Chullin Daf 49 (חולין דף מ״ט)
Daf: 49 | Amudim: 49a – 49b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (49a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא
A needle in the reticulum wall — why not check which way the eye faces?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעוֹבִי בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת מִצַּד אֶחָד כְּשֵׁרָה, מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין טְרֵפָה, וְלָא אָמְרִינַן לִיחְזֵי אִי קוֹפָא לְבַר אִי קוֹפָא לְגָיו?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This continues the challenge from the end of 48b. A needle found embedded in the thickness of the reticulum wall leaves the animal kosher if it protrudes only on the inner side, but renders it a tereifa if it pierces through both sides. The Gemara objects: in the parallel case we examined the needle’s orientation, so why here do we not check whether the eye of the needle (kufa) faces outward — which would suggest the needle entered from outside, through the gullet and chest cavity — or inward?
Key Terms:
- בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת (beit hakosot) = the reticulum, the second stomach of a ruminant
- קוֹפָא (kufa) = the eye of a needle
- לְבַר / לְגָיו (levar / legav) = outward / inward (Aramaic)
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Food and drink may have pushed the needle’s eye outward
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי: הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אֳכָלִים וּמַשְׁקִים – אֵימָא אֳכָלִים וּמַשְׁקִים דַּחְקוּהָ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reticulum is full of food and liquid, and their constant churning pressure can drive even the blunt eye-end of a needle into the stomach wall. The eye facing outward therefore proves nothing about the needle’s point of entry, and the animal remains kosher so long as the needle has not pierced clear through both sides. The liver, by contrast, has no such internal pressure, which is why the needle’s orientation was a meaningful indicator there.
Key Terms:
- אֳכָלִים וּמַשְׁקִים (ochalim umashkim) = the food and liquids inside the stomach
- דַּחְקוּהָ (dachakuha) = pressed/pushed it
Segment 3
TYPE: מעשה
A needle in the liver duct — Ravina fines those who declared it a tereifa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא מַחְטָא דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בְּסִמְפּוֹנָא רַבָּה דְּכַבְדָּא, הוּנָא מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי טָרֵיף, רַב אַדָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי מַכְשַׁר. אֲתוֹ שַׁיְילוּהּ לְרָבִינָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁקִילוּ גְּלִימָא דְּטָרוֹפָאֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A needle was found in the large bile duct (simpona rabba) of a liver. Since the duct opens into the digestive tract, the needle could have arrived there without perforating any organ, so Rav Adda bar Minyumi’s lenient ruling is correct. Ravina’s striking response — take the robe of those who declared it a tereifa — means the stringent judges must personally compensate the owner for the meat wrongly condemned, a vivid reminder that an erroneous stringency in a settled matter of law carries real monetary liability.
Key Terms:
- סִמְפּוֹנָא רַבָּה דְּכַבְדָּא (simpona rabba dechavda) = the large duct of the liver
- שְׁקִילוּ גְּלִימָא (shekilu gelima) = ‘take the cloak’ — collect payment from them
- טָרוֹפָאֵי (tarofa’ei) = those who ruled it a tereifa
Segment 4
TYPE: מעשה
A date pit in the gallbladder — palm pits slip in, olive pits pierce
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהִיא קְשִׁיתָא דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בְּמָרָה, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, אָמַר: הָא וַדַּאי סִימְפּוֹנָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא קָא נָפְקָא, מִירְבָּל הוּא דְּרָבֵיל לַיהּ, וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּדִיקְלָא, אֲבָל דְּזֵיתָא מִיבְזָע בָּזַע.
English Translation:
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’s body gradually cause it to slip through the duct. The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only to the pit of a palm, i.e., of a date, but the pit of an olive is pointed. Therefore, one must be concerned that it has pierced the wall of the gallbladder, rendering the animal a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana taught that a smooth, rounded date pit found in the gallbladder must have traveled there through the duct connecting it to the digestive system; even if it now seems too large to pass, the animal’s continuous body movements gradually worked it through. An olive pit, however, is pointed, so we must suspect that it pierced the gallbladder wall from outside, rendering the animal a tereifa. The distinction is purely physical: is the object capable of perforating, or not?
Key Terms:
- קְשִׁיתָא (kashita) = a fruit pit
- מָרָה (marah) = gallbladder
- מִירְבָּל הוּא דְּרָבֵיל לַיהּ (mirbal hu derabeil lei) = it was gradually worked through
- מִיבְזָע בָּזַע (mivza baza) = it pierces
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא ובעיא
Why is the lung called rei’a? Because it lights up the eyes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ רֵיאָה – שֶׁמְּאִירָה אֶת הָעֵינַיִם. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לַאֲכִילָה, אוֹ עַל יְדֵי סַמָּנִין?
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to its discussion of the lung: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why is the lung called rei’a in Hebrew? Because it lights up [me’ira] the eyes of one who eats it. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yoḥanan referring to a lung eaten as is, or is he referring to a lung eaten only through its treatment with certain substances?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan offers an etymology: the lung (rei’a) is so called because it lights up the eyes (me’ira et ha’einayim) of one who eats it — a wordplay on the shared root of rei’a and or, light. The Gemara then poses a practical dilemma: does eating plain lung improve vision, or only lung prepared with certain medicinal substances (sammanin)?
Key Terms:
- רֵיאָה (rei’a) = lung
- מְאִירָה אֶת הָעֵינַיִם (me’ira et ha’einayim) = lights up the eyes
- סַמָּנִין (sammanin) = medicinal substances/ingredients
Segment 6
TYPE: תא שמע
A goose for one zuz, its lung for four — the benefit requires preparation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה: אֲוָוזָא בְּזוּזָא, וְרֵיאָה דִּידַהּ בְּאַרְבְּעָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לַאֲכִילָה – לִינְקֹט בְּזוּזָא וְלֵיכוֹל! אֶלָּא, עַל יְדֵי סַמָּנִין.
English Translation:
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 Yoḥanan 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna bar Yehuda reports market prices: a whole goose sells for one zuz, while a goose lung alone fetches four. If simply eating lung gave the benefit, no one would pay four zuz for the organ when the entire bird — lung included — costs one. Clearly the lung’s special value lies in a remedy prepared with additional substances, and the dilemma is resolved: the benefit comes al yedei sammanin.
Key Terms:
- אֲוָוזָא (avoza) = goose
- זוּזָא (zuza) = a zuz, a standard coin
- סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ (salka da’atach) = ‘it should enter your mind’ — marks a hypothesis about to be refuted
Segment 7
TYPE: בעיא ופסק
A hole where the butcher’s hand handled the lung — do we attribute it to him?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִינַּקְבָה רֵיאָה הֵיכָא דִּמְמַשְׁמְשָׁא יְדֵיהּ דְּטַבָּחָא, תָּלֵינַן אוֹ לָא תָּלֵינַן? רַב אַדָּא בַּר נָתָן אָמַר: תָּלֵינַן, מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי אָמַר: לָא תָּלֵינַן, וְהִלְכְתָא: תָּלֵינַן.
English Translation:
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’s handling, or do we not attribute the perforation to the handling, in which case the animal is a tereifa? Rav Adda bar Natan says: We attribute it to the butcher’s handling, while Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, says: We do not attribute it to the handling. And the halakha is that we attribute it to the handling.
קלאוד על הדף:
After slaughter the butcher reaches in and pulls the lung away from the chest wall; if a perforation is later found precisely where his hand worked, may we assume he caused it after shechita, leaving the animal kosher? Rav Adda bar Natan says we do attribute it to the handling (talinan); Mar Zutra son of Rav Mari says we do not. The Gemara rules talinan: where a post-slaughter cause is plausible and present, the defect is ascribed to it.
Key Terms:
- תָּלֵינַן (talinan) = we attribute (the damage to a later, innocent cause)
- טַבָּחָא (tabacha) = butcher
- מְמַשְׁמְשָׁא יְדֵיהּ (memashmesha yedei) = where his hand handles
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Shmuel’s father, a head of Rafram’s kalla, also ruled talinan
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אַבָּא מֵרֵישֵׁי כַּלֵּי דְּרַפְרָם הֲוָה, וַאֲמַר: תָּלֵינַן. אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ לְהָא דְּמָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי, וְלָא קַבְּלַהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Shmuel son of Rabbi Abbahu buttresses the lenient ruling with family testimony: his father, one of the heads of the kalla lectures in Rafram’s academy, ruled talinan. When Mar Zutra’s opposing view was cited before him, he refused to accept it. The report shows that the lenient position was the practiced ruling of the academies, not merely a theoretical stance.
Key Terms:
- רֵישֵׁי כַּלֵּי (reishei kallei) = heads of the kalla — the mass public study sessions of the Babylonian academies
- וְלָא קַבְּלַהּ (vela kabbelah) = and he did not accept it
Segment 9
TYPE: סיוע
Support: we likewise attribute perforations to a wolf
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: כְּוָותֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ דְּאַבָּא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּהָא תָּלֵינַן בִּזְאֵב.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Mesharshiyya supports his grandfather Rav Adda bar Natan from an established halakha: if a wolf carried off meat and it is recovered with a perforation in a vital spot, we attribute the hole to the wolf’s teeth and the meat remains permitted. If we attribute damage even to a wolf after the fact, all the more so should we attribute a hole in the lung to the butcher’s hand that is known to have worked at exactly that spot.
Key Terms:
- תָּלֵינַן בִּזְאֵב (talinan bize’ev) = we attribute (the damage) to the wolf
- אֲבוּהּ דְּאַבָּא (avuha de’abba) = my father’s father, i.e., Grandfather
Segment 10
TYPE: מחלוקת ופסק
A worm beside a hole in the lung — did it bore out before or after shechita?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מוּרְנָא, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר דּוֹסַאי וְרַבָּנַן, חַד אָמַר: קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה פָּרֵישׁ, וְחַד אָמַר: לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה פָּרֵישׁ, וְהִלְכְתָא: לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה פָּרֵישׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
When a worm (murana) is found near a perforation in the lung, the question is whether it bored its way out before slaughter — rendering the animal a tereifa — or emerged only afterward, leaving the animal kosher. Rav Yosef bar Dosai and the Rabbis dispute which presumption governs, and the halakha follows the lenient view: the worm is presumed to have emerged after shechita. The ruling extends the daf’s running theme: where a post-slaughter cause is plausible, the defect is attributed to it.
Key Terms:
- מוּרְנָא (murana) = worm, larva
- פָּרֵישׁ (pareish) = emerged, departed
- קוֹדֶם / לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה (kodem / le’achar shechita) = before / after slaughter
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה וביאור
Rabbi Shimon: not a tereifa until perforated to the large bronchus
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לְסִמְפּוֹן גָּדוֹל.
English Translation:
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 Taḥlifa 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the mishna’s dissenting view: Rabbi Shimon holds that a perforated lung is not a tereifa ‘until it is perforated’ — and Rabba bar Tachlifa in the name of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba defines this as perforation reaching the simpon gadol, the large central bronchus from which the smaller airways branch. On his view, perforations of the lung’s outer membranes alone are not fatal defects.
Key Terms:
- סִמְפּוֹן גָּדוֹל (simpon gadol) = the large bronchus
- עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב (ad shetinakev) = until it is perforated (through)
Segment 12
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Huna rejects the report: Malokh the Arab said the opposite
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רַב אַחָא בַּר אַבָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: אָמַר רַבִּי מַלּוּךְ אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַלּוּךְ עַרְבָאָה קָאָמְרַתְּ? אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָאָמַר!
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Acha bar Abba quoted Rabbi Malokh in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon. Rav Huna dismissed the report, identifying the source as Malokh the Arab and insisting he actually transmitted the opposite: the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. The exchange opens a chain of conflicting traditions about what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi really said.
Key Terms:
- עַרְבָאָה (Arva’a) = the Arab, i.e., of the region of Arav
- הֲלָכָה כְּ־ (halakha ke-) = the halakha is in accordance with
Segment 13
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Zeira’s eyewitness testimony — and a second, conflicting chain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי סָלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב בִּיבִי דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: אָמַר רַבִּי מַלּוּךְ אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַיֵּי דְּמָר, דַּאֲנָא וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא וְרַב אַסִּי אִיקַּלְעִינַן לְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מַלּוּךְ, וַאֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: אִי אָמַר מָר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? וַאֲמַר לַן: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֲמַרִי. וְאַתְּ מָה בִּידָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
English Translation:
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’s life, I and Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Yitzḥak bar Ami says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
קלאוד על הדף:
In Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Zeira heard Rav Beivai repeat the same attribution to Rabbi Malokh and refuted it from personal experience: he, Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba, and Rav Asi had visited Rabbi Malokh and heard him say explicitly that the halakha is not like Rabbi Shimon. Pressed for what tradition he did possess, Rabbi Zeira cited a different chain — Rabbi Yitzchak bar Ami in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi — that the halakha is like Rabbi Shimon. The sugya preserves both the meticulous verification of attributions and the reality of genuinely conflicting traditions.
Key Terms:
- כִּי סָלֵיק (ki saleik) = when he went up (from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael)
- חַיֵּי דְּמָר (chayei demar) = ‘by the Master’s life’ — an emphatic asseveration
- וְאַתְּ מָה בִּידָךְ (ve’at ma bidach) = and you, what (tradition) do you have in hand?
Segment 14
TYPE: פסק
The ruling: the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara closes the debate with a flat ruling: the halakha does not follow Rabbi Shimon. Any perforation through the lung’s membranes renders the animal a tereifa, even if it does not reach the large bronchus. This is the position later codified by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch.
Key Terms:
- וְאֵין הֲלָכָה (ve’ein halakha) = and the halakha is not (in accordance with him)
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא ומנהג
Fat on the abomasum: the priests’ lenient custom and its mnemonic
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִיקְּבָה הַקֵּבָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי קֵבָה – כֹּהֲנִים נָהֲגוּ בּוֹ הֶיתֵּר, כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם אֲבוֹתָיו. וְסִימָנָיךְ: ״יִשְׁמָעֵאל כָּהֲנָא מְסַיַּיע כָּהֲנֵי״.
English Translation:
The mishna states: If the abomasum was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. Concerning this, Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Turning to the mishna’s statement that a perforated abomasum (keiva) renders the animal a tereifa, the Gemara records that priests customarily ate the fat on the abomasum. The matter concerned them directly, because the keiva of every non-sacred slaughtered animal is one of the priestly gifts. Their leniency followed Rabbi Yishmael reporting a tradition of his forefathers, and the mnemonic — Yishmael the priest helps the priests — tags which Tanna held the lenient view.
Key Terms:
- קֵבָה (keiva) = abomasum, the fourth stomach; one of the priestly gifts (matnot kehuna)
- נָהֲגוּ בּוֹ הֶיתֵּר (nahagu bo heter) = treated it as permitted by established custom
- וְסִימָנָיךְ (vesimanaich) = and your mnemonic is
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Yishmael: God Himself blesses the priests
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״כֹּה תְבָרְכוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: לָמַדְנוּ בְּרָכָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִפִּי כֹּהֲנִים, לְכֹהֲנִים עַצְמָן לֹא לָמַדְנוּ. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַאֲנִי אֲבָרְכֵם״ – הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּהֲנִים מְבָרְכִין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְבָרֵךְ לַכֹּהֲנִים.
English Translation:
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: “So you shall bless the children of Israel” (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: “And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them” (Numbers 6:27), you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, blesses the priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara digresses to locate where Yishmael helps the priests. In the baraita on the priestly benediction, Rabbi Yishmael reads ‘So you shall bless the children of Israel’ (Numbers 6:23) as the priests blessing Israel, and ‘and I will bless them’ (Numbers 6:27) as God blessing the priests themselves — for otherwise the priests would be left without any stated blessing. On his reading the priests receive their blessing directly from the Holy One.
Key Terms:
- בִּרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים (birkat kohanim) = the priestly benediction
- וַאֲנִי אֲבָרְכֵם (va’ani avarechem) = ‘and I will bless them’ (Numbers 6:27)
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Akiva: ‘I will bless them’ refers to Israel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לָמַדְנוּ בְּרָכָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מִפִּי כֹהֲנִים, מִפִּי גְבוּרָה לֹא לָמַדְנוּ. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וַאֲנִי אֲבָרְכֵם״ – הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: כֹּהֲנִים מְבָרְכִין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַסְכִּים עַל יָדָם.
English Translation:
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: “And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them,” you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, affirms their blessing. The word “them” is referring to Israel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva reads the same verse differently: ‘and I will bless them’ teaches that God affirms (maskim) the priests’ blessing of Israel, so that ‘them’ refers to Israel, not the priests. On this reading the verse supplies divine ratification of the human blessing — Israel is blessed both from the mouth of the priests and from the mouth of the Almighty — but says nothing about a blessing for the priests themselves.
Key Terms:
- מִפִּי גְבוּרָה (mipi Gevura) = from the mouth of the Almighty
- מַסְכִּים עַל יָדָם (maskim al yadam) = affirms/ratifies their act
Segment 18
TYPE: שאלה ותשובה
Where does Rabbi Akiva find a blessing for the priests? From Avraham
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, בְּרָכָה לְכֹהֲנִים מְנָא לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִ״וַּאֲבָרְכָה מְבָרְכֶיךָ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But then from where does Rabbi Akiva learn about a blessing for the priests? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He learns it from God’s promise to Abraham: “And I will bless them that bless you” (Genesis 12:3). All who bless the Jewish people are blessed themselves.
קלאוד על הדף:
If ‘I will bless them’ refers to Israel, the priests would seem to be left unblessed. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers from God’s promise to Avraham, ‘And I will bless them that bless you’ (Genesis 12:3): whoever blesses the Jewish people is blessed in turn, and the priests, who bless Israel constantly, are certainly included.
Key Terms:
- וַאֲבָרְכָה מְבָרְכֶיךָ (va’avarecha mevarachecha) = ‘and I will bless them that bless you’ (Genesis 12:3)
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
What, then, is Rabbi Yishmael’s special help to the priests?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי מְסַיַּיע כָּהֲנֵי? דְּמוֹקֵי לֵהּ לְבִרְכַּת כֹּהֲנִים בִּמְקוֹם בְּרָכָה דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Since even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the priests are blessed, the Gemara explains the mnemonic’s point: Rabbi Yishmael helps the priests by locating their blessing in the same verse as Israel’s blessing. The priests thereby receive the same direct, explicit divine blessing as Israel itself, rather than a derivative blessing inferred from a general promise to Avraham.
Key Terms:
- דְּמוֹקֵי לֵהּ (demokei lei) = for he establishes/places it
- בִּמְקוֹם בְּרָכָה דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל (bimkom beracha deYisrael) = in the place (verse) of Israel’s blessing
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא
The forefathers’ tradition: expounding ‘all the fat that is upon the innards’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם אֲבוֹתָיו, מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֶת כׇּל הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עַל הַקֶּרֶב
English Translation:
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: “All the fat that is upon the innards” (Leviticus 3:3),
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to identify the actual statement that Rabbi Yishmael transmitted in the name of his forefathers concerning forbidden fats. It cites a baraita expounding the verse ‘all the fat that is upon the innards’ (Leviticus 3:3); the exposition breaks off here and continues at the top of 49b, where the dispute over which fats the word ‘all’ includes is spelled out.
Key Terms:
- חֵלֶב (chelev) = the forbidden hard fat, the portions burned on the altar
- הַקֶּרֶב (hakerev) = the innards
Amud Bet (49b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
What does ‘all’ include — the fat of the intestines or of the abomasum?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְגוֹ׳״ – לְהָבִיא חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַדַּקִּין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לְהָבִיא חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַקֵּבָה.
English Translation:
the word “all” serves to include the fat that is on the small intestines; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The word “all” serves to include the fat that is on the abomasum. According to Rabbi Yishmael, the fat of the abomasum is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita concludes: Rabbi Yishmael says the word ‘all’ extends the chelev prohibition to the fat on the small intestines, while Rabbi Akiva says it extends to the fat on the abomasum. On this version, Rabbi Yishmael never includes abomasum fat in the prohibition — hence it is permitted, and this is the lenient family tradition on which the priests relied.
Key Terms:
- דַּקִּין (dakkin) = the small intestines
- לְהָבִיא (lehavi) = to include — a midrashic extension of the verse’s scope
Segment 2
TYPE: רמינהי
A contradiction: a second baraita appears to reverse the two positions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּרְמִינְהִי: ״אֶת הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עַל הַקֶּרֶב״ – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מָה חֵלֶב הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת הַקֶּרֶב קְרוּם וְנִקְלָף, אַף כֹּל קְרוּם וְנִקְלָף. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מָה חֵלֶב הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת הַקֶּרֶב תּוֹתָב קְרוּם וְנִקְלָף, אַף כֹּל תּוֹתָב קְרוּם וְנִקְלָף.
English Translation:
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: The verse states: “The fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is upon the innards” (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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second baraita derives the scope of forbidden fat by analogy from ‘the fat that covers the innards.’ Rabbi Shimon — understood here as representing Rabbi Yishmael’s position — requires only that fat be a peelable, membrane-covered layer, which would forbid abomasum fat; Rabbi Akiva also requires that it be spread loosely (totav) like a garment, which exempts the tightly-fixed fat of the abomasum. Each Tanna thus appears to contradict his own position in the first baraita.
Key Terms:
- וּרְמִינְהִי (urminhi) = and they raised a contradiction (between sources)
- קְרוּם וְנִקְלָף (kerum veniklaf) = a membrane that peels off easily
- תּוֹתָב (totav) = spread loosely, draped like a garment
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Ravin in Rabbi Yochanan’s name: reverse the first baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁלַח רָבִין מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּךְ הִיא הַצָּעָה שֶׁל מִשְׁנָה, וְאֵיפוֹךְ קַמַּיְיתָא.
English Translation:
Ravin sent an answer in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravin sent the resolution from Eretz Yisrael: the second baraita preserves the proper layout of the teaching, and the attributions in the first baraita must be reversed. The result: Rabbi Akiva includes intestinal fat in the prohibition, while Rabbi Yishmael includes even the fat of the abomasum — so the lenient view about abomasum fat in fact belongs to Rabbi Akiva.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלַח רָבִין (shelach Ravin) = Ravin sent — rulings dispatched from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel
- הַצָּעָה שֶׁל מִשְׁנָה (hatza’a shel mishna) = the (proper) layout of the teaching
- אֵיפוֹךְ (eipoch) = reverse (the attributions)
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why reverse the first baraita rather than the second?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי חָזֵית דְּאָפְכַתְּ קַמַּיְיתָא? אֵיפוֹךְ בָּתְרָיְיתָא! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּקָתָנֵי ״מָה״, דַּוְוקָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks what justified emending the first baraita rather than the second. The answer: the second baraita teaches with the analytic formula ‘just as’ (mah), spelling out the textual reasoning behind each opinion. A source that preserves the underlying logic of each position is presumed accurate in its attributions as well, so it is the first, terser baraita that must yield.
Key Terms:
- מַאי חָזֵית (mai chazeit) = what did you see — what justifies your choice?
- דַּוְוקָא (davka) = precise, exact
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Then the priests’ custom follows Rabbi Akiva! He said it but did not hold it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם אֲבוֹתָיו, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
After the reversal, the lenient view on abomasum fat is Rabbi Akiva’s — yet Rabbi Oshaya described the priests’ custom as following Rabbi Yishmael. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves: Rabbi Yishmael faithfully transmitted his forefathers’ lenient tradition, but he himself did not hold of it, and personally considered abomasum fat forbidden. The custom thus rests on the transmitted tradition rather than on Rabbi Yishmael’s own opinion.
Key Terms:
- וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ (velei la sevira lei) = but he himself does not hold accordingly
- מִשּׁוּם אֲבוֹתָיו (mishum avotav) = in the name of his forefathers
Segment 6
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Does fat seal a perforation? Rav versus Rav Sheshet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב: חֵלֶב טָהוֹר – סוֹתֵם, טָמֵא – אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵם. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה סוֹתֵם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The fats discussion now links back to tereifot: a perforation in an organ that is covered and sealed by adjacent tissue may not render the animal a tereifa. Rav distinguishes — kosher (permitted) fat seals, non-kosher (forbidden) fat does not — while Rav Sheshet holds that both seal. The underlying question is whether forbidden fat, being halakhically alien to the animal’s flesh, is disqualified as a seal, or whether any firm physical seal suffices.
Key Terms:
- סוֹתֵם (sotem) = seals (a perforation)
- חֵלֶב טָהוֹר / טָמֵא (chelev tahor / tamei) = permitted (‘pure’) fat / forbidden (‘impure’) fat
Segment 7
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Zeira: does the innard fat of a chaya seal?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: חֵלֶב חַיָּה מַאי? דַּוְקָא אָמַר חֵלֶב טָהוֹר סוֹתֵם, וְהַאי נָמֵי טָהוֹר הוּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דִּמְהַדַּק, וְהַאי לָא מְהַדַּק?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
All the fat of a kosher undomesticated animal (chaya) is permitted to eat, including the fat over its innards. Rabbi Zeira asks whether Rav’s rule tracks the fat’s permitted status — in which case the innard fat of a chaya would seal — or its physical firmness, since innard fat lies loose even on a chaya and would not form a reliable barrier.
Key Terms:
- חַיָּה (chaya) = a kosher undomesticated animal (deer, gazelle, etc.), whose chelev is permitted
- מְהַדַּק (mehaddak) = pressed tight, firmly attached
Segment 8
TYPE: דחייה
Abaye: there is no dilemma — loose fat is no seal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? נְהִי דִּשְׁרֵי בַּאֲכִילָה, אִהַדּוֹקֵי לָא מְהַדַּק.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye dismisses the question: permission for consumption is beside the point. The innard fat of a chaya simply does not adhere tightly, and a covering that is not firmly attached is no seal at all. The criterion is physical adhesion, not halakhic status alone.
Key Terms:
- נְהִי דִּשְׁרֵי בַּאֲכִילָה (nehi dishrei ba’achila) = granted that it is permitted to eat
- אִהַדּוֹקֵי לָא מְהַדַּק (ihadokei la mehaddak) = it does not adhere tightly
Segment 9
TYPE: מעשה
Rava permits a hole sealed by forbidden fat — ‘the Torah spares the money of Israel’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא נֶקֶב דְּסַתְמֵהּ חֵלֶב טָמֵא, דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אָמַר רָבָא: לְמַאי נֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ? חֲדָא – דְּהָא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: חֵלֶב טָמֵא נָמֵי סוֹתֵם, וְעוֹד – הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: רַב, וְאִיסּוּרָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ ״הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל״?!
English Translation:
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’t Rav Sheshet say: Non-kosher fat also effectively seals a perforation? And furthermore, in general, the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people, and it is appropriate to rule leniently in this regard. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But there is also the opinion of Rav that non-kosher fat does not seal a perforation, and this dispute concerns a prohibition by Torah law, and yet you say that the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people? One cannot rely on this principle to rule in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to such matters.
קלאוד על הדף:
Faced with a perforation sealed by non-kosher fat, Rava permitted the animal for two reasons: Rav Sheshet holds that even forbidden fat seals, and the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people. Rav Pappa objected sharply: Rav disputes the very point, the matter is a Torah-level prohibition, and the cost-sparing principle cannot decide a doubt in a de’oraita matter toward leniency. The exchange tests the limits of a beloved principle.
Key Terms:
- הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל (haTorah chasa al mamonam shel Yisrael) = the Torah spares the money of the Jewish people
- אִיסּוּרָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא (issura de’oraita) = a Torah-level prohibition
Segment 10
TYPE: מעשה
The uncovered honey jug — the same principle, and a sharper objection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנְיוֹמִין כַּנְדּוּקָא אִיגַּלִּי לֵיהּ בֻּסְתְּקָא דְּדוּבְשָׁא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אָמַר רָבָא: לְמַאי נֵיחוּשׁ לַהּ? חֲדָא – דִּתְנַן, שְׁלֹשָׁה מַשְׁקִים אֲסוּרִים מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי: הַיַּיִן וְהַמַּיִם וְהֶחָלָב, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַמַּשְׁקִים מוּתָּרִים, וְעוֹד – הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְסַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ ״הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל״?
English Translation:
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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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?
קלאוד על הדף:
In a parallel story, Manyumin the jug maker’s honey was left uncovered, raising the concern of gilui — that a snake drank from it and left venom behind. Rava again permitted, citing the mishna that only wine, water, and milk are subject to gilui, and again invoking the Torah’s concern for Jewish money. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s objection is even sharper than Rav Pappa’s: Rabbi Shimon forbids exposed honey, and this is a matter of mortal danger (sakanat nefashot), where monetary considerations have no standing at all.
Key Terms:
- גִּילּוּי (gilui) = the prohibition of liquids left exposed, lest a snake deposited venom
- בֻּסְתְּקָא (busteka) = jug, cask
- סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת (sakanat nefashot) = mortal danger
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Shimon’s stringency: even brine, vinegar, oil, honey, and murays
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: חֲמִשָּׁה אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי: צִיר, וָחוֹמֶץ, שֶׁמֶן, וּדְבַשׁ, וּמוּרְיָיס. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף הֵן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גִּילּוּי. וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֲנִי רָאִיתִי נָחָשׁ שֶׁשָּׁתָה צִיר בְּצַיְדָּן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שָׁטְיָא הֲוָה, וְאֵין מְבִיאִין רְאָיָה מִן הַשּׁוֹטִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita lists five liquids exempt from gilui because snakes do not drink from them: fish brine, vinegar, oil, honey, and murays (fish gravy). Rabbi Shimon subjects even these to the prohibition, testifying that he once saw a snake drink brine in Tzaidan. The Rabbis dismiss the report: that snake was an aberrant individual (shatya), and one does not bring proof from abnormal creatures.
Key Terms:
- צִיר (tzir) = fish brine
- מוּרְיָיס (murays) = fish gravy made of brine, oil, and salt
- שָׁטְיָא (shatya) = deranged, abnormal
- אֵין מְבִיאִין רְאָיָה מִן הַשּׁוֹטִים (ein mevi’in re’aya min hashotim) = one does not bring proof from the abnormal
Segment 12
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
Concede to me on brine — concede to me on honey
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אוֹדִי לִי מִיהַת בְּצִיר, דְּהָא רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבָּנַן, כִּי הֲוָה לְהוּ גִּילּוּיָא, שָׁדוּ לֵיהּ בְּצִיר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אוֹדִי לִי מִיהָא בִּדְבַשׁ, דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר קָאֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹסֵר בִּדְבַשׁ.
English Translation:
Rava said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: 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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava counters: at least regarding brine the halakha clearly rejects Rabbi Shimon, for Rav Pappa, Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, and the Sages would neutralize exposed liquids by casting them into brine, whose sharpness destroys snake venom — and by extension honey too should be permitted. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers in kind: concede on honey, at least, that the stringency stands, since Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar independently forbids exposed honey, giving that stringency the support of two Tannaim.
Key Terms:
- אוֹדִי לִי מִיהַת (odi li mihat) = concede to me, at least
- שָׁדוּ לֵיהּ בְּצִיר (shadu lei betzir) = they would cast it into fish brine
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
Fat shaped like a hat does not seal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: חֵלֶב הֶעָשׂוּי כְּכוֹבַע אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵם. הֵיכָא? אָמְרִי לַהּ: חִיטֵּי דְּכַרְכְּשָׁא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: טַרְפְּשָׁא דְּלִיבָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to the initial discussion with regard to fats and perforations: Rav Naḥman 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Returning to seals, Rav Nachman rules that fat made like a hat — domed loosely over an organ rather than pressed onto it — does not seal a perforation, even where the fat itself is permitted. Two identifications are offered: the grain-like clumps of fat on the rectum (chitei decharkesha), or the fatty membrane over the heart (tarpesha deliba). In either case the covering merely caps the spot and cannot be relied upon as a true seal.
Key Terms:
- כְּכוֹבַע (kechova) = like a hat, domed
- חִיטֵּי דְּכַרְכְּשָׁא (chitei decharkesha) = the ‘grains’ of fat on the rectum
- טַרְפְּשָׁא דְּלִיבָּא (tarpesha deliba) = the fatty membrane of the heart
Segment 14
TYPE: מימרא
Chimtza and bar chimtza — one seals, one does not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁמַעִית מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן תַּרְתֵּי, חִימְצָא וּבַר חִימְצָא, חַד סָתֵים וְחַד לָא סָתֵים, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ. רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: בַּר חִימְצָא סָתֵים, חִימְצָא לָא סָתֵים. אָמַר רַב טָבוּת: וְסִימָנָיךְ – יָפֶה כֹּחַ הַבֵּן מִכֹּחַ הָאָב.
English Translation:
Rava said: I heard from Rav Naḥman about two fats found on the abomasum, in different places. One is called the ḥimtza and one the bar ḥimtza, meaning: Son of ḥimtza. 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 Ḥinnana and Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, said: The bar ḥimtza seals; the ḥimtza does not seal. Rav Tavot said: And your mnemonic is: The power of the son is greater than the power of the father.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava recalled hearing from Rav Nachman that of two fats found on the abomasum — the chimtza and the bar chimtza, the ‘son of the chimtza’ — one seals a perforation and one does not, but he forgot which was which. Rav Huna bar Chinnana and Rav Huna son of Rav Nachman supplied the ruling: the bar chimtza seals and the chimtza does not. Rav Tavot’s mnemonic — the power of the son is greater than the power of the father — fixes the answer in memory.
Key Terms:
- חִימְצָא / בַּר חִימְצָא (chimtza / bar chimtza) = two distinct fats on the abomasum, the ‘father’ and the ‘son’
- יָפֶה כֹּחַ הַבֵּן מִכֹּחַ הָאָב (yafeh koach haben mikoach ha’av) = the power of the son is greater than the power of the father
Segment 15
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
Which fat is which? The discussion continues onto the next daf
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵי חִימְצָא וְהֵי בַּר חִימְצָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אִינְהוּ מֵיכָל אָכְלִי,
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Which is the ḥimtza and which is the bar ḥimtza? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from that which Rav Naḥman 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,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now asks which physical fat is the chimtza and which the bar chimtza, and begins to answer from another statement of Rav Nachman contrasting what the residents of Eretz Yisrael themselves eat. The sentence breaks off mid-thought and is completed at the top of daf 50, where the regional customs concerning the fat of the abomasum’s arch are spelled out.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע (ta shema) = come and hear (a proof)
- אִינְהוּ מֵיכָל אָכְלִי (inhu meichal achli) = they themselves eat it