1 One who adopts the view of Beth Shammai only when they incline to strictness and likewise the view of Beth Hillel only when they incline to strictness, [is a fool and] to such an one applies the verse: But the fool walketh in darkness. But one must either adopt the view of Beth Shammai in all cases, whether they incline to leniency or strictness, or the view of Beth Hillel in all cases, whether they incline to leniency or strictness’. Now is not this statement self-contradictory? At first it says: ‘The halachah is always in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel’, and immediately after it says: ‘Nevertheless one who desires to adopt the view of Beth Shammai may do so’? — This is no difficulty. The latter statement relates to the practice before the Heavenly Voice was heard, whilst the former states the law as it is after the Heavenly Voice was heard. Or, you may even say that the latter statement too was made after the Heavenly Voice was heard. [and yet there is no contradiction], for that statement is the view of R. Joshua who exclaimed: We pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice! Nevertheless the question remains? — R. Tabuth said: He [Raba] acted entirely in accordance with Rab's view. For when Rami b. Ezekiel arrived [from palestine] he stated: ‘Don't pay any heed to the laws transmitted to you by my brother Judah in the name of Rab; for thus said Rab: The Sages prescribed the limits in the gullet’. Now since he said that the Sages prescribed the limits [in the gullet], it follows that the pharynx is not within the region prescribed for slaughtering; nevertheless, [Rab ruled that] the slightest perforation therein [will render the animal trefah]. How far on top? — Said R. Nahman: As far as [the last] hand grip. And how far below? — R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: As far as that part where it is villous. But this cannot be, for Rabina said in the name of Geniba on the authority of Rab that the [last] handbreadth of the gullet close to the rumen was the inner rumen. Now [if you say: ‘as far as that part where it is villous’,] one would then actually be cutting the rumen! — Render thus: The [first] handbreadth in the rumen close to the gullet is the inner rumen. Alternatively, you may say that Rab was referring to an ox in which the villous portion is found higher up. R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: If the pharynx was entirely detached from the jaw, [the animal] is valid. And our Tanna confirms this, for we have learnt: If the lower jaw was removed, [the animal] is valid. R. Papa demurred, saying: But is this not a case of [throat] organs being torn away? — And does not this statement of the Mishnah, ‘If the lower jaw was removed, [the animal] is valid’, present the same difficulty to R. Papa? — No, the Mishnah does not present any difficulty to R. Papa because in the one case [the organ] was torn away forcibly, whilst in the case [of the Mishnah the jawbone] was merely carved away. Against Samuel, however, the difficulty remains! — Do not read ‘entirely’, but rather ‘the greater portion’. But has not Samuel himself said that if the greater portion of [the circumference of] the pharynx was severed it is trefah? — There it was lacerated, but here it merely came away. But has not Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of Samuel that if the greater part of the [circumference of the] organs of the throat was torn loose the animal is trefah? — R. Shisha the son of R. Idi answered: In that case the organs were forcibly torn loose. OR THE WINDPIPE SEVERED. It was taught: How much of the windpipe must be severed? The greater part of it. And what is meant by ‘the greater part of it’? — Rab says,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢ
2 The greater part of the outer circumference [of the windpipe]. Others say [in the name of Rab]: The greater part of the inner circumference. An animal with its windpipe severed was brought before Rab. He set about to examine it on the basis of the greater part of the outer circumference; whereupon R. Kahana and R. Assi said: ‘But you have taught us, Master, to examine it on the basis of the greater part of the inner circumference!’ Rab therefore sent the case to Rabbah b. Bar Hana and he examined it on the basis of the greater part of the inner circumference. He permitted it and actually bought from the meat of the animal to the value of thirteen common istirae. But was he right in doing so? Has it not been taught: ‘If a Sage has declared aught unclean his colleague may not declare it clean, or if he has declared aught forbidden his colleague may not permit it’? — This case is different for Rab did not declare it forbidden. And why did he eat of it seeing that a Sage had to make a decision with regard to it? Behold it is written: Then said I, ‘Ah Lord God! behold my soul hath not been polluted; for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself or is torn of beasts; neither came there abhorred flesh into my mouth’. And it has been interpreted as follows: ‘Behold my soul hath not been polluted’, for I did not allow impure thoughts to enter my mind during the day, so as to lead to pollution at night. ‘For from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself or is torn of beasts’, for I have never eaten of the flesh of an animal of which it had been exclaimed: ‘Slaughter it! Slaughter it!’ Neither came there abhorred flesh into my mouth, for I did not eat the flesh of an animal which a Sage declared to be permitted. It was reported in the name of R. Nathan that this means: I did not eat of an animal from which the priestly dues had not been set apart! — This applies only to a matter which was declared to be permitted as the result of a logical argument; Rabbah b. Bar Hana, however, relied upon his tradition. But, in any case, there is the suspicion? And it has been taught: A judge who decided an issue declaring the one party entitled to a thing and the other disentitled, or who pronounced aught to be unclean or clean, or forbidden or permissible, likewise witnesses who gave evidence in a law suit, these may [in law] buy the matter that was in dispute, but the Sages have said: ‘Keep aloof from anything hideous or from whatever seems hideous’! — This applies only to matters which are bought by appraisement; in this case, however, the selling by weight is proof against suspicion. As in the following instance. Raba once declared an animal, a doubtful case of trefah, to be permitted and then bought some of the meat. Whereupon the daughter of R. Hisda said to him, ‘My father once permitted a firstling but would not buy of its meat’! To which he replied: ‘This [suspicion] applies only in the case of a firstling since it may be sold only by appraisement; in my case, however, the selling by weight is proof against suspicion. What other suspicion can there be? That I receive a choice piece? But every day I am given the choicest meat’. R. Hisda said: Who is a scholar? He who would declare his own animal trefah. R. Hisda further said: To whom does this verse apply: He that hateth gifts shall live? To him who would declare his own animal trefah. Mar Zutra gave the following exposition in the name of R. Hisda: He who studies Scripture and the Mishnah, and attends the lectures of the scholars, and would declare his own animal trefah, of him it is written: When thou eatest the labour of thy hands, happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee. R. Zebid said: He is worthy of inheriting two worlds: this world and the world to come; ‘Happy shalt thou be’, in this world; ‘and it shall be well with thee’, in the world to come. Whenever R. Eleazar was sent a gift from the house of the Nasi he would not accept it, and whenever he was invited out to dine he would not go, for he used to say: ‘[It seems that] you don't want me to live, for it is written: "He that hateth gifts shall live"’. Whenever R. Zera was sent a gift he would not accept it but whenever he was invited out to dine he would go, for he used to say,ᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏ