חולין 49 — Soncino English Talmud

¹in the thick wall of the reticulum, where it is held that if [it protruded only] on one side it is permitted, but if [it protruded] on both sides it is trefah? [Why do we not suggest the test,] ‘Let us see whether the head of the needle is on the outside or on the inside [of the reticulum]’? — I will tell you: in that case since [the reticulum] contains food and drink, it is likely that the food and the drink drove it in. A needle was once found in the portal vein of the liver. Huna Mar the son of R. Idi declared the animal trefah, whilst R. Adda b. Manyomi permitted it. The case was taken to Rabina for his opinion and he said: ‘Take away the cloaks of those who declare it trefah’. A date stone was found in the gall-bladder. Said R. Ashi, ‘When we were at the school of R. Kahana he told us that in such a case it is certain that it entered via the portal vein, for although it cannot pass through [easily], it is likely that it was forced through by the movements [of the animal]’. This is so, however, only in the case of a date stone, but an olive stone would most certainly pierce [an internal organ]. R. Johanan said: Why is the lung called reah? — Because it makes the eyes bright. It was asked: Is this so when one eats it [as it is], or only when one uses it medicinally? — Come and hear: R. Huna b. Judah stated that the price of a goose was one zuz, but a goose's lung was four zuzim. Now should you say that when one eats it as it is [it makes the eyes bright], why then should not one buy [the goose] for a zuz and eat also the lungs thereof? It obviously means that when used medicinally [it has this effect]. If the lung was found perforated in a part which is usually handled by the butcher, do we attribute it [to the handling] or not? R. Aha b. Nathan says we do; Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari says we do not. The law is that we do attribute it. R. Samuel the son of R. Abbahu said: ‘My father, one of the heads of the Assemblies under Rafram, said that we do attribute it [to the handling]’. This was reported to Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari, but he would not accept it; whereupon R. Mesharsheya said: It is reasonable to accept the view of my grandfather, since we also attribute a perforation to a wolf. With regard to a worm [found on the lung],there is a difference of opinion between R. Joseph b. Dosai and the Rabbis. One holds that it wormed its way through [the lung] before the slaughtering, the other that it wormed its way through after the slaughtering. The law is that it wormed its way through after the slaughtering[and so it is permitted]. R. SIMEON SAYS, PROVIDED IT WAS PIERCED AS FAR AS THE MAIN BRONCHI. Rabbah b. Tahlifa explained in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba, provided it was pierced as far as the large bronchus. R. Aha b. Abba was sitting before R. Huna and recited: R. Maluk said — in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, The halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon. Whereupon he [R. Huna] said to him, You are quoting Maluk of Arabia, are you not? But he said that the halachah was not in accordance with R. Simeon! When R. Zera went up [to palestine] he found R. Bibi sitting and reciting as follows: R. Maluk said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, The halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon. Whereupon he [R. Zera] said to him, ‘By your life! I, R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Assi happened to be in the town where R. Maluk lived and we asked him, "Did the Master say that the halachah was in accordance with R. Simeon"? And he replied: "I said that the halachah was not in accordance with R. Simeon"’. He [R. Bibi] then said to him [R. Zera], And what tradition have you got in the matter? He replied: Thus said R. Isaac b. Ammi on the authority of R. Joshua b. Levi, The halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon. The halachah, however, is not in accordance with the view of R. Simeon. IF THE ABOMASUM WAS PIERCED. R. Isaac b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Oshaia, It was the practice of the priests to permit the fat which is on the abomasum [to be eaten], thus agreeing with the view of R. Ishmael which he reported in the name of his ancestors. And in order to remember this, [think of the saying], ‘Ishmael the priest favours the priests’. Where do we see this? — For it was taught; [it is written], On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel. R. Ishmael said: We observe here a blessing for Israel at the mouth of the priests, but we know of no blessing for the priests themselves; when the verse adds: And I will bless them, it means to say that, the priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, blessed be He, blesses the priests. R. Akiba said: We observe here a blessing for Israel at the mouth of the priests but not from the Almighty; when the verse therefore adds: And I will bless them, it means to say that the priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, blessed be He, approves of it. But whence does R. Akiba derive that the priests also receive a blessing? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: From the verse: And I will bless them that bless thee. In what respect then does R. Ishmael favour the priests? — In that he establishes in the one verse the blessing of the priests side by side with the blessing of Israel. What is this opinion of R. Ishmael which he reported in the name of his ancestors? — It was taught: The fat that covereth the inwards22^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:It only pierced the inside coat of the reticulum.
^ᵇnote:And if the head of the pin was embedded in the inner wall of the reticulum with its point protruding into the cavity of the reticulum, according to the foregoing argument it should also be trefah, for in all probability the pin entered from outside having first pierced some internal organ.
^ᶜnote:Even head first into the wall of the reticulum. Therefore so long as it has not pierced both walls it is permitted.
^ᵈnote:For they are liable in damages if on their ruling the animal was destroyed as trefah.
^ᵉnote:It is therefore regarded like a needle. But v. Tosaf. s.v. kct.
^ᶠnote:There is here a play upon words: vthr, ‘the lungs’, and vrhtn, ‘makes bright’.
^ᵍnote:I.e., when prepared with other ingredients and applied to the eyes.
^ʰnote:V. Marginal Gloss., cur. edd. Adda.
^ⁱnote:To the handling of the butcher, and the animal is therefore permitted.
^ʲnote:Heb. Kallah. The general assembly of Babylonian students v. B.B., Sonc. ed., p. 60, n. 7.
^ᵏnote:I.e., R. Ahab. Nathan.
^ˡnote:v. supra 9a; where a wolf ran off with the lungs and brought them back perforated the holes are attributed to the teeth of the wolf and the animal is permitted.
^ᵐnote:This parasite had wormed its way through the lung and had perforated the outer membrane.
^ⁿnote:Accordingly the lung was perforated before the slaughtering and it is therefore trefah.
^ᵒnote:This is the final ruling of the Gemara.
^ᵖnote:Lit.,’and thy sign’.
^ᵠnote:R. Ishmael was a Priest and he always took a lenient view in any matter which affected priests.
^ʳnote:That R. Ishmael rules in favour of the priests.
^ˢnote:Num. VI, 23.
^ᵗnote:Ibid. 27.
^ᵘnote:Gen. XII, 3.
^ᵛnote:Lev. III, 3. All fat that was offered upon the altar is forbidden to be eaten.

²etc., includes the fat upon the intestines; this is the view of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says: It includes the fat upon the abomasum. Now this is in conflict with the following: [It is written,] And all the fat that is upon the inwards: this, says R. Ishmael, teaches: as the fat upon the inwards [is characteristic in that it] is covered with a membrane which can be easily peeled off, so all fat [which is to be forbidden] must be covered with a membrane which can be easily peeled off. R. Akiba says: It teaches: as the fat upon the inwards [is characteristic in that it] is an even layer, and is covered with a membrane which can be easily peeled off, so all fat [which is to be forbidden] must be an even layer, and covered with a membrane which can be easily peeled off! — Rabin sent this answer in the name of R. Johanan: That is, indeed, the proper construction of the latter Baraitha but [the authorities in] the former [Baraitha] must be reversed. But why do you choose to reverse the authorities in the former rather than in the latter Baraitha? — The position is different in the latter [Baraitha] for a it contains the argument ‘As . . . so’, it is clear, precision was intended. If so, why does it say above ‘thus agreeing with the view of R. Ishmael’? It ought to be ‘thus agreeing with the view of R. Akiba’? — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: He [R. Ishmael] reported the decision in the name of his ancestors, though he himself did not accept it. Rab said: Clean fat can stop up [a perforation], unclean fat cannot. R. Shesheth said: Either can stop up [a perforation]. R. Zera asked: What of the fat of a wild beast? Did he [Rab] mean the expression ‘clean fat can stop up’ to be taken strictly, and as the fat of this is clean [it can stop up a perforation]? Or did he thereby merely imply the reason, namely, that it clings fast, and as this does not cling fast [it cannot stop up a perforation]? — Abaye said to him, What is your difficulty? Though it is permitted to be eaten it obviously does not cling fast. There came before Raba the case of a perforation that was stopped up by unclean fat. Said Raba, What have we to fear? After all R. Shesheth has ruled that even unclean fat can also stop up; and moreover, ‘The Torah doth spare the money of an Israelite’. Whereupon R. Papa said to Raba, But on the other hand, there is Rab's view [to the contrary]; and moreover, it is a question involving a prohibition of the Torah, and you say: ‘The Torah doth spare the money of an Israelite’! Manyomin, a pottery dealer, once left uncovered a pot of honey. He came to Raba [to enquire about it], and Raba said: What have we to fear? In the first place, we have learnt: Three liquids are prohibited if left uncovered, viz., water, wine and milk; and all other liquids are permitted. In the second place, ‘The Torah doth spare the money of an Israelite’. Whereupon R. Nahman b. Isaac said to Raba, But on the other hand, there is the view of R. Simeon [to the contrary]; and moreover, it is a question of possible danger to life, and yet you say: ‘The Torah doth spare the money of an Israelite’! (Where have we learnt the view of R. Simeon? — In the following Baraitha: These five liquids are not prohibited if left uncovered: brine, vinegar, oil, honey and muries. R. Simeon says: Even these are prohibited if left uncovered. Indeed, added R. Simeon, I once saw at Zaidan a snake drinking brine! To which the Rabbis retorted: That was a foolish snake, and one cannot adduce a proof from fools!) He then said to him, You must at least admit that I am right with regard to brine, for whenever R. Papa, or R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, or any of the other Rabbis had some liquid that had been left uncovered they would pour it into brine. But, replied the other, you must at least admit that I am right with regard to honey [that it is forbidden], for R. Simeon b. Eleazar is in agreement with him [R. Simeon]; as it has been taught: Similarly, R. Simeon b. Eleazar would prohibit honey [that had been left uncovered]. R. Nahman said: Fat which lies helmet-like [upon the organ] cannot stop up a perforation. What is meant? — Some say, the nodules of fat of the rectum; others say, the pericardium. Raba said: I heard two decisions of R. Nahman, one about the fat [upon the abomasum] called Himza and the other about the fat [upon the abomasum] called Bar Himza; one stops up a perforation and the other does not, but I do not know which does and which does not. R. Huna b. Hinena and R. Huna the son of R. Nahman said: Bar Himza stops up a perforation, while Himza does not. R. Tabuth said: In order to remember this, think of the saying: ‘the position of the son is better than that of the father’. What is Himza? and what is Bar Himza? — Come and hear: For R. Nahman remarked: They [in Palestine] eat it;^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ʷnote:I.e., the fat that is upon the duodenum (v. infra 93a) is included within the prohibition. But the fat upon the abomasum is permitted according to R. Ishmael. Thus R. Ishmael favours the priests.
^ˣnote:Ibid.
^ʸnote:According to this definition the prohibition includes the fat that is upon the abomasum and also the fat upon the duodenum, thus contradicting the preceding statement of R. Ishmael that the fat upon the abomasum is permitted.
^ᶻnote:The fat which is upon the abomasum is not spread evenly over it but is attached to it in lumps; so, too, the fat upon the intestines. The prohibition therefore does not include these.
^ᵃᵃnote:Since in this Baraitha the argument is based upon the respective definitions which these Rabbis suggest of the fat that is upon the in wards, it is obvious that the Rabbis were exact and precise in their language, and it is out of the question to say that the authorities here are to be reversed.
^ᵃᵇnote:The authorities in the former passage having been reversed, it is R. Akiba who permits the fat upon the abomasum and not R. Ishmael.
^ᵃᶜnote:The expressions ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ in this passage mean ‘permitted’ and ‘forbidden’ respectively.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., can effectively stop up a perforation in the organ to which this fat is naturally so attached. E.g., the fat upon the intestines, being permitted, would effectively stop up a perforation of the intestine beneath it.
^ᵃᵉnote:E.g., the fat which covers the inwards, being forbidden, would not effectively stop up a perforation of an internal organ.
^ᵃᶠnote:In the wild beast all fat is permitted, even the fat which covers the inwards. The question therefore is, according to Rab, would the fat which covers the inwards stop up a perforation.
^ᵃᵍnote:It therefore cannot stop up effectively any perforation.
^ᵃʰnote:Cf., Lev. XIV, 36 and the Sifra thereon. V. Rashi.
^ᵃⁱnote:We should therefore adopt the stricter view.
^ᵃʲnote:It is feared that a snake may have drunk from these liquids and deposited its poison therein. V. supra 10a.
^ᵃᵏnote:A snake, it is said, has no liking for any other liquids but these three, v. Ter. VIII, 4.
^ᵃˡnote:xhhrun, a kind of pickle containing fish-hash and wine.
^ᵃᵐnote:Sidon or Bethsaida.
^ᵃⁿnote:Raba to R. Nahman b. Isaac.
^ᵃᵒnote:That there is no fear with regard to it even though it was left uncovered, contra R. Simeon.
^ᵃᵖnote:And they would use the brine because the pungency of the brine would overcome and render harmless any poison that might have been in the liquid.
^ᵃᵠnote:V. Shebu. 48a. Bar means ‘the son of’. Here the Bar Himza is more effective in stopping up a perforation than the actual Himza itself.