Chullin Daf 89 (חולין דף פ״ט)
Daf: 89 | Amudim: 89a – 89b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (89a)
Segment 1
TYPE: אגדתא (המשך מדף פח:)
Completion of Rava’s teaching: for refusing ‘a thread or a shoe-strap,’ Avraham’s children merited techelet and tefillin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אִם מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל״, זָכוּ בָּנָיו לִשְׁתֵּי מִצְוֹת: לְחוּט שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת, וּרְצוּעָה שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין.
English Translation:
“That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours” (Genesis 14:23), distancing himself from anything not rightfully his, his children merited two mitzvot: The thread of sky-blue wool worn on ritual fringes and the strap of phylacteries.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the sentence that opened at the end of 88b. For Avraham’s oath to the king of Sedom — ‘not a thread nor a shoe-strap’ of the spoils (Bereishit 14:23) — his descendants merited two mitzvot embodied in precisely those objects: the thread of techelet in tzitzit and the leather strap of tefillin. The measure-for-measure structure mirrors Rava’s first teaching about afar va’efer: what the patriarch renounced in humility or integrity returns to his children as sanctified command.
Key Terms:
- חוּט שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת (chut shel techelet) = the sky-blue wool thread in tzitzit — the reward corresponding to the ‘thread’ Avraham refused
- רְצוּעָה שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין (retzuah shel tefillin) = the leather strap of tefillin — corresponding to the ‘shoe-strap’
- מִדָּה כְּנֶגֶד מִדָּה (middah k’neged middah) = measure for measure — the principle structuring both of Rava’s reward-teachings
Segment 2
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
The tefillin strap’s benefit is clear — ‘all the peoples shall see’ — but what benefit lies in techelet?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא רְצוּעָה שֶׁל תְּפִילִּין, כְּתִיב: ״וְרָאוּ כׇּל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ כִּי שֵׁם ה׳ נִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ״, וְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ תְּפִילִּין שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, אֶלָּא חוּט שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת מַאי הִיא?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted, the strap of the phylacteries imparts benefit, as it is written: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you; and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is a reference to the phylacteries of the head, upon which the name of God is written. Phylacteries therefore impart the splendor and grandeur of God and are a fit reward. But what is the benefit imparted by the thread of sky-blue wool?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests whether each reward fits the criterion established on 88b: a mitzvah conferring tangible benefit. Tefillin qualify readily — ‘all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you and shall fear you’ (Devarim 28:10), which Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol reads as the tefillin of the head; they project Divine grandeur and protection. But the thread of techelet seems to confer no comparable benefit, and the Gemara demands its credential.
Key Terms:
- תְּפִילִּין שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ (tefillin shebarosh) = the head tefillin, visible to all and bearing God’s name — the referent of Devarim 28:10
- רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הַגָּדוֹל (Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol) = Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, the early tanna whose reading of the verse is cited
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Meir: techelet resembles the sea, the sky, sapphire, and the Throne of Glory
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה תְּכֵלֶת מִכׇּל הַצִּבְעוֹנִין? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתְּכֵלֶת דּוֹמֶה לַיָּם, וְיָם דּוֹמֶה לָרָקִיעַ, וְרָקִיעַ דּוֹמֶה לְאֶבֶן סַפִּיר, וְאֶבֶן סַפִּיר דּוֹמֶה לְכִסֵּא הַכָּבוֹד, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״כְּמַרְאֵה אֶבֶן סַפִּיר דְּמוּת כִּסֵּא״.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about sky-blue from all other colors such that it was specified for the mitzva of ritual fringes? It is because sky-blue dye is similar in its color to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is similar to the sapphire stone, and the sapphire stone is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10). This verse shows that the heavens are similar to sapphire, and it is written: “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Ezekiel 1:26). Therefore, the throne is similar to the heavens. The color of sky blue dye acts as an indication of the bond between the Jewish people and the Divine Presence.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Meir’s celebrated baraita answers: techelet was singled out from all colors because it initiates a chain of resemblance — the dye is like the sea, the sea like the sky, the sky like sapphire, and sapphire like the Kisei HaKavod, as shown from ‘under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone’ (Shemot 24:10) and ‘the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone’ (Yechezkel 1:26). Wearing techelet thus draws the eye, and the heart, up a ladder from the everyday world to the Divine Presence — a spiritual benefit worthy of Avraham’s reward.
Key Terms:
- תְּכֵלֶת (techelet) = the sky-blue dye of tzitzit, derived from the chilazon
- כִּסֵּא הַכָּבוֹד (Kisei HaKavod) = the Throne of Glory — the endpoint of Rabbi Meir’s chain of resemblances
- אֶבֶן סַפִּיר (even sapir) = the sapphire stone linking the visions of Shemot 24:10 and Yechezkel 1:26
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Abba: theft that has been consumed is beyond return — even for the perfectly righteous
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: קָשֶׁה גָּזֵל הַנֶּאֱכָל, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִים אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהַחְזִירוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים״.
English Translation:
The Gemara above mentioned that Abraham refused to accept property that did not belong to him. With regard to this, Rabbi Abba says: Difficult is the return of theft that has been consumed, as even the perfectly righteous are unable to return it, as it is stated: “That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours…except only that which the young men have eaten with me” (Genesis 14:23–24). Even the righteous Abraham was unable to return that which the young men had already consumed.
קלאוד על הדף:
Drawing on the same verse, Rabbi Abba extracts a sobering principle: gazel hane’echal, stolen property already consumed, is the hardest wrong to right — even perfect tzaddikim cannot restore it. Avraham himself, while renouncing every thread, had to except ‘only that which the young men have eaten’ (Bereishit 14:24): what was already consumed could not be given back. The teaching sharpens the ethics of theft — restitution has a limit, and consumption crosses it.
Key Terms:
- גָּזֵל הַנֶּאֱכָל (gazel hane’echal) = stolen property that has been consumed and can no longer be returned in kind
- צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִים (tzaddikim gemurim) = the perfectly righteous — even they cannot undo consumed theft
Segment 5
TYPE: אגדתא
‘Make your ears like a funnel’ — God desires Israel because greatness makes them humble
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי בַּהַגָּדָה – עֲשֵׂה אׇזְנֶיךָ כַּאֲפַרְכֶּסֶת. ״לֹא מֵרֻבְּכֶם מִכׇּל הָעַמִּים חָשַׁק ה׳ בָּכֶם וְגוֹ׳״ – אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: חוֹשְׁקַנִי בָּכֶם, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֲנִי מַשְׁפִּיעַ לָכֶם גְּדוּלָּה – אַתֶּם מְמַעֲטִין עַצְמְכֶם לְפָנַי.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yohanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Any place where you find the statements of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in reference to aggada, make your ears like a funnel [ka’afarkeset], i.e., be receptive to his words. As Rabbi Eliezer interpreted the verse: “Not because you are more in number than any people did the Lord desire you and choose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples” (Deuteronomy 7:7), as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: I desire you, since even at a time that I bestow greatness upon you, you diminish, i.e., humble, yourselves before Me.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan introduces Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s aggadic teachings with the famous charge: make your ears like an afarkeset, a funnel — absorb every word. The teaching itself reads ‘Not because you are more in number… did the Lord desire you’ (Devarim 7:7) as God’s declaration: I desire you because whenever I bestow greatness upon you, you diminish yourselves before Me. Chosenness is grounded not in stature but in the paradoxical response of humility to elevation.
Key Terms:
- אֲפַרְכֶּסֶת (afarkeset) = a funnel or hopper — the image for total receptivity to a master’s words
- חוֹשְׁקַנִי בָּכֶם (choshkani bachem) = ‘I desire you’ — God’s affection grounded in Israel’s self-diminishment
- מְמַעֲטִין עַצְמְכֶם (mema’atin atzmechem) = ‘you diminish yourselves’ — humility precisely at the moment of greatness
Segment 6
TYPE: אגדתא (המשך)
The proof from Israel’s greats: Avraham, Moshe and Aharon, and David each responded to greatness with self-effacement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נָתַתִּי גְּדוּלָּה לְאַבְרָהָם – אָמַר לְפָנַי: ״וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר״, לְמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן – אָמַר: ״וְנַחְנוּ מָה״, לְדָוִד – אָמַר: ״וְאָנֹכִי תוֹלַעַת וְלֹא אִישׁ״.
English Translation:
I granted greatness to Abraham, yet he said before Me: “And I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). I granted greatness to Moses and Aaron, yet Moses said of the two of them: “And what are we” (Exodus 16:7). I granted greatness to David, yet he said: “But I am a worm, and no man” (Psalms 22:7).
קלאוד על הדף:
The teaching now marshals its Israelite examples. Avraham, granted greatness, said ‘I am but dust and ashes’ (Bereishit 18:27); Moshe and Aharon, at the height of their mission, said ‘and what are we?’ (Shemot 16:7); David, anointed king, said ‘I am a worm and no man’ (Tehillim 22:7). Each ascent in stature produced a descent in self-regard — the pattern God singles out as the reason for His desire.
Key Terms:
- וְנַחְנוּ מָה (v’nachnu mah) = ‘and what are we?’ — Moshe and Aharon’s self-effacement (Shemot 16:7)
- וְאָנֹכִי תוֹלַעַת (v’anochi tola’at) = ‘I am a worm and no man’ (Tehillim 22:7) — David’s formula of humility
Segment 7
TYPE: אגדתא (המשך)
The counter-list: Nimrod, Pharaoh, Sancheriv, Nevuchadnetzar, and Chiram answered greatness with arrogance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם אֵינָן כֵּן, נָתַתִּי גְּדוּלָּה לְנִמְרוֹד – אָמַר: ״הָבָה נִבְנֶה לָּנוּ עִיר״, לְפַרְעֹה – אָמַר: ״מִי ה׳״, לְסַנְחֵרִיב – אָמַר: ״מִי בְּכׇל אֱלֹהֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת וְגוֹ׳״, לִנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר – אָמַר: ״אֶעֱלֶה עַל בָּמֳתֵי עָב״, לְחִירָם מֶלֶךְ צוֹר – אָמַר: ״מוֹשַׁב אֱלֹהִים יָשַׁבְתִּי בְּלֵב יַמִּים״.
English Translation:
But the gentile nations of the world are not so. I granted greatness to Nimrod, yet he said: “Come, let us build a city and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name” (Genesis 11:4). I granted greatness to Pharaoh, yet he said: “Who is the Lord” (Exodus 5:2). I granted greatness to Sennacherib, yet he said: “Who are they among all the gods of the countries that have delivered their country out of my hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand” (II Kings 18:35). I granted greatness to Nebuchadnezzar, yet he said: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds” (Isaiah 14:14). I granted greatness to Hiram, king of Tyre, yet he said: “I sit in the seat of God, in the heart of the seas” (Ezekiel 28:2).
קלאוד על הדף:
The mirror image: five gentile rulers who converted greatness into self-deification. Nimrod built the tower ‘to make for ourselves a name’ (Bereishit 11:4); Pharaoh sneered ‘Who is the Lord?’ (Shemot 5:2); Sancheriv taunted that no god could save Yerushalayim (II Melachim 18:35); Nevuchadnetzar vowed ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds’ (Yeshayahu 14:14); and Chiram of Tzor declared ‘I sit in the seat of God’ (Yechezkel 28:2). The symmetry of the two lists turns humility into the defining boundary between Israel’s greats and the empires around them.
Key Terms:
- אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם (umot ha’olam) = the nations of the world — here represented by their most arrogant kings
- אֶעֱלֶה עַל בָּמֳתֵי עָב (e’eleh al bamotei av) = ‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds’ (Yeshayahu 14:14) — Nevuchadnetzar’s boast
- חִירָם מֶלֶךְ צוֹר (Chiram melech Tzor) = Hiram king of Tyre, who claimed a god’s throne (Yechezkel 28:2)
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Moshe and Aharon’s humility exceeded Avraham’s; the world endures in their merit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גָּדוֹל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּאַבְרָהָם, דְּאִילּוּ בְּאַבְרָהָם כְּתִיב: ״וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר״, וְאִילּוּ בְּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כְּתִיב: ״וְנַחְנוּ מָה״. וְאָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּים אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְנַחְנוּ מָה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״תּוֹלֶה אָרֶץ עַל בְּלִימָה״.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: Rava says, and some say Rabbi Yohanan says: Greater is that which is stated with regard to Moses and Aaron than that which is stated with regard to Abraham. As with regard to Abraham it is written: “And I am but dust and ashes,” while with regard to Moses and Aaron it is written: “And what are we,” i.e., we are not even dust and ashes. And Rava says, and some say Rabbi Yohanan says: The world endures only in the merit of Moses and Aaron. It is written here: “And what are we,” and it written elsewhere: “He hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7). That is, the earth endures in the merit of those who said of themselves that they are nothing, i.e., Moses and Aaron.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava (some say Rabbi Yochanan) grades the formulas: Avraham called himself ‘dust and ashes’ — still something; Moshe and Aharon said ‘and what are we?’ — not even that. A second teaching builds on the first through a gezeirah-shavah-like echo: ‘v’nachnu mah’ resonates with ‘He hangs the earth upon belimah — nothing’ (Iyov 26:7). The world literally hangs upon those who make themselves nothing; self-nullification is not merely praised but presented as the world’s load-bearing structure.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹלֶה אֶרֶץ עַל בְּלִימָה (toleh eretz al belimah) = ‘He hangs the earth upon nothing’ (Iyov 26:7) — the verse linking humility to cosmic endurance
- וְאִיתֵּימָא (v’iteima) = ‘and some say’ — an alternate attribution of the same teaching
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא
Two readings of ‘belimah’: one who restrains himself in a quarrel; one who makes himself as nothing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: אֵין הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּים אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל מִי שֶׁבּוֹלֵם אֶת עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁעַת מְרִיבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תּוֹלֶה אֶרֶץ עַל בְּלִימָה״. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: מִי שֶׁמֵּשִׂים עַצְמוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִתַּחַת זְרוֹעוֹת עוֹלָם״.
English Translation:
With regard to that verse, Rabbi Ile’a says: The world endures only in the merit of one who restrains [shebolem] himself during a quarrel, as it is stated: “He hangs the earth upon nothing [belima]. Rabbi Abbahu says: The world endures only in the merit of one who renders himself as if he were non-existent, as it is stated: “And underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deuteronomy 33:27), i.e., one who considers himself to be underneath everything else is the everlasting arm that upholds the world.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two Amoraim re-derive the Iyov verse. Rabbi Il’a hears in ‘belimah’ the root balam, to restrain: the world endures for the one who bolem et atzmo — seals his lips in the heat of a quarrel. Rabbi Abbahu grounds the same idea in ‘and underneath are the everlasting arms’ (Devarim 33:27): the one who places himself beneath everything becomes the arm that upholds the world. The abstract praise of humility is here cashed out in a concrete discipline — silence under provocation.
Key Terms:
- בּוֹלֵם אֶת עַצְמוֹ (bolem et atzmo) = one who restrains himself — reads belimah as from balam, to curb
- שְׁעַת מְרִיבָה (she’at merivah) = the moment of quarrel — the test case for self-restraint
- זְרוֹעוֹת עוֹלָם (zero’ot olam) = ‘the everlasting arms’ (Devarim 33:27) — Rabbi Abbahu’s prooftext
Segment 10
TYPE: דרשה
Rabbi Yitzchak on Tehillim 58:2: a person’s craft is silence — except for Torah, and without arrogance
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״הַאֻמְנָם אֵלֶם צֶדֶק תְּדַבֵּרוּן מֵישָׁרִים תִּשְׁפְּטוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם״? מָה אוּמָּנוּתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה – יָשִׂים עַצְמוֹ כְּאִלֵּם. יָכוֹל אַף לְדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״צֶדֶק תְּדַבֵּרוּן״. יָכוֹל יָגִיס דַּעְתּוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵישָׁרִים תִּשְׁפְּטוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yitzhak says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Do you indeed [ha’umnam] speak as a righteous company [elem]? Do you judge with equity [meisharim] the sons of men” (Psalms 58:2)? The verse is interpreted as follows: What should be a person’s occupation [umanut] in this world? He should render himself silent as a mute [ilem]. If so, one might have thought that he should render himself as a mute even with regard to words of Torah. Therefore, the verse states: “Speak as a righteous company,” indicating that one should speak the righteous words of Torah. If so, he might have thought that one who speaks words of Torah has the right to become arrogant. Therefore, the verse states: “Judge with equity [meisharim] the sons of men.” Even a learned judge must take extra care to judge with equity, and not assume that he will immediately arrive at the correct understanding.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzchak’s wordplay unpacks ‘ha’umnam elem tzedek tedaberun’: umanut (craft) from ha’umnam, illem (mute) from elem. A person’s craft in this world is to make himself mute. Lest one extend the silence to Torah, the verse continues ‘speak righteousness’ — Torah must be voiced. And lest the Torah speaker grow proud, it concludes ‘judge the sons of men with equity’ — even the learned must judge with care and humility. The derashah calibrates exactly where speech is duty and where silence is.
Key Terms:
- אוּמָּנוּת (umanut) = craft or occupation — derived homiletically from ha’umnam
- אִלֵּם (illem) = a mute — the model for restraint in ordinary speech
- מֵישָׁרִים (meisharim) = equity, uprightness — the guard against scholarly arrogance
Segment 11
TYPE: מימרא וקושיא
May one cover blood with dust of an ir hanidachat? But it is forbidden for benefit!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי זְעֵירָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר יִרְמְיָה: מְכַסִּין בַּעֲפַר עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וְאַמַּאי? אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה הוּא!
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to discuss the mitzva of covering the blood: Rabbi Zeira says, and some say Rabba bar Yirmeya says: One may cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird with the dust of an idolatrous city. The Torah states that the city and anything contained therein must be burned (see Deuteronomy 13:17). The Gemara, assuming the statement of Rabbi Zeira refers to the ashes of a burned idolatrous city, asks: But why may one use these ashes to cover the blood? These ashes are items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, as the verse states: “And there shall cleave none of the banned property to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya returns to kisuy hadam with a provocative ruling: Rabbi Zeira (some say Rabba bar Yirmeya) permits covering with the afar of an ir hanidachat, the idolatrous city condemned to burning (Devarim 13:17). The Gemara objects at once: everything in that city is issurei hana’ah — ‘there shall cleave nothing of the banned property to your hand’ (Devarim 13:18). Using its dust for a mitzvah looks like deriving benefit from the proscribed. The objection frames the entire discussion that closes the perek.
Key Terms:
- עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת (ir hanidachat) = a city condemned for collective idolatry, which must be burned with all its contents
- אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה (issurei hana’ah) = items from which any benefit is forbidden
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Ze’eiri: the ruling concerns the dust of its ground, which was never subject to burning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לַעֲפַר עֲפָרָהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת כׇּל שְׁלָלָהּ תִּקְבֹּץ אֶל תּוֹךְ רְחֹבָהּ וְשָׂרַפְתָּ״, מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא קְבִיצָה וּשְׂרֵפָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְחוּסָּר תְּלִישָׁה, קְבִיצָה וּשְׂרֵפָה.
English Translation:
Ze’eiri said: Rabbi Zeira is not referring to the ashes of the burned city, which may not be used. Rather, his statement is necessary only concerning the dust of its dust, i.e., the dust of the ground of the idolatrous city, from which deriving benefit is not prohibited, as it is written: “And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of the broad place thereof, and shall burn with fire the city” (Deuteronomy 13:17). Accordingly, items lacking only the acts of gathering and burning must be burned. This serves to exclude this dust of the ground, which lacks the acts of removal from the ground, gathering, and burning. The dust must also be removed from the ground before it can be gathered and burned.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ze’eiri dissolves the difficulty by narrowing the referent: not the ashes of the burned city but afar afarah, the dust of its ground. The verse commands ‘gather all its spoil into the midst of its square and burn’ — obligating only what lacks merely gathering and burning. Ground-dust, which would additionally require telishah (detachment from the ground), falls outside the burning mandate and thus outside the prohibition of benefit. The exclusion is drawn with surgical formality from the verse’s own action-sequence.
Key Terms:
- עֲפַר עֲפָרָהּ (afar afarah) = ‘the dust of its dust’ — the soil of the city’s ground, never subject to burning
- תְּלִישָׁה (telishah) = detachment from the ground — the extra act that exempts the soil from the burning mandate
- מְחוּסָּר קְבִיצָה וּשְׂרֵפָה (mechusar kevitzah u’sereifah) = ‘lacking only gathering and burning’ — the criterion defining what must be destroyed
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: mitzvot were not given for benefit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרָבָא אָמַר: מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ.
English Translation:
And Rava says: One can even use the ashes from the idolatrous city to cover the blood, despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them. This is because mitzvot were not given for benefit, that is, the fulfillment of a mitzva is not considered deriving benefit, but the fulfillment of a divine decree.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava offers a broader and bolder resolution: even the actual ashes may be used, because mitzvot lav leihanot nitnu — the commandments were not given as vehicles of enjoyment. Performing a mitzvah is submission to a Divine decree, not a receipt of benefit; hence using proscribed material for a mitzvah does not violate the ban on hana’ah. This principle radiates far beyond our sugya, governing cases like shofar and lulav across the Talmud — and the Gemara immediately proceeds to test it against exactly those cases.
Key Terms:
- מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ (mitzvot lav leihanot nitnu) = ‘mitzvot were not given for benefit’ — performing a mitzvah is not halachic ‘enjoyment’
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rav Rechumi objects from the shofar of idolatry; Ravina deflects: invalid only ab initio
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רָבִינָא וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב רְחוּמִי לְרָבִינָא: שׁוֹפָר שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לֹא יִתְקַע בּוֹ. מַאי לָאו, אִם תָּקַע לֹא יָצָא? לָא, אִם תָּקַע יָצָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Ravina was sitting and saying this halakha, that one may use the ashes of an idolatrous city to cover the blood. Rav Rehumi raised an objection to Ravina from a baraita: With regard to a shofar of idol worship, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, one may not blow with it. What, is it not that the baraita means to say that if one blew with it he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that one should not use such a shofar ab initio, but if one blew with it he has fulfilled his obligation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina, teaching Rava’s ruling, is challenged by Rav Rechumi from a baraita: one may not blow a shofar of avodah zarah. If mitzvot confer no benefit, why not? The proposed inference — that one who blew has not fulfilled his obligation — would refute Rava. Ravina deflects: the baraita forbids only lechatchilah, ab initio; after the fact, one who blew has indeed fulfilled his obligation, precisely because the mitzvah-act is not benefit.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹפָר שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה (shofar shel avodah zarah) = a shofar belonging to idol worship — forbidden for benefit
- לְכַתְּחִלָּה / בְּדִיעֲבַד (lechatchilah / b’dieved) = ab initio versus after the fact — the distinction that rescues Rava’s principle
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
The same move for the lulav — but explicit baraitot teach that neither shofar nor lulav discharge the obligation!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לוּלָב שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לֹא יִטּוֹל. מַאי לָאו, אִם נָטַל לֹא יָצָא? לָא, אִם נָטַל יָצָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: תָּקַע לֹא יָצָא, נָטַל לֹא יָצָא!
English Translation:
Rav Rehumi persists: It is taught in another baraita that with regard to a lulav of idol worship, one may not take it to perform the mitzva. What, is it not that the baraita means to say that if one took such a lulav he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that one should not use such a lulav ab initio, but if one took it he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one blew a shofar of idolatry he has not fulfilled his obligation? And isn’t it taught in another baraita that if one took a lulav of idolatry to perform the mitzva he has not fulfilled his obligation?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Rechumi presses on with the parallel baraita on a lulav of avodah zarah, and Ravina answers identically: invalid only ab initio. But the objection then lands with full force: other baraitot state outright ‘if he blew, he has not fulfilled; if he took, he has not fulfilled.’ The b’dieved defense collapses against these explicit texts, and the contradiction between Rava’s principle and the shofar-lulav rulings now demands a real distinction.
Key Terms:
- לוּלָב שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה (lulav shel avodah zarah) = a lulav of idol worship — the second test case
- וְהָתַנְיָא (v’hatanya) = ‘but it is taught!’ — the citation of an explicit contrary baraita
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ (נמשך לדף פט:)
Rav Ashi begins the resolution: ‘How can you compare?’ — completed on amud bet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said in response: How can these cases be compared to the case of covering the blood? There, with regard to a shofar and lulav of idol worship, although the use of such items for a mitzva does not constitute benefit, one cannot fulfill his obligation with them, because
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi opens the resolution with the dismissive formula hachi hashta — how can the cases be compared? The distinction he is about to draw does not concern benefit at all but a structural feature of the mitzvot involved; the amud breaks mid-sentence and the answer lands at the top of 89b. The suspense is doctrinally important: Rava’s principle will survive intact, with the shofar and lulav failing for an entirely different reason.
Key Terms:
- הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא (hachi hashta) = ‘how can you compare?!’ — the formula rejecting a proposed analogy
Amud Bet (89b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ (המשך)
The resolution: shofar and lulav need a minimum measure, and idolatry is ‘crushed’ — but for covering, the more crushed the better
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שִׁיעוּרָא בָּעֵינַן, וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כַּתּוֹתֵי מְכַתַּת שִׁיעוּרַאּ. הָכָא, כֹּל מָה דִּמְכַתַּת מְעַלֵּי לְכִסּוּי.
English Translation:
we require a minimum measure in order to fulfill these mitzvot. A shofar must be large enough that, when grasped, part of it protrudes from both sides of one’s hand, and a lulav must be at least four handbreadths long. And since an object of idol worship and its effects must be burned, its size as required for the mitzva is seen by halakha as crushed into powder. Since a shofar or lulav of idol worship is destined for burning, it is considered as if it is already burned, and it therefore lacks the requisite measurement for fulfilling the mitzva. By contrast, here, with regard to the ashes used to perform the mitzva of covering the blood, no minimum measure is required to fulfill the mitzva; in fact, the more the ash is crushed, the better it is for the mitzva of covering the blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi’s distinction: shofar and lulav require a shiur — a minimum size (a shofar must protrude from the hand; a lulav must be four tefachim). An object of avodah zarah stands under a destiny of burning, so the halacha views it as katutei michtat shiura — already pulverized, lacking any size. Hence the mitzvah fails for want of measure, not because of forbidden benefit. Covering blood, by contrast, has no minimum measure — indeed, the more crushed the material, the better it covers. Rava’s principle emerges unscathed, and on this note the perek closes.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיעוּרָא בָּעֵינַן (shiura ba’inan) = ‘we require a measure’ — these mitzvot demand a minimum size
- כַּתּוֹתֵי מְכַתַּת שִׁיעוּרַאּ (katutei michtat shiura) = ‘its measure is crushed’ — an object destined for burning is deemed already pulverized
Segment 2
TYPE: הדרן
Conclusion of the sixth perek of Chullin — Kisuy HaDam
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כִּסּוּי הַדָּם.
English Translation:
We will return to you, Chapter Kisuy HaDam!
קלאוד על הדף:
The traditional closing formula marks the end of Perek Kisuy HaDam, the sixth chapter of Chullin, which began on daf 83b. The perek traversed the scope of the mitzvah of covering the blood of a slaughtered bird or wild animal — who is obligated, which blood, and with which substances — and closed with the aggadot of Avraham’s humility and the laws of forbidden-benefit materials. Hadran alach: ‘we shall return to you,’ the learner’s pledge that the chapter is not left behind but will be revisited.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ (hadran alach) = ‘we shall return to you’ — the formula recited upon completing a chapter
- כִּסּוּי הַדָּם (Kisuy HaDam) = the sixth perek of Chullin, dafim 83b-89b
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
Opening of Perek Gid HaNasheh: the scope of the sciatic-nerve prohibition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בַּחוּלִּין וּבַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, וְנוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה, בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּעוֹף – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּף.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of, i.e., the time of, the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and with regard to non-sacred animals and with regard to sacrificial animals. And it applies to domesticated animals and to undomesticated animals, to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg. But it does not apply to a bird, due to the fact that the verse makes reference to the sciatic nerve as being “upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33), and a bird has no spoon of the thigh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The seventh perek opens with the mishna mapping the reach of gid hanasheh, the prohibition born of Yaakov’s night-struggle (Bereishit 32:33). It applies in the Land and outside it, during the Temple era and after, to chullin and to consecrated animals, to domesticated and wild animals, and to both the right and left thighs. It excludes birds, whose thigh lacks the kaf — the rounded ‘spoon’ of flesh the verse specifies. The structure parallels the openings of earlier perakim (shechitah, kisuy hadam), fixing each mitzvah’s coordinates in place, time, and species.
Key Terms:
- גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה (gid hanasheh) = the sciatic nerve, forbidden since Yaakov’s struggle (Bereishit 32:33)
- כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ (kaf hayarech) = the ‘spoon of the thigh’ — the rounded muscle over the hip joint, absent in birds
- בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת (bifnei habayit) = ‘in the presence of the Temple’ — the prohibition is independent of the Temple era
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
The prohibition and the fetus: the Tanna Kamma applies it to a shalil; Rabbi Yehuda exempts
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְנוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל, וְחֶלְבּוֹ מוּתָּר.
English Translation:
And the prohibition applies to a late-term animal fetus [shalil] in the womb. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus; and similarly, its fat is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna records a dispute over the shalil, a fully developed fetus found in its slaughtered mother. The first tanna extends the gid prohibition even to it; Rabbi Yehuda holds it does not apply, and likewise the fetus’s chelev (forbidden fat) is permitted. The underlying question is whether the mother’s shechitah renders the fetus mere permitted meat — every part of it — or whether it counts as an animal in its own right whose gid and chelev carry their own prohibitions.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלִיל (shalil) = a late-term fetus found inside its slaughtered mother
- חֶלְבּוֹ מוּתָּר (chelbo mutar) = ‘its fat is permitted’ — Rabbi Yehuda’s corollary leniency for the fetus
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Are butchers believed that the gid was removed? Rabbi Meir distrusts; the Chachamim trust
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין הַטַּבָּחִין נֶאֱמָנִין עַל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין עָלָיו וְעַל הַחֵלֶב.
English Translation:
And butchers are not deemed credible to say that the sciatic nerve was removed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna closes with a question of commercial credibility: nikkur, excising the gid, is laborious, and the butcher has an interest in claiming it was done. Rabbi Meir denies butchers credibility on the gid; the Chachamim deem them credible both on the gid and on chelev. The dispute turns on how far the presumption of a fellow Jew’s trustworthiness extends when effort and profit pull the other way — a theme the Gemara will develop later in the perek (93b-94a).
Key Terms:
- טַבָּחִין (tabachin) = butchers — the tradesmen whose word is at issue
- נֶאֱמָנִין (ne’emanin) = ‘deemed credible’ — halachic trust in a party with a potential interest
- חֵלֶב (chelev) = the forbidden fats, whose removal likewise depends on the butcher
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא (קושיא)
‘Consecrated animals’ — obviously! Would consecration uproot the gid prohibition?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ מוּקְדָּשִׁין – פְּשִׁיטָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּאַקְדְּשֵׁיהּ פְּקַע לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר גִּיד מִינֵּיהּ?
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to both non-sacred animals and sacrificial animals. The Gemara asks: Is it not obvious that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals? Would it be reasonable to suggest that because one consecrated it, he has abrogated the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve from it?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens its analysis with astonishment: why must the mishna state that the prohibition applies to mukdashin? Could anyone imagine that consecrating an animal abrogates the gid prohibition already resting on it? A prohibition is not dislodged by a change in the animal’s status; the mishna’s clause seems to teach nothing. This peshita-challenge launches an extended search for the clause’s real point.
Key Terms:
- פְּשִׁיטָא (peshita) = ‘it is obvious!’ — the objection that a mishnaic clause teaches nothing new
- מוּקְדָּשִׁין (mukdashin) = consecrated animals, dedicated as offerings
Segment 7
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
First proposal: the mishna teaches which prohibitions apply — but its wording is backwards for that
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי תֵּימָא יֵשׁ בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, וְאָתֵי אִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין וְחָיֵיל אַאִיסּוּר גִּיד, הַאי ״מוּקְדָּשִׁין נוֹהֵג בְּגִיד״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא קָסָבַר אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁין אִיסּוּר גִּיד אִיכָּא, אִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין לֵיכָּא.
English Translation:
And if you would say that sciatic nerves have the ability to impart flavor, i.e., they possess flavor, and the mishna is teaching that the prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals comes and takes effect upon the sciatic nerve despite the fact that it is already subject to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, the mishna should have stated: The prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals applies to the sciatic nerve. The Gemara suggests: Rather, the tanna of the mishna holds that the sciatic nerve does not have the ability to impart flavor, and the mishna is teaching that with regard to sacrificial animals there is a prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve but there is no additional prohibition of eating the meat of a sacrificial animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests a first reading: if sinews impart flavor (yesh b’gidin b’notein ta’am), the gid is ‘meat’ enough for the consecration prohibition to land atop the gid prohibition, and the mishna would teach this layering. But then the mishna should have said ‘the prohibition of mukdashin applies to the gid’ — not the reverse. So the tanna must hold ein b’gidin b’notein ta’am: the gid is not meat, and the mishna teaches that in a consecrated animal only the gid prohibition applies to it, with no added issur mukdashin.
Key Terms:
- יֵשׁ בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם (yesh b’gidin b’notein ta’am) = ‘sinews impart flavor’ — the gid counts as meat
- אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר (ein issur chal al issur) = a new prohibition does not take effect upon an existing one — the background principle
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
But the mishna on 96b proves our tanna holds the gid does impart flavor!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְסָבַר תַּנָּא דִּידַן אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם? וְהָתְנַן: יָרֵךְ שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בָּהּ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges this explanation: And does the tanna of our mishna hold that the sciatic nerve does not have the ability to impart flavor? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (96b): In the case of a thigh that was cooked with the sciatic nerve in it, if there is enough of the sciatic nerve in the thigh to impart its flavor to the meat, the entire thigh is forbidden? Consequently, it is clear that the tanna of the mishna holds that the sciatic nerve does possess flavor.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proposed reading collapses against an explicit mishna later in the perek (96b): a thigh cooked with its gid inside is entirely forbidden if the gid imparts enough flavor — so the tanna plainly holds the gid possesses flavor. The contradiction between the two mishnayot of a single tanna forces the Gemara to abandon this line and seek a different setting for our mishna’s mukdashin clause.
Key Terms:
- יָרֵךְ שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בָּהּ גִּיד (yarech shenitbashel bah gid) = a thigh cooked with the sciatic nerve inside — the test case of 96b
- בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם (b’notein ta’am) = ‘imparting flavor’ — the threshold at which forbidden matter renders a mixture forbidden
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
The resolution: offspring of consecrated animals, where both prohibitions arrive simultaneously
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּוַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים עָסְקִינַן, וְקָסָבַר נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל, וְקָסָבַר וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים, דְּאִיסּוּר גִּיד וְאִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתֵי.
English Translation:
Rather, in the mishna here we are dealing with offspring of sacrificial animals. And the tanna holds that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies with regard to a fetus, and he also holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals are consecrated even while they are in the womb of their mother. Consequently, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve and the prohibition of eating sacrificial animals come into effect at the same time, and therefore both prohibitions apply and one does not say that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara relocates the mishna: it speaks of veldot kodashim, offspring of consecrated animals, on two premises — the gid prohibition applies to a fetus (noheg bashlil), and such offspring are consecrated already in the womb. On those premises the gid prohibition and the consecration prohibition come into being bahadei hadadei — at the same instant, as the fetus’s thigh forms. The rule that one prohibition cannot land on an existing one is inapplicable to simultaneous onset; hence both apply, and this is the mishna’s novelty.
Key Terms:
- וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים (veldot kodashim) = offspring of consecrated animals, holy from the womb
- בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתֵי (bahadei hadadei ka’atei) = ‘they arrive together’ — simultaneous prohibitions can both take effect
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But the latter clause names the shalil separately — so the first clause isn’t about a fetus! Answer: it states the subject of the dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ בִּשְׁלִיל, וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל״, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לָאו בִּשְׁלִיל עָסְקִינַן! הָכִי קָאָמַר: דָּבָר זֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges this explanation: Can you interpret this clause of the mishna as referring to a fetus? From the fact that the latter clause teaches: It applies to a late-term fetus, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that it does not apply to a late-term fetus, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with a fetus. The Gemara explains: This is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: This matter that was taught in the first clause is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.
קלאוד על הדף:
An internal-structure objection: if the opening clause already concerns a fetus, why does the mishna then teach separately ‘it applies to a shalil,’ with Rabbi Yehuda disputing? The inference suggests the reisha deals with ordinary animals. The Gemara re-reads the mishna’s flow: the opening clause is stated within the framework of the later dispute — ‘this matter is the machloket of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis’ — so the seifa is not a new topic but the attribution and contestation of the reisha’s own case.
Key Terms:
- רֵישָׁא / סֵיפָא (reisha / seifa) = the first and latter clauses of a mishna — their interplay drives the objection
- הָכִי קָאָמַר (hachi ka’amar) = ‘this is what it means to say’ — the Gemara’s re-reading of the mishna’s structure
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Can two prohibitions truly arrive together? The challenge from the nazirite mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי קָאָתוּ? וְהָתְנַן: עַל אֵלּוּ טוּמְאוֹת הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ, עַל הַמֵּת וְעַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת.
English Translation:
The Gemara again challenges the explanation that the first clause of the mishna is referring to a fetus: And how can you say that both prohibitions come into effect at the same time? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nazir 49b): A nazirite shaves for having become impure from these sources of ritual impurity: For impurity imparted by a corpse and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse.
קלאוד על הדף:
The simultaneity solution now faces a challenge from Nazir (49b): a nazirite shaves for impurity from ‘the corpse’ and from ‘an olive-bulk of the corpse.’ The listing of both seems redundant — the whole should follow a fortiori from the part — and the resolution of that redundancy, cited in the next segment, will bear directly on whether limbs and sinews form ‘together’ in a fetus. The Gemara is testing the embryological premise underlying bahadei hadadei.
Key Terms:
- נָזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ (nazir megale’ach) = a nazirite shaves and restarts his term upon corpse impurity
- כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת (k’zayit min hamet) = an olive-bulk of a corpse — the minimal quantity imparting the severest impurity
Segment 12
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (נמשך לדף צ.)
Rabbi Yochanan: the mishna is needed for a fetus whose limbs are not yet bound by sinews — the discussion continues on 90a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקַשְׁיָא לַן: עַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת מְגַלֵּחַ, עַל כּוּלּוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְנֵפֶל שֶׁלֹּא (נקשרו) [נִתְקַשְּׁרוּ] אֵבָרָיו בְּגִידִין.
English Translation:
And the clause: For impurity imparted by a corpse, is difficult for us, as it seems unnecessary; if a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse, is it not all the more so true that he must shave for impurity imparted by an entire corpse? And Rabbi Yohanan says: It is necessary only for a miscarried human fetus whose limbs had not yet become joined to its sinews. Since the spine is complete the fetus is considered a full corpse, but as the limbs have not yet joined to the sinews it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution in Nazir: the separate mention of ‘the corpse’ is needed for a nefel, a miscarried fetus whose limbs have not yet been joined by sinews — a complete corpse in form, yet lacking an olive-bulk of flesh. The premise that a fetus can exist whose gidin are not yet formed cuts against the claim that the gid prohibition and consecration arrive at one instant, since the sinews come later than the consecration. The daf ends inside this challenge, which the Gemara will carry forward onto 90a.
Key Terms:
- נֵפֶל (nefel) = a nonviable or miscarried fetus
- לֹא נִתְקַשְּׁרוּ אֵבָרָיו בְּגִידִין (lo nitkashru eivarav b’gidin) = ‘its limbs were not yet bound by sinews’ — a stage of formation before the gidin exist