Chullin Daf 92 (חולין דף צ״ב)
Daf: 92 | Amudim: 92a – 92b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (92a)
Segment 1
TYPE: סיום סוגיא (אגדה)
‘Blessed’ is said by the ofanim — or once permission was granted, it was granted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״בָּרוּךְ״ – אוֹפַנִּים הוּא דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאִתְיְהִיב רְשׁוּתָא, אִתְיְהִיב.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that it is the ofanim who say the verse: “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His place,” as the next verse mentions “the noise of the ofanim” (Ezekiel 3:13), and Rav Ḥanina’s statement citing Rav was referring not to ofanim but to ministering angels. And if you wish, say that once permission has been given to them to mention the name of God after three words when they say: “Holy, holy, holy,” permission is also given to them to mention the name of God again while praising Him even after fewer than three words.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens closing 91b’s discussion of the angels’ praise. Rav’s teaching had implied that ministering angels mention God’s name only after three words of praise (‘Holy, holy, holy’); the verse ‘Blessed be the glory of Hashem from His place’ seems to mention the Name after a single word. Two answers: that verse is recited by the ofanim, a different class of celestial beings, not the ministering angels of Rav’s teaching; or — once permission was granted to the angels to utter the Name, it was granted, and subsequent praises need not wait three words.
Key Terms:
- אוֹפַנִּים = the ofanim — a class of celestial beings in Yechezkel’s vision, distinct from the ministering angels
- כֵּיוָן דְּאִתְיְהִיב רְשׁוּתָא אִתְיְהִיב = once permission was given, it was given — the license to utter the Name, once granted, persists
Segment 2
TYPE: דרשה
‘He strove with an angel and prevailed’ — who mastered whom? Yaakov mastered the angel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וַיָּשַׂר אֶל מַלְאָךְ וַיֻּכָל בָּכָה וַיִּתְחַנֶּן לוֹ״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִי נַעֲשָׂה שַׂר לְמִי, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״כִּי שָׂרִיתָ עִם אֱלֹהִים״ – הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר יַעֲקֹב נַעֲשָׂה שַׂר לַמַּלְאָךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues to discuss Jacob wrestling with the angel. The prophet states: “So he strove [vayyasar] with an angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication to him; at Beth El he would find him, and there he would speak with us” (Hosea 12:5). From this verse I do not know who became master [sar], i.e., was victorious, over whom. When another verse states: “And he said: Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with angels and with men, and have prevailed” (Genesis 32:29), you must say that Jacob became master over the angel.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to Yaakov’s night struggle, reading Hoshea 12:5 — ‘he strove [vayyasar] with an angel and prevailed; he wept and made supplication to him.’ The verse alone leaves open who became sar, master, over whom. The verse in Bereishit decides it: ‘for you have striven with angels and with men, and have prevailed’ (32:29) — Yaakov mastered the angel. The prophetic recap and the Torah’s own narrative are read as a single interlocking record.
Key Terms:
- וַיָּשַׂר = ‘he strove’ — from the root of sar, master; the verb that names the contest of mastery
- כִּי שָׂרִיתָ = ‘for you have striven’ (Bereishit 32:29) — the verse that crowns Yaakov the victor
Segment 3
TYPE: דרשה (המשך)
‘He wept and made supplication’ — who wept to whom? The angel wept to Yaakov
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״בָּכָה וַיִּתְחַנֶּן לוֹ״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִי בָּכָה לְמִי, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֵנִי״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: מַלְאָךְ בָּכָה לְיַעֲקֹב.
English Translation:
The verse in Hosea states: “He wept, and made supplication to him.” From this verse I do not know who cried to whom. When another verse states: “And he said: Let me go, for the dawn has risen” (Genesis 32:27), you must say that the angel cried to Jacob.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same method resolves the verse’s second clause: ‘he wept and made supplication to him’ — who was reduced to tears? The Torah answers: ‘and he said, Let me go, for the dawn has risen’ (Bereishit 32:27) — it was the angel who pleaded. The defeated angel begging for release is the weeper of Hoshea’s verse. Yisrael’s ancestor emerges from the night not only unbeaten but petitioned.
Key Terms:
- שַׁלְּחֵנִי = ‘let me go’ — the angel’s plea at dawn, read as his weeping supplication
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה
Rabba: ‘with angels and with men’ — a hint of the two princes, and of exile
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״כִּי שָׂרִיתָ עִם אֱלֹהִים וְעִם אֲנָשִׁים״, אָמַר רַבָּה: רֶמֶז רָמַז לוֹ שֶׁעֲתִידִים שְׁנֵי שָׂרִים לָצֵאת מִמֶּנּוּ, רֹאשׁ גּוֹלָה שֶׁבְּבָבֶל וְנָשִׂיא שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִכָּאן רָמַז לוֹ גָּלוּת.
English Translation:
The verse states: “And he said: Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with angels [elohim] and with men, and have prevailed” (Genesis 32:29). Rabba says: The angel intimated to Jacob that in the future two princes would emerge from him: They are the Exilarch who is in Babylonia and the Nasi who is in Eretz Yisrael. And from here he also intimated to Jacob that there would be an exile.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba reads the angel’s blessing as prophecy: ‘you have striven with elohim and with men’ hints that two sarim, princes, would issue from Yaakov — the Reish Galuta (Exilarch) in Bavel and the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael. And within the same hint lies a darker one: two centers of authority means a scattered people — from here the angel intimated the exile to Yaakov. The blessing carries its own shadow.
Key Terms:
- רֹאשׁ גּוֹלָה = the Exilarch — the Davidic head of Babylonian Jewry
- נָשִׂיא = the Nasi — the patriarch, head of the Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael
Segment 5
TYPE: דרשה
Rav: the vine’s three branches are the proud princes of each generation — eyes turned to Rav’s grandsons
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וּבַגֶּפֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׂרִיגִים״, אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׂרֵי גֵּאִים הַיּוֹצְאִים מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּכׇל דּוֹר וָדוֹר, פְּעָמִים שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם כָּאן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, פְּעָמִים שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶחָד כָּאן. יְהִיבוּ רַבָּנַן עֵינַיְיהוּ בְּרַבָּנָא עוּקְבָא וְרַבָּנָא נְחֶמְיָה בְּנֵי בְרַתֵּיה דְּרַב.
English Translation:
Similarly, with regard to the dream of Pharaoh’s butler, the verse states: “And in the vine were three branches [sarigim]; and as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth, and its clusters brought forth ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rav says: These three branches refer to the three proud princes [sarei ge’im] who emerge from the Jewish people in each and every generation. There are times when two are here in Babylonia and one is in Eretz Yisrael, and there are times when two are in Eretz Yisrael and one is here in Babylonia. When this was stated in the study hall, the Sages present turned their eyes toward Rabbana Ukva and Rabbana Neḥemya, the sons of the daughter of Rav, who were from the family of the Exilarch and were two leaders of the generation who resided in Babylonia.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the butler’s dream (Bereishit 40:10): ‘and in the vine were three branches [sarigim].’ Rav expounds: these are the three sarei ge’im, proud princes, who emerge from Israel in every generation — sometimes two in Bavel and one in Eretz Yisrael, sometimes the reverse. The Gemara adds a living footnote: when this was taught, the Sages turned their eyes to Rabbana Ukva and Rabbana Nechemya, sons of Rav’s daughter — Exilarch-family leaders of that very generation, the derasha’s contemporary fulfillment.
Key Terms:
- שָׂרֵי גֵּאִים = proud princes — the eminent communal heads arising in every generation
- יְהִיבוּ רַבָּנַן עֵינַיְיהוּ = the Sages set their eyes — identifying the derasha’s living referents
Segment 6
TYPE: דרשה
Rava: the three branches are the angelic princes of the nations who plead Israel’s cause
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא אָמַר: אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׂרֵי גוֹיִם, שֶׁמְלַמְּדִים זְכוּת עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכׇל דּוֹר וָדוֹר.
English Translation:
Rava says a different explanation of the verse: These three branches [sarigim] are the three ministering angels appointed to oversee the gentiles [sarei goyim], who plead in favor of the Jewish people in each and every generation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava reads the same three branches otherwise: they are three sarei goyim — ministering angels appointed over the nations — who plead in Israel’s favor in every generation. Even the celestial patrons of other nations are enlisted, in this reading, as advocates for Israel: the dream encodes the hidden defenses arrayed for the Jewish people in the heavenly court.
Key Terms:
- שָׂרֵי גוֹיִם = the princes of the nations — angelic patrons of the gentile powers, here pleading for Israel
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Eliezer: the vine is the world; the branches — the Avot; the blossoms — the Imahot; the grapes — the tribes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״גֶּפֶן״ – זֶה הָעוֹלָם, ״שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׂרִיגִים״ – זֶה אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב, ״וְהִיא כְפֹרַחַת עָלְתָה נִצָּהּ״ – אֵלּוּ הָאִמָּהוֹת, ״הִבְשִׁילוּ אַשְׁכְּלֹתֶיהָ עֲנָבִים״ – אֵלּוּ הַשְּׁבָטִים.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says an alternate interpretation of the verse. “Vine”; this is a reference to the world. “Three branches”; this is a reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. “And as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth”; these are the matriarchs. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the twelve tribes, i.e., the twelve sons of Jacob.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita opens a chain of systematic readings. Rabbi Eliezer maps the butler’s vine onto sacred history: the vine is the world; the three branches are Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov; ‘as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth’ — the Matriarchs; ‘its clusters brought forth ripe grapes’ — the twelve tribes. Creation flowers into the founding family of Israel.
Key Terms:
- גֶּפֶן = the vine — the dream-image each tanna maps onto a different sacred whole
- הָאִמָּהוֹת = the Matriarchs — Sarah, Rivka, Rachel, and Leah
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Rabbi Yehoshua: dreams show the future, not the past — the vine is Torah; the branches, Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וְכִי מַרְאִין לוֹ לְאָדָם מַה שֶּׁהָיָה? וַהֲלֹא אֵין מַרְאִין לוֹ לְאָדָם אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לִהְיוֹת! אֶלָּא ״גֶּפֶן״ – זֶה תּוֹרָה, ״שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׂרִיגִים״ – אֵלּוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם, ״וְהִיא כְפֹרַחַת עָלְתָה נִצָּהּ״ – אֵלּוּ סַנְהֶדְרִין, ״הִבְשִׁילוּ אַשְׁכְּלֹתֶיהָ עֲנָבִים״ – אֵלּוּ הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁבְּכָל דּוֹר וָדוֹר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: But is a person shown in a dream what was in the past? Isn’t it true that one is shown only what will be in the future? Since the patriarchs, matriarchs, and sons of Jacob were all born prior to this dream, the dream was not alluding to them. Rather, the verse should be interpreted as follows: “Vine”; this is a reference to the Torah. “Three branches”; these are Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “And as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth”; these are the members of the Sanhedrin. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the righteous people who live in each and every generation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua objects on dream-theory grounds: is a person shown what already was? A dream shows only what is to come — and the Avot were long born. He remaps forward: the vine is Torah; the three branches are Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam; the blossoms are the Sanhedrin; the ripe grapes are the righteous of every generation. The butler’s vine becomes the future architecture of Torah leadership.
Key Terms:
- אֵין מַרְאִין לוֹ לְאָדָם אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁעָתִיד לִהְיוֹת = a person is shown only what is to be — the exegetical constraint that dreams face forward
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Rabban Gamliel: we still need HaModa’i, who sets the whole verse in one place — Jerusalem
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: עֲדַיִין צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לַמּוֹדָעִי, דְּמוֹקֵים לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ בְּחַד מָקוֹם. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי אוֹמֵר: ״גֶּפֶן״ – זֶה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, ״שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׂרִיגִים״ – זֶה מִקְדָּשׁ, מֶלֶךְ, וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, ״וְהִיא כְפֹרַחַת עָלְתָה נִצָּהּ״ – אֵלּוּ פִּרְחֵי כְהוּנָּה, ״הִבְשִׁילוּ אַשְׁכְּלֹתֶיהָ עֲנָבִים״ – אֵלּוּ נְסָכִים.
English Translation:
Rabban Gamliel said: In order to understand this verse (Genesis 40:10) we still need the explanation of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i, who is an expert in matters of aggada, as he interprets all of the phrases in the verse as referring to one location. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: “Vine”; this is a reference to Jerusalem. “Three branches”; this is a reference to the Temple, the king and the High Priest. “And as it was budding [poraḥat], its blossoms shot forth”; these are the young priests [pirḥei khehunna]. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the wine libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabban Gamliel praises a third reading for its unity: we still need Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i, the master of aggada, who grounds every phrase in a single location. His map: the vine is Jerusalem; the three branches are the Temple, the king, and the High Priest; the budding blossoms are the pirchei kehuna, the young priests; the ripe grape-clusters are the wine libations. The dream becomes a portrait of the holy city in its complete order.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לַמּוֹדָעִי = ‘we still need HaModa’i’ — Rabban Gamliel’s tribute to the unified reading
- פִּרְחֵי כְהוּנָּה = the young priests — the ‘blossoms’ of the priesthood, wordplay on porachat
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: the branches are the wilderness gifts — the well, the cloud, and the manna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּמַתָּנוֹת, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: ״גֶּפֶן״ – זוֹ תּוֹרָה, ״שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׂרִיגִים״ – זֶה בְּאֵר, עַמּוּד עָנָן, וּמָן, ״וְהִיא כְפֹרַחַת עָלְתָה נִצָּהּ״ – אֵלּוּ הַבִּכּוּרִים, ״הִבְשִׁילוּ אַשְׁכְּלֹתֶיהָ עֲנָבִים״ – אֵלּוּ נְסָכִים.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi interprets it with reference to the gifts that God gave the Jewish people, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: “Vine”; this is a reference to the Torah. “Three branches”; this is a reference to the miraculous items that accompanied the Jewish people in the wilderness and sustained and protected them: The well, the pillar of cloud, and the manna. “And as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth”; these are the first fruits that are brought to the Temple. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the wine libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi sets the verse among the divine gifts: the vine is Torah; the three branches are the well, the pillar of cloud, and the manna — the three miraculous companions of the wilderness years; the blossoms are the first fruits; the clusters, the wine libations. The dream traces the arc from wilderness sustenance to the produce brought before God in His Temple.
Key Terms:
- בְּאֵר, עַמּוּד עָנָן, וּמָן = the well, the pillar of cloud, and the manna — the three wilderness gifts
- בִּכּוּרִים = the first fruits — brought to the Temple from the Land’s produce
Segment 11
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba: the vine is Israel; the branches, the three Festivals; the budding, Israel’s increase in Egypt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: ״גֶּפֶן״ – אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״גֶּפֶן מִמִּצְרַיִם תַּסִּיעַ״. ״שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׂרִיגִים״ – אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹלִין בָּהֶן בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. ״וְהִיא כְפֹרַחַת עָלְתָה נִצָּהּ״ – הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְרוֹת וְלִרְבּוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: “Vine”; this is a reference to the Jewish people, and similarly another verse states: “You plucked up a vine out of Egypt; You drove out the nations and planted it” (Psalms 80:9). “Three branches”; these are the three pilgrimage Festivals, on which the Jewish people ascend to Jerusalem every year. “And as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth,” means that the time has arrived for the Jewish people to be fruitful and multiply, and similarly another verse states: “And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and became exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them” (Exodus 1:7).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba reads the vine as Israel itself, citing ‘You plucked up a vine out of Egypt’ (Tehillim 80:9). The three branches are the three pilgrimage Festivals on which Israel ascends each year. ‘As it was budding, its blossoms shot forth’ — the time arrived for Israel to be fruitful and multiply, as it says ‘and the children of Israel were fruitful and swarmed’ (Shemot 1:7). The dream, told in Egypt, foretells Egypt’s own chapter of Israel’s story.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים = the three pilgrimage Festivals — Pesach, Shavuot, and Sukkot
Segment 12
TYPE: מימרא (המשך)
The blossoming is redemption; the ripened grapes — Egypt’s cup of fury
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״עָלְתָה נִצָּה״ – הִגִּיעַ זְמַן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל לִיגָּאֵל, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְיֵז נִצְחָם עַל בְּגָדַי וְכׇל מַלְבּוּשַׁי אֶגְאָלְתִּי״, ״הִבְשִׁילוּ אַשְׁכְּלֹתֶיהָ עֲנָבִים״ – הִגִּיעַ זְמַנָּהּ שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם לִשְׁתּוֹת כּוֹס הַתַּרְעֵלָה.
English Translation:
“Its blossoms [nitzah] shot forth” means that the time has arrived for the Jewish people to be redeemed. And similarly another verse states: “And their eternity [nitzḥam] is dashed against My garments, and I have redeemed all My raiment” (Isaiah 63:3). “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes” means that the time has arrived for Egypt to drink the cup of fury, i.e., to receive its punishment.
קלאוד על הדף:
The reading concludes: ‘its blossoms [nitzah] shot forth’ — the time arrived for Israel to be redeemed, echoing ‘their eternity [nitzcham] is dashed… and I have redeemed’ (Yeshayahu 63:3). ‘Its clusters brought forth ripe grapes’ — the time arrived for Egypt to drink the cup of fury. In one verse the butler unknowingly announced both Israel’s redemption and his own kingdom’s reckoning.
Key Terms:
- כּוֹס הַתַּרְעֵלָה = the cup of fury — the draught of punishment a nation is made to drink
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
Rava: the three cups of Egypt — in the days of Moshe, of Pharaoh Necho, and in the future with all the nations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רָבָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה כּוֹסוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּמִצְרַיִם לָמָה? אֶחָד, שֶׁשָּׁתָת בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה, וְאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׁתָת בִּימֵי פַּרְעֹה נְכֹה, וְאֶחָד שֶׁעֲתִידָה לִשְׁתּוֹת עִם כׇּל הַגּוֹיִם.
English Translation:
And this is as Rava said: Why are there three cups stated with regard to Egypt in the dream of Pharaoh’s butler (see Genesis 40:11)? They are an allusion to three cups of misfortune that would later befall Egypt: One that Egypt drank in the days of Moses during the ten plagues and the Exodus; one that Egypt drank in the days of Pharaoh Nekho, the king of Egypt defeated by Nebuchadnezzar; and one that Egypt will drink in the future with all the other nations, when they are punished in the time of the Messiah.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara links this to Rava’s count: why are three cups stated regarding Egypt in the butler’s dream (Bereishit 40:11)? They allude to three cups of misfortune: one Egypt drank in the days of Moshe — the plagues and the Exodus; one in the days of Pharaoh Necho, crushed by Nevuchadnetzar; and one Egypt will yet drink with all the nations in the time to come. The butler’s cup pours out across the whole of history.
Key Terms:
- פַּרְעֹה נְכֹה = Pharaoh Necho — the Egyptian king defeated in the days of Nevuchadnetzar
Segment 14
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Abba: when Rav expounded these verses, he expounded them like you
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: כִּי דָרֵישׁ לְהוּ רַב לְהָנֵי קְרָאֵי בְּאַגַּדְתָּא, כְּוָותָךְ דָּרֵישׁ לְהוּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba: When Rav interpreted these verses homiletically he interpreted them according to the way in which you have interpreted them, and not according to any of the other opinions cited above.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba tells Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba: when Rav interpreted these verses aggadically, he interpreted them in accordance with your reading — the vine as Israel, the branches as the Festivals. The chain of transmission closes on the nationally centered reading: of all the mappings, Rav’s own homiletics matched the one that makes the vine the Jewish people.
Key Terms:
- כְּוָותָךְ דָּרֵישׁ לְהוּ = ‘he expounded them like you’ — Rav’s endorsement of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba’s reading
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא
Reish Lakish: this nation is a vine — householders its branches, scholars its clusters, the ignorant its leaves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אוּמָּה זוֹ כְּגֶפֶן נִמְשְׁלָה. זְמוֹרוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ – אֵלּוּ בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים, אֶשְׁכּוֹלוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ – אֵלּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, עָלִין שֶׁבָּהּ – אֵלּוּ עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ, קְנוֹקָנוֹת שֶׁבָּהּ – אֵלּוּ רֵיקָנִים שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
Similar to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba’s interpretation of the word vine as an allusion to the Jewish people, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This nation is likened to a vine. The branches of the vine support the clusters of grapes, the leaves, and the tendrils; these are represented among the Jewish people by the homeowners, who provide financial support for the entire nation. The clusters of grapes on the vine, these are the Torah scholars. The leaves on the vine, which protect the grapes, these are the ignoramuses, who protect the Torah scholars. The tendrils of the vine, which do not directly serve the grapes themselves, these are the empty ones of the Jewish people.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish turns the vine into a social anatomy of Israel: the sturdy branches are the ba’alei batim, the householders whose support carries the nation; the grape-clusters are the Torah scholars; the leaves are the amei ha’aretz, the ignorant, who shelter the fruit; the tendrils are the empty ones of Israel. Every part of the vine — fruit-bearing or not — belongs to the plant, and each sustains the others.
Key Terms:
- בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים = householders — the supporting laity, the vine’s load-bearing branches
- עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ = the unlearned — the vine’s leaves, shielding the fruit
Segment 16
TYPE: מימרא (המשך)
The message from Eretz Yisrael: let the clusters pray for the leaves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַיְינוּ דִּשְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: לִיבְעֵי רַחֲמִים אִיתְכָּלַיָּא עַל עָלַיָּא, דְּאִילְמָלֵא עָלַיָּא לָא מִתְקַיְּימָן אִיתְכָּלַיָּא.
English Translation:
And this is the meaning of the instruction that they sent from there, i.e., from Eretz Yisrael: Let the clusters of grapes pray for the leaves, as were it not for the leaves, the clusters of grapes would not survive.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara seals the image with the message sent from Eretz Yisrael: let the clusters pray for the leaves, for were it not for the leaves, the clusters could not survive. The scholars owe their existence to the simple folk who shelter, feed, and defend them; Torah’s fruit ripens only under the shade of ordinary Jews. It is among the Gemara’s most quoted teachings on communal interdependence.
Key Terms:
- אִיתְכָּלַיָּא עַל עָלַיָּא = the clusters for the leaves — scholars must pray for the simple folk who sustain them
Segment 17
TYPE: דרשה
‘I bought her for fifteen silver’ — kira is the language of acquisition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וָאֶכְּרֶהָ לִּי בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר כָּסֶף״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: אֵין ״כִּירָה״ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן מְכִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בְּקִבְרִי אֲשֶׁר כָּרִיתִי לִי״.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites homiletical interpretations of other verses that pertain to the leaders of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia. The verse states: “So I bought her [va’ekkereha] to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and a ḥomer of barley, and a half-ḥomer of barley” (Hosea 3:2). Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The term kira, which forms the basis of the verb va’ekkereha, is nothing other than language referring to a sale [mekhira], as it is stated that Joseph said: “My father made me swear, saying: Lo, I die; in my grave that I have acquired [kariti] for me in the land of Canaan, there shall you bury me” (Genesis 50:5).
קלאוד על הדף:
A new expository unit opens on Hoshea 3:2 — ‘so I bought her [va’ekkereha] to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and a chomer of barley and a half-chomer of barley.’ Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak establishes the verb: kira is nothing but the language of sale-acquisition, as Yosef says ‘in my grave which I have acquired [kariti] for me’ (Bereishit 50:5). God speaks of acquiring Israel — and each element of the price will now be decoded.
Key Terms:
- וָאֶכְּרֶהָ = ‘and I bought her’ — God’s acquisition of Israel, per the kira-mechira equation
Segment 18
TYPE: דרשה (המשך)
Fifteen — the fifteenth of Nisan; silver — the righteous
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ – זֶה חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּנִיסָן שֶׁבּוֹ נִגְאֲלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם, ״כָּסֶף״ – אֵלּוּ צַדִּיקִים, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר ״צְרוֹר הַכֶּסֶף לָקַח בְּיָדוֹ״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan continues: “For fifteen pieces of silver”; this is a reference to the fifteenth of Nisan, the date on which the Jewish people were redeemed from Egypt. “Silver”; these are the righteous people. And similarly, another verse states: “He has taken the bag of silver with him” (Proverbs 7:20), a reference to God taking the righteous away prior to the destruction of the First Temple (see Sanhedrin 96b).
קלאוד על הדף:
The decoding proceeds: ‘for fifteen’ — this is the fifteenth of Nisan, the day Israel was redeemed from Egypt: the purchase price of the nation is the night of its liberation. ‘Silver [kesef]’ — these are the righteous, as it says ‘he has taken the bag of silver with him’ (Mishlei 7:20), the righteous whom God gathers in. Redemption-date and righteous individuals together constitute the currency of the acquisition.
Key Terms:
- חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּנִיסָן = the fifteenth of Nisan — the date of the Exodus, read as the ‘fifteen silver’
Segment 19
TYPE: דרשה (המשך)
The barley measures: forty-five righteous who sustain the world — thirty in Eretz Yisrael, fifteen in Bavel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״חוֹמֶר שְׂעוֹרִים וְלֶתֶךְ שְׂעוֹרִים״ – אֵלּוּ אַרְבָּעִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה צַדִּיקִים שֶׁהָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּים בָּהֶם, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם שְׁלֹשִׁים כָּאן וַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאִם שְׁלֹשִׁים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר כָּאן. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וָאֶקְחָה שְׁלֹשִׁים הַכֶּסֶף וָאַשְׁלִיךְ אֹתוֹ בֵּית ה׳ אֶל הַיּוֹצֵר״ – הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשִׁים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר כָּאן.
English Translation:
The verse states: “A ḥomer of barley, and a half-ḥomer of barley.” A ḥomer equals thirty se’a, and a half-ḥomer equals fifteen se’a, totaling forty-five se’a; these are the forty-five righteous individuals in whose merit the world continues to exist. And although the verse alludes to the fact that thirty of these righteous individuals are in one place and fifteen are elsewhere, I do not know if thirty are here in Babylonia and fifteen are in Eretz Yisrael, or if thirty are in Eretz Yisrael and fifteen are here in Babylonia. When it says in a different verse: “And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them into the treasury, in the house of the Lord” (Zechariah 11:13), you must say that thirty of the righteous individuals are in Eretz Yisrael and fifteen are here in Babylonia.
קלאוד על הדף:
‘A chomer of barley and a half-chomer of barley’ — thirty se’a and fifteen se’a: forty-five righteous individuals in whose merit the world endures. The split is given but not located — thirty here and fifteen there, or the reverse? The verse ‘and I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of Hashem’ (Zecharya 11:13) decides: the thirty belong where the house of Hashem is — thirty in Eretz Yisrael, and fifteen here in Bavel.
Key Terms:
- אַרְבָּעִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה צַדִּיקִים = forty-five righteous individuals — the hidden pillars in whose merit the world stands
Segment 20
TYPE: מימרא
Abaye: most of them are found in the synagogue under the upper room
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְרוּבַּיְיהוּ מִשְׁתַּכְחִי בְּבֵי כְנִישְׁתָּא דְּתוּתֵי אַפְּתָא, וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וָאֹמַר אֲלֵיהֶם אִם טוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם הָבוּ שְׂכָרִי וְאִם לֹא חֲדָלוּ וַיִּשְׁקְלוּ אֶת שְׂכָרִי שְׁלֹשִׁים כָּסֶף״.
English Translation:
Abaye said: And most of the fifteen righteous individuals in Babylonia are found in the synagogue under the upper room. And this is the meaning of that which is written: “And I said to them: If it is good in your eyes, give me my hire; and if not, refrain. And they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver” (Zechariah 11:12).
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye localizes the Babylonian fifteen: most of them are found in the synagogue beneath the upper story — a specific, humble Babylonian synagogue. He anchors it in Zecharya’s preceding verse, ‘and they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver.’ The world’s hidden sustainers are not enthroned dignitaries but worshippers in an ordinary shul — the anonymity of the righteous is itself part of the teaching.
Key Terms:
- בֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא דְּתוּתֵי אַפְּתָא = the synagogue beneath the upper chamber — the unassuming home of Bavel’s hidden righteous
Segment 21
TYPE: מימרות
Rabbi Yehuda: thirty righteous of the nations; Ulla: thirty Noahide mitzvot, of which they keep three
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים צַדִּיקֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיְּימִים עֲלֵיהֶם. עוּלָּא אָמַר: אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים מִצְוֹת שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם בְּנֵי נֹחַ, וְאֵין מְקַיְּימִין אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה. אַחַת
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda says: These are the thirty righteous individuals among the nations of the world, in whose merit the nations of the world continue to exist. Ulla says: These are the thirty mitzvot that the descendants of Noah initially accepted upon themselves; but they fulfill only three of them. One of these three mitzvot is
קלאוד על הדף:
Two more readings of Zecharya’s thirty. Rabbi Yehuda: they are thirty righteous individuals among the nations of the world, in whose merit the nations endure — the pillar-principle extends beyond Israel. Ulla: they are thirty mitzvot that the descendants of Noach accepted upon themselves — but they fulfill only three. The amud ends mid-sentence naming the first; the three are enumerated overleaf.
Key Terms:
- צַדִּיקֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם = the righteous of the nations — sustaining their peoples as Israel’s righteous sustain the world
- שְׁלֹשִׁים מִצְוֹת שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ = thirty mitzvot the Noahides accepted — an expanded Noahide code beyond the seven
Amud Bet (92b)
Segment 1
TYPE: סיום המימרא
The three the nations keep: no marriage contract for males, no selling human flesh in markets, and honoring the Torah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין כְּתוּבָּה לִזְכָרִים, וְאַחַת שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹקְלִין בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת בְּמָקוֹלִין, וְאַחַת שֶׁמְּכַבְּדִין אֶת הַתּוֹרָה.
English Translation:
that they do not write a marriage contract for a wedding between two males; although they violate the prohibition against engaging in homosexuality, they are not so brazen as to write a marriage contract as for a regular marriage. And one of the three mitzvot is that although they are suspected of eating human beings, they do not weigh the flesh of the dead in butcher shops [bemakkulin] and sell it publicly; and one is that they honor the Torah.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla’s list completes. Of the thirty accepted Noahide mitzvot, the nations maintain three restraints: they do not write a marriage contract for a union of males — whatever their conduct, they do not formalize it with the dignity of a ketuba; they do not weigh the flesh of the dead for sale in the markets — even where cannibalism is suspected, it is not commercialized; and they honor the Torah and its scholars. The Gemara credits the nations with residual boundaries of shame and reverence that preserve their world.
Key Terms:
- כְּתוּבָּה = a marriage contract — the formal instrument whose absence here marks a boundary not breached
- מָקוֹלִין = butcher shops/markets — from the Latin macellum
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The mishna: no gid hanasheh in a bird — but a bird has a protrusion! It has one, but not rounded
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּעוֹף. וְהָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּאִית לֵיהּ? אִית לֵיהּ, וְלָא עֲגִיל.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches (89b) that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve does not apply to a bird due to the fact that the verse is referring to the sciatic nerve as being “upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33), and a bird has no spoon of the thigh. The Gemara challenges: But we see that it does have a protrusion of flesh on its thigh. The Gemara answers: It has a protrusion, but that protrusion is not rounded.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the perek’s mishna (89b): the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply to a bird, ‘because it has no kaf,’ no spoon-shaped socket of the thigh. The challenge: we see that a bird does have a fleshy protrusion on its thigh! The answer: it has one, but it is not rounded (agil) — the Torah’s ‘kaf hayarech’ (Bereishit 32:33) means the rounded, spoon-like mound of flesh over the thigh socket, and the bird’s flat protrusion does not qualify.
Key Terms:
- כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ = the ‘spoon’ of the thigh — the rounded mound of flesh over the hip socket named in the verse
- עֲגִיל = rounded — the shape that defines the kaf
Segment 3
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Yirmeya: a bird with a rounded kaf, or an animal without one — individual or species? Teiku
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אִית לֵיהּ לְעוֹף וַעֲגִיל, אִית לֵיהּ לִבְהֵמָה וְלָא עֲגִיל, מַאי? בָּתַר דִּידֵיהּ אָזְלִינַן, אוֹ בָּתַר מִינֵיהּ אָזְלִינַן? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If a bird has a protrusion on its thigh bone and it is rounded, or an animal has a protrusion on its thigh bone but it is not rounded, what is the halakha? Do we follow it, i.e., does the status of the sciatic nerve depend upon the physical properties of each particular animal, or do we follow its species, so that the sciatic nerve of an animal is always forbidden and that of a bird is always permitted? The Gemara responds: The question shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya poses the boundary case: a particular bird whose protrusion is rounded, or a particular animal whose protrusion is not — what is the halacha? Do we follow the individual (batar dideih), making the prohibition track anatomy, or the species (batar mineih), making it categorical — every animal forbidden, every bird permitted? The Gemara answers: teiku — the question stands unresolved, one of the Talmud’s standing open questions.
Key Terms:
- בָּתַר דִּידֵיהּ אוֹ בָּתַר מִינֵיהּ = after the individual or after its species — the axis of the dilemma
- תֵּיקוּ = ‘let it stand’ — the question remains unresolved
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא
The mishna: the prohibition applies to a fetus; Shmuel: ‘and its fat is permitted’ — according to all
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְנוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְחֶלְבּוֹ מוּתָּר לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to a late-term animal fetus in the womb. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus; and its fat is permitted. Shmuel says: When the mishna states: And its fat is permitted, that is according to everyone.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna taught that the gid prohibition applies to a shalil — a late-term fetus — with Rabbi Yehuda dissenting and adding ‘and its fat is permitted.’ Shmuel comments: the clause ‘its fat is permitted’ is agreed by all — l’divrei hakol. The Gemara now asks what fat Shmuel can mean, launching the amud’s central analysis.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלִיל = a late-term fetus found in its slaughtered mother
- לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל = according to all opinions — Shmuel’s claim of consensus
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
The fat of what? Not the fetus’s fat — the tannaim dispute exactly that
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֶלְבּוֹ דְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דִּשְׁלִיל – וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי בֵּיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל, וְחֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בַּשְּׁלִיל, וְחֶלְבּוֹ מוּתָּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: The fat of what? If we say that it is referring to the fat of a fetus, don’t the tanna’im disagree about it, as it is taught in a baraita: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to a late-term fetus, and its fat is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply to a late-term fetus, and its fat is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first candidate fails: if Shmuel means the fetus’s own fat, that is explicitly disputed. The baraita records: the gid prohibition applies to a fetus and its fat is forbidden — Rabbi Meir; it does not apply and its fat is permitted — Rabbi Yehuda. A clause disputed by name cannot be ‘according to all.’
Key Terms:
- חֶלְבּוֹ דְּמַאי = ‘the fat of what?’ — identifying the referent of Shmuel’s consensus claim
Segment 6
TYPE: ביאור
Rabbi Oshaya: the dispute concerns a live nine-month fetus — each tanna following his own principle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּבֶן תִּשְׁעָה חַי, וְהָלַךְ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְשִׁיטָתוֹ, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְשִׁיטָתוֹ.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says in explanation of the baraita: This dispute applies to a nine-month-old, i.e., a full-term, fetus that remains alive after its mother has been slaughtered. And Rabbi Meir followed his general opinion in this regard (see 74a), that this fetus is considered a live animal independent of its mother. Consequently, it must undergo ritual slaughter in order for its meat to be permitted for consumption, and its fats and sciatic nerve are forbidden like those of any other animal. And Rabbi Yehuda followed his general opinion that such a fetus is not considered a live animal but rather part of its mother. Consequently, it does not require ritual slaughter, and its fats and sciatic nerve are permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar quotes Rabbi Oshaya locating the baraita’s dispute: a full-term fetus found alive in its slaughtered mother. Rabbi Meir follows his principle (74a) that such a fetus is an independent animal — it requires its own slaughter, and its fats and gid are forbidden like any animal’s. Rabbi Yehuda follows his: the fetus is a limb of its mother — her slaughter covers it, and its fats and gid are permitted. The fetus dispute is thus systematic, not local — and Shmuel’s consensus claim cannot live there.
Key Terms:
- בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי = a live nine-month fetus — fully gestated, alive at its mother’s slaughter
- הָלַךְ לְשִׁיטָתוֹ = he follows his own position — each tanna consistent with his general principle
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Then the fat of the gid? That too is disputed — scraping versus cutting level
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֶלָּא חֶלְבּוֹ דְּגִיד? הָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי בָּהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מְחַטֵּט אַחֲרָיו בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא, וְחוֹתֵךְ שׇׁמְנוֹ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: גּוֹמְמוֹ עִם הַשּׁוֹפִי.
English Translation:
But rather, perhaps Shmuel’s statement was said with regard to the fat of the sciatic nerve. But the tanna’im disagree about this case as well, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the sciatic nerve, one scrapes around it to remove it entirely in any place that it is found in the thigh, and one cuts out its fat from its source, i.e., even the fat that is embedded in the flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: One cuts out the nerve and fat so that they are level with the flesh [hashufi] of the thigh, but there is no need to scrape out the parts embedded in the flesh. Consequently, there is a dispute about the fat surrounding the sciatic nerve as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second candidate seems to fail too: if Shmuel means the fat of the gid itself, the tannaim dispute that as well. The baraita: one scrapes after the gid wherever it is and cuts out its fat from the root — Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Yehuda says one trims it level with the surface (im hashufi), without digging out what is embedded. Rabbi Meir’s aggressive excision seems to treat the gid’s fat as forbidden — against Shmuel’s ‘according to all.’
Key Terms:
- מְחַטֵּט אַחֲרָיו = one scrapes after it — Rabbi Meir’s requirement to dig out every embedded trace
- גּוֹמְמוֹ עִם הַשּׁוֹפִי = he trims it level with the surface — Rabbi Yehuda’s shallower standard
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Really the gid’s fat — and for Rabbi Meir it is rabbinic: ‘Israel are holy and treated it as forbidden’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם חֶלְבּוֹ דְּגִיד, מוֹדֶה שְׁמוּאֵל דִּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִדְּרַבָּנַן אָסוּר, דְּתַנְיָא: וְשׇׁמְנוֹ מוּתָּר, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל קְדוֹשִׁים נָהֲגוּ בּוֹ אִיסּוּר. מַאי לָאו רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מוּתָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאָסוּר מִדְּרַבָּנַן?
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Actually, Shmuel was referring to the fat of the sciatic nerve, and Shmuel concedes that according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir the fat surrounding the sciatic nerve is forbidden by rabbinic law but permitted by Torah law. As it is taught in a baraita: Its fat is permitted by Torah law, but the Jewish people are holy and treated it as forbidden. The Gemara infers: What, is it not that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that the fat is permitted by Torah law but forbidden by rabbinic law?
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution: Shmuel indeed means the gid’s fat, and his ‘according to all’ speaks at the Torah level: even Rabbi Meir concedes it is permitted by Torah law, his required excision being rabbinic. The proof-text is the baraita: ‘its fat is permitted, but Israel are holy and treated it as forbidden’ — Torah permission overlaid by a self-imposed sanctity. Is this baraita not Rabbi Meir — permitted by Torah, forbidden by rabbinic practice?
Key Terms:
- יִשְׂרָאֵל קְדוֹשִׁים נָהֲגוּ בּוֹ אִיסּוּר = ‘Israel are holy and treated it as forbidden’ — a customary stringency atop a Torah permission
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Perhaps that baraita is Rabbi Yehuda — and for Rabbi Meir it is Torah-forbidden!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִמַּאי דִּילְמָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, אֲבָל לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נָמֵי אֲסִיר!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges this: From where can it be proven that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir it is even forbidden by Torah law.
קלאוד על הדף:
The identification is challenged: perhaps the ‘Israel are holy’ baraita is Rabbi Yehuda — who permits by Torah law and reports the pious custom — while Rabbi Meir holds the gid’s fat forbidden by Torah law itself. If so, Shmuel’s consensus collapses again: the Torah-level permission would not be universal.
Key Terms:
- מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא נָמֵי אֲסִיר = forbidden even by Torah law — the proposed stringent reading of Rabbi Meir
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ ומסקנא
It cannot be Rabbi Yehuda: the scraping baraita says ‘its fat is permitted’ — and scraping is Rabbi Meir’s
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מְחַטֵּט אַחֲרָיו בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא, וְשׇׁמְנוֹ מוּתָּר. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאִית לֵיהּ חֲטִיטָה? רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְקָאָמַר: שׇׁמְנוֹ מוּתָּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this challenge: It would not enter your mind that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the sciatic nerve, one scrapes around it to remove it entirely from any place that it is found in the thigh, and its fat is permitted. The Gemara explains: Whom have you heard who holds that scraping is required? It is Rabbi Meir. And the baraita states that its fat is permitted. Consequently, Rabbi Meir must hold that the fat surrounding the sciatic nerve is permitted by Torah law and forbidden by rabbinic law.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge falls to a textual pincer. Another baraita reads: ‘the gid hanasheh — one scrapes after it wherever it is, and its fat is permitted.’ Who requires scraping (chatita)? Rabbi Meir. And that very baraita declares the fat permitted. So Rabbi Meir himself holds the gid’s fat permitted by Torah law — his excision practice is the rabbinic stringency of ‘Israel are holy.’ Shmuel’s claim stands: the gid’s fat is Torah-permitted according to all.
Key Terms:
- חֲטִיטָה = scraping — the signature of Rabbi Meir’s position, which pins the baraita’s authorship
Segment 11
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Rav: the Torah forbade only the tendril-fibers; Ulla: it is wood, and the Torah imposed liability for it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא, אָמַר רַב: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא קְנוֹקָנוֹת שֶׁבּוֹ. עוּלָּא אָמַר: עֵץ הוּא, וְהַתּוֹרָה חִיְּיבָה עָלָיו.
English Translation:
§ With regard to the sciatic nerve Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says that Rav says: The Torah prohibited only its thin, tendril-like nerve fibers [kenokanot] that branch off and run alongside the sciatic nerve, under the flesh. By contrast, the sciatic nerve itself, which is inedible and has no flavor, is therefore considered like wood rather than food, and is not forbidden. Conversely, Ulla says: The sciatic nerve is inedible and has no flavor, like wood, but nevertheless the Torah rendered one liable for eating it.
קלאוד על הדף:
A fundamental dispute about the gid itself. Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta quotes Rav: the Torah forbade only the kenokanot — the thin, tendril-like fibers branching off the nerve — for the main nerve is tasteless and inedible, mere wood, and the Torah does not forbid wood. Ulla says the reverse: it is wood — and the Torah nevertheless imposed liability for eating it. The gid prohibition, on Ulla’s view, is a decree upon a non-food: the Torah forbade the thing, not the taste.
Key Terms:
- קְנוֹקָנוֹת = tendril-like fibers — the thin offshoots running alongside the sciatic nerve
- עֵץ הוּא וְהַתּוֹרָה חִיְּיבָה עָלָיו = ‘it is wood, and the Torah imposed liability for it’ — Ulla’s paradox: a prohibition on the inedible
Segment 12
TYPE: הכרעה
Abaye: Ulla’s view stands to reason — as with the strands in forbidden fat, the Torah named the thing itself
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: חוּטִין שֶׁבַּחֵלֶב אֲסוּרִין, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן, אַלְמָא ״חֵלֶב״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְלֹא חוּטִין, הָכָא נָמֵי ״גִּיד״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְלֹא קְנוֹקָנוֹת.
English Translation:
Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, because Rav Sheshet said that Rav Asi said: The strands of veins that are in the forbidden fat are forbidden, but one is not liable for eating them. Apparently, when the Merciful One states in the Torah that it is prohibited to eat fat, the prohibition applies only to the fat itself but not to the strands of veins. Here also, the Merciful One states in the Torah that it is prohibited to eat the sciatic nerve, but that does not include the tendril-like nerve fibers.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye sides with Ulla by analogy. Rav Sheshet quoted Rav Asi: the strands of veins within forbidden chelev are forbidden, but carry no liability — the Merciful One said ‘chelev,’ not strands. The same grammar governs here: the Merciful One said ‘gid’ — and not kenokanot. The Torah’s prohibition attaches to the named entity itself: the nerve proper carries liability (like Ulla), while its fibers are forbidden without liability.
Key Terms:
- חוּטִין שֶׁבַּחֵלֶב = the strands in the forbidden fat — forbidden, but without liability
- גִּיד אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְלֹא קְנוֹקָנוֹת = the Torah said ‘gid’ — and not the fibers: liability follows the named entity
Segment 13
TYPE: גופא
Rav Asi’s rules in full: the strands in the fat and the kidney; the white of the kidney — Rebbi and Rabbi Chiyya divide
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא: אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: חוּטִין שֶׁבַּחֵלֶב אֲסוּרִין, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁבַּכּוּלְיָא אֲסוּרִין, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן. לוֹבֶן כּוּלְיָא – רַבִּי וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא: חַד אָסַר, וְחַד שָׁרֵי.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara now returns to the matter itself cited in the discussion above: Rav Sheshet said that Rav Asi said: The strands of veins that are in the forbidden fat are forbidden, but one is not liable for eating them. The strands of veins that are in the kidney are forbidden, but one is not liable for eating them. With regard to the white fat of the kidney, there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya: One of them prohibits its consumption, because it is similar to the fats that are prohibited by the Torah; and one of them permits eating it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites Rav Asi’s teaching in full, as the sugya’s foundation: the strands of veins within the forbidden chelev are forbidden, but carry no liability; the strands within the kidney are likewise forbidden without liability. And regarding the loven kulya — the white fat at the kidney’s core — Rebbi and Rabbi Chiyya divide: one forbids it, for it resembles the Torah-forbidden fats, and one permits it. The dispute over this borderline fat now moves from ruling to practice.
Key Terms:
- לוֹבֶן כּוּלְיָא = the white of the kidney — the fat at the kidney’s core, disputed between Rebbi and Rabbi Chiyya
- אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן = forbidden, but without liability — the intermediate status of the strands
Segment 14
TYPE: מנהגי אמוראים (נמשך)
Rabba and Rabbi Yochanan scrape it out; Rabbi Asi cuts it level — and Abaye begins to rule like Rabbi Asi
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּה מְמַרְטֵט לֵיהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְמַרְטֵט לֵיהּ, רַבִּי אַסִּי גָּאֵים לֵיהּ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל:
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rabba would scrape every remnant of white fat away from the kidney. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan would scrape it away from the kidney. By contrast, Rabbi Asi would cut it from the surface of the kidney but would not scrape out the rest of it. Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Asi, because Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:
קלאוד על הדף:
Practice divided along the same line. Rabba would scrape every remnant of the white fat out of the kidney (memartet), and Rabbi Yochanan did likewise — the stringent excision. Rabbi Asi would cut it level with the kidney’s surface (ga’im leih) without digging out the rest. Abaye begins to rule: Rabbi Asi’s practice stands to reason, for Rabbi Abba quoted Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel — and the amud ends mid-citation, with Shmuel’s supporting teaching completed on 93a.
Key Terms:
- מְמַרְטֵט = he would scrape it out — the stringent practice of Rabba and Rabbi Yochanan
- גָּאֵים לֵיהּ = he would cut it level — Rabbi Asi’s shallower practice, favored by Abaye