讘砖

Rava said to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k: 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞诇讘 讛注砖讜讬 讻讻讜讘注 讗讬谞讜 住讜转诐 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞讬讟讬 讚讻专讻砖讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讟专驻砖讗 讚诇讬讘讗

The Gemara returns to the initial discussion with regard to fats and perforations: Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪注讬转 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转专转讬 讞讬诪爪讗 讜讘专 讞讬诪爪讗 讞讚 住转讬诐 讜讞讚 诇讗 住转讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讘专 讞讬诪爪讗 住转讬诐 讞讬诪爪讗 诇讗 住转讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讟讘讜转 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讘谉 诪讻讞 讛讗讘

Rava said: I heard from Rav Na岣an about two fats found on the abomasum, in different places. One is called the 岣mtza and one the bar 岣mtza, meaning: Son of 岣mtza. 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 岣nnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Na岣an, said: The bar 岣mtza seals; the 岣mtza does not seal. Rav Tavot said: And your mnemonic is: The power of the son is greater than the power of the father.

讛讬 讞讬诪爪讗 讜讛讬 讘专 讞讬诪爪讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谞讛讜 诪讬讻诇 讗讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: Which is the 岣mtza and which is the bar 岣mtza? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from that which Rav Na岣an 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