Chullin Daf 77 (חולין דף ע״ז)
Daf: 77 | Amudim: 77a – 77b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (77a)
Segment 1
TYPE: מסקנא
The soft sinews conclusion: counted for the Pesach — and the Torah spares Jewish money
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִמְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן בַּפֶּסַח, וְעוֹד, הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
one may be registered as part of a group that will eat the Paschal offering on their account, i.e., even if those sinews are the only part of the lamb he will eat. Evidently, such sinews are regarded as flesh. And furthermore, the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people, and one must tend toward leniency.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens completing Rabba’s ruling from the end of 76b about soft sinews covering a broken bone. Rabbi Yochanan holds that sinews destined to harden are meanwhile reckoned as flesh — so much so that one may be registered for them in a group eating the Korban Pesach, where each member must eat actual meat. And a second ground for leniency: the Torah spared the money of Israel — where a valid basis to permit exists, we do not casually condemn a Jew’s animal.
Key Terms:
- נִמְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן בַּפֶּסַח = one may be registered for them for the Paschal offering — proof they count as flesh
- הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל = the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people — a canonical ground for leniency
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Pappa: Reish Lakish disagrees — and this is a Torah prohibition! Rabba falls silent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרַבָּה: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, וְאִיסּוּרָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ: מַאי לֵיחוּשׁ לְהוּ?! אִישְׁתִּיק.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said to Rabba: But Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan and holds that one may not be registered for those sinews, as they will eventually harden and are therefore not considered flesh. And therefore, the broken bone in this case is not covered by flesh and the animal is prohibited by Torah law as a tereifa, and yet you say: What concern is there with the sinews in this case? Rabba was silent.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa turns on Rabba: Reish Lakish disputes Rabbi Yochanan and holds that sinews destined to harden are judged by their end-state — they are not flesh. On his view the broken bone here lacks its flesh covering and the animal is a tereifa by Torah law; how can you wave the case through with ‘what is there to be concerned about?’ Rabba was silent. A ruling that rides on one side of an unresolved amoraic dispute, in a matter of de’oraita, demands more caution than Rabba had shown.
Key Terms:
- אִיסּוּרָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא = a Torah-level prohibition — where doubt demands stringency
- אִישְׁתִּיק = he fell silent — Rabba had no immediate answer
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Why the silence? The halacha follows Reish Lakish in only three places!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַמַּאי אִישְׁתִּיק? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And why was Rabba silent? But doesn’t Rava say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in his disputes with Rabbi Yoḥanan only with regard to these three matters, i.e., three matters that are mentioned in Yevamot 36a, and not in other cases? If so, Rabba could simply have replied that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish with regard to this issue.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara wonders at Rabba’s silence: Rava transmitted the rule that in disputes between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish the halacha follows Reish Lakish in only three enumerated cases (Yevamot 36a) — and this is not one of them. Rabba could simply have answered that the halacha here follows Rabbi Yochanan, whose view he had relied upon. Why did he not say so?
Key Terms:
- הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ… בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת = the halacha follows him in these three — the default rule favoring Rabbi Yochanan
- וְאַמַּאי אִישְׁתִּיק = and why was he silent? — the silence itself needs explanation
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Here Rabbi Yochanan himself retracted: ‘Do not provoke me — I teach it as a lone opinion’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דַּהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, בִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Here, with regard to sinews that will ultimately harden, it is different, as Rabbi Yoḥanan retracted his ruling in favor of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as when Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised a difficulty against Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Do not provoke me by asking questions to refute my opinion that the fact that the sinews will ultimately harden is disregarded, as I teach it in explanation of a lone opinion (see Pesaḥim 84a). Even Rabbi Yoḥanan conceded that the opinion he expressed was only according to one Sage, but is not the halakha.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer: this case is the exception to the default rule, for Rabbi Yochanan himself backed down before Reish Lakish. When pressed, he said: ‘Do not provoke me — I teach that ruling in the language of a single Sage’ (see Pesachim 84a): his lenient position on sinews destined to harden was only an exposition of a lone tannaitic view, not the accepted halacha. With Rabbi Yochanan’s own concession on record, Rabba had nothing to answer — and the stringent view stands.
Key Terms:
- אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי = ‘do not provoke me’ — Rabbi Yochanan deflecting rather than defending
- בִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ = ‘I teach it as a lone opinion’ — the view is one tanna’s, not the halacha
Segment 5
TYPE: עובדא
The missing chip: Abaye holds the case over three festivals
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְיָצָא לַחוּץ, דְּאִישְׁתְּקִיל קוּרְטִיתָא מִינֵּיהּ, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, שַׁהֲיֵיהּ תְּלָתָא רִיגְלֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: There was a certain case in which a bone in an animal’s leg broke and protruded outward. This bone was mostly covered with flesh and skin, but a small piece [kurtita] of the bone had been removed from it. The case came before Abaye, who delayed his response until three pilgrimage Festivals had passed, when the Sages gathered together and he could ask them.
קלאוד על הדף:
A case arrives: a leg bone broke and protruded, its majority covered by skin and flesh — but a small chip (kurtita) of the bone itself had come away and was missing. Does the missing fragment change the ruling of the baraita? Abaye, unwilling to decide, held the case over three pilgrimage festivals — the seasons when the sages gathered and difficult cases could be canvassed.
Key Terms:
- קוּרְטִיתָא = a small chip or fragment of bone
- שַׁהֲיֵיהּ תְּלָתָא רִיגְלֵי = he delayed it three festivals — awaiting the gatherings of the sages
Segment 6
TYPE: עובדא ופסק
‘Whose knife is sharp’: Rava rules — what difference if the chip fell out?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָא: זִיל קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא, דַּחֲרִיפָא סַכִּינֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר: מִכְּדֵי ״נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְיָצָא לַחוּץ״ תְּנַן, מָה לִי נְפַל, מָה לִי אִיתֵיהּ?
English Translation:
Rav Adda bar Mattana said to the owner of the animal: Go before Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, whose knife is sharp, i.e., he has insight into halakhic matters and decides matters quickly, and ask him to decide your case. The owner came before Rava to seek his opinion. Rava said to him: Since we learned in the baraita (76b): If the bone broke and protruded outward, if skin and flesh cover a majority of the bone the animal is permitted, what difference is there to me if the bone fell out, and what difference is there to me if it is in its place? In either case, the animal is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Adda bar Mattana redirected the owner: go before Rava son of Rav Yosef bar Chama, ‘whose knife is sharp’ — whose analysis is keen and who decides. Rava ruled at once from the baraita’s own terms: we learned ‘the bone broke and protruded outward — if skin and flesh cover its majority, permitted.’ What difference does it make to me whether the fragment fell away or is still in place? The criterion is the covering, not the completeness of the bone; the animal is permitted.
Key Terms:
- חֲרִיפָא סַכִּינֵיהּ = ‘his knife is sharp’ — an idiom for incisive, decisive scholarship
- מָה לִי נְפַל מָה לִי אִיתֵיהּ = what difference to me if it fell out or is present — the ruling turns on the covering alone
Segment 7
TYPE: בעיות
Ravina’s cascade: gathered flesh, crushed flesh, decomposed flesh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: מִתְלַקֵּט מַהוּ? מִתְרוֹסֵס מַהוּ? מִתְמַסְמֵס מַהוּ? הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִתְמַסְמֵס? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּל שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא קוֹדְרוֹ.
English Translation:
With regard to a case where flesh covers the majority of a broken bone, Ravina said to Rava: If the flesh was torn in pieces and spread over the area, and if gathered it would constitute a majority, what is the halakha? Similarly, if the flesh was pulverized and thin, what is the halakha? If it was decomposed, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case in which the flesh is decomposed? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This is referring to any kind of flesh that the doctor cuts away [kodro] and removes to enable the surrounding area to heal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina tests the boundaries of ‘the majority of flesh’ with a cascade of dilemmas: flesh torn into pieces that only together amount to a majority (mitlaket) — what is the law? Flesh crushed thin (mitroses)? Flesh decomposing (mitmasmes)? The Gemara pauses to define the last: Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua explains that decomposed flesh is whatever a doctor would scrape away to let the surrounding tissue heal — flesh that medicine itself has written off.
Key Terms:
- מִתְלַקֵּט / מִתְרוֹסֵס / מִתְמַסְמֵס = gathered piecemeal / crushed thin / decomposing — three grades of damaged covering
- כֹּל שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא קוֹדְרוֹ = whatever the doctor cuts away — the clinical definition of dead flesh
Segment 8
TYPE: בעיא
Four more dilemmas: perforated, peeled, cracked, or missing its bottom third
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נִיקַּב מַהוּ? נִקְלַף מַהוּ? נִסְדַּק מַהוּ? נִיטַּל שְׁלִישׁ הַתַּחְתּוֹן מַהוּ?
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the flesh that covers the bone was perforated, what is the halakha? Likewise, if the flesh was peeled off the bone, what is the halakha? If it was cracked, what is the halakha? If the bottom third of the width of the flesh, i.e., the part that is adjacent to the bone, was removed, what is the halakha?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages raise four further permutations of the flesh covering: perforated (nikav) — what is the law? Peeled away from the bone (niklaf)? Cracked (nisdak)? And if the bottom third of the flesh’s thickness — the layer against the bone — was removed while the outer layers remain? The chain of unanswered dilemmas maps how little of the covering may fail before the break is reckoned exposed.
Key Terms:
- נִיקַּב / נִקְלַף / נִסְדַּק = perforated / peeled off / cracked — modes of failure in the flesh covering
- שְׁלִישׁ הַתַּחְתּוֹן = the bottom third — the innermost layer of flesh, adjacent to the bone
Segment 9
TYPE: פשיטות ודחייה
A proof from ‘skin is like flesh’ — deflected: perhaps only where skin holds its own
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָשָׂר, דִּלְמָא דִּקְנָה מַשְׁכָּא דִּידֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Skin is like flesh. This would appear to indicate that any covering is sufficient. The Gemara refutes this proof: Perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring to a specific case where there was never flesh on the bone, but only skin, e.g., adjacent to the knee, where the skin holds its own place close to the bone. This ruling may not apply in an area where there was flesh. Perhaps in such a place the bone must be covered by flesh that is still healthy.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara proposes resolving the dilemmas from Ulla’s report of Rabbi Yochanan — ‘skin is like flesh’: if skin alone suffices, surely damaged flesh does. The proof is deflected: perhaps Rabbi Yochanan spoke only of places where the skin holds its own station against the bone — regions like the knee where there never was flesh, and the skin itself is the natural covering. Where flesh belongs and has failed, healthy flesh may well be required.
Key Terms:
- דִּקְנָה מַשְׁכָּא דִּידֵיהּ = where the skin has acquired its own place — regions naturally covered by skin alone
- תָּא שְׁמַע… דִּלְמָא = come and hear… but perhaps — a proof proposed and blunted
Segment 10
TYPE: בעיא ופשיטות
The ring-cut — resolved by the doctors’ regimen: bone heals, iron inflames
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב פַּפֵּי, אִיבַּעְיָא לַן: נִקְדַּר כְּמִין טַבַּעַת, מַהוּ? וּפְשַׁטְנָא מֵהָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: דָּבָר זֶה שָׁאַלְתִּי לַחֲכָמִים וְלָרוֹפְאִים, וְאָמְרוּ: מְסָרְטוֹ בְּעֶצֶם וּמַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה, אֲבָל פַּרְזְלָא מִזְרָף זָרֵיף. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְהוּא דִּקְנָה גַּרְמָא דִּידֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said: While we were studying in Rav Pappi’s study hall, we raised a dilemma: If the flesh and skin were cut in the shape of a ring around the break, and yet most of the circumference of the bone is surrounded by flesh, what is the halakha? And we resolved this dilemma from this statement that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: I asked about this matter to the Sages and to the doctors, what to do when a bone breaks and the surrounding flesh has been cut away, and they said: One makes an incision in it with a sharp piece of bone to help the blood flow and then congeal, and in this manner the wound will heal. The Gemara notes: But one should not make the incision with an iron implement, as it will cause inflammation. Rav Pappa said: And this advice should be implemented only in a case where one can see that the bone is holding firmly onto its flesh, as only in such a case will the flesh heal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi recalls a dilemma from Rav Pappi’s academy: flesh and skin cut away in a ring encircling the break — what is the law? It was resolved from Rav Yehuda in Rav’s name: ‘I asked the Sages and the doctors,’ and they prescribed for such a wound — scratch it with a sharp bone and it will heal; but iron inflames (mizraf zarif). Since the ring-wound is medically curable, the animal is not a tereifa. Rav Pappa adds the proviso: only where the bone still grips its flesh firmly, for only then will the healing take.
Key Terms:
- נִקְדַּר כְּמִין טַבַּעַת = cut out in the shape of a ring — a circular wound around the break
- פַּרְזְלָא מִזְרָף זָרֵיף = iron inflames — a metal incision aggravates the wound
- וְהוּא דִּקְנָה גַּרְמָא דִּידֵיהּ = provided the bone holds its flesh — Rav Pappa’s condition for the cure
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
The mishna: a placenta found within — the hearty may eat it; neither impurity applies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ שִׁלְיָא – נֶפֶשׁ הַיָּפֶה תֹּאכְלֶנָּה, וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין וְלֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת. חִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ – מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת.
English Translation:
MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal and finds a placenta in its womb, one with a hearty soul [nefesh hayafa], i.e., who is not repulsed by it, may eat it, as its consumption was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. Nevertheless, since generally speaking, people do not consume such placentas, it is not regarded as food and so it cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food even were it to come into contact with a source of impurity. And furthermore, it does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses as it was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. But if one intended to eat it, one thereby elevated it to the status of food, and the placenta becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food if it comes into contact with a source of impurity. But even so, it still does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna: one who slaughters an animal and finds a placenta (shilya) inside — a person of hearty constitution (nefesh hayafa) may eat it, for the mother’s slaughter permitted everything within her. Yet because people do not ordinarily eat placenta, it is not ‘food’: it contracts no food impurity, and — having been permitted by the slaughter — it imparts no carcass impurity. If, however, one designated it as food by intending to eat it, the intention elevates it: it now contracts food impurity, though it still imparts no carcass impurity.
Key Terms:
- שִׁלְיָא = the placenta — the afterbirth sac enclosing the fetus
- נֶפֶשׁ הַיָּפֶה = a hearty soul — one not repulsed by such food
- חִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ = he intended it for food — intention confers food status
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה
A partially emerged placenta is forbidden: the placenta is the sign of a fetus
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצְתָה מִקְצָתָהּ – אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה, סִימַן וָלָד בָּאִשָּׁה וְסִימַן וָלָד בַּבְּהֵמָה.
English Translation:
With regard to a placenta, part of which emerged from the womb before the mother was slaughtered, its consumption is prohibited even after the mother animal is slaughtered because the emergence of the placenta is an indication of a fetus in a woman and an indication of a fetus in an animal. Accordingly, there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta, thereby rendering the fetus as having been born, a status that precludes it from being permitted by the slaughter of its mother. Since the offspring is prohibited, its placenta is likewise prohibited.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s second clause: a placenta that partially emerged before the slaughter is forbidden to eat. The reason is the axiom the Gemara will cite: a placenta betokens a fetus — ‘the sign of offspring in a woman, and the sign of offspring in an animal.’ Perhaps the fetus’s head emerged within that protruding part; the fetus would then rank as born, beyond the reach of its mother’s slaughter, and its placenta forbidden with it.
Key Terms:
- סִימַן וָלָד = the sign of offspring — a placenta implies a fetus
- יָצְתָה מִקְצָתָהּ = part of it emerged — raising the fear that the head was born
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה
The firstborning animal’s placenta: to the dogs; of consecrated animals: buried; and no Amorite rites
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַמְבַכֶּרֶת שֶׁהִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא – יַשְׁלִיכֶנָּה לִכְלָבִים, וּבַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין תִּקָּבֵר, וְאֵין קוֹבְרִין אוֹתָהּ בְּפָרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים, וְאֵין תּוֹלִין אוֹתָהּ בְּאִילָן, מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמוֹרִי.
English Translation:
If an animal that was giving birth to its firstborn expelled a placenta, one may cast it to the dogs, and one does not need to be concerned that the placenta came from a male fetus that has the consecrated status of a firstborn. But in the case of sacrificial animals the placenta must be buried, because it came from a fetus that is assumed to have been sacred. The mishna adds: But one may neither bury it at an intersection, nor may one hang it on a tree, superstitious rites intended to prevent the animal from miscarrying again, due to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite, which prohibits Jews from practicing the superstitious rites observed by gentiles.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s third clause: an animal in its first pregnancy (mevakeret) that expelled a placenta — one may cast it to the dogs, for reasons of probability the Gemara will unfold. From consecrated animals, the placenta must be buried, as the offspring within was presumably sacred. And one may not bury a placenta at a crossroads nor hang it on a tree to charm the animal against miscarrying — such rites are forbidden as darchei ha’Emori, the ways of the Amorite.
Key Terms:
- הַמְבַכֶּרֶת = an animal giving birth for the first time — whose male offspring would be a bechor
- דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמוֹרִי = the ways of the Amorite — forbidden gentile superstitious practices
Segment 14
TYPE: דרשה
The source: ‘every animal you may eat’ includes the placenta — ‘it’ and not its placenta
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כֹּל (בהמה) [בַּבְּהֵמָה] תֹּאכֵלוּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ יָצְתָה מִקְצָתָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתָהּ״ – אוֹתָהּ וְלֹא שִׁלְיָתָהּ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: With regard to the ruling that a placenta is permitted by virtue of the mother’s slaughter, the Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? As the Sages taught: “And every animal that parts the hoof, and has the hooves wholly cloven in two, and chews the cud, of the animals, it you may eat” (Deuteronomy 14:6). The verse is the source of the halakha that a fetus is permitted by virtue of the mother’s slaughter (see 69a). The word “every” at the beginning of the verse serves to include the placenta as well as the fetus. One might have thought that a placenta is permitted even if part of it emerged from the womb before slaughter. Therefore, the verse states: “It you may eat,” i.e., you may eat it, the slaughtered animal, but not its placenta, if it partially emerged.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks for the source that a placenta is permitted by the mother’s slaughter. The baraita expounds Devarim 14:6: ‘every [animal]… you may eat’ — the inclusive ‘every’ embraces the placenta along with the fetus. One might think even a partially emerged placenta is permitted; the verse therefore says ‘it (otah) you may eat’ — it, and not its placenta that has partially emerged.
Key Terms:
- כֹּל בַּבְּהֵמָה תֹּאכֵלוּ = ‘every… among the animals you may eat’ — the inclusive derivation
- אוֹתָהּ וְלֹא שִׁלְיָתָהּ = ‘it’ and not its placenta — the exclusion of the partially emerged placenta
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
No placenta without a fetus — so why a verse? A mere asmachta
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּדִי אֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד, לְמָה לִי קְרָא? קְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: Now the assumption is that there is no placenta without a fetus. Therefore, if part of the placenta emerged, there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta, thereby rendering the fetus as having been born. Such a status would preclude it from being permitted by the slaughter of its mother. Why do I need a verse to teach this? The Gemara explains: The verse is a mere support for the halakha, but not the source for it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects to the derivation: since there is no placenta without a fetus, a partially emerged placenta implies of itself that the fetus’s head may have emerged — the prohibition follows from logic, so why do I need a verse? The answer: the verse is a mere asmachta, a scriptural support draped over a rule the Sages knew on independent grounds — the same relation of verse to law the daf’s opening sugya assigned to the hanging limb.
Key Terms:
- אֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד = there is no placenta without a fetus — the governing axiom
- אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא = a mere support — the verse buttresses but does not generate the law
Segment 16
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nappacha: a boiled donkey hide — for which impurity is the question?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַפָּחָא: עוֹר חֲמוֹר שֶׁשְּׁלָקוֹ מַהוּ? לְמַאי? אִי לְטוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין – תְּנֵינָא,
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: And a placenta found inside a slaughtered animal cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food and does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses. In a related discussion, Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Nappaḥa raises a dilemma: A donkey hide that one cooked and it became softened, what is its halakhic status? The Gemara asks: With regard to what issue did he raise this dilemma? If it was with regard to the ritual impurity of food, we already learn this halakha in a baraita,
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s impurity clause prompts a neighboring dilemma. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nappacha asks: a donkey’s hide that one boiled soft — what is its status? The Gemara immediately narrows the field: with respect to what? If with respect to food impurity — we have learned it in a baraita; the amud ends mid-sentence, with the parallel branch (carcass impurity) opening 77b.
Key Terms:
- עוֹר חֲמוֹר שֶׁשְּׁלָקוֹ = a donkey hide that one boiled — softened toward edibility
- לְמַאי = with respect to what? — locating which law the dilemma addresses
Amud Bet (77b)
Segment 1
TYPE: המשך הקושיא
And if carcass impurity — that too we have learned
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי לְטוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת – תְּנֵינָא.
English Translation:
and if you say it was with regard to the ritual impurity of animal carcasses, we already learn that halakha as well in another baraita.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara completes its narrowing of Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nappacha’s dilemma: and if the question concerns the impurity of carcasses — that too is already taught in a baraita. Both apparent readings of the dilemma seem preempted by tannaitic sources, which the Gemara now quotes in turn.
Key Terms:
- תְּנֵינָא = we already learned it — the dilemma seems preempted
- טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת = the ritual impurity of animal carcasses
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
The food-impurity baraita: boiled hide and intended placenta are food
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, דְּתַנְיָא: הָעוֹר וְהַשִּׁלְיָא – אֵין מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, עוֹר שֶׁשְּׁלָקוֹ, וְהַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁחִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ – מְטַמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: With regard to the ritual impurity of food, it is as it is taught in a baraita: The hide and the placenta of an animal, which people do not typically eat, cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of foods. But a hide that one cooked until it became edible and a placenta that one intended to eat can become impure with the impurity of foods.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first source: the hide and the placenta do not contract food impurity, for people do not eat them; but a hide that one boiled until softened, and a placenta that one intended to eat, do contract food impurity. Cooking transforms the hide objectively; intention elevates the placenta subjectively — either route confers the status of food.
Key Terms:
- הָעוֹר וְהַשִּׁלְיָא = the hide and the placenta — non-foods by default
- עוֹר שֶׁשְּׁלָקוֹ = a hide that one boiled — rendered edible and hence susceptible
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
The carcass-impurity baraita: ‘its carcass’ — not its hide, bones, sinews, horns, or hooves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טוּמְאַת נְבֵילוֹת נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: ״בְּנִבְלָתָהּ״ – וְלֹא בָּעוֹר, וְלֹא בְּעַצְמוֹתָיו, וְלֹא בַּגִּידִין, וְלֹא בַּקַּרְנַיִם, וְלֹא בַּטְּלָפַיִם.
English Translation:
With regard to the ritual impurity of animal carcasses also, we already learn in a baraita: The verse states: “And when a domesticated animal dies, of those that you eat, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). The verse indicates that one is rendered impure if he touches its carcass, but not if he touches its hide, and not its bones, and not its sinews, and not its horns, and not its hooves.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second source expounds Vayikra 11:39: ‘one who touches its carcass shall be impure’ — its carcass, and not its hide, nor its bones, nor its sinews, nor its horns, nor its hooves. The flesh alone bears carcass impurity; the durable structures around it do not.
Key Terms:
- בְּנִבְלָתָהּ = ‘its carcass’ — the limiting term of the derivation
- קַרְנַיִם וּטְלָפַיִם = horns and hooves — excluded along with hide, bones, and sinews
Segment 4
TYPE: ביאור
Rabba bar Rav Chana: the exclusion speaks even of parts cooked into a pot-pudding
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן צִיקֵי קְדֵרָה.
English Translation:
And Rabba bar Rav Ḥana said with regard to this baraita: This derivation is necessary only for a case in which one prepared these parts of the animal as a meat pudding [tzikei kedera], in which they are cooked for an extended period and spices are added. One might have thought they would be considered edible flesh and therefore impart the impurity of a carcass. The baraita therefore teaches that this is not so.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba bar Rav Chana calibrates the second baraita: the derivation is needed only for a case where one made those parts into tzikei kedeira — a long-simmered, spiced pudding. One might have thought that once rendered edible they revert to ‘carcass’ and defile accordingly; the verse teaches that even then hide, bones, and sinews do not impart carcass impurity.
Key Terms:
- צִיקֵי קְדֵרָה = pot-pudding — parts stewed soft and spiced into edibility
- לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא = it was needed only for — pinpointing the baraita’s novel case
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
The dilemma stands: a donkey’s hide may be too repulsive to become food at all
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וְשָׁאנֵי עוֹר חֲמוֹר דִּמְאִיס.
English Translation:
Given these two baraitot, why did Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa inquire about the status of the cooked hide of a donkey? The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was inquiring about the impurity of foods, and although the halakha was already taught in the first baraita, Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa thought it is possible that the hide of a donkey is different, as it is repulsive and perhaps even when cooked it is not regarded as food.
קלאוד על הדף:
So what was Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nappacha asking? The Gemara answers: his dilemma indeed concerned food impurity, and the baraita’s rule for boiled hide does not obviously cover it — the hide of a donkey is uniquely repulsive (me’is), and perhaps even boiled soft it never attains the status of food. The dilemma is real: does cooking confer edibility in principle, or only where people would actually eat the result?
Key Terms:
- שָׁאנֵי עוֹר חֲמוֹר דִּמְאִיס = a donkey’s hide is different, for it is repulsive
- לְעוֹלָם טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין = actually, the question was food impurity — the dilemma reinstated
Segment 6
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
First version: Rabbi Elazar lenient when a fetus is present, Rabbi Yochanan concerned
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצְתָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ וָלָד, אֲבָל יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ וָלָד – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בֵּין אֵין עִמָּהּ וָלָד בֵּין יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ וָלָד – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: With regard to a placenta, part of which emerged from the womb before the mother was slaughtered, its consumption is prohibited, as there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta. Commenting on this mishna, Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where there was no fetus found in the mother’s womb. But if there was a fetus with its head and the majority of its body in the womb, one need not be concerned for the existence of another fetus that might have been in the placenta. Therefore, the consumption of the placenta is permitted. But Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whether there was no fetus found in the womb, or whether there was a fetus, one needs to be concerned for the existence of another fetus in the placenta, and therefore its consumption is prohibited.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the partially emerged placenta. In the first version: Rabbi Elazar limits the mishna’s prohibition to where no fetus was found in the womb — the emerged placenta then testifies to a fetus that was born and lost; but if a fetus lies within, we attribute the placenta to it and eat it, without fearing a second fetus. Rabbi Yochanan is concerned either way: even with a fetus inside, perhaps the placenta belonged to another offspring whose head emerged.
Key Terms:
- אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר = we are not concerned for another fetus — the lenient attribution
- לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא = they taught this only where — the limiting formula
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
But Rabbi Yirmeya reports: Rabbi Elazar spoke toward stringency!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִינִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְחוּמְרָא אַמְרַהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר!
English Translation:
According to the way the Gemara records the dispute, Rabbi Yoḥanan rules stringently and Rabbi Elazar rules leniently. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rabbi Yirmeya say concerning this dispute: Rabbi Elazar said an explanation of the mishna that presents a stringency?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara checks this version against a transmitted datum and finds it reversed: Rabbi Yirmeya reported that in this dispute it was Rabbi Elazar who stated the stringency. In the version just given, Rabbi Elazar is the lenient one and Rabbi Yochanan the stringent one. The record must be restated.
Key Terms:
- אִינִי = is that so? — flagging a contradiction with a received report
- לְחוּמְרָא אַמְרַהּ = he said it toward stringency — Rabbi Yirmeya’s fixed datum
Segment 8
TYPE: תיקון
The corrected version: Rabbi Elazar permits only a placenta attached to the fetus
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אִי אִתְּמַר הָכִי אִתְּמַר, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד, אֲבָל קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר.
English Translation:
Rather, if it was stated, it was stated like this: Rabbi Elazar says: The ruling of the mishna is that the placenta is prohibited even if a fetus is found inside the womb. But the Sages taught this only in a case where the placenta is not attached to the fetus found inside. Consequently, one must be concerned with the possibility that the placenta came from another fetus that already left the womb, and it is therefore prohibited. But if it is attached to the fetus found inside, there is no concern for the possibility that the placenta came from another fetus, and therefore it is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dispute is restated: Rabbi Elazar says the mishna’s prohibition holds even when a fetus is found within — unless the placenta is attached to that fetus. Detached, the placenta may belong to another offspring already emerged, and it is forbidden; attached, its provenance is certain and it is permitted. On this version Rabbi Elazar demands physical attachment — the stringent position Rabbi Yirmeya reported.
Key Terms:
- קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד = attached to the fetus — the certainty that permits
- אִי אִתְּמַר הָכִי אִתְּמַר = if it was stated, it was stated thus — the corrected transmission
Segment 9
TYPE: המשך המחלוקת
Rabbi Yochanan: any fetus within suffices — attached or not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד, אֲבָל יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ וָלָד, בֵּין קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד בֵּין אֵין קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר, וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְחוּמְרָא אַמְרַהּ ר׳ אֶלְעָזָר.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In my understanding of the mishna, we have the ruling that the placenta is prohibited only in a case where there is a placenta without any fetus being found. But if a fetus was found with it, then whether it is attached to the fetus or whether it is not attached to the fetus, there is no concern for the existence of another fetus. The Gemara confirms: And this understanding of the two opinions is in line with that which Rabbi Yirmeya says: Rabbi Elazar said an explanation of the mishna that presents a stringency.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan, in the corrected version, is the lenient voice: ‘we have only’ the mishna’s own case — a placenta with no fetus at all. Where a fetus was found within, whether the placenta is attached to it or not, we attribute the placenta to that fetus and no concern remains for another. The Gemara seals the correction: this is what Rabbi Yirmeya meant — it was Rabbi Elazar who spoke toward stringency.
Key Terms:
- אָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא = we have only — confining the prohibition to the mishna’s explicit case
- בֵּין קְשׁוּרָה בֵּין אֵין קְשׁוּרָה = whether attached or not attached — Rabbi Yochanan erases the distinction
Segment 10
TYPE: תניא כוותיה
A baraita supports Rabbi Elazar: the woman who miscarried an animal-form
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, וְשִׁלְיָא עִמָּהֶן, בִּזְמַן שֶׁקְּשׁוּרָה בָּהֶן – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר, אֵינָהּ קְשׁוּרָה בָּהֶן – הֲרֵינִי מֵטִיל עָלֶיהָ חוֹמֶר שְׁנֵי וְלָדוֹת.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: The periods of purity and impurity observed by a woman after giving birth apply only after delivering a fetus with a human form. With regard to a woman who expels a fetus that has the form of a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, and there is a placenta with them, the halakha is as follows: When the placenta is attached to them, there is no concern for the existence of another fetus that may have had a human form. But if the placenta is not attached to them, it is possible there was another fetus that had a human form and so I must impose upon the woman the severity of two types of births, i.e., both the longer period of impurity observed after delivering a female, and the shorter period of purity observed after delivering a male.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita from the laws of childbirth supports Rabbi Elazar’s attachment criterion: a woman who miscarries a fetus of animal, beast, or bird form together with a placenta — if the placenta is attached to them, we fear no other fetus; if it is not attached, ‘I impose upon her the stringency of two offspring’ — she observes the impure days as for a female birth and the pure days only as for a male, covering every possibility that a second, human-formed fetus existed.
Key Terms:
- הַמַּפֶּלֶת = a woman who miscarries — the childbirth-impurity context
- חוֹמֶר שְׁנֵי וְלָדוֹת = the stringency of two offspring — both possible birth-types imposed at once
Segment 11
TYPE: ביאור
The double fear: perhaps this dissolved, perhaps that dissolved
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמַר: שֶׁמָּא נִימּוֹחַ שָׁפִיר שֶׁל שִׁלְיָא, שֶׁמָּא נִימּוֹחָה שִׁלְיָתוֹ שֶׁל שָׁפִיר.
English Translation:
The reason is that I can say: Perhaps the placenta that was found did not come from the fetus that was found, but from a fetus with a human form. To say this one must be concerned with the possibility that perhaps the fetus of the placenta that was found had a human form, and that fetus dissolved, and perhaps the placenta of the fetus that was found dissolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita explains its own severity through a double conjecture: perhaps the fetus that belonged to the found placenta dissolved — and it may have been human-formed; and perhaps the placenta that belonged to the found fetus dissolved. Nothing ties the surviving placenta to the surviving fetus, so both possible births must be reckoned with. Attachment, and attachment alone, dispels the doubt — precisely Rabbi Elazar’s criterion.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁמָּא נִימּוֹחַ = perhaps it dissolved — the conjecture that unmoors placenta from fetus
- שָׁפִיר = the fetal sac — here standing for the fetus that may have melted away
Segment 12
TYPE: ביאור
Why to the dogs? Rav Ika: the consecratable firstborn is a minority
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַמְבַכֶּרֶת שֶׁהִפִּילָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַמֵּי: רוֹב בְּהֵמוֹת יוֹלְדוֹת דָּבָר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, וּמִיעוּט בְּהֵמוֹת דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? נִדְמֶה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If an animal that was giving birth to its firstborn expelled a placenta, one may cast it to the dogs. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ruling? Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, said: The majority of domesticated animals give birth to something that can be consecrated with firstborn status, i.e., an animal with the same form as its mother, but a minority of animals give birth to something that cannot be consecrated with firstborn status, and what is this? It is an animal that resembles a species other than that of its mother.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara seeks the reason a firstborning animal’s expelled placenta may be cast to the dogs — is the fetus within not possibly a sanctified bechor? Rav Ika son of Rav Ami begins the calculation: most animals give birth to offspring capable of firstborn sanctity, but a minority bear a nidmeh — an offspring resembling another species — which cannot be consecrated.
Key Terms:
- נִדְמֶה = an offspring resembling another species — excluded from firstborn sanctity
- קָדוֹשׁ בִּבְכוֹרָה = consecrated with firstborn status — a male firstborn resembling its mother
Segment 13
TYPE: המשך הביאור
Join the minority to the females: sanctifiable males are the minority
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכׇל הַיּוֹלְדוֹת יוֹלְדוֹת מֶחֱצָה זְכָרִים וּמֶחֱצָה נְקֵבוֹת, סְמוֹךְ מִיעוּטָא דְּנִדְמֶה לְמֶחֱצָה דִּנְקֵבוֹת, וְהָווּ לְהוּ זְכָרִים מִיעוּטָא.
English Translation:
And furthermore, with regard to all gestating animals, when they give birth, half of their offspring are male and half are female. Therefore, one can combine the minority of animals that resemble another species with the half that are females, and arrive at the conclusion that male offspring that resemble their species, which are the only offspring that can be consecrated with firstborn status, are the minority. Accordingly, one does not need to be concerned that the placenta found was from an animal consecrated with the status of a firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
The calculation completes: all birthing animals bear half males and half females, and only males take firstborn sanctity. Join the minority of nidmeh-offspring to the half that are female, and the offspring capable of bechor status — males of true form — become a minority. The placenta may therefore be treated by the majority: presumed unconsecrated, and lawfully cast to the dogs.
Key Terms:
- סְמוֹךְ מִיעוּטָא לְמֶחֱצָה = join the minority to the half — the probabilistic device (semoch mi’uta)
- הָווּ לְהוּ זְכָרִים מִיעוּטָא = the (sanctifiable) males turn out to be a minority
Segment 14
TYPE: ביאור
But consecrated animals’ placenta is buried: there the majority is sacred
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין תִּקָּבֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא? רוּבָּא בַּר מִיקְדָּשׁ הוּא.
English Translation:
§ The continuation of the mishna states: But in the case of sacrificial animals the placenta must be buried, because it came from a fetus that is assumed to have been sacred. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to assume this? The Gemara answers: It is because the majority of the offspring of sacrificial animals are fit to be sacred, as, in contrast to firstborn status, both female and male offspring of sacrificial animals can be sacred. Therefore, one must be concerned that the offspring, and its placenta, were sacred.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same arithmetic runs the other way for offspring of already-consecrated animals: there both males and females are born sacred, so the majority of offspring are sacred, and the expelled placenta — presumptively from a sacred fetus — must be buried like consecrated matter that may not be thrown to dogs.
Key Terms:
- רוּבָּא בַּר מִיקְדָּשׁ הוּא = the majority are fit to be sacred — both sexes of a consecrated animal’s offspring
- תִּקָּבֵר = it must be buried — the disposal owed to sanctified remains
Segment 15
TYPE: כלל
Abaye and Rava’s principle: whatever heals is not ‘the ways of the Amorite’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין קוֹבְרִים אוֹתָהּ. אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רְפוּאָה – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמוֹרִי, אֵין בּוֹ רְפוּאָה – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמוֹרִי.
English Translation:
§ The mishna adds: But one may neither bury it at an intersection, nor may one hang it on a tree, due to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite. The Gemara cites Abaye and Rava, who both said: Anything that has an apparently effective medicinal purpose or any other logical reason behind it is not subject to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite. But if it does not have an apparently effective medicinal purpose it is subject to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite.
קלאוד על הדף:
On the mishna’s closing clause — no burying the placenta at a crossroads, no hanging it on a tree — Abaye and Rava jointly articulate the governing principle of darchei ha’Emori: anything that has in it healing — a demonstrable remedial or rational purpose — is not forbidden as the ways of the Amorite; anything without healing purpose is forbidden. Efficacy and reason, not mere gentile provenance, draw the line between medicine and superstition.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רְפוּאָה = anything that has healing in it — exempted from the prohibition
- דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמוֹרִי = the ways of the Amorite — practices forbidden as gentile superstition
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
The challenge of the shedding tree — and the daf ends mid-answer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: אִילָן שֶׁמַּשִּׁיר פֵּירוֹתָיו, סוֹקְרוֹ בְּסִיקְרָא וְטוֹעֲנוֹ בַּאֲבָנִים. בִּשְׁלָמָא טוֹעֲנוֹ בַּאֲבָנִים – כִּי הֵיכִי
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If there is a tree that sheds its fruit prematurely, one may paint it with red paint and load it with stones, even though this is the practice of the Amorites? The Gemara explains the difficulty: Granted, it is permitted to load it with stones, as one does so for a logical reason, in order
קלאוד על הדף:
The principle is immediately tested from a baraita: a tree that sheds its fruit prematurely — one may paint it with red paint (sikra) and load it with stones. Granted, loading it with stones has a rationale — the Gemara begins to explain (to weaken the tree’s excessive vigor) — but the daf breaks off mid-sentence; the harder half of the question, what rational purpose the red paint serves, is answered at the top of 78a: the paint marks the tree so that passersby will pray for it.
Key Terms:
- אִילָן שֶׁמַּשִּׁיר פֵּירוֹתָיו = a tree that sheds its fruit prematurely
- סוֹקְרוֹ בְּסִיקְרָא = one paints it with red paint — the practice whose rationale the Gemara will supply on 78a