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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 2, 2018 | 讻状讚 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 5


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

诇讗 讛讜讛 诪驻诇讬讙 谞驻砖讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讻诪讜谞讬 讻诪讜讱 讻注诪讬 讻注诪讱 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻住讜住讬 讻住讜住讬讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诪讛 讚讛讜讬 讗住讜住讬讱 转讛讜讬 讗住讜住讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讬 注诇讱 讜注讬诇讜讬 注诪讱 转讬讛讜讬 注诇讬 讜注讬诇讜讬 注诪讬

The Gemara rejects that suggestion: Jehoshaphat would not have separated himself from Ahab to eat and drink by himself, as he relied on him completely. From where do we derive this? If we say that it is derived from that which is written that Jehoshaphat said to Ahab: 鈥淚 am as you are, my people as your people鈥 (I聽Kings 22:4), i.e., I am equally reliable, this is difficult, as, if that is so, then when Jehoshaphat said at the conclusion of that verse: 鈥淢y horses as your horses,鈥 can this also be referring to reliability? Rather, Jehoshaphat鈥檚 intention was: That which will befall your horses will befall my horses; so too, that which will befall you and your people will befall me and my people.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬讛讜砖驻讟 诪诇讱 讬讛讜讚讛 讬砖讘讬诐 讗讬砖 注诇 讻住讗讜 诪诇讘砖讬诐 讘讙讚讬诐 讘讙专谉 驻转讞 砖注专 砖诪专讜谉 诪讗讬 讙讜专谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讙讜专谉 诪诪砖 讗讟讜 砖注专 砖讜诪专讜谉 讙讜专谉 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 讻讬 讙讜专谉 讚转谞谉 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讛讬转讛 讻讞爪讬 讙讜专谉 注讙讜诇讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讜 专讜讗讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

Rather, it is derived that Jehoshaphat relied upon Ahab from here: 鈥淎nd the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat, king of Judea, sat each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in a threshing floor, at the entrance of the gate of Samaria鈥 (I聽Kings 22:10). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term threshing floor in this context? If we say that it was an actual threshing floor; is that to say that the gate of Samaria was a threshing floor? Typically, the gate of a city was the place of assembly for the city鈥檚 judges and elders, not a threshing floor. Rather, they were sitting in a configuration like that of a circular threshing floor, i.e., facing each other in a display of amity, as we learned in a mishna (Sanhedrin 36b): A Sanhedrin was arranged in the same layout as half of a circular threshing floor, so that the judges would see each other. This verse demonstrates that Jehoshaphat deliberated with Ahab and relied on his judgment.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讜讛注专讘讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬诐 诇讜 诇讞诐 讜讘砖专 讘讘拽专 讜诇讞诐 讜讘砖专 讘注专讘 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讬 讟讘讞讬 讚讗讞讗讘 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讘讜专 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the verse written with regard to Elijah supports the opinion of Rav Anan. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the ravens [orevim] brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening鈥 (I聽Kings 17:6); and Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They would bring the meat from the slaughterhouse of Ahab. Clearly, Elijah would not have eaten the meat if Ahab鈥檚 slaughter was not valid. The Gemara responds: Since he ate the meat according to the word of God, the case of Elijah is different, and no proof may be cited from there.

诪讗讬 注讜专讘讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 注讜专讘讬诐 诪诪砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讜讚诇诪讗 转专讬 讙讘专讬 讚讛讜讬 砖诪讬讬讛讜 注讜专讘讬诐 诪讬 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讜讬讛专讙讜 讗转 注讜专讘 讘爪讜专 注讜专讘 讜讗转 讝讗讘 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转专诪讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讜讛 砖诪讬讬讛讜 注讜专讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of orevim in this context? Ravina said: They were actual ravens. Rav Adda bar Minyumi said to him: And perhaps they were two men whose names were Oreb? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd they slew Oreb at the Rock of Oreb, and Zeeb they slew at the winepress of Zeeb鈥 (Judges 7:25), indicating that Oreb is a person鈥檚 name? Ravina said to him: Did the matter just so happen that the names of both of the people supplying Elijah with food were Oreb? The improbability of this occurrence indicates that they were actual ravens.

讜讚诇诪讗 注诇 砖诐 诪拽讜诪谉 诪讬 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗专诐 讬爪讗讜 讙讚讜讚讬诐 讜讬砖讘讜 诪讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞注专讛 拽讟谞讛 讜拽砖讬讗 诇谉 拽专讬 诇讛 谞注专讛 讜拽专讬 诇讛 拽讟谞讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 拽讟谞讛 讚诪谉 谞注讜专谉 讗诐 讻谉 注讜专讘讬讬诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: And perhaps they are called orevim after the name of their place of origin. Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the Arameans had gone out in bands, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a minor young woman [na鈥檃ra ketana]鈥 (II聽Kings 5:2)? And it is difficult for us to understand why the verse calls her a young woman and also calls her a minor, which are two different stages in a girl鈥檚 development. And Rabbi Pedat said: She was a minor girl who was from a place called Naaran. Perhaps in the case of Elijah they were two people from a place called Oreb. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: If so, Orebites [oreviyyim] should have been written in the verse.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜转讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注专诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讗讬 注专诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诪转讜 讗讞讬讜 诪讞诪转 诪讬诇讛 讛讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注专诇讜转

Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rav Anan, who says that it is permitted to eat from the slaughter of a Jew who is a transgressor with regard to idol worship: Everyone slaughters, and even a Samaritan, and even an uncircumcised man, and even a Jewish transgressor. The Gemara analyzes the baraita: This uncircumcised man, what are the circumstances? If we say that he is an uncircumcised man whose brothers died due to circumcision and the concern is that he might suffer a similar fate, clearly one may eat from what he slaughters, as he is a full-fledged Jew and not a transgressor at all. Rather, it is obvious that he is a transgressor with regard to remaining uncircumcised, as he refuses to be circumcised.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讬讬谞讜 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注专诇讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻讚专讘 注谞谉

Say the latter clause of the baraita: And even a Jewish transgressor. What are the circumstances? If he is a transgressor with regard to one matter, that is identical to the case of a transgressor with regard to remaining uncircumcised. Rather, is it not that he is a transgressor with regard to idol worship, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan?

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪专 诇讱 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讞诪讜专讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讻诇 讛讻讜驻专 讘讛 讻诪讜讚讛 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛

The Gemara rejects that proof: No, actually I will say to you that a transgressor with regard to idol worship may not slaughter, as the Master said: Idol worship is a severe transgression, as with regard to anyone who denies it, it is as though he acknowledges his acceptance of the entire Torah. Conversely, with regard to one who accepts idolatry, it is as though he denies the entire Torah. Therefore, his halakhic status is that of a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, and his slaughter is not valid.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讗讜转讜 讚讘专 讜讻讚专讘讗

Rather, the transgressor in the latter clause of the baraita is a transgressor concerning the same matter of eating unslaughtered carcasses, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who said that one may rely on the slaughter of a transgressor with regard to eating unslaughtered animal carcasses to satisfy his appetite even ab initio.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讻诐 讜诇讗 讻讜诇讻诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪砖讜诪讚 诪讻诐 讘讻诐 讞诇拽转讬 讜诇讗 讘讗讜诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讚讜诪讬诐 诇讘讛诪讛 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 诪拽讘诇讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转 诪驻讜砖注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讘转砖讜讘讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪砖讜诪讚 讜诪谞住讱 讗转 讛讬讬谉 讜诪讞诇诇 砖讘转讜转 讘驻专讛住讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Anan from that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hen any man of you brings an offering unto the Lord, from the animal鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). The tanna infers: 鈥淥f you,鈥 indicating: But not all of you. This serves to exclude the transgressor, from whom an offering is not accepted. The tanna continues: The term 鈥渙f you鈥 is also interpreted to mean that I distinguished among you and not among the nations. Therefore, a gentile may bring an offering even if he is an idol worshipper. The expression 鈥渇rom the animal鈥 serves to include people who are similar to an animal in that they do not recognize God. From here, the Sages stated: One accepts offerings from Jewish transgressors so that they will consequently repent, except for the transgressor, one who pours wine as a libation to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public [befarhesya].

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诪讻诐 讜诇讗 讻讜诇讻诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪砖讜诪讚 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 诪拽讘诇讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转 诪驻讜砖注讬 讬砖专讗诇

This baraita itself is difficult. Initially, you said: 鈥淥f you,鈥 indicating: But not all of you. This serves to exclude the transgressor, from whom an offering is not accepted. And then the tanna teaches: One accepts offerings from Jewish transgressors.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诪爪讬注转讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The first clause states that an offering is not accepted from a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah. The middle clause states that one accepts an offering from a transgressor with regard to one matter.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪砖讜诪讚 讜诪谞住讱 讗转 讛讬讬谉 讜诪讞诇诇 砖讘转 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讛讗讬 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 拽砖讬讗 诪爪讬注转讗

The Gemara challenges: Say the last clause: Except for the transgressor, and one who pours wine as a libation to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public. With regard to this transgressor in the last clause, what are the circumstances? If the reference is to a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, that is identical to the first clause: Of you, and not all of you, to exclude the transgressor. And if the reference is to a transgressor with regard to one matter, the middle clause is difficult, as it is stated there that one accepts an offering from a transgressor with regard to one matter.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪砖讜诪讚 诇谞住讱 讗转 讛讬讬谉 讜诇讞诇诇 砖讘转讜转 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讗诇诪讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讛 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 注谞谉 转讬讜讘转讗

Rather, is it not that this is what the mishna is saying in the last clause: Except for the transgressor to pour wine as a libation to idolatry or to desecrate Shabbat in public? Apparently, a transgressor with regard to idol worship is a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, and this baraita is a refutation of the opinion of Rav Anan. The Gemara concludes: It is indeed a conclusive refutation.

讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And is this halakha that one does not accept an offering from a transgressor derived from the verse cited here? It is derived from the verse written there with regard to a sin offering:

诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇诪砖讜诪讚

鈥淎nd if any one of the common people sins unwittingly鈥nd he shall bring his offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:27鈥28), from which it is inferred in a baraita: 鈥淥f the common people,鈥 indicating: But not all of the common people. This serves to exclude a transgressor, from whom a sin offering is not accepted.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 讘砖讙讙讛 讜讗砖诐 讛砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讗讬谞讜 砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜

Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that the verse states: 鈥淎nd does unwittingly one of the things鈥that may not be done, and he becomes guilty, or if his sin that he sinned became known to him鈥 (Leviticus 4:22鈥23). From the words 鈥渂ecome known to him鈥 it is inferred: One who repents due to his awareness that he performed a transgression, as had he known that the action is prohibited he would not have performed it, brings an offering for his unwitting transgression in order to achieve atonement. But one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., a transgressor who would have sinned even had he been aware that the act is prohibited, does not bring an offering for his unwitting action.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讗讻讜诇 讞诇讘 讜讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讚诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

And we say: What is the difference between their two opinions? And Rav Hamnuna said: The difference is in the case of a transgressor with regard to eating the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal and he brought an offering for unwittingly consuming blood is the difference between them. According to the first tanna he may not bring an offering, as he is a transgressor. According to Rabbi Shimon, since he repented for unwittingly consuming blood, due to his awareness that he sinned, he brings a sin offering for that unwitting sin. In any event, this baraita apparently contradicts the previously cited baraita with regard to the source for the halakha that one does not accept an offering from a transgressor.

讞讚讗 讘讞讟讗转 讜讞讚讗 讘注讜诇讛 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讞讟讗转 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 注讜诇讛 讚讚讜专讜谉 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇拽讘诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讞讟讗转 讚讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇拽讘诇 诪讬谞讬讛 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: One source teaches with regard to the sin offering of a transgressor that it is not accepted, and one source teaches with regard to the burnt offering of a transgressor that it is not accepted. And both sources are necessary, as, if the Torah had taught us this halakha only with regard to a sin offering, one might have thought that it is not accepted due to the fact that it is for atonement, and as a transgressor he is undeserving of atonement, but with regard to a burnt offering, which is merely a gift [dedoron], say that one ought to accept it from him. And if the Torah had taught us this halakha only with regard to a burnt offering, one might have thought that it is not accepted due to the fact that it is not an obligation, but with regard to a sin offering, which is an obligation, say that one ought to accept it from him. Therefore, both sources are necessary.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛诪讛 讙专讬注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讜讘讛诪讛 转讜砖讬注 讛壮 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诇讜 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讛谉 注专讜诪讬谉 讘讚注转 讜诪砖讬诪讬谉 注爪诪谉 讻讘讛诪讛 讛转诐 讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讜讘讛诪讛 讛讻讗 讘讛诪讛 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讻转讬讘

搂 In the previous baraita the Sages derived from the phrase 鈥渇rom the animal鈥 that people who are similar to an animal are included among those from whom offerings are accepted. The Gemara seeks to understand the meaning of the phrase: Similar to an animal, and asks: And everywhere that the word animal is written and interpreted as referring to a person, does it indicate a deficiency? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淢an and animal You preserve, Lord鈥 (Psalms 36:7), and Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: These are people who are clever in terms of their intellect, like people, and despite their intelligence they comport themselves humbly and self-effacingly, like an animal. The Gemara answers: There it is written 鈥渕an and animal.鈥 Here, the word 鈥渁nimal鈥 alone is written.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讜讘讛诪讛 诪注诇讬讜转讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讝专注转讬 讗转 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 讝专注 讗讚诐 讜讝专注 讘讛诪讛 讛转诐 讛讗 讞诇拽讬讛 拽专讗 讝专注 讗讚诐 诇讞讜讚 讜讝专注 讘讛诪讛 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara asks: And everywhere that the terms 鈥渕an鈥 and 鈥渁nimal鈥 are written together, does it indicate a virtue? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of animal鈥 (Jeremiah 31:26), and the Sages interpreted the phrase 鈥渟eed of animal鈥 as a reference to ignorant, inferior people. The Gemara answers: There, doesn鈥檛 the verse separate man and animal? The seed of man is discrete and the seed of animal is discrete.

(住讬诪谉 谞拽诇祝)

搂 The Gemara revisits the matter of slaughter by a Samaritan and cites a mnemonic for the names of the Sages that follow: Nun, for 岣nan; kuf, for Ya鈥檃kov; lamed, for ben Levi; and peh, for bar Kappara.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 谞诪谞讜 注诇 砖讞讬讟转 讻讜转讬 讜讗住专讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讗 讘砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 诪专讘谞谉 讻讚诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖诪注转讗 讘砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诇诪讬诪专讗 讘注讬

Rabbi 岣nan says that Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: The opinions of Rabban Gamliel and his court were counted with regard to the status of the slaughter of a Samaritan, and they prohibited it. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi: Perhaps my teacher heard that halakha only in a case where a Jew is not standing over him. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said to Rabbi Zeira: This one of the Sages seems like one of the people who have not studied halakha. When a Jew is not standing over the Samaritan is it necessary to say that it is prohibited to eat from what he slaughters?

拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗讻诇 诪砖讞讬讟转 讻讜转讬 讗祝 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗讻诇 诪砖讞讬讟转 讻讜转讬 讜转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讛讜 讚讗讬 讛讜讛 砖诪讬注讗 诇讛讜 讛讜讜 诪拽讘诇讬 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讜讛

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Zeira accept that response from Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi or did he not accept it from him? Come and hear a proof to resolve that dilemma from that which Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Asi says: I saw that Rabbi Yo岣nan ate from the slaughter of a Samaritan. And Rabbi Asi too ate from the slaughter of a Samaritan. And Rabbi Zeira wondered about it, whether perhaps they did not hear the halakha that it is prohibited to eat from the slaughter of a Samaritan but had they heard it they would have accepted it, or perhaps they heard the halakha but did not accept it.

讛讚专 驻砖讬讟 诇谞驻砖讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 讚砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讜讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 讛讜讛 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讜讜 诪拽讘诇讬 诇讛 讛讬讻讬 诪住转讬讬注讗 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬讻诇 讗讬住讜专讗 讛砖转讗 讘讛诪转谉 砖诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 转拽诇讛 注诇 讬讚谉 爪讚讬拽讬诐 注爪诪谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Zeira then resolved the matter for himself. It stands to reason that they heard it and did not accept it. As, if it enters your mind that they did not hear it, but that had they heard it they would have accepted it, how did the matter eventuate, leading these Sages to eat forbidden food? Now consider: If even through the animals of the righteous, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not generate mishaps, then is it not all the more so true that the righteous themselves would not experience mishaps?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 5

诇讗 讛讜讛 诪驻诇讬讙 谞驻砖讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讻诪讜谞讬 讻诪讜讱 讻注诪讬 讻注诪讱 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻住讜住讬 讻住讜住讬讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 诪讛 讚讛讜讬 讗住讜住讬讱 转讛讜讬 讗住讜住讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讬 注诇讱 讜注讬诇讜讬 注诪讱 转讬讛讜讬 注诇讬 讜注讬诇讜讬 注诪讬

The Gemara rejects that suggestion: Jehoshaphat would not have separated himself from Ahab to eat and drink by himself, as he relied on him completely. From where do we derive this? If we say that it is derived from that which is written that Jehoshaphat said to Ahab: 鈥淚 am as you are, my people as your people鈥 (I聽Kings 22:4), i.e., I am equally reliable, this is difficult, as, if that is so, then when Jehoshaphat said at the conclusion of that verse: 鈥淢y horses as your horses,鈥 can this also be referring to reliability? Rather, Jehoshaphat鈥檚 intention was: That which will befall your horses will befall my horses; so too, that which will befall you and your people will befall me and my people.

讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬讛讜砖驻讟 诪诇讱 讬讛讜讚讛 讬砖讘讬诐 讗讬砖 注诇 讻住讗讜 诪诇讘砖讬诐 讘讙讚讬诐 讘讙专谉 驻转讞 砖注专 砖诪专讜谉 诪讗讬 讙讜专谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讙讜专谉 诪诪砖 讗讟讜 砖注专 砖讜诪专讜谉 讙讜专谉 讛讜讛 讗诇讗 讻讬 讙讜专谉 讚转谞谉 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讛讬转讛 讻讞爪讬 讙讜专谉 注讙讜诇讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讜 专讜讗讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛

Rather, it is derived that Jehoshaphat relied upon Ahab from here: 鈥淎nd the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat, king of Judea, sat each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in a threshing floor, at the entrance of the gate of Samaria鈥 (I聽Kings 22:10). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term threshing floor in this context? If we say that it was an actual threshing floor; is that to say that the gate of Samaria was a threshing floor? Typically, the gate of a city was the place of assembly for the city鈥檚 judges and elders, not a threshing floor. Rather, they were sitting in a configuration like that of a circular threshing floor, i.e., facing each other in a display of amity, as we learned in a mishna (Sanhedrin 36b): A Sanhedrin was arranged in the same layout as half of a circular threshing floor, so that the judges would see each other. This verse demonstrates that Jehoshaphat deliberated with Ahab and relied on his judgment.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讜讛注专讘讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬诐 诇讜 诇讞诐 讜讘砖专 讘讘拽专 讜诇讞诐 讜讘砖专 讘注专讘 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讘讬 讟讘讞讬 讚讗讞讗讘 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讘讜专 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the verse written with regard to Elijah supports the opinion of Rav Anan. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the ravens [orevim] brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening鈥 (I聽Kings 17:6); and Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They would bring the meat from the slaughterhouse of Ahab. Clearly, Elijah would not have eaten the meat if Ahab鈥檚 slaughter was not valid. The Gemara responds: Since he ate the meat according to the word of God, the case of Elijah is different, and no proof may be cited from there.

诪讗讬 注讜专讘讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 注讜专讘讬诐 诪诪砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讜讚诇诪讗 转专讬 讙讘专讬 讚讛讜讬 砖诪讬讬讛讜 注讜专讘讬诐 诪讬 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讜讬讛专讙讜 讗转 注讜专讘 讘爪讜专 注讜专讘 讜讗转 讝讗讘 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬转专诪讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讛讜讛 砖诪讬讬讛讜 注讜专讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of orevim in this context? Ravina said: They were actual ravens. Rav Adda bar Minyumi said to him: And perhaps they were two men whose names were Oreb? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd they slew Oreb at the Rock of Oreb, and Zeeb they slew at the winepress of Zeeb鈥 (Judges 7:25), indicating that Oreb is a person鈥檚 name? Ravina said to him: Did the matter just so happen that the names of both of the people supplying Elijah with food were Oreb? The improbability of this occurrence indicates that they were actual ravens.

讜讚诇诪讗 注诇 砖诐 诪拽讜诪谉 诪讬 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗专诐 讬爪讗讜 讙讚讜讚讬诐 讜讬砖讘讜 诪讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 谞注专讛 拽讟谞讛 讜拽砖讬讗 诇谉 拽专讬 诇讛 谞注专讛 讜拽专讬 诇讛 拽讟谞讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 拽讟谞讛 讚诪谉 谞注讜专谉 讗诐 讻谉 注讜专讘讬讬诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: And perhaps they are called orevim after the name of their place of origin. Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the Arameans had gone out in bands, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a minor young woman [na鈥檃ra ketana]鈥 (II聽Kings 5:2)? And it is difficult for us to understand why the verse calls her a young woman and also calls her a minor, which are two different stages in a girl鈥檚 development. And Rabbi Pedat said: She was a minor girl who was from a place called Naaran. Perhaps in the case of Elijah they were two people from a place called Oreb. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: If so, Orebites [oreviyyim] should have been written in the verse.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜转讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注专诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讗讬 注专诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诪转讜 讗讞讬讜 诪讞诪转 诪讬诇讛 讛讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注专诇讜转

Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rav Anan, who says that it is permitted to eat from the slaughter of a Jew who is a transgressor with regard to idol worship: Everyone slaughters, and even a Samaritan, and even an uncircumcised man, and even a Jewish transgressor. The Gemara analyzes the baraita: This uncircumcised man, what are the circumstances? If we say that he is an uncircumcised man whose brothers died due to circumcision and the concern is that he might suffer a similar fate, clearly one may eat from what he slaughters, as he is a full-fledged Jew and not a transgressor at all. Rather, it is obvious that he is a transgressor with regard to remaining uncircumcised, as he refuses to be circumcised.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 讛讬讬谞讜 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注专诇讜转 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讻讚专讘 注谞谉

Say the latter clause of the baraita: And even a Jewish transgressor. What are the circumstances? If he is a transgressor with regard to one matter, that is identical to the case of a transgressor with regard to remaining uncircumcised. Rather, is it not that he is a transgressor with regard to idol worship, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan?

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪专 诇讱 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讞诪讜专讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讻诇 讛讻讜驻专 讘讛 讻诪讜讚讛 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛

The Gemara rejects that proof: No, actually I will say to you that a transgressor with regard to idol worship may not slaughter, as the Master said: Idol worship is a severe transgression, as with regard to anyone who denies it, it is as though he acknowledges his acceptance of the entire Torah. Conversely, with regard to one who accepts idolatry, it is as though he denies the entire Torah. Therefore, his halakhic status is that of a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, and his slaughter is not valid.

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讗讜转讜 讚讘专 讜讻讚专讘讗

Rather, the transgressor in the latter clause of the baraita is a transgressor concerning the same matter of eating unslaughtered carcasses, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who said that one may rely on the slaughter of a transgressor with regard to eating unslaughtered animal carcasses to satisfy his appetite even ab initio.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讻诐 讜诇讗 讻讜诇讻诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪砖讜诪讚 诪讻诐 讘讻诐 讞诇拽转讬 讜诇讗 讘讗讜诪讜转 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讚讜诪讬诐 诇讘讛诪讛 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 诪拽讘诇讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转 诪驻讜砖注讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 讘转砖讜讘讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪砖讜诪讚 讜诪谞住讱 讗转 讛讬讬谉 讜诪讞诇诇 砖讘转讜转 讘驻专讛住讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Anan from that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淲hen any man of you brings an offering unto the Lord, from the animal鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). The tanna infers: 鈥淥f you,鈥 indicating: But not all of you. This serves to exclude the transgressor, from whom an offering is not accepted. The tanna continues: The term 鈥渙f you鈥 is also interpreted to mean that I distinguished among you and not among the nations. Therefore, a gentile may bring an offering even if he is an idol worshipper. The expression 鈥渇rom the animal鈥 serves to include people who are similar to an animal in that they do not recognize God. From here, the Sages stated: One accepts offerings from Jewish transgressors so that they will consequently repent, except for the transgressor, one who pours wine as a libation to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public [befarhesya].

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诪讻诐 讜诇讗 讻讜诇讻诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪砖讜诪讚 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 诪拽讘诇讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转 诪驻讜砖注讬 讬砖专讗诇

This baraita itself is difficult. Initially, you said: 鈥淥f you,鈥 indicating: But not all of you. This serves to exclude the transgressor, from whom an offering is not accepted. And then the tanna teaches: One accepts offerings from Jewish transgressors.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诪爪讬注转讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The first clause states that an offering is not accepted from a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah. The middle clause states that one accepts an offering from a transgressor with regard to one matter.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪砖讜诪讚 讜诪谞住讱 讗转 讛讬讬谉 讜诪讞诇诇 砖讘转 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讛讗讬 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讚讘专 讗讞讚 拽砖讬讗 诪爪讬注转讗

The Gemara challenges: Say the last clause: Except for the transgressor, and one who pours wine as a libation to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public. With regard to this transgressor in the last clause, what are the circumstances? If the reference is to a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, that is identical to the first clause: Of you, and not all of you, to exclude the transgressor. And if the reference is to a transgressor with regard to one matter, the middle clause is difficult, as it is stated there that one accepts an offering from a transgressor with regard to one matter.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪砖讜诪讚 诇谞住讱 讗转 讛讬讬谉 讜诇讞诇诇 砖讘转讜转 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讗诇诪讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讛 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 注谞谉 转讬讜讘转讗

Rather, is it not that this is what the mishna is saying in the last clause: Except for the transgressor to pour wine as a libation to idolatry or to desecrate Shabbat in public? Apparently, a transgressor with regard to idol worship is a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, and this baraita is a refutation of the opinion of Rav Anan. The Gemara concludes: It is indeed a conclusive refutation.

讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: And is this halakha that one does not accept an offering from a transgressor derived from the verse cited here? It is derived from the verse written there with regard to a sin offering:

诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇诪砖讜诪讚

鈥淎nd if any one of the common people sins unwittingly鈥nd he shall bring his offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:27鈥28), from which it is inferred in a baraita: 鈥淥f the common people,鈥 indicating: But not all of the common people. This serves to exclude a transgressor, from whom a sin offering is not accepted.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 讘砖讙讙讛 讜讗砖诐 讛砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讗讬谞讜 砖讘 诪讬讚讬注转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜

Rabbi Shimon ben Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that the verse states: 鈥淎nd does unwittingly one of the things鈥that may not be done, and he becomes guilty, or if his sin that he sinned became known to him鈥 (Leviticus 4:22鈥23). From the words 鈥渂ecome known to him鈥 it is inferred: One who repents due to his awareness that he performed a transgression, as had he known that the action is prohibited he would not have performed it, brings an offering for his unwitting transgression in order to achieve atonement. But one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., a transgressor who would have sinned even had he been aware that the act is prohibited, does not bring an offering for his unwitting action.

讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讗讻讜诇 讞诇讘 讜讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讚诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

And we say: What is the difference between their two opinions? And Rav Hamnuna said: The difference is in the case of a transgressor with regard to eating the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal and he brought an offering for unwittingly consuming blood is the difference between them. According to the first tanna he may not bring an offering, as he is a transgressor. According to Rabbi Shimon, since he repented for unwittingly consuming blood, due to his awareness that he sinned, he brings a sin offering for that unwitting sin. In any event, this baraita apparently contradicts the previously cited baraita with regard to the source for the halakha that one does not accept an offering from a transgressor.

讞讚讗 讘讞讟讗转 讜讞讚讗 讘注讜诇讛 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讞讟讗转 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 注讜诇讛 讚讚讜专讜谉 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇拽讘诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讜诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讞讟讗转 讚讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇拽讘诇 诪讬谞讬讛 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: One source teaches with regard to the sin offering of a transgressor that it is not accepted, and one source teaches with regard to the burnt offering of a transgressor that it is not accepted. And both sources are necessary, as, if the Torah had taught us this halakha only with regard to a sin offering, one might have thought that it is not accepted due to the fact that it is for atonement, and as a transgressor he is undeserving of atonement, but with regard to a burnt offering, which is merely a gift [dedoron], say that one ought to accept it from him. And if the Torah had taught us this halakha only with regard to a burnt offering, one might have thought that it is not accepted due to the fact that it is not an obligation, but with regard to a sin offering, which is an obligation, say that one ought to accept it from him. Therefore, both sources are necessary.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛诪讛 讙专讬注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讜讘讛诪讛 转讜砖讬注 讛壮 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诇讜 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖讛谉 注专讜诪讬谉 讘讚注转 讜诪砖讬诪讬谉 注爪诪谉 讻讘讛诪讛 讛转诐 讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讜讘讛诪讛 讛讻讗 讘讛诪讛 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讻转讬讘

搂 In the previous baraita the Sages derived from the phrase 鈥渇rom the animal鈥 that people who are similar to an animal are included among those from whom offerings are accepted. The Gemara seeks to understand the meaning of the phrase: Similar to an animal, and asks: And everywhere that the word animal is written and interpreted as referring to a person, does it indicate a deficiency? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淢an and animal You preserve, Lord鈥 (Psalms 36:7), and Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: These are people who are clever in terms of their intellect, like people, and despite their intelligence they comport themselves humbly and self-effacingly, like an animal. The Gemara answers: There it is written 鈥渕an and animal.鈥 Here, the word 鈥渁nimal鈥 alone is written.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讜讘讛诪讛 诪注诇讬讜转讗 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讝专注转讬 讗转 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇 讝专注 讗讚诐 讜讝专注 讘讛诪讛 讛转诐 讛讗 讞诇拽讬讛 拽专讗 讝专注 讗讚诐 诇讞讜讚 讜讝专注 讘讛诪讛 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara asks: And everywhere that the terms 鈥渕an鈥 and 鈥渁nimal鈥 are written together, does it indicate a virtue? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of animal鈥 (Jeremiah 31:26), and the Sages interpreted the phrase 鈥渟eed of animal鈥 as a reference to ignorant, inferior people. The Gemara answers: There, doesn鈥檛 the verse separate man and animal? The seed of man is discrete and the seed of animal is discrete.

(住讬诪谉 谞拽诇祝)

搂 The Gemara revisits the matter of slaughter by a Samaritan and cites a mnemonic for the names of the Sages that follow: Nun, for 岣nan; kuf, for Ya鈥檃kov; lamed, for ben Levi; and peh, for bar Kappara.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 谞诪谞讜 注诇 砖讞讬讟转 讻讜转讬 讜讗住专讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讗 讘砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 诪专讘谞谉 讻讚诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖诪注转讗 讘砖讗讬谉 讬砖专讗诇 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬讜 诇诪讬诪专讗 讘注讬

Rabbi 岣nan says that Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: The opinions of Rabban Gamliel and his court were counted with regard to the status of the slaughter of a Samaritan, and they prohibited it. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi: Perhaps my teacher heard that halakha only in a case where a Jew is not standing over him. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi said to Rabbi Zeira: This one of the Sages seems like one of the people who have not studied halakha. When a Jew is not standing over the Samaritan is it necessary to say that it is prohibited to eat from what he slaughters?

拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗谞讬 专讗讬转讬 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗讻诇 诪砖讞讬讟转 讻讜转讬 讗祝 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗讻诇 诪砖讞讬讟转 讻讜转讬 讜转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讛讜 讚讗讬 讛讜讛 砖诪讬注讗 诇讛讜 讛讜讜 诪拽讘诇讬 诇讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讜讛

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Zeira accept that response from Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi or did he not accept it from him? Come and hear a proof to resolve that dilemma from that which Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Asi says: I saw that Rabbi Yo岣nan ate from the slaughter of a Samaritan. And Rabbi Asi too ate from the slaughter of a Samaritan. And Rabbi Zeira wondered about it, whether perhaps they did not hear the halakha that it is prohibited to eat from the slaughter of a Samaritan but had they heard it they would have accepted it, or perhaps they heard the halakha but did not accept it.

讛讚专 驻砖讬讟 诇谞驻砖讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 讚砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讜讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 讛讜讛 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讜讜 诪拽讘诇讬 诇讛 讛讬讻讬 诪住转讬讬注讗 诪讬诇转讗 诇诪讬讻诇 讗讬住讜专讗 讛砖转讗 讘讛诪转谉 砖诇 爪讚讬拽讬诐 讗讬谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 转拽诇讛 注诇 讬讚谉 爪讚讬拽讬诐 注爪诪谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabbi Zeira then resolved the matter for himself. It stands to reason that they heard it and did not accept it. As, if it enters your mind that they did not hear it, but that had they heard it they would have accepted it, how did the matter eventuate, leading these Sages to eat forbidden food? Now consider: If even through the animals of the righteous, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not generate mishaps, then is it not all the more so true that the righteous themselves would not experience mishaps?

Scroll To Top