Talmud - Mas. Chullin 81a
has stated it in the form of a positive command. How is this? For the verse says. From the eighth day and henceforth it may be accepted,1 that is from the eighth day only, but not before; it is therefore a negative precept derived from a positive command which has only the force of a positive command.2 But is not this verse required for R. Aptoriki's exposition? For R. Aptoriki pointed out a contradiction between verses. The verse says: It shall be seven days under the dam,1 accordingly on the night [following the seventh day] it is valid; and then it continues: From the eighth day and henceforth it may be accepted,1 that is only from the eighth day and henceforth but not on the night [following the seventh day]. How is this [to be reconciled]? On the night [following the seventh day] it is fit for consecration, but on the [eighth] day it is acceptable [as an offering]! - There is another verse to the same effect, viz., Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen and thy sheep; [seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it Me].3
R. Hamnuna said: R. Simeon used to say that the law of 'It and its young' does not apply to consecrated animals. Why? For since R. Simeon has stated that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit is no slaughtering, the slaughtering of consecrated animals is [by itself] a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit.4 Raba raised the following objection: If two persons slaughtered a dam and its young [on the same day], both being consecrated animals, outside the Sanctuary, [he who slaughtered] the second, says R. Simeon, has transgressed a negative command. For R. Simeon used to say: For [slaughtering outside the Sanctuary] any [consecrated] animal which is fit to be brought [as a sacrifice] at a later time, there is a negative command5 but not the penalty of Kareth. The Sages, however, say: Where there is no penalty of Kareth there is neither [the transgression of] a negative command. Now upon this was raised the following difficulty: [You say,] Where both were consecrated animals and they were slaughtered outside, [he who slaughtered] the second has transgressed a negative command [and nothing more]? But surely, the first animal is merely regarded as 'killed' and the second would therefore be acceptable [as a sacrifice] within; consequently he [who slaughtered it] should also incur the penalty of Kareth!6 Whereupon Raba (others say: Kadi)7 answered: There is an omission here, and this is how it should read: If both animals were consecrated add [were slaughtered] outside [the Sanctuary]: according to the Rabbis, [he who slaughtered] the first incurs the penalty of Kareth, and the second [animal] is invalid but he [who slaughtered it] is not culpable;8 and according to R. Simeon, both incur the penalty of Kareth.9 If both animals were consecrated and [were slaughtered], the first outside and the second inside [the Sanctuary], - according to the Rabbis, [he who slaughtered] the first has incurred the penalty of Kareth, and the second [animal] is invalid and he [who slaughtered it] is not culpable;10 according to R. Simeon, the second animal is valid.11 If the first [was slaughtered] inside and the second outside [the Sanctuary]: according to the Rabbis the first animal is valid and he [who slaughtered it] is not culpable, and the second is invalid and he [who slaughtered it] is likewise not culpable;12 according to R. Simeon, he who slaughtered the second has transgressed a negative command.13 Now if you are to assume that [according to R. Simeon] the law of 'It and its young' does not apply to consecrated animals, then why [is it stated that] he who slaughtered the second has transgressed a negative command and no more? He should also have incurred the penalty of Kareth! - Rather, said Raba. This is what R. Hamnuna meant to say. The punishment of stripes for the [transgression of the] law of 'It and its young' does not apply to consecrated animals.14 Why? For in as much as the flesh is not permitted to be eaten so long as the blood has not been sprinkled, [the warning that is given to the slaughterer] while he is slaughtering is a dubious warning, and a dubious warning is no warning.15
Raba is consistent in this view of his. For Raba said: If the dam was an unconsecrated animal and the young a peace-offering, and a man slaughtered first the unconsecrated animal and later [on the same day] the peace-offering, he is not culpable.16 If he first slaughtered the peace-offering and then the unconsecrated animal, he is culpable.17 Raba also said: If the dam was an Unconsecrated animal and the young a burnt-offering, it goes without saying that if a man first slaughtered the unconsecrated animal and later [on the same day] the burnt-offering, he is not culpable;
(1) Lev. XXII, 27.
(2) The prohibition of 'out of time', e.g., where the animal is not eight days old or where its dam was slaughtered on this same day, is modified in the Torah by the remedy stated, namely, keep it until it is eight days old, or slaughter it on the following day; hence the usual penalty for the transgression of a prohibition does not apply here (Rashi); v. infra 141a. Tosaf. interprets thus: the Torah has expressly singled out the disqualification of 'out of time' from all the other disqualifications stated in Scripture for which the usual penalty of stripes is in force, and has declared that the transgression of this prohibition is accounted as the none fulfilment of a positive precept.
(3) Ex. XXII, 29
(4) V. supra p. 448.
(5) At present, however, it is 'out of time' or temporarily unfit, e.g., by reason of the slaughtering of the dam this same day. The negative command is indicated in Deut. XII. 8. V. Zeb. 114a.
(6) For according to R. Simeon the slaughtering of the dam in this case, in as much as it does not render the flesh thereof permitted to be eaten, is no slaughtering; consequently the young is fit for sacrifice and he who slaughters it outside the Sanctuary incurs the penalty of Kareth.
(7) Aliter: 'as the case may be'; i.e., introducing respectively other persons.
(8) He has not incurred Kareth since it could not have been offered this day in the Sanctuary.
(9) Since the slaughtering of the first animal was no slaughtering the second was fit to be offered this day in the Sanctuary, accordingly the penalty of Kareth is incurred even in respect of the second animal.
(10) He is not liable for slaughtering it outside the Sanctuary since it was not fit to be offered within on the same day. It must he observed that the Tanna of this Baraitha does not take into consideration the transgression of the law of 'It and its young'.
(11) For the slaughtering of the first animal was no slaughtering and the second animal was thus permitted to be slaughtered this day in the Sanctuary.
(12) V. p. 451, n. 4.
(13) Kareth, however, is not incurred, for since the slaughtering of the first was a valid and proper slaughtering the second was not fit to be offered this day within the Sanctuary.
(14) The reason being that the slaughtering of the first animal, having been performed according to all its rites, renders the second animal 'out of time', so that the slaughtering of the latter is no slaughtering and the punishment of stripes not incurred thereby (Rashi).
(15) Rashi suggests the deletion from the text of the last passage (from 'Why' to 'warning') on the ground that the argument is misleading and erroneous. For the reason why stripes are not incurred is not because of the dubious warning but simply because the slaughtering is no slaughtering (v. prec. n.). V. however Tosaf. supra 80b, s.v. שחיטה.
(16) For slaughtering 'it and its young', as the warning at the time of the commission of the wrongful act, i.e., when slaughtering the peace-offering, is a dubious warning, for if the blood of this sacrifice will not later be sprinkled upon the altar, the slaughtering is no slaughtering and no wrongful act will have been committed. This statement is obviously only in accordance with R. Simeon's view.
(17) The warning in this case before the slaughtering of the unconsecrated animal is a certain warning, for by the act of slaughtering alone the law is transgressed.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 81b
but even if he first slaughtered the burnt-offering and later [on the same day] the unconsecrated animal, he also is not culpable, because the first slaughtering was not a slaughtering such as renders the animal fit for food.1 R. Jacob, however, said in the name of R. Johanan. The consumption [of sacrifices] upon the altar is deemed 'eating'. Why? Because it is written: And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten;2 the verse speaks of two 'eatings', the eating by man and the 'eating' by the altar.
MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED [AN ANIMAL] AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE TREFAH, OR IF HE SLAUGHTERED [IT AS AN OFFERING] TO IDOLS. OR IF HE SLAUGHTERED THE RED COW,3 OR AN OX WHICH WAS CONDEMNED TO BE STONED,4 OR A HEIFER WHOSE NECK WAS TO BE BROKEN,5 R. SIMEON SAYS. HE DOES NOT THEREBY TRANSGRESS [THE LAW OF 'IT AND ITS YOUNG'];6 BUT THE SAGES SAY, HE DOES. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED [AN ANIMAL] AND IT BECAME NEBELAH UNDER HIS HAND, OR IF HE STABBED IT,7 OR TORE AWAY [THE ORGANS OF THE THROAT]. HE DOES NOT THEREBY TRANSGRESS THE LAW OF IT AND ITS YOUNG.8
GEMARA. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: They said so9 only where the person slaughtered the first animal to idols and the second for his table [needs],10 but if he slaughtered the first animal for his table [needs] and the second to idols he is [certainly] not culpable [on the ground of 'It and its young'] for he suffers the heavier penalty.11 Whereupon R. Johanan said to him: Why, even school children know that! But [I say that] sometimes even where he slaughtered the first animal for his table [needs] and the second to idols he is culpable [on the ground of 'It and its young'], if, for example, he was warned of the prohibition of 'It and its young but not of idolatry.12 R. Simeon b. Lakish, however, maintains, since if he had been warned [of idolatry] he would not be culpable [on account of 'It and its young'],13 then even if he had not been warned of idolatry he is likewise not culpable [on account of 'It and its young'].
They14 are indeed consistent in their views. For when R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported as follows:15 He who committed inadvertently16 an act which, if he had committed it wilfully, would have been punishable with death or with stripes, and [the act committed is punishable also with] something else,17 R. Johanan says, he is liable,18 but R. Simeon b. Lakish says, he is not liable. 'R. Johanan says, he is liable', for he had not been warned [of the major penalty];19 'R. Simeon b. Lakish says, he is not liable', for since if he had been warned [of the major penalty] he would not be liable, so, too, if he had not been warned of it he is also not liable. Now both [disputes] are required.20 For if only this [dispute] were reported I might have said that only here does R. Simeon b. Lakish assert his view,21 but there I should have said that he is in agreement with R. Johanan. And if the other dispute only were reported I might have said that only there does R. Johanan assert his view, but here I should have said that he is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Lakish. Both disputes therefore had to be reported.
[Do you say that according to R. Simeon the slaughtering of] the Red Cow is a slaughtering which does not render it fit [for food]? Surely it has been taught: R. Simeon says. The Red Cow contracts food uncleanness.22 since it had a period of fitness [to be used for food].
(1) For a burnt-offering must be entirely burnt upon the altar, consequently according to R. Simeon the slaughtering of a burnt-offering is no slaughtering for it does not render the flesh permitted to be eaten.
(2) Lev. VII, 18. Lit., the verse reads: And if eaten there shall be eaten of the flesh, etc. The repetition of the word 'eaten' indicates the two modes of consumption of a sacrifice, one by man and the other by the altar. Hence the slaughtering of a burnt-offering is a slaughtering, inasmuch as it renders the flesh fit to be eaten', i.e., burnt, by the altar.
(3) Lit., 'the cow of purification'. V. Num. XIX.
(4) For goring a human being. V. Ex. XXI, 28.
(5) V. Deut. XXI, 4.
(6) The slaughtering in any of the above cases is no slaughtering since the animal is not thereby rendered permitted to be eaten, consequently he does not transgress the law of 'It and its young'.
(7) At the throat.
(8) This is admitted by the Sages for in these cases there was either no slaughtering at all or the slaughtering was defective.
(9) I.e., the statement of the Sages that he who slaughters an animal to idols can thereby transgress the law of It and its young.
(10) In which case he suffers stripes for transgressing the law of It and its young and is also put to death for sacrificing unto idols; for these two penalties are incurred by him by different acts, death for slaughtering the first animal, and stripes for the second.
(11) Since he incurs both penalties by the one act, viz., the slaughtering of the second animal to idols, he would only suffer the heavier penalty, namely, death.
(12) In this case he would not suffer the death penalty since he had not been warned of the prohibition of idolatry; he therefore suffers stripes by virtue of the law of It and its young.
(13) For then he would suffer the major penalty, namely, death.
(14) R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish.
(15) V. Keth. 34b.
(16) I.e., he had not been warned beforehand of the wrongful act he was about to commit.
(17) E.g., the payment of money.
(18) To make the money payment.
(19) And so there is no death penalty, and therefore he pays.
(20) Both the dispute here which involves the consideration of the death penalty (by virtue of slaughtering to idols) and stripes (by virtue of the law of 'It and its young'), and the dispute in Keth. l.c., where the death penalty or stripes and a money payment are considered.
(21) That stripes are not inflicted. For since there arises out of the act of slaughtering a consideration of the death penalty, the penalty of stripes, being a minor penalty and of the same character as the major penalty in that they are both corporal punishments, is set aside absolutely, even though in the circumstances for want of the requisite warning the death penalty cannot be inflicted. In the other case however where the penalties involved are of two distinct characters, the one being corporal, i.e., death or stripes, and the other a monetary payment, even R. Simeon b. Lakish would agree that if the major penalty of death or stripes did not apply for want of the necessary warning, the minor penalty of payment would apply.
(22) I.e., its flesh will become unclean by contact with a carcass, for it is regarded as a permissible foodstuff. Rashi raises the interesting question. Why is there any consideration here about the flesh of the Red Cow contracting uncleanness? Surely it conveys uncleanness without having first come into contact with a carcass, cf. Num. XIX, 7, 8, 10. He suggests therefore the following circumstances: A morsel of the flesh of the Red Cow was covered over on all sides by less than an egg's bulk of dough, but together the flesh and the dough make up an egg's bulk, which is the minimum quantity for a foodstuff to contract or to convey uncleanness (v. however Tosaf. B.K. 77a, s.v. פרה). If then it is held that the flesh of the Red Cow is deemed a foodstuff, then the entire bulk will be rendered unclean by contact, say, with a carcass, and will convey uncleanness to other foodstuffs. If, on the other hand, it is not deemed a foodstuff this built cannot suffer uncleanness, and whatever foodstuffs come into contact with it will likewise not be rendered unclean, since they did not make any direct contact with the flesh of the Red Cow which is covered up on all sides with dough; v. Ker. 21b. V. however, Tosaf. supra 81b, s.v. פרה.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 82a
And R. Simeon b. Lakish said: R. Simeon Used to say that the Red Cow may be redeemed1 even on its woodpile!2 - R. Shamman b. Abba therefore suggested in the name of R. Johanan. 'The Red Cow' is not [part] of our Mishnah.
[Do you also say that the slaughtering of] the heifer whose neck was to be broken is a slaughtering which does not render it fit for food? Surely we have learnt: If the murderer was found before the heifer's neck was broken, it is set free to pasture among the herd!3 - R. Simeon b. Lakish therefore said in the name of R. Jannai. 'The heifer whose neck was to be broken' is not [part] of our Mishnah. But could R. Jannai have said so? Did not R. Jannai say. 'I have heard a time limit for it,4 but have forgotten it; but our colleagues maintain: Its descent to the rugged valley renders it forbidden'?5 Now if this is so, it can be answered that there6 it was before it was taken down to the rugged valley and here7 after it was taken down! - R. Phinehas the son of R. Ammi replied. We report the statement8 in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish.9
R. Ashi said. When we were at R. Papi's this difficulty was raised. Did R. Simeon b. Lakish really say so?10 But it has been reported: From what time are a leper's birds forbidden?11 R. Johanan said: From the moment of the slaughtering.12 R. Simeon b. Lakish said: From the moment they are taken.13 And we explained that the reason for the view of R. Simeon b. Lakish was that he derived it by analogy from the word 'taking', used here14 and also in connection with the heifer whose neck was to be broken!15 - Rather [say thus]: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan. 'The heifer whose neck was to be broken' is not [part] of our Mishnah.16
MISHNAH. IF TWO PERSONS BOUGHT A COW AND ITS YOUNG, HE WHO BOUGHT FIRST SHALL SLAUGHTER FIRST; BUT IF THE SECOND FORESTALLED HIM HE HOLDS HIS ADVANTAGE.
GEMARA. R. Joseph said: What we have learnt [in our Mishnah] is with regard to the rights [of each].17 A Tanna taught: If the second forestalled him he is sharp and gains an advantage; sharp in that he cannot now transgress the law, and gains an advantage in that he eats meat [to-day].18 MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED A COW AND THEN TWO OF ITS CALVES, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES.19 IF HE Slaughtered ITS TWO CALVES AND THEN THE COW. HE INCURS FORTY STRIPES.20 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND THEN ITS CALF AND THEN THE CALF'S OFFSPRING, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES.21 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND THEN ITS CALF'S OFFSPRING AND THEN THE CALF, HE INCURS FORTY STRIPES.22 SYMMACHOS, IN THE NAME OF R. MEIR, SAYS, HE INCURS EIGHTY STRIPES.
GEMARA. Why is this so?23 Does not the Divine Law say. 'It and its young', but not 'its young and it'? - You cannot hold this, for it was taught: [It is written.] 'It and its young'; from this I only know it and its young, whence would I know that [the slaughtering of] the young and [then] its dam [is also prohibited]? From the fact that the verse says: Ye shall not slaughter,24 two persons are indicated; thus, if one slaughtered the cow, another its dam, and a third its young, the last two are culpable.
(1) I.e., even after it had been slaughtered upon the specially erected woodpile and is ready for burning (cf. Num. XIX, 5), it may be redeemed if e.g. a finer animal can be obtained. It would then be permitted to be eaten; hence it is always deemed fit for food, for R. Simeon is of the opinion that whatsoever is capable of being redeemed is counted as if it were redeemed.
(2) V. Tosef. Par. VI. The slaughtering of the Red Cow is therefore deemed a slaughtering which renders it fit for food.
(3) And when slaughtered is permitted to be eaten. V. Sot. 470.
(4) As to what time in its rites does it become forbidden.
(5) V. Deut. XXI, 4. Before its descent, however, it is permitted.
(6) The Mishnah in Sotah 47a where it is permitted to pasture among the herd.
(7) Our Mishnah where it is held that the slaughtering thereof does not render it fit for food.
(8) That 'the heifer whose neck was to be broken' does not form part of our Mishnah.
(9) But he did not say it in the name of R. Jannai; hence the difficulty is removed.
(10) That 'the heifer' was not to be included in our Mishnah since the slaughtering thereof renders it fit for food.
(11) The birds prescribed for the purification rites of a leper, v. Lev. XIV, 4, one of which was to be slaughtered and the other to be set free. It is established that these birds are forbidden for every use; V. Kid. 56b.
(12) The slaughtered bird then becomes forbidden for all time. The other that is set free also becomes forbidden from that moment until the time that it is set free (cf. Lev. XIV. 7)' so Tosaf. Kid. 57a, s.v. משעת.
(13) I.e., set aside for the purpose.
(14) Lev. XIV, 4: ולקח.
(15) Deut. XXI, 3. ולקחו. The analogy is, just as the heifer, as soon as it was taken for the purpose, is rendered forbidden for all uses, so it is, too, with the birds of the leper. It is clear therefore that R. Simeon b. Lakish is of the opinion that the slaughtering of the heifer will not render it permitted for food.
(16) It was R. Johanan who made the statement originally and not R. Simeon b. Lakish.
(17) But from the religious point of view it is immaterial who slaughters first or which animal is slaughtered first.
(18) Whereas the other may not slaughter his animal until the next day.
(19) For the prohibition of 'It and its young' has been infringed twice, for the slaughtering of each calf is an infringement of the law.
(20) It is only by the slaughtering of the cow that the law is infringed, and that is only one forbidden act.
(21) The prohibition has in this case been infringed twice.
(22) With the slaughtering of the cow and its calf's offspring no law has as yet been infringed, but when the calf itself is slaughtered there is an infringement from two aspects, for it is the young of the cow and also the dam of its offspring. The Rabbis however maintain that for this one act, for which there was but one warning, he incurs the penalty of stripes once only. For the view of Symmachos v. Gemara.
(23) That the law is infringed even where the young was slaughtered first and then the dam.
(24) Lev. XXII, 28. The plural of the verb indicates that two persons are culpable, one for slaughtering the dam and the other for slaughtering the young. Now this is of significance only where three animals were slaughtered and where the young was slaughtered first (V. Rashi). The Torah thereupon rules that both he who slaughtered its dam and he who slaughtered its offspring have transgressed the prohibition.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 82b
But is not this verse required for its own purpose? - For that, it might have said: 'Thou shalt not slaughter'; why. 'Ye shall not slaughter'? But this too is required for its own purpose, is it not? For if the Divine Law said: 'Thou shalt not slaughter'. I might have thought that only one person [if he slaughtered both, is culpable], but not two.1 The Divine Law therefore says. Ye shall not slaughter, even two may not slaughter. - If so, the Law might have said: 'They shall not be slaughtered';2 why. Ye shall not slaughter? To teach you two things.3
IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND THEN ITS CALF'S OFFSPRING etc. Abaye enquired of R. Joseph: What is the reason of Symmachos? [Is it that] he holds that if a man during a spell of forgetfulness ate two olives' bulk of forbidden fat he is liable to two sin-offerings?4 And by right this view [of Symmachos] should have been recorded elsewhere,5 but it is recorded here6 to show you to what length the Rabbis will go, for the Rabbis exempt him [from an additional penalty] even in a case of separate prohibitions?7 Or is it that he holds that if a man during a spell of forgetfulness ate two olives' bulk of forbidden fat he is only liable to one sin-offering, but here6 the reason is that there are two separate prohibitions?8 - He replied: Yes. He holds that if a man ate two olives' bulk of forbidden fat during a spell of forgetfulness he is liable to two sin-offerings. Whence [do you gather this]? - From the following: It was taught: If a person sowed diverse kinds, diverse kinds, he incurs stripes.9 Now what is meant by 'he incurs stripes'? Should you say it means, he incurs the penalty of stripes once, but this is obvious; moreover, why does it repeat 'diverse kinds, diverse kinds'? It must therefore mean, he incurs stripes twice. And what would be the circumstances of the case? Should you say [he sowed diverse kinds twice] one after the other, and there were two warnings, but we have already learnt this elsewhere: If a nazir10 drinks wine the whole day long, he incurs only one penalty; if he is warned, 'Do not drink', 'Do not drink', and he drinks, he is liable for each [warning].11 Clearly, then, [he sowed diverse kinds twice but] simultaneously12 and there was only one warning.13 Now who is the author of this statement? Should you say it is the Rabbis who differ with Symmachos, but surely, if in that case [in our Mishnah] where there are separate prohibitions the Rabbis exempt [the wrongdoer from an additional penalty], how much more so in this case. Hence it is, no doubt, Symmachos!14 - No. I maintain it is the Rabbis,15 but they incidentally teach us something else, that there are two sorts of 'diverse kinds'. They thus reject the view of R. Josiah, who said: [A man is not guilty] until he sows wheat, barley and grape kernels with one throw of the hand; for they teach us that if a man sowed wheat and grape kernels or barley and grape kernels he is also guilty.16
Come and hear: If a person ate an olive's bulk [of the sciatic nerve] of this [thigh] and another olive's bulk of the other [thigh].17 he has incurred eighty stripes. R. Judah says: He has only incurred forty stripes.18 Now what are the circumstances of the case? If you say [that he ate them] one after the other and there were two warnings, then what is R. Judah's reason [for saying that he has incurred forty stripes]? Is not the warning [with regard to each] dubious?19 And we have learnt that according to R. Judah a dubious warning is no warning. For it was taught: If he struck one and then struck the other,20 or if he cursed one and then cursed the other, or if he struck then, both simultaneously,21 or if he cursed them both simultaneously, he is liable. R. Judah Says. If simultaneously, he is liable;22 if one after the other, he is not liable.23 Obviously then the case is [that he ate them]24 together and there was only one warning. Now whose view is expressed by the first Tanna? Should you say that of the Rabbis who differ with Symmachos, but Surely if there [in our Mishnah] where there are separate prohibitions the Rabbis exempt [the wrongdoer from an additional penalty], how much more so in this case.25 Hence it is, no doubt, that of Symmachos!26 - No. I maintain [that he ate them] one after the other [and that there were two warnings], and [that the view expressed by the first Tanna is that of] the Rabbis. [The statement however expressed above by] the Tanna [in the name of R. Judah] agrees with the view of another Tanna who declares, also in the name of R. Judah, that a dubious warning is a warning. For it was taught: And he shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.27
(1) I.e., if one slaughtered the dam and another its young the law has not been infringed.
(2) לא ישחטו; neither by one person nor two persons.
(3) First that the prohibition applies where the animals were slaughtered by two persons, and secondly that whichever was slaughtered first, with the slaughtering of the second the law is infringed.
(4) Similarly, had be been warned beforehand of the prohibition of forbidden fat, so that he acted deliberately, he would incur the penalty of stripes twice. Accordingly, Symmachos would hold that even in the first clause of our Mishnah where a man slaughtered two calves (a permitted act) and then its dam, he would incur the penalty of stripes twice. And even though a distinction might be drawn between the above cases cited and the last clause of our Mishnah where Symmachos' opinion is actually recorded, viz., in the latter case the one act of slaughtering involves the transgression of two distinct prohibitions, namely 'It and its young'. 'It and its dam', each entailing the penalty of stripes, whereas in the above cases cited the act that is repeated involves the transgression of one prohibition only, namely, the prohibition of forbidden fat or in the first clause of our Mishnah the prohibition of 'It and its dam' - this distinction Symmachos does not regard as vital.
(5) In those cases where there is a transgression of one prohibition only, as in the case of the forbidden fat supra, or in the case of the first clause of our Mishnah.
(6) Sc. in the final clause of the Mishnah.
(7) Lit., 'separate bodies'. I.e., there are two separate animals and in respect of each a distinct prohibition is transgressed.
(8) And therefore here he incurs the penalty of stripes twice.
(9) V. Lev. XIX, 19. Apparently he sowed diverse kinds of seeds on two occasions.
(10) One who has taken a nazirite vow to abstain from wine, to avoid contact with a corpse and to allow the hair to grow long; v. Num. VI.
(11) Naz. 420. We thus see there is a separate liability for the same act, however much repeated, provided there was a warning each time.
(12) I.e., sowing diverse kinds with his right hand and also with his left hand.
(13) Or even successively if there was only one warning (Tosaf.).
(14) We learn from this the view of Symmachos that if a person ate two olives' bulk of forbidden fat in one spell of forgetfulness he is liable to two sin-offerings.
(15) And there were two warnings. Although the case is obvious it was stated for a special purpose.
(16) I.e., that wheat and grape kernels alone constitute 'diverse kinds' and so also barley and grape kernels, contra R. Josiah.
(17) V. infra 92a and 96a. Each olive's bulk of the sciatic nerve was taken from the same animal, but one from the right thigh and the other from the left.
(18) He is of the opinion that the prohibition applies only to one thigh.
(19) For R. Judah is in doubt as to which thigh the prohibition applies; hence the warning with regard to the eating of each of them is dubious, for each one may be the one that is permitted, consequently he should be exempt entirely from stripes.
(20) If a woman did not wait three months after separation from her husband by divorce, immediately married again, and after seven months gave birth to a son, there is always a doubt as to the paternity of the child. It may be a nine-months' child by the first husband or a seven-months' child by the second. This child, when grown up, struck one of his mother's husbands and then struck the other. The warning at the time of striking each one is a doubtful one, for when considering each one individually there is a doubt as to whether he is his father or not; it is nevertheless regarded as a proper warning and the son would be liable to the death penalty for striking or cursing his father (cf. Ex. XXI, 15, 17).
(21) Striking one with his right hand and the other with his left.
(22) Here the warning at the time of striking is a certain warning, for he is certainly striking one who is his father.
(23) For the warning at each striking is a dubious one and R. Judah is of the opinion that such is no warning.
(24) I.e., the sciatic nerve of each thigh. In this case the warning is certain for one is the prohibited nerve.
(25) That he should not be liable to eighty stripes.
(26) Thus establishing the opinion of Symmachos as interpreted by R. Joseph.
(27) Ex. XII, 10. This law refers to the Passover offering.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 83a
Scripture here came and provided a positive precept as a remedy for1 the [disregarded] prohibition to indicate that the prohibition is not punishable by stripes: so R. Judah.2 R. Jacob says. This is not the reason,3 but because it is a prohibition which involves no action [in the contravention thereof], and any prohibition which involves no action [in the contravention thereof] is not punishable by stripes.4
Come and hear: If a person ate two sciatic nerves from the two [right] thighs of two animals, he has incurred eighty stripes. R. Judah says: He has only incurred forty stripes. Now what are the circumstances of the case? If you say [that he ate them] one after the other and that there were two warnings, then what is the reason of R. Judah who says that he has incurred forty stripes and no more? Obviously then [he ate them] together and there was only one warning. Now whose view is expressed by the first Tanna? If you say that of the Rabbis who differ with Symmachos, but surely if there [in our Mishnah] where there are separate prohibitions the Rabbis exempt [the wrongdoer from an additional penalty], how much more so in this case. Hence it is, no doubt, that of Symmachos! - No. I maintain [that he ate them] one after the other; but when you ask, 'Then what is R. Judah's reason?'5 [I reply that] in this case one was not as much as an olive's bulk.6 For it has been taught: If a person ate [the whole of] it but it was not as much as an olive's bulk, he is liable. R. Judah says, [He is not liable] unless it was as much as an olive's bulk.7
MISHNAH. AT FOUR PERIODS IN THE YEAR HE WHO SELLS A BEAST TO ANOTHER MUST INFORM HIM, I SOLD TO-DAY ITS DAM TO BE SLAUGHTERED', OR. 'I SOLD TO-DAY ITS YOUNG TO BE SLAUGHTERED',8 NAMELY, ON THE EVE OF THE LAST DAY9 OF THE FEAST [OF TABERNACLES], ON THE EVE OF THE FIRST DAY OF PASSOVER, ON THE EVE OF PENTECOST, AND ON THE EVE OF THE NEW YEAR; ACCORDING TO R. JOSE THE GALILEAN, ALSO ON THE EVE OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, IN GALILEE.10 R. JUDAH SAYS, THIS IS SO, ONLY WHEN THERE WAS NO INTERVAL,11 BUT IF THERE WAS AN INTERVAL. HE NEED NOT INFORM HIM. YET R. JUDAH AGREES THAT IF HE SOLD THE DAM TO THE BRIDEGROOM AND THE YOUNG TO THE BRIDE, HE MUST INFORM THEM OF IT, FOR IT IS CERTAIN THAT THEY WILL EACH SLAUGHTER [THEIR BEAST] ON THE SAME DAY. AT THESE FOUR PERIODS A BUTCHER CAN BE COMPELLED TO SLAUGHTER A BEAST AGAINST HIS WILL; EVEN IF THE OX WAS WORTH A THOUSAND DENARS12 AND THE PURCHASER HAS ONLY [PAID] A DENAR,13 THE BUTCHER IS COMPELLED TO SLAUGHTER IT. THEREFORE IF THE ANIMAL DIED, THE LOSS FALLS UPON THE PURCHASER.14 AT OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR IT IS NOT SO,15 THEREFORE IF THE ANIMAL DIED, THE LOSS FALLS UPON THE SELLER.
GEMARA. A Tanna taught: If he did not inform him, he [the Purchaser] may go and slaughter it without any hesitation whatsoever.
R. JUDAH SAYS, THIS IS SO . . . [IF HE SOLD THE DAM TO THE BRIDEGROOM], etc. Why does he particularly state THE DAM TO THE BRIDEGROOM and THE YOUNG TO THE BRIDE? - He incidentally tells us that it is the proper thing for the bridegroom's family to make16 [greater festivities] than the bride's family.
AT THESE FOUR PERIODS, etc. But he [the purchaser] has not drawn it into his possession?17 - R. Huna answered: We must assume that he had done so. If so, why [does it say] in the last clause, AT OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR IT IS NOT SO; THEREFORE IF THE ANIMAL DIED THE LOSS FALLS UPON THE SELLER? But he has already drawn [the animal] into his possession?18 - R. Samuel son of R. Isaac answered: In fact he had not drawn it into his possession, but here the case was that the seller had transferred [a portion to the purchaser] through a third party. Now at these four periods it is an advantage for him [to have meat],19 and it is an established rule20 that one may act to another's advantage in his absence; whereas at other times of the year it is a disadvantage for him21 and one may not act to another's disadvantage save in his presence. R. Eliezer answered in the name of R. Johanan that at these four periods the Rabbis adopted the Biblical law. For R. Johanan has said: By Biblical law, [the payment of] money confers title. Why then was it decreed that only meshikah22 confers title? As a precautionary measure, lest he [the vendor] say to him [the purchaser]. 'Your wheat was burnt in the loft'.23
MISHNAH. THE 'ONE DAY'24 MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW OF 'IT AND ITS YOUNG' MEANS THE DAY AND THE NIGHT PRECEDING IT.25 THIS WAS EXPOUNDED BY R. SIMEON B. ZOMA: THE EXPRESSION 'ONE DAY' IS MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION26 AND ALSO IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW OF 'IT AND ITS YOUNG'. AS THE 'ONE DAY' MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION MEANS THE DAY AND THE NIGHT PRECEDING IT, SO TOO THE 'ONE DAY' MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW OF 'IT AND ITS YOUNG' MEANS THE DAY AND THE NIGHT PRECEDING IT.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: This was expounded by R. Simeon b. Zoma: Since the whole passage deals only with the laws concerning consecrated animals,27 and with regard to consecrated matters [a day means] the day and the night following it,28 I might have thought that here also it is the same, it is therefore written here 'one day' and also 'one day' in connection with the Creation, as the 'one day' mentioned in connection with the Creation means the day and the night preceding it, so, too, the 'one day' mentioned in connection with the law of 'It and its young' means the day and the night preceding it.
(1) Lit., 'after'.
(2) But were it not for the remedial act provided for by Scripture the infringement of this prohibition would entail stripes, even though the warning in this case is a dubious one, for whenever warned the offender could reply. 'It is still night and I have yet time to eat it'.
(3) Lit., 'not of the same denomination'. That is not the reason why the transgression of this prohibition is not punishable by stripes.
(4) V. Mak. 4b, 16a, and elsewhere.
(5) That he only incurs forty stripes.
(6) The sciatic nerve of one animal was as much as an olive's bulk but not that of the other. (See Rashi.) According to R. Judah, therefore, he only incurs forty stripes. According to the Rabbis, however, if a man ate the entire sciatic nerve, even though in all it was not as much as an olive's bulk, being a distinct entity, he is liable. The Rabbis therefore hold that in the above case he incurs eighty stripes.
(7) Tosef. Hul. VII; Tosef. Mak. III.
(8) It is presumed that on these special days animals would be slaughtered on the day that they are bought, so as to have meat prepared for the Festival that is on the following day. This information is necessary in order to avoid the slaughtering of the dam and its young on the same day
(9) The last day of the Feast of Tabernacles was regarded as a festival by itself and was observed with special celebrations and feasting. On the eve of the commencement of the Feast of Tabernacles, Israelites are usually preoccupied with the erection of 'booths' and would not find time for purchasing and slaughtering animals.
(10) Where it was the custom to indulge in much feasting, including meat dishes, before the Fast.
(11) Of a day between the sale of one animal and the other; i.e., both were sold on the same day.
(12) A coin. V. Glos.
(13) The purchaser had already paid a denar to buy a denar's worth of meat.
(14) Lit., 'it has died to the purchaser'. He cannot demand the return of his denar or claim meat to that value.
(15) For the mere payment of money does not, according to Rabbinic enactment, effect an irrevocable sale.
(16) Lit., 'to trouble'. Accordingly the larger animal, the dam, is sold to the bridegroom's family.
(17) Why should the purchaser bear any of the loss since he has not become the legal owner of his portion? V. n. 7.
(18) So that the purchaser has acquired legal ownership of his portion; consequently he must bear any loss.
(19) In honour of the Festival.
(20) Kid. 23a and elsewhere.
(21) To spend money on meat.
(22) משיכה, lit., 'drawing' into one's possession, thereby obtaining ownership.
(23) Were the purchaser to be regarded as the owner of the goods upon the payment of the purchase money even though the goods had not left the vendor's possession, the latter would not trouble to save them if they caught fire. The Rabbis therefore decreed that the ownership should not pass until there had been a meshikah by the purchaser, for then the purchaser would usually carry away the goods with him.
(24) Lev. XXII, 28.
(25) If therefore a man slaughtered the dam at night, he may not slaughter its young the whole of the following day. On the other hand, if he slaughtered the dam during the day, he may as soon as the night sets in slaughter the young.
(26) Gen. I, 5; where it reads: And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
(27) For in the preceding verse (Lev. XXII, 27) it reads: And thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
(28) For in connection with the eating of sacrificial meat it is written (ibid. VII, 15). It shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. Thus it may be eaten the whole of the night following the day.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 83b
Rabbi says: One day means a special day, on which an announcement [with regard to 'It and its young'] must be made. Hence [the Rabbis] have said: At four periods of the year he who sells a beast to another must inform him [of the sale of its dam or of its young].
MISHNAH. THE [LAW OF] COVERING UP THE BLOOD1 IS IN FORCE BOTH WITHIN THE [HOLY] LAND AND OUTSIDE IT, BOTH DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TEMPLE AND AFTER IT, IN RESPECT OF UNCONSECRATED [ANIMALS OR BIRDS] BUT NOT CONSECRATED [BIRDS].2 IT APPLIES [ONLY] TO WILD ANIMALS AND BIRDS, WHETHER THEY ARE AT ONE'S DISPOSAL OR NOT.3 IT APPLIES ALSO TO A KOY, FOR IT IS AN ANIMAL ABOUT WHICH THERE IS A DOUBT.4 IT MAY [THEREFORE] NOT BE SLAUGHTERED ON A FESTIVAL; AND IF IT WAS SLAUGHTERED [THEREON] ONE MAY NOT COVER UP ITS BLOOD.5
GEMARA. Why does it not apply to consecrated [birds]? Is it because of R. Zera's teaching? For R. Zera said: He who slaughters [a bird or a wild animal] must place dust underneath [the blood] and dust above it, for it is written: He shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust [be-'afar];1 it does not say ''afar' but 'be-'afar';6 this is to indicate that he who slaughters must place dust underneath [the blood] and dust above it. And here [in the case of consecrated birds] this is not possible; for how should he do it? If he were to place [dust upon the altar] and decide to leave it there,7 he is thereby adding to the structure [of the altar], and it is written: All this, (said David, do I give thee) in writing, as the Lord hath made me wise by His hand upon me!8 And if he does not decide to leave it there, then it is an interposition!9 But granted that it is not possible [to place dust] underneath [the blood], surely it is possible [to place dust] above it, why then should he not cover it up? Has it not been taught: R. Jonathan b. Joseph says: If a man slaughtered a wild animal and then he slaughtered cattle, he is exempt from covering up the blood; if he slaughtered cattle and then a wild animal he must cover up the blood?10 - [The reason is] because of R. Zera's principle. For R. Zera stated: Wherever proper mingling is possible the mingling is not indispensable, but wherever proper mingling is not possible the mingling is indispensable.11 And why should he not scrape away the blood [from off the altar] and cover it up? Have we not learnt: The blood which spurted out and that which is upon the knife must also be covered up?12 It is clear therefore that he must scrape it away and cover it up; here too he should scrape it away [from off the altar] and cover it up? - If it was [a bird] consecrated for sacrifice13 it would indeed be so, but here [in our Mishnah] we are speaking of a bird consecrated for the Temple treasury.14
(1) V. Lev. XVII, 13.
(2) I.e., the sin- or burnt-offerings of birds.
(3) I.e., whether they are wild or domesticated. This is in contradistinction from the law of 'Letting the mother bird go' (Deut. XXII, 7). V. infra 138b.
(4) Whether it is a kind of cattle or a kind of wild animal. V. supra p. 436, n. 2.
(5) Because of its doubt one may not desecrate the festival by covering up its blood if it had been slaughtered.
(6) V. supra p. 163, n. 1. Heb. בעפר
(7) Lit., 'renounce it', so that it becomes part of the altar.
(8) I Chron. XXVIII, 19.
(9) Interposing between the blood of the bird sacrifice and the altar, and this would disqualify the service.
(10) Although in this case there is no dust beneath the blood of the wild animal, for it lies above the blood of the cattle, it must nevertheless be covered up on top. Likewise the blood of a bird sacrifice upon the altar should have to be covered up on top.
(11) V. Men. 103b. It has been taught that one may not bring a meal offering consisting of sixty-one 'esronim (plural of 'issaron, the tenth part of an ephah) in one vessel for it cannot be mingled thoroughly with the prescribed log of oil. Now although it is established that the meal-offering is valid even though the flour and oil had not been mixed, it must, declared R. Zera, be in the condition in which it could be mixed if so desired, but if it cannot be mixed the meal-offering, is invalid. This principle of R. Zera is applied here: the requirement of placing dust underneath the blood can be dispensed with so long as it is possible to do so if desired, but in the case of a consecrated bird, where it is not permissible to place dust upon the altar underneath the blood, this requirement becomes indispensable.
(12) Infra 87b.
(13) Lit., consecrated for the altar'. E.g., a sin-offering of a bird, which may be eaten by priests after the sacrificial rites had been performed with it. In this case the blood of the sacrifice, after it has been drained out on the altar, must be scraped away and covered up.
(14) Lit., 'for the repair of the House', i.e., for the general purposes of the Temple. As the slaughtering of this bird does not render it fit to be eaten, for it is forbidden for all purposes, the slaughtering is no slaughtering (v. supra 80a bot., the opinion of R. Simeon), consequently the law of covering up the blood does not apply.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 84a
And why should he not redeem it1 and then cover up [its blood]? - Because [in order to redeem a consecrated living thing] it must be stood up and appraised [by the priest].2 According to whom is this teaching? If according to R. Meir, who said that all3 [consecrated living things] are subject to the law of standing up whilst being appraised, but he holds, does he not, that a slaughtering which does not render fit [for food] is a proper slaughtering?4 And if according to R. Simeon, who said that a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is no slaughtering, but he holds, does he not, that not all5 are subject to the law of standing up whilst being appraised? - R. Joseph answered: The Tanna of our Mishnah is Rabbi who incorporates the views of both these Tannaim: with regard to a slaughtering which does not render fit [for food] he adopts the view of R. Simeon, and with regard to the law of standing up whilst being appraised he adopts the view of R. Meir. Alternatively, you may say, the entire Mishnah is in conformity with the views of R. Simeon, but it is different here, for the verse reads: And he shall pour out . . . and cover it,6 implying that the law [of 'covering up'] applies only to that case which requires pouring out and covering up, but not to this case which requires pouring out, redeeming and covering up. And now that you have adopted this argument, you might even say that our Mishnah refers also to birds consecrated for sacrifice,7 for the law [of 'covering up'] applies only to those that require pouring out and covering up, but not to those that require pouring out, scraping away [from off the altar] and covering up.
Mar son of R. Ashi said, [The reason8 is because] Scripture says. Any wild animal or bird,9 and just as it cannot refer to a consecrated wild animal10 so it cannot refer to a consecrated bird. But [I might say] just as the law refers to wild animals none of which can be consecrated,11 so it only refers to those birds which cannot be consecrated, hence I would exclude turtle doves and young pigeons since they can be consecrated!12 - This cannot be, for it is likened to the wild animal, and just as in the case of wild animals you make no distinctions, so in the case of birds you ought not to make any distinctions.13
Jacob the Min14 said to Raba: It is established that the term 'cattle' includes wild animals with regard to the characteristics [of cleanness];15 should I not say then that the term 'wild animal' includes cattle with regard to the law of covering up [the blood]? - He replied. To [confute] such as you the verse says: Thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water,16 and as water does not require to be covered up, so [the blood of] cattle does not require to be covered up. If so, one should be allowed to immerse [unclean things] in it!17 - Scripture says. Nevertheless a fountain or a cistern, any gathering of water shall be clean;18 only these [render clean], but any other [liquid] does not. Perhaps this [verse] only excludes other liquids which are not described as water, but blood, since it is described as water, should be allowed [for purposes of immersion]! - There are two limiting qualifications, viz., 'a fountain' of water and 'a cistern' of water.19 Perhaps both [these limitations] serve to exclude other liquids, one excluding liquids in a running state and the other liquids when collected! - There are three limiting qualifications, viz., 'a fountain' of water, 'a cistern' of water, and 'any gathering of water'.20
Our Rabbis taught: [It is written,] who taketh in hunting.21 I only know from this [that the law applies to] that which is taken in hunting, whence would I know that it also applies to such as are always taken hunting,22 e.g., geese and fowl? The text therefore adds a hunting; the law thus applies to all cases. Why then does Scripture say. 'Who taketh in hunting'? The Torah teaches a rule of conduct, that a person should not eat meat except after such preparation as this.23
Our Rabbis taught: When the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy border, as He hath promised thee, and thou shalt say: I will eat flesh.24 The Torah here teaches a rule of conduct, that a person should not eat meat unless he has a special appetite for it. I might think that this means that a person should buy [meat] in the market and eat it, the text therefore states: Then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock.25 I might then think that this means that he should kill all his herd and eat and all his flock and eat, the text therefore states: 'Of thy herd', and not all thy herd; 'of thy flock' and not all thy flock. Hence R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said: A man who has a maneh26 may buy for his stew a litra27 of vegetables; if he has ten maneh he may buy for his stew a litra of fish; if he has fifty maneh he may buy for his stew a litra of meat; if he has a hundred maneh he may have a pot set on for him every day. And [how often for] the others?28 From Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve. Said Rab: We must defer to the opinion of the Elder.29 R. Johanan said: Abba30 comes from a healthy family, but as for us,31 whosoever amongst us has a penny in his purse should hasten with it to the shop-keeper. R. Nahman said: As for us,32 we must even borrow to eat.
The lambs are for thy clothing:33 of the fleece of your own lambs should be your clothing. 'And the goats the price of the field':33 a person should always sell his field and buy goats rather then sell his goats and buy a field. 'And there will be goats' milk enough':34 it is enough for a person to sustain himself with the milk of the goats and lambs in his home. 'For thy food, for the food of thy household':34 your own sustenance comes first, before the sustenance of your household. 'And life for thy maidens':34 Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman said: Discipline your maidens35 in the way of life;36 hence the Torah teaches a rule of conduct that a parent should not accustom his son to flesh and wine.
R. Johanan said,
(1) So that it becomes permitted to be eaten.
(2) V. Lev. XXVII, 11, 12. The living thing when being redeemed must be able to stand up while it is being valued by the priest, but here the bird is already dead.
(3) I.e., animals that have been consecrated for sacrifice but have become unfit by reason of a physical blemish as well as those consecrated for the Temple treasury.
(4) Accordingly the blood must be covered up, even though it is not fit for food by virtue of its not having been redeemed.
(5) But only those consecrated for sacrifice.
(6) Lev. XVII, 13.
(7) So that our Mishnah exempts all consecrated birds from the law of covering up the blood.
(8) Why consecrated birds are exempt from the law of 'covering up'.
(9) Lev. XVII, 13.
(10) For no wild animal of whatever kind or species is fit for sacrifice.
(11) Lit., 'none of its species can be consecrated'.
(12) I.e., that the law of covering up the blood should not apply to turtle doves and young pigeons even though they are unconsecrated.
(13) All kinds must be alike; nevertheless it is established that the law refers only to those that are unconsecrated.
(14) V. Glos.
(15) By which we distinguish the cattle and the wild animals that are permitted to be eaten; v. supra 71a.
(16) Deut. XII, 24.
(17) In blood, since it is likened to water.
(18) Lev. XI, 36.
(19) The word 'water' is to be taken with each of the preceding nouns, and it is to be regarded as if it were expressly stated after each, thus serving to exclude all liquids, even blood.
(20) Two limitations serve to exclude all liquids whether in a running state or collected in a vessel; the third limitation excludes blood.
(21) Lev. XVII, 13. The verse literally reads: Who taketh in hunting a hunting of wild animal or bird.
(22) I.e., which are domesticated and within one's house.
(23) I.e., after toilsome preparation, and only as a rare luxury, for otherwise one would soon be reduced to poverty.
(24) Deut. XII, 20.
(25) Ibid. 21.
(26) A coin equal to one hundred zuz. V. Glos.
(27) A measure of capacity; v. Glos.
(28) I.e., the above mentioned persons of lesser means.
(29) Sc. R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah. He is termed 'the Elder' because on his appointment as head of the Academy he suddenly turned grey-haired, cf. Ber. 282.
(30) Sc. Rab.
(31) Who are not so healthy and strong as those of former generations.
(32) Our generation which is still weaker than that of R. Johanan.
(33) Prov. XXVII, 26.
(34) Ibid. 27.
(35) I.e., the household.
(36) In thrift and moderation, so that they be content with the simple needs of life.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 84b
Whoso wishes to become rich should engage in [the breeding of] small cattle.1 R. Hisda said: Why the expression. The young ['ashteroth] of thy flock?2 Because they enrich [me'asheroth] their owners.
R. Johanan also said: Rather [drink] a cupful of witchcraft than a cupful of lukewarm water; that is so only if it is in a metal vessel, but in an earthenware vessel it does no harm. Moreover, even in a metal vessel we say [it is harmful] only if no spice roots were thrown into it, but if some spice roots were thrown into it it does no harm. Moreover, even if no spice roots were thrown into it we say [it is harmful] only if the water had not been boiled, but once it had boiled it can do no harm. R. Johanan also said: If a person is left a fortune3 by his parents and wishes to dissipate it, let him wear linen garments, use glassware, and engage workmen and not be with them. 'Let him wear linen garments, especially of Roman linen;4 'use glassware', especially white glass;5 'and engage workmen and not be with them', [especially to work with] oxen, which can cause much damage.6
R. 'Awira used to give the following exposition (sometimes quoting it in the name of R. Ammi and sometimes in the name of R. Assi): What is the meaning of the verse: Well is it with the man that dealeth graciously, that ordereth his affairs rightfully?7 A man should always eat and drink less than his means allow, clothe himself in accordance with means, and honour his wife and children more than his means allow, for they are dependent upon him and he is dependent upon 'Him who spake and the world came into being'.
R. 'Ena lectured at the entrance of the Exilarch's house, viz., If a person slaughtered [a bird] on the Sabbath for an invalid, he must cover up its blood.8 Whereupon Rabbah said: He is talking nonsense; remove from him his Amora.9 For it has been taught: R. Jose says. A koy may not be slaughtered on a festival, and if it was slaughtered its blood may not be covered up, by reason of the following a fortiori argument: If circumcision which in a case of certainty overrides the Sabbath10 yet in a case of doubt does not even override the festival,11 the covering up of the blood which even in a case of certainty does not override the Sabbath will surely not override the festival in a case of doubt!12 They said to him: But the sounding of the Shofar in the provinces could prove otherwise,13 for even though in a case of certainty it does not override the Sabbath yet it does override the festival in a case of doubt.14 R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi15 raised this objection against the argument [of R. Jose]: You may say so of circumcision since it is not allowed on the night of a festival;16 will you then say the same of the covering up of the blood which is allowed on the night of a festival? (R. Abba said: This is one of the instances about which R. Hiyya had said: 'I have no objection to raise against it', but R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi did find an objection.) Now it actually was stated above, 'The covering up of the blood which even in a case of certainty does not override the Sabbath'. To what does the ruling that the covering up of the blood even In a case of certainty does not override the Sabbath refer? No doubt, to the case where one slaughtered on the Sabbath for an invalid!17 But perhaps [it refers to the case] where one transgressed and slaughtered!18 - It must be under similar conditions as circumcision: as circumcision does not involve the transgression of a precept19 so the case of the covering up of the blood must not have involved the transgression of a precept.20
'They said to him: But the sounding of the Shofar in the provinces could prove otherwise, for even though in a case of certainty it does not override the Sabbath yet it does override the festival in a case of doubt'. What is this case of doubt? Is it the doubt whether the day is a Holy day or a weekday? But surely, if it [the sounding of the Shofar] overrides a certain Holy day, is there any question about a doubtful Holy day?21
(1) V. Tosaf. s.v. הרוצה.
(2) Deut. VII, 13. There is here a play upon the words: עשתרות and מעשרות R. Hisda's interpretation of this expression suggests the reason for this opinion of R. Johanan.
(3) MS.M. adds: Gotten by usury.
(4) Which are very expensive (Rashi); or, which are of inferior quality (R. Gershom).
(5) Which is both expensive and fragile.
(6) Both to the oxen and the crops.
(7) Ps. CXII, 5.
(8) For since it is permitted to slaughter on the Sabbath for a person who is dangerously ill, it is suggested that everything in connection with the slaughtering is permitted, even the covering up of the blood.
(9) Aliter: 'let his tongue be pulled out. That he shall no more lecture. אשתומא 'confusion', 'an amazing statement'; cf. Dan. IV, 16. For Amora v. Glos. Another reading, quoted by Rashi and R. Gershom and supported by MS.M., is: אי דשמא קאמר. 'If he says so in his own name remove etc.'.
(10) If the eighth day is a Sabbath, the child is circumcised on the Sabbath, for the rite of circumcision overrides the laws of Sabbath. V. Shab. XIX, 5.
(11) If a child was born at twilight there is a doubt as to the correct day for circumcision, and the child is circumcised on the ninth day; should this day happen to be a festival the circumcision is postponed to the tenth day. V. Shab. ibid.
(12) Sc., a koy.
(13) It is established law that if Rosh Hashanah happened to fall on Sabbath the Shofar was blown in the Temple (or, in Jerusalem - Maim.) but not in any other place in the land of Israel. V. R.H. 29b.
(14) For although only males and not females are bound to sound the Shofar it is nevertheless held that a tumtum, i.e., a person of doubtful sex, must sound the Shofar; thus it is seen that a case of doubt overrides the festival restriction.
(15) V. supra p. 52, n. 4.
(16) For the rite of circumcision may not be performed at night, cf. Lev. XII, 3.
(17) Where the Sabbath had already been set aside for the slaughtering which was permitted for the sake of the invalid, nevertheless it is not set aside for covering up the blood. Thus R. 'Ena stands refuted.
(18) I.e., where the slaughtering was performed on the Sabbath for the sake of a healthy person. In that case only is it forbidden to cover up the blood, but where the slaughtering was permitted it would also be permitted to cover up the blood.
(19) Lit., '(is an act) of free choice'.
(20) I.e., the slaughtering was a permissible act, for it was done for an invalid.
(21) Accordingly this is no case of doubt at all, for whether the day be a Holy Day or a weekday one may sound the Shofar thereon. V. Jer. Bez. I, 3.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 85a
Rather the case of doubt is whether the person [that is sounding the Shofar] is a man or a woman.1 R. Jose however [does not regard this as a refutation for he] is of the opinion that even a woman2 may sound [the Shofar on the Festival]. For it was taught: The sons of Israel lay on [their hands upon the head of the sacrifice]3 but the daughters of Israel do not lay on their hands. R. Jose and R. Simeon say. Daughters of Israel lay on their hands of free choice.4 Rabina said: Even the argument of the Rabbis can be refuted thus: You may say so of the sounding of the Shofar,5 since in the Temple in a case of certainty it overrides the Sabbath,'6 will you say likewise of the covering up of the blood which in no Circumstances [overrides the Sabbath]?
'R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi raised this objection against the argument [of R. Jose]. You may say so of circumcision since it is not allowed on the night of a festival.' Is it only on the night of a festival that it is not allowed but on other nights it is allowed?7 - Render thus: You may say so of circumcision since it is not allowed by night as by day;8 will you say likewise of the covering up of the blood which is allowed by night as by day? R. Abba said: This is one of the instances about which R. Hiyya had said: 'I have no objection to raise against it', but R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi did find an objection.
MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED [A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD] AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE TREFAH. OR IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT UNTO IDOLS, OR IF HE SLAUGHTERED THAT WHICH WAS UNCONSECRATED INSIDE THE SANCTUARY OR THAT WHICH WAS CONSECRATED OUTSIDE, OR IF HE SLAUGHTERED A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD THAT WAS CONDEMNED TO BE STONED9 - R. MEIR SAYS THAT HE IS BOUND [TO COVER UP THE BLOOD]. BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT HE IS EXEMPT.10 IF HE SLAUGHTERED [A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD] AND IT BECAME NEBELAH UNDER HIS HAND OR IF HE STABBED8 T11 OR TORE AWAY [THE ORGANS OF ITS THROAT], HE IS EXEMPT FROM COVERING UP [THE BLOOD].
GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan. Rabbi approved of R. Meir's view12 in connection with the law of 'It and its young' and stated it in the Mishnah13 as the view of 'the Sages', and he approved of R. Simeon's view in connection with the law of covering up the blood and stated it in our Mishnah as the view of 'the Sages'. What is the reason for R. Meir's view with regard to the law of 'It and its young'? - R. Joshua b. Levi answered: He derives it by an inference made from the term 'slaughtering', used both here14 and in connection with the slaughtering of consecrated animals outside [the Sanctuary];14 as in the latter case a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food15 is deemed a slaughtering, so here [in connection with It and its young] a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. And what is the reason for R. Simeon's view? - R. Mani b. Pattish answered: He derives it by analogy from the verse: And slay the beasts and prepare the meat,;16 as there the slaughtering rendered [the animals] fit for food,17 so here the slaughtering must render [the animal] fit for food. Why does not R. Meir infer it by analogy from 'And slay the beasts'? - One may infer 'slaughtering' from 'slaughtering', but one may not infer 'slaughtering' from 'slaying'. But what does this [variation] matter? Was it not taught in the school of R. Ishmael that in the verse: And the priest shall come again.18 And the priest shall come in,18 the expression 'coming again' and 'coming in' have the same import [for purposes of deduction]?19 - This [variation] is [of no consequence] only where there is no alternative analogy based on identical expressions, but where there is an alternative analogy based on identical expressions we must then make the inference from the identical expressions. And why does not R. Simeon infer it by analogy from the law of consecrated animals slaughtered outside the Sanctuary? - One may infer by analogy unconsecrated animals from unconsecrated animals, but not unconsecrated from consecrated. And [is this not an objection against] R. Meir? - [No, for] does not the law of 'It and its young' apply also to consecrated animals? It was on account of this [reply] that R. Hiyya [b. Abba] said that Rabbi approved of R. Meir's view in connection with the law of 'It and its young' and stated it in the Mishnah as the view of 'the Sages'. What is the reason for R. Meir's view with regard to the law of covering up the blood? - R. Simeon b. Lakish answered: He derives it by an inference made from the term 'pour out'20 used both here and in connection with consecrated animals slaughtered outside the Sanctuary; as in the latter case a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering, so here [in connection with covering up the blood] a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. And [is not this against] R. Simeon? - [No, for] it is written: That may be eaten.21 And R. Meir?22 - It serves to exclude unclean birds [from the law of covering up the blood]. And R. Simeon?22 - Why is it that an unclean bird is excluded? Because it may not be eaten; then a trefah too may not be eaten.23 It was on account of this [reply] that R. Hiyya [b. Abba] said that Rabbi approved of R. Simeon's view in connection with the law of covering up the blood and stated it in our Mishnah as the view of 'the Sages'.
R. Abba said,
(1) l.e., a tumtum; he may nevertheless sound the Shofar on the Festival. V. supra p. 474, n. 3.
(2) To whom the precept of sounding the Shofar does not apply at all.
(3) V. Lev. I, 2, 4.
(4) V. Hag. 16b. They may do so if they so desire, and it would not be deemed as 'doing work' with a consecrated beast. Likewise a woman may sound the Shofar on the New Year even though she is not obliged to do so.
(5) That a person of doubtful sex may sound the Shofar on the Festival thus overriding the restrictions of the Festival.
(6) V. supra p. 47, n. 2.
(7) It is written (Lev. XII, 3), 'And in the eighth day', that is, during the day but not at night.
(8) As the rite may not be performed at all times it is reasonable that a case of doubt shall not override a festival.
(9) Either because it had killed a human being or because an unnatural crime had been committed upon it; cf. Lev. XX. 15. 16.
(10) In each of these cases the slaughtering does not render the animal or bird fit and permitted to be eaten, hence it is no slaughtering (adopting R. Simeon's view), and the law of covering up the blood does not apply.
(11) At the throat.
(12) That a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is deemed a slaughtering.
(13) V. Mishnah supra 81b.
(14) V. Lev. XXII, 28: Ye shall not slaughter it and its young, and XVII, 3: That slaughtereth in the camp.
(15) For a consecrated beast slaughtered outside the Sanctuary may not be eaten.
(16) Gen. XLIII, 16.
(17) For the meat was eaten by Joseph and his brethren.
(18) Lev. XIV, 39 and 44. The reference is to the treatment of leprosy in a house.
(19) For the deductions inferred from these expressions v. Sifra on these verses and Rashi 'Erub. 51a s.v. ושב.
(20) V. Lev. XVII, 13: He shall pour out the blood thereof and cover it with dust; and also v. 4: He hath poured out blood, with reference to a consecrated animal slaughtered outside the Sanctuary.
(21) Ibid. v. 13. This implies that the law of covering up the blood applies only to those that may be eaten.
(22) How does he explain away the foregoing argument?
(23) And so it should be exempt from covering up the blood, a ruling which contradicts R. Meir.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 85b
Not for all things did R. Meir say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. Indeed R. Meir would agree that such a slaughtering does not render [the animal] permitted to be eaten. Similarly, not for all things did R. Simeon say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is no slaughtering. Indeed R. Simeon would agree that such a slaughtering renders [the animal] clean so that it be not nebelah.
The Master stated: 'Not for all things did R. Meir say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. Indeed R. Meir would agree that such a slaughtering does not render [the animal] permitted to be eaten'. Is not this obvious? Would a trefah [animal] be permitted [to be eaten] by its slaughtering? - It was only necessary to be stated concerning the case where one slaughtered a trefah animal and found in its womb a living nine months' foetus. Now I might have argued, since R. Meir maintains that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering, that the slaughtering of its dam should serve for it too, and it should not require slaughtering; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. How could you have thought so? Does not R. Meir hold that a living animal extracted [out of its slaughtered dam's womb] requires slaughtering?1 - This2 was necessary to be stated since Rabbi agrees with R. Meir [in one matter] and with the Rabbis [in another]. He agrees with R. Meir that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. And he agrees with the Rabbis that the slaughtering of its dam renders it3 permitted. Now since the Rabbis hold that the slaughtering of its dam renders it permitted, then [in this case, too, where the dam was a trefah I would say that] the slaughtering of the dam should serve for it too and it should not require slaughtering; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so].
'Not for all things did R. Simeon say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is no slaughtering. Indeed R. Simeon would agree that such a slaughtering renders the animal clean so that it be not nebelah'. Is not this obvious? For Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab, (others say. It was so taught in a Baraitha.) It is written: And if there dieth of the beasts, [he that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean],4 that is to say, some beasts convey uncleanness and some do not; and which are they [that do not convey uncleanness]? They are trefah animals which have been slaughtered!5 - It was only necessary to be stated concerning the case where one slaughtered an unconsecrated animal which was a trefah in the Temple Court. For it was taught: If one slaughtered a trefah animal, or if one slaughtered an animal and it was found to be trefah, both being unconsecrated, in the Temple Court, R. Simeon permits to derive benefit therefrom,6 but the Sages forbid it.7 Now I might have argued, since R. Simeon holds that one is permitted to derive benefit therefrom, that there was no slaughtering at all, consequently it is not even rendered clean that it be not nebelah; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so].
R. Papa said to Abaye. Is R. Simeon of the opinion that unconsecrated [animals slaughtered] in the Temple Court are [forbidden] Biblically?8 - He replied: Yes, he is. For we have learnt:9 R. Simeon says: Unconsecrated [animals which were slaughtered] in the Temple Court must be burned by fire; so, too, a wild animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Court.10 Now, if you say that they are forbidden Biblically, we therefore forbid wild animals on account of cattle;11 but if you say that they are forbidden Rabbinically, it is indeed difficult. For was not the reason for [the Rabbis forbidding cattle] that one might not fall into the error of eating consecrated food outside the Sanctuary? This in itself is a precautionary measure; shall we come and superimpose a precautionary measure upon a precautionary measure?12 The flax of R. Hiyya was infested with worms, and he came to Rabbi [for advice]. Rabbi said to him, 'Take a bird and slaughter it over the tub of water,13 so that the worms will smell the blood and depart'. But how was he permitted to do so?14 Surely it has been taught: If a man slaughtered, even though he requires the blood for use, he must nevertheless cover it up. What then should he do [so that he may use the blood]? He should either stab it or tear away the organs!15 - When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported that he [Rabbi] said to him [R. Hiyya], 'Go and make it trefah [and then slaughter it]'. When Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported that he said to him, 'Go and stab it [at the throat]'. Why does not he who says that he told him 'Go and make it trefah', accept the other view that he told him 'Go and stab it'? If you say because he [Rabbi] is of the opinion that by Biblical law a bird does not require to be slaughtered, and therefore stabbing is all the slaughtering that is required,16 but [this cannot be, for] it has been taught: Rabbi says. The verse: And thou shalt slaughter . . . as I have commanded thee,17 teaches us that Moses was instructed concerning the gullet and the windpipe, that the greater part of one of these organs in the case of birds and of both organs in the case of cattle [is required]? -
(1) And if this is so where its dam was permitted to be eaten by the slaughtering, a fortiori where the dam was a trefah.
(2) Sc. the dictum of R. Abba.
(3) Sc. the animal which had been extracted alive out of the slaughtered dam's womb.
(4) Lev. XI, 39.
(5) V. supra 74a.
(6) Since the animal is trefah and the slaughtering thereof does not render it permitted to be eaten there was no 'slaughtering' in the Temple Court; hence one may derive a benefit from the carcass.
(7) Kid. 582.
(8) This appears to be R. Simeon's view from the foregoing argument. For if he were to hold that an unconsecrated animal slaughtered in the Sanctuary may be eaten according to Biblical law, but was forbidden by Rabbinic enactment because of the apprehension that people, seeing one eat the flesh of such an animal outside the Sanctuary, might be misled in believing that one may eat consecrated meat outside the Sanctuary - then there is no valid reason to differentiate (v. supra) between the slaughtering that renders the animal fit for food and the one that does not (i.e., the slaughtering of a trefah animal), since even in the latter case there is the apprehension that people will believe that one may derive benefit from a consecrated beast that was unfit (i.e., blemished or trefah).
(9) Tem. 33b.
(10) Although it is clear to all that the wild animal slaughtered in the Sanctuary is unconsecrated for there can be no consecrated wild animals.
(11) A statement made in anticipation of the alternative view which follows, for strictly both kinds are forbidden by the same Biblical text.
(12) To forbid wild animals on account of cattle. Surely not. One must therefore conclude that the prohibition is Biblical.
(13) Wherein the flax was soaking.
(14) To slaughter a bird and not cover up its blood.
(15) v. supra 27b.
(16) Consequently the law of 'covering up' applies to stabbing.
(17) Deut. XII, 21.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 86a
This is a case of 'it goes without saying'. It goes without saying that [the advice]. 'Go and stab it' [is good] for in that case there is no slaughtering at all.1 But against [the advice]. 'Go and make it trefah', one might argue and say that a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is nevertheless deemed a slaughtering, consequently its blood must be covered up; he therefore teaches us as R. Hiyya b. Abba [reported above].2
And why does not he who says that Rabbi told him, 'Go and stab it', accept the other view that he told him, 'Go and make it trefah'? Should you say because he [Rabbi] is of the opinion that a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. [this cannot be, for] R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan that Rabbi approved of R. Simeon's view in connection with the law of covering up the blood and therefore stated it in our Mishnah as the view of 'the Sages'!3 - This is a case of 'it goes without saying'. Thus, it goes without saying [that the advice] 'Go and make it trefah' [is good], for a slaughtering which does not render the animal fit for food is no slaughtering. But against [the advice] 'Go and stab it' one might argue and say that by Biblical law a bird does not require to be slaughtered, and stabbing is all the slaughtering that is required, consequently the blood must be covered up; he therefore teaches us [that this cannot be so because of the verse] 'As I have commanded thee'.4
How came it that his flax was infested with worms? Did not Rabin b. Abba (others say. R. Abin b. Shabba) declare that from the time that the people of the Exile5 came up [to Palestine]6 there ceased to be [in Palestine] shooting stars, earthquakes, storms and thunders, their wines never turned sour and their flax was never blighted; and the Rabbis set their eyes upon R. Hiyya and his sons?7 - Their merits benefitted the whole world but not themselves. Even as Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Every day a Heavenly Voice goes forth and proclaims, 'The whole world is provided with food only on account of my son Hanina,8 while my son Hanina is satisfied with one kab9 of carob fruit from one Sabbath eve to the other'.
MISHNAH. IF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR SLAUGHTERED WHILE OTHERS WATCHED THEM, ONE10 MUST COVER UP THE BLOOD; BUT IF THEY WERE ALONE. ONE NEED NOT COVER IT UP.11 SIMILARLY WITH THE LAW OF 'IT AND ITS YOUNG': IF THESE SLAUGHTERED WHILE OTHERS WATCHED THEM, IT IS FORBIDDEN TO SLAUGHTER AFTER THEM [THE YOUNG];12 BUT IF THEY WERE ALONE. R. MEIR PERMITS TO SLAUGHTER AFTER THEM [THE YOUNG]. BUT THE RABBIS FORBID IT; THEY AGREE, HOWEVER. THAT IF A PERSON DID SLAUGHTER [AFTER THEM], HE HAS NOT INCURRED FORTY STRIPES.13
GEMARA. As to the Rabbis why is it that in the first clause they do not dissent and in the second clause they do?14 - Because in the first clause, if they were to say that the blood must be covered up, people might think that the slaughtering was a valid one and would even eat of what they slaughtered. Then in the second clause too, since the Rabbis say that it is forbidden to slaughter [the young] after them, people might think that the slaughtering was a valid one and would even eat of what they slaughtered! - In the second clause people would say that he does not need any meat.15 Then in the first clause, too, people might say [that he is covering up the blood] only to keep his yard clean? - Could this be said if he slaughtered on a dunghill? or could this be said if he came to ask for a ruling?16 - But according to your own argument, even in the case of the second clause, what would you say if he came to ask for a ruling?17 Rather we must say that the Rabbis differ with the whole teaching [of the Mishnah], but they merely waited until R. Meir had completely stated his case and then they expressed their dissent.
Now as to the view of the Rabbis, it is clear that they apply [in a case of doubt] the stricter rule; but what is the reason for R. Meir's ruling? - R. Jacob stated in the name of R. Johanan that, according to R. Meir, one would be culpable for [eating] nebelah [if one were to eat] of their slaughtering.18 Why is it?R. Ammi answered: Because in the majority of cases what they do is bungled. R. Papa said to R. Huna the son of R. Joshua (others say: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said to R. Papa). Why in the majority of cases? The same would be the result if [this were so] only in a minority of cases, for since R. Meir takes into account the minority, by adding the minority to the presumption19 the majority is shaken? For we have learnt: If a child was found by the side of dough with a piece of dough in his hand, R. Meir declares it clean but the Rabbis declare it unclean, because it is a child's nature to meddle.20 And we asked. What is R. Meir's reason? [And the answer was given,] He is of the opinion that most children meddle but a minority do not; now this dough is presumed to be clean,21
(1) And its blood most certainly does not require to be covered up.
(2) That Rabbi is of the opinion that a slaughtering which does not render the animal fit for food is no slaughtering.
(3) V. supra 85a.
(4) From which Rabbi derived the rule that birds require to be slaughtered; hence he holds that the obligation is Biblical.
(6) The reference is not to the return under Ezra as is clear from the context.
(7) I.e., the cessation of these plagues was due to the merit of R. Hiyya and his sons; v. Suk. 20a. How then could it have happened to R. Hiyya himself that his flax was infested with worms?
(8) I.e., R. Hanina b. Dosa renowned for his piety and austere living, v. Ta'an. 24b and 25a.
(9) A measure of capacity, v. Glos.
(10) I.e., any one of those who watched them slaughter.
(11) For the slaughtering by these unfit persons is no slaughtering and therefore the blood need not be covered up.
(12) On the same day; or the dam if the young was slaughtered first.
(13) Since there is a doubt whether the slaughtering by the deaf-mute etc. was a slaughtering or not.
(14) According to the Rabbis one ought to cover up the blood, even though these unfit persons were alone when they slaughtered, because of the doubt as to their slaughtering, just as they rule in the final clause.
(15) And that is why he abstains from slaughtering but not because he is forbidden so to do.
(16) For if Beth din were to rule that he must cover up the blood then clearly he would believe that the slaughtering of the deaf-mute etc. was valid.
(17) Here too, if forbidden by Beth din to slaughter the young after them, he will certainly regard the slaughtering of the first animal valid.
(18) And one would suffer stripes on account of it, because it is not a matter of doubt but a certainty that their slaughtering is bad so that the animal is nebelah.
(19) V. supra 9a: a living animal is presumed to be forbidden until it is definitely ascertained that it has been validly slaughtered. Here, therefore, even if it were held that the majority of children do not bungle what they undertake to do, there is however a minority of some who do, and this, coupled with the presumed prohibition of the animal, would carry more weight than the majority, and their slaughtering would be invalid. The question therefore is: why was it necessary to hold that the majority of children bungle what they do?
(20) Toh. III, 8; Nid. 18b; Kid. 80a. According to Rashi the interpretation is this: it is quite certain that this child has touched the dough, for he holds some in his hand, and since it is the habit of most children to meddle and play about among refuse and unclean things, this child in all probability was unclean and so rendered the rest of the dough unclean. Tosaf. interpret thus: it is quite certain that this child was unclean for he is always being fondled by women and by menstruant women too, and since it is the habit of most children to meddle with dough, this child in all probability touched the dough and so rendered it unclean. The less probable view, by taking the minority into consideration, would be to say that this child did not himself touch the dough but a piece was given to him by some person.
(21) As long as we do not know for certain that it has been rendered unclean.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 86b
therefore by adding the minority to the presumption the majority is shaken! - If they said in a case of doubt concerning uncleanness that it is clean,1 will they also say in a case of doubt concerning a prohibition that it is permitted?2
Rabbi decided a case according to the view of R. Meir, and Rabbi also decided a case according to the view of the Rabbis. Now which was the later decision?3 - Come and hear [it from the following incident]. R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Zera were standing in the open square in Caesarea at the entrance of the Beth-Hamidrash. R. Ammi came out and found them standing there and said,'Have I not told you that during sessions at the House of Study you shall not stand outside? There may be someone within who is in difficulty about a matter and there might be a disturbance'.4 Thereupon R. Zera went in [to the House of Study] but R. Abba did not. Now inside they were sitting and considering the question. Which was the later decision? R. Zera said to them, '[What a pity] you did not let me ask that old man5 about this. He might have heard something about this from his father [R. Hiyya b. Abba] and his father from R. Johanan, for R. Hiyya b. Abba used to revise his study in the presence of R. Johanan every thirty days'. What has been decided about the matter? - Come and hear it from the message which R. Eleazar had sent to the Exile,6 'Rabbi decided in accordance with R. Meir'. Now had he not decided according to the Rabbis too? It must be, therefore, that this7 was the later decision. This proves it.
MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED A HUNDRED WILD ANIMALS IN ONE PLACE, ONE COVERING SUFFICES FOR ALL; IF [HE SLAUGHTERED] A HUNDRED BIRDS IN ONE PLACE, ONE COVERING SUFFICES FOR ALL; IF [HE SLAUGHTERED] A WILD ANIMAL AND A BIRD IN ONE PLACE, ONE COVERING SUFFICES FOR BOTH. R. JUDAH SAYS. IF HE SLAUGHTERED A WILD ANIMAL HE SHOULD COVER UP ITS BLOOD AND THEN SLAUGHTER THE BIRD [AND COVER IT UP ALSO].
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [The expression] wild animal8 includes all wild animals, whether many or few; [the expression] bird8 includes all birds, whether many or few. Hence they said: If a person slaughtered a hundred wild animals in one place, one covering suffices for all; if [he slaughtered] a hundred birds in one place, one covering suffices for all, if [he slaughtered] a wild animal and a bird in one place one covering suffices for both. R. Judah says: If he slaughtered a wild animal he must [first] cover up its blood and then slaughter the bird, for it is written: Any wild animal or bird.9 They replied. But it also says. For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof.10 What did they mean by this reply? This is what the Rabbis meant: Is not the particle 'or' required to show disjunction?11 And R. Judah? - He derives the principle of disjunction from the expression the blood thereof.12 And the Rabbis? - They say that the expression 'the blood thereof' means [the blood] of many,13 as it is written: For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof.
R. Hanina said: R. Judah agrees that with regard to the Benediction he has only to say one Benediction.14 Rabina asked R. Aha the son of Raba (others say: R. Aha the son of Raba asked R. Ashi). In what way is this different from the incident concerning Rab's disciples? For R. Berona and R. Hananel, the disciples of Rab, were sitting at a meal and R. Yeba the elder was waiting on them. They said to him, 'Let us say the Grace [after meals]', and immediately after they said to him, 'Pass [the cup of wine] that we may drink'. Thereupon R. Yeba said to them, 'Thus said Rab: As soon as a man says "Let us say the Grace", it is forbidden to drink wine.'15 In this case, too, since he must first attend to the covering up of the blood he is bound to say another Benediction!16 -
(1) Relying on the minority taken in conjunction with the presumption.
(2) Where the doubt involves a prohibition R. Meir would not permit it by the argument of a minority in support of a presumption. In point of fact, however, there is here a majority principle that supports the presumption, since the majority of children bungle what they do.
(3) His later decision would be the more reliable, since it may be assumed that he recognized his error after the first decision and now ruled differently.
(4) But had you been inside you would have been able to clear up the matter.
(5) Sc. R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya b. Abba.
(7) The ruling in accordance with R. Meir's view that it is permitted to slaughter an animal after that its dam or its young had been slaughtered by a deaf-mute or a minor.
(8) Lev. XVII, 13.
(9) Ibid. The particle 'or' indicates that the law of 'covering up' applies to each one separately even though both were slaughtered at one time.
(10) Ibid. 24.
(11) For without 'or' it might have been said that the law of 'covering up' does not apply unless a wild animal and a bird were slaughtered.
(12) I.e., the blood of each must be covered up.
(13) For in the context, 'the blood thereof' refers to the blood of all flesh.
(14) I.e., the Benediction which is said over slaughtering. Although in this case the slaughtering has been interrupted by the covering of the blood he should not repeat the Benediction.
(15) Without first saying a Benediction over it, for it is obvious that he has abandoned all thought of drinking more wine by his desire to say the Grace after meals.
(16) For he has diverted his mind from the slaughtering and is occupied with covering the blood.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 87a
There is no comparison [between the two]. For there it is impossible to drink and say Grace simultaneously.1 but here it is possible to slaughter with one hand and to cover up the blood with the other.2
MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED AND DID NOT COVER UP THE BLOOD. AND ANOTHER PERSON SAW IT, THE OTHER MUST COVER IT UP. IF HE COVERED IT UP AND IT BECAME UNCOVERED, HE NEED NOT COVER IT UP AGAIN. IF THE WIND COVERED IT UP,3 HE MUST COVER IT UP AGAIN.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written,] He shall pour out . . . and cover it:4 that is, he who poured out the blood shall cover it up. If he slaughtered and did not cover it and another person saw it, whence do we know that the other person must cover it up? It therefore says: Therefore I said unto the children of Israel,5 this is a warning to all the children of Israel.
Another [Baraitha] taught: He shall pour out . . . and cover it: that is, with that with which he poured it out he shall cover it.6 He must not cover it with his foot, so that precepts be not treated with contempt by him.
Another [Baraitha] taught: 'He shall pour out . . . and cover it': that is, he who poured it out shall cover it up. It once happened that a person slaughtered but another anticipated him and covered up the blood, and R. Gamaliel condemned the latter to pay ten gold coins.7
The question was raised: Was this the reward for [being deprived of the performance of] the commandment or for [being deprived of] the Benediction? But where would there be any practical difference [between these two views]? In the case of the Grace after meals.8 If you say that it was the reward for [being deprived of the performance of] the commandment, then here there is also but one [commandment]; but if you say that it was the reward for [being deprived of] the Benediction, then here the reward should be forty gold coins. What is the answer then? - Come and hear from the following incident. A certain min9 once said to Rabbi, 'He who formed the mountains did not create the wind, and he who created the wind did not form the mountains, for it is written: For, lo, He that formeth the mountains and createth the wind'.10 He replied. 'You fool, turn to the end of the verse: The Lord, [the God] of hosts, is His name'. Said the other: 'Give me three days' time and I will bring back an answer to you'. Rabbi spent those three days in fasting; thereafter, as he was about to partake of food he was told. 'There is a inn waiting at the door'. Rabbi exclaimed, 'Yea they put poison into my food.'11 Said he [the min]. 'My Master, I bring you good tidings; your opponent could find no answer and so threw himself down from the roof and died'. He said: 'Would you dine with me?' He replied. 'Yes'. After they had eaten and drunk, he [Rabbi] said to him, 'Will you drink the cup of wine over which the Benedictions of the Grace [after meals] have been said, or would you rather have forty gold coins?' He replied: 'I would rather drink the cup of wine'. Thereupon there came forth a Heavenly Voice and said: The cup of wine over [which] the Benedictions [of Grace have been said] is worth forty gold coins. R. Isaac said: The family [of that min] is still to be found amongst the notables of Rome and is named 'The family of Bar Luianus
IF HE COVERED IT UP AND IT BECAME UNCOVERED [HE NEED NOT COVER IT UP AGAIN]. R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: In what way is this different from the obligation to return lost property? For the Master has said,' Thou shalt return'12 implies even a hundred times!13 - He replied. In that case there is no limiting qualification, but here there is written a limiting qualification, [namely]: And he shall cover it.14
IF THE WIND COVERED IT UP [HE MUST COVER IT UP AGAIN]. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: This is the rule only if it had become uncovered, but if it had not become uncovered he need not cover it up. But what should it matter even if it had become uncovered? Has not the precept suffered a disability?15 - R. Papa answered: This proves that the law of disability does not apply to precepts.16 And why is it different from the following which was taught: If a person slaughtered and the blood was absorbed in the earth he must nevertheless cover it up?17 - In that case there were traces of it visible.18
MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD BECAME MIXED WITH WATER AND IT STILL HAS THE COLOUR OF BLOOD, IT MUST BE COVERED UP. IF IT BECAME MIXED WITH WINE, [THE WINE] IS TO BE REGARDED AS THOUGH IT WAS WATER.19 IF IT BECAME MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF CATTLE20
(1) Therefore the expressed desire to say the Grace intimates that the meal is definitely at an end, so that if anything more is brought to the table there must be made over it a special Benediction.
(2) And he need not have diverted his mind from the slaughtering at all for both can be done simultaneously.
(3) And it became uncovered. V. Gemara.
(4) Lev. XVII, 13.
(5) Ibid. 14.
(6) I.e., with the hand.
(7) For depriving the slaughterer of the reward that would have been his had he covered the blood.
(8) Which consists of four Benedictions.
(9) So MS.M. (v. Glos.). Cur. ed: a Sadducee.
(10) Amos IV, 13.
(11) Ps. LXIX, 22. Rabbi thought that it was that same min who had argued with him three days previously. Var. lec. add: 'At last it was found that it was not the same but another min'.
(12) Deut. XXII, 1.
(13) v. B.M. 31a.
(14) 'It' implies once only.
(15) By having been once discharged. For had it not become uncovered there would be no further obligation to cover it up, hence by the first covering up the precept has been fulfilled and so discharged.
(16) V. Suk. 33a.
(17) In other words, the blood was covered up by the earth as by the wind in our Mishnah, yet the Baraitha teaches that he must cover it up.
(18) But where the blood had entirely been absorbed in the ground and no traces were visible there is no obligation to cover it up.
(19) And if there was in the mixture that quantity of wine which, had it been water, would not have changed the appearance of the blood, it must then be covered up.
(20) Which does not require to he covered up.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 87b
OR WITH THE BLOOD OF A WILD ANIMAL,1 IT IS TO BE REGARDED AS THOUGH IT WAS WATER. R. JUDAH SAYS, BLOOD CANNOT NEUTRALIZE BLOOD.2 THE BLOOD WHICH SPURTED OUT AND THAT WHICH IS UPON THE KNIFE MUST ALSO BE COVERED UP. R. JUDAH SAYS, WHEN IS THIS THE CASE? WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER BLOOD BUT THAT; BUT WHEN THERE IS OTHER BLOOD BESIDES THIS, IT NEED NOT BE COVERED UP.
GEMARA. We have learnt elsewhere:3 If the blood [of a sacrifice] became mixed with water and it still has the colour of blood, it is valid.4 If it became mixed with wine, it must be regarded as though it was water. If it became mixed with the blood of [unconsecrated] cattle or of a wild animal, it must be regarded as though it was water. R. Judah says: Blood cannot neutralize blood. R. Hiyya said in the name of R. Johanan: This ruling5 applies only to the case where the water fell into the blood,6 but where the blood fell into the water each drop became neutralized [as it fell into the water].7 R. Papa said: But it is not so with regard to the law of 'covering up', for the law of disability does not apply to precepts.8
Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: As long as it9 is of a reddish colour it makes atonement,10 it renders susceptible to uncleanness,11 and it must be covered up. What does he teach us? We have learnt it with regard to its validity for atonement and we have also learnt it with regard to the obligation of covering up'! - The statement that it renders susceptible to uncleanness, was necessary. But even that statement [is unnecessary], for if it is blood it renders susceptible to uncleanness, and if it is water it renders susceptible to uncleanness! - It was only necessary to be stated for the case where it [the blood] was mixed with rain water.12 But even in the case of rain water since it was collected [in a vessel] and poured [into the blood] it was surely intended for the purpose! - It was necessary only in the case where they were mixed without human effort.13 R. Assi of Neharbel14 says. It refers to the thin blood.15 R. Jeremiah of Difti said: He16 incurs the penalty of Kareth, but only if there was an olive's bulk.17 In a Baraitha it was taught: It18 renders unclean [men and vessels that are] in the tent, but only if there was a quarter [log].19
We have learnt elsewhere:20 All liquids21 that issue from a corpse are clean excepting blood. As long as it18 has a reddish colour it will render unclean [men and vessels that are] in the tent. [Do you say then that] the liquids that issue from a corpse are clean? But I can point out a contradiction, for we have learnt:22 The liquids that issue from a tebul yom23 are like the liquids which he touches:
(1) Either the blood of a wild animal which had been obtained by the opening of a vein (Rashi) or the blood of a forbidden wild animal (Maim.).
(2) Even if there was only the minutest quantity of the blood of a wild animal mixed with the blood of cattle, the former is not neutralized nor loses its identity in the mixture, but the whole mixture must be covered up; for R. Judah is of the opinion that in a mixture of like kinds one element can never neutralize the other, no matter in what proportion they are to each other.
(3) Zeb. 87b.
(4) For sprinkling upon the altar.
(5) That in a mixture of blood and water, if the appearance of the whole is like blood it is valid.
(6) For then each drop of water as it falls into the blood becomes neutralized and is lost; and only when so much water falls into the blood so that the whole mixture assumes the appearance of water is it rendered invalid.
(7) And even if there fell into the water so large a quantity of blood as to give to the whole the appearance of blood, it is unfit for its purpose; for as each drop fell into the water it became neutralized and immediately lost its validity for the purposes of ritual sprinkling, and it cannot regain it even though the whole mixture has the colour of blood.
(8) The obligation of 'covering up' was only suspended but not discharged, consequently if the whole has the appearance of blood the obligation attaches to it.
(9) Blood which was mixed with water.
(10) When sprinkled upon the altar,
(11) I.e., if it fell upon foodstuffs; cf. Lev. XI, 38.
(12) Lit., 'the tamad (the mixture of water and lees) was made with rain water', a phrase from the argument in B.B. 97a. Rain water cannot render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness except where it was intended for some purpose or use, a reservation which does not apply to blood.
(13) Sc. the blood and the rain water. In this case, therefore, as the rain water by itself cannot render susceptible to uncleanness, only if the mixture has the colour of blood will it render susceptible to uncleanness.
(14) Nehar Bil, east of Bagdad.
(15) צללתא When blood congeals there settles at the base a clear watery liquid. This liquid will only render susceptible to uncleanness if it has the colour of blood.
(16) Who eats of this thin blood.
(17) Of normal blood in addition to this clear blood. So Rashi and Tosaf. The statement however is strangely expressed for the net result is that for drinking this thin watery blood by itself one does not incur the penalty of Kareth. V. Torath Hayyim a.l.; also Responsa of Hatham Sofer, Yoreh Deah 70.
(18) Sc. this thin watery blood if it issued from a corpse.
(19) Cf. n. 4.
(20) This is no Mishnah although it is introduced by the usual Mishnaic expression in. It is found in Tosef. Ohol. IV, and Tosaf. Maksh. III.
(21) E.g., tears and the milk from a woman's breast.
(22) T.Y. II, 1.
(23) A person who has immersed himself in a mikweh in the daytime but technically does not become clean until after sunset. He is regarded as unclean in the second degree.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 88a
neither the one nor the other conveys uncleanness. As for all others that are unclean, whether they suffer light or grave uncleanness, the liquids that issue from them are like the liquids they touch: both are unclean in the first degree, excepting the liquid which is a primary source of uncleanness.1 Now what is meant by 'light or grave uncleanness'? Presumably 'light uncleanness' means that of a [dead] reptile2 or of a man that has a flux, and 'grave uncleanness' that of a corpse!3 - No; 'light uncleanness' is that of a reptile, and 'grave uncleanness' is that of a man that has a flux.4 And why is it that [the liquids5 that issue from] a man that has a flux the Rabbis decreed [to be unclean] but [the liquids that issue from] a corpse the Rabbis did not decree [to be unclean]? - [The liquids that issue from] a man that has a flux, since people do not keep away from him,6 the Rabbis decreed [to be unclean], but [the liquids that issue from] a corpse, since people keep away from it, the Rabbis did not decree [to be unclean].
THE BLOOD THAT SPURTED OUT AND THAT WHICH IS UPON THE KNIFE etc. Our Rabbis taught: The expression. And he shall cover it,7 teaches that the blood which spurted out and that which is upon the knife must be covered up. R. Judah said: When is this the case? When there is no other blood but that, but when there is other blood besides this, it need not be covered up. Another Baraitha taught: The expression. 'And he shall cover it', teaches that the whole of the blood must be covered up; hence, they said, the blood which spurted out and that which remains about the sides [of the throat] must also be covered up. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: This is so only if he did not cover up the life blood, but if he covered up the life blood, this need not be covered. Wherein do they differ? - The Rabbis maintain that 'the blood thereof'7 means the whole of its blood; R. Judah maintains that 'the blood thereof' implies even part of its blood; and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel maintains that 'the blood thereof' means the vital8 blood.
MISHNAH. WITH WHAT MAY ONE COVER UP [THE BLOOD] AND WITH WHAT MAY ONE NOT COVER IT UP? ONE MAY COVER IT UP WITH FINE DUNG, WITH FINE SAND, WITH LIME, WITH A POTSHERD OR A BRICK OR AN EARTHENWARE STOPPER [OF A CASK] THAT HAVE BEEN GROUND INTO POWDER. BUT ONE MAY NOT COVER IT UP WITH COARSE DUNG OR COARSE SAND, NOR WITH A BRICK OR AN EARTHENWARE STOPPER [OF A CASK] THAT HAVE NOT BEEN GROUND INTO POWDER; NOR MAY ONE TURN A VESSEL OVER IT.9 R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL LAID DOWN THE RULE: ONE MAY COVER IT WITH ANYTHING IN WHICH PLANTS WOULD GROW; BUT ONE MAY NOT COVER IT WITH ANYTHING IN WHICH PLANTS WOULD NOT GROW.
GEMARA. What is meant by FINE SAND? - Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan. Such as the potter does not need to crush. Some there are who apply this statement to the second clause, viz., BUT ONE MAY NOT COVER IT UP WITH COARSE DUNG OR COARSE SAND. What is meant by COARSE SAND? - Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan. Such as the potter needs to crush. What is the difference between these two versions? - Where it is not absolutely necessary [to crush it],10 as it crumbles [with the hand].
Our Rabbis taught: 'And he shall cover it'. I would have thought that he may cover it with stones or turn a vessel over it, the verse therefore adds 'with dust'. Then I only know dust, whence would I know to include fine dung, fine sand, crushed stones, crushed potsherds, fine scraps of flax,
(1) E.g. the semen of all men as well as the spittle, urine, and the discharge of a man that has a running issue.
(2) E.g., the urine found in a dead reptile.
(3) A corpse is regarded as the gravest form of uncleanness because it is the generator of a primary source of uncleanness, אבי אבות הטומאה - 'the father of a primary source of uncleanness'. Now this Mishnah teaches that the liquid that issues from a corpse is unclean and conveys uncleanness, thus contrary to the previous teaching.
(4) But the liquids (excepting blood) that issue from a corpse are clean.
(5) I.e., , those that are not primary sources of uncleanness e.g., tears, blood from a wound, woman's milk.
(6) For he is a living person and people may not know that he is suffering from a discharge.
(7) Lev. XVII, 13.
(8) Lit., 'special', 'distinct'.
(9) In the Mishnah ed. Lowe there is added here: Nor cover it with stones.
(10) Lit., 'it needs and does not need (to be crushed)'. According to the first version since it does not require to be crushed because it crumbles with the hand, it may be used for covering; according to the second version since it must be crushed even if only with the hand it may not be used for covering.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 88b
fine sawdust, lime, or a potsherd or a brick or an earthenware stopper [of a cask] that have been ground into powder? The text therefore says: 'And he shall cover it'. Then I might also include even coarse dung, coarse sand, crushed metal vessels,1 or a brick or stopper that have not been ground into powder, or flour, bran or coarse bran. The text therefore says, 'with dust'. And why do you prefer to include the one and exclude the other? Since the verse includes some and excludes others, I include those that are a kind of dust2 and exclude those that are not a kind of dust. Perhaps I should argue thus, 'And he shall cover it' is a general proposition, 'dust' is a specified particular, we thus have a general proposition followed by a specified particular, in which case the scope of the proposition is limited by the particular specified, that is, dust only but nothing else! - R. Mari replied. Here it is a general proposition complemented by a specified particular,3 and a general proposition complemented by a specified particular is not to be interpreted by the same rule as a general proposition followed by a specified particular.
R. Nahman son of R. Hisda expounded. One may only cover up [the blood] with that which if sown would produce growth.4 Raba remarked: This is an absurdity! Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to Raba: Wherein lies its absurdity? I told it him, and l derived it from the following Baraitha: If a person was travelling through a desert and can find no dust wherewith to cover up [the blood], he may grind a golden denar to powder and cover it up therewith.5 If a person was travelling on a ship and has no dust wherewith to cover up [the blood], he may burn his garment and cover up with the ashes thereof. Now this is clear concerning the burning of a garment and covering up therewith, for we find that ashes are referred to as dust;6 but whence do we know this of a golden denar? - R. Zera answered: It is written: It hath dust of gold.7
Our Rabbis taught: One may cover up [the blood] only with dust: so Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel say. We find ashes referred to as dust, for it is written: And for the unclean they shall take of the dust of the burning [of the purification from sin].8 Beth Shammai, however, say. It [sc., ashes] might be referred to as 'the dust of the burning' but it is never referred to as 'dust' simply.
A Tanna taught: To these they added coal dust,9 stibium, stone dust.10 Some add, even orpiment.
Raba said: As a reward for our father Abraham having said: I am but dust and ashes,11 his descendants were worthy to receive two commandments: the ashes of the [Red] Cow, and the dust [used in the ceremony] of a woman suspected of adultery.12 Why does he not reckon also the dust used for the covering up of the blood? - Because that is only the perfection of the commandment but it is of no advantage [to the performer].13
Raba also said: As a reward for our father Abraham having said,
(1) For these can in no wise be included within the term 'dust'.
(2) For in all the former examples plants can grow, accordingly they are included in the term dust.
(3) Lit., , 'which needs the specified particular'. The general proposition of the verse is in itself insufficient, for it would even include a covering such as the turning of a vessel over the blood. Hence the specification was required to complement and thereby elucidate the implication of the general proposition by indicating that only such dust was intended for covering as mixes with blood and absorbs it. For another instance of the application of this principle of exegesis v. Bek. 19a.
(4) This would exclude hard and dry earth which cannot produce any growth.
(5) The fact that he must resort to such an expedient proves that the hard stony ground of the desert may not be used for covering.
(6) Cf. Num. XIX, 17. The two Heb. terms אפר 'ashes' and עפר 'dust' are similar in sound and might very well be interchanged as in the verse referred to.
(7) Job. XXVIII, 6.
(8) V. p. 495, n. 5.
(9) I.e., slag; or perhaps soot.
(10) Lit., 'the scraps from chiselling'.
(11) Gen. XVIII, 27.
(12) Cf. Num. V, 17.
(13) For the slaughtered animal is permitted even though the blood had not been covered up. In each of the other commandments there is a blessing and benefit bestowed: the dust used in the ceremony of a woman suspected of adultery serves to remove all suspicion and to restore peace and confidence between husband and wife, and the ashes of the Red Cow serve to cleanse the unclean (cf. Num. XIX).
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 89a
I will not take a thread or a shoe-strap,1 his descendants were worthy to receive two commandments: the thread of blue,2 and the strap of the tefillin.3 Now as for the strap of the tefillin, [the blessing bestowed on its account] is clear, for it is written: And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon thee; and they shall be afraid of thee,'4 and it has been taught: R. Eliezer the Great says: This refers to the tefillin worn upon the head.5 But what [is the blessing bestowed on account] of the thread of blue? - It has been taught:6 R. Meir says. Why is blue singled out from all the varieties of colours? Because blue resembles the colour of the sea, and the sea resembles the colour of the sky, and the sky resembles the colour of a sapphire, and a sapphire resembles the colour of the Throne of Glory, as it is said: And they saw the God of Israel and there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone;7 and it is also written: The likeness of a throne as the appearance of a sapphire stone.8
R. Abba said: Grave indeed is theft that has been consumed, for even the perfect righteous cannot make amends for it, as it is said: Save only that which the young men have eaten.9
R. Johanan said in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. Wherever you find the words of R. Eleazar the son of R. Jose the Galilean in an Aggadah make your ear like a funnel.10 [For he said: It is written,] It was not because you were greater than any people that the Lord set His love upon you and chose you.11 The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, I love you because even when I bestow greatness upon you, you humble yourselves before me. I bestowed greatness upon Abraham, yet he said to Me, I am but dust and ashes;12 Upon Moses and Aaron, yet they said: And we are nothing;13 upon David, yet he said: But I am a worm and no man.14 But with the heathens it is not so. I bestowed greatness upon Nimrod, and he said: Come, let us build us a city;15 upon Pharaoh, and he said: Who is the Lord?16 Upon Sennacherib, and he said: Who are they among all the gods of the countries?17 upon Nebuchadnezzar, and he said: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;18 upon Hiram king of Tyre, and he said: I sit in the seat of God, in the heart of the seas.19 Raba, others say R. Johanan, said: More significant is that which is said of Moses and Aaron than that which is said of Abraham. Of Abraham it is said: I am but dust and ashes, whereas of Moses and Aaron it is said: And we are nothing.20
Raba, others say R. Johanan, also said: The world exists only on account of [the merit of] Moses and Aaron; for it is written here: And we are nothing, and it is written there [of the world]: He hangeth the earth upon nothing.21
R. Ila'a said: The world exists only on account of [the merit of] him who restrains himself in strife, for it is written: He hangeth the earth upon belimah.22 R. Abbahu said: On account of [the merit of] him who abases himself,23 for it is written: And underneath are the everlasting arms.24
R. Isaac said: What is the meaning of the verse: Indeed in silence speak righteousness; judge uprightly the sons of men?25 What should be a man's pursuit26 in this world? He should be silent. Perhaps he should be so with regard to the words of the Torah? It says therefore, 'Speak righteousness'. Perhaps then he is to become arrogant? It says therefore, 'Judge uprightly27 the sons of men.
R. Ze'ira, others say Rabbah b. Jeremiah, said: One may cover up [the blood] with the dust28 of a 'condemned city'.29 Why is this? Is it not forbidden for all uses?30 - Ze'iri answered: It can only refer to the earth31 of its soil; for the verse. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the broad place thereof and shalt burn with fire,32 applies only to that which requires to be gathered and burned; but that which requires to be dug up and then gathered and burned is excluded.33 Raba said: The [performance of] precepts is not accounted as a personal benefit.34
Rabina was sitting and reciting the above statement [of Raba]; whereupon R. Rehumi raised this objection against Rabina. [It was taught:]35 A man may not blow [on the New Year] a shofar which has been used for idolatrous purposes. Now presumably if he did blow it he will not have fulfilled his obligation! - No. If he did blow it he has fulfilled his obligation. A man may not take [on the Festival] a lulab36 which has been used for idolatrous purposes. Presumably if he did take it he will not have fulfilled his obligation! - No. If he did take it he has fulfilled his obligation. But it has been taught: If he sounded it he has not fulfilled his obligation; if he took it he has not fulfilled his obligation! - R. Ashi answered: There is no comparison at all. There37
(1) Gen. XIV, 23.
(2) On the fringes of the garments; cf. Num. XV, 38.
(3) Commonly translated phylacteries, v. Glos.
(4) Deut. XXVIII, 20.
(5) Men. 35b. Hence the tefillin inspire awe upon all people.
(6) Men. 43b.
(7) Ex. XXIV, 10.
(8) Ezek. I, 26. And whenever God sits upon His Throne of Glory He immediately thinks of the blue thread of the fringes worn by Israel, and bestows upon them blessings.
(9) Gen. XIV, 24. Abraham could not restore or make good that which had been wrongfully eaten by the young men.
(10) To receive the teaching; like the funnel or hopper at the top of the mill to receive the grain.
(11) Deut. VII, 7.
(12) Gen. XVIII. 27.
(13) Ex. XVI, 8. So according to Rabbinic interpretation. E.V. 'and what are we'.
(14) Ps. XXII, 7.
(15) Gen. XI, 4.
(16) Ex. V, 2.
(17) II Kings XVIII, 35.
(18) Isa. XIV, 14.
(19) Ezek. XXVIII, 2.
(20) Their humility was greater than that of Abraham.
(21) Job XXVI. 7; Heb. בלימה; interpreted as two words: בלי 'without' מה 'anything'. The world exists because of those who regard themselves as nothing, like Moses and Aaron who said of themselves, ונחנו מה. And we are nothing.
(22) 'Restraint'. בלימה is connected with the root בלם, 'to close up, to restrain'.
(23) Makes himself as if he were non-existent.
(24) Deut. XXXIII, 27. Those who are underneath (the humble and the lowly) are the arms (support) of the world.
(25) Ps, LVIII, 2.
(26) האמנם 'indeed', is homiletically associated with אומנות 'occupation, pursuit'.
(27) מישרים 'uprightly' is associated with מישור 'evenness', i.e., not exalted nor haughty.
(28) It is assumed that the ashes of this city which had (according to the Law) been destroyed by fire is meant.
(29) A city whose citizens were enticed to serve idols. V. Deut. XIII, 23ff.
(30) For it is written: And there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to thine hand, ibid. 18.
(31) Lit., 'to the dust of its dust'. But not to the ashes of the holocaust.
(32) Deut. XIII, 17.
(33) And is permitted for use.
(34) Hence the use of a forbidden thing for the purpose of the fulfilment of a precept cannot be deemed an enjoyment or use of that thing. Accordingly one may cover up the blood with the ashes of a condemned city.
(35) R.H. 28a.
(36) The palm branch which together with the citron, myrtle branches and willow branches had to be 'taken' on the First of Tabernacles. Cf. Lev. XXIII, 40.
(37) In the case of the lulab and the shofar, if they are not as large as the minimum size fixed, the former four handbreadths and the latter, a little more than a handgrasp, they are invalid.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 89b
a minimum size is prescribed, and since it has been used for idolatry it is regarded as though the size were diminished,1 whereas here the more broken up it is the better it is for covering up.2
MISHNAH. [THE PROHIBITION OF] THE SCIATIC NERVE3 IS IN FORCE BOTH WITHIN THE HOLY LAND AND OUTSIDE IT, BOTH DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TEMPLE AND AFTER IT, IN RESPECT OF BOTH UNCONSECRATED AND CONSECRATED [ANIMALS]. IT APPLIES TO CATTLE AND TO WILD ANIMALS, TO THE RIGHT AND LEFT HIP, BUT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO BIRDS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SPOON-SHAPED HIP.4 IT ALSO APPLIES TO A FOETUS. R. JUDAH SAYS, IT DOES NOT APPLY TO A FOETUS. AND ITS5 FAT IS PERMITTED. BUTCHERS ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY WITH REGARD TO THE [REMOVAL OF THE] SCIATIC NERVE:6 SO R. MEIR. THE SAGES SAY, THEY ARE TRUSTWORTHY WITH REGARD TO IT AS WELL AS WITH REGARD TO THE [FORBIDDEN] FAT.
GEMARA. IN RESPECT OF . . . CONSECRATED [ANIMALS]. But is not this obvious? Surely because one consecrated the animal the prohibition of the nerve has not thereby vanished!7 And if you were to say that [our Tanna] is of the opinion that nerves impart a taste [to the meat], and [he teaches us] that the prohibition of a consecrated animal can be superimposed upon the prohibition of the nerve,8 then the Tanna should have said: 'The prohibition of [eating] consecrated meat applies to the nerve too'! - Rather we must say that he is of the opinion that nerves do not impart a taste, [and he thus teaches us9 that] in regard to [the sciatic nerve of] a consecrated [animal] there is only the prohibition of the nerve but not the prohibition of consecrated things.10 But does our Tanna hold that nerves do not impart a taste? Surely we have learnt: If a thigh was cooked together with the sciatic nerve it is forbidden if it imparts a taste11 [into the thigh]! - Rather we must suppose that he is dealing with the young of consecrated animals.12 And he is of the opinion that it [sc. the prohibition of the sciatic nerve] applies to a foetus, and also that the young of a consecrated animal is holy even when in its dam's womb; accordingly the prohibition of the nerve and the prohibition of consecrated things come into force simultaneously.13 But how can you suggest that the Mishnah is dealing with a foetus? Surely since in a subsequent clause it says. IT ALSO APPLIES TO A FOETUS, it is obvious that the first clause is not dealing with a foetus! - This is what he means: This14 is indeed a matter of dispute between R. Judah and the Rabbis. But how can you say that both [prohibitions] come into force simultaneously? Surely we have learnt:15 By reason of uncleanness contracted from the following sources the Nazirite must shave [his head]:16 a corpse, an olive's bulk of [the flesh of] a corpse etc. Now the question was asked: If he must shave [his head] on account of an olive's bulk of [the flesh of] a corpse, then surely he must shave [his head] for the whole corpse! And R. Johanan answered that it was necessary [to mention the corpse itself] only for the case of an abortion whose limbs were not yet knit together by nerves.17
(1) Lit., 'broken up' and reduced below the minimum; this in accordance with the Rabbinic dictum: Whatsoever is to be destroyed is deemed destroyed forthwith.
(2) And the use of the forbidden ashes for the fulfilment of a precept cannot be considered a use in accordance with Raba's dictum.
(3) Gen XXXII, 33. In the whole of this chapter the sciatic nerve is often referred to as 'the nerve'.
(4) The muscles upon the hip bone (or femur) of a bird lie flat and are not raised and convex like those of cattle. In cattle the entire hip is very much like the back of a spoon or like a club. This feature is expressly specified in the prohibition, כף הירך, the spoon of the thigh, i.e., 'the convex prominence of the thigh'. Gen. ibid.
(5) The fat of the foetus; or, according to others, the fat surrounding the sciatic nerve.
(6) For it entails hard and careful work, and it is doubtful whether the butcher would follow it up in all its ramifications; consequently one may not rely upon him.
(7) The prohibition of the sciatic nerve attached to the animal the moment it was born.
(8) So that one who eats the sciatic nerve of a consecrated animal would incur stripes on two counts, first for eating the sciatic nerve which is expressly prohibited whether it is edible or not, and secondly for eating 'flesh' (for nerves are edible as flesh) of a consecrated animal.
(9) In stating that the law of the sciatic nerve applies to consecrated animals.
(10) For the nerve is inedible and is not accounted as flesh.
(11) I.e., if the thigh that was cooked was not sixty times greater than the forbidden nerve; for the Rabbis have estimated that if there were more than sixty parts of permitted matter as against one part prohibited, the latter cannot impart a flavour unto the former. From this Mishnah, however, it is apparent that nerves do impart a taste; and as it is (infra 96b) in the same chapter as our Mishnah it was taught presumably by the same Tanna.
(12) E.g. the young of a peace-offering which is consecrated the moment it was formed, even while in its dam's womb. At this same moment the prohibition of the sciatic nerve attaches to it.
(13) I.e., the moment the foetus was formed within the dam's womb.
(14) Whether the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to a foetus or not.
(15) Naz. 49b.
(16) If he was rendered unclean during the continuance of the Nazirite vow. Cf. Num. VI, 9ff.
(17) In which case the abortion, even though in the whole of it there is not an olive's bulk of flesh, would render the Nazirite unclean.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 90a
Hence [it is possible for] the prohibition of consecrated things to come into force first!1 - Notwithstanding that the prohibition of consecrated things comes into force first, the prohibition of the nerve can be superimposed upon it, for its prohibition is binding even upon the sons of Noah.2 Whom did you hear maintain this view?3 R. Judah, is it not? But our Mishnah cannot be in agreement with R. Judah, for it reads IT APPLIES TO CATTLE AND TO WILD ANIMALS, TO THE RIGHT AND LEFT HIP!4 - This Tanna [of our Mishnah] agrees with him [R. Judah] on one point3 and disagrees on the other point. But perhaps you heard R. Judah apply this argument only to the case of an unclean animal since it is forbidden by a prohibition only;5 but have you heard him apply it also to consecrated things for which there is a penalty of Kareth?6 - Rather it must be that we are dealing with the case of a firstling which is consecrated only [when it comes forth out of] the womb.7 Alternatively, you may say that the young of consecrated animals are themselves consecrated only when they come into being.8
R. Hiyya b. Joseph said: They taught this only concerning consecrated animals that may be eaten,9 but with regard to consecrated animals that are not eaten10 the prohibition of the nerve does not apply. But R. Johanan said: The prohibition of the nerve applies both to consecrated animals that may be eaten and to those that are not eaten. Said R. Papa: There is really no dispute between them, for the one refers to the question of stripes11 whereas the other refers to the question of offering it.12 Others report R. Papa's statement thus: There is really no dispute between them, for the one refers to the removal thereof13 whereas the other refers to the offering up of it.14 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: They disagree about offering it up.15 For it was taught: And the Priest shall burn the whole upon the altar,16 this includes bones, nerves, horns and hoofs. I might think that [it is so] even if they were severed,17 the text therefore states: And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood.18 But since it is written 'the flesh and the blood', I might think that one must first cut away the nerves and bones and then offer the flesh upon the altar, it is therefore written: 'And the priest shall burn the whole upon the altar'. How [are these verses to be reconciled]? If they19 are still attached [to the limb], they may be offered up; if they are severed, even if they are already on the top of the altar, they must come down.20
Now which Tanna have you heard say that if they were severed [and offered up] they must come down? It is Rabbi. For it has been taught: 'And the priest shall burn the whole', this includes bones, nerves, horns and hoofs, even if they are severed. And how do I explain the verse: 'And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood'? With reference to those portions which have jumped off [the altar]; thus, only half-burnt flesh you may replace [if it had jumped off the altar], but you may not replace half-burnt nerves and bones. Rabbi says: One verse reads: 'And the priest shall burn the whole', which includes [everything], whilst another verse reads: 'And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood', which excludes [everything else]. How [are the verses to be reconciled]? Thus if they19 are still attached [to the limb], they may be offered up; if they are severed, even if they are on the top of the altar, they must come down. And the Rabbis? - They maintain that when they are still attached [to the limb] no verse is necessary to include them, for they are on the same footing as the head of a burnt-offering;21 consequently the verse is only necessary to include them when severed. And Rabbi? - [He says,] as regards the permitted parts which are still attached [to the limb, I admit that]
(1) For as soon as the embryo is formed it is consecrated by reason of the consecration of its dam whereas the prohibition of the sciatic nerve only comes into force later when the network of nerves is firmly knit together.
(2) Where the later prohibition is comprehensive in that it is binding upon a large class of people it can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition which is less comprehensive in its application.
(3) That the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve is binding upon the sons of Noah. (V. infra 100b).
(4) Whereas R. Judah holds that only the nerve of one thigh (the right) is prohibited.
(5) V. n. 5. Inasmuch as the existing prohibition (sc. that of an unclean animal) is only punishable by stripes a further prohibition (sc. that of the sciatic nerve) can be superimposed.
(6) In certain circumstances e.g. if consecrated meat is eaten in a state of uncleanness. The penalty therefore being so severe, no further prohibitions can be superimposed.
(7) The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only to a firstling since this prohibition and the prohibition of consecrated things attach simultaneously, but it does not apply to other consecrated animals for they are consecrated even while a foetus in the womb, so that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve cannot be superimposed later.
(8) I.e., as soon as they are born, and not as was assumed previously in the embryonic state. The prohibition of the sciatic nerve, however, came into force earlier when it was a foetus in the womb.
(9) E.g., peace-offerings, and sin-offerings.
(10) I.e., burnt-offerings.
(11) R. Johanan meant that the prohibition applies in that he who eats it incurs stripes.
(12) R. Hiyya b. Joseph meant that the prohibition does not apply and it may be offered up upon the altar. R. Gershom interprets just the reverse: R. Hiyya b. Joseph teaches that he that eats it does not suffer stripes, and R. Johanan teaches that it may not be offered upon the altar.
(13) According to R. Hiyya b. Joseph the prohibition does not apply, that is, it need not be removed from the thigh before offering up the animal upon the altar.
(14) According to R. Johanan the prohibition applies, i.e., if the nerve was extracted it may not be offered separately upon the altar.
(15) Even together with the thigh. According to R. Hiyya b. Joseph this may be done, and according to R. Johanan it may not. In many MS.S. the reading in the text is: 'They disagree about the removal of it'; i.e., according to R. Hiyya b. Joseph it need not be removed, according to R. Johanan it must. It seems that before Rashi both texts were in the Gemara. V. D.S. a.l.
(16) Lev. I, 9.
(17) I.e., even if the nerves and bones were cut away from the flesh they must be offered separately upon the altar.
(18) Deut. XII, 27. The flesh and blood only shall be offered up but not nerves and bones.
(19) Sc. the nerves and bones.
(20) They may not be offered separately, and if offered up they must be taken down from the altar.
(21) The head of a burnt-offering had to be offered up whole upon the altar although it contains many bones; likewise every complete limb may be offered although it contains bones and nerves.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 90b
no verse is necessary to include them, but a verse is necessary to include the [forbidden] sciatic nerve when still attached [to the thigh]. And the Rabbis? - [They say,] It is written: 'From the liquor of Israel',1 that is, from that which is permitted to Israel. And Rabbi? - [He says,] It is on the same footing as the [forbidden] fat and blood.2 And the Rabbis? - [They say,] These are on a different footing, since with regard to these there is an express command.3
R. Huna said: The sciatic nerve of a burnt-offering must be cut away [and thrown] on to the ash-heap.4 Said to him R. Hisda: O master of this [teaching]! Is it written: 'Therefore the altar shall not consume'? It is written: Therefore the children of Israel do not eat.5 And R. Huna? - [He maintains,] It is written: 'From the liquor of Israel', that is, from that which is permitted to Israel.
An objection was raised from the following: The sciatic nerve of a peace-offering6 must be swept into the channel,7 that of a burnt-offering must be offered up. Presumably this means, it must be offered up and burnt! - No, it means, it must be offered up and then cut away. But if he must cut it away why is it necessary to offer it up? Because it is written: Present it now unto thy governor.8 There was taught a Baraitha which supports R. Huna, viz., The sciatic nerve of a peace-offering must be swept into the channel, and that of a burnt-offering must be cut away [and thrown] on to the ash-heap.
We have learnt there:9 'There was an ash-heap in the middle of the altar and sometimes there were on it about three hundred kor10 [of ashes]'. Said Raba: It is an exaggeration. 'They gave [the lamb which was to be] the Daily Offering to drink from a cup of gold'.11 Said Raba: It is an exaggeration. R. Ammi said: The Torah, the prophets, and the Sages sometimes spoke in exaggerated terms. The Sages spoke in exaggerated terms as in the cases we have just quoted. The Torah spoke in exaggerated terms as in the verse: The cities are great and fortified up to heaven.12 The prophets spoke in exaggerated terms as in the verse: So that the earth rent with the sound of them.13
R. Isaac b. Nahmani said in the name of Samuel: In three places the Sages spoke in exaggerated terms, namely, about the ash-heap, the vine, and the curtain. About the ash-heap as we have quoted above. About the vine, we have learnt:14 A golden vine stood at the entrance to the Temple trained over posts, and whosoever presented a leaf or a berry or a cluster15 would bring it and hang it thereon. R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok said: It once happened that three hundred priests were appointed to clear it.16 About the curtain we have learnt:17 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said in the name of R. Simeon the Deputy [High-priest]: The curtain was a handbreadth thick and was woven on seventy-two strands, and each strand consisted of twenty-four threads; 'its length was forty cubits and its breadth twenty cubits, and was made up out of eighty-two myriads [of threads].18 They used to make two every year; and three hundred priests were required to immerse it.19
TO THE RIGHT AND LEFT HIP. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Judah, for it was taught: R. Judah says: It only applies to one [hip], and reason decides in favour of the right [hip].20 It was asked: Was R. Judah certain about it and by 'reason' he meant the reasoned interpretation of the Torah, or was he in doubt about it and by 'reason' he meant the probable meaning? - Come and hear: It was taught: The bones and nerves [of the Paschal lamb] and also [the flesh] that was left over must be burnt on the sixteenth day.21 And we argued upon it as follows: What nerves are meant? If you say, the nerves in the flesh,22 then why does he not eat them? And if they happened to be left over, then they came under the heading of [flesh] 'that was left over'? And if you say, the nerves of the throat, but surely since they are not like flesh he may throw them away.23 And R. Hisda suggested: It can only refer to the sciatic nerve, and the Tanna adopts the view of R. Judah who said that it only applies to the one hip. Now if you say that he was in doubt about it,24 it is well;25 but if you say that he was certain about it,24 then he should eat the permitted one and throw away the forbidden one! - R. Ika b. Hanina said: Indeed I maintain that he was certain about it, but here we must suppose that they26 were first distinguished but subsequently were mixed up.27
(1) Ezek. XLV. 15; with reference to the drink-offering. The inference is that whatsoever is forbidden to Israel may not be offered upon the altar, hence under no circumstances can the forbidden sciatic nerve be offered upon the altar.
(2) Which though forbidden to an Israelite are offered upon the altar; so it is, too, with the forbidden nerve.
(3) For the essential part of the sacrifice is the offering of the fat and the blood upon the altar.
(4) Which was in the middle of the altar on to which the priest used to pile up the ashes of the burned sacrifices.
(5) Gen. XXXII, 33.
(6) It is obvious that the Tanna is referring to the nerve of such consecrated meat as was eaten within the Temple precincts; the peace-offering, however, could be eaten anywhere within the city of Jerusalem. Accordingly Rashi prefers to strike out, 'peace-offering' and substitute 'sin-offering or guilt-offering', for the meat of these could only be eaten by the priests within the Sanctuary. If 'peace-offering' is to be retained, Rashi and Tosaf. offer the suggestion that it refers to the eating by the priests either of their own peace-offerings or of the priestly dues of the 'breast and thigh' portions, and these the priests usually ate within the Sanctuary. MS.M. reads: 'Peace-offering or sin-offering or guilt-offering'.
(7) The water-channel which ran through the Temple courtyard; v. Mid. III, 2.
(8) Mal. I, 8. An expression generally used whenever it is considered improper to offer any particular thing upon the altar. A limb which has been cut up for the removal of the sciatic nerve does not present a fine appearance, and it is therefore suggested that the limb must first be brought up whole upon the altar and while on the altar the nerve must be removed from it.
(9) Tam. II, 2, 28b.
(10) A measure of capacity equal to 30 se'ah.
(11) Tam. III, 4, 30a.
(12) Deut. I, 28.
(13) I Kings I, 40.
(14) Mid. III, 8; 36a.
(15) I.e., gold in any of these shapes.
(16) Of the enormous amount of gold that had accumulated on the vine.
(17) Shek. VIII, 5; Tam. 29a and b.
(18) Var. lec. 'it was made by eighty-two maidens'; or 'the cost of it was eighty-two myriads of denars'.
(19) If it became unclean. The number three hundred, here as well as in the previous cases, is clearly an exaggeration.
(20) Tosef. Hul. VII; Pes. 83b.
(21) Of the month of Nisan; i.e., it must be burnt after the Festival and not on the Festival (cf. Shab. 24b).
(22) Which are tender like flesh.
(23) And it is not necessary to burn them.
(24) As to which hip contains the forbidden sciatic nerve.
(25) That both must be left over and both burnt because of the doubt, for one (sc. the permitted one) must certainly be burnt as nothar i.e., consecrated flesh kept longer than the period prescribed for its consumption.
(26) The sciatic nerves of the right and left hips.
(27) So that the doubt arose through their having been mixed up but not because R. Judah was in doubt which one was forbidden and which permitted.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 91a
R. Ashi said: It can only refer to the fat thereof.1 For it was taught: The fat thereof is permitted, but Israel being a holy people have treated it as forbidden.2 Rabina said: It can only be explained according to the statement of Rab Judah in the name of Samuel. For Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: It3 consists of two nerves, the inner, next the bone is forbidden and one is liable4 on account of it; the outer next to the flesh is forbidden but one is not liable on account of it.5
Come and hear: If a person ate an olive's bulk [of the sciatic nerve] of this [thigh] and another olive's bulk [of the sciatic nerve] of the other [thigh],6 he has incurred eighty stripes. R. Judah says: He has only incurred forty stripes. Now if you say that he was certain about it, then it is well;7 but if you say that he was in doubt about it, then the warning [with regard to each] was dubious, and we have heard that according to R. Judah a dubious warning is no warning. For it was taught: If he8 struck one and then struck the other, or if he cursed one and then cursed the other, or if he struck them both simultaneously, or if he cursed them both simultaneously, he is liable [to the death penalty]. R. Judah says: If simultaneously he is liable; if one after the other, he is not liable!9 - This Tanna [who expressed the view of R. Judah] is in agreement with that other Tanna who declares, also in the name of R. Judah, that a dubious warning is a warning. For it was taught: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; [and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire].10 Scripture here came and provided a positive precept as a remedy for the [disregarded] prohibition to indicate that the prohibition is not punishable by stripes: so R. Judah.11 R. Jacob says: This is not the reason for it, but because it is a prohibition which involves no action [in the contravention thereof], and any prohibition which involves no action [in the contravention thereof] is not punishable by stripes.
Come and hear! If a person ate two [sciatic] nerves from two thighs of two animals, he has incurred eighty stripes. R. Judah says: He has only incurred forty stripes. Now since it says: 'From two thighs of two animals' it is obvious that the prohibited one of each is intended;12 and the case was necessary to be stated in order to set forth R. Judah's view;13 it follows therefore that he was certain about it.14 This stands proved. But if he [R. Judah] was certain about it why does he incur forty stripes and no more? Surely he should incur eighty! - We must suppose here that [in one alone] there was not as much as an olive's bulk. As it has been taught: If a person ate it and [the whole of] it was not as much as an olive's bulk, he is nevertheless liable [to stripes]. R. Judah says, [He is not liable] unless there is as much as an olive's bulk of it.
And what is the reason?15 - Raba said: The verse says: The thigh,16 this implies the right thigh. And the Rabbis? - [They would say,] That [verse indicates that the prohibited nerve] is the one that is spread over the whole of the thigh, [namely, the inner one] but not the outer one.17 R. Joshua b. Levi said. [The reason18 is this,] The verse says. As he wrestled with him,19 [which suggests] as when a person locks another [in his arms] and his [right] hand reaches the hollow of that other's right thigh.20
R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: He appeared to him21 as a heathen, and the Master has said: If an Israelite is joined by a heathen on the way he should let him walk on his right.22 R. Samuel b. Aha said in the name of Raba b. Ulla in the presence of R. Papa: He appeared to him as one of the wise, and the Master has said: Whosoever walks at the right hand of his teacher is uncultured.23 And the Rabbis? [They say,] He [the angel] came from behind and dislocated both [thighs]. And how do these Rabbis interpret the verse: 'As he wrestled with him'? - They interpret it as in the other statement of R. Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said, [This verse] teaches that they threw up the dust of their feet to the Throne of Glory, for it is written here, 'As he wrestled [behe'abko] with him' and it is written there. And, the clouds are the dust ['abak] of his feet.24
R. Joshua b. Levi also said: Why is it [the sciatic nerve] called gid ha-nasheh?25 Because it slipped away [nashah] from its place and rose up; for so it is said: Their strength hath slipped away, they are become as women.26
R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: What is the meaning of the verse: The Lord sent a word unto Jacob and it hath lighted upon Israel?27 'The Lord sent a word unto Jacob', that is the [injury to his] sciatic nerve; 'and it hath lighted upon Israel', for the prohibition thereof has spread throughout Israel.
R. Jose b. R. Hanina also said: What is the meaning of the verse: And slaughter the animals and prepare the meat?28 'And slaughter the animals', that is, uncover for them the place that has been slaughtered;29 'and prepare the meat', that is, remove the sciatic nerve in their presence: this is in accordance with the view that the sciatic nerve was prohibited to the sons of Noah.
And Jacob was left alone.30 Said R. Eleazar: He remained behind for the sake of some small jars.31 Hence [it is learnt] that to the righteous their money is dearer than their body; and why is this? Because they do not stretch out their hands to robbery.32
And there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.33 Said R. Isaac: Hence [it is learnt] that a scholar should not go out alone at night.34 R. Abba b. Kahana said, [You can derive it] from the verse,
(1) I.e., the fat around the sciatic nerve. In the Baraitha the term 'nerves' means this fat.
(2) Consequently it is left over from the Paschal lamb, but since by the law of the Torah it may be eaten it must therefore be burnt as nothar.
(3) Sc. the sciatic nerve.
(4) To stripes.
(5) The outer one therefore must be left over; yet it must also be burnt as nothar, since according to Biblical Law it is permitted.
(6) I.e., he was warned against eating the nerve of the right thigh and was also separately warned against eating the nerve of the left thigh of the same animal (v. supra 82b).
(7) He has incurred stripes for eating the nerve of the right thigh and the warning with regard to it was a warning against a certain prohibition.
(8) One in doubt as to which of two men is his father struck first one and then the other. V. supra 82b and notes thereon, p. 461.
(9) For the warning with regard to each one when taken separately is a dubious warning, which is no warning, hence he is not liable.
(10) Ex. XII. 10. V. supra p. 462.
(11) It is evident from this that R. Judah is of the opinion that a dubious warning - as here, for the offender can always render the warning futile by replying, 'I have yet time to eat' - is a proper warning, for the only reason here why the punishment of stripes is not inflicted is that the remedial measure provided by the Torah weakens the force of the prohibition.
(12) I.e., the right thigh of each animal, for otherwise it would have been sufficient to speak of the two thighs of the one animal.
(13) That even though both are prohibited, for each is the nerve of the right thigh, he has incurred only forty stripes and no more. V. infra.
(14) For if R. Judah were in doubt as to which was the prohibited thigh the punishment of stripes could not be inflicted at all.
(15) For R. Judah's view that only that of the right thigh is prohibited.
(16) Gen. XXXII, 33.
(17) V. supra, the statement of Rab Judah in the name of Samuel, p. 000.
(18) V. p. 509, n. 6.
(19) Gen. XXXII. 26.
(20) So it was with Jacob, and it was his right thigh only that was injured.
(21) The angel appeared to Jacob.
(22) A.Z. 25b. The Israelite should have his right hand nearest to the heathen so as to protect himself the more easily against a sudden attack from the heathen. So did Jacob act too; and the angel injured that thigh of Jacob which was nearest to him, i.e., the right thigh.
(23) Jacob regarding the angel as a scholar took his place at the left hand of the other and so was injured in his right thigh, the side nearest to the angel.
(24) Nahum I, 3.
(25) גיד הנשה.
(26) Jer. LI, 30. The verb used is נשתה from נשה, to slip away, to fail.
(27) Isa. IX, 7.
(28) Gen. XLIII. 16.
(29) To convince the sons of Jacob that the slaughtering was according to ritual.
(30) Ibid. XXXII, 25.
(31) He had already taken across that which he had (ibid. 24), but he must have returned for some small vessels.
(32) And whatever they acquire by their toil and honest dealing is therefore very dear to them.
(33) Ibid. XXXII. 25.
(34) For Jacob was in danger only during the night, but with the break of day the danger was past.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 91b
Behold he winnoweth barley tonight in the threshing floor.1 R. Abbahu said, [You can derive it] from the verse: And Abraham rose early in the morning, and saddled his ass.2 The Rabbis say, [You can derive it] from the verse: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren, and well with the flock.3 Rab says, [You can derive it] from the verse: And the sun rose upon him.4
R. Akiba said: I once asked R. Gamaliel and R. Joshua in the meatmarket of Emmaus where they had gone to buy a beast for the wedding feast of R. Gamaliel's son: It is written: And the sun rose upon him. Did the sun rise upon him only? Did it not rise upon the whole world? R. Isaac said: It means that the sun which had set for his sake now rose for him. For it is written: And Jacob went out from Beer-Sheba, and went toward Haran.5 And it is further written: And he lighted upon the place.6 When he reached Haran he said [to himself], 'Shall I have passed through the place where my fathers prayed and not have prayed too?' He immediately resolved to return, but no sooner had he thought of this than the earth contracted and he immediately lighted upon the place. After he prayed he wished to return [to where he was], but the Holy One, blessed be He said: 'This righteous man has come to my habitation; shall he depart without a night's rest?' Thereupon the sun set.
It is written: And he took of the stones of the place;6 but it is also written: And he took the stone!7 - R. Isaac said: This tells us that all the stones gathered themselves together into one place and each one said: 'Upon me shall this righteous man rest his head'. Thereupon all [the stones], a Tanna taught, were merged into one.
And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth.8 A Tanna taught: What was the width of the ladder? Eight thousand parasangs. For it is written: And behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.8 At least two were ascending and two descending, and when they met each other [on the ladder] there were four; and of an angel it is written: His body was like the Tarshish,9 and we have a tradition that the Tarshish is two thousand parasangs long.10 A Tanna taught: They ascended to look at the image above11 and descended to look at the image below. They wished to hurt him, when Behold, the Lord stood beside him.12 R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Were it not expressly stated in the Scripture, we would not dare to say it. [God is made to appear] like a man who is fanning his son.13
The land whereon thou liest, [to thee will I give it, and to thy seed].12 What is the greatness of this?14 - Said R. Isaac: This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, rolled up the whole of the land of Israel and put it under our father Jacob, [to indicate to him] that it would be very easily conquered by his descendants.15
And he said: Let me go, for the day breaketh.16 [Jacob] said to him, 'Are you a thief or a rogue17 that you are afraid of the morning?' He replied: 'I am an angel, and from the day that I was created my time to sing praises [to the Lord] had not come until now'. This18 supports the statement of R. Hananel in the name of Rab. For R. Hananel said in the name of Rab: Three divisions of ministering angels sing praises [to the Lord] daily; one proclaims: Holy, the other proclaims: Holy, and the third proclaims: Holy is the Lord of hosts.19 An objection was raised: Israel are dearer to the Holy One, blessed be He, than the ministering angels, for Israel sing praises to the Lord every hour, whereas the ministering angels sing praises but once a day. (Others say: Once a week; and others say: Once a month; and others say: Once a year; and others say: Once in seven years; and others say: Once in a jubilee; and others say: Once in eternity.) And whereas Israel mention the name of God after two words, as it is said: Hear, Israel, the Lord20 etc., the ministering angels only mention the name of God after three words, as it is written: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of hosts.19 Moreover, the ministering angels do not begin to sing praises in heaven until Israel have sung below on earth, for it is said: When the morning stars sang together, then all the sons of God shouted for joy!21 - It must be this: One [division of angels] says: Holy; the other says: Holy, holy; and the third says: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of hosts. But is there not the praise of 'Blessed'?22
(1) Ruth III, 2. Naomi was certain that Boaz would not leave the threshing floor that night, for since he was working late into the night he would not go out alone at night on his homeward journey.
(2) Gen. XXII, 3. Abraham did not set out at night even though in this case he was accompanied by Isaac and two young men.
(3) Ibid. XXXVII, 14. 'And see', i.e., at a time when one can see, namely, during the day.
(4) Ibid. XXXII, 32. Only then did Jacob go on his way but not earlier.
(5) Gen. XXVIII, 10.
(6) Ibid. 11.
(7) Ibid. 18. The contradiction is that one verse speaks of 'stones' in the plural, whereas the other speaks of 'the stone'.
(8) Ibid. 12.
(9) Dan. X, 6. תרשיש usually translated 'beryl' or some other precious stone. According to Rabbinic tradition it is the name of a sea which extends for two thousand parasangs (Persian miles). V. Jonah I, 3. Rashi (on Dan. ibid.) identifies it with the sea of Africa; probably the Mediterranean Sea.
(10) So that if four angels were to be at the same time on one rung of the ladder it would have to be eight thousand parasangs wide.
(11) V. Ezek. I, 10. Around the Throne of Glory was the likeness of four living creatures, one being the likeness of a man, and according to Rabbinic tradition the likeness of man was the image of Jacob.
(12) Gen. XXVIII. 13.
(13) To protect him from the heat of the sun; so God stood over Jacob to protect him from the envy of the angels.
(14) Of the promise to give Jacob the land on which he lay, which would be four cubits at most!
(15) As the four cubits of ground upon which he lay.
(16) Gen. XXXII, 27.
(17) קוביוסטום, a kidnapper (Rashi); a gambler (Tosaf.).
(18) That angels sing praises, or that they are limited to an allotted time for song (Tosaf.).
(19) Isa. VI, 3.
(20) Deut. VI, 4.
(21) Job XXXVIII, 7. The morning stars are Israel who are likened to the stars, and the sons of God are the angels. The objection therefore is: How then can it be said above that a division of ministering angels sing: Holy (is) the Lord of hosts, thus mentioning the name of God after one word?
(22) Blessed-be the-glory-of the-Lord Ezek. III, 12. In this song of praise by the angels the name of God is mentioned after two words.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 92a
- 'Blessed' is recited by the Ophanim.1 Or you may say: Since permission has once been granted it is granted.2
Yea, he strove with an angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication unto him.3 I know not, who prevailed over whom. But when it says. For thou hast striven with God and with men and hast prevailed,4 I know that Jacob became master over the angel. He wept and made supplication unto him!5 I know not who wept unto whom. But when it says: And he said: Let me go,6 I know that the angel wept unto Jacob. 'For thou hast striven with God and with men': Said Rabbah: He intimated to him that two princes were destined to come from him: the Exilarch in Babylon and the Prince in the Land of Israel;7 this was also an intimation to him of the exile.
And in the vine were three branches.8 R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of Rab: These are the three men of excellence that come forth in Israel in every generation; sometimes two are here [in Babylon] and one is in the land of Israel, and sometimes two are in the land of Israel and one is here. And the Rabbis set their eyes upon Rabbana 'Ukba and Rabbana Nehemiah, the sons of Rab's daughter. Raba said: These are the three princes9 of the nations who plead in Israel's favour in every generation.
It was taught: R. Eliezer says: The 'vine' is the world, the 'three branches' are [the patriarchs] Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; 'and as it was budding its blossoms shot forth',10 these are the matriarchs; 'ad the clusters thereof brought forth ripe grapes',10 these are the tribes. Thereupon R. Joshua said to him: Is a man shown [in a dream] what has happened? Surely he is only shown what is to happen! Therefore, I say: The 'vine' is the Torah, the 'three branches' are Moses, Aaron and Miriam; 'and as it was budding its blossoms shot forth', these are [the members of] the Sanhedrin;11 'and the clusters thereof brought forth ripe grapes', are the righteous people of every generation. R. Gamaliel said: We still stand in need of the Modiite, for he explains the verse as referring to one place.12 For R. Eleazar the Modiite13 says. The 'vine' is Jerusalem, the 'three branches' are the Temple, the King and the High priest; 'and as it was budding its blossoms shot forth', these are the young priests; 'and the clusters thereof brought forth ripe grapes', these are the drink-offerings. R. Joshua b. Levi interprets it in regard to the gifts [bestowed by God upon Israel]. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: The 'vine' is the Torah, the 'three branches' are the well, the pillar of smoke, and the manna;14 'and as it was budding its blossom,s shot forth', these are the first fruits;15 'and the clusters thereof brought forth ripe grapes', these are the drink-offerings.
R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: The 'vine' is Israel, for so it is written: Thou didst pluck up a vine out of Egypt.16 The 'three branches' are the three Festivals on which Israel go up [to the Temple] every year. 'And as it was budding': the time Is come for Israel to be fruitful and to multiply, for so it is written: And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly.17 'Its blossoms shot forth': the time is come for Israel to be redeemed. for so it is written: And their lifeblood is dashed against My garments, and I have stained all My raiment.18 'And the clusters thereof brought forth ripe grapes': the time is come for Egypt to drink the cup of staggering. And this is in accordance with what Raba had said: Why are three cups mentioned in connection with Egypt?19 One [refers to the cup] which she drank in the days of Moses; the other to that which she drank in the days of Pharaoh-Necho;20 and the third to that which she is destined to drink together with all the nations. R. Abba said to R. Jeremiah b. Abba: When Rab expounded [this verse] in an Aggadic lecture he expounded it as you have done.
R. Simeon b. Lakish said: This people [Israel] is like unto a vine: its branches are the aristocracy, its clusters the scholars, its leaves the common people, its twigs those in Israel that are void of learning. This is what was meant when word was sent from there [Palestine]. 'Let the clusters pray for the leaves, for were it not for the leaves the clusters could not exist'.21
So I bought her [wa-ekreha] to me for fifteen pieces of silver [and a homer of barley, and a half-homer of barley].22 Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: The word 'Kirah'23 must mean 'buying',24 for so it is written: In my grave which I bought [karithi] for me.25 'For fifteen': that is the fifteenth day of Nisan when Israel was redeemed out of Egypt. 'Pieces of silver': these are the righteous, for so it is written: He has taken the bag of silver with him.26 'And a homer of barley and a half-homer of barley:'27 these are the forty-five righteous men on account of whom the world continues to exist. But I know not whether thirty of them are here [in Babylon] and fifteen in the land of Israel, or thirty in the land of Israel and fifteen here [in Babylon]; but when the verse says. And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them into the treasury, in the house of the Lord,28 I know that thirty [righteous men] are in the land of Israel and fifteen here. Said Abaye: Most of them are to be found in the synagogue under the side chamber.29 And I said to them: If ye think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. So they weighed out for my hire thirty pieces of silver.30 Said Rab Judah: These are the thirty righteous men among the nations of the world31 by whose virtue the nations of the world continue to exist. Ulla said: These are the thirty commandments32 which the sons of Noah took upon themselves but they observe three of them, namely,
(1) Not by the ministering angels but by the Ophanim, a higher rank of angels forming part of the Throne of Glory; cf. Ezek. I.
(2) I.e., once they have mentioned the name of God after three words they may thereafter mention it as often as it occurs, even when it occurs after two words or even after one word.
(3) Hosea XII, 5.
(4) Gen. XXXII, 29.
(5) Hosea XII, 5.
(6) Gen. XXXII, 27.
(7) The heads of Jewry in Babylon and Palestine, the latter being designated as 'Gods' for they were ordained as judges and leaders, the former as men.
(8) Ibid. XL, 10.
(9) Angels (Rashi).
(10) Gen XL, 10.
(11) The supreme council of Israel.
(12) I.e., to the various institutions in Jerusalem.
(13) Of Modiim, near Jerusalem, the ancient home of the Maccabean family.
(14) These gifts of water (cf. Num. XXI, 16ff), protection by clouds, and food were bestowed by God upon Israel during their wanderings in the wilderness because of the merits of Miriam, Aaron and Moses respectively.
(15) The reference is to the gift of a fertile land which yielded abundant fruits from which the first ripe fruits were offered.
(16) Ps. LXXX, 9.
(17) Ex. I, 7.
(18) Isa. LXIII, 3. The word נצה, 'its blossom' is interpreted as נצחם, 'their strength, lifeblood'.
(19) The word cup occurs three times in the one verse: Gen. XL, 11. For the cup as a symbol of calamity, cf. Isa. LI, 17: The cup of staggering.
(20) When Egypt was defeated by the Babylonians, cf. Jer. XLVI, 2, 13.
(21) Every class is essential to the well-being of the community.
(22) Hos. III. 2. The entire verse is here homiletically expounded, phrase by phrase. ואכרה from the root כרה, to buy.
(23) כירה the noun formed from the above root.
(24) Lit., 'selling, sale'; here it means a transaction by buying and selling.
(25) Gen. L, 5: כריתי also from the root כרה.
(26) Prov. VII, 20. V. Sanh. 96b where this verse is interpreted as referring to the righteous in Israel.
(27) A homer (in Talmud Kor) consisted of thirty se'ah; so that the verse speaks of thirty units (se'ah) plus fifteen units.
(28) Zech. XI, 13. Thus the thirty righteous are always to be found in the house of the Lord, sc. Palestine.
(29) I.e., most of the righteous men in Palestine. The reference is unknown.
(30) Ibid. 12.
(31) [MS.M. omits 'among the nations of the world'.]
(32) [These are comprised in the seven Noahide precepts. For reference v. Ronsberg Glosses.]
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 92b
(i) they do not draw up a kethubah document for males,1 (ii) they do not weigh flesh of the dead in the market,2 and (iii) they respect the Torah.
IT DOES NOT APPLY TO BIRDS, [BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SPOON-SHAPED HIP]. But we see that they have it? - They have it indeed, but it is not convex.3 R. Jeremiah raised the question. What if a bird happened to have it convex, or if an animal happened to have it [flat and] not convex? Do we consider the particular creature by itself, or do we consider the class to which it belongs? - It is undecided.
IT ALSO APPLIES TO A FOETUS. Samuel said: The ruling: ITS FAT IS PERMITTED, is agreed to by all. What fat? Should you say, that of a foetus, but this is a matter of dispute. For it has been taught:4 It5 applies to a foetus, and its6 fat is forbidden: so R. Meir. R. Judah says: It does not apply to a foetus, and its6 fat is permitted. And R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Oshaia: They differ in the case of a nine months' fetus which was [extracted] alive [from its dam's womb]; R. Meir therefore ruling according to his principle7 and R. Judah according to his.8 And should you say, the fat of the nerve, but there too there is a dispute about it. For it has been taught: As to the sciatic nerve, one must follow it up as far as it goes and must cut away the fat thereof at its source;9 so R. Meir. R. Judah says: One merely cuts it away from off the cap of the bone!10 - In truth, it refers to the fat of the nerve; Samuel however agrees that according to R. Meir it is forbidden by Rabbinic decree. For it has been taught: Its fat is permitted, but Israel being a holy people have regarded it as forbidden.11 And presumably the author [of this Baraitha] is R. Meir who maintains that by the law of the Torah it is permitted but is forbidden by Rabbinic decree! But whence this? Perhaps it is R. Judah, but according to R. Meir it is forbidden even by the law of the Torah! - You cannot think of this; for it has been taught: As to the sciatic nerve, one must follow it up as far as it goes, and its fat is permitted. Now whom have you heard say that it is necessary to 'follow it up?' R. Meir; and here it expressly says, its fat is permitted.12
R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha said in the name of Rab: The Torah forbade only the branch nerves of it.13 Ulla said, [Although] it is like wood the Torah makes one liable for it.14 Abaye said: The view of Ulla is the more probable, for R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Assi. The veins in fat are forbidden but one is not liable [to the penalty of Kareth] on account of them. It is evident therefore that the Divine Law forbade the fat but not the veins, likewise the Divine Law forbade the nerve but not the branch nerves.
[To turn to] the main text. 'R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Assi: The veins in fat are forbidden but one is not liable on account of them'. The veins in the kidney are forbidden but one is not liable on account of them. As to the white substance of the kidney15 there is a difference of opinion between Rabbi and R. Hiyya, one forbids it and the other permits it . Rabbah used to scrape it all away.16 R. Johanan also used to scrape it all away. R. Assi used to cut away only the surface thereof.17 Abaye said: The view of R. Assi is the more probable, for R. Abba said in the name of Rab Judah on the authority of Samuel,
(1) Although they are suspected of indecent practices and sodomy they do not go to that length of writing a 'marriage' deed for the purpose. כתובה here means a marriage deed; for specific meanings v. Introduction to Keth., Sonc. ed., p. XI, n. 1.
(2) Although they eat human flesh they do not sell it openly in the market. Rashi also suggests: They do not sell the flesh of an animal that had not been slain but had died a natural death.
(3) The muscles around the upper part of the hip bone of a bird are flat and not rounded and raised like a ball. V. supra p. 500, n. 2.
(4) V. supra 74b; Tosef. Hul. VII.
(5) Sc. the prohibition of the sciatic nerve.
(6) Sc. of a foetus.
(7) R. Meir holds that a nine months' foetus which was extracted alive out of the womb is not rendered permitted by the slaughtering of its dam but must be slaughtered itself and is in every respect like an ordinary animal, hence its fat is forbidden and also the sciatic nerve.
(8) R. Judah maintains that this foetus is permitted by the slaughtering of its dam, and the whole of it may be eaten, the fat as well as the sciatic nerve.
(9) Wherever the fat is found, in all its ramifications.
(10) I.e., only that fat which is in close proximity to the nerve must be cut away, and this only for appearance sake, since strictly the whole of the fat is permitted.
(11) Pes. 83b and supra 91a.
(12) Accordingly R. Meir's view is that strictly by the law of the Torah it is permitted, but it is only forbidden by Rabbinic decree. This then was the purport of Samuel's teaching.
(13) Only the nerves that branch off the main sciatic nerve are prohibited, for these are tender and could impart a flavour into the substance that is cooked with it, but the actual sciatic nerve is hard like wood and is not forbidden.
(14) But the branch nerves are permitted. As to whether or not they are prohibited Rabbinically v. Tosaf. s.v. כװתיה.
(15) Which is in the middle of the kidney but goes deep into the actual kidney.
(16) Even that which is deep in the kidney.
(17) I.e., only that portion which is in the middle of the kidney but not that which is covered up by the kidney.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 93a
Fat that is covered with flesh is permitted. It is evident therefore that the Divine Law spoke of that which is 'upon the loins'1 and not of that which is in the loins; likewise here, the Divine Law spoke of that which is 'above the kidneys'1 and not of that which is in the kidneys.
[To revert to] the above text. 'R. Abba said in the name of Rab Judah on the authority of Samuel: Fat that is covered with flesh is permitted'. But this cannot be, for has not R. Abba also said in the name of Rab Judah on the authority of Samuel that the fat which is under the loins is forbidden?2 Abaye answered: An animal whilst alive has its limbs dislocated.3 Even as R. Johanan said: 'I am no butcher nor the son of a butcher, but I remember this statement that was generally quoted in the Beth-Hamidrash, "An animal whilst alive has its limbs dislocated"'.
R. Abba said in the name of Rab Judah who said it in the name of Samuel: The fat which is upon the omasum and reticulum is forbidden and one is liable to the penalty of Kareth on account of it; this is the fat that is 'upon the in wards'.4
R. Abba further said in the name of Rab Judah who said it in the name of Samuel: The fat which is upon the innominate bone5 is forbidden and one is liable to the penalty of Kareth on account of it; this is the 'fat which is upon the loins'.
R. Abba also said in the name of Rab Judah who said it in the name of Samuel: The small veins in the fore-limb are forbidden. Said R. Safra: You Moses!6 Does the Divine Law forbid the eating of meat? - Raba replied: You Moses! Does the Divine Law allow the eating of blood? But if it [the fore-limb] was cut and salted it may even [be cooked] in a pot.7
Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: [The fat upon] the first cubit of the intestines must be scraped away; this is the fat upon the intestines.8 Rab Judah said: The veins9 in the rump are forbidden.
There are five veins9 in the loins, three on the right side and two on the left. Each one of the three veins branches into two, and each one of the two veins branches into three. The practical importance of this is that if one removes then, while the flesh is still warm they will slip out easily, otherwise one must follow them up [to this number].
Abaye (others say: Rab Judah) said: There are five10 veins, three are forbidden on account of fat and two on account of blood. The veins in the spleen, in the loins and in the kidneys are forbidden on account of fat; those in the fore-limb and in the cheeks on account of blood.11 What is the practical difference here? - Those forbidden on account of blood, if cut up and salted may be eaten; but the others have no remedy at all.
R. Kahana (others say: Rab Judah) said: There are five membranes, three are forbidden on account of fat, and two on account of blood; that of the spleen, the loins, and the kidneys is forbidden on account of fat; that of the testicles and of the brain on account of blood.
R. Judah b. Oshaia was once scraping [the fat from] the spleen for Levi the son of R. Huna b. Hiyya, and was cutting away [the fat] only at the upper end,12 whereupon the latter said to him, 'Go lower down too'. When his father came and found him doing this, he said: Thus said your mother's father (that is, R. Jeremiah b. Abba) in the name of Rab: The Torah forbade only [the fat] at the top.13 But this surely cannot be, for R. Hamnuna reported that a Tanna taught: The membrane which is upon the spleen is forbidden but one is not liable on account of it. Now what can this mean? If it means, [the fat] which is at the top, then why is one not liable on account of it? It must therefore mean the fat over the whole [of the spleen]! - He replied: If it was so taught then it was taught.14
[To revert to] the main text. 'R. Hamnuna reported, that a Tanna taught: The membrane which is upon the spleen is forbidden but one is not liable on account of it'. The membrane which is upon the kidney is forbidden but one is not liable on account of it. But it has been taught: One is liable on account of it!15 - With regard to the spleen there is no contradiction because the latter ruling refers to the fat which is at the top and the former to that which is not at the top. And with regard to the kidney there is no contradiction because the latter ruling refers to the upper membrane16 and the former to the lower membrane.
As to crushed17 testicles [there is a dispute between] R. Ammi and R. Assi, one forbids them and the other permits them. He who forbids them [argues thus]:
(1) In connection with sacrifices, e.g., Lev. III, 4. The prohibition of fat applies only to such fat as was burnt in a sacrifice on the altar.
(2) Although this fat is covered by the loins.
(3) When the animal is in motion its limbs and muscles slip away from their normal positions and are temporarily dislocated. Consequently the fat under the loins is not always covered with flesh, and it is therefore forbidden.
(4) Referred to frequently in Scripture in connection with sacrifices, e.g., Lev. III, 3.
(5) I.e., the hip-bone. According to Rashi the text refers to the sacrum. V. Katzenelsohn, p. 269, n. 2.
(6) A title of honour; or a form of oath, 'By Moses'! Cf. Bezah 38b.
(7) The veins in the fore-limb are forbidden only on account of the blood contained in them; if therefore the meat was cut up and the veins cut too, it is permitted for all purposes.
(8) About which there was a dispute between R. Akiba and R. Ishmael, v. supra 49b.
(9) These 'veins' or stringy fibers are forbidden as fat and are included in the prohibition of fat.
(10) I.e., there are five places where the veins are prohibited, either because of fat or of blood.
(11) The arteries of the neck, i.e., the carotid arteries, are certainly forbidden because of their blood; here however only the minor veins are reckoned.
(12) At the thick part, i.e., the area of attachment to the rumen.
(13) Lit., 'on the breast'; i.e., the membrane which lies over the thick part of the spleen.
(14) But I shall not alter my opinion on account of it. V. Rashi Nid. 23b s.v. אי תניא תניא.
(15) Both with regard to the spleen and the kidney.
(16) This is absolutely forbidden and entails the penalty of kareth.
(17) According to others, the testicles had been torn away and were lying loose in the scrotum.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 93b
since they will never recover, they are to be considered as a limb torn loose from the living animal. And he who permits them [argues thus]: since they do not rot there is obviously vitality in them. And the former? - He maintains that they do not rot only because the outside air does not penetrate into them. And the latter? - He maintains that they do not recover only because emaciation has set in. R. Johanan said to R. Shaman b. Abba: Crushed testicles are permitted, but you must not eat them for it is written: Forsake not the teaching of thy mother.1
Mar son of R. Ashi said: The testicles of a kid2 that is not yet thirty days old, are permitted without having to peel off the membrane; thereafter, if they contain semen they are forbidden,3 if they do not contain semen they are permitted. How does one know this? - If there are red streaks [in the membrane], they are forbidden;4 I if there are no red streaks, they are permitted.
As to [dark red] meat, testicles, and the arteries [of the neck], there is a dispute between R. Aha and Rabina. (In any law of the Torah [whenever there is a dispute between them], Rabina always adopts the lenient view and R. Aha the strict view, and the law is always in accordance with Rabina's view thus tending towards leniency; excepting in these three cases, where R. Aha adopts the lenient view and Rabina the strict view, and, the law is in accordance with R. Aha's view and thus tending towards leniency.) As to dark red meat5 if it was cut up and salted, it is even permitted [to be cooked] in a pot; if it was thrust on a spit [and held over the fire], the blood would easily flow out; if it was placed on the coals, in this there is a dispute between R. Aha and Rabina: one says that they [the coals] would draw out the blood, and the other says that they would cause [the meat] to contract.6 The same rules apply to the testicles, and also to the arteries [of the neck].
If a head was put on hot ashes7 and it was made to stand up upon the open cut of the neck, the blood would then flow out and it is permitted; if it was placed upon its side, the blood would become clotted and it is forbidden; if it was made to stand up upon its nostrils and something was thrust into them,8 it is permitted; otherwise it is forbidden. Some there are who say, [If it was made to stand up] upon its nostrils or upon the cut of the neck, the blood would flow out; if it was placed upon its side and it was pierced with something it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden.
[To revert to] the above text:9 Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, 'It10 consists of two nerves, the inner,11 next to the bone, is forbidden, and one is liable on account of it, the outer,11 next to the flesh, is forbidden, but one is not liable on account of it'. But it was taught that the inner is nearer the flesh! - R. Aha explained in the name of R. Kahana, [That is so further on] where it is embedded in the flesh. But it was taught that the outer is nearer the bone! - Rab Judah answered: That is so only [at the part] where the butchers cut it open.12
It was stated: If a butcher was found to have overlooked forbidden fat, even only as much as a barley grain, says Rab Judah, [he is punishable]. R. Johanan says, [Only if he overlooked] as much as an olive's bulk. R. Papa said: They do not disagree, for here it is a question of punishing him with stripes,13 and there of removing him.14 Mar Zutra said, [If there was found] as much as a barley grain in one place or as much as an olive's bulk scattered in two or three places [he is punishable].15 The law is: in order to punish him with stripes [he must have overlooked] as much as an olive's bulk, and in order to remove him even if [he overlooked] only as much as a barley grain.16
BUTCHERS ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY etc. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan. Later they held that they were to be trusted.17 R. Nahman exclaimed: Have the generations become more virtuous? - At first they [the Sages] held the view of R. Meir18 and so they were not to be trusted, but later they held the view of R. Judah.19
Others report this with reference to the last clause, THE SAGES SAY, THEY ARE TRUSTWORTHY WITH REGARD TO IT AS WELL AS WITH REGARD TO THE [FORBIDDEN] FAT. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: Later they held that they were not to be trusted. R. Nahman said: Today they are to be trusted. Have the generations then become more virtuous? - At first they [the Sages] held the view of R. Judah, and later they held the view of R. Meir; and as long as people still remembered the view of R. Judah, they were not to be trusted, but now that R. Judah's view has been forgotten they are to be trusted.
AS WELL AS WITH REGARD TO THE [FORBIDDEN] FAT. But who has mentioned the forbidden fat at all? - This is what he [R. Meir] said: They are not trustworthy with regard to it nor with regard to the forbidden fat. But the Sages say: They are trustworthy with regard to it as well as with regard to the forbidden fat.20
MISHNAH. ONE MAY SEND TO A GENTILE A THIGH IN WHICH THERE IS YET THE SCIATIC NERVE, BECAUSE ITS PLACE IS KNOWN.21
GEMARA. Only a whole thigh one may [send] but not if it was cut up.22 But what are the circumstances? If we are speaking of a place where they do not proclaim it,23
(1) Prov. I, 8. R. Shaman came from Babylon where the rule was not to eat them because of the difference of opinion between R. Ammi and R. Assi.
(2) Or any other young animal.
(3) If the membrane has not been removed because of the blood it contains.
(4) V. p. 522, n. 7.
(5) Caused by a blow which the animal received while alive and the blood was congested in this spot; v. Marginal note. [Aliter: meat pickled in vinegar.]
(6) So that the blood would not flow out and it is therefore forbidden.
(7) In order to remove the hair the more easily.
(8) To keep clear the passage in the nostrils so as to allow the blood to run out freely.
(9) Inserted by Bah. V. Supra 91a.
(10) Sc. the sciatic nerve.
(11) The great sciatic nerve is derived from the lumbosacral plexus and as it emerges from the pelvis it descends first behind the hip joint and then behind the femur in the thigh. It gives off branches to the muscles behind the femur, but its longest branch is the common peroneal. The 'inner' is probably the great sciatic nerve, and the 'outer' the common peroneal.
(12) When they are about to 'porge' the meat. There the outer nerve is near to the bone.
(13) In that case he must have overlooked at least an olive's bulk of fat. In addition to stripes he is barred from trading as a butcher (R. Nissim). 'Stripes' here is not that ordained by the Torah but corporal punishment inflicted for disobeying a Rabbinic law, i.e., Makkath Marduth, stripes for rebellion. (cf. Yoreh Deah, LXIV, 21).
(14) From trading as a butcher. This is so even though he only overlooked as much as a barley grain of fat.
(15) It is not clear what is to be his punishment, removal from his trade or stripes. V. however Rashal. a.l.
(16) [He is however reinstated on undertaking never to repeat the offence. V. דברי חמודות on Asheri a.l.]
(17) With regard to the sciatic nerve (Tosaf.).
(18) That the sciatic nerve must be removed with all its roots; and as this entailed much trouble the butchers were not be trusted for it.
(19) That only the upper surface of the nerve must be removed; for this all butchers were trustworthy.
(20) This paragraph is not found in MS.M.
(21) We need not apprehend lest another Jew, seeing the gentile receiving the thigh from this Jew, will assume that the nerve had been removed and will buy it from the gentile, because it can easily be seen whether the nerve has been removed or not.
(22) I.e., a portion of the thigh. This is the inference from our Mishnah which states A THIGH, implying a whole thigh.
(23) Sc. that an animal was found to be trefah. This is the custom where all the butchers are Jews. Where the practice of announcing it is not in vogue, there Jews are not allowed to buy meat from gentiles under any circumstances, for the Jewish butchers may have disposed of the trefah animal to a gentile and did not trouble to make this fact known.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 94a
then one should be allowed to send it even though it was cut up, for no [Jew] would buy it from him. And if we are speaking of a place where they do proclaim it,1 then one should not be allowed to send even an entire thigh,2 for he [the gentile] will cut it up and sell it! - If you wish I can say that it is a place where they do proclaim it, and if you wish I can say that it is a place where they do not proclaim it. If you wish, I can say that it is a place where they do proclaim it , [and yet there is nothing to fear] because the cutting up [of the thigh] by a gentile is recognizable.3 'And if you wish, I can say that it is a place where they do not proclaim it', [and yet it is forbidden to send a portion] lest he should give it to the gentile in the presence of another Israelite.4 Alternatively, I can say, [it is forbidden] because he thereby deceives him,5 and Samuel holds that it is forbidden to deceive people even gentiles.
This view of Samuel was not expressly stated but was inferred from the following incident. Samuel was once crossing on a ferryboat and he said to his attendant, 'Reward the ferryman'. He rewarded him, but [Samuel] became angry. Why was he angry? - Abaye said: Because he [the attendant] had a trefah hen and he gave it to the ferryman representing it as one that was ritually slaughtered. Raba said: Because he [Samuel] told him to give him [the gentile] anpaka6 to drink, and he gave him mixed wine to drink.7 And what if it was only inferred? - Because according to him who says that he gave him a trefah hen, it can be said [that Samuel was angry with his attendant] for keeping with him [a forbidden thing].8 And according to him who says that he told him to give him anpaka, it can be said [that Samuel was angry] because anpaka really means unmixed wine.9
It was taught: R. Meir used to say: A man should not urge his friend to dine with him when he knows that his friend will not do so.10 And he should not offer him many gifts when he knows that his friend will not accept them. And he should not open [for a guest] casks of wine which are to be sold by the shopkeeper,11 unless he informs [the guest] of it. And he should not invite him to anoint himself with oil12 if the jar is empty. If, however, the purpose is to show the guest great respect, it is permitted. But surely this cannot be right. For Ulla once came to Rab Judah's house and the latter opened up for him casks that were later to be sold by the shopkeeper! - He must have informed him of this fact. Or if you wish, I can say that the case of Ulla is different, for he was so dear to Rab Judah that he would have opened for him even those that were not [to be sold by the shopkeeper].
Our Rabbis taught: A man should not go to the house of a mourner13 with a bottle in which the wine shakes about;14 neither should he fill it with water because he thereby deceives him. If, however, there is a large assembly15 present, it is permitted.
Our Rabbis taught: A man should not sell to his neighbour shoes made of the hide of an animal which died, [representing them] as made of the hide of a living animal which was slaughtered, for two reasons: first, because he is deceiving him, and secondly, because of the danger.16 A man should not send to his neighbour a barrel of wine with oil floating at the mouth of it.17 It once happened that a man sent his friend a barrel of wine, and there was oil floating at the mouth of the barrel. He went and invited some guests to partake of it. When they came and he found that it was only wine he went and hanged himself.18 The guests may not give from what is set before them to the son or daughter of the host, unless they have the host's permission to, do so. It once happened that a man in a time of scarcity invited three guests to his house and he only had three eggs19 to set before them. When the child of the host entered, one of the guests took his portion and gave it to him, the second guest did likewise, and so did the third. When the father of the child came and saw him stuffing one [egg] in his mouth and holding two in his hands, he [in rage] knocked him to the ground so that he died. When the child's mother saw this she went up to the roof and threw herself down and died. He too went up to the roof and threw himself down and died. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: Because of this three souls in Israel perished. What does he [R. Eliezer b. Jacob] tell us? - It means that the whole story was related by R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
Our Rabbis taught: If a man sends to his friend a whole thigh he need not remove beforehand the sciatic nerve; if [he sends it] cut up he must remove beforehand the sciatic nerve. To a gentile, however, whether he sends it cut up or whole, he need not remove beforehand the sciatic nerve. And for two reasons they said, a man should not sell to a gentile animals that have become nebelah or trefah:20 first because he is deceiving him,21 and secondly because he in turn might sell it to another Israelite. A man should not say to a gentile. 'Buy for me meat with this denar', for two reasons:
(1) So that on any day when no proclamation about trefah has been made Jews may buy meat without hesitation from gentiles.
(2) Unless the nerve had been removed beforehand, for the gentile might cut it up in portions and sell it to Jews, and when cut up it is no longer easy to ascertain whether the nerve has been removed or not.
(3) A whole thigh, therefore, may be sent but not a portion of one.
(4) Although in this place it is not the practice for Jews to buy meat from gentiles, in this particular case where the Jew sees the gentile receiving the meat, even if only a portion, from his fellow Jew, he might buy it and assume that the nerve had been removed.
(5) Lit., 'steals his mind', i.e., creates a false impression upon him. The gentile would be delighted in the thought that his Jewish friend is sending him meat fit for his own table, and would be the more grateful to him, whereas in reality the meat sent was not fit for his own table as the nerve had not been removed therefrom, and so the gratitude of the gentile will have been falsely earned.
(6) אנפקא, a form of the word אנבג (v. Jast. s.v.), strictly, a small cup the capacity of one fourth of a log, cf. B.B. 58b. A popular term also for strong, unmixed wine.
(7) And the gentile thought it was unmixed wine.
(8) And not because he deceived the gentile.
(9) And by giving mixed wine he disregarded the orders of Samuel. Hence his anger.
(10) He is merely gaining the gratitude of his friend through something which he had no intention of doing. This is the reason in all the cases mentioned.
(11) It was not unusual for a private person when about to open a barrel of wine for his table to make arrangements with a shopkeeper to dispose of that which is left after the meal; a necessary arrangement, for once the barrel has been opened the wine will in a very short time turn sour. To open up a barrel of wine for a guest without informing him of the arrangement with the shopkeeper is taking credit for something one has not merited.
(12) Knowing full well that his friend will not do so.
(13) It was the custom to drink wine at the house of a mourner, and over each cup of wine certain Benedictions and appropriate words of consolation to the mourners were recited; v. Keth. 8b. The visitors would come bringing with them bottles of wine; and one must not deceive people by coming with a bottle filled with water or only half-filled with wine.
(14) I.e., it contains only a little wine and therefore shakes about in the bottle.
(15) חבר עיר Lit., 'an assembly of the city'. If this man also wishes to show his respect to the mourners among the large gathering of people and he cannot afford to bring wine he may adopt this deception, for the motive justifies the means. [Aliter: a town scholar, vocalizing חבר; i.e., if there is a scholar among the visitors and the man wishes to show his respect to the scholar present, cf. Meg. (Sonc. ed.) p. 164, n. 1.]
(16) As the animal may have died through the bit of a serpent and the hide of the animal may thereby have become contaminated.
(17) Leading him to believe that the whole barrel contains oil.
(18) Because of shame, for he had nothing else prepared to set before his guests.
(19) So Bah. Cur. edd. as (the size of) three eggs.
(20) Without informing him of this fact.
(21) For a gentile when buying meat of a Jew believes that he is buying the meat of an animal that has been ritually slaughtered, and it is forbidden to take advantage of his ignorance and to pass on to him trefah meat.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 94b
first because of the violent ones among them,1 and secondly because they might sell him meat of a nebelah or trefah animal.
The Master said: 'To a gentile, however, whether [he sends it] cut up or whole, he need not remove beforehand the sciatic nerve'. But what are the circumstances? If we are dealing with a place where they do proclaim it,2 then in the case where it has been cut up why [do you say,] he need not remove beforehand the sciatic nerve? [Is it not to be feared that,] since no proclamation was made, people will buy from him? Obviously then we are dealing with a place where they do not proclaim it. Consider now the middle clause which reads: 'For two reasons, they said, a man should not sell to a gentile animals that have become nebelah or trefah: first because he is deceiving him, and secondly because he in turn might sell it to another Israelite'. If, as you say, we are dealing with a place where they do not proclaim it, then surely no one would buy from him. Obviously then we are dealing with the place where they do proclaim it.3 Consider now the final clause which reads: 'A man should not say to a gentile. "Buy for me meat with this denar", for two reasons: first because of the violent ones among them, and secondly because they might sell him meat of a nebelah or trefah animal'. Now if, as you say, it is a place where they do proclaim it, then surely if there happened a trefah it would have been proclaimed.4 Obviously then we are dealing with the place where they do not proclaim it; so that the position is: The first and last clauses deal with a place where they do not proclaim it, whilst the middle clause deals with a place where they do proclaim it! - Abaye answered: It is so. The first and last clauses deal with a place where they do not proclaim it, but the middle clause deals with a place where they do proclaim it. Raba answered: The whole [Baraitha] deals with a place where they do proclaim it; and in the first and last clauses the case was that a proclamation had been made [this day],5 but in the middle clause the case was that no proclamation had been made.6 R. Ashi answered: The whole [Baraitha] deals with a place where they do not proclaim it;7 but the ruling in the middle clause8 is merely a precautionary measure lest he sell it to the gentile in the presence of another Israelite.9 What is the form of the proclamation? - R. Isaac b. Joseph said: 'Meat has fallen into our hands for the army'.10 And why not proclaim, 'Trefah meat has fallen into our hands for the army'? - They would not then buy it. Are we not then deceiving them? - No. They are deceiving themselves.11 As in the following incident. Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman was once going from Sikara12 to Mahuza, while Raba and R. Safra were going to Sikara; and they met on the way. Believing that they had come to meet him he said: 'Why did the Rabbis take this trouble to come so far [to meet me]?' R. Safra replied: 'We did not know that the Master was coming; had we known of it we should have put ourselves out more than this'. Raba said to him, 'Why did you tell him this; you have now upset him'? He replied: 'But we would be deceiving him otherwise'. 'No. He would be deceiving himself'.13
A butcher once said to his fellow,
(1) Who would keep the denar for themselves and at the same time force the butcher to supply them with meat to the value of a denar without payment.
(2) That this day a trefah animal was supplied to the gentile. On that day Jews would refrain from buying meat from the gentile. For the form of the proclamation v. infra.
(3) But for some unaccountable reason no proclamation was made on this day, so that there is the danger of Jews buying trefah meat from the gentiles without being aware of the fact.
(4) Since there was no proclamation on this day then the Jew should have no hesitation in sending the gentile to buy meat for him.
(5) So that all know that this day the gentile has been supplied with trefah meat.
(6) Although such a proclamation should have been made.
(7) So that generally Jews would not buy meat from gentiles for they are supplied with trefah meat and no announcement is made of this fact.
(8) Sc. that it is forbidden to sell to a gentile nebelah or trefah.
(9) Who, on seeing the gentile receiving it from the Jew and not knowing that it is trefah, would permit himself to buy it from the gentile. In the first clause, however, we do not apprehend this, for there it refers to a private transaction, where a Jew sends a thigh to the gentile, and it is not likely that any other Jew would know of this; hence there is no reasonable ground for imposing a precautionary measure. On the other hand, the Tanna of our Mishnah does feel the necessity for such a measure. V. Rashi.
(10) Sc. the gentiles. In towns where Jews mainly settled, it was not unusual to find that the only gentiles in the town were the soldiers of the army who were stationed there.
(11) For they do not take the trouble to enquire whether the meat is trefah or not.
(12) Near Mahuza.
(13) Thinking that they had specially come to meet him.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 95a
'If only you had been on good terms with me, I would have given you a portion of the fatted ox which I had prepared yesterday!' He replied: 'I did eat of the choicest meat'. 'Where did you get it?' asked the other. 'That gentile who bought [the animal from you] gave me a portion', he replied. Said the other, 'I did indeed prepare two, but that one became trefah'. Said Rabbi, Are we to prohibit all the meat stalls [today] because of that fool who acted improperly?1 Rabbi here is consistent with his principle, for he said: Where the meat stalls [kept by gentiles are supplied with meat by] Israelite butchers, any meat found in the possession of the gentile2 is permitted. Some there are who give this version: Rabbi said: 'Are we to prohibit all the meat stalls because of that fool who wanted to annoy his fellow'?3 Now the only reason is because he wanted to annoy his fellow, but where there was no such intention [all the meat stalls would be] forbidden. Surely it was taught: Rabbi says: Where the meat stalls [kept by gentiles are supplied with meat by] Israelite butchers, any meat found in the possession of the gentile is permitted! - Here it is different, for the forbidden meat is clearly established.4
Rab said: Meat which had disappeared from sight5 is forbidden.6 An objection was raised. Rabbi says: Where the meat stalls [kept by gentiles are supplied with meat by] Israelite butchers, any meat found in the possession of the gentile is permitted!7 - It is different where it is found in the possession of the gentile.8
Come and hear: If there were nine meat shops, all of them selling ritually slaughtered meat and one shop selling carrion, and a man bought meat from one of them but he does not know from which of them he bought, it is forbidden because of the doubt;9 but if meat was found,10 one goes after the majority.11 - Here too [we must suppose] that it was found in the hand of a gentile.
Come and hear: We have learnt: If one found10 [raw] meat in the city one must determine [the meat] according to the majority of butchers; if it was cooked meat one must determine it according to the majority of the people that eat meat.12 And should you say that here too [we must suppose] that it was found in the hand of a gentile, [then why is it said.] 'If it was cooked one must determine it according to the majority of the people that eat meat'? Let us see whether the gentile has it in his possession or the Israelite!13 - Here we must suppose that he [the finder] was standing by and kept his eye on it all the time.14
Come and hear: [We have learnt:] If meat was found within the borders,15 if it was an entire limb it is deemed to be nebelah,16 but if it was a cut [from a limb] it is permitted.17 And should you say that here too we must suppose that he [the finder] stood by keeping his eye on it all the time, then why is it deemed to be nebelah in the case of an entire limb?18 - Is not this intended [as an objection] against Rab's teaching? But with regard to it there has been reported: Rab said: It is permitted only in so far as it is not deemed to be nebelah,19 Levi however said, it is permitted to be eaten.
This rule of Rab20 was not expressly stated but was inferred from the following incident. Rab was once sitting by the ford of the Ishtatith Canal21 when he saw a man
(1) Since the meat sold in all the stalls, even those kept by gentiles, is supplied by Jewish butchers, the Jews have accustomed themselves to buying meat from gentile stalls without hesitation. The improper act of this man surely will not have the effect of altering the status quo so as to place a restriction upon all stalls kept by gentiles!
(2) I.e., on his stall.
(3) We assume therefore that he lied to his fellow merely in order to annoy him, but that he did not actually sell the gentile trefah meat.
(4) He had definitely sold trefah meat to this gentile, and he might have done so to others too, therefore all the meat on the stalls kept by the gentiles is forbidden.
(5) Even if one lost sight of it or turned one's back on it for a moment.
(6) For it might have been exchanged for trefah meat.
(7) Here the meat was not kept in sight by the Jew the whole time, nevertheless it is permitted.
(8) The gentile has had this meat in his care all the time, and since all the meat supplied to him is ritually slaughtered, for no Jew would supply him with trefah meat to sell in the market, it is permitted. Where, however, nobody was in charge of it, it is forbidden, for a raven might have carried it away and brought back trefah meat from elsewhere.
(9) Because of the principle that everything prohibited which has a fixed place (kabua') among things permitted, is not deemed as a minority among the majority, but rather as in the proportion of half to half. In this case therefore the meat, bought from one of the shops amongst which that shop which sells carrion has its place fixed and determined, is forbidden, for the doubt with regard to this meat is even.
(10) Presumably in the market place, and evidently it had disappeared from sight.
(11) And the meat is permitted for the majority of shops sell ritually slaughtered meat.
(12) Maksh. II, 9. If the majority of butchers, or in the case of cooked meat if the majority of people that eat meat, are Jews, the meat found may be eaten.
(13) And this would easily determine the doubt, for if the gentile has it then it is forbidden for presumably he has cooked it. The case must therefore be that the meat was found on the ground and not in the possession of anyone, nevertheless it is permitted, contra Rab.
(14) From the moment that it fell from the owner.
(15) Of the Land of Israel but outside Jerusalem.
(16) For whenever an animal becomes nebelah it is usually cut up into limbs and thrown away.
(17) Shek. VII, 6. It is to be assumed, of course, that the majority of butchers in the town are Jews. Nevertheless it is permitted even though it was lost and presumably out of sight.
(18) After all the meat had only accidentally fallen from the owner and was not thrown away as nebelah.
(19) I.e., it does not defile, but on no account may it be eaten since it had not been kept in sight the whole time.
(20) That meat which had even for one moment disappeared from sight is forbidden.
(21) [Near Sura, v. Obermeyer, p. 300.]
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 95b
washing the head [of an animal in the water]. It fell out of his hand, so he went and fetched a basket, threw it [into the water] and brought up two heads. Said Rab, 'Is this what usually happens?'1 And he forbade him both [heads]. Thereupon R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab, 'Are only forbidden [heads] found here and not permitted ones?'2 He replied. 'The forbidden ones are more frequently found'. But what if it was only inferred?3 - It was a jetty frequented mostly by gentiles. Indeed you may be certain of this from his reply: 'The forbidden ones are more frequently found [here]'.4
According to this how could Rab eat meat?5 - You may say [that he ate meat] soon [after the slaughtering], so that he did not lose sight of it; or only if it was wrapped up and sealed, or if it bore some distinguishing mark. Thus Rabbah son of R. Huna used to cut up [the meat] in the shape of a triangle.
Rab was once going to his son-in-law R. Hanan when he saw a ferry-boat coming towards him. Said he to himself: When the ferry-boat comes to meet one it is a good omen.6 As he came to the door he looked through the crack of the door and he saw the meat of an animal hanging up. He then knocked at the door and everybody came out to meet him, even the butchers too. Rab however did not take his eyes off [the meat] and said to them: 'If that is how [you look after things], then you are giving my daughter's children forbidden meat to eat'. And Rab did not eat of that meat. But why? If because of meat that had disappeared from sight, but here he did not lose sight of it; and if because of the omen,7 but Rab himself has said: An omen which is not after the form pronounced by Eliezer,8 Abraham's servant, or by Jonathan9 the son of Saul, is not considered a divination!10 - [The reason is that] it was a meal of free choice11 and Rab would not partake of a meal of free choice.
Rab used to regard a ferry-boat as a sign. Samuel a [passage in a] book,12 and R. Johanan [a verse quoted] by a child. During the lifetime of Rab, R. Johanan used to address him thus in his letters: Greetings to our Master in Babylon! After Rab's death R. Johanan used to address Samuel thus: Greetings to our colleague in Babylon! Said Samuel to himself, 'Is there nothing in which I am his master'? He thereupon sent [to R. Johanan] the calculations for the intercalation of months for sixty years. Said [R. Johanan], 'He only knows mere calculations'. So he [Samuel] wrote out and sent [R. Johanan] thirteen camel loads13 of questions concerning doubtful cases of trefah. Said [R. Johanan], 'It is clear that I have a Master in Babylon; I must go and see him'. So he said to a child, 'Tell me the [last] verse you have learnt'. He answered: 'Now Samuel was dead'.14 Said [R. Johanan], 'This means that Samuel has died'. But it was not the case; Samuel was not dead then, and [this happened] only that R. Johanan should not trouble himself.15
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Although a house or a child or a marriage must not be used for divination, they may be taken as a sign.16 R. Eleazar added: Provided it was established so on three occasions,17 for it is written: Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin away; upon me all these things come.18
R. Huna enquired of Rab: What if [pieces of meat were] strung together?19 - He replied: Don't be a fool; if strung together it is certainly a distinguishing sign. Others report this as follows:20 R. Huna said in the name of Rab, If pieces of meat were strung together this is regarded as a distinguishing sign.
R. Nahman21 of Nehardea once came to R. Kahana at Pum Nahara22 on the eve of the day of Atonement when they saw ravens dropping [from their beaks] pieces of liver and kidneys. Said [R. Kahana] to the other, pick them up and eat them, for to-day that which is permitted is more common.23
R. Hiyya b. Abin once lost the large intestine of an animal amongst a stack of barrels [and subsequently found it] and he came to enquire about it of R. Huna. 'Have you a distinguishing mark on it'? asked [R. Huna]. 'No', he replied. 'Would you be able to recognize it [by general impression]? 'Yes', he replied. 'Then you may go and take it.'
R. Hanina Hoza'ah24 once lost a side of meat [and subsequently found it]. He came to R. Nahman who said to him, 'Have you a distinguishing mark on it?' He replied: 'No'. 'Would you be able to recognize it?' He replied: 'Yes'. 'Then you may go and take it'.
R. Nathan b. Abaye once lost a ball of blue wool.25 He came before R. Hisda who said to him, 'Have you a distinguishing mark on it?' He replied: 'No'. 'Would you be able to recognize it'? He replied: 'Yes'. 'Then you may use it'.
Raba said: At first I thought that [identification by] a distinguishing mark was more reliable than [identification by] general impression,26 since we must return a lost article [to anyone who mentions] a distinguishing mark on it,
(1) On losing one thing to find two.
(2) The second head might very well have been a permitted one which had previously fallen into the river.
(3) This incident clearly shows Rab's view as stated above (p. 533, n. 9).
(4) Which can only be explained by the fact that the place was frequented mostly by gentiles. In other districts, however, both heads might have been permitted, even though they had been out of sight for some time. Thus Rab's principle cannot be definitely inferred from this incident.
(5) Since it would be forbidden if only it was, for one moment, out of sight.
(6) Lit., 'it will be a good day in there', i.e., at the place where he proposed to go.
(7) Which he had expressed about the ferry-boat coming towards him.
(8) Cf. Gen. XXIV, 14.
(9) Cf. I Sam. XIV, 9, 10.
(10) In the sense that is forbidden by Lev. XIX, 26. In the two cases mentioned the action to be taken was entirely dependent upon the happening of a certain event, and this is prohibited. But to interpret a certain event as an omen either for good or evil, is not prohibited.
(11) As opposed to a meal in fulfilment of a religious precept.
(12) If the ferry-boat was coming towards one, or if a passage selected at random from a book or the verse quoted by a child was of a happy nature, - each was regarded as a good omen for a successful venture.
(13) Reading גמלי. According to R. Han.: גוילי, 'parchment scrolls'.
(14) I Sam. XXVIII, 3.
(15) To go to Babylon to visit Samuel.
(16) If a man's first undertaking immediately after a great day in his life, such as the building of a house, the birth of a child or his marriage, proves to be successful, he may regard it as suspicious and as a prognostic of success, and may view cheerfully all future undertakings of a similar nature. If, on the other hand, it proves to be unsuccessful, he should in the future view similar undertakings with apprehension. To place implicit faith and absolute reliance upon the outcome of the first undertaking is forbidden by the Torah as augury and divination (v. Lev. XIX, 26). One may, nevertheless, regard it as an indication of the future.
(17) I.e., he met with a sequence of three successes or three reverses.
(18) Gen. XLII, 36.
(19) And the entire string of meat had disappeared for a moment from sight.
(20) Not as a question put by R. Huna but as a definite statement of the law.
(21) MS.M. R. Hanan.
(22) On the Tigris.
(23) For much meat was eaten on the eve of the Day of Atonement in preparation for the fast, v. supra 83a, and therefore any meat found, or carried away by ravens, would in all probability be meat that was ritually slaughtered.
(24) Of Hozae, the modern Khuzistan.
(25) Which was prepared for use in the Zizith (cf. Num. XV, 38). The blue dye was very scarce and every precaution had to be taken to guard against imitations and spurious kinds.
(26) Lit., 'impression of the eye'.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 96a
whereas we do not return it [to anyone who recognizes it] by mere general impressions.1 But now, having heard the above decisions, I maintain that [identification by] general impression is the more reliable. For should you not say so, how is it that a blind man is permitted [to cohabit] with his wife, or all people with their wives at night? It is only by recognition of the voice; so in all cases general impression [is reliable]. R. Isaac, son of R. Mesharsheya said: You may know it from this too; for if two witnesses were to come and say: 'So-and-so who has this or that distinguishing mark killed a person',2 we should not put him to death, but if they were to say: 'We recognize him', we would put him to death. R. Ashi said: You may also know it from this; for if a man were to say to his messenger. 'Call So-and-so who has this or that distinguishing mark', there is a doubt whether he would know him or not, but if he [the messenger] is able to recognize him, when he sees him he would certainly know him.
MISHNAH. WHEN A PERSON REMOVES THE SCIATIC NERVE HE MUST REMOVE ALL OF IT.3 R. JUDAH SAYS, ONLY SO MUCH AS IS NECESSARY TO FULFIL THE PRECEPT OF REMOVING IT.4 IF A PERSON ATE AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE SCIATIC NERVE, HE HAS INCURRED FORTY STRIPES. IF HE ATE THE WHOLE OF IT AND IT WAS NOT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE'S BULK, HE IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE.5 IF HE ATE AN OLIVE'S BULK OF IT FROM ONE THIGH AND ANOTHER OLIVE'S BULK OF IT FROM THE OTHER THIGH, HE HAS INCURRED EIGHTY STRIPES. R. JUDAH SAYS, HE HAS INCURRED ONLY FORTY STRIPES.6
GEMARA. Bar Piuli was standing in the presence of Samuel and was porging7 a side of meat. He was only cutting away the surface [of the nerve], so Samuel said to him, 'Go down deeper; had I not seen you, you might have given me forbidden meat to eat'. He was alarmed at this, and the knife fell out of his hand. Said Samuel to him, 'Be not alarmed, for he who taught you this taught you according to the view of R. Judah'. R. Shesheth said: That part which Bar Piuli had removed, is according to R. Judah forbidden by the Torah. Then it follows, does it not, that the part which he [Bar Piuli] did not remove, is according to R. Judah forbidden Rabbinically? If so, according to whose view was he [Bar Piuli] taught this?8 - R. Shesheth therefore said: That part which Bar Piuli had removed, is [according to R. Meir]9 forbidden by the Torah, but that part which he did not remove, is forbidden Rabbinically, only according to R. Meir, for according to R. Judah it is permitted even Rabbinically.10
IF A PERSON ATE AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE SCIATIC NERVE etc. Samuel said: The Torah forbade only that part [of the nerve] which is on the spoon,11 for it is written: Which is upon the spoon of the thigh.12 R. Papa said: This [statement of Samuel] is the subject of dispute between Tannaim; for it was taught: If a person ate [the whole of] it and it was not as much as an olive's bulk, he is nevertheless liable. R. Judah Says, [He is not liable] unless it was as much as an olive's bulk. What is the reason of the Rabbis? - Because it is a complete entity in itself.13
(1) But only to a scholar, cf. B.M. 23b.
(2) These witnesses do not claim to know the murderer except that he had certain distinguishing marks.
(3) This is the view of R. Meir, supra 92b, that one must follow up the tracks of the nerve in all its ramifications.
(4) It is sufficient if one removes the upper part of the nerve, i.e., that part which is visible at the hip-joint.
(5) Although the minimum quantity for constituting eating is an olive's bulk, where the thing prohibited by the Torah is in its entirety less than the size of an olive, e.g., an ant, one incurs the penalty for eating the whole of it.
(6) Because the Prohibition according to R. Judah applies only to one thigh, the right thigh.
(7) I.e., removing the sciatic nerve from the thigh.
(8) Lit., 'he who taught him according to whose view did he teach him'? For it is clear that the whole of the nerve must be removed if only by Rabbinic injunction. The question therefore is: Whose view did Bar Piuli adopt by cutting away only the surface?
(9) So MS.M., and also according to Bah's gloss. This is also the view of R. Judah.
(10) So that Bar Piuli acted entirely in accordance with R. Judah's view.
(11) The muscles at the proximal end of the thigh are rounded and convex like the back of a spoon. Only that part of the sciatic nerve which runs in these muscles, says Samuel, is prohibited.
(12) Gen. XXXII, 33. V. supra, p. 500, n. 2.
(13) And this was prohibited by the Torah even though the whole of it is not as large as an olive.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 96b
And what does R. Judah [say to this]? - The term 'eating' is used in connection therewith.1 And the Rabbis? - The term 'eating' is to teach that if it [the sciatic nerve] consisted of four or five olives' bulk and he ate thereof the size of one olive, he is liable.2 And R. Judah? - That is derived from the expression. 'Which is upon the spoon of the thigh'.3 And the Rabbis? - This verse is required for Samuel's teaching, for Samuel said: The Torah forbade only that part [of the nerve] which is on the spoon. And R. Judah? - It is written 'the thigh', that is, the entire thigh.4 And the Rabbis? - That is to indicate that the prohibited nerve is the one that is spread over the whole of the thigh, [namely the inner one], and not the outer one;5 but of course only [so much of it is prohibited as is] upon the spoon. But is not the expression 'spoon' required to teach that [the prohibition of the sciatic nerve] does not apply to birds as they have not a spoon-shaped hip? - The word 'spoon' is written twice [in the verse].6
MISHNAH. IF A THIGH WAS COOKED TOGETHER WITH THE SCIATIC NERVE AND THERE WAS SO MUCH [OF THE NERVE] AS TO IMPART A FLAVOUR [TO THE THIGH], IT IS FORBIDDEN. HOW DOES ONE MEASURE THIS? AS IF IT WERE MEAT [COOKED] WITH TURNIPS.7 IF THE SCIATIC NERVE WAS COOKED WITH OTHER NERVES8 [IN A BROTH] AND IT CAN STILL BE RECOGNIZED,9 THEN IT DEPENDS WHETHER IT IMPARTED A FLAVOUR OR NOT;10 BUT IF IT CAN NO LONGER [BE RECOGNIZED] THEN ALL [THE NERVES] ARE FORBIDDEN;11 AND AS FOR THE BROTH IT DEPENDS WHETHER IT [THE SCIATIC NERVE] IMPARTED A FLAVOUR OR NOT. AND SO IT IS WITH A PIECE OF NEBELAH, OR A PIECE OF AN UNCLEAN FISH. THAT WAS COOKED TOGETHER WITH OTHER PIECES OF FLESH [OR FISH]: IF IT CAN STILL BE RECOGNIZED, THEN IT DEPENDS WHETHER IT IMPARTED A FLAVOUR OR NOT; AND IF IT CAN NO LONGER [BE RECOGNIZED]. THEN ALL PIECES ARE FORBIDDEN; AND AS FOR THE BROTH IT DEPENDS WHETHER IT12 IMPARTED A FLAVOUR OR NOT.
GEMARA. Samuel said: This [ruling of our Mishnah] applies only to the case where they were cooked together,13 but if they were roasted together one may then cut away [the meat] and eat it until one reaches the nerve.14 But Surely this is not so, for did not R. Huna say that if a kid was roasted together with its forbidden fat it is forbidden to eat even of the tip of its ear?15 -
(1) And the minimum quantity for constituting 'eating' is an olive's hulk.
(2) For it might have been thought that only the eating of the whole of it renders one liable to stripes.
(3) I.e., for eating the portion which is upon the spoon of the thigh, even though it is not the whole, one is liable, provided always it consisted of an olive's bulk.
(4) And the prohibition applies even to that part which is not upon the spoon, contra Samuel.
(5) V. supra 93b.
(6) Ibid., XXXII, 33.
(7) If when meat and turnips are cooked together, in the same proportions as here the nerve and the thigh respectively, the meat imparts its flavour to the turnips, then the thigh would be forbidden on account of the taste of the forbidden nerve. It is estimated by the Rabbis that meat cannot impart its taste to any substance that is cooked with it if the latter is sixty times as large in bulk as the meat.
(8) Which are not forbidden.
(9) It must then be removed, and the only consideration is with regard to the flavour thereof that has remained in the pot.
(10) Lit., '(it is forbidden only) if it imparted a flavour'. I.e., whether the other nerves were sixty times as large in bulk as the forbidden nerve or not. In the former case they would be permitted, in the latter they would not.
(11) For each nerve might be the forbidden sciatic nerve.
(12) Sc. the forbidden piece.
(13) In cooking the flavour extracted spreads equally in the whole pot.
(14) The heat of the fire dries up and constricts the nerves so that no flavour or essence is spread in the meat, and therefore the entire meat is permitted save for the nerve itself.
(15) It is here evident that by roasting the essence is carried throughout the whole meat.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 97a
It is different with fat for it spreads [throughout the flesh]. Is it then forbidden in the case of fat? But Surely Rabbah b. Bar Hana has related a case which came before R. Johanan at the synagogue of Ma'on of a kid that was roasted with its fat, and on enquiring of R. Johanan he ruled that one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until one reaches the fat! - That was a lean kid.1 R. Huna b. Judah suggested that it was the case of a kidney roasted with its fat, and he [R. Johanan] declared it to be permitted.2 Rabin son of R. Ada said: It was the case of a kilkith3 that was found in a pot of stew, and on enquiring of R. Johanan he ruled that a gentile cook should taste it.4
Raba said: In the past the following was always a difficulty to me. It was taught: In a pot wherein meat had been cooked a person may not boil milk, and if he did boil [milk] therein, it depends whether the pot imparted a flavour [to the milk] or not.5 [In a pot wherein] terumah6 food [had been cooked] a person may not cook common food, and if he did cook [common food] therein, it depends whether the pot imparted a flavour [to the common food] or not. Now in the case of terumah it is clear, for a priest could taste the food;7 but in the case of meat and milk who may taste it?8 But now that R. Johanan ruled that we can rely upon a gentile cook, in this case too we could rely upon a gentile cook.
Raba also said, [In certain cases] the Rabbis ruled that the test whether or not it imparts a flavour applies, and [in other cases] the Rabbis ruled that one may rely upon a [gentile] cook,
(1) And it had little fat; or the fat of a lean animal would not spread (Tosaf.).
(2) For the forbidden fat of the kidney could not penetrate the kidney by reason of the strong membrane which separates them.
(3) A small fish that may not be eaten; probably the stickleback.
(4) To ascertain whether the flavour of the fish is discernible in the stew. The cook's opinion, even though he is a gentile, would be relied upon only so long as he is ignorant of the issue that is involved.
(5) V. supra p. 540, n. 4.
(6) V. Glos.
(7) For to a priest both terumah and common food are permitted. He therefore could taste the common food to ascertain whether it contains any flavour of the terumah food which had previously been cooked in this pot.
(8) For if one actually imparts a flavour into the other then it is forbidden to everyone, even only to taste thereof.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 97b
and yet [in other cases] the Rabbis ruled that the test is sixty [to one]. Therefore we say, where substances of different kinds, each kind being permitted by itself, were mixed together, the test is whether or not one imparts a flavour to the other;1 and if one of the substances was forbidden2 then we rely upon the opinion of a gentile cook. Where substances of like kind were mixed together, in which case it is impossible to discern whether one imparts a flavour to the other; or where substances of different kinds, one of which was forbidden, were mixed together, and no [gentile] cook is available, then the test is sixty [to one].3
In the house of the Exilarch, sides of meat were once salted with the sciatic nerve in them. Rabina declared them to be forbidden, whilst R. Aha son of R. Ashi4 declared them to be permitted. When this case was put to Mar son of R. Ashi he said: My father declared them to be permitted. Then said R. Aha son of R. [Ashi] to Rabina: What is the reason for your view? Is it not Samuel's dictum that whatsoever is salted is counted as hot5 and whatsoever is preserved is counted as cooked?6 But [remember,] did not Samuel say. This ruling [of our Mishnah] applies only to the case where they were cooked together, but if they were roasted together one may then cut away [the meat] and eat it until one reaches the nerve? And should you say that the term counted as hot' means hot as when cooked, surely [this cannot be, for] since he said: 'whatsoever is preserved is counted as cooked', it follows that [in the first clause 'counted as hot' means] hot as when roasted!7 This is indeed a difficulty.
R. Hanina said: When measuring8 one should measure the broth, the sediments, the pieces, and the pot.9 Some say: The actual thickness of the] pot must be taken into account;10 but others say: Only that which is absorbed in the pot is to be taken into account.11
R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan. As regards all things prohibited by the Torah12 one should measure them as though they were onions or leeks.13 R. Abba said to Abaye: Why not measure as though they were pepper or spices, in which case the flavour would not become neutralized even in a thousand-fold? - He replied: The Rabbis have estimated that among forbidden substances there is none that can impart a stronger flavour than onions or leeks.
R. Nahman said: The [sciatic] nerve [is neutralized] in sixty-fold, but the nerve itself is not to be included to make up this number.14 The udder is neutralized in sixty-fold, but the udder itself is to be included.15 An egg16 is neutralized in sixty-fold, but the egg itself is not to be included. R. Isaac the son of R. Mesharsheya said: But the udder itself is forbidden,17 and if it fell into another pot it renders [the contents] forbidden.
R. Ashi said: When we were at R. Kahana's the question was put before us: When measuring, should one measure [the prohibited substance] itself or only the essence which exuded from it?18 - It is obvious, surely, that one should measure the substance itself, for if only the essence which exuded from it, [the question arises,] How do we know [how much it is]? - But if so, if it19 subsequently fell into another, pot it should not render [the contents] forbidden?20 - Since R. Isaac the son of R. Mesharsheya had said that the udder itself was forbidden, the Rabbis declared it to be as a piece of nebelah.21
'An egg is neutralized in sixty-fold, but the egg itself is not to be included [to make up this number']. R. Idi b. Abin said to Abaye. Can it be said that it imparts a flavour?22 but people usually say: 'As the mere water of eggs'! - He replied: We are dealing here
(1) E.g., where terumah was mixed with common food the mixture is permitted to a priest, and he could taste it and give his opinion as to whether the terumah does impart a flavour in the common food, in which case the mixture is forbidden to all save priests, or does not, in which case the mixture is permitted to all.
(2) E.g., where one of the substances was flesh of an unclean animal, or where both substances separately are permitted but when mixed are forbidden to all, e.g., milk food mixed with meat.
(3) I.e., the flavour of the forbidden substance is neutralized and lost if the bulk of the permitted substance is sixty times as large as the bulk of the forbidden substance.
(4) So in cur. edd. In MS.M.: R. Aha b. Rab. Most probably it should be: R. Aha b. Raba, who was a contemporary of Rabina and R. Ashi.
(5) If two substances, one permitted and the other forbidden, were salted together they are regarded as having been roasted (or cooked? v. infra) together.
(6) If substances were preserved in vinegar and in spices for at least twenty-four hours they are regarded as having been cooked together.
(7) And therefore meat salted together with the sciatic nerve is permitted just as if it was roasted with it; so that Rabina's view cannot be upheld.
(8) To ascertain whether the permitted substance is sixty times as much as the forbidden substance or not.
(9) All these should be included to make up the sixty-fold as against the forbidden substance.
(10) One should reckon the volume of the thickness of the pot as well as the quantity of meat and broth etc. in order to make up the required sixty-fold.
(11) The absorption of the pot is considered to be the difference in the weight between the raw flesh and the flesh when cooked.
(12) Except the sciatic nerve, for which the standard is 'meat and turnips', v. our Mishnah.
(13) If by substituting onions or leeks for the amount of the forbidden substance the taste of the onions or leeks could be felt in the rest of the stew of the pot, the contents of the pot would be prohibited on account of the forbidden substance, which evidently imparts its flavour so that it can be felt. This method was resorted to before the standard of sixty-fold was fixed.
(14) I.e., there must be sixty times the volume of the forbidden nerve.
(15) If an udder which was not emptied of its milk was cooked together with meat, the entire contents of the pot would be forbidden unless there was in the pot sixty times as much as the milk of the udder. (The quantity of milk in the udder is regarded as equal to the volume of the udder). Now the udder can also be included to make up this sixty-fold since it is not the udder that is forbidden but only the milk contained in it. In other words, there must be in the pot fifty-nine times the quantity of the udder; v. infra 109a.
(16) Of an unclean bird which was boiled with eggs of clean birds. V. infra.
(17) Even though the pot contained sixty times the quantity of the udder, in which case everything else in the pot is permitted, the udder itself is forbidden, for the meat in the pot imparted its flavour into it.
(18) For the actual forbidden substance has now been removed from the pot, and the question is only with regard to the essence that exuded from it.
(19) Sc. any forbidden substance which was cooked with sixty times as much permitted food and which when taken out subsequently fell into another pot of meat which did not contain the sixty-fold. According to Tosaf. this question deals specifically with the case of the udder mentioned above.
(20) For the essence and flavour of the forbidden substance has entirely exuded and has become neutralized and nullified in the first pot, consequently it cannot render forbidden any other foodstuff.
(21) The neutralization in the first pot only came about gradually, so that before there was the necessary sixty-fold it was forbidden; accordingly the forbidden substance is always regarded as a piece of nebelah which renders forbidden the contents of any and every pot into which it fell.
(22) I.e., an egg when cooked with others imparts a flavour in them.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 98a
with an egg which contained a chicken,1 but not with an egg of an unclean bird.
He raised an objection against him. [It was taught:] If clean eggs were cooked with unclean eggs and the latter can impart a flavour in the others, they are all forbidden!2 - Here, too, we must suppose that they contained in them chickens. Why then are they called 'unclean'? - Since they contain chickens they are called 'unclean'. But surely since the following clause [deals with eggs containing chickens, for it reads]. 'If eggs were cooked together and in one of them was found a chicken, and this one can impart its flavour into the others, all are forbidden', it follows that the first clause deals with eggs which do not contain chickens! - The one clause is merely explanatory of the other thus: 'If clean eggs were cooked with unclean eggs and the latter can impart a flavour in the others, all are forbidden; as for instance, if they were cooked together and in one of them was found a chicken'. This indeed stands to reason. For if you assume that the first clause deals with eggs that have no chickens in them, seeing that the exudation of eggs that have no chickens in them can render forbidden, is it necessary to teach this in the case where they had chickens in them? - This is not a conclusive argument. It may be that the second clause was stated to make clear the first: lest you might think that the first clause deals with eggs that have chickens in them, leaving us to infer that if they had no chickens in them all the eggs would be permitted, he therefore adds the second clause which deals with eggs that have chickens in them, which shows that the first clause speaks of eggs that have no chickens in them, and even so render the others forbidden.
An olive's bulk of [forbidden] fat once fell into a pot of meat.3 R. Ashi intended to include in the measuring [all the meat] that was absorbed in the [sides of the] pot, whereupon the Rabbis said to R. Ashi: Has it absorbed only that which is permitted and not that which is forbidden?4
A half an olive's bulk of [forbidden] fat once fell into a pot of meat. Mar the son of R. Ashi intended to measure it by the standard of thirty-fold,5 whereupon his father said to him, 'Have I not told you not to treat lightly the standard measures [even in matters which are forbidden only] by Rabbinic ruling? Moreover, R. Johanan has declared that half the legal quantity [of a forbidden matter] is forbidden by the law of the Torah'.6
R. Shaman b. Abba said in the name of R. Idi b. Idi b. Gershom who said it in the name of Levi b. Perata who said it in the name of R. Nahum who said it in the name of R. Biraim who said it in the name of a certain old man whose name was R. Jacob, as follows: Those of the Nasi's house said: A forbidden egg7 among sixty eggs8 renders them all forbidden, a forbidden egg among sixty-one eggs renders them all permitted. Thereupon R. Zera said to R. Shaman b. Abba: Look, you are stating a definite point at which they are permitted, whereas the two greatest men of the day did not give a definite ruling on this matter. For R. Jacob b. Idi and R. Samuel b. Nahmani both reported in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi that a forbidden egg among sixty eggs rendered them all forbidden, and a forbidden egg among sixty-one eggs rendered them all permitted. And when the question was put to them: Does 'sixty-one' include it [the forbidden egg] or exclude it? they were unable to give a definite answer; and you seem to be so certain of it! It was stated: R. Helbo said in the name of R. Huna: With regard to a [forbidden] egg [cooked with permitted ones], if there were sixty besides this one they are forbidden, but if there were sixty-one besides this one they are permitted.
A certain man once came before R. Gamaliel the son of Rabbi [with his case].9 Said [R. Gamaliel]: Did not my father [permit such a case] by the standard of forty-seven-fold? Then I might just as well be satisfied with forty-five-fold.10
A certain man once came before R. Simeon the son of Rabbi [with his case]. I said [R. Simeon]: Did not my father [permit such a case] by the standard of forty-five-fold? Then I might just as well be satisfied with forty-three-fold.
A certain man once came before R. Hiyya [with his case].9 Said [R. Hiyya]: But there is not here thirty-fold! The reason then [why he declared it forbidden] was because there was not thirty-fold, but if there was thirty-fold could we then adopt this standard?11 - R. Hanina answered: It was merely an exaggerated expression.12
R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who said it in the name of Bar Kappara: All prohibited substances of the Torah are [neutralized] in sixty-fold.13 Thereupon R. Samuel son of R. Isaac said to him: Master, do you say so? But R. Assi stated in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who said it in the name of Bar Kappara. All prohibited substances of the Torah are [neutralized] in a hundred-fold. Now both derived their views from 'the cooked shoulder', as it is written: And the priest shall take the cooked shoulder.14 And it was taught. 'Cooked'
(1) The exudation from the egg is of no consequence, it is as mere water, but that of the chicken within the egg is of consequence.
(2) Tosaf. Terum. IX.
(3) Which was cooking on the fire.
(4) For if it is to be assumed that the meat in the pot has been diminished by the absorption in the pot, then the bulk of fat has likewise been diminished. In fact one should not take into consideration the absorption of the pot at all, and the measuring must take into account only the visible contents of the pot.
(5) Since there was not the minimum legal quantity (i.e., an olive's bulk, v. Yoma 73b) of forbidden fat, he was inclined not to insist on the sixty-fold standard, but was prepared to permit the meat in the pot even though it was only thirty times as much as the fat.
(6) The sixty-fold standard must be adhered to even though there was only half an olive's bulk of the forbidden substance, for, according to R. Johanan, even this quantity is forbidden by the Torah, v. Yoma 73b. The minimum legal quantity of an olive's bulk is necessary only to render the offender liable to stripes.
(7) I.e., an egg in which a chicken had developed. So throughout this passage.
(8) All the other eggs being, of course, permitted ones.
(9) Viz., a half-olive's bulk of a forbidden substance was cooked with permitted food.
(10) Since in this and in the following cases the amount of forbidden substance was less than the minimum legal quantity, the standard of sixty-fold is not rigidly adhered to but smaller standards e.g., of forty-seven-fold, forty-five-fold and forty-three-fold would suffice to render the mixture permitted. According to another interpretation in Rashi the reverse decision is arrived at thus: 'My father did not adopt a standard of forty-seven-fold, shall I then permit by the standard of forty-five-fold'? The case, accordingly, was of an entire olive's bulk that was cooked with permitted food.
(11) Surely not.
(12) What he meant to say was that there was no question of neutralization in this case for there was not even thirty-fold!
(13) Provided the taste of the forbidden substance can no longer be felt in the mixture, for so long as the taste can be felt it will not become neutralized (Rashi). V. however Tosaf. s.v. כל.
(14) Num. VI, 19. The shoulder of the ram of the Nazirite's sacrifice was given to the priests to be eaten by priests only, but the rest of the sacrifice was consumed by the owners.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 98b
implies that it must be whole.1 R. Simeon b. Yohai says. 'Cooked' implies that it must have been cooked together with the ram. Now in fact both2 agree that it must be cooked with the ram, but [they differ in the following]: one holds that it must first be cut away and then cooked,3 and the other holds that it must first be cooked and then cut away.4 Alternatively, I can say, all agree that it must first be cut away and then cooked, but [they differ in this]: one5 holds that it must be cooked together with the ram [in the same pot], and the other holds that it must be cooked in a separate pot. Now according to the first version from either view and according to the second version from the view of R. Simeon b. Yohai [can the required standard be derived].6 He who holds the sixty-fold standard maintains that the flesh and bone [of the shoulder] must be measured against the flesh and bone [of the ram], and the latter is sixty times as much as the former. But he who holds the hundred-fold standard maintains that only the flesh [of the shoulder] must be measured against the flesh [of the ram] and the latter is a hundred times as much as the former.7
But can one derive the standard from the above? Surely it has been taught: This8 is a case of a substance being permitted even though it has absorbed a forbidden substance.9 Now what does 'this' exclude? Presumably it excludes every other substance which has absorbed any matter forbidden by the Torah?10 - Abaye answered, [The exclusion] was necessary only according to R. Judah who maintains that [in all other cases] homogeneous substances cannot neutralize each other; hence we are taught that here they do neutralize each other.11 But why does he not infer the rule from here?12 - Because the Divine Law has expressly stated: And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat,13 which shows that though they are both [mixed up] together one does not neutralize the other. But why do you prefer to infer [the rule of non-neutralization of homogeneous substances] from this [verse] rather than from the other?14 Because that is an anomaly,15 and one cannot draw any inferences from an anomaly. If so, how may we infer [the rule of neutralization] in hundredfold or in sixty-fold from it?16 - Forsooth, do we infer leniency from it? We infer a restriction, for according to the rule of the Torah a substance is neutralized in a bare majority [of other substances].17
Raba answered: [The exclusion]18 was necessary with reference to the rule that the taste19 [of a forbidden substance] is [treated] as the substance itself. Now as this [sc. the taste] is forbidden in the case of consecrated matter, we are therefore taught that here20 it is permitted.21
(1) The inference from the word 'cooked' is obscure (Rashi).
(2) The first Tanna and R. Simeon b. Yohai.
(3) The first Tanna maintains that the shoulder must be cut away from the ram and then cooked in the same pot as the ram. And the term 'whole' implies that the shoulder must in no wise be cut up in pieces. So Rashi; according to Tosaf. s.v. מר, this is the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai.
(4) R. Simeon b. Yohai maintains that the shoulder must be cut away only after the whole ram has been cooked. According to Tosaf. this is the opinion of the first Tanna.
(5) R. Simeon b. Yohai.
(6) Either the sixty-fold or hundred-fold standard. It must be observed that in the case of the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice resort must be had to the principle of neutralization and it must be assumed that the essence and flavour of the shoulder, which is forbidden to all but priests, is nullified by the rest of the flesh of the ram, for otherwise the Nazirite, an Israelite, would not be allowed to partake of the flesh of the ram since it must be cooked together with the shoulder according to both views in the first version, or according to the view of R. Simeon b. Yohai in the second version.
(7) For the shoulder consists in the greater part of bone and has but little flesh on it, and the Rabbis have estimated that if taken bulk for bulk the ram would be only sixty times as much as the shoulder, but if only the proportion of the flesh is considered it will be found that the ram is one hundred times as much as the flesh of the shoulder.
(8) Sc. the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice.
(9) I.e., the forbidden shoulder.
(10) I.e., that neutralization does not take place. So that the principle of neutralization either in sixty-fold or in a hundred, fold cannot be derived from here.
(11) Even though the shoulder and the rest of the ram are homogeneous substances. One can however derive from here the principle of neutralization with regard to heterogeneous substances.
(12) Why does not R. Judah infer from the case of the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice that in all cases homogeneous substances can neutralize each other?
(13) Lev. XVI, 18. The blood of the goat, although mixed with the blood of the bullock and though considerably less in quantity than the blood of the bullock, nevertheless retains its identity and is not neutralized by the latter, obviously because they are homogeneous substances and cannot neutralize each other.
(14) I.e., from the case of the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice. The inference from this case would be that even homogeneous substances can neutralize each other.
(15) In that the Torah allows at the outset the neutralization of a forbidden substance, contrary to all Rabbinic dicta. V. Bez. 4b.
(16) In respect of heterogeneous substances according to R. Judah, or in respect of all substances according to the Rabbis. V. supra p. 549, n. 5.
(17) But for the inference from the ram of the Nazirite, we should have acted in accordance with the Biblical principle, 'Decide the issue according to the majority', based on Ex. XXIII, 2. One may infer conditions of stringency (namely, that there must be sixty times or a hundred times the quantity of the prohibited substance) even from an anomaly.
(18) In the statement 'This is a case of a substance etc.'.
(19) Even though the taste is barely perceptible and is certainly less than one sixtieth or one hundredth part of the entire mixture. (Rashi, but see Tosaf. ad loc.).
(20) Sc. in the case of the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice.
(21) Likewise with regard to unconsecrated matter the taste is neutralized either in sixty-fold or in hundred-fold.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 99a
Why then does he not infer the rule from this?1 - Because the Divine Law has expressly stated with regard to the sin-offering. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy,2 that is to say, [it shall be] as [the sin-offering] itself.3 If the latter is ritually unfit to be eaten, the other4 is also unfit, and if it is permitted, the other4 is also permitted to be eaten but only under the conditions of stringency as [the sin-offering] itself.5 But why do you prefer to infer it6 from this [verse] rather than from the other?7 - Because that is an anomaly, and one cannot draw any inferences from an anomaly. If so, how may we infer [the rule of neutralization] in hundred-fold or in sixty-fold from it? - Forsooth, do we infer leniency from it? We infer a restriction, for according to the rule of the Torah a substance is neutralized in a bare majority [of other substances].8
Rabina said: The [exclusion] was necessary only in regard to the side of the cut; for generally it is said that the side of the cut is forbidden9 but here it is permitted.10
R. Dimi was sitting and reciting this statement [of R. Samuel b. R. Isaac]11 when Abaye said to him: Are then all forbidden substances of the Torah neutralized only in hundred-fold? Surely we have learnt:12 With regard to what did they say that every [substance of terumah] which leavens, or flavours, or is mixed with [common food], must be treated with stringency? It is with regard to homogeneous substances. [And with regard to what did they say that every substance of terumah which leavens etc.] must be treated with leniency as well as with stringency? It is with regard to heterogeneous substances. And in the next clause it reads: With regard to heterogeneous substances there is leniency as well as stringency - thus if crushed beans [of terumah] were cooked with lentils [of common food] and they impart a flavour [to the lentils], the whole is forbidden, whether there was so little [of the beans] as to be neutralized in a hundred and one or not.13 If they do not impart a flavour [to the lentils] they are permitted, whether there was so little [of the beans] as to be neutralized in a hundred and one or not.14 Now in the case where there was not so little [of the beans] as to be neutralized in a hundred and one, is it not to be assumed [that there was little enough to be neutralized] in sixty?15 -
(1) Sc. from the case of the ram of the Nazirite sacrifice which is also consecrated matter; and the inference would be that even consecrated matter is neutralized in sixty-fold or hundred-fold.
(2) Lev. VI, 20. I.e., whatsoever shall have absorbed from the flesh of the sin-offering, however minute, must be treated as the sin-offering itself, for the taste or essence of the sin-offering can never be neutralized.
(3) V. Pes., (Sonc. ed.,) p. 212 and notes.
(4) That which has absorbed from the sin-offering.
(5) V. Zeb. 97b. The sin-offering could be eaten only by the males of the priesthood, within the hangings of the Sanctuary, the same day and the evening following until midnight. With regard to other sacrificial meat less stringent regulations obtained. From this verse, quoted in the text, is derived the rule that a consecrated substance can never be neutralized. Hence an inference from the ram of the Nazirite to the contrary cannot be made.
(6) Sc. the rule that consecrated matter can never be neutralized, for the taste thereof is as the substance itself.
(7) V. supra p. 550, n. 8.
(8) V. supra p. 550, n. 1, 2 and 3.
(9) V. supra 68b. Whenever a matter is partly permitted and partly forbidden and it is necessary to separate these parts, when they are cut away from each other the surface of the cut on the side of the permitted part which was in contact with the forbidden part must be pared off.
(10) So that when the shoulder is cut away from the rest of the ram there is no necessity to pare off the surface of the cut.
(11) Supra p. 548.
(12) V. 'Orlah II, 6, 7.
(13) This is the standard quantity for neutralizing terumah in any mixture, derived from Num. XVIII, 29; cf. Sifre on that verse. The rule here is one of stringency for even though there were a hundred and one times as much lentils as the beans of terumah, the mixture is forbidden because of the flavour that is still perceptible.
(14) This is a rule of leniency in that the standard of a hundred and one is not insisted upon in the case where the flavour of the terumah substance is not perceptible. This lenient rule applies only to a mixture of heterogeneous substances, but in the case of a mixture of homogeneous substances conditions of stringency always obtain; and in order that a mixture of homogeneous substances be permitted, two conditions are essential, first the absence of any flavour of the terumah substance, and secondly the requisite standard of a hundred and one; v. infra.
(15) And in such a case the mixture would be permitted provided that the flavour of the terumah substance was not perceptible. Hence it is evident that the standard of neutralization where the flavour is not perceptible is sixty-fold, contra R. Dimi who quoted R. Samuel b. R. Isaac.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 99b
No, [it could be neutralized] in a hundred.1 But surely since the first clause deals with neutralization in a hundred the second deals with neutralization in sixty!2 For it reads in the first [clause as follows]: With regard to homogeneous substances there is always stringency - thus if wheaten leaven [of terumah] fell into wheaten dough [of common food], and there was sufficient of it to leaven the dough,3 it is forbidden, whether there was so little of the leaven as to be neutralized in a hundred and one or not. If there was not so little of the leaven as to be neutralized in a hundred and one, it is forbidden, whether it could leaven the dough or not.4 Can it then be said that both the first and second clauses are [alike in that neutralization takes place only] in a hundred?5 - No, the first clause deals with neutralization in a hundred and one,6 whereas the second clause deals with neutralization in a hundred.7 Why is it then, where there were a hundred and one times [the quantity of the forbidden leaven], even though it can still leaven the dough, that it is not neutralized?8 He [R. Dimi] remained silent. Said [Abaye] to him: Perhaps it is different with leaven for leaven is very sharp! Said [R. Dimi] to him: You have now reminded me of that statement of R. Jose son of R. Hanina, viz., Not all standards are alike,9 for in the case of brine the standard of neutralization is almost two hundred. For we have learnt:10 [Where unclean fish was pickled together with clean fish, if in a barrel holding two se'ahs there was the weight of ten zuz Judean measure (which is five sela's Galilean measure)] of unclean fish, the brine thereof is forbidden. R. Judah says. [It is forbidden if there was] a quarter log [of unclean brine] in two se'ahs11 [clean brine]. But has not R. Judah said that homogeneous substances cannot be neutralized? - It is different with brine for it is only the moisture12 [of the fish].
HOW DOES ONE MEASURE THIS? R. Huna said: As if it were meat [cooked] with turnip-heads.13 Our Mishnah is not in agreement with the following Tanna, for it was taught: R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka says that nerves cannot impart a flavour.14
A man once came in before R. Hanina,15 and R. Judah b. Zebina was sitting at the doorstep [of R. Hanina's house]. When the man came out he [R. Judah] asked him, 'How did he [R. Hanina] decide'? 'He permitted it unto me', he replied. 'Then go in again to him', [said R. Judah b. Zebina]. Thereupon [R. Hanina] said: ' Who is this that worries me so. Go, tell him who is sitting at the doorstep that nerves cannot impart any flavour'.
When a person [with such a case] came to R. Ammi he would always send him to R. Isaac b. Halob who used to rule that it was permitted on the authority of R. Joshua b. Levi, although he [R. Ammi] himself was not of that opinion.
The law is: Nerves cannot impart a flavour.
IF THE SCIATIC NERVE WAS COOKED WITH OTHER NERVES etc. Why is it not neutralized in the larger quantity [of other nerves]?16 -
(1) So that in the case of a mixture of heterogeneous substances and in the absence of any flavour from the forbidden substance the standard of neutralization of a hundred (instead of a hundred and one) would be adopted as sufficient.
(2) Since it has been clearly laid down that a mixture of homogeneous substances is always to be treated with stringency, which is not the case with heterogeneous substances, and since in the case of a homogeneous mixture, in the absence of a perceptible flavour, a standard of a hundred would be adopted as sufficient to render the mixture permitted, it follows that with regard to a mixture of heterogeneous substances even this standard would not be required, but a standard of sixty-fold would be regarded as sufficient.
(3) This is identical with the expression 'and it imparts a flavour in the dough'.
(4) If, however, there was not sufficient of the leaven to serve for the dough, and there was the standard of a hundred and one, the mixture would be permitted even though it consisted of homogeneous substances. It is assumed, for the present, that by 'the standard of a hundred and one' is meant a hundred parts of the permitted substance to one part of the forbidden substance.
(5) This cannot be, for neutralization in connection with heterogeneous substance is of a lenient character and presumably a standard of sixty-fold would be sufficient.
(6) In other words the assumption that 'the standard of a hundred and one' meant a hundred parts of one to one part of the other was erroneous, for by 'the standard of a hundred and one' is meant a hundred and one parts of the permitted substance to one part of the other.
(7) V. supra p. 55 2, n. 4.
(8) Surely the flavour of the leaven would not be perceptible if there were a hundred and one times as much dough as leaven.
(9) The standard of neutralization varies according to the nature of the forbidden substance.
(10) V. Ter. X, 8. Ten zuz is one part in nine hundred and sixty of two se'ahs (one se'ah is twenty-four logs; one log is two litras; one litra is one hundred zuz).
(11) I.e., a proportion of one in one hundred and ninety-two. (One se'ah is six kabs, and one kab is four logs). If, however, the proportion of the substances was less than this (e.g., if the forbidden substance was one in two hundred), the mixture would be permitted, even though the substances are of like kind.
(12) As it is forbidden only by Rabbinic injunction R. Judah allows neutralization with regard to it.
(13) Or 'turnip roots' (Tosaf.). V. supra p. 540, n. 1.
(14) And if cooked with meat it need only be removed and the meat is permitted, for the nerve is as dry as wood and cannot impart a flavour. According to our Mishnah even though the nerve has been removed the meat would be forbidden because of the flavour of the nerve.
(15) With the case where the sciatic nerve was cooked together with meat.
(16) In the case where the sciatic nerve was not recognizable.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 100a
It is different with the case of a separate entity.1
AND SO IT IS WITH A PIECE OF NEBELAH etc. Why is it not neutralized in the larger quantity [of the other substances in the mixture]? Now this is well according to him who says that the expression 'whatsoever one is wont to count'2 was used;3 but according to him who says that the expression '[only] that which one is wont to count'4 was used, what shall we say? - It is different with a whole piece since it is suitable to be offered to guests.5 Now both cases were necessary to be stated [in the Mishnah]. For if we were taught only the case of the [sciatic] nerve, [we should have said that it is not neutralized] because it is a specific entity, but this is not so with the case of a piece [of meat]; and if we were taught the case of a piece [of meat we should have said that it is not neutralized] because it is a piece suitable to be offered to guests, but this is not so with the case of the [sciatic] nerve. Therefore both cases were necessary [to be stated].
Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in a public lecture: A piece of nebelah6 or a piece of an unclean fish6 will not render forbidden [the mixture in which it is] until it imparts a flavour to the broth, in the sediments and in the pieces [of the stew]. Rab thereupon appointed an Amora7 who stated as follows: As soon as it [the piece of nebelah] imparted its flavour to one piece that piece8 itself is rendered [forbidden] like nebelah,9 and it8 in turn renders all the other pieces forbidden10 for they are of like kind. R. Safra said to Abaye. Consider, Rab's ruling agrees, does it not, with the opinion of R. Judah who maintained that homogeneous substances cannot neutralize each other [in a mixture]? Why then [does he declare], 'As soon as it imparted its flavour'? Surely even if it did not impart any flavour to it8 it would also [render the entire contents of the pot forbidden]?11 - He replied: We are dealing here with the case where he straightway removed it.12 Raba replied,
(1) Since it is complete in itself it will not be neutralized in any quantity, however large.
(2) In M. 'Orlah III, 6, 7 in the list of substances which are not neutralized in any quantity, however large.
(3) All things which a man might sell by number, even though this is not the invariable practice with regard to them for a man might sell them by weight or by bulk too, are not neutralized in any quantity. Pieces of meat, too, a man might sell by number, and therefore would come within the category of substances which do not become neutralized in a larger quantity.
(4) Whatsoever is more comprehensive than that. According to the former teaching neutralization is not permitted in the case of objects which are regarded as of sufficiently high commercial value to be sold in units rather than in bulk. According to the latter teaching neutralization is permitted in all cases except those where the objects are of such high value as not to be sold save by counting single units. Those things, however, which are sold by weight as well as by number would be neutralized in the larger mixture, v. Yeb. (Sonc. ed.) p. 551, n. 11. The question therefore remains, why is not the piece of nebelah neutralized in the larger mixture?
(5) Being a piece suitable for presentation it will never lose its identity or be neutralized in any quantity, however large.
(6) Which was recognizable in the mixture and so was removed therefrom. The only consideration being the essence or flavour that exuded from it.
(7) 'Speaker', 'interpreter'; the person who attended upon the lecturer for the purpose of expounding at length and in popular style the main points of the discourse given to him by the latter.
(8) Sc. the piece which was first in the pot together with the piece of nebelah before the other pieces were put in, or the piece which was nearest the piece of nebelah and which therefore absorbed most of the essence of the latter.
(9) Since it was not sixty times as large as the piece of nebelah.
(10) Even though the other pieces in the pot were as much as sixty times the volume of the piece of nebelah plus the one next to it.
(11) For the forbidden substance is of the same kind as the rest of the contents of the pot.
(12) The piece of nebelah as well as the broth in the pot was removed before the other pieces were put in, leaving behind only one piece. If this piece therefore which remained contains the flavour of the nebelah, it is then regarded as nebelah itself and will render forbidden the pieces which are subsequently put in with it.
Talmud - Mas. Chullin 100b
You may even say that he did not remove it at once, but this is a case of one kind being mixed with a like kind and also with a different kind,1 and wherever one kind is mixed with a like and also with a different kind you must disregard the like kind as if it were not present, and if the different kind is more [than the forbidden substance] it will neutralize it.2
MISHNAH. IT3 APPLIES TO CLEAN ANIMALS BUT NOT TO UNCLEAN.4 R. JUDAH SAYS, EVEN TO UNCLEAN ANIMALS. R. JUDAH ARGUED, WAS NOT THE SCIATIC NERVE PROHIBITED FROM THE TIME OF THE SONS OF JACOB, AND AT THAT TIME UNCLEAN ANIMALS WERE STILL PERMITTED TO THEM?5 THEY REPLIED, THIS LAW WAS ORDAINED AT SINAI BUT WAS WRITTEN IN ITS PROPER PLACE.6
GEMARA. Is R. Judah of the opinion that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition?7 Surely it has been taught: R. Judah says: I might have thought that the carcass of an unclean bird whilst in the gullet should render clothes unclean,8 the verse therefore reads: That which dieth of itself or is not of beasts he shall not eat to defile himself therewith,9 that is to say, this10 applies only to that [carcass] which bears the prohibition of eating nebelah but not to that which does not bear the prohibition of eating nebelah but the prohibition of eating what is unclean!11 Should you, however, say that he [R. Judah] is of the opinion that nerves do not impart a flavour, so that in the case [where one ate the nerve] of an unclean animal there is only the prohibition of the nerve but not the prohibition of [eating] what is unclean;12 but are we right in assuming that R. Judah is of the opinion that nerves do not impart a flavour? Behold it has been taught: If a person ate the sciatic nerve of an unclean animal, R. Judah declares that he has incurred guilt twice;13 but R. Simeon holds that he has not incurred guilt at all?14 - In truth he [R. Judah] is of the opinion that nerves do impart a flavour, but he also holds that it [sc. the prohibition of the sciatic nerve] applies to a foetus too, so that the prohibition of the nerve and the prohibition on account of uncleanness come into force simultaneously.15 But how can you assume [that R. Judah holds] it applies to a foetus? Behold we have learnt: It16 also applies to a foetus; but R. Judah says: It does not apply to a foetus. And its fat is permitted! - That is so only with regard to a clean animal concerning which the Divine Law declares: Everything . . . in the beast ye may eat,17 but with regard to an unclean animal the prohibition of the nerve applies. But again how can you assume that both [prohibitions] come into force simultaneously? Behold we have learnt:18 By reason of uncleanness contracted from the following sources the Nazirite must shave [his head]: a corpse, an olive's bulk of [the flesh of] a corpse, [etc.] And the question was asked: If he must shave [his head] on account of an olive's bulk of a corpse, then surely he must shave [his head] on account of an entire corpse! But R. Johanan answered that it was only necessary [to mention the corpse itself] for the case of an abortion whose limbs were not yet knit together by nerves. Hence we see that the prohibition of uncleanness comes first!19 - Notwithstanding the fact that the prohibition of uncleanness comes first the prohibition of the nerve can indeed be superimposed, because this latter prohibition is binding even upon the sons of Noah.20 And this is precisely implied [in the teaching of the Mishnah]: R. JUDAH ARGUED, WAS NOT THE SCIATIC NERVE PROHIBITED FROM THE TIME OF THE SONS OF JACOB, AND AT THAT TIME UNCLEAN ANIMALS WERE STILL PERMITTED TO THEM?
The [above] text [stated]: 'If a person ate the sciatic nerve of an unclean animal, R. Judah declares that he has incurred guilt twice;
(1) For the mixture consists of nebelah (a forbidden substance), other pieces of meat (permitted substances of like kind as nebelah), and broth and spices (permitted substances of a different kind).
(2) If then the first permitted piece absorbed the flavour of the forbidden piece, although we may disregard all the other pieces in the pot as being of like kind, we must nevertheless be satisfied, in order that the mixture be permitted, that the broth contains sixty times as much as the forbidden piece plus the first permitted piece, which, as we have seen, is regarded as the nebelah itself.
(3) The prohibition of the sciatic nerve.
(4) So that if a person were to eat the sciatic nerve of an unclean animal he would not incur guilt on account of the nerve, though he would be liable on account of eating meat of an unclean animal (provided, of course, it is held that nerves are considered as meat).
(5) The sciatic nerve when first prohibited (cf. Gen. XXXII, 33) applied to all animals, clean as well as unclean, for in the patriarchal epoch there was no distinction between the clean and unclean, all were permitted. And the prohibition as it was then continued in force even subsequent to the giving of the Torah at Sinai when the distinction was made between clean and unclean beasts.
(6) The prohibition was first promulgated at Sinai but was merely recorded in the Torah in connection with the incident of Jacob's strife with the angel (Gen. XXXII, 25ff) which provided the reason for the subsequent prohibition.
(7) For R. Judah states in the Mishnah that it applies EVEN TO UNCLEAN ANIMALS, by which he no doubt meant to imply that he who eats the nerve of an unclean animal incurs guilt on two counts, viz., for eating the sciatic nerve and for eating of an unclean animal.
(8) The carcass of a bird does not render unclean by the usual media of contact or carrying; its only defiling effect is that it renders unclean the clothes of the person who eats of it, and only while he is in the act of swallowing it.
(9) Lev. XXII, 8. In the Sifra and in Nid. 42b this verse has been interpreted as referring to the carcass of a bird.
(10) I.e., this peculiar and unique form of defilement; v. supra II, 5.
(11) V. Nid. 42b. It is thus evident that the prohibition of nebelah cannot be superimposed upon the pre-existing prohibition of an unclean bird
(12) The sciatic nerve of an unclean animal is only forbidden qua nerve and not as unclean meat, for the nerve is tasteless and hard as wood.
(13) Obviously because by eating the nerve he has also eaten of the meat of an unclean animal.
(14) Pes. 22a.
(15) I.e., at the time of the formation of the embryo in the womb. As both prohibitions come into force simultaneously one is liable for the transgression of both.
(16) Sc. the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. V. supra folio 89b.
(17) Deut. XIV, 6. Every part of the foetus that is within the womb of the dam may be eaten, the nerve as well as fat: so according to R. Judah. This verse applies only to clean beasts, i.e., those which may be eaten, but not to unclean beasts.
(18) V. supra 89b.
(19) For the abortion is forbidden as an unclean animal before the formation of the nerves.
(20) Where the later prohibition is more stringent in that it applies to a larger number of people than the existing prohibition, it can be superimposed upon the latter. And the sciatic nerve (as stated by R. Judah in the Mishnah) was forbidden to all the sons of Noah, for it was declared forbidden even before the giving of the Torah at Sinai to the sons of Jacob who at that time were deemed sons of Noah.