Chullin Daf 6 (חולין דף ו׳)
Daf: 6 | Amudim: 6a – 6b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (6a)
Segment 1
TYPE: שמע מינה
Proof that Rabbi Zeira accepted Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi’s rebuke
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּיךְ לָא קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ, לִישַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ: כָּאן כְּשֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו, כָּאן כְּשֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו? אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Zeira did not accept from Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi that Rabban Gamliel prohibited eating from the slaughter of a Samaritan even when a Jew was standing over him, let Rabbi Zeira resolve the matter for himself in a different manner: Here, where Rabbi Yoḥanan ate from the slaughter of a Samaritan, it was when a Jew was standing over him; there, where Rabban Gamliel prohibited eating from the slaughter of a Samaritan, it was when a Jew was not standing over him. Rather, must one not conclude from it that Rabbi Zeira accepted the response from Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn this from it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara closes the question left at the end of daf 5: did Rabbi Zeira accept Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi’s sharp rebuke that Rabban Gamliel’s ban applies even with Jewish supervision? Indirect proof: had Rabbi Zeira not accepted, he could have simply distinguished cleanly — Rabbi Yochanan ate when supervised; Rabban Gamliel’s ban applied without supervision. Since he didn’t take that easy route, he must have accepted the rebuke. The conclusion: שמע מינה — yes, he accepted that the ban is absolute, and he resolved the apparent contradiction with the more elaborate “they heard and rejected” theory.
Key Terms:
- לִישַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ = let him answer for himself (a Gemara argument from neglected easy options)
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = derive from it (a Gemara conclusion-formula)
Segment 2
TYPE: מעשה
The historical trigger: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and the elder’s warning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי טַעְמָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן? כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, שַׁדְּרֵיהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַמְרָא מִבֵּי כוּתָאֵי, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וְשַׂמְתָּ סַכִּין בְּלֹעֶךָ אִם בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ אָתָּה״, הָלַךְ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר וְסִפֵּר דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְגָזַר עֲלֵיהֶן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Sages, Rabban Gamliel and his court, issued a decree rendering it prohibited to eat from the slaughter of Samaritans? The Gemara answers: It is like that case involving Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, in which Rabbi Meir dispatched him to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. A certain elder found him and said to him: “And put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite” (Proverbs 23:2), as a warning to distance himself from them and not to drink their wine, because they were not reliable. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar went and related those matters before Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir issued a decree against them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the historical trigger for the rabbinic ban. Rabbi Meir sent his student Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar to fetch wine from the Samaritans. An anonymous elder met him with a stark warning quoting Mishlei 23:2 — “put a knife to your throat” — i.e., better to harm yourself than to drink Samaritan wine. The student reported this back, and Rabbi Meir issued a sweeping decree. The terse aggadah hints at a deeper crisis: something specific had been discovered about Samaritan practice that warranted this dramatic shift.
Key Terms:
- שַׁדְּרֵיהּ = he sent him (Rabbi Meir dispatched his student)
- בֵּי כוּתָאֵי = the area of the Samaritans
- הָהוּא סָבָא = a certain elder (a recurring Gemara figure who delivers crucial information)
- וְשַׂמְתָּ סַכִּין בְּלֹעֶךָ = “and place a knife to your throat” (Mishlei 23:2)
Segment 3
TYPE: טעם
The discovery: a dove-idol on Har Gerizim, and Rabbi Meir’s “concern for the minority”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: דְּמוּת יוֹנָה מָצְאוּ לָהֶן בְּרֹאשׁ הַר גְּרִיזִים, שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְדִין אוֹתָהּ. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּחָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּטָא, וְגָזַר רוּבָּא אַטּוּ מִיעוּטָא. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּבֵית דִּינוֹ נָמֵי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סְבִירָא לְהוּ.
English Translation:
What is the reason that the Samaritans are deemed unreliable? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: At the peak of Mount Gerizim they found the image of a dove, which the Samaritan residents of Mount Gerizim would worship; and Rabbi Meir issued the decree according to his line of reasoning that he takes the minority into consideration, and therefore, despite the fact that the majority of Samaritans did not live on Mount Gerizim, he issued a decree rendering meat slaughtered by the majority forbidden due to the minority that worshipped that idol. And Rabban Gamliel and his court also hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak provides the substantive trigger: a dove-idol was discovered atop Har Gerizim, and the Samaritans of that region were worshipping it. Even though only a minority of Samaritans (those near the mountain) were involved, Rabbi Meir applied his characteristic principle of חייש למיעוטא — concern for the minority — and banned slaughter and wine even of the majority. Rabban Gamliel’s court adopted the same standard. The discovery transformed the Samaritan question from “are they reliable on details?” to “are they idolators?”
Key Terms:
- דְּמוּת יוֹנָה = the image of a dove (likely linked to Aramean cultic practice imported into Shomron)
- הַר גְּרִיזִים = Mount Gerizim (the Samaritans’ sacred site, their alternative to Yerushalayim)
- חָיֵישׁ לְמִיעוּטָא = he is concerned for the minority (Rabbi Meir’s signature jurisprudential principle)
- גָּזַר רוּבָּא אַטּוּ מִיעוּטָא = he decreed against the majority because of the minority
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה
The plain meaning of Mishlei 23: a student before his teacher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּשָׁטֵיהּ דִּקְרָא בְּמַאי כְּתִיב? בְּתַלְמִיד הַיּוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ, דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: ״כִּי תֵשֵׁב לִלְחוֹם אֶת מוֹשֵׁל בִּין תָּבִין אֶת אֲשֶׁר לְפָנֶיךָ וְשַׂמְתָּ סַכִּין בְּלֹעֶךָ אִם בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ אָתָּה״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: As to the plain meaning of that verse: “And put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite,” with regard to what matter is it written? The Gemara answers: It is written with regard to a student who is sitting before his teacher, as he must consider his words carefully. As Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches a baraita interpreting the verses: “When you sit to eat with a ruler, consider well [bin tavin] him that is before you; and put a knife to your throat, if you are a man given to appetite” (Proverbs 23:1–2).
קלאוד על הדף:
A textual aside: the elder used Mishlei 23:2 to warn against Samaritan wine, but what is the verse’s actual peshat? Rabbi Chiyya’s baraita reads it as a guide for a student facing a teacher — “ruler” (מושל) refers to the rebbe, and “eating” is metaphorical for absorbing teaching. The verse’s harsh language (“knife to your throat”) becomes a reminder of the gravity of how one engages with one’s teacher.
Key Terms:
- פְּשָׁטֵיהּ דִּקְרָא = the plain meaning of the verse
- בִּין תָּבִין = “deeply consider” (a doubled-form intensification in the verse)
- מוֹשֵׁל = ruler — read here as the teacher
Segment 5
TYPE: דרשה (continuation)
The student’s etiquette: when to question, when to refrain, when to leave
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם יוֹדֵעַ תַּלְמִיד בְּרַבּוֹ שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לְהַחֲזִיר לוֹ טַעַם – ״בִּין״, וְאִם לָאו – ״תָּבִין אֶת אֲשֶׁר לְפָנֶיךָ וְשַׂמְתָּ סַכִּין בְּלֹעֶךָ״, ״אִם בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ אָתָּה״ – פְּרוֹשׁ הֵימֶנּוּ.
English Translation:
The tanna explains the verse: If a student knows about his teacher that he knows to respond to him with a reasoned answer, seek wisdom [bin] from him. And if the student believes that the teacher is not capable of doing so, understand [tavin] who is sitting before you, and put a knife to your throat and refrain from embarrassing him with questions that he cannot answer. And if you are a man given to appetite and you seek an answer to your question, distance yourself from him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues: the doubled בִּין תָּבִין yields a graded etiquette. If your teacher can answer — בִּין, ask. If he cannot — תָּבִין, just understand who is in front of you and “put a knife to your throat” (refrain from asking questions that would embarrass him). And if your craving for the answer is overwhelming (בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ אָתָּה), the only honorable course is to leave that teacher entirely and find another. A striking piece of mussar embedded in the daf’s discussion of Samaritan wine.
Key Terms:
- לְהַחֲזִיר לוֹ טַעַם = to give him a reasoned answer
- בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ = a person of [strong] appetite (here: with intense intellectual desire)
- פְּרוֹשׁ הֵימֶנּוּ = withdraw from him
Segment 6
TYPE: מעשה
The second wave: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi reclassify the Samaritans entirely
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן יוֹסֵף שַׁדְּרֵיהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ לְאֵתוֹיֵי חַמְרָא מִבֵּי כוּתָאֵי, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֵית כָּאן שׁוֹמְרֵי תוֹרָה. הָלַךְ רַבִּי יִצְחָק וְסִפֵּר דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וְהָלַךְ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְסִפֵּר דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי, וְלֹא זָזוּ מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁעֲשָׂאוּם גּוֹיִם גְּמוּרִין.
English Translation:
Rabbi Abbahu dispatched Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Yosef to bring wine from the area of the Samaritans. A certain elder found him and said to him: The people here are not keepers of the Torah. Rabbi Yitzḥak went and related the matters before Rabbi Abbahu, and Rabbi Abbahu went and related the matters before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, and they did not move from there until they rendered the Samaritans full-fledged gentiles.
קלאוד על הדף:
A nearly identical narrative repeats one generation later. This time it is Rabbi Abbahu who sends his student Rabbi Yitzchak ben Yosef; another anonymous elder warns “there are no Torah-keepers here.” This time the response is even more decisive: Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Asi convene and refuse to disperse until they declare the Samaritans גוים גמורים — full-fledged gentiles. The Gemara is recording the formal end of any halachic ambiguity about the Kutim.
Key Terms:
- לֵית כָּאן שׁוֹמְרֵי תוֹרָה = there are no Torah-keepers here
- גּוֹיִם גְּמוּרִין = full-fledged gentiles
- לֹא זָזוּ מִשָּׁם = they did not budge from there (an idiom for completing a halachic process in one sitting)
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The earlier ban wasn’t widely accepted — Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi made it stick
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמַאי? אִי לִשְׁחִיטָה וְיֵין נֶסֶךְ, מֵהָתָם גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן! אִינְהוּ גְּזוּר וְלָא קַבִּלוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ, אֲתוֹ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי גְּזַרוּ וְקַבִּלוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: For what matters did those Sages render them full-fledged gentiles? If it was to prohibit eating from their slaughter and to render their wine as wine used for a libation in idol worship, these prohibitions were issued previously. From there, from the generations of Rabbi Meir and Rabban Gamliel, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting them. The Gemara answers: They issued a decree, and the people did not accept it from them. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi came and issued a decree, and the people accepted it from them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks: what new ground did Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi break? Slaughter and wine were already banned by the earlier court of Rabban Gamliel. The answer reveals a sociological truth about rabbinic enactments: the people did not actually accept the earlier decree, so it lapsed in practice (compare Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Asi who continued to eat Kuti meat — see daf 5b). Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi reissued the decree in conditions where the people accepted it, making it operative.
Key Terms:
- לְמַאי = for what purpose?
- גְּזוּר וְלָא קַבִּלוּ מִינַּיְיהוּ = they decreed but [the people] did not accept it from them (a key rabbinic principle: a decree the public cannot bear is not binding)
Segment 8
TYPE: דיוק
Specifically: a Samaritan can no longer be a co-resident for eruv purposes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי גּוֹיִם גְּמוּרִין? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת וְלִיתֵּן רְשׁוּת.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of full-fledged gentiles? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It means that the halakhic status of a Samaritan is like that of a gentile with regard to renouncing his domain in a jointly-owned courtyard on Shabbat and to transferring his domain in the courtyard to residents of that courtyard.
קלאוד על הדף:
If shechita and wine were already covered, what new domain did the new declaration affect? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: לבטל רשות וליתן רשות — the laws of eruv courtyards. A Jew who lives in a shared courtyard with other Jews and forgot to make an eruv before Shabbat can verbally transfer or renounce his rights to his neighbors. With a non-Jew, however, this verbal solution doesn’t work — they need to lease his domain. By making the Samaritans full gentiles, this new ruling shut down the easy eruv mechanism with them.
Key Terms:
- לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת = to renounce one’s domain (in a courtyard on Shabbat)
- לִיתֵּן רְשׁוּת = to transfer one’s domain
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
Public Shabbat observance defines who counts as a “Jew” for eruv
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִדְתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּמָּד מְשַׁמֵּר שַׁבַּתּוֹ בַּשּׁוּק, מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת וְנוֹתֵן רְשׁוּת, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּר שַׁבַּתּוֹ בַּשּׁוּק, אֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת וְנוֹתֵן רְשׁוּת.
English Translation:
And this is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a Jewish transgressor who nevertheless observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, i.e., in public, if he failed to establish a joining of houses in a courtyard before Shabbat, his halakhic status is that of an observant Jew, and he may renounce his domain in the courtyard and transfer his domain in the courtyard. But a transgressor who does not observe his Shabbat in the marketplace may neither renounce his domain in the courtyard nor transfer his domain in the courtyard.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita confirms that for eruv purposes the operative criterion is public Shabbat observance. A Jewish mumar (in other matters) who keeps Shabbat openly in the marketplace retains his Jewish status for eruv — he can verbally renounce or transfer his courtyard rights. But a public Shabbat-desecrator loses that status; he is treated like a non-Jew, and his domain must be leased rather than verbally transferred. Once the Samaritans were declared full gentiles, this same rule applies to them.
Key Terms:
- מְשַׁמֵּר שַׁבַּתּוֹ בַּשּׁוּק = observes Shabbat publicly (the operative test for “Jewish” status in eruv law)
Segment 10
TYPE: כלל
The two-track rule: verbal transfer for Jews, formal lease for gentiles
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ: יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתֵן רְשׁוּת וּמְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת, וּבְגוֹי עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכּוֹר.
English Translation:
This is because the Sages said: Only a Jew may verbally transfer rights in his domain or renounce his rights in his domain, but with regard to a gentile, the other residents cannot establish a joining of courtyards unless the residents of the courtyard lease his domain from him. The halakhic status of one who publicly desecrates Shabbat is that of a gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
The general framework: Jewish co-residents in a shared courtyard have a low-friction tool — verbal transfer or renunciation of rights. With a non-Jewish co-resident, the co-Jews must שוכר — formally lease the gentile’s domain. The rabbinic logic is that a gentile’s presence in the courtyard creates an obstacle to eruv that only an actual property arrangement can dissolve. Public Shabbat-desecrators (and now Samaritans) fall into the gentile category.
Key Terms:
- עַד שֶׁיִּשְׂכּוֹר = until [the Jews] lease (the gentile’s domain)
Segment 11
TYPE: דין
The mechanics: a verbal formula suffices, no kinyan needed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד? אָמַר לוֹ: ״רְשׁוּתִי קְנוּיָה לָךְ״ ״רְשׁוּתִי מְבוּטֶּלֶת לָךְ״ – קָנָה, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִזְכּוֹת.
English Translation:
How does a Jew transfer or renounce his domain? If a Jew says to his neighbor: My domain is transferred to you or my domain is renounced to you, his neighbor has acquired his domain, and it is not necessary for him to grant it to his neighbor by means of one of the standard modes of acquisition.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita spells out the verbal mechanics: simply saying “my domain is transferred to you” or “my domain is renounced to you” suffices. No formal kinyan (acquisition act) is required. This easy-going system is a special leniency of eruvin — the rabbis allowed pure speech to settle the property situation enough for Shabbat use. With a non-Jew, this special leniency does not apply.
Key Terms:
- רְשׁוּתִי קְנוּיָה לָךְ = my domain is transferred to you (acquisition formula)
- רְשׁוּתִי מְבוּטֶּלֶת לָךְ = my domain is renounced to you (renunciation formula)
- לִזְכּוֹת = to formally acquire
Segment 12
TYPE: מעשה
A second test case for “Hashem doesn’t allow tzaddikim mishaps”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי זֵירָא וְרַב אַסִּי אִיקְּלַעוּ לְפוּנְדְּקָא דְּיָאֵי, אַיְיתוֹ לְקַמַּיְיהוּ בֵּיצִים הַמְצוּמָּקוֹת בְּיַיִן. רַבִּי זֵירָא לָא אֲכַל, וְרַב אַסִּי אֲכַל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַב אַסִּי: וְלָא חָיֵישׁ מָר לְתַעֲרוֹבֶת דְּמַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו אַדַּעְתַּאי.
English Translation:
The Gemara revisits the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Zeira and Rav Asi happened to come to the inn of the town of Ya’ei. In the inn, they brought before these Sages eggs that shriveled after being cooked in wine. Rabbi Zeira did not eat the eggs, and Rav Asi ate them. Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: And is the Master not concerned about the possibility that the dish is a mixture containing wine that is doubtfully tithed produce [demai]? Rav Asi said to him: It did not enter my mind.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the principle stated at the end of daf 5 — Hashem does not allow tzaddikim to inadvertently transgress — and tests it with a real case. Rabbi Zeira and Rav Asi stop at an inn at Ya’ei. They are served eggs cooked in wine. Rabbi Zeira refuses (concerned about demai — wine of uncertain tithing status). Rav Asi eats. Rabbi Zeira asks why he isn’t concerned about the mixture; Rav Asi candidly says he just didn’t think about it. The setup of a potential halachic mishap by a tzaddik is now in place.
Key Terms:
- פּוּנְדְּקָא = an inn (a place where travelers might encounter unfamiliar food)
- בֵּיצִים הַמְצוּמָּקוֹת בְּיַיִן = eggs shrunk/cooked in wine
- דְּמַאי = produce of uncertain tithing status (purchased from an am ha’aretz)
- תַּעֲרוֹבֶת דְּמַאי = a mixture containing demai
- לָאו אַדַּעְתַּאי = it did not occur to me
Segment 13
TYPE: ספק
Rabbi Zeira’s logical worry — and the principle as a problem-solving tool
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אֶפְשָׁר גָּזְרוּ עַל הַתַּעֲרוֹבֶת דְּמַאי, וּמִסְתַּיְּיעָא מִילְּתָא דְּרַב אַסִּי לְמֵיכַל אִיסּוּרָא? הַשְׁתָּא בְּהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָן, צַדִּיקִים עַצְמָן לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira said to himself: Is it possible that the Sages issued a decree on a mixture containing demai and the matter eventuated that Rav Asi ate forbidden food? Now, since even with regard to the animals of the righteous, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not generate mishaps through them, is it not all the more so true that the righteous themselves would not experience mishaps?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira applies the principle from daf 5b as a research tool. If Rav Asi (a tzaddik) ate the eggs without thinking, it cannot be that he transgressed. So the rabbinic decree on demai-mixtures must NOT extend to this case. Rabbi Zeira’s confidence in Rav Asi’s behavior thus becomes the seed of a halachic investigation: he goes out to find the source that exempts mixtures.
Key Terms:
- מִסְתַּיְּיעָא מִילְּתָא = the matter eventuated (as a halachic mishap)
- תַּקָּלָה = a stumbling, an inadvertent halachic error
Segment 14
TYPE: ראיה (תוספתא)
Rabbi Zeira finds the source: the buyer must tithe, but the mixture is exempt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נְפַק רַבִּי זֵירָא דַּק וְאַשְׁכַּח, דִּתְנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ יַיִן לָתֵת לְתוֹךְ הַמּוּרְיָיס אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הָאֲלוּנְתִּית, כַּרְשִׁינִין לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן טְחִינִין, עֲדָשִׁים לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵהֶן רְסִיסִין – חַיָּיב מִשּׁוּם דְּמַאי, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מִשּׁוּם וַדַּאי.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira emerged, analyzed, and found that no mishap was generated through Rav Asi, as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 1:24): In the case of one who purchases wine to place into fish gravy [hamorayes] or into aluntit, a beverage in which wine is mixed, or one who purchases vetch to prepare grist from it, or lentils to prepare groats from it, if it is uncertain whether what he purchased is tithed, e.g., he bought it from one who is unreliable with regard to tithes [am ha’aretz], one is obligated to tithe it, due to the fact that it is demai. And needless to say, if it is certain that what he purchased is not tithed, he is obligated to tithe it due to the fact that it is certain that it is untithed produce.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira investigates and finds the source. A baraita (Tosefta Demai 1:24) discusses someone buying wine to mix into fish gravy (מורייס) or aluntit, or grain from an am ha’aretz to prepare grist or groats. The buyer is obligated to tithe what he purchases — even at the demai level. So far this only confirms the obligation; the chiddush comes in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- דַּק וְאַשְׁכַּח = he investigated and found
- מוּרְיָיס = fish gravy (a popular Roman-era seasoning)
- אֲלוּנְתִּית = a wine-based mixed beverage
- כַּרְשִׁינִין = vetch (a legume, here used as ground meal)
- רְסִיסִין = groats, coarsely cracked grain
Segment 15
TYPE: חידוש
The chiddush: the mixture itself is permitted to consume
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהֵן עַצְמָן מוּתָּרִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן תַּעֲרוֹבֶת.
English Translation:
And they themselves, the gravy, aluntit, grist, and groats that one purchased from an am ha’aretz, are permitted, because they are a mixture. Since only one element of the mixture must be tithed, the food is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Here is the source vindicating Rav Asi’s behavior: the mixture itself is permitted to consume. Even though the buyer must separately tithe the wine-component, once the wine is mixed into the eggs (or gravy, etc.) the COMPOSITE is no longer subject to the demai prohibition. This is exactly why Rav Asi could eat the eggs-cooked-in-wine without first verifying the wine’s tithing status — the decree on demai-mixtures simply does not apply.
Key Terms:
- תַּעֲרוֹבֶת = a mixture (the operative leniency)
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
But there IS a decree on demai-mixtures — from the leaven/spices baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל תַּעֲרוֹבֶת דְּמַאי? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹתֵן לִשְׁכֶנְתּוֹ עִיסָּה לֶאֱפוֹת, וּקְדֵירָה לְבַשֵּׁל – אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לִשְׂאוֹר וְתַבְלִין שֶׁבָּהּ, לֹא מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֵׂר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And is it so that the Sages did not issue a decree on a mixture containing demai? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who gives his neighbor, who is an am ha’aretz, dough to bake and gives her leaven for the dough to rise, or gives her a pot of food and the spices to cook in it, he need not be concerned about the leaven and the spices that are in the dough and the pot respectively, that perhaps she replaced them with her own, neither with regard to the possibility that they are Sabbatical Year produce nor with regard to the possibility that tithe was not separated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses with a counter-source. A baraita addresses someone who gives an am ha’aretz neighbor dough to bake (with his own leaven) or food to cook (with his own spices). He need not worry that she’ll substitute her leaven/spices — the mixture is fine. So far no decree on mixtures. But the next segment shows the picture is more complex.
Key Terms:
- שְׂאוֹר = leaven (a small starter that activates the dough)
- תַּבְלִין = spices
- שְׁבִיעִית = Sabbatical Year produce (subject to its own restrictions)
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא (continued)
But if he asks her to use her own — the mixture IS suspect
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם אָמַר לָהּ: ״עֲשִׂי לִי מִשֶּׁלִּיכִי״, חוֹשֵׁשׁ לִשְׂאוֹר וְתַבְלִין שֶׁבָּהּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁבִיעִית וּמִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֵׂר.
English Translation:
And if he says to her: Prepare the dough or the food for me with your own leaven and spices, he must be concerned about the leaven and the spices that are in the dough and the pot respectively, with regard to the possibility that they are Sabbatical Year produce and with regard to the possibility that tithe was not separated, even though it is a mixture containing demai.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues: if the Jew explicitly asked the am ha’aretz to use HER OWN leaven/spices, then he must worry. So there IS a concern about demai-mixtures in some cases. This seems to contradict the prior baraita’s blanket leniency on mixtures. The Gemara needs to harmonize.
Key Terms:
- עֲשִׂי לִי מִשֶּׁלִּיכִי = “make it for me from your own”
Segment 18
TYPE: שני תירוצים
Two answers: direct action, or — per Rafram — taste is not nullified
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכֵיוָן דְּקָאָמַר לַהּ ״עֲשִׂי לִי מִשֶּׁלִּיכִי״, כְּמַאן דְּעָרֵיב בְּיָדַיִם דְּמֵי. רַפְרָם אָמַר: שָׁאנֵי שְׂאוֹר וְתַבְלִין, דִּלְטַעְמָא עֲבִיד, וְטַעְמָא לָא בָּטֵיל.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It is different there, as, since he said to her: Prepare the dough or the food for me from your own, it is like one who mixed it by direct action. Rafram said: Leaven and spices are different, as each of them is made for the purpose of adding taste to the mixture, and taste is not nullified in a mixture.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers two harmonizations. First answer: when the Jew explicitly requested HER own ingredients, it is as if he himself mixed the demai into the dish — direct involvement nullifies the leniency. Rafram offers a deeper second answer: שאור (leaven) and תבלין (spices) are different in principle. They are added FOR THE PURPOSE OF imparting taste, and taste does not get nullified in a mixture (טעמא לא בטיל). This is a foundational kashrut principle that will recur throughout the masechet — the rule that an ingredient introduced to be tasted retains its full halachic identity even in a large mixture.
Key Terms:
- כְּמַאן דְּעָרֵיב בְּיָדַיִם דְּמֵי = it is like one who mixed it by hand
- דִּלְטַעְמָא עֲבִיד = it is made for the purpose of taste
- טַעְמָא לָא בָּטֵיל = taste is not nullified (a foundational kashrut principle)
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The mother-in-law case: a special suspicion of substitution
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְחַלּוֹפֵי לָא חָיְישִׁינַן? וְהָתְנַן: הַנּוֹתֵן לַחֲמוֹתוֹ – מְעַשֵּׂר אֵת שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ וְאֵת שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל מִמֶּנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדָהּ מַחְלֶפֶת הַמִּתְקַלְקֵל! הָתָם כִּדְתַנְיָא טַעְמָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: רוֹצֶה הִיא בְּתַקָּנַת בִּתָּהּ וּבוֹשָׁה מֵחֲתָנָהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And are we not concerned about replacement of the ingredients that he gave his neighbor with her own? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:6): One who gives dough to his mother-in-law, who is suspect with regard to tithing, so that she will prepare it for him, must tithe everything that he gives her and everything that he takes back from her. This is because she is suspected of replacing an ingredient that spoils. The Gemara answers: There, the reason is like it is taught explicitly in that mishna, that Rabbi Yehuda said: The mother-in-law desires her daughter’s well-being and wants to ensure that she eats quality food, and is reticent to tell her son-in-law that she replaced the ingredients that spoiled.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens a sub-discussion about ingredient substitution. The Mishna in Demai 3:6 says: when one gives dough to his mother-in-law (an am ha’aretz) to prepare, he must tithe both what he gives her and what he gets back. Why? She is suspected of substituting spoiled ingredients with her own untithed ones. The Gemara explains the special factor: a mother-in-law has a unique psychological motive — she wants her daughter to eat quality food, and she’s reticent to tell her son-in-law his ingredients spoiled, so she covertly substitutes. This narrow case doesn’t undermine the general leniency for mixtures; it’s specific to in-law dynamics.
Key Terms:
- לְחַלּוֹפֵי = with regard to substitution
- חֲמוֹתוֹ = his mother-in-law
- מַחְלֶפֶת הַמִּתְקַלְקֵל = she substitutes what spoils
- רוֹצֶה הִיא בְּתַקָּנַת בִּתָּהּ = she desires her daughter’s well-being
Amud Bet (6b)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The innkeeper case: another special-motive substitution
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְעָלְמָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן? וְהָתְנַן: הַנּוֹתֵן לַפּוּנְדָּקִית שֶׁלּוֹ – מְעַשֵּׂר אֵת שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ וְאֵת שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדָהּ מַחְלֶפֶת! הָתָם נָמֵי מוֹרְיָא וְאָמְרָה: בַּר בֵּי רַב לֵיכוֹל חַמִּימָא, וַאֲנָא אֵיכוֹל קָרִירָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And in general, in a case not involving one’s mother-in-law, are we not concerned about the possibility of replacement? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:5): One who gives dough or a pot of food to his innkeeper [pundakit] who is an am ha’aretz to bake or cook, tithes what he gives her and tithes what he takes back from her, due to the fact that she is suspected of replacing the ingredients? The Gemara answers: There too, her intentions are good, as the innkeeper rationalizes her deception and says: Let the student of Torah eat my hot food and I will eat his cold food.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second narrow case: an innkeeper (פונדקית) is also suspected of substitution. The Gemara again identifies a specific psychological motive — she rationalizes her swap as kindness (“the student of Torah should eat my hot food while I eat his cold food”). Both this case and the mother-in-law case are special and do not establish a general fear of substitution. Rabbi Zeira’s principle stands: ordinary mixtures are fine.
Key Terms:
- פּוּנְדָּקִית = an innkeeper (the woman who runs the inn)
- בַּר בֵּי רַב = a student of the academy
- חַמִּימָא / קָרִירָא = hot / cold (her self-justification)
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
The chaver’s wife may grind with an am ha’aretz wife only when impure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְחַלּוֹפֵי לָא חָיְישִׁינַן? וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר טוֹחֶנֶת עִם אֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה, אֲבָל לֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And are we not concerned about replacement of the ingredients? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The wife of a ḥaver, one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, grinds grain with the wife of an am ha’aretz when the wife of the ḥaver is ritually impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. In that case, there is no concern that she will eat her counterpart’s untithed produce, as, since she is impure she will refrain from touching the grain so that she will not render it impure. But she may not do so when she is ritually pure, due to the concern that she will eat the untithed produce.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents a more complex case. A חבר’s wife (committed to scrupulous observance of purity, terumot, and ma’asros) may grind with an am ha’aretz’s wife only when she is in niddah-impurity. Why? Because then she will refrain from touching her counterpart’s grain (so as not to render it impure to her counterpart’s family), and there’s no concern she’ll absentmindedly eat untithed grain. When she is pure, she might touch and eat — and the concern revives.
Key Terms:
- אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר = the wife of a חבר (a Sage scrupulous about purity, terumot, ma’asros)
- אֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ = the wife of an am ha’aretz
- טוֹחֶנֶת = grinds (grain together with another woman)
- טְמֵאָה / טְהוֹרָה = ritually impure / pure
Segment 3
TYPE: דעה
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: even impure she may not grind — direct gifting is the worry
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה לֹא תִּטְחוֹן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲבֶירְתָּהּ נוֹתֶנֶת לָהּ וְאוֹכֶלֶת.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when she is impure, the wife of the ḥaver may not grind grain together with the wife of the am ha’aretz, due to the fact that her counterpart gives her grain and she eats it without touching the rest of the grain.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar tightens further: even when in niddah, the chaver’s wife may not grind together. Why? The am ha’aretz’s wife may directly hand her some grain — the chaver’s wife will eat it without touching the rest. The “she won’t touch” safeguard fails when food is handed to her. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s view widens the suspicion of am-ha’aretz women’s behavior.
Key Terms:
- חֲבֶירְתָּהּ נוֹתֶנֶת לָהּ = her counterpart hands [grain/food] to her (bypassing the “no touching” safeguard)
Segment 4
TYPE: דחיה
Rav Yosef: this too has a special motive — “the ox eats from its threshing”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשְׁתָּא מִיגְזָל גָּזְלָה, חַלּוֹפֵי מִיבַּעְיָא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָתָם נָמֵי מוֹרְיָא וְאָמְרָה ״תּוֹרָא מִדְּיָשֵׁיהּ קָאָכֵיל״.
English Translation:
The Gemara infers: Now that there is suspicion that the wife of the am ha’aretz steals from her husband’s grain and gives it to her counterparts, is it necessary to say that she is suspect with regard to replacing ingredients? Rav Yosef said: There too there are special circumstances, as the wife of the am ha’aretz rationalizes her behavior and says metaphorically: The ox eats from its threshing, and believes that the wife of the ḥaver is entitled to some of the grain that she is grinding.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses: if Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar suspects outright theft (giving away her own husband’s grain), surely she’d substitute too. Rav Yosef explains that this case too has a unique psychological cover — the am ha’aretz wife justifies her gift via the principle “an ox eats from its threshing” (a worker is entitled to some of what she handles). She thinks her co-grinder is ethically owed a share for her labor. The narrow case again doesn’t generalize to a fear of substitution in mixtures.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹרָא מִדְּיָשֵׁיהּ קָאָכֵיל = “the ox eats from its threshing” (a metaphor: a worker takes a small share of what she processes — based on Devarim 25:4)
- מוֹרְיָא = she rationalizes
Segment 5
TYPE: עדות
Rabbi Meir’s act in Beit She’an leads Rabbi to a sweeping leniency
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן זֵרוּז, בֶּן חָמִיו שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עַל רַבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאָכַל עָלֶה שֶׁל יָרָק בְּבֵית שְׁאָן, וְהִתִּיר רַבִּי אֶת בֵּית שְׁאָן כּוּלָּהּ עַל יָדוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara resumes its discussion of the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz, son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Meir, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about Rabbi Meir that he ate the leaf of a vegetable in Beit She’an without tithing or separating teruma, as he holds that Beit She’an is not part of Eretz Yisrael and therefore is not sacred with its sanctity. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted all the produce of Beit She’an on the basis of his testimony.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second illustration of the “tzaddik mishap” principle in action — but now as a basis for halachic ruling. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz, son of Rabbi Meir’s father-in-law, testifies before Rabbi (Yehuda HaNasi) that he saw Rabbi Meir eat untithed produce in Beit She’an. The inference: Rabbi Meir held that Beit She’an is OUTSIDE the borders of Eretz Yisrael and not subject to terumot/ma’aser. On the strength of this testimony alone (and the assumption that Rabbi Meir wouldn’t have erred), Rabbi exempts the entire Beit She’an region.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי (without further name) = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the redactor of the Mishna
- בֵּית שְׁאָן = Beit She’an, a city at the edge of Eretz Yisrael’s halachic borders
- הִתִּיר = he permitted (a sweeping ruling)
Segment 6
TYPE: ערעור
Family resistance: how can you overturn ancestral practice?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חָבְרוּ עָלָיו אֶחָיו וּבֵית אָבִיו, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מָקוֹם שֶׁאֲבוֹתֶיךָ וַאֲבוֹת אֲבוֹתֶיךָ נָהֲגוּ בּוֹ אִיסּוּר, אַתָּה תִּנְהוֹג בּוֹ הֶיתֵּר?
English Translation:
His brothers and his father’s household united against him and said to him: In a place where your fathers and the fathers of your fathers treated untithed produce as forbidden, will you treat it as permitted?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi’s own family — his brothers and the house of his father (the patriarchal Hillel dynasty) — confront him. Their objection is the powerful weight of inherited custom: how can you, a single posek, sweep aside the practice that generations of your own ancestors maintained? The implicit halachic principle: established communal practice generally cannot be overturned, even when the theoretical case for leniency seems strong.
Key Terms:
- חָבְרוּ עָלָיו = they joined together against him (a formal protest)
- בֵּית אָבִיו = his father’s house (the patriarchal household of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel)
- נָהֲגוּ בּוֹ אִיסּוּר = they practiced it as forbidden
Segment 7
TYPE: דרש (Rabbi’s response)
Rabbi’s response: even great kings deliberately leave room for later sages
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּרַשׁ לָהֶן מִקְרָא זֶה: ״וְכִתַּת נְחַשׁ הַנְּחֹשֶׁת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה כִּי עַד הַיָּמִים הָהֵמָּה הָיוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְקַטְּרִים לוֹ וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ נְחֻשְׁתָּן״. אֶפְשָׁר בָּא אָסָא וְלֹא בִּיעֲרוֹ, בָּא יְהוֹשָׁפָט וְלֹא בִּיעֲרוֹ? וַהֲלֹא כׇּל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אָסָא וִיהוֹשָׁפָט בִּיעֲרוּם!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interpreted this verse to them: “And he broke in pieces the copper serpent that Moses had made; for until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it; and it was called Nehushtan” (II Kings 18:4). Is it possible that they burned incense to it and Asa, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and Jehoshaphat, a righteous king, came and did not eradicate it, and it remained until the time of Hezekiah? But didn’t Asa and Jehoshaphat eradicate all objects of idol worship in the world?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi answers his family with a beautiful peshat from Melachim Bet 18:4 — Chizkiyahu destroyed the bronze serpent (Nechushtan) that Moshe had made, because Israelites had been burning incense to it. The puzzle: Asa and Yehoshafat were righteous kings who eradicated every avoda zara — yet they left the Nechushtan standing. The daf cuts off mid-question; the resolution (continued on 7a) is that they DELIBERATELY left it as an act of humility, leaving “מקום” — room — for later great ones to make their own contribution. By extension, the daf concludes: my ancestors deliberately left Beit She’an’s status open so that a later sage could rule on it. Tradition is not infinitely binding when it was meant to leave room for development.
Key Terms:
- נְחֻשְׁתָּן = the bronze serpent of Moshe (Bamidbar 21:8-9; later worshipped and destroyed by Chizkiyahu in Melachim Bet 18:4)
- אָסָא וִיהוֹשָׁפָט = righteous Judean kings who eradicated avoda zara
- בִּיעֲרוּם = they eradicated them (the language of removing idolatry)