חולין צה

חולין צה

אִי הֲוָה פָּיְיסַתְּ מִינַּאי, מִי לָא סְפַיִי לָךְ מִשּׁוֹר שֶׁל פַּטָּם דַּעֲבַדִי אֶתְמוֹל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲכַלִי מִשׁוּפְרֵי שׁוּפְרֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנָלָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּזְבַן פְּלוֹנִי גּוֹי וּסְפָא לִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּרֵי עֲבַדִי, וְהָהוּא טְרֵפָה הֲוָה.

If you would have made peace with me yesterday, wouldn’t I have given you a cut from the fattened bull that I prepared yesterday? The other individual said to him: Nevertheless I ate from the finest of the fine of that bull that you prepared. The butcher said to him: From where did you get a piece? The other said to him: So-and-so the gentile bought it and fed it to me. The butcher said to him: I prepared two bulls yesterday. One was kosher, but that one you ate was a tereifa, which is why I sold it to a gentile.

אָמַר רַבִּי: בִּשְׁבִיל שׁוֹטֶה זֶה שֶׁעָשָׂה שֶׁלֹּא כַּהוֹגֶן, אָנוּ נֶאֱסוֹר כׇּל הַמָּקוֹלִין?!

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said when he heard of this incident: Because of this imbecile who acted improperly and sold non-kosher meat to the gentile butcher without publicizing that he did so, should we forbid all of the meat from gentile butcher shops in the city?

רַבִּי לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דַּאֲמַר: מָקוֹלִין וְטַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי – מוּתָּר.

The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile, i.e., in a gentile’s butcher shop, is permitted. There is no concern that the meat is from an animal that was a tereifa, because the Jewish butcher would not have sold it to a gentile to sell in his butcher shop.

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי: מִפְּנֵי שׁוֹטֶה זֶה דְּאִיכַּוַּון לְצַעוֹרֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ, אָנוּ נֶאֱסוֹר כָּל הַמָּקוֹלִין?!

The Gemara presents an alternate version of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s reaction to the incident cited above: There are those who say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Because of this imbecile, who intended only to cause distress to his fellow, should we forbid all of the meat from gentile butcher shops? That butcher was presumably lying about the meat having been from a tereifa.

טַעְמָא דְּאִיכַּוַּון לְצַעוֹרֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ, הָא לָאו הָכִי, אָסוּר. וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מָקוֹלִין וְטַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי מוּתָּר! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא.

The Gemara notes that the reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi considers the meat to be kosher is that the butcher intended only to cause distress to his fellow. This indicates that if that were not so, all the meat in the gentile butcher shops would be forbidden. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted? The Gemara answers: It is different here because it has been established that there is forbidden meat being sold in the butcher shops. Since it is known that a Jewish butcher sold non-kosher meat to a gentile proprietor of a butcher shop, one must be concerned that this was not an isolated incident.

אָמַר רַב: בָּשָׂר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְעַלֵּם מִן הָעַיִן – אָסוּר. מֵיתִיבִי: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מָקוֹלִין וְטַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי – מוּתָּר. נִמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי – שָׁאנֵי.

§ Apropos meat in the possession of a gentile, the Gemara cites a related discussion. Rav says: Once meat is obscured from sight and unsupervised, it is forbidden, as one must be concerned that it was exchanged for non-kosher meat. The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted. The Gemara answers: Meat found in the possession of a gentile is different, because the meat was not left unsupervised.

תָּא שָׁמַע: תֵּשַׁע חֲנוּיוֹת, כּוּלָּן מוֹכְרוֹת בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה, וְאַחַת מוֹכֶרֶת בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה, וְלָקַח מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מֵאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן לָקַח – סְפֵקוֹ אָסוּר, וּבְנִמְצָא הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב. הָכָא נָמֵי – בְּנִמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי.

The Gemara raises another objection to the statement of Rav. Come and hear the following baraita: With regard to nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and an individual purchased meat from one of the stores and he does not know from which store he purchased the meat, in this case of uncertainty, the meat is forbidden. But in the case of meat found outside, follow the majority. Consequently, since most of the stores sell kosher meat, it may be assumed that the meat found outside is kosher, which contradicts Rav’s statement that meat that was left unsupervised is forbidden. The Gemara answers: Here also the baraita is referring to a case where the meat was not unsupervised but rather was found in the possession of a gentile.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מָצָא בָּהּ בָּשָׂר (אִם חַי) – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב טַבָּחִים, וְאִם מְבוּשָּׁל – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב אוֹכְלֵי בָשָׂר.

The Gemara cites another challenge to the opinion of Rav: Come and hear the following mishna (Makhshirin 2:9): If one found meat in a city inhabited by both Jews and gentiles, if the meat is raw, follow the majority of butchers, so that if the majority of the butchers are Jewish, the meat is presumed to be kosher. And if the meat is cooked, follow the majority of meat eaters, because even if the majority of the butchers are Jewish, if the meat was cooked by a gentile it is forbidden. This mishna indicates that there are circumstances when the meat is permitted even though it was obscured from sight.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכָא נָמֵי בְּנִמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי, מְבוּשָּׁל הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב אוֹכְלֵי בָשָׂר? וְנֶחְזֵי: אִי דְּגוֹי נָקֵיט לֵיהּ, אִי דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נָקֵיט לֵיהּ! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן: בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ.

And if you would say that here also it is referring to a case where the meat is found in the possession of a gentile, why does the baraita state that if the meat is cooked, one should follow the majority of meat eaters? Let us see whether a gentile is holding it or a Jew is holding it. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the meat was on the ground but someone was standing and watching it from the time it was dropped on the ground, so that it was never left unsupervised. Yet, the person watching does not know whether it was dropped by a Jew or a gentile, and therefore a determination must be made based upon the majority of the people in the city.

תָּא שְׁמַע: נִמְצָא בַּגְּבוּלִין, אֵבָרִים – נְבֵלוֹת, חֲתִיכוֹת – מוּתָּרוֹת. וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכָא נָמֵי בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ, אֵבָרִים נְבֵלוֹת – אַמַּאי?

The Gemara cites another challenge to the opinion of Rav from a mishna (Shekalim 19a). Come and hear: With regard to meat found in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, if it is found as whole limbs, the meat presumably comes from carcasses of animals that were not properly slaughtered, as carcasses were generally cut up into full limbs and fed to dogs or sold to gentiles. But if it is in small pieces, it is presumably kosher and permitted to be eaten, as kosher meat was ordinarily cut up into small pieces. This mishna indicates that even though the meat was obscured from sight, it remains permitted. And if you would say that here also it is referring to a case where someone was standing and watching it, why is it assumed to be from a carcass if it is cut into whole limbs?

מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא לְרַב, הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ: רַב אָמַר מוּתָּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה, וְלֵוִי אָמַר מוּתָּרוֹת בַּאֲכִילָה.

The Gemara answers: This mishna requires explanation only according to Rav, but wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna: Rav says that the correct version of the mishna is that the small pieces of meat are permitted, in that they are not considered impure and that one who eats them is not liable to be flogged, as would be the case if it were meat from a carcass. But it is not actually permitted to eat the meat, due to the fact that it was obscured from sight. And Levi says: The mishna means to say that the small pieces of meat are even permitted to be eaten.

וְהָא דְּרַב, לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִתְּמַר. דְּרַב הֲוָה יָתֵיב אַמַּבָּרָא דְּאִישְׁתַּטְיָא, חַזְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָא

The Gemara comments: And this statement of Rav, that meat that was obscured from sight is forbidden, was not stated explicitly by Rav. Rather, it was stated that he held this opinion based on an inference from a different statement of Rav. As, Rav was once sitting on the ford of the Ishtetit River. He saw a certain man who was

מְחַוַּור רֵישָׁא, נְפַל מִינֵּיהּ, אֲזַל אַיְיתִי סִילְתָּא שְׁדָא אַסֵּיק תְּרֵין, אָמַר רַב: עָבְדִי נָמֵי הָכִי, אַסְרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ.

cleaning the head of an animal in the river. The head fell from him. He went and brought a basket, cast the basket into the river, and pulled out two animal heads. Rav said to him: Does it commonly happen this way that one loses one item and finds two? Just as one of the animal heads is not the one you dropped, it is possible that neither of them is the one you dropped. Therefore, Rav rendered both of them forbidden to him.

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: דְּאִיסּוּרָא שְׁכִיחִי, דְּהֶתֵּירָא לָא שְׁכִיחִי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: דְּאִיסּוּרָא שְׁכִיחִי טְפֵי.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Is forbidden meat common but permitted meat not common? Most of the meat in this general location is kosher, so why did you forbid the two animal heads? He said to them: Forbidden meat is more common. From this incident the Sages derived that according to Rav, meat that has been obscured from sight becomes forbidden due to the possibility that the meat one finds now was actually deposited by ravens, who transported it from a location where the majority of the meat is forbidden.

וְכִי מִכְּלָלָא, מַאי? פַּרְוְותָא דְּגוֹיִם הֲוַאי, תֵּדַע, דְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ: ״דְּאִיסּוּרָא שְׁכִיחִי טְפֵי״.

The Gemara asks: And what does it matter if this opinion of Rav is known by inference based on this incident, rather than by an explicit statement made by Rav? The Gemara answers: There is room to say that this incident cannot serve as a precedent for a general policy, because that location was a port of gentiles, where most of the meat was non-kosher. Know that this is the case, as Rav said to Rav Kahana and Rav Asi: Forbidden meat is more common. Consequently, it is possible that Rav would not have prohibited the meat in a location where the majority of the meat is kosher.

אֶלָּא רַב, הֵיכִי אֲכַל בִּשְׂרָא בְּשַׁעְתֵּיהּ, דְּלָא (עלים) [מַעֲלֵים] עֵינֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּצַיְירָא וַחֲתִימָא, וְאִי נָמֵי: בְּסִימָנָא, כִּי הָא דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מְחַתֵּךְ לֵיהּ אַתְּלָת קַרְנָתָא.

The Gemara asks: But how did Rav ever eat meat if he holds that meat becomes forbidden if it is unsupervised for even a short time? The Gemara answers: Rav ate meat only in its time, i.e., shortly after it was slaughtered, when it had not been obscured from his sight from the time of the slaughter until he ate it. Alternatively, if you wish, say that Rav ate meat that was tied and sealed in a way that proved it had not been swapped for non-kosher meat. Or alternatively, he ate meat that could be recognized by a distinguishing mark, like that practice of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who would cut meat into pieces with three corners, i.e., triangles, before he would send it to his family members.

רַב הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל לְבֵי רַב חָנָן חַתְנֵיהּ, חֲזָא מַבָּרָא דְּקָאָתֵי לְאַפֵּיהּ, אֲמַר: מַבָּרָא קָאָתֵי לְאַפַּי, יוֹמָא טָבָא לְגוֹ.

The Gemara relates that Rav was going to the home of Rav Ḥanan, his son-in-law. He saw that the ferry was coming toward him just when he arrived at the riverbank. He said: The ferry is coming toward me even though I did not arrange for it to come now; this is a sign that a good day, i.e., a festive meal, awaits me in the place where I am going.

אֲזַל, קָם אַבָּבָא, אוֹדֵיק בְּבִזְעָא דְּדַשָּׁא, חֲזָא חֵיוְתָא דְּתַלְיָא, טְרַף אַבָּבָא, נְפוּק אֲתוֹ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְאַפֵּיהּ, אֲתָא טַבָּחֵי נָמֵי, לָא עַלֵּים רַב עֵינֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִיכּוֹ הַשְׁתָּא סְפִיתוּ לְהוּ אִיסּוּרָא לִבְנֵי בְרַת. לָא אֲכַל רַב מֵהָהוּא בִּישְׂרָא.

After crossing the river on the ferry, Rav went and stood at the gate of Rav Ḥanan’s home. He looked through a crack in the door and saw an animal that was hanging and ready to be cooked. He knocked on the gate, and everyone went out to greet him, and the butchers also came out to greet him. Rav did not remove his eyes from the meat that the butchers were preparing. He said to them: If you had eaten the meat based upon the supervision you provided now, you would have fed forbidden meat to the sons of my daughter because no one apart from me was watching the meat when you all came out to greet me. And despite the fact that he had kept the meat in his sight Rav did not eat from that meat.

מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי מִשּׁוּם אִיעַלּוֹמֵי – הָא לָא אִיעַלַּים, אֶלָּא דְּנַחֵישׁ.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav did not eat the meat? If one suggests that he was concerned because it had been obscured from sight, that cannot be the reason, as Rav kept watching it so that it was not obscured from sight. Rather, Rav did not eat because he divined, i.e., he saw the arrival of the ferry as a good omen. This is prohibited, and therefore Rav penalized himself and abstained from the meat.

וְהָאָמַר רַב: כׇּל נַחַשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ כֶּאֱלִיעֶזֶר עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם וּכְיוֹנָתָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל – אֵינוֹ נַחַשׁ! אֶלָּא סְעוּדַת הָרְשׁוּת הֲוַאי, וְרַב לָא מִתְהֲנֵי מִסְּעוּדַת הָרְשׁוּת.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav say that any divination that is not like the divination of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, when he went to seek a bride for Isaac (see Genesis 24:14), or like the divination of Jonathan, son of Saul, who sought an omen as to whether he and his arms bearer would defeat the Philistines (see I Samuel 14:8–12), is not divination? Since Rav did not rely on the omen in his decision making, he did not violate the prohibition against divination, and there was no reason for him to penalize himself. The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason Rav did not eat the meat is that it was an optional feast, rather than a feast associated with a mitzva, and Rav would not derive pleasure from an optional feast.

רַב בָּדֵיק בְּמַבָּרָא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל בָּדֵיק בְּסִפְרָא, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּדֵיק בְּיָנוֹקָא.

Having mentioned Rav’s reaction to the ferry in the incident cited above, the Gemara states that Rav would check whether to travel based upon the ferry; if it came quickly he would take the ferry, but otherwise he would not. And Shmuel would check what would happen to him by opening a scroll and reading from wherever it was open to. Rabbi Yoḥanan would check what was in store for him by asking a child to recite the verse he was learning.

כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי דְּרַב, הֲוָה כָּתַב לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן ״לָקֳדָם רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁבְּבָבֶל״. כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ, הֲוָה כָּתַב לִשְׁמוּאֵל ״לָקֳדָם חֲבֵירֵינוּ שֶׁבְּבָבֶל״. אָמַר: לָא יָדַע לִי מִידֵּי דְּרַבֵּיהּ אֲנָא? כְּתַב שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ עִיבּוּרָא דְּשִׁיתִּין שְׁנֵי. אֲמַר: הַשְׁתָּא חוּשְׁבָּנָא בְּעָלְמָא יָדַע.

The Gemara relates an incident when Rabbi Yoḥanan checked his luck based on a child’s verse. During all the years when Rav lived in Babylonia, Rabbi Yoḥanan, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, would write to him and begin with the greeting: To our Master who is in Babylonia. When Rav died, Rabbi Yoḥanan would write to Shmuel and begin with the greeting: To our colleague who is in Babylonia. Shmuel said: Does Rabbi Yoḥanan not know any matter in which I am his master? Shmuel wrote and sent to Rabbi Yoḥanan the calculation of the leap years for the next sixty years. Rabbi Yoḥanan was not impressed by this and said: Now he has merely demonstrated that he knows mathematics, which does not make him my master.

כְּתַב שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ תְּלֵיסַר גַּמְלֵי סְפֵקֵי טְרֵיפְתָּא, אֲמַר: אִית לִי רַב בְּבָבֶל, אֵיזִיל אִיחְזְיֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְיָנוֹקָא: פְּסוֹק לִי פְּסוּקָיךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וּשְׁמוּאֵל מֵת״, אֲמַר: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.

Shmuel then wrote and sent to Rabbi Yoḥanan explications of uncertainties pertaining to tereifot that had to be transported on thirteen camels. Rabbi Yoḥanan was impressed by this and said: I have a Master in Babylonia; I will go and see him. Before departing on his journey, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to a child: Recite to me your verse that you studied today. The child recited the following verse to Rabbi Yoḥanan: “Now Samuel was dead” (I Samuel 28:3). Rabbi Yoḥanan said to himself: Learn from this that Shmuel has died. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan did not go to see Shmuel.

וְלָא הִיא, לָא שְׁכֵיב שְׁמוּאֵל, אֶלָּא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִיטְרַח רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

The Gemara comments: But it was not so; Shmuel had not died. Rather, the reason Rabbi Yoḥanan was given this sign was so that Rabbi Yoḥanan would not trouble himself to embark on the long and arduous journey from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia.

תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בַּיִת, תִּינוֹק, וְאִשָּׁה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין נַחַשׁ, יֵשׁ סִימָן.

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to one who is successful with his first business transaction after he has built a home, after the birth of a child, or after he marries a woman, even though he may not use this as a means of divination to decide upon future courses of action, it is an auspicious sign that he will continue to be successful. Conversely, if his first transaction is not successful he may take that as an inauspicious sign.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וְהוּא דְּאִיתַּחְזַק תְּלָתָא זִימְנֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״יוֹסֵף אֵינֶנּוּ וְשִׁמְעוֹן אֵינֶנּוּ וְאֶת בִּנְיָמִן תִּקָּחוּ״.

Rabbi Elazar said: But this is provided that the sign has been established by repeating itself three times. This is based on a verse, as it is written: “And Jacob their father said to them: Me you have bereaved of my children: Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and you will take Benjamin away; upon me are all these things come” (Genesis 42:36). If calamity were to befall Benjamin, that would establish a pattern of three tragedies.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב הוּנָא מֵרַב: בַּחֲרוּזִין מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תְּהִי שׁוֹטֶה, בַּחֲרוּזִין הֲרֵי זֶה סִימָן. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: בַּחֲרוּזִין הֲרֵי זֶה סִימָן.

§ The Gemara returns to discuss distinguishing marks that prevent meat from being prohibited despite its having been obscured from sight. Rav Huna inquired of Rav: If pieces of meat were strung together and then were obscured from sight, what is the halakha? Rav said to him: Do not be an imbecile; of course if the meat is strung together it is considered to be a distinguishing mark, and the meat is permitted. There are those who say this halakha as follows: Rav Huna said that Rav said: If pieces of meat are strung together it is a distinguishing mark, and the meat remains permitted even if it is obscured from sight.

רַב נַחְמָן מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אִיקְּלַע לְגַבֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא לְפוּם נַהֲרָא בְּמַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְכִפּוּרֵי, אֲתוֹ עוֹרְבֵי שָׁדוּ כַּבְדֵי וְכוּלְיָתָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקוֹל וֶאֱכוֹל, הָאִידָּנָא דְּהֶיתֵּרָא שְׁכִיחַ טְפֵי.

The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman of Neharde’a arrived at the home of Rav Kahana in Pum Nahara on the eve of Yom Kippur, which is a day when people commonly eat meat. Ravens came and dropped livers and kidneys. Rav Kahana said to Rav Naḥman: Take these livers and kidneys and eat them, as they are not forbidden, even though they were obscured from sight. This is because at this time permitted meat is more common than forbidden meat, since Jews slaughter many animals on this day.

רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אִיתְּבַד לֵיהּ כַּרְכְּשָׁא בֵּי דִינָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִית לָךְ סִימָנָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. אִית לָךְ טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אִם כֵּן, זִיל שְׁקוֹל.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin lost a cut of meat from an animal intestine among the barrels of wine in his wine cellar. When he found it, he came before Rav Huna to ask whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Huna said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: No. Rav Huna asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: Yes. Rav Huna said: If so, go and take it and eat it.

רַב חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה אִיתְּבַד לֵיהּ גַּבָּא דְּבִשְׂרָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִית לָךְ סִימָנָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. אִית לָךְ טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אִם כֵּן, זִיל שְׁקוֹל.

Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a lost a side of meat. When he found it, he came before Rav Naḥman and asked him whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Naḥman said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said to him: No. Rav Naḥman asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said to him: Yes. Rav Naḥman said: If so, go and take it and eat it.

רַב נָתָן בַּר אַבָּיֵי אִיתְּבַד לֵיהּ קִיבּוּרָא דִּתְכֵלְתָּא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִית לָךְ סִימָנָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. אִית לָךְ טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אִם כֵּן, זִיל שְׁקוֹל.

Rav Natan bar Abaye lost a skein of sky-blue wool prepared for use in ritual fringes. He searched for it and found it. He came before Rav Ḥisda to ask whether the wool was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight and may have become confused with other blue wool that is not valid for ritual fringes. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark in it so that you can identify it? Rav Natan bar Abaye said to him: No. Rav Ḥisda asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Natan bar Abaye said to him: Yes. Rav Ḥisda said: If so, go and take it, and you may use it for ritual fringes.

אָמַר רָבָא: מֵרֵישָׁא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא סִימָנָא עֲדִיף מִטְּבִיעוּת עֵינָא, דְּהָא מַהְדְּרִינַן אֲבֵידְתָא בְּסִימָנָא,

Rava said: At first I would say that a distinguishing mark is preferable to visual recognition, because we return a lost item to its owner based on a distinguishing mark,