Chullin Daf 94 (חולין דף צ״ד)
Daf: 94 | Amudim: 94a – 94b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (94a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא (המשך)
The whole-vs-cut inference fails in both settings: without announcements even cut should be permitted; with them, even whole should be forbidden
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲתוּכָה נָמֵי לִישַׁדַּר לֵיהּ, דְּהָא לָא אָתוּ לְמִזְבַּן מִינֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין, שְׁלֵימָה נָמֵי לָא לִישַׁדַּר לֵיהּ, דְּחָתֵיךְ לֵיהּ וּמְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Consequently, it should also be permitted to send to a gentile a thigh that has been cut, because Jews will not come to purchase it from him. Rather, if the mishna is referring to a place where all the butchers are Jewish, and they announce every time they sell a tereifa to a gentile, in which case Jews may purchase meat from the local gentiles when such an announcement is not made, one should not be permitted to send even a whole thigh to a gentile, due to the concern that he might cut it up and sell it to Jews who would not realize that it still contains the sciatic nerve.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens completing 93b’s analysis of the mishna — a whole thigh may be sent to a gentile because its gid’s place is conspicuous. The inference ‘whole yes, cut no’ collapses in either setting: where tereifa sales are not announced, Jews never buy meat from gentiles, so even a cut thigh should be sendable; and where they are announced, Jews do buy from gentiles absent an announcement — so even a whole thigh should be forbidden, for the gentile may cut it up and sell it to unsuspecting Jews.
Key Terms:
- מַכְרִיזִין = they announce — public notice whenever tereifa meat was sold to gentiles, which regulates when Jews may buy from local gentiles
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ (פתיחה)
Two paths of resolution: the mishna can stand in either regime
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא – בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין, וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא – בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְרִיזִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara offers two answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a place where they announce every time they sell a tereifa; and if you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a place where they do not announce every time they sell a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers a double resolution: if you wish, say the mishna speaks of a place with announcements; if you wish, of a place without them. Each setting will require its own account of why a whole thigh is permitted and a cut one forbidden — and each account will introduce a principle of independent importance.
Key Terms:
- אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא = ‘if you wish, say’ — the formula introducing alternative resolutions
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ א
With announcements: a gentile’s cutting is recognizable, so a whole thigh cannot deceive
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין – חִיתּוּכָא דְּגוֹי מִידָּע יְדִיעַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a place where they announce every time they sell a tereifa, and nevertheless it is permitted to send a whole thigh of meat to a gentile. There is no concern that the gentile will sell the thigh to a Jew, because the Jew would know that it is non-kosher by the manner of cutting of the gentile. Jewish butchers would cut the meat in a distinctive manner that would not be replicated by a gentile who cut the meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
In an announcement town, a whole thigh may still be sent: even if the gentile cuts and resells it, a Jew would recognize the gentile’s cutting — chitucha d’goy mida yedia. Jewish butchers cut in a distinctive manner; meat portioned by a gentile hand announces its own provenance, and no Jew would take it for kosher-processed meat. The market’s craft-signatures do the guarding.
Key Terms:
- חִיתּוּכָא דְּגוֹי מִידָּע יְדִיעַ = a gentile’s cutting is recognizable — the distinctive butchering style protects Jewish buyers
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ ב
Without announcements: the cut thigh is barred by decree — lest he hand it over before another Jew
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְרִיזִין – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִתְּנֶנָּה לוֹ בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a place where they do not announce every time they sell a tereifa, and nevertheless it is prohibited to give the gentile a thigh that has been cut up. The Sages issued a decree against doing so, lest he give it to the gentile in the presence of another Jew, who will think that it is kosher and purchase it from the gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
In a no-announcement town, where Jews do not buy from gentiles at all, the cut thigh should be harmless — yet it is forbidden by rabbinic decree: lest he give it to the gentile in the presence of another Jew, who, seeing a Jew hand over portioned meat, will assume it kosher and later buy it from the gentile. The decree polices appearances: even a transaction harmless in itself may not sow a misleading impression.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִתְּנֶנָּה לוֹ בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל = a decree lest he give it over in a Jew’s presence — guarding against the misleading appearance
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ ג
Or: the cut thigh deceives the gentile himself — Shmuel: it is forbidden to steal anyone’s mind, even a gentile’s
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא גָנֵיב לֵיהּ לְדַעְתֵּיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָסוּר לִגְנוֹב דַּעַת הַבְרִיּוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say that there is an entirely different reason why one may not send a gentile a cut-up thigh without removing the sciatic nerve: Because he thereby deceives the gentile. The gentile will think that the Jew has exerted himself to cut up the leg and remove the sciatic nerve and that although the Jew could have eaten the meat himself he decided to send it to the gentile. The gentile will therefore be more appreciative of the gift than he would be if he realized that the sciatic nerve had not been removed. This is as Shmuel said: It is prohibited to deceive people, and even to deceive a gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third resolution changes the axis entirely: the problem with the cut thigh is the gentile recipient himself. Receiving portioned meat, he assumes the Jew performed the laborious gid-removal for his sake and is more grateful than the gift deserves — his goodwill has been obtained under false pretenses. As Shmuel ruled: it is forbidden to steal people’s minds (geneivat da’at) — and even the mind of a gentile. Honesty in creating impressions is owed to every human being; the daf now devotes itself to this principle.
Key Terms:
- גְּנֵיבַת דַּעַת = stealing the mind — creating a false impression to obtain undeserved goodwill
- וַאֲפִילּוּ דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי = and even the mind of a gentile — the prohibition of deception knows no boundary of peoplehood
Segment 6
TYPE: מקור (מעשה)
Shmuel’s rule was never stated outright — it was inferred from the ferry incident
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר. דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הֲוָה קָא עָבַר בְּמַבָּרָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: ״פַּיְּיסֵיהּ לְמַבּוֹרֹיָה״, פַּיְּיסֵיהּ, וְאִיקְּפַד.
English Translation:
And the Gemara points out that this ruling of Shmuel was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference, i.e., it was inferred based upon the following incident: Shmuel was once crossing a river in a ferry [mavra]. He said to his attendant: Compensate the ferryman with an appropriate gift. The attendant compensated him, but Shmuel became angry with his attendant.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes the ruling’s pedigree: Shmuel never said it explicitly; it was inferred (mikelala itmar) from an incident. Crossing a river on a ferry, Shmuel told his attendant to compensate the gentile ferryman. The attendant did — and Shmuel became angry. The anger is the whole evidence; its cause must now be established.
Key Terms:
- מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר = stated by inference — a ruling reconstructed from conduct rather than pronounced
- מַבָּרָא = the ferry — the river crossing where the incident occurred
Segment 7
TYPE: ביאור המעשה
Why the anger? Abaye: a tereifa hen passed off as slaughtered; Rava: diluted wine in an undiluted-wine cup
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא אִיקְּפַד? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת טְרֵפָה הֲוַאי, וְיַהֲבַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ בְּמָר דִּשְׁחוּטָה. רָבָא אָמַר: אַנְפָּקָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ (לאשקויי) [לְאַשְׁקוֹיֵיהּ], וְאַשְׁקְיֵיהּ חַמְרָא מְזִיגָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Shmuel became angry? Abaye said: The compensation that the attendant gave the ferryman was a chicken that was a tereifa, and he gave it to him as though it were a slaughtered, kosher chicken. Rava said: Shmuel told him to give the ferryman wine for drinking in an anpaka, i.e., a utensil that holds a quarter-log and which was generally used for undiluted wine, but he gave him diluted wine for drinking. According to both Abaye and Rava, Shmuel was upset that his attendant deceived the gentile ferryman.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two accounts of what the attendant did. Abaye: he paid the ferryman with a tereifa hen, presenting it as a kosher-slaughtered one — worth more in the recipient’s eyes than it was. Rava: Shmuel said to give him wine in an anpaka — a quarter-log vessel used for undiluted wine — and the attendant served diluted wine in it. On either account, the gentile ferryman was given less than he was led to believe — and Shmuel’s anger taught that such deception is forbidden.
Key Terms:
- אַנְפָּקָא = a quarter-log vessel associated with undiluted wine — serving diluted wine in it misleads
- בְּמָר דִּשְׁחוּטָה = as though it were slaughtered — the tereifa hen passed off as kosher
Segment 8
TYPE: דחייה (א)
But inference is uncertain: perhaps he was angry that forbidden meat was kept around
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי מִכְּלָלָא מַאי? לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה הֲוַאי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי תְּשַׁהֵא אִיסּוּרָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And if Shmuel’s opinion was derived by inference, what of it? The story clearly demonstrates that according to Shmuel it is prohibited to deceive a gentile. The Gemara answers that it cannot be ascertained with certainty that this is the reason Shmuel became angry. According to the one who said it was a chicken that was a tereifa that was given as compensation, perhaps Shmuel became angry and said to his attendant: Why did you retain in your possession an animal that is forbidden for consumption? This could have led to a Jew accidentally eating it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes why the ruling is only ‘by inference’ — the story admits other readings. On Abaye’s account, perhaps Shmuel’s anger was not about deceiving the ferryman at all, but about the attendant keeping a tereifa in his possession: ‘why do you retain forbidden matter?’ — a hazard that could end with a Jew eating it. The anger would then teach caution with issur, not honesty toward gentiles.
Key Terms:
- אַמַּאי תְּשַׁהֵא אִיסּוּרָא = ‘why do you retain forbidden matter?’ — the alternative reading of Shmuel’s anger
Segment 9
TYPE: דחייה (ב)
Or: anpaka means undiluted — the attendant simply disobeyed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַנְפָּקָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְאַשְׁקוֹיֵי, אַנְפָּקָא חַיָּיא מַשְׁמַע.
English Translation:
Similarly, according to the one who said that Shmuel told him to give the ferryman wine to drink in an anpaka, since anpaka indicates undiluted wine and the attendant gave the ferryman diluted wine, perhaps Shmuel became angry simply because his attendant disobeyed his instruction.
קלאוד על הדף:
On Rava’s account too the inference wavers: anpaka connotes chai, undiluted wine. Shmuel’s instruction was itself an order for undiluted wine, and the attendant served diluted — so perhaps Shmuel was angry simply because his instruction was disobeyed. The rule against deceiving even a gentile stands, but the Gemara has shown why its source is labeled an inference rather than an explicit ruling.
Key Terms:
- אַנְפָּקָא חַיָּיא מַשְׁמַע = anpaka connotes undiluted — the instruction itself specified the wine, making disobedience the offense
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Meir: do not press an invitation you know will be refused, nor shower gifts you know will be declined
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַל יְסַרְהֵב אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ לִסְעוֹד אֶצְלוֹ, וְיוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ סוֹעֵד, וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה לוֹ בְּתִקְרוֹבֶת, וְיוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל.
English Translation:
§ Apropos the prohibition against acting deceitfully, the Gemara cites other statements on this topic. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: A person may not importune [yesarhev] another to eat with him, making it seem as though he genuinely wants his company, but in reality he entreats him only because he knows that the other will not eat with him, i.e., will not accept the invitation. And similarly, one may not send another person many gifts merely because he knows that the other will not accept them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf broadens into a code of social honesty. Rabbi Meir taught: one may not importune another to dine with him when he knows the other will not accept — manufacturing the appearance of generosity at no cost; nor multiply offers of gifts he knows will be declined. Courtesies staged to harvest gratitude without ever intending to give are geneivat da’at in social dress.
Key Terms:
- אַל יְסַרְהֵב = one may not importune — pressing hospitality one knows will be refused
- תִּקְרוֹבֶת = gift-offerings — multiplied only because their refusal is assured
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Nor open barrels already sold to the shopkeeper without disclosure — but for the guest’s honor, it is permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֹא יִפְתַּח לוֹ חָבִיּוֹת הַמְּכוּרוֹת לְחֶנְוָנִי, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹדִיעוֹ. וְלֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ סוֹךְ שֶׁמֶן מִפַּךְ רֵיקָן. וְאִם בִּשְׁבִיל כְּבוֹדוֹ – מוּתָּר.
English Translation:
And one may not open barrels of wine for a guest if they have already been sold to a storekeeper, unless he notifies the guest beforehand that the barrel had been sold. And he may not say to another: Anoint yourself with oil, and place an empty jug before him with the knowledge that he will not attempt to anoint himself. But if he does so for the guest’s honor, to show that he holds his guest in high esteem, rather than to deceive the guest so that he will feel indebted to him, it is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues: one may not open wine barrels for a guest that are already sold to a shopkeeper — the opening costs the host nothing, though the guest reads it as barrels breached in his honor — unless he informs him. Nor say ‘anoint yourself with oil’ from a jug he knows is empty. But if done for the guest’s honor — to raise his standing before others rather than to harvest false gratitude — it is permitted: the line runs between honoring and defrauding.
Key Terms:
- חָבִיּוֹת הַמְּכוּרוֹת לְחֶנְוָנִי = barrels already sold to the shopkeeper — opened at no real cost while seeming a grand gesture
- אִם בִּשְׁבִיל כְּבוֹדוֹ מוּתָּר = if for his honor, it is permitted — genuine esteem-display is not deception
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But Rav Yehuda opened sold barrels for Ulla! He informed him — or Ulla was so dear the gesture was genuine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִינִי? וְהָא עוּלָּא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַב יְהוּדָה, פָּתַח לוֹ חָבִיּוֹת הַמְּכוּרוֹת לַחֶנְוָנִי! אוֹדוֹעֵי אוֹדְעֵיהּ, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שָׁאנֵי עוּלָּא דְּחַבִּיב לֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה, דִּבְלָאו הָכִי נָמֵי (פַּתּוֹחֵי) מִפְתָּח [הֲוָה פָּתַח] לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Ulla happen to come to the house of Rav Yehuda, and Rav Yehuda opened barrels of wine for Ulla that had already been sold to a storekeeper? The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda notified Ulla that he was not opening the barrels especially for him. And if you wish, say that Ulla is different from an ordinary guest because he was very dear to Rav Yehuda, so that even without this, i.e., even if he had not already sold the barrels to a storekeeper, Rav Yehuda would have opened the barrels for him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The rule is tested against practice: Ulla visited Rav Yehuda, who opened barrels already sold to a shopkeeper. Two answers: Rav Yehuda informed him — disclosure cures the false impression; or Ulla is different, being so dear to Rav Yehuda that he would have opened fresh barrels regardless — where the generosity is real, the gesture misleads no one. The exception proves the rule’s logic: what is forbidden is the counterfeit of generosity, not generosity itself.
Key Terms:
- שָׁאנֵי עוּלָּא דְּחַבִּיב לֵיהּ = Ulla is different, for he was dear to him — real affection removes the deception
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
Do not bring a rattling half-empty jug to a mourner’s house, nor top it up with water — unless before a crowd, for his honor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יֵלֵךְ אָדָם לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל, וּבְיָדוֹ לָגִין הַמִּתְקַשְׁקֵשׁ. וְלֹא יְמַלְּאֶנּוּ מַיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּתְעֵהוּ. וְאִם יֵשׁ שָׁם חֶבֶר עִיר – מוּתָּר.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not go to a house of mourning with a wine jug [lagin] in his hand that is mostly empty and where the small amount of wine rattles about, because the mourner will think that his visitor is bringing him a full jug of wine. And he may not fill up that jug of wine with water, because he thereby misleads the mourner into thinking he has brought him a full jug of undiluted wine. But if there is a crowd of people [ḥever ir] and the guest wants to honor the mourner in their presence, it is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages taught: one may not enter a house of mourning with a lagin that rattles — a mostly empty jug whose sloshing suggests fullness — nor fill it with water to feign a full offering of wine: the mourner is deceived in his hour of grief. But if a crowd is present (chever ir) and the visitor’s purpose is to honor the mourner publicly, it is permitted. The same boundary again: display in another’s honor is not theft of his mind.
Key Terms:
- לָגִין הַמִּתְקַשְׁקֵשׁ = a rattling jug — mostly empty, sounding like a generous gift
- חֶבֶר עִיר = the town assembly — a public gathering, before which honoring display is legitimate
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא
Do not sell a carcass-hide sandal as slaughtered-hide — deception, and danger
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ סַנְדָּל שֶׁל מֵתָה בִּכְלַל שֶׁל חַיָּה שְׁחוּטָה, מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים: אֶחָד – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּתְעֵהוּ, וְאֶחָד – מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה.
English Translation:
The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not sell to another a sandal made from the hide of an animal that died of natural causes as though it were a sandal made from the hide of a healthy animal that was slaughtered. This is prohibited due to two factors: One, because he misleads the customer into thinking that the leather is of higher quality than it really is; and another, because of the danger involved, as it is possible that the animal died from a snakebite and the poison seeped into the part of the animal’s hide from which the sandal is made.
קלאוד על הדף:
The code turns to commerce: one may not sell a sandal of hide from an animal that died on its own as though from a slaughtered animal — for two reasons: he misleads the buyer (the hide of a slaughtered animal is sounder), and there is danger — the animal may have died of snakebite, its venom lodged in the hide. Consumer honesty and consumer safety in one clause: the seller’s silence can defraud and can kill.
Key Terms:
- סַנְדָּל שֶׁל מֵתָה = a sandal from a self-died animal’s hide — inferior, and possibly venom-tainted
- מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה = because of the danger — the possibility of snakebite venom in the hide
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא ומעשה
Do not send wine with oil floating at its mouth — the tragedy of the shamed host
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֹא יְשַׁגֵּר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן צָף עַל פִּיהָ. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשִּׁיגֵּר לַחֲבֵירוֹ חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן צָף עַל פִּיהָ, וְהָלַךְ וְזִימֵּן עָלֶיהָ אוֹרְחִין, וְנִכְנְסוּ, מְצָאָהּ שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל יַיִן, וְחָנַק אֶת עַצְמוֹ.
English Translation:
And furthermore a person may not send a barrel of wine to another with oil floating at its mouth, such that the recipient thinks that it is a barrel of oil. There was an incident involving a certain individual who sent a barrel of wine to another with oil floating at its mouth, and that recipient, thinking it was a barrel of oil, went and invited guests to share it with him, and the guests arrived. When the host went to bring them oil, he found that it was a barrel of wine rather than oil, and in his shame at not having oil for them, he hanged himself and died.
קלאוד על הדף:
One may not send a barrel of wine with oil floating at its mouth, disguising it as a barrel of oil. The baraita’s cautionary tale is devastating: a man received such a barrel, believed it oil, and invited guests in its honor; discovering it was wine and having nothing to serve them, in his shame he took his own life. The Gemara records the extremity to brand the lesson: a false impression, once planted, is beyond the sender’s control — and shame, in a world where hospitality was honor itself, could be lethal.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁמֶן צָף עַל פִּיהָ = oil floating at its mouth — a veneer that misrepresents the barrel’s contents
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Guests may not hand their portions to the host’s children without his permission
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין הָאוֹרְחִין רַשָּׁאִין לִיתֵּן מִמַּה שֶּׁלִּפְנֵיהֶם לִבְנוֹ וּלְבִתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָטְלוּ רְשׁוּת מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: And guests are not permitted to give some of the food that is placed before them to the son or to the daughter of the host unless they first receive permission from the host.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita adds a rule of table conduct: guests may not give of what is set before them to the host’s son or daughter without the host’s permission. The portions are the host’s provision; redirecting them — however kindly meant — presumes on resources the guest cannot see. The rationale arrives with the next segment’s tragedy.
Key Terms:
- אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נָטְלוּ רְשׁוּת = unless they took permission — the host alone knows what his household can spare
Segment 17
TYPE: מעשה
The three eggs in the famine years — and the destruction of a household
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁזִּמֵּן שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹרְחִין בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת, וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ לְהַנִּיחַ לִפְנֵיהֶם אֶלָּא כְּשָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים. בָּא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, נָטַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן חֶלְקוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לוֹ, וְכֵן שֵׁנִי, וְכֵן שְׁלִישִׁי. בָּא אָבִיו שֶׁל תִּינוֹק, מְצָאוֹ שֶׁעוֹזֵק אֶחָד בְּפִיו וּשְׁתַּיִם בְּיָדוֹ, חֲבָטוֹ בַּקַּרְקַע וָמֵת. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאֲתָה אִמּוֹ, עָלְתָה לַגָּג וְנָפְלָה וָמֵתָה, אַף הוּא עָלָה לַגָּג וְנָפַל וָמֵת.
English Translation:
And there was an incident involving a certain individual who invited three guests during years of famine, and he had enough to place only three eggs before them. The son of the host came, and one of the guests took his portion and gave it to the son. And similarly the second guest gave his portion to the son, and similarly the third guest. The father of the child came and found that his son was holding one egg in his mouth and two in his hand. The father became so angry with his son for taking all the food that he hit the son to the ground, and the son died. When his mother saw what had happened, she ascended to the roof and fell down to the ground and died. And when the father saw that both his son and his wife were dead he also ascended to the roof and fell down to the ground and died.
קלאוד על הדף:
The incident behind the rule: in famine years a man hosted three guests with only three eggs to set before them. The host’s child came in; each guest in turn handed the child his portion. The father entered, saw the child with one egg in his mouth and two in his hands — and in his fury struck him to the ground, and the child died. The mother, seeing it, fell from the roof to her death; the father followed. Three well-meaning courtesies, performed without the host’s knowledge of his own desperation, ended a family. The baraita’s etiquette rules are revealed as guardrails over abysses.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת = in years of famine — the setting that turned courtesy into catastrophe
Segment 18
TYPE: סיום
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: over this matter three souls of Israel were killed — marking the whole baraita as his
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: עַל דָּבָר זֶה נֶהֶרְגוּ שָׁלֹשׁ נְפָשׁוֹת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? דְּכוּלַּהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: For this matter of giving food to the child of the host, three Jewish souls were killed. The Gemara asks: What does this statement teach us? It is obvious from the incident that three people were killed. The Gemara answers: It teaches that the entire baraita is taught by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov seals the story: over this matter three Jewish souls were killed. The Gemara asks what the seemingly obvious remark adds, and answers: it teaches that the entire baraita is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s — the attribution matters, for his rulings are famously ‘few but refined’ (kav v’naki) and carry the halacha. The etiquette of the guest’s portion bears tannaitic authority of the first rank.
Key Terms:
- דְּכוּלַּהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא = the whole baraita is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s — an attribution that fixes its authority
Segment 19
TYPE: ברייתא
Sending a thigh to a Jew: whole needs no gid-removal, cut does; to a gentile — neither
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ יָרֵךְ לַחֲבֵירוֹ, שְׁלֵימָה – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּטּוֹל הֵימֶנָּה גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה. חֲתוּכָה – צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל הֵימֶנָּה גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה. וּבְגוֹי, בֵּין חֲתוּכָה וּבֵין שְׁלֵימָה – אֵין צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל הֵימֶנָּה גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who sends a whole thigh of an animal to another, he is not required to first remove the sciatic nerve from it. This is because the recipient can see that it has not yet been removed and will not eat it until he removes the sciatic nerve himself. But if one sends a thigh that has been cut up, he is required to first remove the sciatic nerve from it so that the recipient does not eat it unwittingly. And in the case of one who sends a thigh to a gentile, regardless of whether it is cut or whole he is not required to remove the sciatic nerve from it.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita returns to the daf’s opening frame: one who sends a thigh to a fellow Jew — if whole, he need not remove the gid first, for the recipient sees it is unprocessed; if cut, he must remove the gid, lest the recipient eat it unwittingly. And to a gentile — whether cut or whole, no removal is needed. The gentile clause will trigger the amud bet analysis: in which announcement-regime can it be true?
Key Terms:
- שְׁלֵימָה / חֲתוּכָה = whole / cut — the visible state that determines whether the gid must first be removed
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Two reasons not to sell neveilot and tereifot to a gentile: deception, and resale to a Jew
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים אָמְרוּ אֵין מוֹכְרִין נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת לְגוֹי: אֶחָד – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּתְעֵהוּ, וְאֶחָד – שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר וְיִמְכְּרֶנָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר.
English Translation:
And it was due to two factors that the Sages said that one may not sell meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot to a gentile: One, because it misleads him, as he thinks that it is kosher meat, which is more desirable; and another factor is the concern lest the gentile then sell the meat to another Jew, who will think it is kosher since it originally was sold by a Jew.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s middle clause: the Sages said one may not sell carcass-meat or tereifot to a gentile for two reasons — one, because he misleads him: the gentile presumes a Jew sells kosher meat, and values it accordingly; and two, lest the gentile resell it to another Jew, who will trust its Jewish provenance. Geneivat da’at and the protection of Jewish buyers converge in a single market rule.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר וְיִמְכְּרֶנָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל = lest he turn and sell it to a Jew — non-kosher meat re-entering the kosher market on false trust
Segment 21
TYPE: ברייתא (סיום, נמשך)
Do not send a gentile to buy meat for you with your dinar — for two reasons, named overleaf
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לְגוֹי ״קַח לִי בְּדִינָר זֶה בָּשָׂר״, מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים:
English Translation:
And similarly, a person may not say to a gentile: Purchase meat for me from a Jewish butcher with this dinar, due to two factors:
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s final clause begins: a person may not say to a gentile, ‘buy me meat with this dinar’ — for two reasons; the amud ends before naming them. The two concerns — extortion and unwitting tereifa — open amud bet, and the three clauses’ apparently inconsistent settings will occupy Abaye, Rava, and Rav Ashi.
Key Terms:
- קַח לִי בְּדִינָר זֶה בָּשָׂר = ‘buy me meat with this dinar’ — commissioning a gentile as one’s purchasing agent
Amud Bet (94b)
Segment 1
TYPE: השלמת הברייתא
The two reasons: the oppressors, and the unwitting sale of neveilot and tereifot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶחָד מִפְּנֵי הָאַנָּסִין, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמָּא מוֹכְרִין לוֹ נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת.
English Translation:
One factor is because of the oppressors, i.e., the concern that perhaps the gentile will keep the money for himself and force the merchant to give him the meat without payment. And another factor is lest the merchant sell him meat from unslaughtered carcasses or tereifot without realizing that the gentile is purchasing the meat on behalf of a Jew.
קלאוד על הדף:
The clause completes: one reason is the annasin — the oppressors: the gentile may pocket the coin and extort the meat from the butcher by force, the Jew’s dinar funding the abuse; and one reason is lest they sell him neveilot and tereifot — the butcher, not knowing the meat is destined for a Jew, may hand the gentile non-kosher meat, and the Jewish sender will eat it. A Jew’s food must not travel through channels that strip away its safeguards.
Key Terms:
- אַנָּסִין = oppressors — those who take by force; the commissioned gentile may extort rather than pay
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
The gentile clause examined: with announcements, why does a cut thigh need no gid-removal?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: וּבְגוֹי, בֵּין שְׁלֵימָה בֵּין חֲתוּכָה – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל הֵימֶנָּה גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין – חֲתוּכָה אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל הֵימֶנָּה גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה? כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אַכְרוּז, אָתֵי לְמִיזְבַּן מִינֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
The Master said in the baraita: And in the case of one who sends a thigh to a gentile, regardless of whether it is cut or whole he is not required to remove the sciatic nerve from it. The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that it is referring to a place where all the butchers are Jewish and they announce every time they sell non-kosher meat to a gentile, then in the case of a thigh that has been cut, why is one not required to remove the sciatic nerve? Since it was not announced that they sold non-kosher meat, a Jew might come to purchase it from a gentile without realizing that it still contains the sciatic nerve.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins testing the baraita’s three clauses against the two regimes. The gentile clause — cut or whole, no removal needed — cannot stand in an announcement town: there, absent an announcement, Jews buy from gentiles; a cut thigh with its gid intact could pass to a Jewish buyer with nothing to warn him. In an announcement regime the clause should have required removal for the cut thigh.
Key Terms:
- כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אַכְרוּז אָתֵי לְמִיזְבַּן מִינֵּיהּ = since there was no announcement, one will come to buy from him — the danger of the cut thigh in an announcement town
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא (המשך)
So the first clause fits a no-announcement town — but the middle clause then fails
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְרִיזִין, אֵימָא מְצִיעֲתָא: מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים אָמְרוּ אֵין מוֹכְרִין נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת לְגוֹי: אֶחָד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּטְעֵהוּ, וְאֶחָד שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר וְיִמְכְּרֶנָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר.
English Translation:
Rather, it is obvious that it is referring to a place where they do not announce every time they sell non-kosher meat, and in such a place a Jew would not purchase meat from a gentile. But say the middle clause of the baraita: And it was due to two factors that the Sages said that one may not sell meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot to a gentile: One is because it misleads him; and another is the concern lest the gentile then sell the meat to another Jew, who will think it is kosher since it originally was sold by a Jew.
קלאוד על הדף:
Conclusion so far: the gentile clause presumes a no-announcement town, where Jews never buy from gentiles and the cut thigh endangers no one. But the middle clause — do not sell neveilot to a gentile, partly lest he resell to a Jew — presumes the opposite: only in an announcement town would a Jew buy from a gentile at all. The baraita seems to switch settings midstream.
Key Terms:
- אֵימָא מְצִיעֲתָא = ‘say the middle clause’ — turning the analysis to the baraita’s second rule
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא (המשך)
The middle clause requires an announcement town
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְרִיזִין – הָא לָא אָתֵי לְמִיזְבַּן מִינֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין.
English Translation:
But if the baraita is referring to a place where they do not announce every time they sell non-kosher meat to a gentile, a Jew will not come to purchase the meat from the gentile. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a place where they announce every time they sell non-kosher meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The step is made explicit: in a no-announcement town the resale concern is empty — the Jew will not come to buy from the gentile. So the middle clause must speak of an announcement town, where a gentile’s meat is presumed kosher unless announced otherwise, and non-kosher meat placed in gentile hands can flow back to Jewish tables.
Key Terms:
- הָא לָא אָתֵי לְמִיזְבַּן מִינֵּיהּ = he will not come to buy from him — without announcements, the resale channel is closed
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא (סיום)
And the final clause fails in an announcement town: a tereifa would have been announced
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לְגוֹי ״קַח לִי בְּדִינָר זֶה בָּשָׂר״ מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים, אֶחָד – מִפְּנֵי הָאַנָּסִין, וְאֶחָד – שֶׁמָּא מוֹכְרִין לוֹ נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, וְאִי בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין, אִי אִיתָא דַּהֲוָה טְרֵפָה – אַכְרוֹזֵי הֲווֹ מַכְרְזִי!
English Translation:
But say the latter clause: And similarly, a person may not say to a gentile: Purchase meat for me with this dinar, due to two factors. One factor is because of the oppressors, and another factor is lest the merchant sell him meat from unslaughtered carcasses or tereifot without realizing that the gentile is purchasing the meat on behalf of a Jew. But if it is referring to a place where they announce every time non-kosher meat is sold, if it would happen that it was a tereifa the butchers would have announced the fact, and the Jew would know not to eat that meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final clause — do not commission a gentile to buy meat, partly lest they sell him tereifa — is now tested: in an announcement town that concern evaporates, for had the meat been tereifa, they would have announced it, and the Jewish sender would know. The final clause therefore presumes a no-announcement town.
Key Terms:
- אַכְרוֹזֵי הֲווֹ מַכְרְזִי = they would have announced it — in an announcement town, tereifa cannot travel unmarked
Segment 6
TYPE: סיכום הקושיא
First and last clauses — no announcements; middle clause — announcements. Can one baraita straddle two settings?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְרִיזִין, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְרִיזִין, מְצִיעֲתָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין!
English Translation:
Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a place where they do not announce every time non-kosher meat is sold. But is it possible that the first clause and the latter clause of the baraita are referring to a place where they do not announce every time non-kosher meat is sold but the middle clause is referring to a place where they do announce every time non-kosher meat is sold?
קלאוד על הדף:
The difficulty crystallizes: the baraita’s first and last clauses presume a town without announcements, its middle clause a town with them. Can a single tannaitic paragraph oscillate between incompatible settings? Three Amoraim will each buy coherence at a different price.
Key Terms:
- רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא… מְצִיעֲתָא = first and last clause… middle clause — the apparent mismatch of settings
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ (אביי)
Abaye: yes — the clauses simply address different settings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אִין, רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְרִיזִין, מְצִיעֲתָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין.
English Translation:
Abaye said: Yes, the first clause and the latter clause of the baraita are referring to a place where they do not announce every time non-kosher meat is sold, and the middle clause is referring to a place where they do announce every time non-kosher meat is sold.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye accepts the seam as it stands: indeed, the first and last clauses speak of a place without announcements, and the middle clause of a place with them. A baraita may legislate for more than one locale; each rule binds where its setting obtains. Coherence is preserved by pluralizing the geography.
Key Terms:
- אִין = ‘yes’ — Abaye embraces the two-setting reading rather than harmonizing it away
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ (רבא)
Rava: all with announcements — the clauses divide between announced and unannounced days
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא – שֶׁהִכְרִיזוּ, מְצִיעֲתָא – שֶׁלֹּא הִכְרִיזוּ.
English Translation:
Rava said: The entire baraita is referring to a place where they announce every time non-kosher meat is sold. The first clause and the latter clause are referring to days when they announced that non-kosher meat had been sold, and the middle clause is referring to a day when they did not announce that non-kosher meat had been sold.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava unifies the geography: the entire baraita speaks of an announcement town. The first and last clauses address days when the announcement was made — the market is on notice, so thighs may be sent and commissioned purchases would be safe but for the extortion concern; the middle clause addresses a day when no announcement was made — non-kosher meat sold to a gentile then could be mistaken for kosher. One town, two days.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁהִכְרִיזוּ / שֶׁלֹּא הִכְרִיזוּ = when they announced / when they did not — Rava’s division by day rather than by town
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ (רב אשי)
Rav Ashi: all without announcements — the middle clause is a decree against selling before a Jew
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כּוּלַּהּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְרִיזִין, וּמְצִיעֲתָא גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִמְכְּרֶנָּה בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said: The entire baraita is referring to a place where they do not announce every time non-kosher meat is sold. And the reason that the middle clause teaches that it is prohibited to sell meat from unslaughtered carcasses or tereifot to a gentile is due to a rabbinic decree lest the Jew sell it to the gentile in the presence of another Jew, who will think that this particular piece of meat is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi unifies in the other direction: the whole baraita speaks of a no-announcement town, where Jews never buy from gentiles. The middle clause’s ban on selling neveilot to a gentile is then a rabbinic decree — lest he sell it in the presence of a Jew, who will take that piece for kosher. The three resolutions leave the halacha layered: deception of the gentile, protection of the Jewish buyer, and the policing of appearances each ground a clause.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִמְכְּרֶנָּה בִּפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל = a decree lest he sell it in a Jew’s presence — Rav Ashi’s reading of the middle clause
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא
How is the announcement worded? ‘Meat has fallen to the soldiers’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי מַכְרְזִינַן? אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף: נְפַל בִּישְׂרָא לִבְנֵי חֵילָא.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara noted that there were places where they would announce whenever non-kosher meat was sold to a gentile. The Gemara asks: How do we announce that non-kosher meat has been sold? The Gemara answers that Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said: Meat has fallen into our possession for the soldiers, i.e., the gentiles.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks after the announcement’s actual formula. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef: they proclaim, ‘meat has fallen to the soldiers’ (nefal bisra livnei cheila) — word reaches the Jews that today’s meat went to the garrison, i.e., is not for Jewish purchase. The wording is studiedly neutral: it names the destination, not the defect.
Key Terms:
- נְפַל בִּישְׂרָא לִבְנֵי חֵילָא = ‘meat has fallen to the soldiers’ — the announcement’s deliberately neutral formula
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Say ‘a tereifa has fallen to the soldiers’! Then they would not buy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֵימָא: נְפַל טְרֵיפְתָּא לִבְנֵי חֵילָא! לָא זָבְנִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But let them say: A tereifa has fallen into our possession for the soldiers. The Gemara answers that if a butcher would publicize the fact that it is a tereifa, the gentiles would not purchase it from him because they would not want an animal rejected by the Jews.
קלאוד על הדף:
Why not announce plainly, ‘a tereifa has fallen to the soldiers’? Because then the gentiles would not buy — who wants meat the Jews rejected? The neutral wording preserves the sale. But this sharpens the ethical question the daf has been circling: is the studied neutrality itself a deception?
Key Terms:
- לָא זָבְנִי = they would not buy — plain labeling would kill the sale
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (עקרוני)
Does the neutral wording deceive them? No — they deceive themselves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא קָמַטְעֵי לְהוּ? אִינְהוּ הוּא דְּקָמַטְעוּ נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if the announcement is made in a way that obscures from the gentiles the fact that the animal is a tereifa, doesn’t this deceive them? The Gemara answers: It is they who deceive themselves, because the seller does not specify which kind of meat he is selling.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks directly: does the veiled announcement not mislead the gentiles? The answer draws the daf’s finest line: it is they who deceive themselves (inhu d’kamat’u nafshayhu). The seller asserts nothing false; he simply declines to volunteer the defect, and the buyers supply the flattering assumption on their own. Geneivat da’at forbids planting a false impression — not declining to uproot one that others plant in themselves.
Key Terms:
- אִינְהוּ הוּא דְּקָמַטְעוּ נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ = it is they who deceive themselves — self-generated assumptions are not the seller’s deception
Segment 13
TYPE: מעשה
Mar Zutra assumes the sages came to greet him; Rav Safra corrects the impression
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי הָא דְּמָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל מִסִּיכְרָא לְבֵי מָחוֹזָא, וְרָבָא וְרַב סָפְרָא הֲווֹ קָא אָתוּ לְסִיכְרָא, פְּגַעוּ אַהֲדָדֵי. הוּא סָבַר לְאַפֵּיהּ הוּא דְּקָאָתוּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לְמָה לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דִּטְרוּחַ וַאֲתוֹ כּוּלֵּי הַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא: אֲנַן לָא הֲוָה יָדְעִינַן דְּקָאָתֵי מָר, אִי הֲוָה יָדְעִינַן טְפֵי הֲוָה טָרְחִינַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites proof that it is permitted to allow others to mislead themselves. It is like this incident when Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, was going from the city of Sikhra to the city of Bei Meḥoza, and at the same time Rava and Rav Safra were going to Sikhra. They met each other, and Mar Zutra thought they were coming out to greet him. He said to them: Why did the Rabbis exert themselves and come all this way to greet me? Rav Safra said to him: We did not know that the Master was coming; if we would have known we would have exerted ourselves more.
קלאוד על הדף:
The self-deception principle is tested in a social scene. Mar Zutra son of Rav Nachman, traveling from Sikhra to Bei Mechoza, met Rava and Rav Safra traveling the other way and assumed they had come out to greet him: ‘why did the rabbis trouble themselves so?’ Rav Safra answered truthfully: we did not know the master was coming; had we known, we would have troubled ourselves more. The correction was honest — and, as Rava will object, wounding.
Key Terms:
- לְאַפֵּיהּ הוּא דְּקָאָתוּ = that they had come to greet him — Mar Zutra’s self-supplied assumption
Segment 14
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (מעשה)
Rava: why deflate him? Rav Safra: we would have misled him! Rava: he misled himself
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא אֲמַרְתְּ לֵיהּ הָכִי, דְּאַחְלֵישְׁתֵּיהּ לְדַעְתֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא קָא מַטְעֵינַן לֵיהּ! אִיהוּ הוּא דְּקָא מַטְעֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ.
English Translation:
Rava said to Rav Safra: What is the reason that you said this to Mar Zutra? By telling him that we were not coming to greet him you upset him. Rav Safra said to Rava: But if I would not have said so we would have misled him. Rava responded: Mar Zutra misled himself, since we never said we were coming to greet him.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava took Rav Safra to task: why say that and dishearten him? Rav Safra: but otherwise we would be deceiving him! Rava’s reply applies the daf’s principle: he deceived himself — we asserted nothing. One need not bruise another’s spirit to correct an impression one never created; silence before self-flattery is not geneivat da’at. The daf then turns to a butcher’s deception — the story opening on 95a.
Key Terms:
- אַחְלֵישְׁתֵּיהּ לְדַעְתֵּיהּ = you weakened his spirit — Rava’s objection to the needless correction
- אִיהוּ הוּא דְּקָא מַטְעֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ = he misleads himself — no duty to wound in order to correct a self-made impression
Segment 15
TYPE: מעשה (נמשך)
A certain butcher said to his fellow… — the story opens on 95a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא טַבָּחָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ:
English Translation:
§ The Gemara returns to the topic of selling non-kosher meat to a gentile. There was a certain Jewish butcher who said to another individual:
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes mid-sentence, returning from the ethics of impressions to the meat market: ‘a certain butcher who said to his fellow…’ — the incident, and its consequences for the laws of meat that left a Jew’s supervision, unfold on 95a.
Key Terms:
- הָהוּא טַבָּחָא = ‘a certain butcher’ — the protagonist of the incident completed overleaf