Chullin

The greater part of the outer circumference [of the windpipe].1 Others say [in the name of Rab]: The greater part of the inner circumference.2 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.3 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.4 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’.5 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.6 But, in any case, there is the suspicion?7 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;8 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. Hisda9 said to him, ‘My father once permitted a firstling10 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;11 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?12 He who would declare his own animal trefah.13 R. Hisda further said: To whom does this verse apply: He that hateth gifts shall live?14 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,15 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.16 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 Nasi17 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] you18 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, membranous tube, stiffened and held open by a series of many cartilaginous rings. These rings of cartilage are incomplete in part of their circumference, being about one third filled in by fibrous tissue. It is evident, therefore, that the greater part of the outer circumference which includes the thickness of the cartilage would not necessarily be also the greater part of the inner circumference. upon a tradition he may overrule a decision of a colleague. V. Tosaf. s.v. hfhv. receiving a reward or monetary advantage for deciding a case (Rashi). value without resorting to the usual practice of weighing or measuring. Only in such a case is there ground for suspicion. physical blemish which would have rendered it unfit for a sacrifice. It was therefore necessary for a Rabbi to examine the blemish and give a ruling on it. approximate estimation of its value. distinguishing marks; cf. B.M. 24a (Tosaf).