חולין 95 — Soncino English Talmud

¹‘If only you had been on good terms with me, I would have given you a portion of the fatted ox which I had prepared yesterday!’ He replied: ‘I did eat of the choicest meat’. ‘Where did you get it?’ asked the other. ‘That gentile who bought [the animal from you] gave me a portion’, he replied. Said the other, ‘I did indeed prepare two, but that one became trefah’. Said Rabbi, Are we to prohibit all the meat stalls [today] because of that fool who acted improperly? Rabbi here is consistent with his principle, for he said: Where the meat stalls [kept by gentiles are supplied with meat by] Israelite butchers, any meat found in the possession of the gentile is permitted. Some there are who give this version: Rabbi said: ‘Are we to prohibit all the meat stalls because of that fool who wanted to annoy his fellow’? Now the only reason is because he wanted to annoy his fellow, but where there was no such intention [all the meat stalls would be] forbidden. Surely it was taught: Rabbi says: Where the meat stalls [kept by gentiles are supplied with meat by] Israelite butchers, any meat found in the possession of the gentile is permitted! — Here it is different, for the forbidden meat is clearly established. Rab said: Meat which had disappeared from sight is forbidden. An objection was raised. Rabbi says: Where the meat stalls [kept by gentiles are supplied with meat by] Israelite butchers, any meat found in the possession of the gentile is permitted! — It is different where it is found in the possession of the gentile. Come and hear: If there were nine meat shops, all of them selling ritually slaughtered meat and one shop selling carrion, and a man bought meat from one of them but he does not know from which of them he bought, it is forbidden because of the doubt; but if meat was found, one goes after the majority. — Here too [we must suppose] that it was found in the hand of a gentile. Come and hear: We have learnt: If one found [raw] meat in the city one must determine [the meat] according to the majority of butchers; if it was cooked meat one must determine it according to the majority of the people that eat meat. And should you say that here too [we must suppose] that it was found in the hand of a gentile, [then why is it said.] ‘If it was cooked one must determine it according to the majority of the people that eat meat’? Let us see whether the gentile has it in his possession or the Israelite! — Here we must suppose that he [the finder] was standing by and kept his eye on it all the time. Come and hear: [We have learnt:] If meat was found within the borders, if it was an entire limb it is deemed to be nebelah, but if it was a cut [from a limb] it is permitted. And should you say that here too we must suppose that he [the finder] stood by keeping his eye on it all the time, then why is it deemed to be nebelah in the case of an entire limb? — Is not this intended [as an objection] against Rab's teaching? But with regard to it there has been reported: Rab said: It is permitted only in so far as it is not deemed to be nebelah, Levi however said, it is permitted to be eaten. This rule of Rab was not expressly stated but was inferred from the following incident. Rab was once sitting by the ford of the Ishtatith Canal when he saw a man^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:Since the meat sold in all the stalls, even those kept by gentiles, is supplied by Jewish butchers, the Jews have accustomed themselves to buying meat from gentile stalls without hesitation. The improper act of this man surely will not have the effect of altering the status quo so as to place a restriction upon all stalls kept by gentiles!
^ᵇnote:I.e., on his stall.
^ᶜnote:We assume therefore that he lied to his fellow merely in order to annoy him, but that he did not actually sell the gentile trefah meat.
^ᵈnote:He had definitely sold trefah meat to this gentile, and he might have done so to others too, therefore all the meat on the stalls kept by the gentiles is forbidden.
^ᵉnote:Even if one lost sight of it or turned one's back on it for a moment.
^ᶠnote:For it might have been exchanged for trefah meat.
^ᵍnote:Here the meat was not kept in sight by the Jew the whole time, nevertheless it is permitted.
^ʰnote:The gentile has had this meat in his care all the time, and since all the meat supplied to him is ritually slaughtered, for no Jew would supply him with trefah meat to sell in the market, it is permitted. Where, however, nobody was in charge of it, it is forbidden, for a raven might have carried it away and brought back trefah meat from elsewhere.
^ⁱnote:Because of the principle that everything prohibited which has a fixed place (kabua’) among things permitted, is not deemed as a minority among the majority, but rather as in the proportion of half to half. In this case therefore the meat, bought from one of the shops amongst which that shop which sells carrion has its place fixed and determined, is forbidden, for the doubt with regard to this meat is even.
^ʲnote:Presumably in the market place, and evidently it had disappeared from sight.
^ᵏnote:And the meat is permitted for the majority of shops sell ritually slaughtered meat.
^ˡnote:Maksh. II, 9. If the majority of butchers, or in the case of cooked meat if the majority of people that eat meat, are Jews, the meat found may be eaten.
^ᵐnote:And this would easily determine the doubt, for if the gentile has it then it is forbidden for presumably he has cooked it. The case must therefore be that the meat was found on the ground and not in the possession of anyone, nevertheless it is permitted, contra Rab.
^ⁿnote:From the moment that it fell from the owner.
^ᵒnote:Of the Land of Israel but outside Jerusalem.
^ᵖnote:For whenever an animal becomes nebelah it is usually cut up into limbs and thrown away.
^ᵠnote:Shek. VII, 6. It is to be assumed, of course, that the majority of butchers in the town are Jews. Nevertheless it is permitted even though it was lost and presumably out of sight.
^ʳnote:After all the meat had only accidentally fallen from the owner and was not thrown away as nebelah.
^ˢnote:I.e., it does not defile, but on no account may it be eaten since it had not been kept in sight the whole time.
^ᵗnote:That meat which had even for one moment disappeared from sight is forbidden.
^ᵘnote:[Near Sura, v. Obermeyer, p. 300.]

²washing the head [of an animal in the water]. It fell out of his hand, so he went and fetched a basket, threw it [into the water] and brought up two heads. Said Rab, ‘Is this what usually happens?’ And he forbade him both [heads]. Thereupon R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab, ‘Are only forbidden [heads] found here and not permitted ones?’ He replied. ‘The forbidden ones are more frequently found’. But what if it was only inferred? — It was a jetty frequented mostly by gentiles. Indeed you may be certain of this from his reply: ‘The forbidden ones are more frequently found [here]’. According to this how could Rab eat meat? — You may say [that he ate meat] soon [after the slaughtering], so that he did not lose sight of it; or only if it was wrapped up and sealed, or if it bore some distinguishing mark. Thus Rabbah son of R. Huna used to cut up [the meat] in the shape of a triangle. Rab was once going to his son-in-law R. Hanan when he saw a ferry-boat coming towards him. Said he to himself: When the ferry-boat comes to meet one it is a good omen. As he came to the door he looked through the crack of the door and he saw the meat of an animal hanging up. He then knocked at the door and everybody came out to meet him, even the butchers too. Rab however did not take his eyes off [the meat] and said to them: ‘If that is how [you look after things], then you are giving my daughter's children forbidden meat to eat’. And Rab did not eat of that meat. But why? If because of meat that had disappeared from sight, but here he did not lose sight of it; and if because of the omen, but Rab himself has said: An omen which is not after the form pronounced by Eliezer, Abraham's servant, or by Jonathan the son of Saul, is not considered a divination! — [The reason is that] it was a meal of free choice and Rab would not partake of a meal of free choice. Rab used to regard a ferry-boat as a sign. Samuel a [passage in a] book, and R. Johanan [a verse quoted] by a child. During the lifetime of Rab, R. Johanan used to address him thus in his letters: Greetings to our Master in Babylon! After Rab's death R. Johanan used to address Samuel thus: Greetings to our colleague in Babylon! Said Samuel to himself, ‘Is there nothing in which I am his master’? He thereupon sent [to R. Johanan] the calculations for the intercalation of months for sixty years. Said [R. Johanan], ‘He only knows mere calculations’. So he [Samuel] wrote out and sent [R. Johanan] thirteen camel loads of questions concerning doubtful cases of trefah. Said [R. Johanan], ‘It is clear that I have a Master in Babylon; I must go and see him’. So he said to a child, ‘Tell me the [last] verse you have learnt’. He answered: ‘Now Samuel was dead’. Said [R. Johanan], ‘This means that Samuel has died’. But it was not the case; Samuel was not dead then, and [this happened] only that R. Johanan should not trouble himself. It was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Although a house or a child or a marriage must not be used for divination, they may be taken as a sign. R. Eleazar added: Provided it was established so on three occasions, for it is written: Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin away; upon me all these things come. R. Huna enquired of Rab: What if [pieces of meat were] strung together? — He replied: Don't be a fool; if strung together it is certainly a distinguishing sign. Others report this as follows: R. Huna said in the name of Rab, If pieces of meat were strung together this is regarded as a distinguishing sign. R. Nahman of Nehardea once came to R. Kahana at Pum Nahara on the eve of the day of Atonement when they saw ravens dropping [from their beaks] pieces of liver and kidneys. Said [R. Kahana] to the other, pick them up and eat them, for to-day that which is permitted is more common. R. Hiyya b. Abin once lost the large intestine of an animal amongst a stack of barrels [and subsequently found it] and he came to enquire about it of R. Huna. ‘Have you a distinguishing mark on it’? asked [R. Huna]. ‘No’, he replied. ‘Would you be able to recognize it [by general impression]? ‘Yes’, he replied. ‘Then you may go and take it.’ R. Hanina Hoza'ah once lost a side of meat [and subsequently found it]. He came to R. Nahman who said to him, ‘Have you a distinguishing mark on it?’ He replied: ‘No’. ‘Would you be able to recognize it?’ He replied: ‘Yes’. ‘Then you may go and take it’. R. Nathan b. Abaye once lost a ball of blue wool. He came before R. Hisda who said to him, ‘Have you a distinguishing mark on it?’ He replied: ‘No’. ‘Would you be able to recognize it’? He replied: ‘Yes’. ‘Then you may use it’. Raba said: At first I thought that [identification by] a distinguishing mark was more reliable than [identification by] general impression, since we must return a lost article [to anyone who mentions] a distinguishing mark on it,^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ

^ᵛnote:On losing one thing to find two.
^ʷnote:The second head might very well have been a permitted one which had previously fallen into the river.
^ˣnote:This incident clearly shows Rab's view as stated above (p. 533, n. 9).
^ʸnote:Which can only be explained by the fact that the place was frequented mostly by gentiles. In other districts, however, both heads might have been permitted, even though they had been out of sight for some time. Thus Rab's principle cannot be definitely inferred from this incident.
^ᶻnote:Since it would be forbidden if only it was, for one moment, out of sight.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit., ‘it will be a good day in there’, i.e., at the place where he proposed to go.
^ᵃᵇnote:Which he had expressed about the ferry-boat coming towards him.
^ᵃᶜnote:Cf. Gen. XXIV, 14.
^ᵃᵈnote:Cf. I Sam. XIV, 9, 10.
^ᵃᵉnote:In the sense that is forbidden by Lev. XIX, 26. In the two cases mentioned the action to be taken was entirely dependent upon the happening of a certain event, and this is prohibited. But to interpret a certain event as an omen either for good or evil, is not prohibited.
^ᵃᶠnote:As opposed to a meal in fulfilment of a religious precept.
^ᵃᵍnote:If the ferry-boat was coming towards one, or if a passage selected at random from a book or the verse quoted by a child was of a happy nature, — each was regarded as a good omen for a successful venture.
^ᵃʰnote:Reading hknd. According to R. Han.: hkhud, ‘parchment scrolls’.
^ᵃⁱnote:I Sam. XXVIII, 3.
^ᵃʲnote:To go to Babylon to visit Samuel.
^ᵃᵏnote:If a man's first undertaking immediately after a great day in his life, such as the building of a house, the birth of a child or his marriage, proves to be successful, he may regard it as suspicious and as a prognostic of success, and may view cheerfully all future undertakings of a similar nature. If, on the other hand, it proves to be unsuccessful, he should in the future view similar undertakings with apprehension. To place implicit faith and absolute reliance upon the outcome of the first undertaking is forbidden by the Torah as augury and divination (v. Lev. XIX, 26). One may, nevertheless, regard it as an indication of the future.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., he met with a sequence of three successes or three reverses.
^ᵃᵐnote:Gen. XLII, 36.
^ᵃⁿnote:And the entire string of meat had disappeared for a moment from sight.
^ᵃᵒnote:Not as a question put by R. Huna but as a definite statement of the law.
^ᵃᵖnote:MS.M. R. Hanan.
^ᵃᵠnote:On the Tigris.
^ᵃʳnote:For much meat was eaten on the eve of the Day of Atonement in preparation for the fast, v. supra 83a, and therefore any meat found, or carried away by ravens, would in all probability be meat that was ritually slaughtered.
^ᵃˢnote:Of Hozae, the modern Khuzistan.
^ᵃᵗnote:Which was prepared for use in the Zizith (cf. Num. XV, 38). The blue dye was very scarce and every precaution had to be taken to guard against imitations and spurious kinds.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., ‘impression of the eye’.