Chullin

etc., includes the fat upon the intestines;1 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:2 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.3 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!4 — 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.5 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’?6 — 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: Clean7 fat can stop up8 [a perforation], unclean fat cannot.9 R. Shesheth said: Either can stop up [a perforation]. R. Zera asked: What of the fat of a wild beast?10 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. 11 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’.12 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,13 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,14 viz., water, wine and milk; and all other liquids are permitted.15 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,13 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.16 R. Simeon says: Even these are prohibited if left uncovered. Indeed, added R. Simeon, I once saw at Zaidan17 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,18 You must at least admit that I am right with regard to brine,19 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.20 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’.21 What is Himza? and what is Bar Himza? — Come and hear: For R. Nahman remarked: They [in Palestine] eat it; abomasum is permitted according to R. Ishmael. Thus R. Ishmael favours the priests. duodenum, thus contradicting the preceding statement of R. Ishmael that the fat upon the abomasum is permitted. the intestines. The prohibition therefore does not include these. 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. and not R. Ishmael. intestines, being permitted, would effectively stop up a perforation of the intestine beneath it. organ. Rab, would the fat which covers the inwards stop up a perforation. that might have been in the liquid. actual Himza itself.