Chullin

surely for us [Babylonians] it should at least be effective to stop up a perforation!1 Now concerning the fat that is upon the greater curvature [of the abomasum] there is no dispute at all that it is forbidden. The dispute is only concerning the fat that is upon the lesser curvature.2 (Others report: Concerning the fat that is upon the lesser curvature there is no dispute at all that it is permitted; the dispute is only concerning the fat that is upon the greater curvature.) 3 This4 accords with the statement of R. Awia in the name of R. Ammi who said: One must scrape away a little from the surface [of the fat upon the lesser curvature].5 R. Jannai likewise said in the name of an elder, One must scrape away a little from the surface thereof. R. Awia said: ‘I was once present before R. Ammi and [I saw that] they gave him this fat to eat after having scraped away a little from the surface thereof, and he ate it’. The attendant of R. Hanina was standing in attendance before him when R. Hanina said to him, ‘Scrape away a little from the surface thereof and give me the fat to eat’. As he saw his attendant hesitating, he said to him, ‘You are evidently a Babylonian, so you had better cut it off entirely and throw it away’. It was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If there was a perforation in the intestines but it was stopped up by mucus, it is permitted. What is this mucus? — It is the viscous substance of the intestines which is removed by great pressure. The Following statement R. Abba's colleague — i.e., R. Zera — learnt from R. Abba6 (others say: R. Zera's colleague — i.e., R. Abba — learnt from R. Zera): R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya b. Abba said: Thus said R. Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in the matter of ‘Trefah’ and the halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon in the matter of ‘Mourning’. ‘The halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in the matter of Trefah’, as we have stated it above.7 But what is this matter of ‘Mourning’ [concerning which the halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon]? — It has been taught: In the first three days of mourning he who arrives from a place nearby counts the days of mourning with the others;8 [if he arrives] from a far place he must count the days of mourning for himself.9 After these [three days], even if he arrives from a place nearby, he must count the days of mourning for himself. R. Simeon says: Even on the seventh day he who arrives from a place nearby counts the days of mourning with the others. A certain Rabbi said: ‘I pray that I be granted to go up [to Palestine] and learn the law from the mouth of the Master’.10 When he came he found R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya b. Abba and asked him, ‘Did the Master say that the halachah was in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in the matter of Trefah’? — He replied: ‘Indeed, I said that the halachah was not in accordance with his view. ‘And what about the halachah being in accordance with the view of R. Simeon in the matter of Mourning’? — He replied, ‘There is a dispute about this. For it has been stated: R. Hisda said: The halachah is [in accordance with R. Simeon's view]; R. Johanan also said that that was the halachah. R. Nahman, however, said: The halachah is not [in accordance with R. Simeon's view]. The halachah11 is not in accordance with the View of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in the matter of Trefah, but the halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon in the matter of Mourning, for Samuel has taught: In matters of mourning the law is always in accordance with him who states the more lenient view. R. Shimi b. Hiyya said: We may compare defects in the intestines.12 The intestines of an animal were brought before Raba [containing perforations]. He compared them [with other perforations that he now made] but they did not appear alike; whereupon his son R. Mesharsheya came and handled them,13 and they now appeared like the others.14 He [Raba] said to him, ‘Whence did you know to do this’? — He replied: ‘Think of the number of hands that had handled [the original perforations] before they were brought to my Master’! He exclaimed: ‘My son is versed in the laws concerning trefah like R. Johanan’!15 R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both said: We may compare defects in the lungs. Raba said: This is allowed only in the same lung, but we may not compare the defect in one lung with the defect in the other lung.16 The law, however, is that the defect in one lung may be compared with the defect in the other lung, the small17 with the small and the large with the large, but not the large with the small nor the small with the large. Abaye and Raba both said: We may compare defects in the windpipe. R. Papa said: This is allowed only in the same group18 [of cartilaginous rings], but we may not compare the defect in one group with the defect in another group [of rings in the same windpipe]. The law, however, is that the defect in the cartilaginous portion of one group may be compared with the defect in the cartilaginous portion of another group; likewise the defect in the membranous portion19 of one group with the defect in the membranous portion of another group, but we may not compare the defect in the cartilaginous portion with the defect in a membranous portion, nor the defect in the membranous portion with the defect in a cartilaginous portion. Ze'iri said: If the rectum was perforated it is permitted, for the hips support it, [and close up the perforation]. How much must be mutilated? R. Ila'i said in the name of R. Johanan, Where it is joined [to the hips] only the destruction of the greater part thereof [will render trefah]; where it is not so joined even the slightest perforation [will render trefah]. When the Rabbis reported this statement to Raba in the name of R. Nahman he exclaimed: Have I not told you not to hang on him [R. Nahman] must be the fat which is upon the lesser curvature of the abomasum. For, as immediately follows in the text, it is only this fat (sc. that upon the lesser curvature) which the Palestinians permit themselves to eat and which R. Nahman maintains should at least serve for us to stop up a perforation. The second version in the text (infra) has no bearing upon this remark of R. Nahman. V. Rashi. (stated supra 49a) as to what constitutes forbidden fat. In this respect it must be remembered that the fat upon the greater curvature of the abomasum is well-nigh flat and lies almost as an even layer upon the abomasum, consequently it is forbidden according to all views, whereas the fat upon the lesser curvature does not lie in an even layer. Now the Palestinians accepted the view of R. Akiba, that the condition of the fat lying as an even layer is an essential characteristic in the definition of forbidden fat, and this being so they permit the fat that is upon the lesser curvature. The Babylonians, on the other hand, accepted the view of R. Ishmael and consequently forbid this fat. consequently the fat on the lesser curvature is permitted. But the issue between the Babylonians and the Palestinians is as to whether the fat upon the greater curvature is to be regarded as an even layer or not. According to the former it is so, hence it is forbidden; according to the Palestinians it is not so, hence it is permitted. forbidden. The rest of this fat, however, is allowed to be eaten according to the Palestinian view, and R. Ammi was a Palestinian. occurred and who returned to his home within the first three days of the mourning, joins the other mourners in the counting of the Shib'ah, or the traditional seven days of mourning, and his period of mourning comes to an end at the same time as that of the others. completed their period of mourning. before the slaughtering, in which case the animal would be trefah, or it was made after the slaughtering, in which case it is permitted, with a perforation made in that same organ after the slaughtering. If the two perforations are alike in appearance the animal is permitted, for it is clear that they both were made after the slaughtering. vice versa. animal: so R. Hananel and first explanation of Rashi. Another suggestion in Rashi is: the defect in the main lobe of one lung with the defect in the main lobe of the other lung, and the defect in the small lobes of one lung with the defect in the small lobes of the other lung. the rings of cartilage are incomplete in part of their circumference, being about one-third filled in by fibrous tissue.