Chullin Daf 95 (חולין דף צ״ה)
Daf: 95 | Amudim: 95a – 95b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (95a)
Segment 1
TYPE: סיום המעשה
The butcher’s taunt completes: ‘the bull you ate was a tereifa’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הֲוָה פָּיְיסַתְּ מִינַּאי, מִי לָא סְפַיִי לָךְ מִשּׁוֹר שֶׁל פַּטָּם דַּעֲבַדִי אֶתְמוֹל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲכַלִי מִשׁוּפְרֵי שׁוּפְרֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנָלָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּזְבַן פְּלוֹנִי גּוֹי וּסְפָא לִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּרֵי עֲבַדִי, וְהָהוּא טְרֵפָה הֲוָה.
English Translation:
If you would have made peace with me yesterday, wouldn’t I have given you a cut from the fattened bull that I prepared yesterday? The other individual said to him: Nevertheless I ate from the finest of the fine of that bull that you prepared. The butcher said to him: From where did you get a piece? The other said to him: So-and-so the gentile bought it and fed it to me. The butcher said to him: I prepared two bulls yesterday. One was kosher, but that one you ate was a tereifa, which is why I sold it to a gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
The story begun at 94b’s close completes. Two men had quarreled; the butcher taunted his fellow: had you made peace with me, I would have fed you from yesterday’s fattened bull. The fellow answered: I ate from its very best — a gentile bought some and shared it with me. The butcher sprang his trap: I prepared two bulls yesterday, and the one sold to the gentile was a tereifa. A Jew has, on this account, eaten forbidden meat that a Jewish butcher quietly sold to a gentile — exactly the scenario the previous daf’s rules exist to prevent.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹר שֶׁל פַּטָּם = a fattened bull — prime meat, the taunt’s currency
- וְהָהוּא טְרֵפָה הֲוָה = ‘and that one was a tereifa’ — the sting: the shared meat was the forbidden bull
Segment 2
TYPE: תגובת רבי
Rebbi: because of this fool who acted improperly, shall we forbid all the butcher shops?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי: בִּשְׁבִיל שׁוֹטֶה זֶה שֶׁעָשָׂה שֶׁלֹּא כַּהוֹגֶן, אָנוּ נֶאֱסוֹר כׇּל הַמָּקוֹלִין?!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said when he heard of this incident: Because of this imbecile who acted improperly and sold non-kosher meat to the gentile butcher without publicizing that he did so, should we forbid all of the meat from gentile butcher shops in the city?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rebbi’s response sets policy: because of this imbecile who acted improperly — selling a tereifa to a gentile shop without publicizing it — shall we forbid all the makolin, the town’s meat markets? One rogue’s misconduct does not overturn the market’s presumption of kashrut. The legal system does not legislate for the scoundrel by taxing the honest majority.
Key Terms:
- מָקוֹלִין = butcher shops/markets — from the Latin macellum
- שׁוֹטֶה זֶה שֶׁעָשָׂה שֶׁלֹּא כַּהוֹגֶן = ‘this fool who acted improperly’ — the rogue whose act threatens the market’s standing
Segment 3
TYPE: ביאור
Rebbi follows his own principle: where the town’s butchers are Jewish, meat in a gentile’s hand is permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דַּאֲמַר: מָקוֹלִין וְטַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי – מוּתָּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile, i.e., in a gentile’s butcher shop, is permitted. There is no concern that the meat is from an animal that was a tereifa, because the Jewish butcher would not have sold it to a gentile to sell in his butcher shop.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes Rebbi’s consistency: he taught that in a town of Jewish slaughterers and shops, meat found in a gentile’s possession is permitted — Jewish butchers would not channel tereifot into gentile shops silently, so the gentile’s stock shares the market’s presumption. The incident tested the principle; Rebbi held the line.
Key Terms:
- בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי מוּתָּר = meat found in a gentile’s hand is permitted — where the town’s slaughter is Jewish, the market presumption extends to it
Segment 4
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא
The other version: ‘this fool intended only to torment his fellow’ — the tereifa claim was a lie
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי: מִפְּנֵי שׁוֹטֶה זֶה דְּאִיכַּוַּון לְצַעוֹרֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ, אָנוּ נֶאֱסוֹר כָּל הַמָּקוֹלִין?!
English Translation:
The Gemara presents an alternate version of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s reaction to the incident cited above: There are those who say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Because of this imbecile, who intended only to cause distress to his fellow, should we forbid all of the meat from gentile butcher shops? That butcher was presumably lying about the meat having been from a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second version of Rebbi’s remark: because of this fool who intended to distress his fellow, shall we forbid all the shops? On this reading Rebbi discounted the butcher’s tale entirely — a spiteful boast designed to sicken his rival, not a fact about the meat. The market stands because the story itself is not credited.
Key Terms:
- דְּאִיכַּוַּון לְצַעוֹרֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ = who intended to torment his fellow — the taunt read as malicious invention
Segment 5
TYPE: דיוק ותירוץ
The inference: were the claim sincere, the shops would be forbidden? Answer: here the prohibition was established
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טַעְמָא דְּאִיכַּוַּון לְצַעוֹרֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ, הָא לָאו הָכִי, אָסוּר. וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מָקוֹלִין וְטַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי מוּתָּר! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּאִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that the reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi considers the meat to be kosher is that the butcher intended only to cause distress to his fellow. This indicates that if that were not so, all the meat in the gentile butcher shops would be forbidden. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted? The Gemara answers: It is different here because it has been established that there is forbidden meat being sold in the butcher shops. Since it is known that a Jewish butcher sold non-kosher meat to a gentile proprietor of a butcher shop, one must be concerned that this was not an isolated incident.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second version invites an inference: only because the butcher spoke from spite is the meat permitted — had his report been credible, all the shops would be forbidden. But Rebbi himself taught that meat in a gentile’s hand is permitted! The resolution: here it is different, for the presence of issur was established (itchazak issura) — once it is known that a Jewish butcher actually passed a tereifa into a gentile shop, the market’s presumption is breached and concern extends to the rest.
Key Terms:
- אִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא = the prohibition was established — a confirmed breach that suspends the market’s presumption
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא וקושיא
Rav: meat that vanished from sight is forbidden — challenged from Rebbi’s ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב: בָּשָׂר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְעַלֵּם מִן הָעַיִן – אָסוּר. מֵיתִיבִי: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מָקוֹלִין וְטַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּשָׂר הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי – מוּתָּר. נִמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי – שָׁאנֵי.
English Translation:
§ Apropos meat in the possession of a gentile, the Gemara cites a related discussion. Rav says: Once meat is obscured from sight and unsupervised, it is forbidden, as one must be concerned that it was exchanged for non-kosher meat. The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted. The Gemara answers: Meat found in the possession of a gentile is different, because the meat was not left unsupervised.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf’s central teaching arrives. Rav says: meat, once it has been obscured from the eye (nitalem min ha’ayin), is forbidden — unsupervised meat may have been swapped for neveila, by human hands or by ravens. The objection: Rebbi permitted meat found in a gentile’s hand! The answer: meat in someone’s hand was never abandoned — it is possessed and accounted for; Rav speaks of meat that dropped out of all supervision.
Key Terms:
- נִתְעַלֵּם מִן הָעַיִן = obscured from the eye — meat that passed out of supervision, Rav’s trigger for prohibition
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The nine-shops baraita: ‘that which is found — follow the majority’ — read as found in a gentile’s hand
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שָׁמַע: תֵּשַׁע חֲנוּיוֹת, כּוּלָּן מוֹכְרוֹת בְּשַׂר שְׁחוּטָה, וְאַחַת מוֹכֶרֶת בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה, וְלָקַח מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מֵאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן לָקַח – סְפֵקוֹ אָסוּר, וּבְנִמְצָא הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב. הָכָא נָמֵי – בְּנִמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises another objection to the statement of Rav. Come and hear the following baraita: With regard to nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and an individual purchased meat from one of the stores and he does not know from which store he purchased the meat, in this case of uncertainty, the meat is forbidden. But in the case of meat found outside, follow the majority. Consequently, since most of the stores sell kosher meat, it may be assumed that the meat found outside is kosher, which contradicts Rav’s statement that meat that was left unsupervised is forbidden. The Gemara answers: Here also the baraita is referring to a case where the meat was not unsupervised but rather was found in the possession of a gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second challenge from the classic nine-shops baraita: nine shops sell kosher meat and one sells neveila; one who bought and cannot recall from where — his doubt is forbidden (kavua, a fixed doubt, counts as half and half); but meat that is found — follow the majority, and it is permitted. Found meat was surely obscured from sight! The deflection: ‘found’ there too means found in a gentile’s hand — possessed, not abandoned.
Key Terms:
- קָבוּעַ = a fixed doubt — one who bought from an unidentified shop; not resolved by majority
- בְּנִמְצָא הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הָרוֹב = with found items, follow the majority — the baraita’s leniency Rav must reinterpret
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
The Machshirin mishna: found meat follows the majority of butchers or of meat-eaters
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: מָצָא בָּהּ בָּשָׂר (אִם חַי) – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב טַבָּחִים, וְאִם מְבוּשָּׁל – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב אוֹכְלֵי בָשָׂר.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites another challenge to the opinion of Rav: Come and hear the following mishna (Makhshirin 2:9): If one found meat in a city inhabited by both Jews and gentiles, if the meat is raw, follow the majority of butchers, so that if the majority of the butchers are Jewish, the meat is presumed to be kosher. And if the meat is cooked, follow the majority of meat eaters, because even if the majority of the butchers are Jewish, if the meat was cooked by a gentile it is forbidden. This mishna indicates that there are circumstances when the meat is permitted even though it was obscured from sight.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third challenge, from Machshirin: meat found in a mixed town — if raw, follow the majority of butchers (mostly Jewish: kosher); if cooked, follow the majority of meat-eaters. The mishna resolves found — and thus once-unsupervised — meat by majorities, against Rav’s blanket prohibition.
Key Terms:
- הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב טַבָּחִים = follow the majority of butchers — raw meat takes the town’s slaughtering profile
- רוֹב אוֹכְלֵי בָשָׂר = the majority of meat-eaters — cooked meat takes the profile of who cooks and eats
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
The case: one stood watching it from the moment it fell — never truly unsupervised
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכָא נָמֵי בְּנִמְצָא בְּיַד גּוֹי, מְבוּשָּׁל הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב אוֹכְלֵי בָשָׂר? וְנֶחְזֵי: אִי דְּגוֹי נָקֵיט לֵיהּ, אִי דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נָקֵיט לֵיהּ! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן: בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ.
English Translation:
And if you would say that here also it is referring to a case where the meat is found in the possession of a gentile, why does the baraita state that if the meat is cooked, one should follow the majority of meat eaters? Let us see whether a gentile is holding it or a Jew is holding it. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the meat was on the ground but someone was standing and watching it from the time it was dropped on the ground, so that it was never left unsupervised. Yet, the person watching does not know whether it was dropped by a Jew or a gentile, and therefore a determination must be made based upon the majority of the people in the city.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proposed gentile’s-hand reading fails for the cooked clause — just look at who is holding it! The resolution: the mishna speaks of meat seen from the moment it dropped — someone stood watching it (omed v’ro’ehu), so it was never obscured from sight; only the identity of the dropper is unknown, and for that the majorities decide. Rav’s rule survives: supervision, not location, is the criterion.
Key Terms:
- בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ = where one stands watching it — continuous observation defeats the concern of substitution
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
The Shekalim mishna: limbs are carcasses, pieces are permitted — how, if watched?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: נִמְצָא בַּגְּבוּלִין, אֵבָרִים – נְבֵלוֹת, חֲתִיכוֹת – מוּתָּרוֹת. וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכָא נָמֵי בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ, אֵבָרִים נְבֵלוֹת – אַמַּאי?
English Translation:
The Gemara cites another challenge to the opinion of Rav from a mishna (Shekalim 19a). Come and hear: With regard to meat found in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, if it is found as whole limbs, the meat presumably comes from carcasses of animals that were not properly slaughtered, as carcasses were generally cut up into full limbs and fed to dogs or sold to gentiles. But if it is in small pieces, it is presumably kosher and permitted to be eaten, as kosher meat was ordinarily cut up into small pieces. This mishna indicates that even though the meat was obscured from sight, it remains permitted. And if you would say that here also it is referring to a case where someone was standing and watching it, why is it assumed to be from a carcass if it is cut into whole limbs?
קלאוד על הדף:
A fourth challenge, from Shekalim: meat found in the outlying areas — whole limbs are treated as neveilot (carcasses were cut into limbs), small pieces are permitted (kosher meat was cut small). If this too is a watched case, why are the limbs deemed neveila? The watcher would know what fell!
Key Terms:
- אֵבָרִים נְבֵלוֹת, חֲתִיכוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת = limbs — carcass meat; pieces — permitted: the form of the cut testifies to its origin
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
The difficulty exists only for Rav — and Rav indeed reread the mishna: ‘permitted’ from neveila-status, not for eating
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא לְרַב, הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ: רַב אָמַר מוּתָּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה, וְלֵוִי אָמַר מוּתָּרוֹת בַּאֲכִילָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: This mishna requires explanation only according to Rav, but wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna: Rav says that the correct version of the mishna is that the small pieces of meat are permitted, in that they are not considered impure and that one who eats them is not liable to be flogged, as would be the case if it were meat from a carcass. But it is not actually permitted to eat the meat, due to the fact that it was obscured from sight. And Levi says: The mishna means to say that the small pieces of meat are even permitted to be eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defuses the challenge from within: the mishna troubles only Rav, and Rav’s own gloss on it is on record. Rav said: ‘permitted’ means permitted from the status of neveila — the pieces do not defile nor incur carcass-liability — but they remain forbidden to eat, having been obscured from sight. Levi disagreed: permitted even for eating. The dispute over unsupervised meat turns out to be an explicit Rav-Levi divide over this very mishna.
Key Terms:
- מוּתָּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה = permitted with respect to neveila-status — Rav’s narrow reading: no impurity, no lashes, but no eating
- מוּתָּרוֹת בַּאֲכִילָה = permitted for eating — Levi’s plain reading
Segment 12
TYPE: מקור (נמשך)
Rav’s rule too was stated only by inference — the scene at the Ishtetit ford opens
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא דְּרַב, לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִתְּמַר. דְּרַב הֲוָה יָתֵיב אַמַּבָּרָא דְּאִישְׁתַּטְיָא, חַזְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָא
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: And this statement of Rav, that meat that was obscured from sight is forbidden, was not stated explicitly by Rav. Rather, it was stated that he held this opinion based on an inference from a different statement of Rav. As, Rav was once sitting on the ford of the Ishtetit River. He saw a certain man who was
קלאוד על הדף:
Like Shmuel’s geneivat da’at on the previous daf, Rav’s rule was never pronounced — it was inferred from an incident. Rav was sitting at the ford of the Ishtetit river and saw a man who was… — the amud breaks mid-scene; the washed head, the basket, and the two heads pulled from the river follow overleaf.
Key Terms:
- לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִתְּמַר אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא = not stated explicitly but by inference — the rule reconstructed from Rav’s conduct
Amud Bet (95b)
Segment 1
TYPE: השלמת המעשה
One head fell in; two came out — Rav forbade them both
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְחַוַּור רֵישָׁא, נְפַל מִינֵּיהּ, אֲזַל אַיְיתִי סִילְתָּא שְׁדָא אַסֵּיק תְּרֵין, אָמַר רַב: עָבְדִי נָמֵי הָכִי, אַסְרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ.
English Translation:
cleaning the head of an animal in the river. The head fell from him. He went and brought a basket, cast the basket into the river, and pulled out two animal heads. Rav said to him: Does it commonly happen this way that one loses one item and finds two? Just as one of the animal heads is not the one you dropped, it is possible that neither of them is the one you dropped. Therefore, Rav rendered both of them forbidden to him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The scene completes: the man was washing an animal’s head in the river when it slipped from him; he fetched a basket, cast it in, and drew up two heads. Rav said: does it happen so, that one loses one and finds two? Just as one head is certainly not his, perhaps neither is — and he forbade both to him. From this ruling the Sages inferred Rav’s principle: meat out of sight is meat out of bounds.
Key Terms:
- סִילְתָּא = a basket — cast into the river and drawn up with two heads
- אַסְרִינְהוּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ = he forbade them to him — both heads, the lost and the found alike
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותשובה
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi: is forbidden meat common and permitted not? Rav: forbidden is more common
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: דְּאִיסּוּרָא שְׁכִיחִי, דְּהֶתֵּירָא לָא שְׁכִיחִי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: דְּאִיסּוּרָא שְׁכִיחִי טְפֵי.
English Translation:
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Is forbidden meat common but permitted meat not common? Most of the meat in this general location is kosher, so why did you forbid the two animal heads? He said to them: Forbidden meat is more common. From this incident the Sages derived that according to Rav, meat that has been obscured from sight becomes forbidden due to the possibility that the meat one finds now was actually deposited by ravens, who transported it from a location where the majority of the meat is forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav’s students pressed him: is issur common here and heter not — why forbid, when most local meat should be kosher? Rav answered: forbidden meat is more common (d’issura shechichi tefei). The exchange supplies the rule’s mechanism: once meat floats free of supervision, its provenance is set by what circulates in the surroundings — and there, the surroundings were bad.
Key Terms:
- דְּאִיסּוּרָא שְׁכִיחִי טְפֵי = forbidden meat is more common — the local majority that doomed the found heads
Segment 3
TYPE: דחיית ההוכחה
But by inference, what? That spot was a gentile port — the incident may prove nothing general
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי מִכְּלָלָא, מַאי? פַּרְוְותָא דְּגוֹיִם הֲוַאי, תֵּדַע, דְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ: ״דְּאִיסּוּרָא שְׁכִיחִי טְפֵי״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And what does it matter if this opinion of Rav is known by inference based on this incident, rather than by an explicit statement made by Rav? The Gemara answers: There is room to say that this incident cannot serve as a precedent for a general policy, because that location was a port of gentiles, where most of the meat was non-kosher. Know that this is the case, as Rav said to Rav Kahana and Rav Asi: Forbidden meat is more common. Consequently, it is possible that Rav would not have prohibited the meat in a location where the majority of the meat is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now cashes out why ‘by inference’ matters: the incident may not generalize. That ford was a gentiles’ port (parvata d’goyim), where most meat truly was forbidden — know it from Rav’s own words, ‘forbidden is more common.’ Perhaps in a kosher-majority town Rav would permit found meat like everyone else; his sweeping rule may be an artifact of a bad neighborhood.
Key Terms:
- פַּרְוְותָא דְּגוֹיִם = a port of gentiles — a locale whose meat traffic was mostly forbidden
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
How did Rav himself eat meat? Fresh under his eye, or tied and sealed, or by a distinguishing mark
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא רַב, הֵיכִי אֲכַל בִּשְׂרָא בְּשַׁעְתֵּיהּ, דְּלָא (עלים) [מַעֲלֵים] עֵינֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּצַיְירָא וַחֲתִימָא, וְאִי נָמֵי: בְּסִימָנָא, כִּי הָא דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מְחַתֵּךְ לֵיהּ אַתְּלָת קַרְנָתָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But how did Rav ever eat meat if he holds that meat becomes forbidden if it is unsupervised for even a short time? The Gemara answers: Rav ate meat only in its time, i.e., shortly after it was slaughtered, when it had not been obscured from his sight from the time of the slaughter until he ate it. Alternatively, if you wish, say that Rav ate meat that was tied and sealed in a way that proved it had not been swapped for non-kosher meat. Or alternatively, he ate meat that could be recognized by a distinguishing mark, like that practice of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who would cut meat into pieces with three corners, i.e., triangles, before he would send it to his family members.
קלאוד על הדף:
If unsupervised meat is forbidden, how did Rav ever eat? Three answers: he ate meat in its time — straight from slaughter, never out of his sight; or meat tied and sealed (tzayara v’chatima), whose bindings certify no swap; or meat bearing a siman — like Rabba bar Rav Huna, who cut his household’s meat into three-cornered pieces before sending it. The triangle-cut is the practical genius of the sugya: a household trademark that survives any journey.
Key Terms:
- בְּצַיְירָא וַחֲתִימָא = tied and sealed — packaging as certification
- אַתְּלָת קַרְנָתָא = into three corners — Rabba bar Rav Huna’s triangular household cut, a portable siman
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה
Rav travels to his son-in-law; the ferry comes to meet him — ‘a good day awaits’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל לְבֵי רַב חָנָן חַתְנֵיהּ, חֲזָא מַבָּרָא דְּקָאָתֵי לְאַפֵּיהּ, אֲמַר: מַבָּרָא קָאָתֵי לְאַפַּי, יוֹמָא טָבָא לְגוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav was going to the home of Rav Ḥanan, his son-in-law. He saw that the ferry was coming toward him just when he arrived at the riverbank. He said: The ferry is coming toward me even though I did not arrange for it to come now; this is a sign that a good day, i.e., a festive meal, awaits me in the place where I am going.
קלאוד על הדף:
A story of Rav en route to the home of Rav Chanan his son-in-law: arriving at the riverbank, he found the ferry coming toward him unbidden. He said: the ferry comes to meet me — a festive day awaits within. The remark, innocent on its face, will become the story’s problem: did Rav just take an omen?
Key Terms:
- מַבָּרָא קָאָתֵי לְאַפַּי = ‘the ferry comes toward me’ — the happy accident Rav voiced as a good sign
- יוֹמָא טָבָא לְגוֹ = ‘a good day within’ — the festive meal he anticipated
Segment 6
TYPE: המשך המעשה
Everyone runs out to greet him — and only Rav’s unbroken gaze saves the hanging meat; yet he does not eat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲזַל, קָם אַבָּבָא, אוֹדֵיק בְּבִזְעָא דְּדַשָּׁא, חֲזָא חֵיוְתָא דְּתַלְיָא, טְרַף אַבָּבָא, נְפוּק אֲתוֹ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְאַפֵּיהּ, אֲתָא טַבָּחֵי נָמֵי, לָא עַלֵּים רַב עֵינֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִיכּוֹ הַשְׁתָּא סְפִיתוּ לְהוּ אִיסּוּרָא לִבְנֵי בְרַת. לָא אֲכַל רַב מֵהָהוּא בִּישְׂרָא.
English Translation:
After crossing the river on the ferry, Rav went and stood at the gate of Rav Ḥanan’s home. He looked through a crack in the door and saw an animal that was hanging and ready to be cooked. He knocked on the gate, and everyone went out to greet him, and the butchers also came out to greet him. Rav did not remove his eyes from the meat that the butchers were preparing. He said to them: If you had eaten the meat based upon the supervision you provided now, you would have fed forbidden meat to the sons of my daughter because no one apart from me was watching the meat when you all came out to greet me. And despite the fact that he had kept the meat in his sight Rav did not eat from that meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
At the gate Rav peered through a crack and saw an animal hanging, ready for the feast. He knocked; the whole household — the butchers included — streamed out to greet him. Rav alone kept his eyes fixed on the meat through the doorway. He told them: had you served this now, you would have fed issur to my daughter’s sons — for during your welcome, no one but I was watching it. And yet, though his own gaze had guarded it, Rav did not eat of that meat.
Key Terms:
- לָא עַלֵּים רַב עֵינֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ = Rav did not lift his eye from it — the vigilance that alone preserved the meat
- סְפִיתוּ לְהוּ אִיסּוּרָא לִבְנֵי בְרַת = ‘you would have fed my daughter’s sons forbidden meat’ — the rebuke to the distracted household
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Why did he not eat? Not concealment — he watched it. Then because he had divined?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי מִשּׁוּם אִיעַלּוֹמֵי – הָא לָא אִיעַלַּים, אֶלָּא דְּנַחֵישׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav did not eat the meat? If one suggests that he was concerned because it had been obscured from sight, that cannot be the reason, as Rav kept watching it so that it was not obscured from sight. Rather, Rav did not eat because he divined, i.e., he saw the arrival of the ferry as a good omen. This is prohibited, and therefore Rav penalized himself and abstained from the meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks: why abstain? Not for concealment — his eye never left it. Rather, suggests the Gemara, because he had divined (nichesh): he had treated the ferry’s arrival as an omen, and penalized himself by renouncing the meal the ‘sign’ had promised.
Key Terms:
- דְּנַחֵישׁ = that he divined — reading the ferry as an omen, the proposed ground of his self-penalty
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But Rav himself defines divination narrowly! Rather: it was an optional feast, and Rav took no pleasure from those
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמַר רַב: כׇּל נַחַשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ כֶּאֱלִיעֶזֶר עֶבֶד אַבְרָהָם וּכְיוֹנָתָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל – אֵינוֹ נַחַשׁ! אֶלָּא סְעוּדַת הָרְשׁוּת הֲוַאי, וְרַב לָא מִתְהֲנֵי מִסְּעוּדַת הָרְשׁוּת.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav say that any divination that is not like the divination of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, when he went to seek a bride for Isaac (see Genesis 24:14), or like the divination of Jonathan, son of Saul, who sought an omen as to whether he and his arms bearer would defeat the Philistines (see I Samuel 14:8–12), is not divination? Since Rav did not rely on the omen in his decision making, he did not violate the prohibition against divination, and there was no reason for him to penalize himself. The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason Rav did not eat the meat is that it was an optional feast, rather than a feast associated with a mitzva, and Rav would not derive pleasure from an optional feast.
קלאוד על הדף:
The suggestion collides with Rav’s own dictum: any divination not like Eliezer’s at the well or Yonatan ben Shaul’s before the Philistine garrison — conditioning action on the sign — is no divination. Rav had not acted on his remark, so no prohibition was violated. Rather: it was an optional feast (seudat hareshut), no mitzva-meal, and Rav did not partake of optional feasts. His abstention was asceticism, not penance.
Key Terms:
- כֶּאֱלִיעֶזֶר… וּכְיוֹנָתָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל = like Eliezer and like Yonatan — action staked on a sign, the only true divination
- סְעוּדַת הָרְשׁוּת = an optional feast — from which Rav declined all benefit
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא
Rav checked by the ferry, Shmuel by the scroll, Rabbi Yochanan by the child’s verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב בָּדֵיק בְּמַבָּרָא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל בָּדֵיק בְּסִפְרָא, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּדֵיק בְּיָנוֹקָא.
English Translation:
Having mentioned Rav’s reaction to the ferry in the incident cited above, the Gemara states that Rav would check whether to travel based upon the ferry; if it came quickly he would take the ferry, but otherwise he would not. And Shmuel would check what would happen to him by opening a scroll and reading from wherever it was open to. Rabbi Yoḥanan would check what was in store for him by asking a child to recite the verse he was learning.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara records the sages’ permitted sign-taking: Rav would check by the ferry — if it came readily, he traveled; Shmuel would check by the scroll — opening a sefer and reading the verse that surfaced; Rabbi Yochanan would check by the child — asking a schoolchild to recite his day’s verse. Not divination that dictates against reason, but a listening for providence at the threshold of a decision.
Key Terms:
- בָּדֵיק בְּסִפְרָא = checked by the scroll — Shmuel’s practice of opening a book for guidance
- בָּדֵיק בְּיָנוֹקָא = checked by the child — a schoolchild’s verse taken as a providential signal
Segment 10
TYPE: מעשה
‘To our Master in Babylonia’ — Shmuel’s sixty years of calendar fail to impress Rabbi Yochanan
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי דְּרַב, הֲוָה כָּתַב לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן ״לָקֳדָם רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁבְּבָבֶל״. כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ, הֲוָה כָּתַב לִשְׁמוּאֵל ״לָקֳדָם חֲבֵירֵינוּ שֶׁבְּבָבֶל״. אָמַר: לָא יָדַע לִי מִידֵּי דְּרַבֵּיהּ אֲנָא? כְּתַב שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ עִיבּוּרָא דְּשִׁיתִּין שְׁנֵי. אֲמַר: הַשְׁתָּא חוּשְׁבָּנָא בְּעָלְמָא יָדַע.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates an incident when Rabbi Yoḥanan checked his luck based on a child’s verse. During all the years when Rav lived in Babylonia, Rabbi Yoḥanan, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, would write to him and begin with the greeting: To our Master who is in Babylonia. When Rav died, Rabbi Yoḥanan would write to Shmuel and begin with the greeting: To our colleague who is in Babylonia. Shmuel said: Does Rabbi Yoḥanan not know any matter in which I am his master? Shmuel wrote and sent to Rabbi Yoḥanan the calculation of the leap years for the next sixty years. Rabbi Yoḥanan was not impressed by this and said: Now he has merely demonstrated that he knows mathematics, which does not make him my master.
קלאוד על הדף:
The child-verse practice frames a famous correspondence. All of Rav’s years, Rabbi Yochanan addressed his letters ‘to our Master in Babylonia.’ When Rav died, he wrote to Shmuel ‘to our colleague in Babylonia.’ Shmuel, stung — does he not know one matter in which I am his master? — sent him the intercalation calculations for sixty years. Rabbi Yochanan shrugged: he merely knows arithmetic. Mastery of the calendar’s mathematics did not, for him, make a master.
Key Terms:
- לָקֳדָם רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁבְּבָבֶל = ‘to our Master in Babylonia’ — the honorific reserved for Rav
- עִיבּוּרָא דְּשִׁיתִּין שְׁנֵי = sixty years of intercalations — Shmuel’s calendrical tour de force, dismissed as mere reckoning
Segment 11
TYPE: המשך המעשה
Thirteen camels of tereifa-analyses — ‘I have a Master in Babylonia’; but the child’s verse said ‘and Shmuel died’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַב שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ תְּלֵיסַר גַּמְלֵי סְפֵקֵי טְרֵיפְתָּא, אֲמַר: אִית לִי רַב בְּבָבֶל, אֵיזִיל אִיחְזְיֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְיָנוֹקָא: פְּסוֹק לִי פְּסוּקָיךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וּשְׁמוּאֵל מֵת״, אֲמַר: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
English Translation:
Shmuel then wrote and sent to Rabbi Yoḥanan explications of uncertainties pertaining to tereifot that had to be transported on thirteen camels. Rabbi Yoḥanan was impressed by this and said: I have a Master in Babylonia; I will go and see him. Before departing on his journey, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to a child: Recite to me your verse that you studied today. The child recited the following verse to Rabbi Yoḥanan: “Now Samuel was dead” (I Samuel 28:3). Rabbi Yoḥanan said to himself: Learn from this that Shmuel has died. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan did not go to see Shmuel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel wrote again: analyses of tereifa-uncertainties loaded, as the Gemara puts it, on thirteen camels. This landed: Rabbi Yochanan said, I have a Master in Babylonia — I will go and see him. Before setting out he asked a child, recite me your verse — and the child recited ‘and Shmuel was dead’ (I Shmuel 28:3). Rabbi Yochanan concluded that Shmuel had died, and did not go.
Key Terms:
- תְּלֵיסַר גַּמְלֵי סְפֵקֵי טְרֵיפְתָּא = thirteen camels of tereifa-uncertainties — the Torah that finally proved mastery
- וּשְׁמוּאֵל מֵת = ‘and Shmuel was dead’ (I Shmuel 28:3) — the child’s verse that halted the journey
Segment 12
TYPE: הערת הגמרא
But it was not so — Shmuel had not died; the sign spared Rabbi Yochanan the journey
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא הִיא, לָא שְׁכֵיב שְׁמוּאֵל, אֶלָּא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִיטְרַח רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: But it was not so; Shmuel had not died. Rather, the reason Rabbi Yoḥanan was given this sign was so that Rabbi Yoḥanan would not trouble himself to embark on the long and arduous journey from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s startling postscript: it was not so — Shmuel had not died. The verse was given so that Rabbi Yochanan not weary himself with the arduous journey to Bavel. The Gemara thus at once validates the practice — the child’s verse did carry providential guidance — and severs it from factual truth: the sign directed his steps without reporting the world accurately. Heaven’s signals, the daf implies, manage outcomes, not information.
Key Terms:
- כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִיטְרַח = so that he not weary himself — the sign’s true purpose, sparing him the journey
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: a house, a child, and a wife — though not divination, they are a sign
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בַּיִת, תִּינוֹק, וְאִשָּׁה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין נַחַשׁ, יֵשׁ סִימָן.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to one who is successful with his first business transaction after he has built a home, after the birth of a child, or after he marries a woman, even though he may not use this as a means of divination to decide upon future courses of action, it is an auspicious sign that he will continue to be successful. Conversely, if his first transaction is not successful he may take that as an inauspicious sign.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita draws the permitted boundary: one who built a house, had a child, or married — his first ensuing ventures, though he may not divine by them, are a siman: success augurs continued success, failure the reverse. One may read one’s fortunes retrospectively as indication; one may not surrender decisions to omens. Bayit, tinok, v’isha — the three thresholds of a life — carry legitimate signals.
Key Terms:
- אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין נַחַשׁ יֵשׁ סִימָן = though there is no divination, there is a sign — indication permitted, omen-craft forbidden
Segment 14
TYPE: סיוג
Rabbi Elazar: only once established three times — ‘Yosef is gone, Shimon is gone, and you would take Binyamin’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וְהוּא דְּאִיתַּחְזַק תְּלָתָא זִימְנֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״יוֹסֵף אֵינֶנּוּ וְשִׁמְעוֹן אֵינֶנּוּ וְאֶת בִּנְיָמִן תִּקָּחוּ״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar said: But this is provided that the sign has been established by repeating itself three times. This is based on a verse, as it is written: “And Jacob their father said to them: Me you have bereaved of my children: Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and you will take Benjamin away; upon me are all these things come” (Genesis 42:36). If calamity were to befall Benjamin, that would establish a pattern of three tragedies.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar qualifies: the sign counts only when established three times (itchazak telata zimnei), as in Yaakov’s cry — ‘Yosef is no more, and Shimon is no more, and you would take Binyamin’ (Bereishit 42:36): a third loss would have fixed the pattern. The chazaka-standard of civil law is imported into the reading of fortune: twice is coincidence; three times is a presumption.
Key Terms:
- דְּאִיתַּחְזַק תְּלָתָא זִימְנֵי = established three times — the chazaka threshold for a valid sign
Segment 15
TYPE: שאלה ותשובה
Rav Huna asks Rav: strung-together pieces? ‘Do not be a fool — strung pieces are a siman’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב הוּנָא מֵרַב: בַּחֲרוּזִין מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תְּהִי שׁוֹטֶה, בַּחֲרוּזִין הֲרֵי זֶה סִימָן. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: בַּחֲרוּזִין הֲרֵי זֶה סִימָן.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara returns to discuss distinguishing marks that prevent meat from being prohibited despite its having been obscured from sight. Rav Huna inquired of Rav: If pieces of meat were strung together and then were obscured from sight, what is the halakha? Rav said to him: Do not be an imbecile; of course if the meat is strung together it is considered to be a distinguishing mark, and the meat is permitted. There are those who say this halakha as follows: Rav Huna said that Rav said: If pieces of meat are strung together it is a distinguishing mark, and the meat remains permitted even if it is obscured from sight.
קלאוד על הדף:
Back to the meat laws. Rav Huna asked Rav: pieces strung together (bacharuzin) that passed from sight — what is the halacha? Rav answered with characteristic bluntness: do not be a fool; strung together — that is a siman, and the meat is permitted. (Another version records it as a plain ruling in Rav’s name.) The string is a signature: swapped meat would not return threaded.
Key Terms:
- בַּחֲרוּזִין = strung together like beads — a threading that serves as a distinguishing mark
Segment 16
TYPE: מעשה
Erev Yom Kippur in Pum Nahara: ravens drop livers and kidneys — ‘take and eat, today permitted meat is the more common’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב נַחְמָן מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אִיקְּלַע לְגַבֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא לְפוּם נַהֲרָא בְּמַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְכִפּוּרֵי, אֲתוֹ עוֹרְבֵי שָׁדוּ כַּבְדֵי וְכוּלְיָתָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקוֹל וֶאֱכוֹל, הָאִידָּנָא דְּהֶיתֵּרָא שְׁכִיחַ טְפֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman of Neharde’a arrived at the home of Rav Kahana in Pum Nahara on the eve of Yom Kippur, which is a day when people commonly eat meat. Ravens came and dropped livers and kidneys. Rav Kahana said to Rav Naḥman: Take these livers and kidneys and eat them, as they are not forbidden, even though they were obscured from sight. This is because at this time permitted meat is more common than forbidden meat, since Jews slaughter many animals on this day.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman of Neharde’a arrived at Rav Kahana’s home in Pum Nahara on the eve of Yom Kippur, and ravens came and dropped livers and kidneys. Rav Kahana said: take and eat — now permitted meat is more common (d’hetera shechiach tefei), for on this day every Jewish household slaughters for the pre-fast meal. Rav’s own doctrine, applied by his own reasoning, yields leniency: the raven-borne meat follows the day’s majority. The rule was never about pessimism — only about majorities.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְכִפּוּרֵי = the eve of Yom Kippur — when Jewish slaughter floods the town with kosher meat
- דְּהֶיתֵּרָא שְׁכִיחַ טְפֵי = permitted meat is more common — the majority flipped, and with it the ruling
Segment 17
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Chiyya bar Avin’s intestine-cut, lost among the wine barrels — permitted by tevi’ut ayin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אִיתְּבַד לֵיהּ כַּרְכְּשָׁא בֵּי דִינָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִית לָךְ סִימָנָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. אִית לָךְ טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אִם כֵּן, זִיל שְׁקוֹל.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin lost a cut of meat from an animal intestine among the barrels of wine in his wine cellar. When he found it, he came before Rav Huna to ask whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Huna said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: No. Rav Huna asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: Yes. Rav Huna said: If so, go and take it and eat it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first of three parallel cases. Rav Chiyya bar Avin lost a cut of intestine (karkasha) in his wine cellar, found it, and asked Rav Huna. Do you have a siman in it? No. Do you have tevi’ut ayin — visual recognition of it? Yes. Then go take it. Recognition by the practiced eye stands in for the missing mark.
Key Terms:
- טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא = visual recognition — the trained eye’s certainty of identity, accepted in place of a siman
- כַּרְכְּשָׁא = a cut of intestine — the lost item of the first case
Segment 18
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Chanina Choza’a’s side of meat — the same dialogue, the same permission
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה אִיתְּבַד לֵיהּ גַּבָּא דְּבִשְׂרָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִית לָךְ סִימָנָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. אִית לָךְ טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אִם כֵּן, זִיל שְׁקוֹל.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a lost a side of meat. When he found it, he came before Rav Naḥman and asked him whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Naḥman said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said to him: No. Rav Naḥman asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said to him: Yes. Rav Naḥman said: If so, go and take it and eat it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second case runs on the identical track: Rav Chanina Choza’a lost a side of meat (gabba d’visra), found it, and came before Rav Nachman. A siman? No. Tevi’ut ayin? Yes. Then go take it. The repetition is the point — the courts of different Amoraim apply one standard: recognition suffices where marks are absent.
Key Terms:
- גַּבָּא דְּבִשְׂרָא = a side of meat — the second case’s lost item
Segment 19
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Natan bar Abaye’s skein of techelet — tevi’ut ayin extends beyond food to mitzva-objects
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב נָתָן בַּר אַבָּיֵי אִיתְּבַד לֵיהּ קִיבּוּרָא דִּתְכֵלְתָּא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִית לָךְ סִימָנָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. אִית לָךְ טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אִם כֵּן, זִיל שְׁקוֹל.
English Translation:
Rav Natan bar Abaye lost a skein of sky-blue wool prepared for use in ritual fringes. He searched for it and found it. He came before Rav Ḥisda to ask whether the wool was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight and may have become confused with other blue wool that is not valid for ritual fringes. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark in it so that you can identify it? Rav Natan bar Abaye said to him: No. Rav Ḥisda asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Natan bar Abaye said to him: Yes. Rav Ḥisda said: If so, go and take it, and you may use it for ritual fringes.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third case leaves the kitchen: Rav Natan bar Abaye lost a skein of techelet — sky-blue wool for tzitzit — whose validity would be ruined by confusion with dyed imitations. Rav Chisda asked the same two questions: a siman? No. Tevi’ut ayin? Yes. Then go take it. The recognition-standard governs wherever identity is the question — meat, wool, or anything else a practiced eye truly knows.
Key Terms:
- קִיבּוּרָא דִּתְכֵלְתָּא = a skein of techelet — sky-blue wool for tzitzit, worthless if confused with imitation dye
Segment 20
TYPE: מימרא (נמשכת)
Rava: at first I said a siman outweighs recognition, for lost items are returned by simanim — the daf breaks mid-argument
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: מֵרֵישָׁא הֲוָה אָמֵינָא סִימָנָא עֲדִיף מִטְּבִיעוּת עֵינָא, דְּהָא מַהְדְּרִינַן אֲבֵידְתָא בְּסִימָנָא,
English Translation:
Rava said: At first I would say that a distinguishing mark is preferable to visual recognition, because we return a lost item to its owner based on a distinguishing mark,
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava opens the theoretical reckoning: at first I would say a siman is superior to tevi’ut ayin, for we return lost property on the strength of simanim — the courts’ entire lost-and-found apparatus runs on marks, not on claimed recognition. The comparison, and Rava’s reversal in favor of tevi’ut ayin, complete on 96a.
Key Terms:
- מַהְדְּרִינַן אֲבֵידְתָא בְּסִימָנָא = we return a lost item by its mark — the legal datum that first made simanim seem supreme