This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Koren Talmud Bavli

THE NOÉ EDITION

ĤULLIN · Part two

Steinsaltz
Center
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫תלמוד בבלי‬
koren talmud bavli
THE NOÉ EDITION

‫חולין ב‬
Ḥullin · PArt two

Commentary by
Rabbi Adin Even-Israel
Steinsaltz

Editor-in-chief
Rabbi Dr Tzvi Hersh Weinreb
executive Editor
Rabbi Joshua Schreier

·
Steinsaltz Center
koren publishers jerusalem
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Supported by the Matanel Foundation

The Noé Edition Koren Talmud Bavli

Volume 38: Tractate Ĥullin, Part Two
Hardcover edition, ISBN 978 965 301 599 9
First Hebrew/English Edition, 2018
Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd.
PO Box 4044, Jerusalem 9104001, ISRAEL
PO Box 8531, New Milford, CT 06776, USA
www.korenpub.com
Steinsaltz Center
Steinsaltz Center is the parent organization of institutions
established by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz
PO Box 45187, Jerusalem 91450 ISRAEL
Telephone: +972 2 646 0900, Fax +972 2 624 9454
www.steinsaltz-center.org
Talmud Commentary © 1965, 2018 Adin Steinsaltz and Shefa Foundation
Talmud Translation © 2018 Shefa Foundation
Vocalization and punctuation of the Hebrew/Aramaic text © 2018 Shefa Foundation
Koren Tanakh & Siddur Fonts © 1962, 1981, 2018 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd.
Talmud Design © 2018 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd.
Original Illustrations © 1965, 2018 Shefa Foundation
Revised Illustrations © 2018 Koren Publishers Jerusalem Ltd. (except as noted)
Cover image: © cynoclub, Shutterstock.com,
Hardcover design by Ben Gasner
This book published in cooperation with Shefa Foundation and/or the Israel Institute for Talmudic
Publications. All rights reserved for Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz and Milta Books Ltd.
Considerable research and expense have gone into the creation of this publication.
Unauthorized copying may be considered geneivat da’at and breach of copyright law.
No part of this publication (content or design, including use of the Talmud translations and
Koren fonts) may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any
means electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embedded in critical articles or reviews.
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Once upon a time, under pressure of censorship,

printers would inscribe in the flyleaves
of volumes of the Talmud:
Whatever may be written herein about gentiles
does not refer to the gentiles of today,
but to gentiles of times past.

Today, the flyleaves of our books bear a similar inscription,

albeit an invisible one:
Whatever may be written herein about Jews
does not refer to the Jews of today,
but to Jews who lived in other times.
So we are able to sit down and study Torah, Talmud,
books of ethics, or books of faith
without considering their relevance to our lives.
Whatever is written there
does not apply to us or to our generation,
but only to other people, other times.

We must expunge from those invisible prologues

the notion that the words are written about someone else,
about others, about anyone but us.
Whether the book is a volume of Torah,
a tractate of the Talmud, or a tract of faith,
the opposite must be inscribed:
Whatever is written herein refers only to me;
is written for me and obligates me.
First and foremost, the content is addressed to me.

— From a public address by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz

as quoted in ‫( חיי עולם‬Talks on Parashat HaShavua)
Maggid Books, 2011
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Managing Editor Senior Content Editor

Rabbi Jason Rappoport Rabbi Dr. Shalom Z. Berger

Editors Hebrew Edition Editors

Rabbi Dr. Joshua Amaru, Coordinating Editor Rabbi Yehonatan Eliav
Rabbi Yehoshua Duker, Final Editor Rabbi Avraham Gelbstein
Rabbi Yedidya Naveh, Content Curator Rabbi Gershon Kitsis
Rabbi Avishai Magence, Content Curator
Menucha Chwat
Rabbi Yonatan Shai Freedman
Copy Editors
Aliza Israel, Coordinator
Rabbi Ayal Geffon
Ita Olesker
Noam Harris
Debbie Ismailoff
Yisrael Kalker Shira Finson
Rabbi Tzvi Chaim Kaye Ilana Sobel
Rabbi Adin Krohn Deena Nataf
Catriel Lev Eliana Kurlantzick Yorav
Elisha Loewenstern Erica Hirsch Edvi
Rabbi Jonathan Mishkin Sara Henna Dahan
Rabbi Eli Ozarowski Oritt Sinclair
Rabbi David Sedley
Rabbi Jonathan Shulman
Rabbi Michael Siev Language Consultants
Aryeh Sklar Dr. Stéphanie E. Binder, Greek & Latin
Avi Steinhart Rabbi Yaakov Hoffman, Arabic
Rabbi Yitzchak Twersky Dr. Shai Secunda, Persian
Shira Shmidman, Aramaic

Design & Typesetting

Dena Landowne Bailey, Typesetting
Tomi Mager, Typesetting
Tani Bayer, Jacket Design
Raphaël Freeman, Design & Typography

Images
Rabbi Eliahu Misgav, Illustration & Image Acquisition
Daniel Gdalevich, Illustration & Image Acquisition
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Contents

Haskamotviii
Message from Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz xiii
Acknowledgments xiv
Introduction by the Editor-in-Chief xv
Preface by the Executive Editor xvii
Introduction by the Publisher xix
Introduction to Ĥullin 1
Ĥullin, Part II 5
Common Acronyms 421
Index of Background 425
Index of Language 428
Index of Personalities 429
Image Credits 429
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Haskama
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

…These new commentaries – which include a new interpretation of the Talmud, a

halakhic summary of the debated issues, and various other sections – are a truly out-
standing work; they can be of great benefit not only to those familiar with talmudic
study who seek to deepen their understanding, but also to those who are just begin-
ning to learn, guiding them through the pathways of the Torah and teaching them
how to delve into the sea of the Talmud.
I would like to offer my blessing to this learned scholar. May the Holy One grant him
success with these volumes and may he merit to write many more, to enhance the
greatness of Torah, and bring glory to God and His word…
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein
New York, 7 Adar 5743

I have seen one tractate from the Talmud to which the great scholar Rabbi Adin
Steinsaltz ‫ שליט״א‬has added nikkud (vowels) and illustrations to explain that which is
unknown to many people; he has also added interpretations and innovations, and is
evidently a talmid ĥakham. Talmidei ĥakhamim and yeshiva students ought to study
these volumes, and synagogues and batei midrash would do well to purchase them,
as they may find them useful.
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein
New York, Adar 5730

viii This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Haskama
Rabbi Menachem
Mendel Schneerson

…I have just had the pleasant surprise of receiving tractate Shabbat (part one), which
has been published by [Rabbi Steinsaltz] along with his explanations, etc. Happy
is the man who sees good fruits from his labors. May he continue in this path and
increase light, for in the matters of holiness there is always room to add – and we
have been commanded to add – for they are linked to the Holy One, Blessed be He,
Who is infinite. And may the Holy One grant him success to improve and enhance
this work, since the greater good strengthens his hand…
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson
The Lubavitcher Rebbe
Brooklyn, 5 Marĥeshvan 5729

This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based ix
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Haskama
Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neria

The translation of the books of our past into the language of the present – this was
the task of the sages of every generation. And in Israel, where the command to “teach
them repeatedly to your children” applies to all parts of the nation, it was certainly
the task of every era. This is true for every generation, and in our time – when many
of those who have strayed far are once again drawing near – all the more so. For many
today say, “Who will let us drink from the well” of Talmud, and few are those who
offer up the waters to drink.
We must, therefore, particularly commend the blessed endeavor of Rabbi Adin Stein-
saltz to explain the chapters of the Talmud in this extensive yet succinct commentary,
which, in addition to its literal interpretation of the text, also explicates the latter’s
underlying logic and translates it into the language of our generation.
It appears that all those who seek to study Talmud – the diligent student and the
learned adult – will have no difficulty understanding when using this commentary.
Moreover, we may hope that the logical explanation will reveal to them the beauty
of the talmudic page, and they will be drawn deeper and deeper into the intellectual
pursuit which has engaged the best Jewish minds, and which serves as the corner-
stone of our very lives…
Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neria
x This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Haskama
Rabbi Mordechai
Eliyahu

The Talmud in Eruvin 21b states: Rava continued to interpret verses homiletically. What is the
meaning of the verse: “And besides being wise, Kohelet also taught the people knowledge; and
he weighed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs” (Ecclesiastes 12:9)? He explains:
He taught the people knowledge; he taught it with the accentuation marks in the Torah, and
explained each matter by means of another matter similar to it. And he weighed [izen], and
sought out, and set in order many proverbs; Ulla said that Rabbi Eliezer said: At first the Torah
was like a basket without handles [oznayim] until Solomon came and made handles for it. And
as Rashi there explains: And thus were Israel able to grasp the mitzvot and distance themselves
from transgressions – just as a vessel with handles is easily held, etc.
Such things may be said of this beloved and eminent man, a great sage of Torah and of virtue.
And far more than he has done with the Oral Torah, he does with the Written Torah – teaching
the people knowledge. And beyond that, he also affixes handles to the Torah, i.e., to the Talmud,
which is obscure and difficult for many. Only the intellectual elite, which are a precious few,
and those who study in yeshiva, can today learn the Talmud and understand what it says – and
even though we have Rashi, still not everyone uses him. But now the great scholar Rabbi Adin
Steinsaltz ‫ שליט״א‬has come and affixed handles to the Torah, allowing the Talmud to be held
and studied, even by simple men. And he has composed a commentary alongside the text, a
fine commentary in clear, comprehensible language, “a word fitly spoken” with explanations
and illustrations, so that all those who seek to study the work of God can do so.
Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu
Former Chief Rabbi of Israel, 7 Tishrei 5754
This haskama refers to the original Hebrew edition of the steinsaltz Talmud, upon which this volume is based xi
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Message from Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz

The Talmud is the cornerstone of Jewish culture. True, our culture originated in the
Bible and has branched out in directions besides the Talmud, yet the latter’s influ-
ence on Jewish culture is fundamental. Perhaps because it was composed not by a
single individual, but rather by hundreds and thousands of Sages in batei midrash in
an ongoing, millennium-long process, the Talmud expresses the deepest themes and
values not only of the Jewish people, but also of the Jewish spirit. As the basic study
text for young and old, laymen and learned, the Talmud may be said to embody the
historical trajectory of the Jewish soul. It is, therefore, best studied interactively, its
subject matter coming together with the student’s questions, perplexities, and inno-
vations to form a single intricate weave. In the entire scope of Jewish culture, there
is not one area that does not draw from or converse with the Talmud. The study of
Talmud is thus the gate through which a Jew enters his life’s path.
The Koren Talmud Bavli seeks to render the Talmud accessible to the millions of Jews
whose mother tongue is English, allowing them to study it, approach it, and perhaps
even become one with it.
This project has been carried out and assisted by several people, all of whom have
worked tirelessly to turn this vision into an actual set of books to be studied. It is a
joyful duty to thank the many partners in this enterprise for their various contribu-
tions. Thanks to Koren Publishers Jerusalem, both for the publication of this set and
for the design of its very complex graphic layout. Thanks of a different sort are owed
to the Shefa Foundation and its director, Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel, for their
determination and persistence in setting this goal and reaching it. Many thanks to
the translators, editors, and proofreaders for their hard and meticulous work. Thanks
to the individuals and organizations that supported this project, chief among them
the Matanel Foundation and the Noé family of London. And thanks in advance to
all those who will invest their time, hearts, and minds in studying these volumes – to
learn, to teach, and to practice.
Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz
Jerusalem 5773

A Message from Rabbi Adin Even-israel Steinsaltz xiii

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Acknowledgments

We are indeed privileged to dedicate this edition of the Koren Talmud Bavli in honor
of the generous support of Leo and Sue Noé of London.
The name Noé is synonymous with philanthropy. The family’s charitable endeavors
span a vast range of educational projects, welfare institutions, and outreach
organizations across the globe, with a particular emphasis on the “nurturing of each
individual.” Among so many other charitable activities, the Noés have been deeply
involved with Kisharon, which provides the British Jewish community with vital
support for hundreds of people with learning difficulties and their families; they
provide steadfast support of SEED, which stands at the forefront of adult Jewish
education in the UK, and Kemach, an organization in Israel that “helps Haredi
students sustain themselves in dignity,” providing both professional and vocational
training for the Haredi community in Israel.
The Noés are not simply donors to institutions. They are partners. Donors think of a
sum. Partners think of a cause, becoming rigorously and keenly involved, and giving
of their time and energy. We are honored that they have chosen to partner with our
two organizations, the Steinsaltz Center and Koren Publishers Jerusalem, enabling
us to further and deepen learning among all Jews.
Leo and Sue are the proud parents and grandparents of five children and their
families. The next generation has been taught by example that with life’s gifts come
the responsibilities to be active within and contribute to society – both Jewish and
non-Jewish – as is consistent with the noblest of Jewish values.
Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz
Matthew Miller, Publisher
 Jerusalem 5773

xiv Acknowledgments
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Introduction by the Editor-in-Chief

The publication of tractate Ĥullin is another noteworthy achievement for the Koren
Talmud Bavli project. With this, the third tractate of Seder Kodashim, the Order of
Consecrated Items, we take yet another step toward our goal, the completion of a
new and unique translation of the Babylonian Talmud.
Presenting the English-speaking world with a translation that possesses all the
merits of the original Hebrew work by Rabbi Steinsaltz, the text provides assistance
for the beginner of any age who seeks to obtain the necessary skills to become an
adept talmudist. Beginning with Berakhot and continuing through Ĥullin, the team
has brought excellence to every aspect of the daunting task of translating Rabbi Adin
Even-Israel Steinsaltz’s masterful Hebrew translation of the Talmud into English.
Rabbi Steinsaltz’s work is much more than a mere translation. It includes a coher-
ent interpretation of the Mishna and the Gemara, and an expansion of the text that
provides an array of intriguing marginal notes. Rendering this masterpiece into
English called for talents that include biblical and talmudic scholarship, literary skills,
linguistic expertise, editorial acumen, graphic and visual creativity, and most of all,
teamwork and diligence. Congratulations to every member of the team are in order,
and celebration of our achievement is well deserved.
I’d like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the Almighty for giving
us the strength to persevere at this sacred task for the past several years. These years
have been difficult ones for the Jewish people, and especially for those of us who
dwell in Eretz Yisrael. But the difficulties have not diminished our ability to succeed
in our goals. For that we thank the Master of the Universe.
Students of tractate Ĥullin will be both informed and inspired. They will be informed
about almost every aspect of the prescribed Jewish diet, ranging from the process of
kosher slaughter of animals to the laws regarding the separation of meat from dairy.
They will be inspired by the many passages which guide our moral and ethical behav-
ior. As always, we consider our efforts successful if the reader comes away from the
text a better person, and not just a better-informed person. For it is our contention
that Talmud study fosters lifelong ethical development and a profound sensitivity
to the needs and concerns of other human beings.
We have now had the opportunity to survey hundreds of responses submitted by our
readers. Naturally, these include constructive criticism and reports of errors that are
inevitable in such an undertaking. We have system­atically preserved such responses
so that we can correct them in future editions. Indeed, we have already begun to
do so for the initial tractates in our series.
The most exciting result of our survey has been our discovery that “consumers” of
Koren Talmud Bavli are a remarkably diverse group. They range from beginners
who have never before been exposed to a blatt gemara, to accomplished scholars

Introduction by the Editor-in-Chief, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb xv

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

who have completed the study of the entire Talmud more than once. Beginners
find our work not only a helpful introduction to Talmud study, but an impetus to the
further study of rabbinic texts. Experienced scholars report that our work provides
them with unexpected insights and fresh perspectives that enhance their apprecia-
tion of texts with which they have long been acquainted.
Tractate Ĥullin, part II, is the thirty-eighth volume of the project. Like the preceding
volumes, it includes the entire original text, in the traditional configuration and pagi-
nation of the famed Vilna edition of the Talmud. This enables the student to follow
the core text with the commentaries of Rashi, Tosafot, and the customary marginalia.
It also provides a clear English translation in contemporary idiom, faithfully based
upon the modern Hebrew edition.
At least equal to the linguistic virtues of this edition are the qualities of its graphic
design. Rather than intimidate students by confronting them with a page-size block
of text, we have divided the page into smaller thematic units. Thus, readers can
focus their attention and absorb each discrete discussion before proceeding to the
next unit. The design of each page allows for sufficient white space to ease the visual
task of reading. The illustrations, one of the most innovative features of the Hebrew
edition, have been substantially enhanced and reproduced in color.
The end result is a literary and artistic masterpiece. This has been achieved through
the dedicated work of a large team of translators, headed by Rabbi Joshua Schreier;
the unparalleled creative efforts of the gifted staff at Koren; and the inspired and
impressive administrative skills of Rabbi Jason Rappoport, managing editor of
the Koren Talmud Bavli project.
It is an honor for me to acknowledge the role of Matthew Miller of Koren Publishers
Jerusalem in this historic achievement. Without him this work would never have
begun. Its success is attributable to his vision and supervision. I owe a great personal
debt to him for selecting me as editor-in-chief, and I am continually astounded by
his commitment to Jewish learning, the Jewish people, and the Jewish homeland.
The group of individuals who surround Rabbi Steinsaltz and support his work
deserve our thanks as well. I have come to appreciate their energy, initiative, and
persistence. And I thank the indefatigable Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel, whom
I cannot praise highly enough. The quality of his guidance and good counsel is
surpassed only by his commitment to the dissemination and perpetuation of his
father’s precious teachings.
Finally, in humility, awe, and great respect, I acknowledge Rabbi Adin Even-Israel
Steinsaltz. I thank him for the inspirational opportunity he has granted me to work
with one of the outstanding sages of our time.
Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb
Jerusalem 5778

xvi Introduction by the Editor-in-Chief, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Preface by the Executive Editor

The Koren Talmud Bavli is in the midst of its treatment of the fifth order of the Talmud,
Seder Kodashim, the Order of Consecrated Items, an order that deals primarily with
the sublime and the spiritual. As the Rambam wrote in his Guide of the Perplexed, it
is the spiritual that constitutes the ultimate form of worshipping God.
In the previous order, Seder Nezikin, the Order of Damages, the primary focus is on
actions and the ramifications of those actions, as they are manifest in the laws of
damages, labor relations, transactions, and the like. One’s intent is less significant,
as, for example, with regard to damages, the Sages stated (Sanhedrin 72a): One is
liable whether the damage was unintentional or intentional, whether by unavoidable
accident, or whether willingly.
In Kodashim, the primary focus is on intent. Clearly, there are actions that must be
performed; however, the effectiveness of those actions is dictated by the accompany-
ing intent. This is exemplified by the laws governing the sacrifice of animal offerings.
There are four sacrificial rites, which constitute the essence of the offering. They are:
Slaughter, collection of the blood, conveying the blood to the altar, and sprinkling
the blood on the altar. If during the performance of these rites one’s intent was to
consume the offering after its designated time, the offering is disqualified.
My involvement in the production of the Koren Talmud Bavli has been both a privi-
lege and a pleasure. The Steinsaltz Center, headed by Rabbi Menachem Even-Israel
and devoted to the dissemination of the wide-ranging, monumental works of Rabbi
Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, constitutes the Steinsaltz side of this partnership; Koren
Publishers Jerusalem, headed by Matthew Miller, constitutes the publishing side
of this partnership. The combination of the inspiration, which is the hallmark of
the Steinsaltz Center, with the creativity and professionalism for which Koren is
renowned and which I experience on a daily basis, has lent the Koren Talmud Bavli
its outstanding quality in terms of both content and form.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention the contribution of Raphaël Freeman, who
guided this project from its inception and is largely responsible for transforming
the content of the Steinsaltz Talmud into the aesthetic Koren Talmud Bavli that is
before you. He was succeeded by Dena Landowne Bailey, who facilitated a seam-
less transition and continued to ensure that the Koren Talmud Bavli lives up to the
lofty standards that are the hallmark of Koren Publishers. Beginning with tractate
Menaĥot, Tomi Mager has assumed responsibility for the layout. She has proven
herself a worthy successor to her predecessors in that role.

preface by the Executive editor xvii

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

I would like to express my appreciation for Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, the editor-
in-chief, whose insight and guidance have been invaluable. Rabbi Jason Rappoport,
the managing editor, has added professionalism to this project, systematizing the
work of the large staff, and it is thanks to him that the project is proceeding with
efficiency and excellence. Rabbi Dr. Joshua Amaru, the coordinating editor, oversees
the work of the translators and editors, and is largely responsible for ensuring the
consistently high quality of their work. The contribution of my friend and colleague,
Rabbi Dr. Shalom Z. Berger, the senior content editor, cannot be overstated; his
title does not begin to convey the excellent direction he has provided in all aspects
of this project.
The staff of copy editors, headed by Aliza Israel, with Ita Olesker as production coor-
dinator, pleasantly but firmly ensures that the finished product conforms to standards
and is consistently excellent. The erudite and articulate men and women who serve
as translators, editors, and copy editors generate the content that is ultimately the
raison d’être of the Koren Talmud Bavli.
I would also like to express appreciation for the invaluable contribution of the tech-
nical staff. Without them, the jobs of the entire staff of translators and editors would
be much more difficult. Thanks to Tani Bednarsh, Adena Frazer, Yaakov Shmidman,
Shaltiel Shmidman, and Nava Wieder.
Thanks to my former and present fellow occupants of the Koren beit midrash: Rabbi
David Fuchs, Rabbi Yinon Chen, Efrat Gross, and others. Their mere presence
creates an atmosphere conducive to the serious endeavor that we have undertaken
and their assistance in all matters, large and small, is appreciated.
At the risk of being repetitious, I would like to thank Rabbi Dr. Berger for intro­
ducing me to the world of Steinsaltz. Finally, I would like to thank Rabbi Menachem
Even-Israel, with whom it continues to be a pleasure to move forward in this great
enterprise.
Rabbi Joshua Schreier
Jerusalem 5778

xviii preface by the Executive editor

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Introduction by the Publisher

The Talmud has sustained and inspired Jews for thousands of years. Throughout
Jewish history, an elite cadre of scholars has absorbed its learning and passed it on
to succeeding generations. The Talmud has been the fundamental text of our people.
Beginning in the 1960s, Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz ‫ שליט״א‬created a revolu-
tion in the history of Talmud study. His translation of the Talmud, first into modern
Hebrew and then into other languages, as well the practical learning aids he added
to the text, have enabled millions of people around the world to access and master
the complexity and context of the world of Talmud.
It is thus a privilege to present the Koren Talmud Bavli, an English translation of
the talmudic text with the brilliant elucidation of Rabbi Steinsaltz. The depth and
breadth of his knowledge are unique in our time. His rootedness in the tradition and
his reach into the world beyond it are inspirational.
Working with Rabbi Steinsaltz on this remarkable project has been not only an honor,
but a great pleasure. Never shy to express an opinion, with wisdom and humor, Rabbi
Steinsaltz sparkles in conversation, demonstrating his knowledge (both sacred and
worldly), sharing his wide-ranging interests, and, above all, radiating his passion. I am
grateful for the unique opportunity to work closely with him, and I wish him many
more years of writing and teaching.
Our intentions in publishing this new edition of the Talmud are threefold. First, we
seek to fully clarify the talmudic page to the reader – textually, intellectually, and
graphically. Second, we seek to utilize today’s most sophisticated technologies, both
in print and electronic formats, to provide the reader with a comprehensive set of
study tools. And third, we seek to help readers advance in their process of Talmud
study.
To achieve these goals, the Koren Talmud Bavli is unique in a number of ways:
• The classic tzurat hadaf of Vilna, used by scholars since the 1800s, has been reset
for greater clarity, and opens from the Hebrew “front” of the book. Full nikkud
has been added to both the talmudic text and Rashi’s commentary, allowing
for a more fluent reading with the correct pronunciation; the commentaries of
Tosafot have been punctuated. Upon the advice of many English-speaking teach-
ers of Talmud, we have separated these core pages from the translation, thereby
enabling the advanced student to approach the text without the distraction of the
translation. This also reduces the number of volumes in the set. At the bottom
of each daf, there is a reference to the corresponding English pages. In addition,
the Vilna edition was read against other manuscripts and older print editions, so
that texts which had been removed by non-Jewish censors have been restored to
their rightful place.

Introduction by the publisher xix

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

• The English translation, which starts on the English “front” of the book, reproduces the menukad
Talmud text alongside the English translation (in bold) and commentary and explanation (in a
lighter font). The Hebrew and Aramaic text is presented in logical paragraphs. This allows for a
fluent reading of the text for the non-Hebrew or non-Aramaic reader. It also allows for the Hebrew
reader to refer easily to the text alongside. Where the original text features dialogue or poetry, the
English text is laid out in a manner appropriate to the genre. Each page refers to the relevant daf.
• Critical contextual tools surround the text and translation: personality notes, providing short
biographies of the Sages; language notes, explaining foreign terms borrowed from Greek, Latin,
Persian, or Arabic; and background notes, giving information essential to the understanding of
the text, including history, geography, botany, archaeology, zoology, astronomy, and aspects of
daily life in the talmudic era.
• Halakhic summaries provide references to the authoritative legal decisions made over the centu-
ries by the rabbis. They explain the reasons behind each halakhic decision as well as the ruling’s
close connection to the Talmud and its various interpreters.
• Photographs, drawings, and other illustrations have been added throughout the text – in full
color in the Standard and Electronic editions, and in black and white in the Daf Yomi edition –
to visually elucidate the text.
This is not an exhaustive list of features of this edition; it merely presents an overview for the
English-speaking reader who may not be familiar with the “total approach” to Talmud pioneered
by Rabbi Steinsaltz.
Several professionals have helped bring this vast collaborative project to fruition. My many col-
leagues are noted on the Acknowledgments page, and the leadership of this project has been
exceptional.
Rabbi Menachem Even-israel, Director of the steinsaltz center, was the driving
force behind this enterprise. With enthusiasm and energy, he formed the happy alliance with Koren
and established close relationships among all involved in the work.
Rabbi dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb ‫שליט״א‬, Editor-in-Chief, brought to this project his pro-
found knowledge of Torah, intellectual literacy of Talmud, and erudition of Western literature. It is
to him that the text owes its very high standard, both in form and content, and the logical manner
in which the beauty of the Talmud is presented.
Rabbi Joshua Schreier, Executive Editor, assembled an outstanding group of scholars,
translators, editors, and copy editors, whose standards and discipline enabled this project to proceed
in a timely and highly professional manner.
Rabbi Meir Hanegbi, Editor of the Hebrew Edition of the Steinsaltz Talmud,
lent his invaluable assistance throughout the work process, supervising the reproduction of the
Vilna pages.
Raphaël Freeman created this Talmud’s unique typographic design which, true to the Koren
approach, is both elegant and user-friendly.
It has been an enriching experience for all of us at Koren Publishers Jerusalem to work with the
Steinsaltz Center to develop and produce the Koren Talmud Bavli. We pray that this publication will
be a source of great learning and, ultimately, greater avodat Hashem for all Jews.
Matthew Miller, Publisher
Koren Publishers Jerusalem
Jerusalem 5773

xx Introduction by the publisher

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Introduction to Ḥullin

Tractate Ĥullin is part of the order of Kodashim, which is devoted almost in its entirety
to the numerous aspects of the halakhot of consecrated items, including the mitzvot
relating to the sacrifice of the various offerings, the manner in which offerings and
other items designated for the Temple are consecrated, the procedures in the Temple,
and the service performed therein. In contrast to the rest of the tractates in the order
of Kodashim, Ĥullin is devoted entirely to halakhot that relate to the non-sacred.
A significant portion of this tractate is dedicated to discussion of the slaughter of
non-sacred animals, rendering their meat fit for consumption, and the distinction
between food from living beings that is permitted and food from living beings that is
forbidden. In addition, the tractate addresses a series of mitzvot that relate to living
beings that lack the sanctity of sacrificial animals.
Although ostensibly the tractate addresses non-sacred matters exclusively, its place-
ment in the order of Kodashim is not by happenstance. Not only do all of these issues
relating to non-sacred matters have certain aspects that are parallel or similar to the
halakhot of sacrificial animals, but their details also share characteristics with those of
consecrated items. For example, the slaughter of non-sacred animals does not stand
alone as a series of technical halakhot; rather, implicitly or explicitly, it is influenced
by the halakhot relating to sacrificial animals. Concerning the slaughter of sacrificial
animals, and likewise the slaughter of non-sacred animals, the tractate delineates
the people fit to perform slaughter, with special attention given to the intent of the
slaughterer. In general, most of the definitions and halakhot relate to mundane mat-
ters, but they all relate in some manner to sacrificial concepts.
In a more general sense, this is true with regard to all of the halakhot in the Torah.
Even the most mundane halakhot, such as those relating to monetary law, which
ostensibly deal with practical ordinances governing commerce, nevertheless contain
an element of sanctity.
Furthermore, not only do the mitzvot in the Torah affect every detail of life, they
infuse each of those details with a uniqueness that underscores the idea that non-
sacred does not mean completely secular but also indicates an element of sanctity.
This is true of monetary matters, of marital life, and in particular of matters relating
to food. These halakhot, as they relate to food that grows from the ground and all
parts of the world of flora that mankind utilizes, constitute the topics covered in the
order of Zera’im; the elements to which these halakhot apply are thereby imbued with
various forms of sanctity. Tractate Ĥullin addresses matters from the world of fauna.
That the concept of non-sacred indicates an element of sanctity is already manifest in
the language of the Torah, as in every place in the Torah where the kosher and non-
kosher animals are enumerated, their mention is linked to the concept of sanctity:
“Sanctify yourselves, and you will be holy” (Leviticus 11:44); “For you are a holy
1
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

people unto the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:21). The lesson is that these hal-
akhot are components of the structure of sanctity, meaning that the manifestation
of sanctity and sanctification is not limited to the service performed in the Temple.
Rather, even in life outside the Temple there is a certain aspect of sanctity, and the
status of the entire Jewish people is that of attendants of sanctity. That is the reason
the halakhot of slaughter and the halakhot of animals with a wound that will cause
them to die within twelve months [tereifot], which constitute a central portion of
this tractate, are structurally similar to the sacrificial service performed in the Temple.
Obviously, actions performed in the Temple possess a more fixed ceremonial frame-
work. With regard to non-sacred animals, this structure is maintained, although it
is less ceremonial and its framework broader. For example, blemished animals may
neither be sacrificed nor eaten in the Temple, and tereifot are forbidden to all. The
conditions that render an animal a tereifa parallel the blemishes that disqualify a sac-
rificial animal; in both cases, the afflicted animal is deemed not fit for the holy people.
In a sense, tractate Ĥullin, with the various topics addressed therein, does not deal
with true non-sacred matters but with matters of sanctity. The various prohibitions
in this tractate have no obvious utility to people; rather, they are in essence arrays
of halakhot relating to sanctity, which governs the lives of the sacred nation even
outside of their most sacred space, the Temple. It is prohibited to consume, and in
some cases even to derive benefit from, certain items, but these items are not intrinsi-
cally abhorrent. Whether their halakhic status is characterized as not valid, ritually
impure, or forbidden in benefit, that is the case only vis-à-vis the conduct and lives
of the Jewish people.
All of the prohibitions addressed in tractate Ĥullin, which relate primarily to the meat
of living beings, are based on another essential concept, which is not explicit in the
Torah, although it does inform those prohibitions, and there are biblical allusions to
it in the language of the Torah in several places. The idea is that the very permission
granted people to kill living beings and utilize them was not part of the original plan
in the creation of humans (see Genesis 1:29). Although the Torah permitted slaughter
and consumption of living beings, this was a mere allowance, and was not meant to
be employed liberally. Therefore, there are numerous restrictions and guidelines
governing how living beings are killed and how the meat and the limbs are treated
thereafter. All these indicate that although living beings were permitted to people “as
the green grass” (Genesis 9:3), there is a special obligation to take into consideration
that they are living beings.
Most of the halakhot addressed in this tractate are directly or indirectly related to the
halakhot of slaughter. That is why in early generations the tractate was called Sheĥitat
Ĥullin, the slaughter of non-sacred animals, in contrast to tractate Zevaĥim, which
was called Sheĥitat Kodashim, the slaughter of sacrificial animals. Nevertheless, in
the course of analyzing certain halakhot related to slaughter, the tractate provides a
broad treatment of topics that go beyond its purview. One topic is the halakhot of
mixtures; tractate Ĥullin is one of the primary sources for numerous fundamental
halakhot in that area. Similarly, there is a series of discussions primarily devoted to
matters related to the order of Teharot, which addresses matters of ritual impurity,
especially the halakhot of the impurity of foods.
Tractate Ĥullin contains significant derivations taken from halakhic midrash, with
regard to both those halakhot that are the primary focus of this tractate and other
associated topics. Although Ĥullin also contains certain aggadic segments, they do
not comprise a significant portion of the tractate.
2

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

In tractate Ĥullin there are twelve chapters, the last eight of which appear in this
volume. Most of the chapters are self-contained, with each chapter addressing one
or more clearly defined topics.
Chapter Five focuses on the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its
offspring on the same day.
Chapter Six discusses the mitzva by Torah law to cover the blood of undomesticated
animals and birds but not the blood of domesticated animals. The details of the
mitzva are also established, namely, how, when, and with what material one covers
the blood.
Chapter Seven explores the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve of an animal.
A comprehensive discussion develops concerning the halakhot of permitted and
forbidden mixtures.
Chapter Eight deals primarily with the prohibition against eating meat and milk
together. The analysis expands into a fundamental discussion of the halakhot of
mixtures and the cooking of forbidden and permitted food items together, how the
mixtures are rendered prohibited, and in which cases a prohibited item is nullified
in a mixture with permitted items.
Chapter Nine focuses on the halakhic status of the various components of the ani-
mal. When is their status that of meat in terms of both their ritual impurity and the
prohibition against consuming them, and when is their status distinct and unlike
that of meat?
Chapter Ten discusses the obligation to give the priests a gift of the foreleg, the jaw,
and the maw from every non-sacred animal that is slaughtered.
Chapter Eleven deals with a single biblical mitzva: The obligation to give the priests
a non-sacred gift of the first fleece shorn from one’s sheep.
Chapter Twelve examines the mitzva by Torah law to release the mother bird from
the nest when taking her chicks or eggs, which is a mitzva that applies exclusively to
non-sacred birds.

3
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

And whether it be a bull or a sheep, you shall not

slaughter it and its offspring both in one day.
(Leviticus 22:28) Introduction to
Perek V

After addressing the halakhot of slaughter and the primary prohibitions relevant to
it, beginning with this chapter the mishna and Gemara discuss various halakhot that
are associated with slaughter but are independent mitzvot.
The topic of this chapter is the prohibition against slaughtering a cow or a sheep
together with its offspring on the same day. Although the basics of this mitzva are
given in the Torah, several aspects require further elucidation.
One point requiring clarification is the definition of the prohibition of: Itself and its
offspring. The phrase used in the verse: “It and its offspring [oto ve’et beno],” is writ-
ten in the masculine form. Does this mean that only the slaughter of a male animal
and its son is prohibited, or does the relationship of parent and offspring define the
prohibition, in which case it still applies if one or both of the animals are female?
Additionally, might there be a distinction between a case where both the parent and
the offspring are the same species and a case where the offspring is a different species
from the parent due to crossbreeding?
Another question that arises relates to the order of slaughtering: Does the phrase
used in the verse, “it and its offspring,” mean that the prohibition applies only if the
parent is slaughtered first, or does it apply as well when the offspring is slaughtered
first?
The meaning of the term “one day” must also be clarified. Does it refer to a twenty-
four-hour period, or simply to a calendar day? Additionally, does the day follow the
night in this case, or does the night follow the day?
The phrase “you shall not slaughter” also raises questions. Does it mean that specifi-
cally slaughtering the two animals on the same day is prohibited, or does any manner
of killing them violate this prohibition? Furthermore, does the use of the plural
form “You shall not slaughter [lo tishĥatu]” indicate that the prohibition applies
even where the two animals are slaughtered by two different individuals, or does it
apply only when both are slaughtered by the same person? If it applies even when
a different person slaughters the second animal, is the one who slaughters the first
animal required to inform others who want to slaughter the second animal that day?
In addition to the importance of properly understanding these halakhot, the resolu-
tion of many of these questions may be of practical importance to those who pur-
chase animals for slaughter. Alternatively, perhaps the seller must warn the buyer in
situations where the prohibition could potentially be violated.
These questions, and a few general topics related to them, are the focus of this chapter.

5
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek V
Daf 78 Amud a

‫נֹוהג ֵ ּבין ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬ֵ ‫מתני׳ אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬

‫ ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת וְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬,‫ֵ ּבין ְ ּבחוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ‬
mishna The prohibition against slaughtering an ani-
mal itself and its offspringnh applies both
halakha
Itself and its offspring – ‫אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬: The prohibition
against slaughtering an animal and its offspring applies at
in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, both in the presence, all times and in all locations, to non-sacred animals as well
.‫ ְ ּבחו ִּּלין ו ְּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬,‫ ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬i.e., the time, of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple,
as to sacrificial animals, and to those sacrificial animals that
and it applies with regard to non-sacred animals and with regard are eaten and those that are not. Therefore, whether one
to sacrificial animals. slaughtered the first animal in the Temple courtyard and
the second animal outside of it, or the first animal outside
‫ חו ִּּלין‬,‫ֹוחט אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬
ֵ ‫ ֵּכיצַ ד? ַה ׁ ּש‬How so? In the case of one who slaughters an animal itself and the Temple courtyard and the second in it, and whether
‫סֹופג‬ ּ ֶ ‫ ַ ּבחוּץ – ׁ ְש‬its offspring, both of which are non-sacred, and slaughters them
ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ֵשנִי‬,‫נֵיהם ְּכ ׁ ֵש ִרים‬ both were non-sacred animals or both sacrificial animals,
outside the Temple courtyard, both of the animals are fitn for con- or one was non-sacred and the other sacrificial, for the
.‫ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ slaughter of the second animal one incurs the forty lashes
sumption, but for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs
for the violation of the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring
[sofeg]l the forty lashes for violating the prohibition: “You shall not (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:2).
slaughter it and its offspring both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28).
language
,‫אשֹון ַחּיָ יב ָּכ ֵרת‬ׁ ‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַ ּבחוּץ – ָה ִר‬If both animals were sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the
Incurs [sofeg] – ‫סֹופג‬:
ֵ The source of this word is the Hebrew
‫סֹופגִ ים ֶאת‬
ְ ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש‬Temple courtyard, then for slaughtering the first animal, one is
ֶ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש‬,‫נֵיהם ּ ְפסו ִּלים‬ word for sponge [sefog], which is derived from the Greek
liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet].b For
.‫ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ word σπόγγος, spongos, which has the meaning of absorp-
slaughtering the second animal one is not liable to receive karet. The tion or drawing out. Consequently, the meaning of the
second animal was not fit for sacrifice, since one may not slaughter root samekh, peh, gimmel was broadened to include any
an animal and its offspring on the same day. And both animals are type of absorption or drawing out, whether relating to
disqualified for use as offerings, and for the slaughter of both of money or other matters, e.g., incurring lashes, meaning
them, one incurs forty lashes apiece: The first being a sacrificial that the person is absorbing the lashes. In the Arukh an
animal slaughtered outside the courtyard and the second being the opinion appears connecting the usage in relation to lashes
to the word clapping [sofek], as the letters kuf and gimmel
offspring of an animal slaughtered that day.
can occasionally be used interchangeably, since one who
receives lashes can be considered as if he were clapped
ֶ ‫חו ִּּלין ִ ּב ְפנִים – ׁ ְש‬
‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬,‫נֵיהם ּ ְפסו ִּלין‬ If both animals were non-sacred and slaughtered inside the Temple
on his body.
– ‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ִ ּב ְפנִים‬.‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ֵ courtyard, both of them are unfitn to be sacrificed, being non-
sacred animals slaughtered in the courtyard. And for slaughter of
‫סֹופג ֶאת‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬,‫אשֹון ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ו ָּפטוּר‬
ׁ ‫ָה ִר‬ background
the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for slaughtering an
.‫ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ו ָּפסוּל‬ animal and its offspring on a single day. If both animals were sacri- Karet – ‫כ ֵרת‬:ָּ The word karet refers to a divine punishment
for serious transgressions. The precise definition of the
ficial animals slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, the first is term is a matter of dispute among the commentaries, with
fit for sacrifice, and one who slaughters it is exempt from any pun- opinions including premature or sudden death, barrenness
ishment. But for slaughter of the second animal, one incurs the or the death of the sinner’s children, and excision of the
forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single soul from the World-to-Come. Tractate Keritut lists thirty-
day, and it is unfit for sacrifice, because one was not allowed to six transgressions punishable with karet, all of which are
slaughter it on that day. violations of prohibitions, with two exceptions: Neglect-
ing to sacrifice the Paschal offering and failure to perform
circumcision. Karet applies only to one who intentionally
commits the transgression. One who inadvertantly com-
mits the transgression is not subject to karet, but brings
a sin offering as atonement. In addition, even with regard
to an intentional transgression, if it was committed in the
presence of witnesses, the transgressor is subject to execu-
notes tion by an earthly court or to receive lashes, rather than
Itself and its offspring – ‫אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬: This name for the prohibi- second animal should not be considered kosher slaughter, but receiving karet.
tion derives from the phraseology of the verse: “And whether it rather ordinary killing. In any event, Halakhot Gedolot writes that
be a bull or a sheep, you shall not slaughter it and its offspring the second animal, whose slaughter was prohibited, may not be
both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28. The verse indicates that the eaten on that very day. The early commentaries write that this
prohibition applies only to a kosher domesticated animal, and is a penalty, similar to the prohibition against deriving benefit
not to an undomesticated animal or a bird. It is accepted that from items prepared on Shabbat (Ramban).
the prohibition applies regardless of whether the parent or the
offspring is slaughtered first, and that the term “its offspring,”
which could also be translated as: Its son, refers both to male If both were non-sacred and slaughtered inside the Temple
and to female offspring. The tanna’im disagree whether the term ֶ ‫חו ִּּלין ִ ּב ְפנִים ׁ ְש‬:
courtyard both of them are unfit – ‫נֵיהם ּ ְפסו ִּלין‬
“it” refers specifically to the mother or also to the father, as is This means that they are disqualified from being sacrificed.
discussed on 78b. It is also explained on 82a that this prohibition Moreover, it is also prohibited to derive benefit from them or
applies even if two people each slaughter one of the animals, consume them, due to the prohibition against slaughtering
so that if one slaughters a mother animal, its offspring may not non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard (Temura 33b; see
be slaughtered that day by anyone. Kiddushin 57b). Only the slaughterer of the second animal incurs
the forty lashes for the violation of the prohibition of: Itself and
Both of them are fit – ‫נֵיהם ְּכ ׁ ֵש ִרים‬
ֶ ‫ש‬:ְ ׁ Tosafot (80a) explain that its offspring, and no one is flogged for slaughtering non-sacred
this halakha had to be taught explicitly, since one might have animals in the Temple courtyard. This is because it is a prohibi-
thought that it is prohibited to consume the second animal that tion that stems from a positive mitzva, as the verse states: “If
was slaughtered, as the Gemara (114b) derives from the verse: the place that the Lord…shall choose…be too far from you,
“You shall not eat anything abominable” (Deuteronomy 14:3), that then you shall slaughter…” (Deuteronomy 12:21), from which is
it is prohibited to consume any item declared abominable (see inferred that one may slaughter non-sacred animals in a place
115a). Rabbi Akiva Eiger writes that one might have thought that far away from God’s Temple, not in a nearby place (Kiddushin
when one performs an action that the Torah prohibits doing, the 57b), and one does not incur lashes for the violation of a posi-
action is not halakhically effective. Therefore, slaughtering the tive mitzva.

 ‫חע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 78a 7

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

ׁ ‫ חו ִּּלין וְ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַ ּבחוּץ – ָה ִר‬If the first animal was non-sacred and the second a sacrificial
,‫אשֹון ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ו ָּפטוּר‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬animal, and both were slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard,
.‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ו ָּפסוּל‬
the first is fit for consumption and one who slaughters it is
exempt from any punishment. But for slaughtering the second
animal, one incurs the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and
its offspring on a single day, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice.

ׁ ‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים וְ חו ִּּלין ַ ּבחוּץ – ָה ִר‬If the first animal was a sacrificial animal and the second was
‫אשֹון ַחּיָ יב ָּכ ֵרת‬
‫סֹופגִ ים ֶאת‬ ְ ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש‬,‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬,‫ ו ָּפסוּל‬non-sacred and both were slaughtered outside the Temple court-
yard, for the first animal, one is liable to receive karet for slaugh-
.‫ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬
tering a sacrificial animal outside the courtyard, and the animal is
unfit for sacrifice. And the second is fit for consumption; and
for the slaughter of both of them one incurs forty lashes apiece:
The first being a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the court-
yard and the second being the offspring of an animal slaughtered
that day.

,‫נֵיהם ּ ְפסו ִּלין‬ ֶ ‫חו ִּּלין וְ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ִ ּב ְפנִים – ׁ ְש‬ If the first animal was non-sacred and the second was a sacrificial
‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים וְ חו ִּּלין‬.‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬
ֵ ‫וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ animal and both were slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard,
both of them are unfit for sacrifice. And for slaughtering the
ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬,‫אשֹון ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ו ָּפטוּר‬
‫סֹופג‬ ׁ ‫ִ ּב ְפנִים – ָה ִר‬
second animal, one incurs the forty lashes. If the first animal was
.‫ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ו ָּפסוּל‬ a sacrificial animal and the second was non-sacred and both were
slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for sacri-
fice and one who slaughters it is exempt from any punishment.
And for slaughtering the second animal, one incurs the forty
lashes, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice, as it is non-sacred.

ׁ ‫ חו ִּּלין ַ ּבחוּץ ו ִּב ְפנִים – ָה ִר‬If both animals were non-sacred, and one slaughters them, the
,‫אשֹון ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ו ָּפטוּר‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside the
.‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ו ָּפסוּל‬
Temple courtyard, the first is fit for consumption and one who
slaughters it is exempt from any punishment. And for slaughter-
ing the second animal, one incurs the forty lashes for slaughter-
ing an animal and its offspring on a single day, and the animal is
unfit for sacrifice as it is non-sacred.

,‫אשֹון ַחּיָ יב ָּכ ֵרת‬

ׁ ‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַ ּבחוּץ ו ִּב ְפנִים – ָה ִר‬If both animals were sacrificial animals, and one slaughters them,
‫נֵיהם‬
ֶ ‫ ּו ׁ ְש‬,‫סֹופגִ ים ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ְ ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ ּו ׁ ְש‬the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside the
Temple courtyard, for slaughtering the first animal one is liable
.‫ּ ְפסו ִּלים‬
to receive karet, and for slaughtering both of them one incurs
forty lashes apiece. One set of lashes is given because the first was
a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the courtyard, and the
second set of lashes is given because the second animal is the
offspring of an animal slaughtered that day. And both of them are
unfit for sacrifice.

,‫אשֹון ּ ָפסוּל ו ָּפטוּר‬ ׁ ‫חו ִּּלין ִ ּב ְפנִים ו ַּבחוּץ – ָה ִר‬ If both animals were non-sacred, and one slaughters them, the
‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬.‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים וְ ָכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬ first inside the Temple courtyard and the second outside the
Temple courtyard, the first is unfit for sacrifice, as it is non-sacred,
‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬,‫אשֹון ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ו ָּפטוּר‬
ׁ ‫ִ ּב ְפנִים ו ַּבחוּץ – ָה ִר‬
and the one who slaughters it is exempt. And for the second, one
.‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ו ָּפסוּל‬ֵ incurs the forty lashes and the animal is fit for consumption. If
both animals were sacrificial animals, and one slaughters them,
the first inside the Temple courtyard and the second outside the
Temple courtyard, the first is fit for sacrifice and one who slaugh-
ters it is exempt. And for the second animal, one incurs the forty
lashes, and the animal is unfit for sacrifice because its requisite
time has not yet arrived.

ֵ ּ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְלאֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשנ‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬

‫ֹוהג‬
‫״שֹור אֹו ֶכ ֶ ׂשב אֹו‬ ׁ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ְ ּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין? ַּת ְלמוּד‬
gemara The Sages taught in a baraita: From
where is it derived that the prohibition
against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring in a single
‫ ״וְ ׁשֹור אֹו ֶ ׂשה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ַ ּב ְת ֵר‬,‫ֵעז ִּכי יִ ָּו ֵלד״‬ day applies to sacrificial animals? It is derived from a verse, as
– ‫אֹתֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ֲחט ּו ְ ּביֹום ֶא ָחד״‬ the verse states: “When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat, is born…
.‫ֹוהג ְ ּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬
ֵ ּ‫ימד ַעל אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשנ‬ ֵּ ‫ִל‬ but from the eighth day and forward it may be accepted for an
offering…to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:27), and it is written in the
following verse: “And whether it be a bull or a sheep, you shall
not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day.” The juxtaposi-
tion of the verses teaches with regard to the prohibition against
slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring that it applies to
sacrificial animals as well.
8 Ĥullin . perek V . 78a . ‫ףד‬ ‫חע‬. ‫׳ה קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
!‫ ְ ּבחו ִּּלין ָלא‬,‫ ְ ּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ִאין‬:‫ימא‬ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara challenges: But since this prohibition is taught in the
Koy – ‫כֹוי‬:ּ Many problems arise in trying to identify the koy.
.‫ ׁשֹור ִה ְפ ִסיק ָה ִענְיָ ן‬context of other halakhot of consecrated animals, perhaps I will say: It is mentioned numerous times in the Mishna and the
Yes, it applies to sacrificial animals, but it does not apply to non- Gemara, not because it is a common animal, but rather
sacred animals. The Gemara explains: The repetitive phrase “and because it is useful in discussions that explore the limits of
whether it be a bull or a sheep” in the second verse, when those the halakhot of domesticated animals versus undomesti-
types of animals, i.e., bulls and sheep, were already mentioned in cated animals. As early as the mishnaic period, the Sages
the first verse, interrupted the topic, clarifying that the second disagreed with regard to the identification of the koy. Some
verse is not referring to sacrificial animals. maintain that it is a hybrid born to a goat and a deer or
another kosher wild animal.
!‫ ְ ּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ָלא‬,‫ ְ ּבחו ִּּלין ִאין‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara challenges: But if so, I will say: Yes, the prohibition According to many researchers, the koy is identified as
the water buffalo. There are allusions to this identification in
ִ ‫ ״וְ ׁשֹור״ – וָ י״ו‬:‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬applies to non-sacred animals, but it does not apply to sacrificial
‫מֹוסיף ַעל ִענְ יָ ן‬ some medieval rabbinic sources. Others reject this idea and
animals. The Gemara explains: Since in that verse it is written: “And
.‫אשֹון‬
ׁ ‫ִר‬ claim that water buffalo did not live in Eretz Yisrael during
whether it be a bull…you shall not slaughter it and its offspring,” the time of the Mishna, when the koy was first mentioned.
the conjunction “and” adds the prohibition stated in the second Others maintain that the koy is the mouflon, a subspecies
verse to the first matter, including sacrificial animals as well. of wild sheep, though there are a number of opinions as to
the specific subspecies of mouflon it may be. There is also
‫ ַאף אֹותֹו‬,‫ ַמה ָ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים – ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם ָלא‬,‫ ִאי‬The Gemara challenges: If this prohibition also applies to sacrificial uncertainty with regard to both the origin of the term koy
:‫ וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו – ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם ָלא! ַא ָּל ָּמה ַּתנְיָא‬animals, perhaps just as with regard to sacrificial animals, the off- and its proper vocalization.
spring of diverse kinds is not included, e.g., the offspring of a ewe
?‫נֹוהג ְ ּב ִכ ְל ַאיִ ם ו ְּבכֹוי‬
ֵ ‫אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬
and a goat is unfit to be an offering, so too with regard to the prohibi-
tion of: A mother and its offspring, the offspring of diverse kinds
should not be included, so that in the case of the offspring of a ewe
and a goat, it would be permitted to slaughter the mother and off-
spring on the same day. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita (see
Tosefta 5:1): The prohibition of: A mother and its offspring, applies
to the offspring of diverse kinds and to a koy,b a kosher animal with
characteristics of both domesticated and undomesticated animals?

:‫״שה״ ְּכ ִתיב; וַ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬

ׂ ֶ ,‫ וְ עֹוד‬And additionally, why should the prohibition of: A mother and its
offspring, apply to the offspring of diverse kinds? “A sheep,” is
Water buffalo
written in the verse with regard to that prohibition, and Rava said

Mouflon

Perek V
Daf 78 Amud b
notes
– ‫״שה״‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ָּכל ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬:‫ זֶ ה ָ ּבנָ ה ָאב‬concerning the verse: “These are the animals that you may eat: An
This verse establishes a paradigm – ‫זֶ ה ָ ּבנָ ה ָאב‬: Rashi
‫ ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ְלהֹוצִ יא ֶאת ַה ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם! ָא ַמר‬ox, a seh of sheep, and a seh of goats” (Deuteronomy 14:4), that this explains that the paradigm that the word seh must mean
verse establishes a paradigmn for other cases: Wherever the word
.‫ ״אֹו״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם‬:‫ְק ָרא‬ an animal that is purely a sheep or purely a goat, but not
seh is stated in the Torah, it serves only to exclude an animal of any animal of mixed breed, is derived from the verse: “A
diverse kinds. The Hebrew word seh denotes either a sheep or a seh of sheep, and a seh of goats” (Deuteronomy 14:4), since
goat. The offspring of diverse kinds, which is neither a sheep nor a it is not phrased: The seh of the sheep or the goats. Other
goat, does not qualify as a seh. The Gemara answers that with regard early commentaries explain that the paradigm is derived
to a mother and its offspring, the verse states: “Whether it be a bull from the verse with regard to the Paschal offering: “An
unblemished seh…from the sheep, or from the goats, shall
or a sheep” (Leviticus 22:28), and the “or” is superfluous there and
you take” (Exodus 12:5), which indicates that a seh is bred
serves to include the offspring of diverse kinds. either from the sheep or from the goats, but it is not of a
mixed breed (see Tosafot, Tosefot HaRosh, and Ran).
‫יה ְל ַח ֵּלק; דְּ ָס ְל ָקא‬
ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ּ ָ ‫ַהאי ״אֹו״ ִמ‬ The Gemara challenges: This word “or” is necessary to separate
,‫ ַעד דְּ ׁ ָש ֵחיט ׁשֹור ו ְּבנֹו‬:‫ַד ְע ָּתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬ the prohibitions, as it might enter your mind to say: One is not
liable unless he slaughters both a bull and its offspring and a
!‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫יחּיַ יב‬ַ ‫ֶ ׂשה ו ְּבנֹו – ָלא ִמ‬
sheep and its offspring in a single day. Therefore, the word “or”
.‫״בנֹו״ נָ ְפ ָקא‬ ּ ְ ‫ְל ַח ֵּלק – ִמ‬ teaches us that one is liable for slaughtering either type of animal
with its offspring. The Gemara responds: Separating the prohibi-
tions is derived from the use of the words “its offspring” instead
of their offspring.
 ‫חע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 78b 9
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ִאילּ ּו נֶ ֱא ַמר‬:‫יה ְל ִכ ְד ַתנְיָא‬ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬

ּ ָ ‫וְ ַא ַּכ ֵּתי ִמ‬ The Gemara challenges: But the word “or” is still necessary for that
‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ׁ ְשחֹוט‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ָהיִ ִיתי‬,‫״שֹור וְ ֶ ׂשה ו ְּבנֹו״‬ ׁ which is taught in a baraita: If it were stated: A bull, and a sheep,
and its offspring you shall not slaughter in one day, I would say:
‫״שֹור אֹו ֶ ׂשה‬ ׁ :‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫ׁשֹור וְ ֶ ׂשה ו ְּבנֹו – ַּת ְלמוּד‬
One is not liable unless he slaughters a bull, and a sheep, and the
‫אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו״; ַמאי ָלאו ֵמ״אֹו״ נָ ְפ ָקא‬ offspring of one of them in a single day. Therefore, the verse states:
.‫ ֵמ״אֹותֹו״‬,‫יה? ָלא‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ “A bull or a sheep…it and its offspring” (Leviticus 22:28), to teach
that one is liable even for slaughtering either of them and its off-
spring. What, is it not from the word “or” that the baraita derives
this halakha? The Gemara responds: No, it is derived from the word
“it,” and the offspring of diverse kinds are included in the prohibition
due to the word “or.”

‫יתר ְלה ּו ״אֹותֹו״; ֶא ָּלא‬ ַּ ַ‫ דִּ ְמי‬,‫נִיחא ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the opinion of
‫ ְל ַח ֵּלק‬,‫יה ״אֹותֹו״‬ּ ‫יתר ֵל‬ ַּ ַ‫ דְּ ָלא ְמי‬,‫ַל ֲחנַ נְיָה‬ the Rabbis, cited further in the discussion, for whom the word “it”
is superfluous and can be used for this derivation, leaving the word
ְ ‫יה? ְל ַח ֵּלק ָלא צְ ִר‬
‫ דְּ ָס ַבר‬,‫יך ְק ָרא‬ ּ ‫ְמנָ א ֵל‬
“or” available to include the offspring of diverse kinds; but according
.‫ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן‬ to the opinion of Ĥananya, for whom the word “it” is not superflu-
ous, from where does he derive that one is to separate into two
prohibitions slaughtering either a bull with its offspring or a sheep
with its offspring? The Gemara answers that there is no need for a
verse to separate them into two prohibitions, as Ĥananya holds in
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan.

‫״א ׁיש ֲא ׁ ֶשר יְ ַק ֵּלל ֶאת ָא ִביו וְ ֶאת‬ ִ :‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ As it is taught in a baraita: From the verse: “A man who curses his
‫ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ָא ִביו וְ ִא ּמֹו; ָא ִביו ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬,‫ִא ּמֹו״‬ father and his mother shall die” (Leviticus 20:9), I have derived
only that one is liable if he curses both his father and his mother.
ַ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן? ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫ וְ ִא ּמֹו ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָא ִביו‬,‫ִא ּמֹו‬
:‫לֹומר‬
From where do I derive that if one curses his father but not his
,‫ ִא ּמֹו ִק ֵּלל‬,‫״א ִביו וְ ִא ּמֹו ִק ֵּלל״ – ָא ִביו ִק ֵּלל‬ ָ mother, or his mother but not his father, he is liable? The continu-
.‫ֹאשּיָ ה‬
ִ ׁ ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי י‬ ation of the verse states: “His father and his mother he has cursed,
his blood is upon him.” In the first part of the verse, the word “curses”
is in proximity to “his father,” and in the last part of the verse, “cursed”
is in proximity to “his mother.” This teaches that the verse is referring
to both a case where he cursed only his father and a case where he
cursed only his mother; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.
Rabbi Yoshiya maintains that conjunctions are interpreted strictly
unless the verse indicates otherwise.

,‫נֵיהם ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬ ֶ ‫ ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ׁ ְש‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן‬Rabbi Yonatan says: There is no need for this derivation, because
ָ‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְפרֹוט ְלך‬,‫ ו ַּמ ׁ ְש ַמע ֶא ָחד ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ מֹו‬the phrase “his father and his mother” indicates that one is liable if
he curses both of them together, and it also indicates that he is
.‫ַה ָּכתוּב ״יַ ְחדָּ ו״‬
liable if he curses either one of them on their own, unless the verse
specifies that one is liable only if he curses both together. An exam-
ple of a verse where the Torah specifies that the halakha applies only
to the two elements in conjunction is: “You shall not plow with an
ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10). According to
Rabbi Yonatan, had the verse stated with regard to a mother and its
offspring: A bull and a sheep, and not: A bull or a sheep, one would
still be liable for slaughtering each with its own offspring indepen-
dently. Therefore, the word “or” is superfluous, and is utilized by
Ĥananya, who agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, to include
the offspring of diverse kinds in this prohibition.

‫ אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת‬:‫ ַמאי ֲחנַ נְיָה ו ַּמאי ַר ָ ּבנַן? דְּ ַתנְיָא‬The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of Ĥananya, and what is the
‫ ֲחנַ נְיָה‬,‫נֹוהג ִ ּבזְ ָכ ִרים‬
ֵ ‫נֹוהג ִ ּב ֵנְקבֹות וְ ֵאינֹו‬ֵ ‫ ְ ּבנֹו‬opinion of the Rabbis that were mentioned earlier? Their opinions
are elucidated as it is taught in a baraita: Despite the fact that the
.‫נֹוהג ֵ ּבין ִ ּבזְ ָכ ִרים ו ֵּבין ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות‬
ֵ :‫אֹומר‬
ֵ
verse is written in the masculine form, the prohibition against slaugh-
tering itself and its offspring in a single day applies to females, i.e.,
to a mother and its offspring, but it does not apply to males,h i.e., a
male animal and its offspring. Ĥananya says: It applies both to
males and to females.

halakha
The prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring slaughter it and its offspring in a single day, but if one slaughtered
in a single day applies to females but does not apply to males – them, he is not flogged, as it is uncertain whether this prohibition
‫נֹוהג ִ ּבזְ ָכ ִרים‬
ֵ ‫נֹוהג ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות וְ ֵאינֹו‬
ֵ ‫אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬: The prohibition against applies to the male parent. This is in accordance with the opinion
slaughtering an animal and its offspring in a single day applies to of Rav Yehuda on 79a (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:11,
females alone, since the mother’s identity is known with certainty. and Haggahot Maimoniyyot and Kesef Mishne there; Shulĥan Arukh,
When the father’s identity is known with certainty, one may not Yoreh De’a 16:2).

10 Ĥullin . perek V . 78b . ‫ףד‬ ‫חע‬: ‫׳ה קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ יָ כֹול יְ ֵהא אֹותֹו‬:‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן? דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, i.e., the
first tanna? Their reasoning is as it is taught in a baraita: One might Mother bird with its chicks – ‫אם ַעל ַה ָ ּבנִים‬:
ֵ There is
?‫נֹוהג ֵ ּבין ִ ּבזְ ָכ ִרים ו ֵּבין ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות‬ֵ ‫וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬ a mitzva in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:6–7) that one
have thought that the prohibition against slaughtering a mother
;‫ וְ ִחּיֵ יב ְ ּב ֵאם ַעל ַה ָ ּבנִים‬,‫ ִחּיֵ יב ָּכאן‬:‫וְ ִדין הוּא‬ who finds a nest in which a mother bird is sitting on
and its offspring would apply both to males and to females. But her eggs or with her fledglings must dispatch the
‫ַמה ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִחּיֵ יב ְ ּב ֵאם ַעל ַה ָ ּבנִים – ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות‬ could one not derive this by logical inference, reaching the oppo- mother before taking the eggs or the chicks. The Sages
‫ ַאף ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִחּיֵ יב ָּכאן – ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות‬,‫וְ ל ֹא ִ ּבזְ ָכ ִרים‬ site conclusion: The Torah rendered one obligated here not to clarified that this mitzva applies only to kosher birds.
!‫וְ ל ֹא ִ ּבזְ ָכ ִרים‬ slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day, and the Torah
rendered one obligated with regard to a mother bird with its
chicksb not to seize them together, but to dispatch the mother. Just
as when it rendered one obligated with regard to a mother bird
with its chicks, the obligation applies to female birds but not to
males,h as the verse states: “And the mother sitting on the chicks”
(Deuteronomy 22:6), so too, when it rendered one obligated here,
with regard to an animal and its offspring, the obligation should
apply to female animals, but not to males.

‫ ִאם ָא ַמ ְר ָּת ְ ּב ֵאם ַעל ַה ָ ּבנִים – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬,‫ל ֹא‬ One may respond: No, if you say that this is so with regard to a
‫ֹאמר‬ ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה ָ ּב ּה ְמזו ָּּמן ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמזו ָּּמן‬ mother bird with its chicks, for which the Torah did not render
prepared ones equivalent to unprepared ones,h as the obligation
‫ ׁ ֶש ָע ָ ׂשה ּבֹו ְמזו ָּּמן ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬,‫ְ ּבאֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬
to dispatch the mother bird applies only where one happens to
?‫ְמזו ָּּמן‬ encounter a mother bird with its chicks spontaneously, but not to
ones that he keeps in his property, shall you also say that this is so
with regard to the prohibition of an animal itself and its offspring,
for which the Torah rendered prepared ones equivalent to unpre-
pared ones, prohibiting an animal and its offspring even if they are
prepared? If so, the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and
its offspring should apply to both males and females.

.‫ ״אֹותֹו״ – ֶא ָחד וְ ל ֹא ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ Therefore, the verse states: “A bull or a sheep, it and its offspring”
‫ ִחּיֵ יב‬:‫יתי ָל ִדין‬ ִ ‫ זָ ִכ‬,‫ַא ַחר ׁ ֶש ִח ֵּלק ַה ָּכתוּב‬ (Leviticus 22:28). The superfluous word “it” indicates that this
applies to only one parent, but not to two. The baraita continues:
‫ָּכאן וְ ִחּיֵ יב ְ ּב ֵאם ַעל ַה ָ ּבנִים; ַמה ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִחּיֵ יב‬
After the verse separated the parents, rendering the prohibition
,‫ְ ּב ֵאם ַעל ַה ָ ּבנִים – ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות וְ ל ֹא ִ ּבזְ ָכ ִרים‬ applicable to only one of them, I merited returning to the logical
.‫ַאף ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִחּיֵ יב ָּכאן – ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות וְ ל ֹא ִ ּבזְ ָכ ִרים‬ inference mentioned earlier: The Torah rendered one obligated
here not to slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day, and
the Torah rendered one obligated to dispatch the mother with
regard to a mother bird with its chicks. Just as when it rendered
one obligated with regard to a mother bird with its chicks, the
obligation applies to females but not to males, so too, when it
rendered one obligated here, the obligation applies to females but
not to males.

‫״בנֹו״ – ִמי ׁ ֶש ְ ּבנֹו ָּכרו ְּך‬ ּ ְ ,‫לֹומר‬

ַ ָ‫ וְ ִאם נַ ְפ ׁ ְשך‬And if it is your wish to say that one can refute this, that refutation
.‫ יָ צָ א זָ ָכר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּבנֹו ָּכרוּךְ ַא ֲח ָריו‬,‫ ַא ֲח ָריו‬can be countered by the following derivation: The verse states: “It
and its offspring” (Leviticus 22:28), indicating that this applies to
that parent whose offspring clings to it. This serves to exclude the
male parent, whose offspring does not cling to it.

– ‫ ״אֹותֹו״‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫לֹומר״? וְ ִכי ֵּת‬

ַ ָ‫״אם נַ ְפ ׁ ְשך‬ ִ ‫ָמה‬ The Gemara asks: To what possible refutation is the expression: If
‫״בנֹו״ – ִמי‬ ּ ְ :‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ֲה ֵרי הוּא‬,‫זָ ָכר ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬ it is your wish to say, referring? The Gemara explains that the
possible refutation is: And if you would say that the word “it,” in
‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּבנֹו‬,‫ יָ צָ א זָ ָכר‬,‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּבנֹו ָּכרו ְּך ַא ֲח ָריו‬
the verse denotes a male, as it is expressed in the masculine gender
.‫ָּכרוּךְ ַא ֲח ָריו‬ in the Hebrew, the response is that the verse also states “its off-
spring” in that verse, indicating that this applies to that parent
whose offspring clings to it. This serves to exclude the male parent,
whose offspring does not cling to it.

halakha
With regard to a mother bird with its chicks, to female birds and The Torah did not render prepared ones equivalent to unpre-
not to males – ‫ב ֵאם ַעל ַה ָ ּבנִים ִ ּב ֵנְקבֹות וְ ל ֹא ִ ּבזְ ָכ ִרים‬:ּ ְ One who finds the pared ones – ‫ל ֹא ָע ָ ׂשה ָ ּב ּה ְמזו ָּּמן ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמזו ָּּמן‬: The mitzva of dis-
father bird sitting on the nest is exempt from dispatching him, as patching the mother bird from the nest applies only to kosher
the mitzva of dispatching the parent bird from the nest applies to birds that are not prepared within one’s domain, such as doves
mother birds alone (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 13:10; from the dovecote or the attic, and birds nesting in the orchard, as
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 292:7). it is written: “If it chance” (Deuteronomy 22:6). One need not drive
out prepared birds, such as geese, chickens, or doves, nesting in
the house (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 13:8; Shulĥan
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 292:2).

 ‫חע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 78b 11

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek V
Daf 79 Amud a
halakha
‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ ְּכ ִתיב ״אֹותֹו״ – דְּ ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע זָ ָכר‬,‫ וְ ַל ֲחנַ נְיָה‬And according to the opinion of Ĥananya, the reason for his ruling
Animals that are born from a female horse –
‫הנּ ָֹול ִדים ִמן ַה ּסוּס‬:ַ If their mothers are of the same ,‫ דְּ ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע נְ ֵק ָבה‬,‫״בנֹו״ – ִמי ׁ ֶש ְ ּבנֹו ָּכרוּךְ ַא ֲח ָריו‬ּ ְ is that it is written “it,” which indicates a male, and it is written
“its offspring,” teaching that the prohibition applies to that parent
species and their fathers are of the same species, .‫נֹוהג ֵ ּבין ִ ּבזְ ָכ ִרים ֵ ּבין ִ ּבנְ ֵקבֹות‬ֵ ְ‫ִה ְל ָּכך‬
offspring of diverse kinds may be mated with each whose offspring clings to it, which indicates a female. Therefore,
other, according to all opinions. If their mothers are this prohibition applies to both males and females.
of different species, even if they are both cross-
breeds of the same two species, it is prohibited ‫ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ַ ּבר ִחּיָ יא ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ Rav Huna bar Ĥiyya says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in
to mate them, as perhaps paternity is not taken ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬.‫יה‬
ּ ‫ וְ ָאזְ ָדא ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬.‫ַּכ ֲחנַ נְיָה‬ accordance with the opinion of Ĥananya. And Shmuel follows his
into account, in accordance with the opinion of line of reasoning, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 8:4): Rabbi
Rabbi Yehuda, which is accepted as halakha in ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי‬,‫ ַהנּ ָֹול ִדים ִמן ַה ּסוּס‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יְ הו ָּדה‬
Yehuda says: With regard to two animals that are born from a
Ketubot (111b). In addition, amora’im further on ‫ ֲא ָבל ַהנּ ָֹול ִדין‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֲא ִב ֶיהן ֲחמֹור – מו ָּּת ִרין זֶ ה ָ ּבזֶ ה‬ female horse,h even if the father of one is a donkey and the father
in this tractate also follow his opinion, according ;‫ִמן ַה ֲחמֹור ִעם ַהנּ ָֹול ִדין ִמן ַה ּסוּס – ֲאסו ִּרין‬
to the Gemara’s conclusion that he is uncertain
of the other is a horse, they are permitted to mate with one another.
whether or not one need be concerned with Since the mothers of both are horses, the offspring are all considered
paternity (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Kilayim of the same species. But to mate animals that are born from a
9:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 297b:9). female donkey with animals that are born from a female horse,
even if one animal was born from a male horse and a female donkey
and the other was born from a male donkey and a female horse, is
prohibited, due to the prohibition of diverse kinds.

‫ זֹו דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬And, commenting on that mishna, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel
‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ יְ הו ָּדה‬says: This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: One need
not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species of
.‫ ָּכל ִמינֵי ּ ְפ ָרדֹות ַא ַחת ֵהן‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ ‫ֲח ָכ ִמים‬
an animal,n as the species is determined solely by the mother. But
the Rabbis say: The species of an animal is determined according
to both its mother and its father. Therefore, all types of mules,
regardless of which parent is a horse and which is a donkey, are
considered a single species and may mate with each other.

‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין‬
ְ ׁ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ַמאן ֲח ָכ ִמים – ֲחנַ נְיָה הוּא‬Now, whose opinion is referred to as that of the Rabbis here? It is
‫ וְ ַהאי‬,‫ וְ ַהאי ַ ּבר סו ְּסיָ א וַ ֲח ָמ ָרא‬,‫ ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬that of Ĥananya, who says: One needs to be concerned with
paternity, as, in his opinion, the prohibition against slaughtering an
.ּ‫ַ ּבר ֲח ָמ ָרא וְ סו ְּסיָ א – ּכו ְּּלה ּו ֲח ָדא ִמינָ א נִינְ הו‬
animal and its offspring applies to a male and its offspring as well.
And therefore, with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds as well,
this mule that is the offspring of a female horse and a male donkey,
and that mule that is the offspring of a female donkey and a male
horse are all a single species.

‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה דְּ ֵאין‬

ּ ‫ ִמי ּ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ֵל‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬
ּ ַ ‫ ִא‬A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yehuda certain
‫ אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא ַס ּפו ֵּקי ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא‬,‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬
ְׁ that one need not be concerned with its paternity in determining
the species of the offspring, or perhaps he is uncertain whether or
?‫יה? ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬
not one need be concerned with its paternity? The Gemara asks:
What is the practical difference?

notes
One need not be concerned with its paternity in determin-
Mating of the offspring Mating of the offspring
ing the species of an animal – ‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬
ְ ׁ ‫אין‬:ֵ Accord-
of a female horse and a of a female horse and a Mating of the offspring
ing to this opinion, although the offspring contains a genetic
male donkey with the male donkey with the of a female horse and
component from the father, just as it does from the mother,
offspring of a female offspring of a female a male donkey with a
and the offspring sometimes resembles the father (Tosafot on
horse and a male donkey and a male full-blooded horse
Bekhorot 17a), for halakhic purposes the lineage of the offspring
donkey horse
is traced only from the mother and not the father. According to
the opposing view, which takes into account both the mother If the species is determined
Permitted Permitted Forbidden
and father, it is important only whether or not the animal is a by both mother and father
hybrid; it does not matter which parent is of which species. This If the species is determined
issue has several practical implications, as is explained further Permitted Forbidden Permitted
solely by the mother
on in the Gemara.
If it is uncertain how the
Permitted Forbidden Forbidden
species is determined
Halakhot regarding the mating of mules

12 Ĥullin . perek V . 79a . ‫ףד‬ ‫טע‬. ‫׳ה קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫יפ ׁ ָשט‬
ְ ‫ ִמ‬:‫יש ָרא ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם; ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬ ְ ׁ ‫ְל ִמ‬ The Gemara answers: The practical difference is with regard to
permitting the mating of the offspring with the species of the Female mule – ‫פ ְרדָּ ה‬:ִ ּ The mule, whose scientific
‫יה – ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם ׁ ָש ֵרי; ֶא ָּלא ִאי‬ ּ ‫יטא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ name is Equus mulus, is a result of interbreeding
mother,h e.g., the mating of the offspring of a female horse and
‫יה – ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם‬ ּ ‫ ַס ּפו ֵּקי ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬:‫ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬ between a horse and a donkey. If its mother is a horse
a male donkey together with a horse. If you say that Rabbi it is called a mule; if its mother is a donkey it is properly
.‫ָאסוּר‬ Yehuda is certain that one need not be concerned with its pater- called a hinny, though that term is little used. A mule
nity, then the mating of the offspring with the species of the can be male or female, and though it has externally
mother is permitted, as, in this case, they are both considered normal-looking reproductive organs, due to its odd
horses. But if you say that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain, then the number of chromosomes it is very rarely fertile. The
mule is known as a very strong animal, with enormous
mating of the offspring with the species of the mother is pro-
capacity for endurance, and it has served as a beast of
hibited, as one must be concerned about the species of the father. burden and labor for thousands of years. The hinny is
smaller and relatively rare.
‫ ָּכל ַהנּ ָֹול ִדים‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ַמאי? ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ What, then, is the answer to the question? The Gemara suggests: The mule that is known today is similar to its
‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֲא ִב ֶיהן ֲחמֹור – מו ָּּת ִרין זֶ ה‬,‫ִמן ַה ּסוּס‬ Come and hear a possible resolution from the mishna cited mother in appearance and size. Yet, it has different
earlier: Rabbi Yehuda says: All that are born from a female characteristics than those mentioned in the Gemara,
,‫ימא דַּ ֲאבו ּּה דְּ ַהאי ֲחמֹור‬ ָ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא ֵיל‬ִ ‫ָ ּבזֶ ה; ֵה‬
horse, even if the father of one of them is a donkey, are permit- such as long ears like a donkey’s, a tail whose first part
,‫ימר? ֶא ָּלא ָלאו‬ ַ ‫ צְ ִר ָיכא ְל ֵמ‬,‫וַ ֲאבו ּּה דְּ ַהאי ֲחמֹור‬ ted to mate with each other. What are the circumstances here? is hairless like a donkey’s, and small hoofs, and may be
;‫ וַ ֲאבו ּּה דְּ ַהאי – ֲחמֹור‬,‫דַּ ֲאבו ּּה דְּ ַהאי – סוּס‬ If we say that the father of this male animal is a donkey, and the a different breed than that known in talmudic times.
It also produces sounds that vary from the braying of
father of that female animal, with which the male is to be mated,
a donkey to the neighing of a horse.
is a donkey, does it need to be said? Since the mothers of both By contrast, the hinny has a head and a tail resem-
animals are horses, they are both of exactly the same species and bling those of a horse and ears shorter than those
may certainly mate with each other. Rather, is it not that the of a donkey.
father of this one is a horse, and the father of that other one is
a donkey?

‫יפ ׁ ָשט‬
ְ ‫ ִמ‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬,‫ מו ָּּת ִרים זֶ ה ִעם זֶ ה‬:‫ וְ ָק ָתנֵי‬And yet it is taught that they are permitted to mate with each
!‫יה‬ּ ‫יטא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬other. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda is certain that one need not be
concerned with its paternity in determining the species of the
offspring. If he were uncertain, he would deem their mating
prohibited, as the father of one is a horse while the father of the
other is a donkey.

‫ וַ ֲאבו ּּה דְּ ַהאי‬,‫עֹולם דַּ ֲאבו ּּה דְּ ַהאי ֲחמֹור‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ָלא‬ The Gemara responds: No, one cannot cite proof from this, as it
:‫ימא‬ָ ‫ימר? ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬ ַ ‫ צְ ִר ָיכא ְל ֵמ‬:‫ ו ְּד ָק ֲא ַמ ְר ְּת‬.‫ֲחמֹור‬ can be said that actually, the father of this male animal is a Mule
donkey, and the father of that female animal is also a donkey.
‫ וְ צַ ד ֲחמֹור‬,‫ָא ֵתי צַ ד דְּ סוּס ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּמ ׁש ְ ּבצַ ד ֲחמֹור‬
And with regard to that which you say: Does it need to be said
.‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּמ ׁש ְ ּבצַ ד סוּס‬ that these two may mate? It does need to be said, lest you say:
The horse component of the male mule comes and copulates
with the donkey component of the female mule, and the don-
key component of the male mule copulates specifically with the
horse component of the female mule, which would violate the
prohibition of diverse kinds. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches
us that they are both of the same species and may mate.

– ‫ ּ ִפ ְרדָּ ה ׁ ֶש ָּת ְב ָעה‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a possible resolution from
‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫יה ל ֹא סוּס וְ ל ֹא ֲחמֹור‬ ָ ‫יעין ָע ֶל‬ ִ ‫ֵאין ַמ ְר ִ ּב‬ a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a female muleb
in heat, one may not mate a horse or a donkey with her, due
‫יה – ַל ְר ַ ּבע‬
ּ ‫יטא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ְפ ׁ ַשט ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬:‫ִמינָ ּה; וְ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬
to the prohibition against crossbreeding diverse kinds of live-
‫ֲע ָל ּה ִמינָ א דְּ ִא ָּמ ּה! דְּ ָלא יָ ְד ִעינַן ִמינָ א דְּ ִא ָּמ ּה‬ stock. Rather, one mates her with one of her species, another Comparison of ears and tails of mules, donkeys, and horses
.ּ‫ַמאי נִיהו‬ mule. And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda is certain that one need
not be concerned with its paternity in determining the species
of the offspring, then why not mate her with the species of her
mother? Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain and therefore
deems it prohibited to mate her with either a horse or a donkey.
The Gemara responds: The baraita is referring to a case where
we do not know what the mother’s species is.

halakha
The mating of the offspring with the species of the mother – one need be concerned with paternity. Therefore, perhaps the
‫יש ָרא ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם‬
ְ ׁ ‫מ‬:ִ Interbreeding the offspring of diverse kinds horse component of the mule copulates with the donkey, in accor-
even with its mothers’ species is prohibited. For example, inter- dance with the opinion of Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua (Rambam
breeding a mule whose mother is a donkey is prohibited not only Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Kilayim 9:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 297b:9).
with a horse, but also with a donkey, since it is uncertain whether

 ‫טע ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 79a 13

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
‫ ֵאין‬:‫״א ָּלא ִמ ָּינ ּה״ ָק ָתנֵי! ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָהא‬ The Gemara challenges: But the baraita teaches: Rather, one mates
Wagon [rispak] – ‫יס ּ ַפק‬
ְ ‫ר‬:ִ In the Arukh and other her with one of her species, indicating that her species is known.
sources this word is cited as dispak. Apparently it is ,‫יה ל ֹא ִמין סוּס וְ ל ֹא ִמין ֲחמֹור‬ ָ ‫יעין ָע ֶל‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְר ִ ּב‬
The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: One may
derived from the Middle Iranian word dēspak, which ,‫ימנִין‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִל ְיבדּ ֹוק ְ ּב ִס‬.‫יֹוד ִעין ְ ּב ִמינָ ּה‬ְ ‫ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬
in turn comes from the Old Persian dvai-aspaka, not mate the species of a horse or the species of a donkey with
‫ צָ נֵיף‬,‫יה – ַ ּבר ֲח ָמ ָרא‬ ּ ‫ ָע ֵבי ָק ֵל‬:‫דְּ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ her, because one does not usually know the species of the mother
meaning two horses, which were necessary to pull
a carriage. ‫ ַר ְב ְר ָבן‬:‫יה – ַ ּבר סו ְּסיָ א; וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫ָק ֵל‬ of a mule that one encounters. The Gemara suggests: But let one
‫ זו ְּט ָרן‬,‫יה – ַ ּבר ֲח ָמ ָרא‬ ּ ‫נֵיה וְ זו ְּט ָרא ְ ּגנו ְּב ֵּת‬
ּ ‫או ְּד‬ check her species by her distinguishing characteristics,h as Abaye
‫יה – ַ ּבר סו ְּסיָ א! ָה ָכא‬ ּ ‫נֵיה וְ ַר ָ ּבה ְ ּגנו ְּב ֵּת‬
ּ ‫או ְּד‬ says: If its voice is deep, it is the offspring of a female donkey; if
.‫ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְ ּב ִא ֶּל ֶמת וְ גִ ידֶּ ֶמת‬ its voice is shrill, it is the offspring of a female horse. And Rav
Pappa says: If its ears are large and its tail is small, it is the off-
spring of a female donkey; if its ears are small and its tail is large,
it is the offspring of a female horse. The Gemara answers: Here we
are dealing with a mule who is mute, and whose ears and tail are
lopped off, and whose species cannot be determined. Therefore,
Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion cannot be proven from this case.

‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬,‫ַמאי ָהוֵ י ֲע ָל ּה? ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it? Come
‫מֹודין ִ ּב ְפ ִרי ִעם‬ ִ ‫ ַה ּכֹל‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ and hear a resolution, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: All,
including Rabbi Yehuda, agree with regard to mating the offspring
‫ָה ֵאם ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר; ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה – ַס ּפו ֵּקי ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא‬
with the species of its mother that it is prohibited. Conclude from
.‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫ֵל‬ it that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain.n If he were certain that one need
not be concerned with its paternity, he would deem mating the
offspring with the species of its mother permitted, since the father’s
species would not matter. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it
that this is so.

‫ ִאי ְמ ַעּיְ ַילת‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ְל ׁ ַש ָּמ ֵע‬

ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ The Gemara relates with regard to this issue that Rabbi Abba said
‫יס ּ ַפק – ַעּיֵ ין ְל ָהנָ ךְ דְּ ָד ְמיָ ין‬
ְ ‫יתא ְ ּב ִר‬ ָ ָ‫ִלי ּכ ְֹודנְי‬ to his servant: If you bring me mules attached to a wagon [rispak],l
look for thosen that are similar to each other in their voices and
‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין‬
ְ ׁ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא ָק ָס ַבר‬.‫ וְ ַעּיֵ יל ִלי‬,‫ַל ֲה ָד ֵדי‬
the sizes of their ears and tails, and bring those for me, in order not
,‫ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬ to violate the prohibition of diverse kinds. Evidently, Rabbi Abba
holds that with regard to the offspring of diverse kinds, one need
not be concerned with its paternity, since, as explained earlier,
these distinguishing characteristics indicate only the species of
the mother.

halakha
But let one check her species by her distinguishing character- mate or work hitched together. This ruling is in accordance with
istics – ‫ימנִין‬
ָ ‫וְ ִל ְיבדּ ֹוק ְ ּב ִס‬: If one wishes to mate a male mule with the Gemara’s conclusion that one may rely upon distinguishing
a female mule, or to have two mules pull a wagon, he should characteristics even with regard to prohibitions that are mandated
check the characteristics of their ears, tails, and voices. If they are by Torah law (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Kilayim 9:6; Shulĥan
similar to one another in these characteristics, then it is certain that Arukh, Yoreh De’a 297b:9).
their mothers are of the same species, and they are permitted to

notes
He is uncertain – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ס ּפו ֵּקי ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬:ַ According to this explanation, in the above cases does not receive lashes (Rosh, Hilkhot Kilayim).
which is accepted as halakha, the offspring of diverse kinds may The Rambam writes that one who mates interbred animals whose
mate only when their fathers are of the same species and their mothers are of different species, or who mates a mule with an
mothers are of the same species. If this is not so, such as in a case animal of its mother’s species, receives lashes, and the commentar-
where one wants to mate a mule whose father is a horse and ies deliberate at length on how to explain his opinion (see Ĥatam
whose mother is a donkey with a mule whose father is a donkey Sofer and Arukh HaShulĥan, Yoreh De’a 16:27).
and whose mother is a horse, it is forbidden. In addition, a mule
may not mate with either a horse or a donkey, as either the mother Look for those – ְ‫עּיֵ ין ְל ָהנָ ך‬:ַ It is prohibited to work or drive animals
or the father of the mule would not be of the same species to which of diverse kinds, i.e., from different species, hitched together (see
both parents of the other animal belong. Deuteronomy 22:10). Violation of this prohibition is punishable
Since this opinion is based upon the uncertainty as to whether by lashes.
paternity is taken into account, one who mates a forbidden pair

14 Ĥullin . perek V . 79a . ‫ףד‬ ‫טע‬. ‫׳ה קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek V
Daf 79 Amud b
halakha
.‫יתא‬
ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫ימנִין ד‬
ָ ‫ וְ ִס‬And in addition, he holds that these distinguishing characteristics
apply by Torah law, such that they may be relied upon to allay con- The prohibition against slaughtering an animal
itself and its offspring applies to the offspring of
cerns of violating even a prohibition that is mandated by Torah law. diverse kinds of animals – ‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם‬
ֵ ‫אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬:
The prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its
‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם‬
ֵ ‫ אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ § The Sages taught in a baraita (see Tosefta 5:1): The prohibition offspring applies to the offspring of diverse kinds of
‫ ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם ַה ָ ּבא‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫ו ַּב ּכֹוי‬ against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring applies to animals interbred from a goat and a sheep (Rambam
the offspring of diverse kinds of animals,hb such as a goat and a Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
‫נֹוהג‬
ֵ ‫ִמן ָה ֵעז ו ִּמן ָה ָר ֵחל – אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬
ewe, and to the koy, even though the prohibition does not apply to De’a 16:7).
.‫נֹוהג ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫ ּכֹוי – ֵאין אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬,‫ּבֹו‬ undomesticated animals. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to a A goat that mates with a doe – ‫תיִ ׁיש ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה‬:ַּ
‫ ֵאיזֶ ה ּו ּכֹוי ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ְח ְלק ּו ּבֹו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a ewe, the prohibi- If a goat mates with a doe, and she gives birth, accord-
‫יעזֶ ר וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים – זֶ ה ַה ָ ּבא ִמן ַה ַּתיִ ׁיש‬ ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ tion of a mother and its offspring applies; with regard to a koy, the ing to the opinion of the Rambam and the Shulĥan
.‫ו ִּמן ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה‬ prohibition of a mother and its offspring does not apply. Rav Arukh it is prohibited to slaughter that doe and its
Ĥisda says: What is the koy about which Rabbi Eliezer and the offspring on the same day (see Beit Yosef and Taz). The
Rashba and Tur rule that it is permitted to slaughter
Rabbis disagree?n It is that which results from the mating of a goat
them on the same day, ab initio, as the verse states: “A
and a doe. sheep…and its offspring” (Leviticus 22:28), and not: A
doe and its offspring (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
‫ימא ְ ּב ַתיִ ׁיש ַה ָ ּבא ַעל‬ ָ ‫יל‬
ֵ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances surrounding the Sheĥita 12:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 16:8, and see
;‫ וְ ָקא ׁ ָש ֵחיט ָל ּה וְ ִל ְב ָר ּה‬,‫ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה וְ יָ ְל ָדה‬ birth of this koy? If we say that it is the result of a goat that mates Shakh and Beur HaGra there).
with a doe,h and she gives birth, and one slaughters her and her
‫מֹודים ְ ּב ִהיא‬ ִ ‫ ַה ּכֹל‬:‫וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ A deer that mates with a female goat – ‫צְ ִבי ַה ָ ּבא‬
offspring on the same day, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rav Ĥisda
‫״שה ו ְּבנֹו״‬ ׂ ֶ ,‫צְ ִבּיָ יה ו ְּבנָ ּה ַּתיִ ׁיש – ׁ ֶש ּ ָפטוּר‬ ‫ישה‬ָ ׁ ָ‫על ַה ְּתי‬:ַ If a deer mates with a female goat, and
say: All concede in the case where she is a doe and her offspring she gives birth, and one slaughters the goat and her
!‫ וְ ָלא צְ ִבי ו ְּבנֹו‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ is a goat, because she mated with a goat, that one who slaughters offspring on the same day, he is flogged by Torah law,
them both on the same day is exempt from lashes for violating the in accordance with the statement of Rav Ĥisda that the
prohibition of a mother and its offspring? He is exempt because the Torah states: “A sheep…and its offspring” (Leviticus
Merciful One states: “And whether it be a bull or a sheep, you shall 22:28), to indicate that the prohibition applies to a
not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28), domesticated animal, such as a ewe, and its offspring
of any species (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita
indicating that the prohibition applies to a domesticated animal and 12:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 16:8).
its offspring, but not to an undomesticated animal and its offspring,
such as a doe and its offspring. A goat that mates with a doe and she gives birth
to a female offspring – ‫ַּתיִ ׁיש ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה וְ יָ ְל ָדה‬
‫ וְ ָקא‬,‫ישה וְ יָ ְל ָדה‬ָ ׁ ָ‫ ִ ּבצְ ִבי ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְּתי‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ Rather, perhaps this koy is the product of a deer that mates with a ‫בת‬:ּ ַ If a goat mates with a doe, and she gives birth
to a female offspring, and the female offspring then
‫ ַה ּכֹל‬:‫ׁ ָש ֵחיט ָל ּה וְ ִל ְב ָר ּה; וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ female goat,h and she gives birth, and one slaughters her and her
gives birth to offspring, it is prohibited to slaughter
offspring on the same day. But doesn’t Rav Ĥisda say: All concede
,‫ישה ו ְּבנָ ּה צְ ִבי – ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ יב‬ ָ ׁ ָ‫מֹודים ְ ּב ִהיא ְּתי‬
ִ the female offspring and its offspring in a single day, in
that in the case where she is a goat and her offspring is a deer accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis according
!ּ‫ ו ְּבנֹו ָּכל דְּ הו‬,‫״שה״ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ֶׂ because she mated with a deer, that one who slaughters them both to the conclusion of the Gemara that one needs to be
on the same day is liable? He is liable because the Merciful One concerned with paternity, and that the word “sheep”
states in the Torah: “A sheep…and its offspring” (Leviticus 22:28), in the verse means that if the animal has any domes-
indicating that the prohibition applies to a domesticated animal ticated animal component, it may not be slaughtered
with its offspring in a single day. The Rambam and the
such as a sheep and its offspring of any species, even if it is an Shulĥan Arukh both rule that one who slaughters them
undomesticated animal. is flogged. Many commentaries question this ruling,
as the conclusion in the Gemara indicates that the
‫ וְ יָ ְל ָדה‬,‫עֹולם ְ ּב ַתיִ ׁיש ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה‬ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara responds: Actually, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer Rabbis are uncertain whether or not one needs to be
;‫ וְ ָקא ׁ ָש ֵחיט ָל ּה וְ ִל ְב ָר ּה‬,‫ ו ַּבת יָ ְל ָדה ֵ ּבן‬,‫ ַ ּבת‬and the Rabbis is in the case of a goat that mates with a doe, and concerned with paternity, and, due to that uncertainty,
she gives birth to a female offspring,h a koy, and this female off- prohibit slaughtering, but one should not get flogged
spring gives birth to a male offspring, and one slaughters her and in a case of uncertainty (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hil-
her male offspring on the same day. khot Sheĥita 12:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 16:8, and
see Shakh and Beur HaGra there).
– ‫״שה״‬ ׂ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬ ְ ׁ :‫ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי‬ The Rabbis hold: One needs to be concerned with its paternity,
‫ ֵאין‬:‫יעזֶ ר ָס ַבר‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה‬ and therefore the koy is partially a goat due to its father, and the word background
“sheep” in the verse means that even if it is partially a sheep, i.e., a Offspring of diverse kinds of animals – ‫כ ְל ַאיִ ם‬:ִּ The
‫״שה״ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת‬
ׂ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬ ְׁ
domesticated animal, it may not be slaughtered with its offspring in sheep, whose biological genus is Ovis, and the goat,
.‫ֶ ׂשה – ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬ a single day. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: One need not be concerned whose genus is Capra, both belong to the biological
family Bovidae, and the Caprinae subfamily. Sheep
with its paternity, and the status of the koy is unaffected by the fact
have fifty-four chromosomes, and goats have sixty,
that its father is a goat, and therefore, in this case we do not say that making it nearly impossible for them to interbreed
the word “sheep” mentioned in the verse means that even if it is and produce viable offspring. Nevertheless, even in
partially a sheep it may not be slaughtered with its offspring in a modern times, rare cases of successful interbreeding
single day, as the father’s component is ignored. have been reported.

‫ ִ ּב ְפלוּגְ ָּתא‬,‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬

ְ ׁ ‫ וְ ִל ְיפלֹוג ְ ּב‬The Gemara challenges: And let them disagree with regard to any notes
!‫ דַּ ֲחנַ נְיָה וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬animal of mixed breed about whether one needs to be concerned What is the koy about which Rabbi Eliezer and
with its paternity, i.e., with regard to the issue that is the subject of the Rabbis disagree – ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ֵאיזֶ ה ּו ּכֹוי ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ְח ְלק ּו ּבֹו ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬
the dispute between Ĥananya and the Rabbis, whether the prohi- ‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬: The intent of Rav Ĥisda’s statement is to dis-
bition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same agree with those who say (80a) that a koy is a distinct
day also applies to a father and its offspring because one needs to be entity (Rashi; Ramban).
concerned with an animal’s paternity.
 ‫טע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 79b 15
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ְ ּב ָהא – ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬:‫ ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬,‫ ִאי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ְ ּב ַה ִהיא‬The Gemara responds: If they would disagree only about that issue,
One may not slaughter a koy on a Festival, etc. –
‫ֹוח ִטין אֹותֹו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב וכו׳‬
ֲ ‫כֹוי ֵאין ׁש‬:ּ There is a mitzva by ‫״שה״ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה – ָלא‬ ׂ ֶ ְּ‫ ד‬,ּ‫ ַר ָ ּבנַן מֹודו‬I would say: With regard to this issue of a doe mother and a goat
father, even the Rabbis concede that we do not say that the word
Torah law to cover the blood after slaughter. This .‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬
mitzva applies specifically to the blood of birds and “sheep” mentioned in the verse means that even if an animal is
undomesticated animals, but not to domesticated partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be slaugh-
animals, as is stated in the verse: “And a man…that tered with its offspring in a single day. Therefore, the baraita teaches
takes in hunting any undomesticated animal or bird us that according to the Rabbis, not only does one need to be
that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and concerned with paternity, but the word “sheep” indicates that even
cover it with dust” (Leviticus 17:13).
if it is partially a sheep, i.e., a domesticated animal, it may not be
Whether according to the Rabbis or according slaughtered with its offspring.
to Rabbi Eliezer, etc. – ‫יעזֶ ר וכו׳‬
ֶ ‫בין ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן ֵ ּבין ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬:ּ ֵ
Since only the Rabbis hold that one needs to be ,‫ֹוח ִטין אֹותֹו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬
ֲ ‫ ּכֹוי – ֵאין ׁש‬:‫ וְ ָהא דִּ ְתנַן‬The Gemara challenges: But that which we learned in a mishna
concerned with paternity, only they require invoking
;‫( וְ ִאם ׁ ָש ֲחט ּו – ֵאין ְמ ַכ ִּסין ֶאת דָּ מֹו‬83b) appears to contradict this: One may not slaughter a koy on
the principle that its mother being a deer justifies the a Festival,nh because covering its blood entails the performance of
animal itself being considered an undomesticated
prohibited labor that is permitted only if there is a definite obliga-
animal whose blood requires covering, since that
should be so even if it is partially a deer. By contrast, tion to do so. And if one slaughtered a koy on a Festival after the
according to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that one need fact, one does not cover its blood, as the Sages prohibited trans-
not be concerned with paternity, this principle need porting soil on a Festival where it is uncertain that a mitzva by
not be invoked, since the mother of this koy is a doe, Torah law exists.
and therefore it must be considered completely
an undomesticated animal whose blood must be ‫ימא ְ ּב ַתיִ ׁיש ַה ָ ּבא ַעל‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן? ִא ֵיל‬The Gemara explains the question: What are we dealing with? If
covered (Rashba).
ֶ ‫ ֵ ּבין ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן ֵ ּבין ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה וְ יָ ְל ָדה‬we say that we are dealing with a goat who mates with a doe, and
– ‫יעזֶ ר‬
she gives birth, then whether according to the opinion of the
!‫ ״צְ ִבי״ – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת צְ ִבי‬,‫ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט וְ ִל ַיכ ֵּסי‬
Rabbis or according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,n let him
slaughter the koy on the Festival ab initio and cover the blood, as
the mother of the koy is a deer, and the koy therefore may be termed
an undomesticated animal, whose blood requires covering. This
should be so even if it is partially a deer, i.e., it has an undomesti-
cated animal component from only one parent, since all agree that
the offspring’s species derives from its mother.

‫ ִאי‬,‫ישה וְ יָ ְל ָדה‬ ָ ׁ ָ‫ ִ ּבצְ ִבי ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְּתי‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, we must be dealing with a case of a deer that mates with
– ‫יעזֶ ר‬
ֶ ‫ ִאי ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫יכ ֵּסי‬ַ ‫ ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן – ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט וְ ִל‬a female goat, and she gives birth. This, too, is difficult: If the
mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one
!‫יכ ֵּסי‬
ַ ‫ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט וְ ָלא ִל‬
needs to be concerned with paternity, let him slaughter this koy on
the Festival ab initio and cover the blood, as it is partially an undo-
mesticated animal due to its father. If the mishna holds in accor-
dance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one need not be
concerned with paternity, let him slaughter the koy on the Festival
ab initio and not cover the blood, as it should be considered a
domesticated animal, whose blood does not require covering due
to its mother who is a goat.

‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ַס ּפו ֵּקי‬,‫ישה‬

ָ ׁ ָ‫עֹולם ִ ּבצְ ִבי ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְּתי‬
ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara concludes that actually this mishna is in accordance
‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב ִאי ֵאין‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ִאי‬,ּ‫ ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא ְלהו‬with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is referring to a case of a deer
who mates with a female goat, and the Rabbis do not say with
.‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין‬
ְׁ
certainty that in determining the species of an animal one must be
concerned with paternity, but rather the Rabbis are simply uncer-
tain whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity or one
need not be concerned. Therefore, they rule that one should not
slaughter it on a Festival, ab initio, in order to avoid a possible
prohibition, and if one did slaughter it, he should not cover the
blood, to avoid violating a prohibition in order to perform an
uncertain mitzva.

halakha
One may not slaughter a koy on a Festival – ‫ֹוח ִטין אֹותֹו‬
ֲ ‫ּכֹוי ֵאין ׁש‬ goat, as it is uncertain whether one needs to be concerned with
‫ביֹום טֹוב‬:
ּ ְ One must cover the blood of the offspring of diverse paternity. By contrast, the blood of the offspring of a goat and a
kinds that are the result of mating between domesticated and doe must be covered and a blessing recited, as one certainly takes
undomesticated animals, but one does not recite a blessing over into account the species of the mother. Such an animal may be
that act. One also may not slaughter such an animal on a Festival, slaughtered, and its blood must be covered, on a Festival (Rambam
and if one transgressed and slaughtered it, he may not cover the Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Yom Tov 3:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
blood until after the Festival ends. According to the Shakh, this 498:18 and Yoreh De’a 28:3).
ruling refers to the case of the offspring of a deer and a female

16 Ĥullin . perek V . 79b . ‫ףד‬ ‫טע‬: ‫׳ה קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫יעזֶ ר‬
ֶ ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,ּ‫ ו ִּמדִּ ְל ַר ָ ּבנָ ן ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא ְלהו‬The Gemara infers: And from the fact that the Rabbis are uncertain,
The foreleg the jaw and the maw – ‫רֹוע וְ ַה ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם‬
ַ ְ‫ַהּז‬
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫יטא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬and therefore they rule that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, ‫וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬: There is a positive mitzva for anyone who
applies to a koy, it can be inferred that according to the opinion of slaughters a non-sacred kosher animal to give the right
Rabbi Eliezer, who rules that the prohibition of: Itself and its off- foreleg, the jaw, and the maw to a priest, as is stated in
spring, does not apply to a koy, it is obvious that, with regard to a the verse: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the
koy resulting from a deer mating with a female goat, one need not people, from any who sacrifice an offering, whether it
be concerned with its paternity at all. be an ox or a sheep, that they shall give to the priest
the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy
‫רֹוע וְ ַה ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬
ַ ְ‫ ַהּז‬:‫וְ ָהא דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ The Gemara asks: But according to this, that which is taught in a 18:3), and these are the items called: Gifts of the priest-
baraita (see Tosefta 9:1) presents a difficulty: The mitzva to give the hood, in all such contexts. This mitzva does not apply
:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫נֹוהגִ ים ַ ּב ּכֹוי ו ַּב ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם‬
ֲ to undomesticated animals or to birds, and the tenth
foreleg, the jaw, and the mawnh of non-sacred animals to a priest
‫ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם ַה ָ ּבא ִמן ָה ֵעז ו ִּמן ָה ָר ֵחל – ַחּיָ יב‬ chapter of this tractate deals with its details.
applies both to a koy and to the offspring of diverse kinds of ani-
;‫ ִמן ַה ּכֹוי – ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬,‫ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנֹות‬ mals. Rabbi Eliezer says: A hybrid that results from the mating of Granted he does not give the priest half of the
a goat and a ewe is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given gifts – ‫יה‬ּ ‫ב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ָלא יָ ֵהיב ֵל‬:
ּ ִ The phraseology
here is subject to some dispute (see Rashi). Rabbeinu
from it; a hybrid that results from a koy is exempt from having gifts
Gershom Meor HaGola maintains that the text should
of the priesthood given from it. read: Granted, he does give the priest half of the gifts.
He interprets this as meaning: He gives him half, since
‫ימא ְ ּב ַתיִ ׁיש ַה ָ ּבא ַעל‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן? ִא ֵיל‬ The Gemara analyzes the baraita: What type of koy are we dealing property of uncertain ownership is divided among
‫יעזֶ ר‬
ֶ ‫ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה וְ יָ ְל ָדה; ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ with? If we say that we are dealing with a goat who mates with a the possible owners, but why should he give him the
doe, and she gives birth, granted, this is consistent according to other half?
– ‫״שה״ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה‬ ׂ ֶ :‫דְּ ָפ ַטר – ָק ָס ַבר‬
the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems it exempt from having
.‫ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬ gifts of the priesthood given from it. As he holds that we do not say
that the word “sheep” (see Deuteronomy 18:3) means that even if it
is partially a sheep one must give gifts of the priesthood from it, as
paternity is ignored and this koy is considered solely the offspring of
a doe, exempting it from having gifts given from it.

‫״שה״ – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬ ׂ ֶ :‫ נְ ִהי דְּ ָק ָס ְב ִרי‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, even if it is granted
,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ָלא יָ ֵהיב ֵל‬,‫ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה‬ that they hold that the word “sheep” means that even if it is partially
a sheep, or any other type of domesticated animal, one is obligated
‫יתי ְר ָאיָ יה‬ ֵ ְ‫ ַאי‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ימא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ִא ָיד ְך ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא – ֵל‬
to give gifts of the priesthood from it, why should the owner of this
!‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב ו ׁ ְּשקֹול‬ ְ ׁ ְּ‫ד‬ koy be required to give the gifts to a priest? Granted, he does not
give the priest half of the gifts,n since half of the koy, i.e., the mother’s
component, is an undomesticated animal; but with regard to the
other half, as well, let him say to the priest: Bring proof that
one needs to be concerned with its paternity and take that half;
otherwise receive nothing.

;‫ישה וְ יָ ְל ָדה‬ָ ׁ ָ‫ ִ ּבצְ ִבי ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְּתי‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ Rather, we are dealing with the case of a deer who mates with a
,‫ ַמאי ַחּיָ יב – ַ ּב ֲחצִ י ַמ ָּתנֹות‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ female goat and she gives birth. Granted, this is consistent accord-
ing to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one is obligated to
‫יחּיֵ יב ְ ּבכו ְּּל ִהי‬ַ ‫יעזֶ ר – ִל‬ֶ ‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬
give gifts of the priesthood from it, as what is meant by: Obligated?
!‫ַמ ָּתנֹות‬ It means: It is obligated in half of the gifts, since on its mother’s side
the goat component is subject to the obligation to give the gifts, but
with regard to the other half of the gifts he can tell the priest: Bring
proof that one need not be concerned with paternity, and take it. But
according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that one need
not be concerned with paternity at all, such that this koy would be
considered a domesticated animal like its mother, let the owner be
obligated in all of the gifts. Why, then, does Rabbi Eliezer deem
him exempt?

,‫ישה וְ יָ ְל ָדה‬ ָ ׁ ָ‫עֹולם ִ ּבצְ ִבי ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְּתי‬ ָ ‫ְל‬ The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to a deer who mates
‫ ִאי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יעזֶ ר נַ ִמי ַס ּפו ֵּקי ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ with a female goat, and she gives birth, and Rabbi Eliezer is also
uncertain whether, in determining the species of an animal, one
‫ וְ ֵכיוָ ן דִּ ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב אֹו ָלא‬ ְׁ
needs to be concerned with its paternity or not. The Gemara asks:
,‫יה‬ּ ‫יעזֶ ר ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬ ֶ ‫ ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,ּ‫ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא ְלהו‬ But since the conclusion is that the Rabbis are uncertain and
?‫ְ ּב ַמאי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ Rabbi Eliezer is uncertain, in what case do they disagree where
Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner exempt from giving the gifts entirely?

halakha
The foreleg the jaw and the maw – ‫רֹוע וְ ַה ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬
ַ ְ‫הּז‬:ַ The and then you may take it. The owner of the offspring of a goat and
owner of the offspring of a deer and a female goat is obligated to a doe is not obligated to give the priest anything, in accordance
give the priest half of the gifts of the priesthood, as one certainly with the opinion of the Rabbis that it is uncertain whether one
takes into account the species of the mother, and if an animal has must be concerned with paternity and the burden of proof rests
a domesticated animal component it is subject to any mitzva rel- upon the claimant (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:5;
evant to a domesticated animal. With regard to the other half, the Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:18).
owner can tell the priest: Bring proof that it must be given to you

 ‫טע ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 79b 17

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek V
Daf 80 Amud a
notes
:‫״שה״ – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה; ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ְ ּב‬They disagree concerning whether the word “sheep” mentioned
And with regard to the gifts of the priesthood – ‫ו ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬: in the verses indicates that even if it is partially a sheep, it is con-
This means that the baraita, in which the Rabbis hold that ֶ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫״שה״ – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה‬
‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶׂ
sidered a domesticated animal. The Rabbis hold that the word
a koy is subject to the obligation of the gifts of the priest- .‫״שה״ – וְ ל ֹא ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה‬ ׂ ֶ :‫ָס ַבר‬
hood, while Rabbi Eliezer holds it is not, can be interpreted “sheep” indicates that even if it is partially a sheep it is considered
only as referring to a koy that is the offspring of a deer a domesticated animal, and Rabbi Eliezer holds that the word
and a female goat. This is so because in such a case Rabbi “sheep” indicates that it must be descended entirely from sheep
Eliezer exempts the koy due to uncertainty, as perhaps or other domesticated animals, but not partially descended
one must be concerned with paternity, and its father is from sheep.
an undomesticated animal. Since Rabbi Eliezer does not
consider an animal that is partially domesticated to be a ‫ ְל ִענְיַ ן ִּכ ּסוּי ַהדָּ ם‬, ְ‫ ִה ְל ָּכך‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬Rav Pappa says: Therefore, the cases relating to a koy must be
domesticated animal, it is exempt from gifts being given.
By contrast, the Rabbis hold that such a koy is subject ‫ ו ַּמ ָּתנֹות ָלא ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ֶא ָּלא ִ ּבצְ ִבי ַה ָ ּבא‬interpreted in accordance with this understanding of the disagree-
ment between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. With regard to the
to the obligation of giving at least half of the gifts. This ,‫ישה‬ ָ ׁ ָ‫ַעל ַה ְּתי‬
is because if one need not be concerned with its pater- matter of covering the blood of a koy, which the mishna indicates
nity, it is simply a goat that, as a domesticated animal, is is performed due to uncertainty as to whether a koy is an undomes-
entirely subject to the obligation of the gifts; and even ticated animal, and with regard to the gifts of the priesthood,n
if one needs to be concerned with paternity, this koy is which the Rabbis require to be given from a koy as from a domes-
still a partially domesticated animal due to its mother, ticated animal, but Rabbi Eliezer does not, you find a way to inter-
and that half is subject to the obligation of the gifts. In
pret the cases only if they are referring to a koy resulting from a
the case of a koy that is the offspring of a goat and a
doe, if one need not be concerned with paternity, then deer who mates with a female goat.n
it is simply a deer that, as an undomesticated animal, is
completely exempt from the gifts. Therefore, only if the ‫ ְמ ַס ּ ְפ ָקא‬,‫יעזֶ ר‬
ֶ ‫ דְּ ֵבין ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן ו ֵּבין ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬This is so because, according to the aforementioned conclusions
priest can provide proof that one needs to be concerned ,‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב אֹו ָלא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ְלה ּו ִאי‬about their opinions, both according to the opinion of the Rabbis
with paternity would he receive half of the gifts due to the and according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer it is uncertain
goat component from the father. whether one needs to be concerned with paternity, and the koy
Only if they are referring to a koy resulting from a deer is considered partially an undomesticated animal, or one need not
who mates with a female goat – ‫ֶא ָּלא ִ ּבצְ ִבי ַה ָ ּבא ַעל‬ be concerned, and it is considered entirely domesticated.
‫ישה‬ָ ׁ ָ‫ה ְּתי‬:ַ The mishna, which prohibits slaughtering a koy
on a Festival because its blood must be covered due to ּ ‫״שה״ – וַ ֲא ִפ‬
‫יל ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת‬ ׂ ֶ ‫יפ ְלגִ י ְ ּב‬
ַ ּ ‫ וְ ָקא ִמ‬And they disagree as to whether the word “sheep” means that
uncertainty, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rab- .‫ ֶ ׂשה‬even if it is partially a sheep it is considered a domesticated animal.
bis, and it is discussing a case of a koy that is the offspring Therefore, the mishna, which requires one to cover the blood of a
of a deer and a female goat. The reason for the uncer- koy whose father is a deer due to uncertainty, is in accordance with
tainty is that perhaps one need not be concerned with
the opinion of the Rabbis, because they, as opposed to Rabbi
paternity, and its blood is exempt from covering because
its mother is a goat, which is a domesticated animal; yet,
Eliezer, hold that if an animal has a domesticated component, it is
perhaps one must be concerned with paternity, in which considered a domesticated animal, and with regard to covering
case its blood must be covered due to its father being an the blood if the animal has an undomesticated component, the
undomesticated animal. In the case of a koy that is the animal is considered undomesticated. As for the gifts of the priest-
offspring of a goat and a doe, its blood certainly requires hood, the Rabbis require half of them to be given from this koy, as
covering, since, if one need not be concerned with pater- it has a domesticated component from its mother, while Rabbi
nity, it is simply the offspring of a doe. Even if one must
Eliezer exempts one from giving them, as he holds that an animal’s
be concerned with paternity, and the father of the koy is
a domesticated animal, it also has an undomesticated parents must both be domesticated to qualify the animal as
animal component from its mother, and the Rabbis hold domesticated.
that even if it is only partially an undomesticated animal,
its blood must be covered. ‫ ְל ִענְיַ ן אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ָל ּה ֵ ּבין‬Rav Pappa continues: With regard to the matter of the prohibition
‫ ו ֵּבין ִ ּבצְ ִבי‬,‫ ְ ּב ַתיִ ׁיש ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה‬against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring on the same
day, which the Rabbis hold applies to a koy but Rabbi Eliezer does
;‫ישה‬
ָ ׁ ָ‫ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְּתי‬
not, you find such a case either with regard to a koy who is the
daughter of a goat who mates with a doe, or with regard to a koy
who is the daughter of a deer who mates with a female goat.

,‫ְ ּב ַתיִ ׁיש ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה – ו ְּל ִא ּיסו ָּרא‬ Rav Pappa explains: The case may be referring to a koy who is the
,‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬
ְ ׁ ‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא‬:‫דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי‬ daughter of a goat who mates with a doe, and it relates to a pro-
ּ ‫״שה״ – וַ ֲא ִפ‬ hibition, i.e., whether slaughtering it and its offspring in one day is
,‫יל ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן‬ ֶׂ
prohibited ab initio, as the Rabbis hold: Perhaps one needs to
.‫וְ ָאסוּר‬ be concerned with its paternity, and this koy is therefore consid-
ered part domesticated, and we say that the word “sheep” means
that even if it is partially a sheep this prohibition applies, and its
slaughter on the same day as its daughter is prohibited ab initio,
although one does not receive lashes for it as it is not a definite
transgression.

‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין‬
ְ ׁ ְּ‫ נְ ִהי נַ ִמי ד‬:‫יעזֶ ר ָס ַבר‬
ֶ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Though one indeed needs to be con-
ׂ ֶ ,‫ ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬cerned with its paternity, and this koy is considered partially
‫״שה״ – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה‬
domesticated, we do not say that the word “sheep” means that
.‫ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬
even if it is partially a sheep the prohibition applies. Therefore, its
slaughter on the same day as its offspring is permitted.
18 Ĥullin . perek V . 80a . ‫פ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ה‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫ישה – ו ְּל ַמ ְלקֹות‬ ָ ׁ ָ‫ִ ּבצְ ִבי ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְּתי‬ Additionally, the case under dispute may be referring to a koy who
is the daughter of a deer who mates with a female goat, and it There are no lashes, etc. – ‫יכא וכו׳‬ ָּ ‫מ ְלקֹות ֵל‬:ַ Rashi
– ‫״שה״‬ ׂ ֶ ,‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬
ְ ׁ ְּ‫נְהי נַ ִמי ד‬
ִ :‫ָס ְב ִרי‬ explains that the reason one does not incur lashes
relates to whether slaughtering it and its offspring in one day renders
.‫יה‬ּ ‫ ו ַּמ ְל ִקינַן ֵל‬,‫וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬ here is because it is a case of an uncertain forewarning.
one liable to receive lashes. The Rabbis hold: Though one indeed The later commentaries question why Rashi felt com-
‫ ַמ ְלקֹות‬,‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ִא ּיסו ָּרא ִא‬:‫יעזֶ ר ָס ַבר‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ needs to be concerned with its paternity, and this koy is considered pelled to explain that lashes are not incurred due to an
;‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ֵל‬ partially undomesticated, we say that the word “sheep” means that uncertain forewarning, as the halakha of whether it is
the prohibition applies even if it is partially a sheep, such as this permitted to slaughter the koy and its offspring on one
koy, and one who slaughters it and its offspring on one day is day is uncertain, regardless of the forewarning, and it
would therefore not render the transgressor liable to
flogged. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: There is a prohibition against
receive lashes. Some explain that Rashi holds that an
slaughtering this koy and its offspring on the same day, but if one uncertain prohibition is still prohibited by Torah law,
slaughtered them there are no lashes. and one would therefore incur lashes if not for the
lack of a valid forewarning (Ri Ĥaver; see Ĥatam Sofer
‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע‬
ְ ׁ ‫יכא – דִּ ְל ָמא ֵאין‬
ָּ ‫ ִא ּיסו ָּרא ִא‬The Gemara explains: There is a prohibition in the case of this koy and Rashash).
‫ וְ ַהאי ֶ ׂשה ְמ ַע ְּליָ א הוּא; ַמ ְלקֹות‬,‫ ָה ָאב‬that is itself a mother, since perhaps one need not be concerned The koy is the wild ram – ‫כֹוי זֶ ה ֵאיל ַה ָ ּבר‬:ּ Tosafot
with its paternity, and therefore this koy is a full-fledged sheep,
,‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬
ְ ׁ ‫יכא – דִּ ְל ָמא‬
ָּ ‫ֵל‬ explain that according to this opinion the koy is entirely
like its mother. Due to uncertainty, there are no lashesn for violating an undomesticated animal, and its blood must be cov-
the prohibition because perhaps one needs to be concerned with ered even on a Festival. According to this explanation,
its paternity, in which case this koy is only a partial sheep. three different opinions about the koy are expressed in
this baraita. The first tanna holds that it is entirely an
.‫״שה״ – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬
ׂ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬And according to Rabbi Eliezer, we do not say that the word “sheep” undomesticated animal, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel
means that even if it is partially a sheep it is subject to the prohibi- holds that it is entirely a domesticated animal, and
tion. Therefore, one is not flogged for slaughtering this koy on the Rabbi Yosei holds that it is a distinct entity, neither
same day as its offspring, as lashes are administered only when the domesticated nor undomesticated. Other commentar-
ies maintain that Rav Naĥman’s statement, as that of
witnesses give the transgressor a definite forewarning against violat-
the first tanna in the baraita, does not relate to the
ing the prohibition. Since the prohibition in this case is uncertain, status of the koy as domesticated or not, but simply
any forewarning would be uncertain. identifies it as a specific animal known as the wild ram.
If so, he would hold that this animal has an unknown
‫ ּכֹוי – ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ § Until this point, the Gemara considered the koy to be the result status (Lev Arye).
‫ וְ ל ֹא ִה ְכ ִריע ּו ָ ּב ּה ֲח ָכ ִמים ִאם ִמין‬,‫ִהיא‬ of interbreeding a deer and a goat. The Gemara now cites other
opinions as to its identity: Rav Yehuda says: A koyh is a distinct
‫ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬.‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ִהיא ִאם ִמין ַחּיָ ה ִהיא‬ halakha
entity, and the Sages did not determine whether it is a species of Koy – ‫כֹוי‬:ּ A koy, to which the Sages assigned the
.‫ ּכֹוי – זֶ ה ֵאיל ַה ָ ּבר‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ domesticated animal or a species of undomesticated animal. Rav stringencies of both a domesticated animal and an
Naĥman says: The koy is the wild ram.b undomesticated animal, is the result of interbreed-
ing between a kosher domesticated animal and a
:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬.‫ ּכֹוי – זֶ ה ֵאיל ַה ָ ּבר‬:‫ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬ The Gemara notes that this dispute is like a dispute between kosher undomesticated animal, in accordance with
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫זֶ ה ַה ָ ּבא ִמן ַה ַּתיִ ׁיש ו ִּמן ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה‬
‫יֹוסי‬ tanna’im cited in a baraita: The koy is the wild ram,n and there are the opinion of Rav Ĥisda (Maggid Mishne). In addition,
those who say: It is that which results from the mating of a goat any animal about which there is uncertainty whether it
‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫ ּכֹוי – ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה ִהיא‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ is domesticated or undomesticated has the same hal-
with a doe. Rabbi Yosei says: A koy is a distinct entity, and the
‫ִה ְכ ִריע ּו ָ ּב ּה ֲח ָכ ִמים ִאם ִמין ַחּיָ ה ִאם ִמין‬ Sages did not determine whether it is a species of undomesti-
akhic status (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
Assurot 1:13 and Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:7;
‫ ִמין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬.‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ cated animal or a species of domesticated animal. Rabban Shi- Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:3, 64:1, and 80:6).
‫ וְ ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבית דּ ו ׁ ּ ַּשאי ָהי ּו ְמגַ דְּ ִלין‬,‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ִהיא‬ mon ben Gamliel says: It is a species of domesticated animal, and
Forest goats – ‫אלא‬ ָ ‫עּזֵ י ְד ָב‬:ִ The majority of the early
.‫ֵמ ֶהן ֲע ָד ִרים ֲע ָד ִרים‬ the members of the house of Dushai would raise flocks and flocks
commentaries hold that the wild goat is a species of
of them, as with other domesticated animals. domesticated animal, in accordance with the opin-
ion of Rav Hamnuna. There are later commentaries
‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ָא ַמר ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא ָא ַמר ַרב‬ § The Gemara cites a statement with regard to goats: Rabbi Zeira who rule that in practice one must also observe the
‫אלא ְּכ ׁ ֵשרֹות ְלגַ ֵ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ ָהנֵי ִעּזֵ י ְד ָב‬:‫ַה ְמנוּנָ א‬ says that Rav Safra says that Rav Hamnuna says that these forest stringencies applying to undomesticated animals due
goats,hb i.e., wild goats, are fit to be sacrificed on the altar, as they to uncertainty (see Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 80 and
:‫ ָס ַבר ָל ּה ִּכי ָהא דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬.‫ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬
are considered a type of goat. The Gemara comments that Rav Darkhei Teshuva there).
.‫ֶע ֶ ׂשר ְ ּב ֵהמֹות ָמנָ ה ַה ָּכתוּב וְ ת ּו ָלא‬ Hamnuna holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Yitzĥak The verse lists ten kosher animals – ‫ֶע ֶ ׂשר ְ ּב ֵהמֹות ָמנָ ה‬
says: The verse lists ten kosher animals,h and no more. He is refer- ‫ה ָּכתוּב‬:ַ Out of all the domesticated and undomesti-
ring to the verses: “These are the animals that you may eat: An ox, cated animals in the world, only the ten species listed
a seh of sheep, and a seh of goats, a deer, and a gazelle, and a fallow in the Torah are permitted for consumption. Of those
deer, and a wild goat, and an oryx, and an aurochs, and a wild sheep” ten, there are three species of domesticated animals:
The ox, the sheep, and the goat; and there are seven
(Deuteronomy 14:4–5). The first three are domesticated animals,
species of undomesticated animals: The deer, the
while the other seven are undomesticated animals. gazelle, the fallow deer, the wild goat, the oryx, the
aurochs, and the wild sheep. This ruling is in accor-
dance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzĥak (Rambam
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 1:8).

background
Wild ram – ‫איל ַה ָ ּבר‬:ֵ The wild ram is assumed to be the mouflon, about its status, similar to the situation with regard to the status
whose scientific name is Ovis orientalis, and which, according to of the wild ox.
many scientific theories, is an ancestor of modern domesticated
sheep. The mouflon differs from most types of sheep in having Forest goats – ‫אלא‬ ָ ‫עּזֵ י ְד ָב‬:ִ It is possible that the animal referred
rather short hair, except for locks of long hair on the chest of the to is the wild goat, whose scientific name is Capra aegagrus, and
male. It lives in mountainous areas, mainly in isolated regions in is considered the ancestor of the domesticated goat. Its average
Europe nowadays, and is an adept mountain climber. It is likely length is 130 cm, with a height of about 1 m. The male has long
that the mouflon’s similarity to domesticated sheep together with backward-curving horns, and the female has short horns. The wild
its clearly undomesticated status gave rise to the uncertainty goat climbs rocky cliffs as well as trees.

 ‫פ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 80a 19

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
,‫ ִמדְּ ָלא ָק ָח ׁ ֵשיב ְלה ּו ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ַחּיֹות‬,‫וְ ָהנֵי‬ And with regard to these forest goats, since they are not reckoned
Wild goat – ‫א ּקֹו‬:ַ Some commentaries identify this bibli- among the undomesticated animals, learn from it that they are a
cal animal with the Nubian ibex, whose scientific name ‫ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב‬.ּ‫ דְּ ֵעז נִינְ הו‬:‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬
type of goat, as they are also called goats and have a goat-like appear-
is Capra ibex nubiana. The Nubian ibex has a body and – ‫״אּיָ ל וּצְ ִבי״‬ ַ :‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬,‫ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬
feet adapted to climbing in the desert, with legs that are ance. Rav Aĥa bar Yaakov objects to this: Perhaps wild goats are a
,‫״כל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה״ – ְּכ ָלל‬ ָּ ,‫ּ ְפ ָרט‬ different species of undomesticated animal not explicitly mentioned
short and sturdy with tough hooves. The male has long
curving horns while the female has much shorter horns. in the verse, as the next verse provides a more general description,
Aurochs [te’o] – ‫תאֹו‬:ְּ Although this word is sometimes and I will say that the verse: “A deer and a gazelle, etc.,” is a list of
translated as antelope, it may not actually refer to an undomesticated animals, each of which is a specific detail. The next
antelope or to the animal nowadays called te’o in Hebrew, verse: “And any animal,” is a generalization.
the buffalo. Some identify the biblical te’o as the aurochs,
an extinct species of large wild cattle whose scientific ,‫נַע ָ ׂשה ְּכ ָלל מו ָּסף ַעל ַה ּ ְפ ָרט‬
ֲ – ‫ ּ ְפ ָרט ו ְּכ ָלל‬According to the principles for explicating verses, when there is a
name is Bos primigenius. That animal was approximately
3 m in length, with a height of almost 2 m. It was black !‫יכא טו ָּבא‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬detail and then a generalization, the generalization was made to
and known for its great strength. Another suggestion as
expand beyond the detail. Therefore, there are more species of
to the identity of the biblical te’o is the European bison, kosher undomesticated animals than the verse lists, one of which
whose scientific name is Bison bonasus. may be forest goats.

‫ ָּכל ָהנֵי ּ ְפ ָר ֵטי ָל ָּמה ִלי? ַמ ְת ִקיף‬,‫ ִאם ֵּכן‬The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need all of these details? The
ּ ‫ ָל ּה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬mention of a single undomesticated animal and then the generaliza-
‫ וְ ִד ְל ָמא‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ִא ָיקא‬
tion should suffice for applying the principle of: A detail and a
?ּ‫ִמינָ א דְּ ַא ּקֹו נִינְ הו‬
generalization. Rather, these are the only kosher undomesticated
animals, and the forest goat must therefore be a type of domesti-
cated goat. Rav Aĥa, son of Rav Ika, objects to this: But even if
forest goats are not a different type of undomesticated animal from
those mentioned in the verse, perhaps they are a type of wild goat,b
Ancient Greek depiction of an aurochs one of the undomesticated animals mentioned in the verse, rather
Wild sheep – ‫זֶ ֶמר‬: Although this animal is often identified than a type of domesticated goat.
as the wild sheep, its identity is not at all clear. In the Sep-
tuagint this Hebrew word is translated as spotted camel. ‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא ְל ַרב‬ ּ ‫יה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ With regard to this topic, Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi,
Rav Se’adya Gaon identifies this biblical animal as the and some say it was Rav Aĥa, son of Rav Avya, who said to Rav
giraffe, whose scientific name is Giraffa camelopardalis, ‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ּ ‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬,‫ַא ׁ ִשי‬
Ashi: Perhaps they are a type of aurochs [te’o],b or a type of wild
which refers to its camel-like appearance and the patches ‫ אֹו‬,‫ דִּ ְל ָמא ִמינָ א דִּ ְתאֹו‬:‫ָאוְ יָ א ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬
of color on its fur. The giraffe has all of the characteristics sheep,b which are also undomesticated animals. Rav Ĥanan said
‫יה ַרב ָחנָן ְל ַרב‬ ּ ‫ִמינָ א דְּ זֶ ֶמר נִינְ הוּ? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ to Rav Ashi: Differing from Rav Hamnuna’s opinion, Ameimar
of a kosher animal, though it is different in form from
other ruminants. It was brought to Egypt during the third .ּ‫ימר ׁ ָש ֵרי ַּת ְר ַ ּביְ יהו‬
ָ ‫ ַא ֵמ‬:‫ַא ׁ ִשי‬ deems the consumption of their fat permitted, which is prohibited
millennium BCE, and it appears in several pictures that with regard to domesticated animals, indicating that he considers
depict bringing gifts and paying taxes. forest goats a species of undomesticated animal.
Wild ox…forest ox – ‫ר…תו ְּר ָ ּב ָלא‬
ּ ‫שֹור ַה ָ ּב‬:ׁ Some com-
mentaries state, in accordance with the opinion of Rav ‫יה דְּ ַרב ִמנְ יָ ִמין‬ ּ ‫ֵיה ַא ָ ּבא ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬ Abba, son of Rav Minyamin bar Ĥiyya, inquired of Rav Huna bar
Se’adya Gaon, that the wild ox is the water buffalo, Buba- Ĥiyya: What is the halakha with regard to offering these forest
lus bubalis, which is called te’o in modern Hebrew. This
‫ ָהנֵי ִעּזֵ י‬:‫ַ ּבר ִחּיָ יא ֵמ ַרב הוּנָ א ַ ּבר ִחּיָ יא‬
goats [izei devala] on the altar? Are they domesticated animals that
animal differs from common cattle in its strength, size, :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַמה ּו ְלגַ ֵ ּבי ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫אלא‬ ָ ‫דְּ ָב‬
dark color, and the structure of its horns. It also spends
may be sacrificed? Rav Huna bar Ĥiyya said to him: Rabbi Yosei
‫יֹוסי וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ֶא ָּלא‬
ֵ ‫ַעד ָּכאן ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ַר ִ ּבי‬ and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to the wild ox.h
long periods of time in the water because of its lack of
sweat glands. It derives originally from East Asia, where ,‫ְ ּב ׁשֹור ַה ָ ּבר‬
it was domesticated as a work animal. Though the water
buffalo is quiet and pleasant toward its caretakers, it can ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ׁשֹור ַה ָ ּבר ִמין ְ ּב ֵה ָמה הוּא‬:‫דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ As we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 8:6): The wild ox is a species
be very dangerous to strangers. Others have cast doubt :‫ ִמין ַחּיָ ה; דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָס ְב ִרי‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ of domesticated animal. Rabbi Yosei says: It is a species of undo-
on this identification, since the water buffalo apparently mesticated animal. As the Rabbis hold that from the fact that
ּ ‫ִמדִּ ְמ ַת ְר ְ ּג ִמינַן‬
‫״תו ְּר ָ ּב ָלא״ – ִמינָא דִּ ְב ֵה ָמה‬
only arrived in Eretz Yisrael fairly late, perhaps even in the “aurochs” (Deuteronomy 14:5) is translated into Aramaic as: Forest
Middle Ages. Some suggest instead that the wild ox is the ‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ִמדְּ ָקא ָח ׁ ֵשיב ֵל‬:‫יֹוסי ָס ַבר‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫הוּא‬ ox [turbala],bl it can be understood that the wild ox is a species of
aurochs, an extinct species of large wild oxen held to be ‫ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ַחּיֹות – ִמינָ א דְּ ַחּיָ ה הוּא; ֲא ָבל‬ domesticated animal, and Rabbi Yosei holds: From the fact that
the ancestor of domesticated cattle.
The Sages themselves disagree with regard to the
.ּ‫ָהנֵי – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ִמינָ א דְּ ֵעז נִינְ הו‬ it is reckoned among the undomesticated animals, it can be
identity and status of the wild ox. Some simply consider derived that it is a species of undomesticated animal.n But with
it a feral strain of domesticated cattle (see Jerusalem regard to these forest goats, which are not reckoned among the
Talmud, Kilayim 8:4), while others consider it a distinct undomesticated animals, all agree that they are a type of goat and
species identical to the wild te’o mentioned in the Torah. are fit to be sacrificed upon the altar.

halakha language
The wild ox – ‫שֹור ַה ָ ּבר‬:ׁ The wild ox is considered a Forest goats [izei devala]…forest ox [turbala] – …‫אלא‬ ָ ‫ִעּזֵ י דְּ ָב‬ the letter reish. Similarly the ge’onim write that it refers to areas
domesticated animal, in accordance with the opinion ‫תו ְּר ָ ּב ָלא‬:ּ According to Rashi, the linguistic element bala, or bela, of fields or wilderness, and it is used in this manner in Mandaic,
of the first tanna, who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei. Some means a forest, i.e., an area beyond the inhabited regions. One as well. Forest goats are, therefore, wild goats. In fact, some have
authorities identify the wild ox as the water buffalo, while suggestion is that bala is derived from bara, which means: Out- a version of the text of the Gemara in which these animals are
others hold that the water buffalo is simply a type of side or field, via the familiar substitution of the letter lamed for simply called wild goats (Arukh).
domesticated cattle; according to both opinions, the
water buffalo is treated halakhically as a domesticated notes
animal. Others suspect that that the water buffalo could From the fact that it is reckoned among the undomesticated animal. But as opposed to Rabbi Yosei, who assumes that it is the
be an undomesticated animal, and they require cover- animals it can be derived that it is a species of undomesti- wild ox, the Rabbis identify the wild ox as a domesticated animal
ing its blood without reciting a blessing (Rambam Sefer cated animal – ‫יה ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ַחּיֹות ִמינָ א דְּ ַחּיָ ה הוּא‬
ּ ‫מדְּ ָקא ָח ׁ ֵשיב ֵל‬:ִ In the that is different from the aurochs. It is possible that the Rambam,
Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 1:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 8:4) and in the Tosefta (Kilayim 1:9) it is who ruled against Rabbi Yosei even though the amora’im in this
Yoreh De’a 80:3, 28:4, and in the comment of Rema). explained that the Rabbis agree that the aurochs [te’o] mentioned discussion appear to support his opinion, based his opinion upon
in the verse (Deuteronomy 14:5) is actually an undomesticated these sources (see Beur HaGra to Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 80:2).

20 Ĥullin . perek V . 80a . ‫פ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ה‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
:‫יה דְּ ַרב ִא ָיקא‬ ּ ‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬ Rav Aĥa, son of Rav Ika, objects to this: But perhaps they are a
type of wild goat. Similarly, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps An act of slaughter that is unfit – ‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָה‬
ָ ‫ש ִח‬:
ְׁ
ּ ‫וְ ִד ְל ָמא ִמינָ א דְּ ַא ּקֹו נִינְ הוּ! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
‫יה ָר ִבינָ א‬ An act of slaughter that does not serve to permit the
they are a type of aurochs, or a type of wild sheep. Additionally,
‫ אֹו ִמינָ א‬,‫ וְ ִד ְל ָמא ִמינָ א דִּ ְתאֹו‬:‫ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ meat for consumption is nevertheless considered an
Rav Naĥman said to Rav Ashi: Ameimar deems the consumption act of slaughter with regard to the prohibition of: Itself
:‫יה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫דְּ זֶ ֶמר נִינְ הוּ? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ of their fat permitted, which is prohibited with regard to domesti- and its offspring, in accordance with the opinion of the
.ּ‫ימר ׁ ָש ֵרי ַּת ְר ַ ּביְ יהו‬
ָ ‫ַא ֵמ‬ cated animals, as he considers them undomesticated animals. Rabbis in the mishna (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
Sheĥita 12:6).
:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ַ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ֹוחט״ וכו׳‬ ֵ ‫״כיצַ ד ַה ׁ ּש‬ ֵּ § The mishna teaches: How so? One who slaughters an animal
?‫ ִמ ַּמאי‬.‫נִיתין דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ִ ‫ּכו ָּּל ּה ַמ ְת‬ itself and its offspring, etc. Rabbi Oshaya says: The entire mishna
is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. From
‫אשֹון ַחּיָ יב‬ ׁ ‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַ ּבחוּץ – ָה ִר‬:‫ִמדְּ ָקא ָּתנֵי‬
where is this derived? It is derived from that which the mishna
‫סֹופגִ ים‬ ְ ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש‬,‫נֵיהם ּ ְפסו ִּלים‬ ֶ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש‬,‫ָּכ ֵרת‬ teaches: If both animals were sacrificial animals slaughtered out-
‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ִמ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ָש ְמ ִעינַ ן ֵל‬.‫ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ side the Temple courtyard, then for slaughtering the first animal,
– ‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון דְּ ָא ַמר‬ one is liable to receive karet. And both animals are disqualified for
,‫יטה‬
ָ ‫ָלא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ use as offerings, and for the slaughter of both of them, one incurs
forty lashes. Since we have heard that Rabbi Shimon says: An act
of slaughter that is unfith to permit consumption of the meat is not
considered to have the halakhic status of an act of slaughter.n

notes
An act of slaughter that is unfit to permit consumption is not animal or bird (see 85a) and payment of four or five times the value
considered an act of slaughter – ‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ָלא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬
ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ of the animal if it was stolen and slaughtered (see Bava Kamma
‫יטה‬
ָ ‫ש ִח‬:
ְ ׁ This means that an act of slaughter that does not render 70a). Further on (85a–b), the Gemara explains that Rabbi Shimon
the meat of the animal permitted for consumption is not consid- derives his opinion from the verse: “And slaughter and prepare
ered an act of slaughter, and no obligation or prohibition created the meat, for the men shall dine with me” (Genesis 43:16), which
by an act of slaughter applies to the animal (Rashi on Kiddushin indicates that slaughtering meat is defined as an act that serves
58a). Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is relevant to a number of halakhot, to prepare it for consumption.
including covering the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated

Perek V
Daf 80 Amud b

‫ ׁ ֵשנִי – ִמ ְת ַק ֵ ּבל ִ ּב ְפנִים‬,‫יה‬

ּ ‫ ַק ָּמא ִמ ְיק ַטל ַק ְט ֵל‬Therefore, when one slaughters a mother and its offspring that are
ַ ‫ ָּכ ֵרת נַ ִמי ִל‬,‫ הוּא‬both sacrificial animals outside the Temple courtyard, with regard
!‫יחּיַ יב‬
to the first, it is as if he has simply killed it without ritual slaughter,
since being slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard renders it
unfit. Accordingly, the second would have been fit to be accepted
within the Temple, and there would have been no prohibition
against slaughtering it on that day. If so, when he slaughtered it
outside the courtyard, why is he liable only to receive lashes? Let
him also be liable to receive karet.

‫סֹופג‬ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬,‫נֵיהם ּ ְפסו ִּלין‬ֶ ‫חו ִּּלין ִ ּב ְפנִים – ׁ ְש‬ Likewise, the same question may be asked with regard to what is
‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ּ ‫ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים; ִמ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ָש ְמ ִעינַ ן ֵל‬ taught in the mishna: If both animals were non-sacred and they
were slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, both of them are
‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ָלא‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון דְּ ָא ַמר‬
unfit for sacrifice. And for the slaughter of the second animal, one
‫ ׁ ֵשנִי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַק ָּמא – ִמ ְיק ַטל ַק ְט ֵל‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ incurs the forty lashes. Since we have heard that Rabbi Shimon
?‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ֵ ‫ַא ַּמאי‬ says: An act of slaughter that is unfit is not considered to have the
halakhic status of an act of slaughter, with regard to the first animal,
it is as if he has simply killed it without ritual slaughter, since a
non-sacred animal slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is rendered
unfit, as deriving benefit from it is prohibited. If so, why, for the
slaughter of the second animal, does one incur the forty lashes?

,‫אשֹון ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ו ָּפטוּר‬

ׁ ‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ִ ּב ְפנִים – ָה ִר‬Similarly, the mishna teaches: If both animals were sacrificial ani-
ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי‬mals slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, the first is fit for
;‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ו ָּפסוּל‬
sacrifice, and one who slaughters it is exempt from any punishment.
But for the slaughter of the second animal, one incurs the forty
lashes for the slaughter of an animal and its offspring on a single day,
and it is unfit for sacrifice.
 ‫פ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 80b 21
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
:‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ִמ ְּכ ֵדי ׁ ָש ְמ ִעינַ ן ֵל‬ Since we have heard that Rabbi Shimon says: An act of slaughter
Sprinkled the blood – ‫זָ ֵריק דָּ ם‬: This term refers to the that is unfit to permit consumption of the animal is not considered
presentation of sacrificial blood on the altar, which ,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ָלא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬
to have the halakhic status of an act of slaughter. One can then raise
is one of the four sacrificial rites performed for the ‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה‬ ָ ‫יטת ָק ָד ׁ ִשים נַ ִמי ׁ ְש ִח‬ ַ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬
sacrifice of every animal offering in the Temple. The the question: An act of slaughter of sacrificial animals is also con-
‫יש ְּת ִרי‬
ְ ׁ ‫ דְּ ַכ ָּמה דְּ ָלא זָ ֵריק דָּ ם – ָלא ִמ‬,‫ִהיא‬ sidered an act of slaughter that is unfit, because as long as one has
manner in which the blood was presented on the
altar varied according to the nature of the particular ?‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ו ָּפסוּל‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֵשנִי ַא ַּמאי‬,‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ not sprinkled the blood,b the meat is not permitted to be burned
offering, but the presenting of the blood was always .‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ on the altar or eaten. Since slaughtering the first animal is not con-
the essential element necessary for an offering to sidered slaughtering, why, for slaughtering the second animal, does
effect atonement. Accordingly, as soon as the blood
one incur the forty lashes for slaughtering an animal and its off-
was presented as required on the altar, the one who
brought the offering achieved atonement, even if
spring on a single day, and why is it unfit? Rather, conclude from
the later sacrificial rites connected with the offering this analysis that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion
were not completed in the required manner. of Rabbi Shimon.

‫יטת ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ַ ‫יתא! ׁ ְש ִח‬ ָ ‫יטא דְּ ָה ִכי ִא‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that this is so? There is no need
:‫יה; ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּת ְך ָא ִמינָ א‬ ּ ‫יכא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬ for this long analysis. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for
Rabbi Oshaya to mention that the mishna is not in accordance with
‫ דְּ ָהא‬,‫יטה ְראוּיָ ה ִהיא‬ ָ ‫יטת ָק ָד ׁ ִשים – ׁ ְש ִח‬ ַ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬
the opinion of Rabbi Shimon due to the case of slaughtering an
‫ וְ ִכי‬,‫יש ְּת ִרי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬
ְ ׁ ‫ִאי נָ ַחר וְ זָ ֵריק דָּ ם – ָלא ִמ‬ animal and its offspring that are sacrificial animals inside the Tem-
,‫יטה ְראוּיָ ה ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש ִח‬,‫יש ְּת ִרי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬
ְ ׁ ‫ׁ ָש ַחט – ִמ‬ ple courtyard. This is because it may enter your mind to say that
.‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ slaughtering sacrificial animals is considered an act of slaughter-
ing that is fit, because if he stabbed the animal to death and sprin-
kled its blood, the meat is not permitted, but if he slaughtered it,
the meat is permitted and it is considered slaughtering that is fit
according to Rabbi Shimon. Therefore, he teaches us that it is not fit.

:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ § וְ ִל ְיל ֵקי נַ ִמי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָלאו דִּ ְמחו ַּּסר זְ ַמן‬With regard to the ruling that one who slaughters an animal and
‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ָכל ַה ּ ְפסו ִּלין ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ׁשֹור וְ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶשהוּא‬its offspring that are sacrificial animals inside the Temple courtyard
receives lashes for violating the prohibition of: Itself and its off-
?‫ְ ּב״ל ֹא יֵ ָרצֶ ה״‬
spring, when slaughtering the second animal, the Gemara suggests:
And let him be flogged also for violating the prohibition against
sacrificing an animal whose time has not yet arrived,n since it is
forbidden to sacrifice it until the next day. As it is taught in a baraita:
From where is it derived with regard to all of the disqualifications
of the bull, i.e., any feature that disqualifies cattle brought as offer-
ings, and of the lamb, i.e., sheep brought as offerings, that if one
consecrates, slaughters, or burns on the altar an animal so disquali-
fied, he violates the prohibition of: It shall not be accepted, and is
flogged?

– ‫ ״וְ ׁשֹור וָ ֶ ׂשה ָ ׂשרו ַּע וְ ָקלוּט״ וגו׳‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬It is derived from the fact that, in the middle of the passage prohibit-
‫ימד ַעל ַה ּ ְפסו ִּלין ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ׁשֹור וְ ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ֶ ׂשה ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ֵּ ‫ ִל‬ing blemished animals from being sacrificed upon the altar, the
verse states: “Either a bull or a lamb that has anything too long
!‫ְ ּב״ל ֹא יֵ ָרצֶ ה״‬
or too short…but for a vow it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus
22:23). Since this passage is already discussing a bull and lamb, it is
unnecessary to mention them. Rather, this verse taught about all
of the disqualifications of the bull and of the lamb, including
that of an animal whose time has not yet arrived, that if one offers
an animal with one of those disqualifications, he violates the
prohibition of: It shall not be accepted.

‫ ָלאוֵ י‬,‫ ִּכי ָקא ָח ׁ ֵשיב – ָלאוֵ י דְּ אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬The Gemara answers: He receives lashes for violating that prohibi-
.‫ נו ְּכ ָר ֵאי – ָלא ָקא ָח ׁ ֵשיב‬tion as well, but when the mishna lists the prohibitions violated by
the actions described, it lists only prohibitions related to the pro-
hibition of: Itself and its offspring, but it does not list unrelated
prohibitions.

notes
The prohibition against sacrificing an animal whose time has whether it be a bull or a sheep, you shall not slaughter it and its
not yet arrived – ‫לאו דִּ ְמחו ַּּסר זְ ַמן‬:ָ The prohibition against sacrific- offspring both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28), from which the Sages
ing an animal whose time has not yet arrived is stated in the verse: derived in Torat Kohanim that one who violates this prohibition is
“When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is born, then it shall be seven also subject to the injunction: “It may be accepted for an offering,”
days with its mother; but from the eighth day and forward it may from the previous verse. Therefore, one who slaughters an animal
be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus and its offspring that are sacrificial animals on the same day has
22:27), which teaches that before the eighth day it is not accepted also violated a prohibition stemming from the positive mitzva of:
as an offering in the Temple. Immediately afterward it is stated: “And “It may be accepted for an offering.”

22 Ĥullin . perek V . 80b . ‫פ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ה‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,ּ‫ דְּ ָלאוֵ י נו ְּכ ָר ֵאי נִינְ הו‬,‫ וְ ָלא? וְ ָהא ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַ ּבחוּץ‬The Gemara asks: And does the mishna not list unrelated prohibi-
– ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ ָה ִר‬,‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַ ּבחוּץ‬:‫ וְ ָקא ָח ׁ ֵשיב! דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬tions? But there are prohibitions with regard to sacrificial animals
slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, which are unrelated
;‫סֹופגִ ין ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ְ ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש‬,‫ַחּיָ יב ָּכ ֵרת‬
prohibitions, and it lists them. As it teaches: If both animals were
sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, then
for slaughtering the first animal, one is liable to receive karet.
And both animals are disqualified for use as offerings, and for the
slaughter of both of them one incurs forty lashes apiece.

,‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ׁ ֵשנִי – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָלאו דְּ אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬Granted, with regard to the second animal one is flogged due to
‫סֹופג – ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָלאו‬ ֵ ‫אשֹון ַא ַּמאי‬ ׁ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִר‬the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring. But with regard to the
first animal, why does he incur the forty lashes? Isn’t it due to the
?‫דִּ ׁ ְשחו ֵּטי חוּץ‬
prohibition of consecrated animals slaughtered outside the Tem-
ple courtyard? Therefore, with regard to the case of sacrificial ani-
mals slaughtered inside the Temple courtyard, the mishna should
also have mentioned the unrelated prohibition of: It shall not
be accepted.

‫יכא ָלאו דְּ אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו – ָח ׁ ֵשיב‬ ָּ ‫יכא דְּ ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ֵה‬The Gemara answers: Wherever there is no violation of the prohi-
‫יכא ָלאו דְּ אֹותֹו‬ ָּ ‫יכא דְּ ִא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָכל ֵה‬,‫ ָלאוֵ י נו ְּכ ָר ֵאי‬bition of: Itself and its offspring, for slaughtering an animal, the
mishna lists unrelated prohibitions, but wherever there is a viola-
.‫וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו – ָלא ָח ׁ ֵשיב ָלאוֵ י נו ְּכ ָר ֵאי‬
tion of the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, the mishna does
not list unrelated prohibitions, but only the prohibition of: Itself
and its offspring.

‫ דְּ ַה ָּכתוּב‬,‫ ַה ַּנח ִל ְמחו ַּּסר זְ ַמן‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ֲא ַמר‬Rabbi Zeira said: Leave the prohibition against sacrificing an
animal whose time has not yet arrived, as the verse

Perek V
Daf 81 Amud a
background
‫״מּיֹום‬ִ :‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ נִ ְּתקֹו ַל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬transmuted it from the standard prohibition of: It shall not be
Prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva –
,‫ ִמּיֹום ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי – ִאין‬,‫ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי וָ ָה ְל ָאה יֵ ָרצֶ ה״‬accepted, which is violated in the case of the other disqualifications, ‫לאו ַה ָ ּבא ִמ ְּכ ַלל ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬:ָ This is an implicit Torah pro-
into a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva. What is the
.‫ ָלאו ַה ָ ּבא ִמ ְּכ ַלל ֲע ֵ ׂשה – ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬,‫יק ָרא – ָלא‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬ hibition that the Torah itself does not mention
reasoning by which this is derived? It is derived from that which explicitly, but rather is derived from a positive
the verse states: “From the eighth day and forward it may be mitzva. For example, the Torah states with regard
accepted for an offering” (Leviticus 22:27), which teaches that from to the Paschal offering (Exodus 12:8): “And they
the eighth day after its birth, yes, it may be sacrificed as an offering, shall eat the meat during that night.” This posi-
but initially, before the eighth day, no, it may not be sacrificed. tive statement is interpreted by the Sages as a
prohibition against eating the Paschal offering
Therefore, this is a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva,b
during the day (Pesaĥim 41b). Since it is derived
which is not considered a negative prohibition for which one is from a positive mitzva, a violation of this prohibi-
flogged, but rather a positive mitzva. tion is considered like the violation of a positive
mitzva. Accordingly, a court will not administer
‫יקי! דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ִ ‫טֹור‬
ִ ‫יה ְל ִכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי ַא ּ ְפ‬
ּ ‫יב ֲעיָ א ֵל‬
ּ ָ ‫וְ ָהא ִמ‬ The Gemara asks: But this verse is required for the statement of any punishment for such a violation.

‫ ״וְ ָהיָה ׁ ִש ְב ַעת יָ ִמים ַּת ַחת‬:‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫טֹור ִיקי ָר ֵמי‬ִ ‫ַא ּ ְפ‬ Rabbi Aptoriki,l as Rabbi Aptoriki raises a contradiction: It is
written: “Then it shall be seven days with its mother” (Leviticus language
ּ
‫״מּיֹום ַה ׁ ְש ִמינִי‬
ִ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ִא ּמֹו״ – ָהא ַליְ ָלה ֲחזִ י‬
22:27), indicating that on the night after the seventh day it is already Aptoriki – ‫טֹור ִיקי‬
ִ ‫א ּ ְפ‬:
ַ Apparently from the Latin
,‫ ִמּיֹום ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִמינִי וָ ָה ְל ָאה – ִאין‬,‫וָ ָה ְל ָאה יֵ ָרצֶ ה״‬ fit to be sacrificed. But it is also written in that verse: “From the word patricus, which signifies a nobleman or one
;‫ַליְ ָלה – ָלא‬ eighth day and forward it may be accepted,” indicating that from with aristocratic ancestry.
the eighth day forward, yes, it is fit, but on the night before it is not.

!‫ יֹום – ְל ַה ְרצָ ָאה‬,‫ ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד? ַליְ ָלה – ִל ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה‬How can these texts be reconciled? The night after the seventh day
ֵּ :‫ ְּכ ִתיב ְק ָרא ַא ֲח ִרינָ א‬is fit for consecration, which is permitted at that time, while the
ָ‫״כן ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְל ׁש ְֹרך‬
eighth day is fit for effecting acceptance, and only then may it be
.‫ְלצֹאנֶ ךָ ״‬
sacrificed on the altar. The Gemara answers that another verse is
also written that specifies this positive mitzva: “So shall you do
with your ox and with your sheep; seven days shall it be with its
mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exodus 22:29).
 ‫אפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 81a 23
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫אֹומר ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי‬ֵ :‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א‬ § The Gemara returns to discussing Rabbi Shimon’s opinion with
‫נֹוהג‬ֵ ‫ ֵאין אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬,‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ regard to slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day.
Rav Hamnuna says that Rabbi Shimon would say: The prohibition
‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬
against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring does not apply
‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ to sacrificial animals. What is the reason? The reason is that since
‫יטת ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ ַ ‫יטה – ׁ ְש ִח‬ ָ ‫ָלא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ Rabbi Shimon says that an act of slaughter that is unfit to permit
.‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ִהיא‬ ָ ‫נַ ִמי ׁ ְש ִח‬ consumption is not considered to have the halakhic status of an act
of slaughter, the prohibition will not apply here. This case of slaugh-
tering sacrificial animals is also considered slaughter that is unfit,
in that the flesh may not be burned upon the altar or eaten until the
blood has been presented.

‫ אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬:‫ְמ ִתיב ָר ָבא‬ Rava raises an objection from a baraita: If one slaughtered an animal
‫ ׁ ֵשנִי ְ ּבל ֹא‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ַ ּבחוּץ – ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ itself and its offspring and both animals were sacrificial animals
slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, Rabbi Shimon says: For
‫ ָּכל‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה; ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬
slaughtering the second animal he transgresses a prohibition in
‫ָה ָראוּי ָלבֹא ְל ַא ַחר זְ ַמן – ֲה ֵרי הוּא‬ slaughtering it outside the Temple, as Rabbi Shimon would say:
‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ וְ ֵאין ּבֹו ָּכ ֵרת‬,‫ְ ּבל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ With regard to any offering that is fit to come to the altar after a
‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ָּכ ֵרת – ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ certain amount of time and is offered outside the Temple before that
.‫ְ ּבל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ time, he who slaughters it transgresses a prohibition, but there is
no liability to receive karet. And the Rabbis say: With regard to any
offering slaughtered outside of the Temple for which there is no
liability to receive karet because it is unfit to be an offering at that
time, he who sacrifices it also does not transgress a prohibition.

‫ ׁ ֵשנִי ְ ּבל ֹא‬,‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַ ּבחוּץ‬:‫ וְ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָלן‬And this statement in the baraita is difficult for us: If both animals
– ‫ ׁ ֵשנִי‬,‫ ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה? ַק ָּמא – ִמ ְיק ַטל ְק ַטל‬were sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard,
Rabbi Shimon says: For slaughtering the second animal he trans-
!‫יחּיֵ יב‬ַ ‫ ָּכ ֵרת נַ ִמי ִל‬,‫ִמ ַ ּק ַ ּבל ִ ּב ְפנִים הוּא‬
gresses a prohibition for slaughtering outside the Temple. According
to Rabbi Shimon, slaughter that is unfit for consumption is not con-
sidered slaughter. Therefore, with regard to the first animal, it is as if
he has killed it without ritual slaughter, since its slaughter was unfit,
and the second animal would be accepted inside the Temple upon
the altar. Therefore, let one who slaughters it outside of the Temple
be liable to receive karet as well.

‫ ַח ּסו ֵּרי‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְּכ ִדי‬,‫וַ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ And Rava said, and some say it unattributed:b The baraita is incom-
‫נֵיהם‬ֶ ‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ׁ ְש‬:‫ וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫יח ְּס ָרא‬
ַ ‫ִמ‬ plete and this is what it is teaching: If one slaughters an animal and
its offspring that are both sacrificial animals, and both of them are
‫ ׁ ֵשנִי‬,‫אשֹון ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬
ׁ ‫ ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן – ִר‬,‫ַ ּבחוּץ‬
slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, according to the opinion
;‫ ו ָּפטוּר ִמ ָּלאו דִּ ׁ ְשחו ֵּטי חוּץ‬,‫ּ ָפסוּל‬ of the Rabbis, the slaughter of the first animal is punishable by karet,
while the second animal is disqualified as its time has not yet arrived,
and therefore, for its slaughter one is exempt from punishment
for violating the prohibition of offerings slaughtered outside
the Temple.

.‫נֵיהם ֲענו ׁ ִּשים ָּכ ֵרת‬

ֶ ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון – ׁ ְש‬According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the slaughter of both
of them, including the second one alone, is punishable by karet. This
is because the slaughter of the first is not considered slaughter, and
therefore it does not disqualify the second through the prohibition
of: Itself and its offspring.

– ‫ ְל ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬,‫ ֶא ָחד ַ ּבחוּץ וְ ֶא ָחד ִ ּב ְפנִים‬If an animal and its offspring that are sacrificial animals are slaugh-
;‫ ׁ ֵשנִי ּ ָפסוּל ו ָּפטוּר‬,‫אשֹון ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬ ׁ ‫ ִר‬tered, the first one outside the Temple courtyard, and the second
one inside the Temple courtyard, according to the opinion of the
.‫ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון – ׁ ֵשנִי ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬
Rabbis, the slaughter of the first is punishable by karet, while the
second animal is disqualified as its time has not yet arrived, and its
slaughterer is exempt from punishment for its slaughter outside the
Temple, because he slaughtered it inside the Temple. According to
the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the second animal is fit for the altar,
and it is sacrificed, as the slaughter of the first animal is not consid-
ered slaughter, and therefore the slaughter of the second does not
violate the prohibition of a mother and its offspring.
background
Unattributed [kedi] – ‫כ ִדי‬:ְּ There is a dispute among the com- kedi means: Unattributed, and indicates that the statement is
mentaries as to the meaning of the last word in this expression, quoted without attributing it to a specific Sage. The interpreta-
and Rashi himself interprets it differently in different places. One tion of the ge’onim is similar to Rashi’s second interpretation,
interpretation is that kedi is the name, or nickname (Maharatz as they hold that kedi is an abbreviated version of the Aramaic
Ĥayyut), of a specific Sage, while another interpretation is that kedehi, meaning: As it is, without a name for the speaker.

24 Ĥullin . perek V . 81a . ‫אפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ה‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫אשֹון‬
ׁ ‫ ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן – ִר‬,‫ ֶא ָחד ִ ּב ְפנִים וְ ֶא ָחד ַ ּבחוּץ‬If an animal and its offspring that are sacrificial animals are slaugh-
Rather Rava said…the administering of lashes
– ‫ ׁ ֵשנִי ּ ָפסוּל ו ָּפטוּר; ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ו ָּפטוּר‬tered, the first one inside the Temple courtyard and the second one for violating the prohibition of itself and its off-
outside the Temple courtyard, according to the opinion of the
.‫ׁ ֵשנִי ְ ּבל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ spring does not apply to sacrificial animals – ‫ֶא ָּלא‬
Rabbis, the first animal is fit for the altar, and one who slaughters ‫נֹוהג ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬
ֵ ‫א…אין ַמ ְלקוּת אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬
ֵ ‫א ַמר ָר ָב‬:ֲ Here
it is exempt from any punishment, as its slaughter is perfectly legiti- Rava maintains that, as opposed to what was stated
mate. The second is unfit for the altar, as it was slaughtered outside previously, Rav Hamnuna is saying that the act of
the Temple, but its slaughterer is exempt from punishment for its slaughtering a sacrificial animal is considered a fit
slaughter outside the Temple because it is unfit for the altar, as its act of slaughter. The reason is, as the Gemara stated
earlier, that simply killing the animal would not enable
time has not yet arrived. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shi-
the sprinkling of the blood to permit the flesh. There-
mon, for slaughtering the second animal outside the Temple one fore, if the first animal is slaughtered and its blood is
transgresses a prohibition, as he holds that an offering whose time sprinkled, one may not slaughter the second animal
has not yet arrived that was slaughtered outside the Temple violates that day due to the prohibition of: Itself and its off-
a prohibition. spring. Nevertheless, one is not flogged for violating
this prohibition because of the uncertainty involved
‫נֹוהג‬
ֵ ‫ ֵאין אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬: ְ‫ וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתך‬Rava now explains his objection: And if it enters your mind that in the forewarning.
?‫ ׁ ֵשנִי ַא ַּמאי ְ ּבל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה וְ ת ּו ָלא‬,‫ ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, does not apply to sac- As long as one has not sprinkled…at the time
rificial animals, then with regard to slaughtering the second animal that one slaughters the animal it is an uncertain
!‫יחּיֵ יב‬ַ ‫ָּכ ֵרת נַ ִמי ִל‬
outside the Temple, why does one transgress only a prohibition forewarning – ‫יק…מ ִעידָּ נָ א דְּ ָקא ׁ ָש ֵחיט ֲהוַ אי‬
ֵ ‫ַּכ ָּמה דְּ ָלא זָ ֵר‬
and nothing more? Let him be liable to receive karet as well, as ‫ה ְת ָר ַאת ָס ֵפק‬:ַ Rashi maintains that there is no need for
since its slaughter does not violate the prohibition of: Itself and its this explanation and that it is simply mistaken, since
offspring, it would fit to be sacrificed inside the Temple. Therefore, any slaughter of a parent and its offspring that are
sacrificial animals cannot lead to lashes for the trans-
it is clear that the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, does apply gressor, as the second animal is one whose time has
to sacrificial animals. not yet arrived, which makes its slaughter an unfit
slaughter. Therefore, Rashi deletes this explanation
:‫ ָה ִכי ָקא ָא ַמר ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rather, Rava said: This is what Rav Hamnuna is saying: Though from the text. The other early commentaries disagree
ֵ ‫ ֵאין ַמ ְלקוּת אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, does apply to sacrificial
;‫נֹוהג ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬ and maintain that an act of slaughter that is unfit only
animals, the administering of lashes for violating the prohibition because of the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring,
of: Itself and its offspring, does not apply to sacrificial animals.n is not exempt from the prohibition of: Itself and its
offspring. Therefore, the opinion of Rabbi Shimon
,‫יש ְּת ִרי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬
ְ ׁ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ַכ ָּמה דְּ ָלא זָ ֵריק דָּ ם ָלא ִמ‬The reason is that since as long as one has not sprinkled the blood, must be explained by the uncertainty involved in the
forewarning.
,‫ ֵמ ִעידָּ נָ א דְּ ָקא ׁ ָש ֵחיט ֲהוַ אי ַה ְת ָר ַאת ָס ֵפק‬the flesh is not permitted to be burned on the altar or eaten, at the
time that one slaughters the second animal, when he receives a
.‫וְ ַה ְת ָר ַאת ָס ֵפק ָלא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ַה ְת ָר ָאה‬
forewarning that his action violates the prohibition of: Itself and
its offspring, it is an uncertain forewarning,n because if the blood
will not be sprinkled, the flesh will not be permitted, sparing him
from violating the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring. And an
uncertain forewarning is not considered a valid forewarningh that
renders one liable to receive lashes.

‫ ִהיא‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָאזְ ָדא ָר ָבא ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬And Rava follows his line of reasoning, as Rava says: According
ְ‫ ׁ ָש ַחט חו ִּּלין וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך‬,‫ חו ִּּלין ו ְּבנָ ּה ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one does not incur punishment
for the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, for a slaughtering that
.‫ׁ ָש ַחט ׁ ְש ָל ִמים – ּ ָפטוּר‬
is unfit, if she, the mother, is non-sacred, and her offspring is a
peace offering, and one slaughtered the non-sacred mother, and
afterward one slaughtered her offspring that is a peace offering on
the same day, he is exempt for slaughtering the offspring. This is
because the forewarning for slaughtering the offspring is uncertain
as its blood might not be sprinkled, rendering the slaughter unfit.

:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ ׁ ְש ָל ִמים וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ חו ִּּלין – ַחּיָ יב‬But if one slaughtered the offspring that is a peace offering first and
‫יב ֲעיָ א ׁ ָש ַחט‬
ּ ָ ‫ ָלא ִמ‬,‫עֹולה‬ ָ ‫ ִהיא חו ִּּלין ו ְּבנָ ּה‬sprinkled its blood, and afterward he slaughtered the non-sacred
mother, he is liable to receive lashes for slaughtering the mother.
,‫עֹולה – דְּ ָפטוּר‬ ָ ‫חו ִּּלין וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ׁ ָש ַחט‬
Once the non-sacred mother is slaughtered, the meat is fit; therefore,
the forewarning is definite. And Rava says: If she, the mother, is
non-sacred, and her offspring is sacrificed as a burnt offering, and
both are slaughtered on the same day, it is not necessary to state
that if one slaughtered the non-sacred mother, and afterward he
slaughtered her offspring as a burnt offering, that he is exempt.

halakha
An uncertain forewarning is not considered a forewarning – Rav Hamnuna here. There may be uncertainty with regard to the
‫ה ְת ָר ַאת ָס ֵפק ָלא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ַה ְת ָר ָאה‬:ַ An uncertain forewarning is where a existence of the prohibition, such as when one slaughters the
person about to perform an action is informed that if he performs mother animal but the act of slaughter may have been invalid,
the action and no mitigating circumstance occurs, he will receive which would allow the slaughter of the offspring. In such a case,
lashes. Such a forewarning is considered a legitimate forewarning, although slaughtering the offspring is prohibited on that day, if
and one is flogged based upon it, in accordance with the opinion one slaughtered it he does not receive lashes (Rambam Sefer Kedu-
of Rabbi Yoĥanan in Pesaĥim (63b), as opposed to the opinion of sha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:5 and Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 16:4).

 ‫אפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 81a 25

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek V
Daf 81 Amud b
notes
ָ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ָש ַחט‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬But even if one slaughtered the offspring as a burnt offering and
‫עֹולה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ׁ ָש ַחט‬
And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace
offerings be at all eaten – ‫וְ ִאם ֵה ָאכֹל יֵ ָא ֵכל ִמ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר‬ ‫יתא ָלאו‬ ָ ְ‫יטה ַק ַּמי‬ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫ ח ו ִּּלין – ּ ָפט ּור‬sprinkled its blood, and afterward slaughtered the non-sacred
mother, he is exempt. The reason is that the slaughter of the first
‫זֶבח ׁ ְש ָל ָמיו‬:
ַ This verse relates to the halakha of piggul, .‫יטה ַ ּבת ֲא ִכ ָילה ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬
where a priest who performs the rites of an offering animal is not an act of slaughter subject to consumption, as a burnt
has the intention to eat from it after the designated offering is entirely burned upon the altar, and according to Rabbi
time when it must be consumed. This renders the Shimon, it is an act of slaughter that is improper, in that it does not
offering piggul. It is unfit for offering on the altar, and render the meat fit to be eaten, is not considered slaughter.
anyone who eats of its meat is liable to receive karet.
The Sages interpret the statement: “And if any of the ‫ ֲא ִכ ַילת ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: Consumption
flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be at all
eaten on the third day,” to mean that if one intends to
:‫ ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ֲא ִכ ָילה; ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬by the altar is considered consumption. What is the reason? The
reason is that the verse states with regard to an offering that was
consume the offering at a time when that consump- ‫״וְ ִאם ֵה ָאכֹל יֵ ָא ֵכל ִמ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר זֶ ַבח ׁ ְש ָל ָמיו״‬
tion is no longer permitted, whether the intention was
sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time
to effect human consumption or consumption by the [piggul]: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offer-
altar, it shall not be accepted and is piggul. ings be at all eaten [he’akhol ye’akhel]n on the third day, it shall not
be accepted” (Leviticus 7:18).
halakha
‫ ֶא ָחד‬,‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲא ִכילֹות ַה ָּכתוּב ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר‬The repetitive expression “he’akhol ye’akhel” teaches that the verse is
One who slaughters an animal and its offspring and
one of them is discovered to be a tereifa – ‫ֹוחט‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬ .‫ ֲא ִכ ַילת ָא ָדם וְ ֶא ָחד ֲא ִכ ַילת ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬speaking of two types of consumption: One is human consump-
‫וְ נִ ְמצָ א ְט ֵר ָפה‬: If one slaughters an animal that is dis- tion, and the other one is consumption by the altar, and both are
covered to be a tereifa, slaughters for the purpose of considered consumption with regard to piggul and other matters.
idolatry, slaughters a heifer whose neck was to have Therefore, the slaughter of a burnt offering is considered slaughter
been broken, slaughters the red heifer of purification, that is fit for consumption, and the slaughter of a mother animal and
or slaughters an ox that was to have been stoned, its offspring, one of which is sacrificed as a burnt offering on the same
and then another person slaughters that animal’s off-
day as the slaughter of the other, renders one liable to receive lashes
spring or mother, the second person is flogged. This is
because an act of slaughter that does not permit the
even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
animal to be consumed is nevertheless considered
slaughter. This ruling is in accordance with the state-
ment (85a) that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw fit to rule
ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬,‫ֹוחט וְ נִ ְמצָ א ְט ֵר ָפה‬
‫ֹוחט‬
‫ וְ ׁשֹור‬,‫ֹוחט ּ ָפ ַרת ַח ָּטאת‬
mishna
ֵ ‫מתני׳ ַה ׁ ּש‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּש‬,‫בֹודה זָ ָרה‬
ָ ‫ַל ֲע‬
With regard to one who slaughters an animal
and its offspring and one of them is discov-
in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s opinion on this issue ered to be an animal with a wound that would have caused it to
and therefore recorded it as the unattributed opinion
,‫ֹוטר‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ֶעגְ ָלה ֲערו ָּפה – ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ּפ‬,‫ ַה ּנ ְִס ָקל‬die within twelve months [tereifa]h and may not be eaten, or one
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:6 and Kesef .‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ְמ ַחּיְ ִיבין‬who slaughters one of the animals for the sake of idol worship, from
Mishne there). which deriving benefit is prohibited, or one who slaughters the red
heifer of purification,b or an ox that was to have been stoned,b or
a heifer whose neck was to have been broken,b all of which are
animals from which deriving benefit is prohibited, Rabbi Shimon
deems one who slaughters them exempt from lashes for the slaugh-
ter of a mother and its offspring, as in his opinion, slaughter that does
not render the animal fit for consumption is not considered
slaughter and does not violate the prohibition. And the Rabbis
deem him liable, as the slaughter need not render the animal fit for
consumption in order to violate the prohibition.

background
Red heifer of purification – ‫פ ַרת ַח ָּטאת‬:ָ ּ In order to eliminate the from an ox that is stoned, not only after its execution, but from the
ritual impurity imparted by a human corpse, one must be purified moment the court of twenty-three judges delivers its verdict. The
by means of water mixed with the ashes of a red heifer (see Num- term: Ox that is stoned, is employed as a generic term to describe
bers 19:1–22). This heifer and all of its hairs must be entirely red; any domesticated animal or non-domesticated animal that killed
even two black hairs disqualifies it for this ritual. Similarly, it may a person, whether it is a large or small animal, or even a bird.
not have any blemishes, nor may it have been used for any labor.
The red heifer was slaughtered on the Mount of Olives outside Heifer whose neck was to have been broken – ‫עגְ ָלה ֲערו ָּפה‬:ֶ When
Jerusalem, and its blood was sprinkled seven times in the direction a murder victim’s corpse is found outside a town and it is not
of the Temple. Its body was then burned on a special pyre, to which known who killed him, the following procedure is observed (see
cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool were added (see Numbers Deuteronomy 21:1–9): First, judges who are members of the Great
19:6). The ashes from this pyre were then gathered and mixed in Sanhedrin come to measure the distance between the corpse and
a vessel with water drawn from a spring. Three hyssop branches the nearest towns, to determine which town must perform the rite
were dipped in the water that was then sprinkled on the impure of the heifer whose neck is broken. This measurement is carried out
person. A single drop from the mixture suffices to transform an even if it is clear which town is closest to the corpse. Afterward, the
individual from a ritually impure person to a pure one, regardless elders of that town bring a heifer that has never been used for any
of where the water lands on his body. labor, and they break its neck in a rough valley that has not been
tilled. The elders wash their hands and make a statement absolving
Ox that was to have been stoned – ‫שֹור ַה ּנ ְִס ָקל‬:ׁ An ox that killed themselves of guilt. If the murderer is discovered before the heifer
a person is stoned to death, whether or not the ox had previously has been killed, the rite is not performed.
displayed violent tendencies and whether the victim was an adult,
a child, or a Canaanite slave. It is prohibited to derive any benefit

26 Ĥullin . perek V . 81b . ‫אפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ה‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
– ‫ וְ ַה ְמ ַע ֵ ּקר‬,‫ֹוחר‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬All agree that one who slaughters an animal and it becomes a
ֵ ּ‫ וְ ַהנ‬,‫ֹוחט וְ נִ ְתנַ ְ ּב ָלה ְ ּביָ דֹו‬
One who slaughters an animal and it becomes
.‫ ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬carcass by his hand because the slaughter was invalid, or one who
h
ֵ ‫ה ׁ ּש‬:ַ One
a carcass by his hand – ‫ֹוחט וְ נִ ְתנַ ְ ּב ָלה ְ ּביָ דֹו‬
stabs an animal, or one who uproots the windpipe and the gullet,n who stabs an animal to death, or one who slaugh-
is exempt with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering a ters an animal in a manner that renders it a carcass,
mother and its offspring,n as it is written: “You shall not slaughter is not considered to have slaughtered the animal.
it and its offspring both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28), and in these Therefore, it is permitted to slaughter the animal’s
cases, no ritual slaughter was performed. offspring or its mother on that same day. Similarly,
when the first animal is slaughtered appropriately, if
‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬
‫בֹודה זָ ָרה וְ ׁ ֵשנִי‬ ָ ‫אשֹון ַל ֲע‬ ׁ ‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַחט ִר‬
gemara Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The Rab-
bis in the mishna taught that one is liable
one stabs the second animal to death he is exempt
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:3; Shulĥan
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 16:9).
when one of the animals is slaughtered for the sake of idol worship
‫בֹודה‬ָ ‫אשֹון ְל ׁ ֻש ְל ָחנֹו וְ ׁ ֵשנִי ַל ֲע‬ׁ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִר‬,‫ ְל ׁ ֻש ְל ָחנֹו‬only when he slaughtered the first animal for the sake of idol Where the witnesses forewarned him before the
.‫ֵיה‬
ּ ‫יה ִ ּב ְד ַר ָ ּבה ִמ ּינ‬ּ ‫ דְּ ָקם ֵל‬,‫ זָ ָרה – ּ ָפטוּר‬worship and the second animal for his own table. But if he slaugh- second slaughter with regard to the prohibition
tered the first animal for his own table and the second animal for of itself and its offspring – ‫יה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם אֹותֹו‬ּ ‫דְּ ַא ְתר ּו ֵ ּב‬
‫וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬: If one slaughters an animal for the sake of
the sake of idol worship, he is exempt from lashes for the second
idol worship after having slaughtered its mother or
act of slaughter, as he receives only the greater punishment,b that offspring on that same day, he is exempt from pun-
for idol worship, which is death. ishment for violating the prohibition of: Itself and its
offspring, since he is liable to receive the death pen-
ּ ‫ זֹו – ֲא ִפ‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
‫יל ּו ִּתינֹוקֹות‬ ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: Even schoolchildren know this hal- alty. But if he is forewarned with regard to: Itself and
‫ ּ ְפ ָע ִמים‬,‫אֹות ּה! ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ ‫יֹוד ִעין‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבית ַר ָ ּבן‬ akha, that one who is liable to receive two punishments receives its offspring, but he is not forewarned with regard
only the greater punishment. Rather, sometimes, even if he to idol worship, he receives lashes, in accordance
‫בֹודה‬ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶש ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ָש ַחט ִר‬
ָ ‫אשֹון ְל ׁ ֻש ְל ָחנֹו וְ ׁ ֵשנִי ַל ֲע‬ with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan, as the halakha
slaughtered the first for his own table and the second for the
,‫זָ ָרה – ַחּיָ יב‬ sake of idol worship, he is liable to receive lashes for the second act follows his opinion in his disputes with Reish Lakish
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:7).
of slaughter.
Those who unwittingly performed a transgression
‫ וְ ָלא‬,‫יה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬ ּ ‫ְּכגֹון דְּ ַא ְתר ּו ֵ ּב‬ This occurs, for example, where the witnesses forewarned him for which one is liable to receive the death penalty,
ָ ‫ַא ְתר ּו ּבֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֲע‬
‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬.‫בֹודה זָ ָרה‬ before the second act of slaughter with regard to the prohibition etc. – ‫חּיָ ֵיבי ִמיתֹות ׁשֹוגְ גִ ין וכו׳‬:ַ One who transgresses a
of: Itself and its offspring,h but they did not forewarn him with prohibition that, if performed intentionally and with
‫יה ּ ָפטוּר – ִּכי‬ ּ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִכי ַא ְתר ּו ֵ ּב‬:‫ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר‬ forewarning, would entail a court-imposed death
regard to idol worship. Since he is not punished for performing
.‫יה נַ ִמי ּ ָפטוּר‬ ּ ‫ָלא ַא ְתר ּו ֵ ּב‬ idol worship, he receives lashes for the less severe transgression.
penalty as well as a monetary payment, is exempt
from the monetary payment, even if he transgressed
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Since, had they forewarned unwittingly and is not liable to receive the death
him with regard to idol worship he would have been exempt from penalty. If one transgresses a prohibition entailing
lashes; therefore, even if they did not forewarn him with regard to lashes as well as a monetary payment, he receives
idol worship, he is also exempt from lashes. lashes and does not pay. In contrast to a transgres-
sion entailing a court-imposed death penalty, if he
:‫ימי ֲא ַמר‬ ִ ִּ‫ דְּ ִכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬,ּ‫וְ ָאזְ ד ּו ְל ַט ְע ַמיְ יהו‬ The Gemara notes: And they each follow their known lines of transgresses unintentionally, or is not forewarned
reasoning in this matter. As when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia with regard to the lashes, he pays and does not
,‫ וְ ַחּיָ ֵיבי ַמ ְלקֹות ׁשֹוגְ גִ ין‬,‫ַחּיָ ֵיבי ִמיתֹות ׁשֹוגְ גִ ין‬ receive lashes (Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot Geneiva
from Eretz Yisrael he said: With regard to those who unwittingly
‫ וְ ֵר ׁיש‬,‫אֹומר ַחּיָ יב‬
ֵ ‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫וְ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר – ַר ִ ּבי‬ 3:1; see Leĥem Mishne on Rambam Sefer Shofetim,
performed a transgression for which one is liable to receive the Hilkhot Sanhedrin 16:5).
;‫אֹומר ּ ָפטוּר‬
ֵ ‫ָל ִק ׁיש‬ death penaltyh if one performed it intentionally, or those who
unwittingly performed a transgression for which one is liable to
background
receive lashes, and that transgression also involved another matter,
He receives only the greater punishment – ‫ָקם‬
monetary payment, and they were forewarned with regard to the ‫ֵיה‬
ּ ‫יה ִ ּב ְד ַר ָ ּבה ִמ ּינ‬
ּ ‫ל‬:ֵ A principle with regard to penal-
monetary penalty but not with regard to the lashes or the death ties is that one who has committed two or more
penalty, Rabbi Yoĥanan says: He is liable to pay; and Reish Lakish transgressions by performing a single act is exempt
says: He is exempt. from punishment for the less severe transgression.
Consequently, one who commits an act warranting
,‫אֹומר ַחּיָ יב – דְּ ָהא ָלא ַא ְתר ּו ּבֹו‬ ֵ ‫יֹוחנָן‬ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara clarifies the rationales for their statements. Rabbi the death penalty or lashes, as well as the payment of
monetary compensation, receives the more severe
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ דְּ ֵכיוָ ן דְּ ִכי ַא ְתר ּו ֵ ּב‬,‫אֹומר ּ ָפטוּר‬ֵ ‫ וְ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬Yoĥanan says that he is liable; since they did not forewarn him
with regard to the severe transgression, he sinned unwittingly, and penalty, i.e., the death penalty or lashes, and he is
.‫יה נַ ִמי ּ ָפטוּר‬ ּ ‫ּ ָפטוּר – ִּכי ָלא ַא ְתר ּו ֵ ּב‬ exempt from paying.
he remains liable only to pay the monetary payment. And Reish
Lakish says that he is exempt; since had they forewarned him
with regard to the severe transgression, he would have been exempt
from the monetary payment, when they did not forewarn him, he
is also exempt.

notes
Or one who stabs [noĥer] an animal, or one who uproots the Exempt with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering a
windpipe and the gullet – ‫ֹוחר וְ ַה ְמ ַע ֵ ּקר‬
ֵ ּ‫וְ ַהנ‬: Rashi on 17a interprets mother and its offspring – ‫פטוּר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬:ָ ּ In these cases,
the word noĥer to mean that one cuts open the animal starting even the Rabbis, who maintain that an act of slaughter that does
from its nostrils down to its chest (see Rashi on 85b), while other not render an animal fit is considered an act of slaughter, agree that
commentaries interpret it as stabbing. The word uproots means he is exempt, as that is only when an external prohibition causes the
uprooting the windpipe and the gullet instead of slicing them slaughter to become unfit. When the slaughter itself is inherently
with a knife. invalid, they agree that one is exempt.

 ‫אפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 81b 27

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ דְּ ִאי ַא ׁ ְשמו ִּעינַ ן ְ ּב ָהא – ְ ּב ָהא‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ וּצְ ִר‬The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to state their disagreement
A red heifer is susceptible to the ritual impurity of
ָ ‫פ ָרה ִמ ַּט ְּמ ָאה טו ְּמ ַאת‬:ָ ּ It is prohibited to
food – ‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ָהא‬,‫ ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬with regard to both of these cases. As, if it were taught to us only
about this case where one slaughters the mother for his private use
derive benefit from the red heifer of purification, and ;‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ּ ‫מֹודי ֵל‬ֵ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬
consequently its meat may not be fed to a gentile or and afterward slaughters its offspring for idol worship, perhaps only
an animal. Although generally an item from which it is in this case involving the death penalty and lashes does Rabbi
prohibited to derive benefit is not considered food with Shimon ben Lakish say that even if they did not forewarn the
regard to susceptibility to ritual impurity, the red heifer, transgressor with regard to idol worship, he is still exempt from
once slaughtered, is nevertheless considered food and lashes for the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, because the
is susceptible to ritual impurity.
death penalty and lashes are similar in that they are both corporal
punishments, and so the obligation of lashes does not take effect
halakha
at all when the death penalty is potentially applicable. But in
A red heifer is susceptible to the ritual impurity of that case, involving the death penalty or lashes together with a
ָ ‫פ ָרה ִמ ַּט ְּמ ָאה טו ְּמ ַאת‬:ָ ּ The meat of the red
food – ‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
monetary payment, say that he agrees with Rabbi Yoĥanan that
heifer of purification is susceptible to the ritual impurity
of food, if one considers it food and an item that is ritu- the transgressor is liable to pay the monetary payment.
ally impure touches it, in accordance with the opinion of
the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon (Rambam ,‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ וְ ִאי ִא ְּית ַמר ְ ּב ָהא – ְ ּב ָהא ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬And if the disagreement was stated only with regard to that case,
Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 3:3 and Hil- ‫מֹודי ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬
ֵ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ָהא – ֵא‬where one unwittingly performed a transgression involving the
khot Tumat Okhalin 1:25; see Kesef Mishne and Mishne death penalty or lashes together with a transgression bearing a
.‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬,‫ָל ִק ׁיש‬
LaMelekh on Hilkhot Para Aduma 5:7). monetary payment, perhaps only in that case does Rabbi Yoĥanan
say that he is liable to pay the monetary payment. But in this case,
where one slaughtered an animal and its offspring, and the second
animal was slaughtered for the sake of idol worship, which involves
the death penalty and lashes, but without a forewarning with regard
to the death penalty, say that he agrees with Rabbi Shimon ben
Lakish that one is exempt from lashes. Therefore, it is necessary to
state their disagreement with regard to both cases.

ָ ‫ו ָּפ ַרת ַח ָּטאת ׁ ְש ִח‬

‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְרא ּויָ ה‬ § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon deems one who slaugh-
‫ ּ ָפ ָרה‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ִהיא? וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א‬ ters the red heifer of purification exempt from punishment for the
prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, as that act of slaughter does
‫הֹואיל וְ ָהיְ ָתה‬ ָ ‫ִמ ַּט ְּמ ָאה טו ְּמ ַאת‬
ִ ‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
not render the animal fit for consumption. The Gemara asks: And
;‫ֹושר‬ֶ ׁ ‫ָל ּה ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬ is the slaughter of the red heifer of purification considered an act
of slaughter that is unfit for consumption? But isn’t it taught in a
baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: A red heifer, even if it has been slaugh-
tered and it is therefore prohibited to derive benefit from it, is sus-
ceptible to the ritual impurity of food,nh since it had a time in
which it was fit for consumption?

Perek V
Daf 82 Amud a

‫אֹומר ָהיָ ה‬ ֵ ,‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in explanation of Rabbi Shi-
!‫ ּ ָפ ָרה נִ ְפדֵּ ית ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַמ ֲע ַר ְכ ָּת ּה‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ mon’s statement: Rabbi Shimon would say that the red heifer can
be redeemed with money even once it has been slaughtered and
:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬
placed upon its pyre in preparation for being burned. Therefore,
.‫ּ ָפ ַרת ַח ָּטאת ֵאינָ ּה ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה‬ Rabbi Shimon states that there could be a time when the heifer was
fit for consumption, i.e., if it was redeemed. Why, then, does he
deem one who slaughters it exempt from liability for transgressing
the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring? Rav Shemen bar Abba
said that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: The statement with regard to the
red heifer of purification is not considered part of the mishna, and
Rabbi Shimon agrees that its slaughterer is liable for transgressing
the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring.
28 Ĥullin . perek V . 82a . ‫בפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ה‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫יטה ְראוּיָ ה‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶעגְ ָלה ֲערו ָּפה ָלאו ׁ ְש ִח‬ The Gemara asks: And is the slaughter of the heifer whose neck
was to have been broken not considered an act of slaughter that is The murderer was found – ‫הֹורג‬
ֵ ‫נִ ְמצָ א ַה‬: If the murderer was
‫הֹורג ַעד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬ ֵ ‫ נִ ְמצָ א ַה‬:‫ִהיא? וְ ָה ְתנַן‬ found before the heifer’s neck was broken, the heifer shall
fit? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Sota 47a): If a heifer was set
!‫ֵּת ָע ֵרף ָה ֶעגְ ָלה – ֵּתצֵ א וְ ִת ְר ֶעה ָ ּב ֵע ֶדר‬ go out and graze among the flock (Rambam Sefer Nezikin,
aside to have its neck broken to atone for the murder of an indi- Hilkhot Rotze’aĥ UShmirat HaNefesh 10:8).
‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬ vidual whose murderer was not known, and then the murderer was
.‫ ֶעגְ ָלה ֲערו ָּפה ֵאינָ ּה ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה‬:‫יַ ַּנאי‬ Its descent to a hard valley is the action that renders it
foundh before the heifer’s neck was broken, the heifer shall go
forbidden – ‫אֹוס ְר ָּת ּה‬
ַ ‫יְ ִר ָיד ָת ּה ְלנַ ַחל ֵא ָיתן‬: One is prohibited
out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated. Evidently, from deriving benefit from a heifer whose neck is broken
before its neck is broken, deriving benefit from it is not prohibited, from the moment it is brought into the valley for the per-
and its slaughter would be one that is fit. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish formance of the rite, and it must be buried in the location
said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The statement with regard to where its neck was broken. If it dies or is slaughtered after
the heifer whose neck was to have been broken is not considered it has been brought into the valley, before the rite is per-
part of the mishna, and Rabbi Shimon agrees that its slaughterer is formed, one is still prohibited from deriving benefit from
it and it must be buried, as the members of the group of
liable for violating the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring. scholars were inclined to say (Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot
Rotze’aĥ UShmirat HaNefesh 10:6).
‫ו ִּמי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yannai actually say so? But
doesn’t Rabbi Yannai say: I heard the boundary, i.e., stage, beyond From when is one prohibited from deriving benefit from
;‫ ְ ּגבוּל ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי ָ ּב ּה וְ ׁ ָש ַכ ְח ִּתי‬:‫יַ ַּנאי‬
which the heifer is forbidden, but I have forgotten what it is; but the leper’s birds – ‫ימ ַתי נֶ ֱא ָס ִרין‬
ָ ‫צֹורע ֵמ ֵא‬
ָ ‫צִ ּפ ֵֹורי ְמ‬: One is pro-
‫ יְ ִר ָיד ָת ּה ְלנַ ַחל‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫וְ נָ ְס ִבין ַח ְב ַרּיָ א‬ hibited from deriving benefit from a bird that is slaughtered
the group of scholars were inclined to say that the heifer’s descent
;‫אֹוס ְר ָּת ּה‬
ַ ‫יתן‬ָ ‫ֵא‬ to a hard valley, where its neck is broken, is the action that renders
for the purpose of purifying a leper from the moment the
bird is slaughtered, since the halakha is generally in accor-
it forbidden?h dance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan in his disputes
with Reish Lakish (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat
,‫קֹודם יְ ִר ָידה‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ ִל‬,‫ וְ ִאם ִא ָיתא‬And if it is so, let him resolve the contradiction by saying: Here,
ֶ – ‫ ָּכאן‬:‫ישנֵי‬ Tzara’at 11:7).
!‫ ָּכאן – ְל ַא ַחר יְ ִר ָידה‬where deriving benefit from the heifer is permitted, and its slaugh-
terer is liable for transgressing the prohibition of: Itself and its off-
spring, it is referring to an act of slaughtering that is fit and is per-
formed before the heifer’s descent, while there, in the mishna,
where Rabbi Shimon holds that there is no liability for transgress-
ing: Itself and its offspring, it is referring to slaughtering performed
after its descent. At that time, deriving benefit from the heifer is
already prohibited, and the slaughter is therefore not considered fit.

‫ ֲאנַ ן‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב ַא ִּמי‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ִפנְ ָחס ְ ּב ֵר‬ Rav Pineĥas, son of Rav Ami, said: We taught the statement in
‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ַמ ְתנִינַן‬ּ ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish himself, not as a quote from
Rabbi Yannai: The statement with regard to the heifer whose neck
‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ֶעגְ ָלה ֲערו ָּפה ֵאינָ ּה ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה‬:‫ָל ּה‬
is broken is not considered part of the mishna. Rav Ashi said:
:‫ ִּכי ָהוֵ ינַן ֵ ּבי ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ִפי ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָלן‬:‫ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ When we were studying in the study hall of Rav Pappi, that state-
?‫ִמי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ָה ִכי‬ ment was difficult for us: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish actually
say that it is not considered part of the mishna?

‫ימ ַתי‬
ָ ‫צֹורע ֵמ ֵא‬ָ ‫ צִ ּפ ֵֹורי ְמ‬:‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫וְ ָהא ִא‬ But it was stated that amora’im engaged in a dispute concerning the
‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ַעת‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר‬
ָ ‫נֶ ֱא ָס ִרין? ַר ִ ּבי‬ following issue: From when is one prohibited from deriving benefit
from the leper’s birds?hn Rabbi Yoĥanan says: One is prohibited
:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬
from the moment of their slaughter; and Reish Lakish says: One
‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬:‫יחה; וְ ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬ ָ ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ַעת ְל ִק‬ is prohibited from the moment they are taken and designated to
?‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ be a leper’s birds. And we say: What is the reasoning of Rabbi
Shimon ben Lakish?

!‫יחה״ ֵמ ֶעגְ ָלה ֲערו ָּפה‬

ָ ‫״ק‬
ִ ‫יחה״‬ ִ ‫ ָ ּג ַמר‬His reasoning is that he derives it via verbal analogy from the terms:
ָ ‫״ק‬
“Taking [kiĥa]” (Leviticus 14:4), with regard to the birds, and:
“Taking [kiĥa]” (Deuteronomy 21:3), with regard to the heifer
whose neck is broken. Consequently, just as deriving benefit from
the heifer whose neck is broken is prohibited from the time of its
selection, so too must deriving benefit from these birds be prohib-
ited from the time of their selection. Clearly, then, Rabbi Shimon
ben Lakish holds that deriving benefit from the heifer whose neck
is broken is prohibited while it is still alive. Therefore, its slaughter
is one that does not render the animal fit for consumption. Accord-
ingly, Rabbi Shimon would exempt its slaughterer from the
prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, as is taught in the mishna.

notes
The leper’s birds – ‫צֹורע‬ָ ‫צִ ּפ ֵֹורי ְמ‬: The purification of a leper is the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan, it is prohibited to derive benefit
performed as follows: The priest slaughters one of two birds from both of the birds from the moment they are purchased,
that the leper brings so that its blood flows into running water. but one may derive benefit from the live bird that is freed once
The priest then dips the live bird in that liquid mixture of blood the other bird is slaughtered. This is derived from the use of the
and water. He then sprinkles the mixture on the leper and sets plural in the phrase: The leper’s birds. The Rashba writes that
the live bird free (see Leviticus 14:4–7). The majority of the early in Rashi’s opinion the bird designated to go free is permitted
commentaries (Kiddushin 57a) maintain that, even according to from the outset.

 ‫בפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 82a 29

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The
Two people who purchased – ‫שנַיִ ם ׁ ֶש ָּל ְקח ּו‬:
ְ ׁ If two statement with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken is not
different people purchased a cow and its offspring on .‫ ֶעגְ ָלה ֲערו ָּפה ֵאינָ ּה ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ
the same day, each purchasing one of the animals, the
considered part of the mishna,n and this resolution of the difficulty
first purchaser is entitled to slaughter his animal first, was articulated by Rabbi Yoĥanan rather than Reish Lakish.

mishna
and the second should wait until the next day. If the
second one preceded him and slaughtered his animal ‫ ֵאיזֶ ה‬,‫מתני׳ ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ֶש ָּל ְקח ּו ּ ָפ ָרה ו ְּבנָ ּה‬ With regard to two people who purchasedh
first, then the first purchaser must wait until the next a cow and its offspring, where each pur-
‫ וְ ִאם ָק ַדם‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫אשֹון – יִ ׁ ְשחֹוט ִר‬ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶש ָּל ַקח ִר‬
day. If they purchased the two animals from two differ- chased one of the animals, whoever purchased his animal first
ent sellers, then they have equal status, and whichever .‫ ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי – זָ ָכה‬shall slaughter it first, and the second one must wait until the next
of them slaughters his animal first has profited (Rosh). day to slaughter his animal, so as not to violate the prohibition of:
The Baĥ writes that in such a case they should choose It and its offspring. But if the second one preceded him and slaugh-
the order of slaughtering by lottery (Rambam Sefer
Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
tered his animal first, he benefitted, and the one who purchased
De’a 16:6). the animal first may not slaughter it until the next day.
If one slaughtered a cow and thereafter slaughtered
its two offspring – ‫נֶיה‬
ָ ‫ש ַחט ּ ָפ ָרה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ׁ ְשנֵי ָב‬:
slaughtered a cow and thereafter slaughtered its two
ָ ׁ If one
ֵ ‫גמ׳ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬
:‫ ָּתנָ א‬.‫ ְל ִענְיַ ן דִּ ינָ א ְּתנַן‬:‫יֹוסף‬
ׂ ְ ְ‫ִאם ָק ַדם ַה ׁ ּ ֵשנִי – ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה זָ ִריז ו‬
;‫נִש ַּכר‬
gemara Rav Yosef said: We learn in the mishna
that the first purchaser is granted prece-
dence only with regard to the matter of a court judgment,n in case
offspring on the same day, he is flogged with eighty ‫נִש ַּכר – דְּ ָק ָא ֵכיל‬
ׂ ְ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ זָ ִריז – דְּ ָלא ֲע ַבד ִא ּיסו ָּרא‬the two purchasers go to court each demanding to slaughter his
lashes. If one slaughtered two calves and thereafter
slaughtered the mother cow, he is flogged with forty
.‫ ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא‬animal first. But there is no prohibition against the second one
lashes. If one slaughtered the mother, its offspring, slaughtering his animal first if no claim is brought to court. Likewise,
and the offspring of its offspring, he is flogged with a Sage taught in a baraita: If the second one preceded him and
eighty lashes. If one slaughtered the mother and then slaughtered his animal first, he is diligent and rewarded; he is dili-
its daughter’s offspring and thereafter slaughtered its gent because he did not violate a prohibition, and he is rewarded
daughter, he is flogged with forty lashes (Rambam
because he eats meat already that day.
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:12).

– ‫נֶיה‬ָ ‫מתני׳ ׁ ָש ַחט ּ ָפ ָרה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ׁ ְשנֵי ָב‬

‫נֶיה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך‬
mishna
ָ ‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ׁ ְשנֵי ָב‬.‫סֹופג ׁ ְשמֹונִים‬
ֵ
If one slaughtered a cow and thereafter
slaughtered its two offspringh on the same
day, he incurs eighty lashes for two separate actions violating the
‫ ׁ ְש ָח ָט ּה וְ ֶאת‬.‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬
ֵ – ‫ ׁ ְש ָח ָט ּה‬prohibition against slaughtering the mother and the offspring on
.‫סֹופג ׁ ְשמֹונִים‬
ֵ – ‫ וְ ֶאת ַ ּבת ִ ּב ָּת ּה‬,‫ ִ ּב ָּת ּה‬the same day. If one slaughtered its two offspring and thereafter
slaughtered the mother cow, he incurs the forty lashes, as he
performed a single prohibited act. If one slaughtered the mother
and its daughter, and, later that day, slaughtered its daughter’s
daughter, he incurs eighty lashes, as he has performed the act of
slaughtering a mother and its offspring twice.

notes
The statement with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken is first one waiting and allowing the second one to slaughter his
not considered part of the mishna – ‫עגְ ָלה ֲערו ָּפה ֵאינָ ּה ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה‬:ֶ This animal first, as the mishna is not relating to this as a matter of
means that Rabbi Yoĥanan rules in accordance with the mishna forbidden items (Rashi). Some have interpreted this as mean-
(Sota 47a) that deriving benefit from the heifer whose neck is bro- ing that the second one need not be concerned that the first
ken is prohibited only from the moment of death. Therefore, in his purchaser may have slaughtered his animal already, and that, as
opinion, slaughter of the heifer whose neck was to have been bro- may be derived from a mishna (83a), the seller need not inform
ken is an act of slaughter that is valid, and Rabbi Shimon does not him that he has sold the mother that day to someone who may
disagree with the Rabbis with regard to this case. Consequently, have slaughtered it already (Ĥatam Sofer; Beur HaGra on Shulĥan
Rabbi Shimon holds that one can violate the prohibition of: Itself Arukh, Yoreh De’a 16:6). Therefore, the mishna is referring solely to
and its offspring, by slaughtering a heifer whose neck was to have monetary matters, supporting the first purchaser if he petitions
been broken, and the statement about the heifer whose neck the court to prevent the second one from slaughtering before him.
was to have been broken must be deleted from the mishna. In The early commentaries explain the reason for this in accordance
the opinion of Reish Lakish, who holds that deriving benefit from with the statement in the Tosefta (5:4) that the purchaser has
the heifer whose neck is broken is prohibited from the moment precedence over the seller with regard to slaughtering his animal,
of its purchase, and in the opinion of Rabbi Yannai, who holds as he has purchased it for slaughter. Consequently, just as the
that deriving benefit is prohibited from the moment the heifer seller must give precedence to the first purchaser, so must the
descends into a hard valley, there is a period when its slaughter second purchaser, as he has no stronger claim than the seller from
is unfit, and therefore the statement about the heifer whose neck whom he purchased the animal (Rashi; Rashba). It can be derived
was to have been broken should remain in the mishna. from this Tosefta that if the mother and its offspring are owned
by two different people, and the two purchasers purchased the
We learn in the mishna that the first purchaser is granted pre- animals from them, neither purchaser has precedence over the
cedence only with regard to the matter of a court judgment – other (Rosh).
‫ל ִענְיַ ן דִּ ינָ א ְּתנַן‬:ְ This means that there is no prohibition against the

30 Ĥullin . perek V . 82a . ‫בפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ה‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
‫ וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ׁ ָש ַחט‬,‫ ׁ ְש ָח ָט ּה וְ ֶאת ַ ּבת ִ ּב ָּת ּה‬But if one slaughtered the mother and its daughter’s daughter and
Sumakhos – ‫סו ָּמכֹוס‬: From the Greek word σύμμαχος,
‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ סו ָּמכֹוס‬.‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ֵ – ‫ ִ ּב ָּת ּה‬thereafter slaughtered its daughter, he incurs the forty lashes, as summakhos, meaning an ally.
he performed a single prohibited act. Sumakhoslp says in the name
ֵ :‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬
.‫סֹופג ׁ ְשמֹונִים‬
of Rabbi Meir: He incurs eighty lashesn for slaughtering the daugh-
notes
ter on the same day as its calf and its mother, as that act comprises
Sumakhos says…he incurs eighty lashes – ‫סו ָּמכֹוס‬
two separate violations of the prohibition.
‫ר…סֹופג ׁ ְשמֹונִים‬
ֵ ‫אֹומ‬:
ֵ According to Rabbi Yoĥanan in the

,‫גמ׳ ַא ַּמאי? ״אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו״ ָא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬

:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬, ְ‫וְ ָלא ְ ּבנֹו וְ אֹותֹו! ָלא ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתך‬
gemara With regard to the statement in the mishna
that if one slaughters two calves and there-
Jerusalem Talmud (Yevamot 11:1), Sumakhos holds that
the violator receives eighty lashes only in this latter
case in the mishna where, with the slaughter of the
after slaughters their mother he incurs the forty lashes, the Gemara daughter, he violates two separate prohibitions with a
‫ ״אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו״ – ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת‬asks: Why does he receive lashes? After all, the phrase: “It and its
single action: Itself and its offspring, and: Its offspring
?‫ אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ִא ּמֹו ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬,‫ ְ ּבנֹו‬offspring” (Leviticus 22:28), is what the Merciful One states in the and itself. But in the former case, where he slaughters
Torah, and not: Its offspring and it. The Gemara answers: That two animals and then their mother, Sumakhos agrees
thought should not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita: with the Rabbis that the violator receives only forty
lashes, as that act constitutes two violations of the
From the phrase “it and its offspring” I have derived only that the
same prohibition. This is the opinion of the Ran as well.
prohibition includes slaughtering the animal itself first and its off- By contrast, a baraita cited in the Jerusalem Talmud
spring afterward. From where do I derive that the prohibition also (see Tosefta 5:7) notes that Sumakhos also disagrees in
includes the case of slaughtering the offspring itself first and its the earlier case. This is also the opinion of Tosafot, who
motherh afterward? explain that the mishna cites the dispute specifically
with regard to this latter case to show that even in
‫אֹומר ״ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ֲחטוּ״ – ֲה ֵרי ָּכאן‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ It is derived in the following manner: When the verse states: “You such a case the Rabbis hold that he receives only forty
shall not slaughter [tishĥatu] both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28), lashes, since the two prohibitions are derived from
,‫ֹוחט ֶאת ַה ּ ָפ ָרה‬ ֵ ‫ ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד? ֶא ָחד ַה ׁ ּש‬,‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬ the same verse, as is explained later in the Gemara
this is referring to two people who are prohibited from slaughtering
ֵ ‫ וְ ֶא ָחד ַה ׁ ּש‬,‫ֹוחט ֶאת ִא ָּמ ּה‬
‫ֹוחט‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֶא ָחד ַה ׁ ּש‬ (see Ĥatam Sofer).
on the same day, as the word “slaughter” is phrased in the plural.
.‫ֶאת ְ ּבנָ ּה – ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ָה ַא ֲחרֹונִים ַחּיָ ִיבין‬ How so? If, during the course of a single day, there is one person
halakha
who slaughters the cow and then another who slaughters that
Itself and its mother – ‫אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ִא ּמֹו‬: It is prohibited
cow’s mother, and then there is another person who slaughters that
to slaughter a mother animal and its offspring on the
cow’s offspring, the two latter people are liable, the first of them same day, whether one slaughters the mother first
for slaughtering the mother after its offspring was slaughtered, and and then the offspring or one slaughters the offspring
the second person for slaughtering the offspring after its mother first and then the mother (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
was slaughtered. Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 16:1).

Personalities
Sumakhos – ‫סו ָּמכֹוס‬: This refers to Sumakhos ben Yosef, who lived validity. He was considered one of the foremost rabbinic scholars
in the last generation of tanna’im. He was the preeminent disciple of his generation, as he is found to have disagreed with even the
of Rabbi Meir, and as such he attempted to clarify Rabbi Meir’s greatest tanna’im, including the colleagues of Rabbi Meir, such as
statements, even after Rabbi Meir’s death, and transmit them to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov; even tanna’im such as
future generations. Like his mentor, Sumakhos was famous for his Rabbi Natan consulted him on Torah matters. Apparently he lived
sharp intellect, to the point that it was said that he would provide a long life, as the amora Rav had the opportunity to be acquainted
forty-eight reasons for every halakha to prove and reinforce its with him and to learn Torah from him.

Perek V
Daf 82 Amud b

:‫יכ ּתֹוב‬
ְ ‫ ִל‬,‫יה! ִאם ֵּכן‬ּ ‫יה ְלגו ֵּפ‬
ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬
ּ ָ ‫ ַהאי ִמ‬The Gemara challenges: That verse is necessary for the prohibition
?‫ ַמאי ״ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ֲחטוּ״‬,‫ ״ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְשחֹוט״‬itself, and it cannot be used to teach this additional halakha. The
Gemara explains: If so, that the verse teaches only the prohibition
against slaughtering an animal and its offspring in one day, let the
Torah write: You shall not slaughter [tishĥot], in the singular. For
what reason did the Torah write: “You shall not slaughter [tishĥatu]”
(Leviticus 22:28), in the plural? It is to teach that two different people
are prohibited from slaughtering, as explained earlier.

‫ דְּ ִאי ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״ל ֹא‬,‫יה‬

ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬
ּ ָ ‫ וְ ַא ַּכ ֵּתי ִמ‬The Gemara challenges: But, nevertheless, the plural is necessary,
– ‫ ְּת ֵרי‬,‫ ַחד – ִאין‬:‫ ִת ׁ ְשחֹוט״ ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬as had the Merciful One written in the Torah: You shall not slaugh-
ter [tishĥot] in the singular, I would say: With regard to one person,
;‫ָלא‬
yes, it is prohibited to slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single
day, but with regard to two, it is not prohibited for one of them to
slaughter the mother and the other to then slaughter the offspring
on the same day.
 ‫בפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 82b 31
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ״ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ֲחטוּ״ – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬:‫ ָּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: “You shall not
If one unwittingly ate two olive-bulks of forbidden
fat during one lapse of awareness – ‫ָא ַכל ׁ ְשנֵי זֵ ֵיתי ֵח ֶלב‬ ,‫ ״ל ֹא יִ ׁ ּ ָש ֲחטוּ״‬:‫ ִל ְכ ּתֹוב‬,‫ ְּת ֵרי! ִאם ֵּכן‬slaughter [tishĥatu],” in the plural, indicating that even two indi-
‫ב ֶה ְע ֵלם ֶא ָחד‬:
ּ ְ If one eats two olive-bulks of forbidden
viduals may not slaughter an animal and its offspring in a single day.
fat during one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring The Gemara answers: If so, that only this is derived from the verse,
a single sin offering, in accordance with the mishna in let the Torah write: They shall not be slaughtered, indicating that
Karetot 11b, as opposed to the opinion of Sumakhos whether by one individual or two, the slaughter of an animal and
(Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 6:1). its offspring in a single day is prohibited, but only the one who
slaughters the offspring has violated the prohibition.

.‫ ַמאי ״ל ֹא ִת ׁ ְש ֲחטוּ״? ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬What is meant by: “You shall not slaughter,” which indicates that
two different people are prohibited from slaughtering? Conclude
two conclusions from it: Conclude that the prohibition applies even
if two people perform the two acts of slaughter, and that two cases
are prohibited: Slaughtering the offspring after the mother, and
slaughtering the mother after the offspring.

‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ְ ׁ § The mishna teaches: If one slaughtered the mother and its daugh-
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫״ש ָח ָט ּה וְ ֶאת ַ ּבת ִ ּב ָּת ּה״‬
?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ סו ָּמכֹוס‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ְל ַרב‬ter’s daughter and thereafter slaughtered its daughter, he incurs the
forty lashes. Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: He incurs
eighty lashes, because by slaughtering the daughter, he transgresses
twice the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring. Abaye said to Rav
Yosef: What is the reasoning for the opinion of Sumakhos that the
transgressor incurs eighty lashes?

‫יתי ֵח ֶלב‬
ֵ ֵ‫ ָא ַכל ׁ ְשנֵי ז‬:‫ ָקא ָס ַבר סו ָּמכֹוס‬Does Sumakhos hold, in general, that if one unwittingly ate two
.‫ ְ ּב ֶה ְע ֵלם ֶא ָחד – ַחּיָ יב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַח ָּטאֹות‬olive-bulks of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness he is
h

liable to bring two sin offerings, since he transgressed the prohibi-

tion twice? If so, then in a case where one is forewarned that if he
transgresses intentionally he will receive lashes and he then violates
the same prohibition twice, as is the case in the mishna, he receives
two sets of lashes.

‫ וְ ַהאי‬,‫יש ְמ ִעינַ ן ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬

ְ ׁ ‫ו ְּב ִדין הוּא דְּ ִל‬ And by right the mishna should have informed us of Sumakhos’s
‫יעךָ ּכ ָֹחן‬
ֲ ‫הֹוד‬
ִ ‫דְּ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן ְ ּב ָהא – ְל‬ opinion in a general case, such as that of eating two olive-bulks of
forbidden fat during a single lapse of awareness, but the reason that
– ‫ דְּ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ גו ִּפין מו ְּח ָל ִקין‬,‫דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬
it teaches us this dispute in this situation, where one slaughters an
?‫ּ ָפ ְט ִרי ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ animal and its daughter’s offspring and, later that day, slaughters its
daughter, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion
of the Rabbis, that even though the two animals that caused the
daughter to be forbidden are separate entities, the Rabbis still
exempt the transgressor from a second set of lashes.

‫ ָא ַכל ׁ ְשנֵי‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר סו ָּמכֹוס‬,‫אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא‬ Or perhaps, Sumakhos holds in general that if one ate two olive-
‫יתי ֵח ֶלב ְ ּב ֶה ְע ֵלם ֶא ָחד – ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב‬ ֵ ֵ‫ז‬ bulks of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness, he is liable
to bring only one sin offering. If so, one who transgresses intention-
‫הֹואיל‬ ִ :‫ וְ ָה ָכא ַהיְ ינ ּו ַט ְע ָמא‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת‬
ally after being forewarned receives only one set of lashes even if he
‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫ ִאין‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫וְ גו ִּפין מו ְּח ָל ִקין? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ transgresses the same prohibition twice. But here, in the mishna,
‫ָא ַכל ׁ ְשנֵי זֵ ֵיתי ֵח ֶלב ְ ּב ֶה ְע ֵלם ֶא ָחד – ַחּיָ יב‬ this is the reason that the transgressor receives two sets of lashes: It
.‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַח ָּטאֹות‬ is that the two animals that caused the daughter to be prohibited are
separate entities.n Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Yes, Sumakhos holds
in general that if one ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat during
one lapse of awareness he is liable to bring two sin offerings.

notes
Or perhaps Sumakhos holds…that the animals are separate one slaughters two of the offspring and then the mother, and
entities – ‫כֹוס…הֹואיל וְ גו ִּפין מו ְּח ָל ִקין‬
ִ ‫אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא ָק ָס ַבר סו ָּמ‬: In the final there is only one prohibition involved, Sumakhos holds that one
clause of the mishna, where Sumakhos holds that one receives receives eighty lashes as well (see Karetot 15a). Rabbeinu Gershom
eighty lashes, the case deals not only with separate entities but Meor HaGola interprets the phrase: Separate entities, as mean-
also with separate prohibitions: Itself and its offspring, and: Its ing separate prohibitions, and that interpretation fits well in the
offspring and itself. Nevertheless, the Gemara here may not continuation of this discussion in the Gemara (see Maharam
have mentioned separate prohibitions because the Tosefta (5:7) Lublin on 83a).
notes that with regard to the first clause of the mishna, where

32 Ĥullin . perek V . 82b . ‫בפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ה‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
– ‫ּזֹור ַע ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם‬
ֵ ‫ ַה‬:‫ִמ ַּמאי? ִמדִּ ְתנַ ן‬ The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Yosef derive this? He
derives it from that which we learn in a baraita: One who sows A nazirite who was drinking wine all day – ‫נָ זִ יר‬
– ‫לֹוקה ַא ַחת‬ ֶ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫לֹוקה? ִא ֵיל‬ ֶ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫לֹוקה‬ ֶ ‫ש ָהיָ ה ׁש ֶֹותה יַ יִ ן ָּכל ַהּיֹום‬:
ֶ ׁ In the case of a nazirite who
diverse kinds, diverse kinds,b i.e., he twice sows grain together with
‫״כ ְל ַאיִ ם ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם״? ֶא ָּלא‬
ִּ ‫ ַמאי‬,‫יטא! וְ עֹוד‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ was drinking wine all day, even if he drank several
grape seeds, is flogged for violating the prohibition of diverse kinds. quarter-log of wine, if he was forewarned only once,
.‫ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַמ ְל ֻקּיֹות‬:‫יטא‬
ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ The Gemara asks: What is meant by: Is flogged? If we say it means he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If he
that he is flogged one set of lashes, this is obvious. And addition- received a forewarning for each quarter-log, he is
ally, if he receives only one set of lashes, what is the reason that the liable to receive lashes for each quarter-log that he
case of: Sowing diverse kinds twice, is mentioned, where he trans- drank (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, Hilkhot Nezirut 5:10).
gressed twice? Even if he transgressed only once, he receives lashes. Wheat and barley and grape seed with a single
Rather, it is obvious that he receives two sets of lashes. hand motion – ‫עֹורה וְ ַח ְרצָ ן ְ ּב ַמ ּפ ֶֹולת יָ ד‬
ָ ‫ּש‬ׂ ְ ‫ח ָּטה ו‬:ִ If one
sows two types of grain, or two types of vegetable
‫ימא ָ ּבזֶ ה ַא ַחר זֶ ה ו ִּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬ָ ‫ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן? ִא ֵיל‬ The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that we are seed, together with a grape seed, he receives two
dealing with a case where one violates the prohibition twice, one sets of lashes: One for violating: “You shall not sow
‫ֹותה יַ יִ ן ָּכל‬ ֶ ‫ נָ זִ יר ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ׁש‬:‫ַה ְת ָראֹות – ָּתנֵינָ א‬
time after the other and with two separate forewarnings, it is your field with diverse kinds” (Leviticus 19:19), and
:‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬.‫ַהּיֹום – ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת‬ one for violating: “You shall not sow your vineyard
unnecessary for the baraita to teach this, as we already learn it in a
‫ ַאל ִּת ׁ ְש ֶּתה! וְ הוּא‬,‫ֹותה‬ ֶ ‫ַאל ִּת ׁ ְש ֶּתה! וְ הוּא ׁש‬ mishna (Nazir 42a): A naziriteb who was drinking wine all dayh is
with diverse kinds” (Deuteronomy 22:9). He receives
lashes for the latter violation only if he sows wheat,
‫ֹותה – ַחּיָ יב ַעל ָּכל ַא ַחת וְ ַא ַחת! ֶא ָּלא‬ ֶ ‫ׁש‬ liable to receive only one set of lashes. If onlookers said to him: Do barley, and grape seed with a single hand motion,
.‫ ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת ו ְּב ַה ְת ָר ָאה ַא ַחת‬:‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ not drink, do not drink, forewarning him several times, and he in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya
drinks after each forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes for each (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Kilayim 5:1–2, and
and every drink. Rather, it is obvious that he violated the prohibi- Kesef Mishne there; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 296:1).
tion twice at the same time and with a single forewarning, i.e., after
he was forewarned he sowed wheat together with a grape seed with notes
one hand, and barley together with a grape seed with the other hand, To exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya – ‫ו ְּל ַא ּפו ֵּקי‬
and he receives two sets of lashes. ‫ֹאשּיָ ה‬
ִ ׁ ‫מדְּ ַר ִ ּבי י‬:ִ The explanation given in the commen-
tary follows Rashi. According to Rashi, Rabbi Yoshiya
;‫יה דְּ סו ָּמכֹוס‬ ּ ‫ימא ַר ָ ּבנַן דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י ֲע ֵל‬
ָ ‫ ַמ ּנִי? ִא ֵיל‬The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? holds that one is liable to receive lashes for violating
the prohibition of: Diverse kinds in the vineyard, only
‫ ו ָּמה ָה ָתם דְּ גו ִּפין מו ְּח ָל ִקין – ּ ָפ ְט ִרי‬,‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬If we say it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who if one sows wheat, barley, and grape seed together,
disagree with Sumakhos in the mishna, who hold that one who
?‫ ָה ָכא – ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬,‫ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ while the Rabbis hold him liable even if he sows only
slaughters an animal and its daughter’s offspring and, later that day, wheat and grape seed, or only barley and grape seed.
slaughters its daughter receives only one set of lashes, that would None of this relates to the prohibition against sowing
not be reasonable: Now, if there, in the mishna, where there are diverse kinds of grain, with regard to which Rabbi
animals that are separate entities, the Rabbis exempt him from a Yoshiya agrees with the Rabbis that the transgres-
second set of lashes, since he violated a single prohibition with a sor is liable even if he sows only wheat and barley
together (Tosafot). This explanation is in contrast to
single forewarning; here, in the baraita with regard to diverse kinds,
Rashi’s explanation in Bekhorot (54a), where he says
where, unlike animals, seeds are not considered separate entities that Rabbi Yoshiya holds that sowing two different
(see 83a), if one sows diverse kinds twice at the same time, should types of grain together is not prohibited.
they not all the more so exempt him from a second set of lashes? Tosafot question the explanation of Rashi here, as
it is difficult to refer to the act of sowing wheat and
ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו סו ָּמכֹוס ִהיא! ָלא‬Rather, is it not that the ruling of the baraita with regard to diverse
,‫עֹולם ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ grape seed together and the act of sowing barley
– ‫יה ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ ּ ‫אֹור ֵח‬ְ ‫יל ָתא ַא ַ ּגב‬ ְּ ‫ ּו ִמ‬kinds is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos and teaches and grape seed together as two separate categories
that, even with a single entity, one who violates the same prohibition of the prohibition of diverse kinds, as these actions
,‫יכא ְּת ֵרי ַ ּגוְ ונֵי ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם‬
ָּ ‫דְּ ִא‬ are not fundamentally different. Tosafot therefore
twice receives two sets of lashes? The Gemara responds: No, actu-
explain that the two categories are: Sowing wheat
ally the baraita with regard to diverse kinds is in accordance with
and barley together, and sowing wheat and grape
the opinion of the Rabbis, and he was forewarned before each act seed together. If one performs both of those actions,
of sowing, which is why he receives two sets of lashes. And although he violates the two prohibitions of sowing diverse
this statement is redundant, by repeating the phrase: Diverse kinds, kinds of grain and sowing diverse kinds in a vine-
it teaches us a matter in passing: That there are two categories of yard according to the Rabbis, but according to Rabbi
the prohibition of diverse kinds: Sowing wheat together with grape Yoshiya, he violates only one, that of sowing diverse
seed and sowing barley together with grape seed. kinds of grain.
There are also early commentaries who maintain
:‫ֹאשּיָ ה‬
ִ ׁ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫ֹאשּיָ ה‬
ִ ׁ ‫ו ְּל ַא ּפו ֵּקי ִמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ And the baraita serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya,n that although Rabbi Yoshiya does not hold that one
receives lashes for sowing a single type of grain
,‫עֹורה וְ ַח ְרצָ ן ְ ּב ַמ ּפ ֶֹולת יָ ד‬
ָ ‫ּש‬ ׂ ְ ‫ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ זְ ַרע ִח ָּטה ו‬ as Rabbi Yoshiya says: One who sows diverse kinds is not liable by
along with grape seed, he does hold that it violates
Torah law until he sows wheat, and barley, and grape seed with a
‫עֹורה‬ָ ‫ּש‬ ׂ ְ ‫ ו‬,‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן דְּ ִכי זָ ַרע ִח ָּטה וְ ַח ְרצָ ן‬ a prohibition (Rambam; Ra’avad).
single hand motion,hn i.e., by sowing in the vineyard he violates the
.‫וְ ַח ְרצָ ן – נַ ִמי ִמ ַחּיַ יב‬ prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard Until he sows wheat and barley and grape seed
with a single hand motion – ‫עֹורה‬ ׂ ְ ‫ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ זְ ַרע ִח ָּטה ו‬
ָ ‫ּש‬
simultaneously. Therefore, it teaches us that when one sows only ‫וְ ַח ְרצָ ן ְ ּב ַמ ּפ ֶֹולת יָ ד‬: Rabbi Yoshiya derives his opinion
wheat and grape seed, or only barley and grape seed, he is liable from the verse: “You shall not sow your vineyard with
as well. Consequently, a source clarifying Sumakhos’s opinion in a diverse kinds” (Deuteronomy 22:9), which indicates
case where one violates the same prohibition twice during a single that you must not sow two types of seed that are
lapse of awareness, or with only a single forewarning when one of diverse kinds together with a vineyard seed, i.e.,
violated the prohibition intentionally, has not been found. grape seed (Tosafot, citing the Jerusalem Talmud).

background
Diverse kinds – ‫כ ְל ַאיִ ם‬:ִּ It is prohibited to plant different species avoid becoming ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse
of crops in one area of a single field or to graft different species of and must refrain from cutting his hair. A nazirite who violates any of
trees onto one another (see Leviticus 19:19). these prohibitions is subject to receive lashes. One can vow to be
Nazirite – ‫נָזִ יר‬: As detailed in the Torah (Numbers 6:1–21), one who a nazirite for any period of time that he wishes, but the minimum
takes a vow of naziriteship must refrain from eating or drinking term of naziriteship is thirty days. The halakhot of the nazirite are
anything derived from a grape, especially wine. In addition, he must discussed in tractate Nazir.

 ‫בפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 82b 33

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

– ‫ ָא ַכל ִמּזֶ ה ַּכּזַ יִ ת ו ִּמּזֶ ה ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from a mishna
‫סֹופג‬
ֵ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫סֹופג ׁ ְשמֹונִים‬ֵ with regard to the prohibition against eating from the sciatic nerve
(96a): If one ate an olive-bulk from this sciatic nerve in the right
‫ימא ָ ּבזֶ ה‬ ָ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא ֵיל‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬.‫ֶא ָּלא ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬
leg of an animal, and an olive-bulk from that sciatic nerve in the
‫ַא ַחר זֶ ה ו ִּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַה ְת ָראֹות – ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬ left leg of the same animal, he incurs eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda
‫ וְ ׁ ָש ְמ ִעינַן‬,‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה? ַה ְת ָר ַאת ָס ֵפק ִהיא‬ says: He incurs only forty lashes. The Gemara analyzes the
‫ ַה ְת ָר ַאת ָס ֵפק ָלא‬:‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ mishna: What are the circumstances? If we say that he ate them
!‫ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ַה ְת ָר ָאה‬ one after the other and with two separate forewarnings, what is
the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? According to Rabbi
Yehuda, it is an uncertain forewarning, as Rabbi Yehuda is uncer-
tain whether the prohibition against eating from the sciatic nerve
applies to the sciatic nerve of the right thigh or that of the left
thigh (see 90b). And we have heard that Rabbi Yehuda says: An
uncertain forewarning is not considered a forewarning.

,‫ ִה ָּכה ֶאת זֶ ה וְ ָחזַ ר וְ ִה ָּכה ֶאת זֶ ה‬:‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ As it is taught in a baraita: If one is uncertain which of two men
‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ִה ָּכה‬,‫ִק ֵּלל ֶאת זֶ ה וְ ָחזַ ר וְ ִק ֵּלל ֶאת זֶ ה‬ is his father, and he struck this man and then struck that man, or
cursed this man and then cursed that man, or struck both of
‫נֵיהם ְ ּב ַבת‬ֶ ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ִּק ֵּלל ׁ ְש‬,‫נֵיהם ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת‬
ֶ ‫ׁ ְש‬
them simultaneously, or cursed both of them simultaneously,
.‫ַא ַחת – ַחּיָ יב‬ in all these cases he is liable for violating the prohibition of: “And
he that strikes his father, or his mother, shall be put to death”
(Exodus 21:15), or that of: “And he that curses his father, or his
mother, shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:17), as one of them is
certainly his father.

‫ ָ ּבזֶ ה‬,‫ ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת – ַחּיָ יב‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬Rabbi Yehuda says: Although if he struck or cursed both of them
‫יטא – ְ ּב ַבת‬ ָ ‫ ַא ַחר זֶ ה – ּ ָפטוּר! ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬simultaneously he is liable, if he struck or cursed them one after
the other, he is exempt, as each time he strikes or curses one of
.‫ַא ַחת ו ְּב ַה ְת ָר ָאה ַא ַחת‬
them he receives an uncertain forewarning, as perhaps this man
is not his father, and one is liable only after receiving a definite
forewarning. Consequently, if one was forewarned before eating
from the sciatic nerve from the right leg, and afterward he was
forewarned before eating from the sciatic nerve from the left leg,
he would similarly be exempt as each of the forewarnings was
uncertain. Rather, it is obvious that the case in the mishna is one
where he partook of the two sciatic nerves simultaneously and
with a single forewarning, and therefore, he incurs only forty
lashes according to Rabbi Yehuda.

‫ימא ַר ָ ּבנַ ן דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬

ָ ‫ו ַּמאן ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא? ִא ֵיל‬ And who is the first tanna who holds that in such a case one
‫ ו ָּמה ָה ָתם דְּ גו ִּפין‬,‫יה דְּ סו ָּמכֹוס; ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ ּ ‫ֲע ֵל‬ receives eighty lashes? If we say that it is the Rabbis who disagree
with Sumakhos in the mishna about the prohibition of: Itself and
?‫ ָה ָכא – ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬,‫מו ְּח ָל ִקין – ּ ָפ ְט ִרי ַר ָ ּבנַן‬
its offspring, that would conflict with their opinion: Now, if there,
!‫ֶא ָּלא ָלאו סו ָּמכֹוס ִהיא‬ in the case of the mishna that discusses various animals that are
separate entities, the Rabbis deem him exempt from a second
set of lashes, here, in the mishna that discusses the sciatic nerve,
where there are no separate animals, should they not all the more
so exempt him from a second set of lashes? Rather, is the mishna
not in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos? Consequently,
in his opinion one who eats the same prohibited item, such as
an olive-bulk of forbidden fat, twice after a single forewarning
receives two sets of lashes.

‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן; וְ ַהאי‬,‫עֹולם – ָ ּבזֶ ה ַא ַחר זֶ ה‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ ָלא‬The Gemara responds: No, actually the case is one where he ate
,‫ ַּת ָּנא ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ִא ָידךְ ַּת ָּנא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬from the two sciatic nerves one after the other and received sepa-
rate forewarnings, and the first opinion in that mishna is that of
the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos with regard to: Itself and
its offspring. And as for the difficulty that Rabbi Yehuda does not
render one liable if the forewarning is an uncertain one, this tanna
holds in accordance with the opinion of another tanna with
regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

.‫ ַה ְת ָר ַאת ָס ֵפק ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ַה ְת ָר ָאה‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬As that other tanna says that Rabbi Yehuda holds: An uncertain
ִ ‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬forewarning is considered a forewarning, as it is taught in a
‫תֹותיר ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ּב ֶֹקר וְ ַהנּ ָֹתר‬
baraita: The verse states with regard to the Paschal offering:
.‫ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ּב ֶֹקר ָ ּב ֵא ׁש ִּת ְ ׂשרֹפוּ״‬
“And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that
which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire”
(Exodus 12:10).
34 Ĥullin . perek V . 82b . ‫בפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ה‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek V
Daf 83 Amud a
halakha
‫יתן ֲע ֵ ׂשה ַא ַח ר ל ֹא‬ ֵּ ‫ ָ ּבא ַה ָּכתוּב ִל‬The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the leftovers,
The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva after
‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫לֹוקין ָע ָליו‬ ַ ,‫ ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬in the second part of the verse that states: “But that which remains
ִ ‫לֹומר ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ the prohibition – ‫יתן ֲע ֵ ׂשה ַא ַחר ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬
ֵּ ‫בא ַה ָּכתוּב ִל‬:
ָּ
of it until morning you shall burn with fire.” This positive mitzva is
.‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ One who leaves over meat from an offering beyond the
stated after the prohibitionh against leaving it over was stated in the period when it must be eaten is not flogged, as the Torah
first part of the verse, to say that one is not floggedn for transgress- joined a positive mitzva of burning the leftover meat to
ing the prohibition. This is because any prohibition that can be recti- the prohibition, to indicate that one does not receive
fied by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punish- lashes for violating it (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei
ment of lashes. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. If not for HaMukdashin 18:9, and see Kesef Mishne there).
this reason, Rabbi Yehuda evidently would hold that he receives If one ate two sciatic nerves from two thighs – ‫ָא ַכל ׁ ְשנֵי‬
lashes. The forewarning given in this case is uncertain, as he must ‫גִ ִידין ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵּתי יְ ֵרכֹות‬: If one ate an olive-bulk from the sciatic
be forewarned before morning, and at that time he might still nerve of the right leg and an olive-bulk from the sciatic
consume it. nerve of the left leg, or two whole sciatic nerves regard-
less of their volume, he is flogged with eighty lashes.
This is the halakha only if the violator was forewarned
,‫ ל ֹא ִמן ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם הוּא זֶ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬ Rabbi Ya’akov says: This is not for that reason [hashem].l Rather,
twice, but if he was forewarned only once, he is flogged
‫יה ָלאו ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָהוָ ה ֵל‬ it is because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action. The
with only forty lashes, in accordance with the opinions
transgression is simply the failure to consume all the meat during
‫ וְ ָכל ָלאו ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה – ֵאין‬,‫ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda in the
the allotted time rather than the performance of an action. And one baraita and the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos in
.‫לֹוקין ָע ָליו‬
ִ is not flogged for the violation of any prohibition that does not the mishna (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
involve an action. Assurot 8:3 and Maggid Mishne there, and Hilkhot
Ma’akhalot Assurot 14:7).
‫ ָא ַכל ׁ ְשנֵי גִ ִידין ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵּתי יְ ֵרכֹות‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution with regard to
‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫סֹופג ׁ ְשמֹונִים‬ ֵ – ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵּתי ְב ֵהמֹות‬ the opinion of Sumakhos from a baraita discussing the sciatic nerve: notes
If one ate two sciatic nerves from two thighsh of two different A positive mitzva is stated after the prohibition to say
.‫סֹופג ֶא ָּלא ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ֵ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יְ הו ָּדה‬
animals, he incurs the penalty of eighty lashes; Rabbi Yehuda says: that one is not flogged – ‫לֹומר ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬
ַ ‫ֲע ֵ ׂשה ַא ַחר ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬
‫ימא ָ ּבזֶ ה ַא ַחר זֶ ה‬ ָ ‫יל‬ ֵ ‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ He incurs only forty lashes. The Gemara asks: What are the cir- ‫לֹוקין‬:
ִ This is referred to as: A prohibition that entails the
‫ו ִּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַה ְת ָראֹות – ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ cumstances in this case? If we say that he ate them one after the fulfillment of a positive mitzva. The Torah’s requirement
that one who leaves over meat from the Paschal offering
‫ ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים וְ ת ּו ָלא? ֶא ָּלא‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ other and with two separate forewarnings, what is the reasoning
must burn it indicates that this is the remedy and atone-
.‫יטא – ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת ו ַּב ֲח ָדא ַה ְת ָר ָאה‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: The violator receives ment for that transgression, and not lashes (see Rashi
forty lashes and nothing more? After all, he violates two separate on Shevuot 3b).
prohibitions with two separate forewarnings. Rather, it is obvious
If one ate the entire sciatic nerve and its volume is not
that he ate them at the same time and with a single forewarning.
even an olive-bulk he is liable – ‫א ָכלֹו וְ ֵאין ּבֹו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ַחּיָ יב‬:
ֲ
In the opinion of this tanna the sciatic nerve is considered
‫ימא ַר ָ ּבנַן דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬
ָ ‫ַמאן ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא? ִא ֵיל‬ Who is the first tanna, who holds that in such a case one receives
a distinct entity, the consumption of which renders one
‫יה דְּ ס ּו ָמכֹוס; ּו ָמה ָה ָתם דְּ גו ִּפין‬ ּ ‫ֲע ֵל‬ eighty lashes? If we say that it is the Rabbis who disagree with liable, even if its volume is not an olive-bulk (see Makkot
Sumakhos in the mishna about: Itself and its offspring, that would 13a).
‫ ָה ָכא ל ֹא ָּכל‬,‫מו ְּח ָל ִקין – ּ ָפ ְט ִרי ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬
contradict their opinion: Now, if there, in that mishna in a case
!‫ׁ ֶש ֵּכן? ֶא ָּלא ָלאו סו ָּמכֹוס ִהיא‬ where there are various animals that are separate entities, the Rab-
bis deem him exempt from a second set of lashes, here, in the
baraita about two sciatic nerves, which are not separate entities,
should they not all the more so deem him exempt from a second
set of lashes? Rather, is it not Sumakhos who is the first tanna?
Consequently, in his opinion one who eats the same prohibited
item, such as an olive-bulk of forbidden fat, twice after a single
forewarning receives two sets of lashes.

‫ ַמאי‬:‫ ו ְּד ָק ֲא ַמ ְר ְּת‬.‫עֹולם ָ ּבזֶ ה ַא ַחר זֶ ה‬

ָ ‫ְל‬ The Gemara responds: Actually, he ate the two sciatic nerves one
‫יה‬ּ ‫ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה – ְּכגֹון דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬ after the other with separate forewarnings, incurring two sets of
lashes even according to the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos
– ‫ ֲא ָכלֹו וְ ֵאין ּבֹו ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬,‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
in the mishna about: Itself and its offspring. And as for that which
‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ּבֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ַחּיָ יב‬ you say: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda who holds that the
.‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ transgressor incurs only a single set of lashes? This is a case where
the volume of one of the sciatic nerves is not even an olive-bulk,
and Rabbi Yehuda follows his line of reasoning, as it is taught in
a baraita: If one ate the entire sciatic nerve, and its volume is
not even an olive-bulk, he is liable to incur forty lashes;n Rabbi
Yehuda says: He is not liable unless it has a volume of at least an
olive-bulk.

language
Reason [shem] – ‫שם‬: ֵ ׁ In this expression: This is not for that reason, matter. In this context, Rabbi Ya’akov means that the fact that one
the word: Reason, is actually the Hebrew word for name [shem]. does not receive lashes for leaving over a portion of an offering
This is because the name of an item is often used to understand is not because it is a prohibition that entails the fulfillment of a
its essence. Therefore, the expression: This is not for that reason, mitzva; rather, it is for a different reason.
means that a certain idea is not the true root or reason of the

 ‫גפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 83a 35

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
On four occasions during the year one who sells
an animal to another is required to inform him –
‫ֹוכר‬ֵ ‫מתני׳ ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּ ְפ ָר ִקים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ַה ּמ‬
‫״א ָּמ ּה‬
ִ :‫הֹודיעֹו‬ ִ ‫יך ְל‬ ְ ‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו צָ ִר‬
mishna On four occasions during the year one who
sells an animal to another is required to
‫הֹודיעֹו‬ ְ ‫ב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּ ְפ ָר ִקים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ַה ּמ ֵֹוכר ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו צָ ִר‬:ּ ְ
ִ ‫יך ְל‬
inform him:h I sold the mother of this animal today for the buyer
,‫״ב ָּת ּה ָמ ַכ ְר ִּתי ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט״‬ ּ ִ ,‫ָמ ַכ ְר ִּתי ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט״‬ to slaughter it, or: I sold the daughter of this animal today for the
On four days of the year one who sells an animal
must notify the buyer that he sold its mother or its ,‫ ֶע ֶרב יֹום טֹוב ָה ַא ֲחרֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬:‫וְ ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן‬ buyer to slaughter it. And those four occasions are: The eve of the
offspring for slaughter so that the buyer will refrain ‫ וְ ֶע ֶרב‬,‫אשֹון ׁ ֶשל ּ ֶפ ַסח‬ ׁ ‫וְ ֶע ֶרב יֹום טֹוב ָה ִר‬ last day of the festival of Sukkot,n the eve of the first day of the
from slaughtering it until the next day. These days are: ֵ ‫ֹאש ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה; ו ְּכ ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬
‫יֹוסי‬ ׁ ‫ וְ ֶע ֶרב ר‬,‫ֲע ֶצ ֶרת‬ festival of Passover, and the eve of Shavuot, and the eve of Rosh
The eve of Shemini Atzeret, the eve of the first festival HaShana. And according to the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,
day of Passover, the eve of Shavuot, and the eve of .‫ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי – ַאף ֶע ֶרב יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים ַ ּב ָ ּג ִליל‬
the eve of Yom Kippur in the Galilee is included as well.n
Rosh HaShana, in accordance with the opinion of the
first tanna in the mishna, as opposed to Rabbi Yosei
‫ימ ַתי? ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו‬ָ ‫ ֵא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ Rabbi Yehuda said: When must he inform the buyer on those days?
HaGelili. If the buyer was not notified, he may slaugh-
ter his animal without concern, whether he bought it .‫הֹודיעֹו‬ִ ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁיֵש לֹו ֶריוַ ח – ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ְל‬,‫ֶריוַ ח‬ He must do so at a time when the seller has no intervaln between
the sale of the mother and the offspring, as they were both sold on
from a Jew or a gentile, and if he discovers afterward ‫מֹוכר ֶאת ָה ֵאם ֶל ָח ָתן‬ ֵ ‫ ְ ּב‬,‫ּמֹודה ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ֶ ‫ו‬
that its mother or its offspring was slaughtered on that day. But if the seller has an interval between the sales, he does
that same day, his purchase is considered a mistaken
ִ ‫וְ ֶאת ַה ַ ּבת ַל ַּכ ָּלה – ׁ ֶש ָ ּצ ִריךְ ְל‬
‫ ְ ּביָ דו ַּע‬,‫הֹודיעֹו‬ not need to inform the buyer, as presumably each buyer purchased
transaction. This applies only when both mother and .‫ֹוח ִטין ְ ּביֹום ֶא ָחד‬ ֲ ‫נֵיהם ׁש‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש‬ the animal to slaughter it on the day he purchased it. And Rabbi
offspring are sold on the same day, but if they were Yehuda concedes that in a case where one sells the mother animal
sold on different days, the seller does not need to
to the groom and the offspring to the bride,h that even if he did
inform the buyer, in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Yehuda (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita
not sell them on the same day, he must inform the buyer, as it is
12:14–15, and see Ra’avad there; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh obvious that they are both planning to slaughter their animal on
De’a 16:6). one day, for their wedding feast.
One sells the mother animal to the groom and the
‫יטין ֶאת ַה ַּט ָ ּבח‬ ִ ‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּ ְפ ָר ִקים ֵאלּ ּו ַמ ׁ ְש ִח‬ On those four occasions, one compels the butcher to slaughter
offspring to the bride – ‫מֹוכר ֶאת ָה ֵאם ֶל ָח ָתן וְ ֶאת ַה ַ ּבת‬
ֵ
,‫ְ ּב ַעל ָּכ ְרחֹו; ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁשֹור ׁ ָשוֶ ה ֶא ֶלף דִּ ינָ ִרים‬ animals even against his will;h even if there is a bull worth one
‫ל ַּכ ָּלה‬:ַ One who sells an animal to the groom and
thousand dinars and the buyer has only one dinar worth of meat,
its offspring or its mother to the bride, even on two ‫ֹופין אֹותֹו‬ ִ ‫וְ ֵאין לֹו ַל ּל ֵֹוק ַח ֶא ָּלא ִדינָ ר – ּכ‬
separate days, must notify them, as they are certainly i.e., he already paid the butcher for one dinar’s worth of meat, one
planning to slaughter them on the same day, the
.‫ ִאם ֵמת – ֵמת ַל ּל ֵֹוק ַח‬,‫יכ ְך‬ ָ ‫ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט; ְל ִפ‬ compels him to slaughter the animal and give him a dinar’s worth
day of their wedding. Nowadays, there is no need to , ְ‫יכך‬ָ ‫ֲא ָבל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר יְ מֹות ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ֵאינֹו ֵּכן; ְל ִפ‬ of meat. Therefore, if the bull dies before slaughter, although no act
notify them if they bought the animals on different .‫ִאם ֵמת – ֵמת ַל ּמ ֵֹוכר‬ of acquisition was performed, it dies at the expense of the buyer,
days, as people are accustomed to slaughter animals and he loses his dinar. But during the rest of the days of the year it
a few days in advance (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hil-
khot Sheĥita 12:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 16:6 and
is not so. On other days, until the buyer performs the act of pulling
Shakh there). to assume ownership of the portion of the bull that he is purchasing,
the bull remains in the butcher’s possession. Therefore, if the bull
One compels the butcher to slaughter animals
dies before the transaction is complete, it dies at the expense of the
even against his will – ‫יטין ֶאת ַה ַּט ָ ּבח ְ ּב ַעל ָּכ ְרחֹו‬
ִ ‫מ ׁ ְש ִח‬:ַ
On the four occasions listed in the mishna the butcher seller, who returns the buyer’s money.
is compelled to slaughter an animal in order to sell
meat to the buyer, even if the buyer paid for only a
dinar’s worth of meat and the animal is worth one
hundred dinars. Therefore, if the animal dies after the
buyer paid the butcher, the buyer loses his money,
because in this case the Sages based their decrees on
the Torah law that giving money effects acquisition,
in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan. In
addition, the Rema states that the same applies with
regard to other mitzvot, such as purchasing wine for
notes
kiddush on Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Kinyan, Hilkhot
Mekhira 9:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 199:3). The eve of the last day of the festival of Sukkot – ‫ֶע ֶרב יֹום טֹוב‬ the second, he does not need to notify the buyer, since the first
‫ה ַא ֲחרֹון ׁ ֶשל ַחג‬:ָ The eve of the first day of Sukkot is not included, as animal may have been slaughtered on a previous day (Rashi), as
there is no time for large meals since everyone is busy building the ordinarily one slaughters an animal on the day he buys it (Meiri).
sukka and obtaining a lulav and four species. Furthermore, the four Some commentaries interpret the statement of Rabbi Yehuda
occasions listed in the mishna are all times of special feasts: The as referring specifically to the eve of Yom Kippur in the Galilee, as
last day of Sukkot, or the Eighth day of Assembly, is described as one who buys an animal then must slaughter it on that day, as he
a Festival established by God due to His great love for the Jewish cannot slaughter the animal on the Festival. On the eve of any other
people, and it is customary to celebrate it with extra joy. Passover Festival, the seller need not notify the buyer if the other animal
eve is likewise included in the joy of the festival of redemption, and was bought that day as well, since it can be slaughtered on the
there are additional peace offerings that are brought on that day. Festival itself (Ramban).
The eve of Shavuot is marked by a feast due to the giving of the The Rambam interprets all of the references to whether the
Torah, and Rosh HaShana eve is celebrated with a special meal as seller has an interval or not as referring to an interval on the eve
an auspicious start to the year. of a Festival. Consequently, he maintains that the phrase: Has no
interval, means that the animal was sold near the end of the day,
The eve of Yom Kippur in the Galilee as well – ‫ַאף ֶע ֶרב יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬ indicating that the buyer is hurrying to obtain an animal to slaugh-
‫ב ָ ּג ִליל‬:ּ ַ The custom in the Galilee was to have large meals on Yom ter that very day; while the phrase: Has an interval, means that the
Kippur eve, as the Sages say that whoever eats on Yom Kippur eve animal was sold early in the day, indicating that the buyer is not
is considered as though he fasted both on that day and on the necessarily buying it for immediate slaughter. The phraseology
following day. Though Jews in other places would also enlarge their of the mishna seems to support this interpretation, as there is a
meals on the eve of Yom Kippur, they would focus upon eating principle that whenever Rabbi Yehuda uses the word: When, in a
fowl and fish rather than beef, as they are lighter foods (Tosafot). mishna, he is interpreting the opinion of the Rabbis who preceded
him (see Eiruvin 81b), and the Rabbis in this mishna refer specifically
At a time when the seller has no interval – ‫בזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו ֶריוַ ח‬:
ִּ to sales occurring on the eve of a Festival (Rashba). It should be
This statement of Rabbi Yehuda means that if both mother and noted that in Halakhot Gedolot, the word: When, is not part of the
offspring are sold on the same day, the seller must notify the buyer text of this mishna.
of the second animal that the first was sold that day. But if there is
an interval, such as when the first animal is sold a day or two before

36 Ĥullin . perek V . 83a . ‫גפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ה‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ֹוחט‬
ֵ ‫הֹולךְ וְ ׁש‬ ִ ‫ ִאם ל ֹא‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנָ א‬
ֵ – ‫הֹודיעֹו‬
.‫וְ ֵאינֹו נִ ְמנָע‬
gemara The mishna teaches that on the four occa-
sions mentioned it is the seller’s responsi-
bility to inform the purchaser that the mother or offspring of the
animal he is purchasing was sold that day. With regard to this it is
taught: Consequently, the purchaser has no obligation to clarify the
situation, and if the seller did not inform him, the purchaser may
go and slaughter the animal he has purchased and need not refrain
from doing so.n

:‫ ָל ָּמה ִלי ְל ִמ ְיתנֵי‬.‫ימ ַתי״‬ ָ ‫״א ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֵא‬

ָ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: When must he inform
‫ֶאת ָה ֵאם ֶל ָח ָתן וְ ֶאת ַה ַ ּבת ַל ַּכ ָּלה? ִמ ְּל ָתא‬ the buyer on those days? It then teaches: And Rabbi Yehuda con-
cedes that in a case where one sold the mother animal to the groom
‫אֹורח ַא ְר ָעא‬ ַ ְּ‫ ד‬:‫יה ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ ּ ‫אֹור ֵח‬ְ ‫ַא ַ ּגב‬
and the offspring to the bride, even if he did not sell them on the
.‫ְל ִמ ְט ַרח ֵ ּבי ֲח ָתנָ א ְט ֵפי ִמ ֵ ּבי ַכ ְּל ָתא‬ same day, he must inform the buyer. The Gemara asks: Why do I
need to teach that the butcher sold specifically the mother animal
to the groom and the offspring to the bride? It could have taught:
He sold one to the groom and the other to the bride. The Gemara
answers: It teaches us a related matter in passing, that it is proper
conduct for the groom’s household to exert more effort than the
bride’s household in the marriage preparations. Therefore, the
groom purchases the mother, the larger animal, while the bride
purchases the smaller animal, the offspring.

!‫ וְ ָהא ָלא ָמ ׁ ַש ְך‬.‫״ב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּ ְפ ָר ִקים ֵא ּלוּ״‬ ְּ § The mishna teaches: On those four occasions, one compels the
,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬. ְ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָּמ ׁ ַשך‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ֲא ַמר ַרב‬ butcher to slaughter animals even against his will, and even if there
is a bull worth one thousand dinars and the buyer has paid for only
‫ ֲא ָבל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר יְ מֹות ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ימא ֵס‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬
one dinar’s worth of meat, one compels him to slaughter the animal.
;‫ֹוכר‬ֵ ‫ ִאם ֵמת – ֵמת ַל ּמ‬,‫יכ ְך‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִפ‬,‫ֵאינֹו ֵּכן‬ Therefore, if the bull dies before slaughter, it dies at the expense of
! ְ‫וְ ָהא ָמ ׁ ַשך‬ the buyer. The Gemara challenges: But the buyer did not yet pull
the animal to effect acquisition; consequently, although he paid the
seller, the animal is not his. Rav Huna said that Rav said: The case
is where he pulled it, and thereby acquired it. The Gemara asks: If
so, say the latter clause: But during the rest of the days of the year
it is not so. Therefore, if the bull dies, it dies at the expense of the
seller, who returns the buyer’s money. But according to Rav, didn’t
the buyer pull the animal? If so, why is its death at the expense of
the seller?

‫עֹולם‬
ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק‬ Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzĥak said: Actually, the case in the
;‫יכה לֹו ַעל יְ ֵדי ַא ֵחר‬ ָּ ִ‫ ו ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶשּז‬, ְ‫ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָמ ׁ ַשך‬ mishna is one where the buyer did not pull the animal, and it is
a case where the seller transfers ownership to the customer by
‫ דִּ זְ כוּת הוּא לֹו – זָ ִכין‬,ּ‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּ ְפ ָר ִקים ֵאלּ ו‬
means of another person, i.e., by instructing another to acquire a
,‫ְל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְ ּב ָפנָיו; ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר יְ מֹות ַה ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬ dinar’s worth of the ox’s meat on the customer’s behalf, without
‫דְּ חֹוב הוּא לֹו – ֵאין ָח ִבין ְל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬ having obtained the customer’s consent. Therefore, on those four
.‫ְ ּב ָפנָיו‬ occasions, where it is for the customer’s benefit,n as he wants meat
for the Festival, the principle: One can act in a person’s interest in
his absence, applies. By contrast, during the rest of the days of the
year, where it is to the customer’s disadvantage to acquire the meat
before the bull is slaughtered, as he does not want to incur avoidable
expenses, one cannot act to the disadvantage of another person
in his absence. Therefore, if the bull dies, it is at the expense of
the seller.

notes
If the seller did not inform him the purchaser may go and not have been sold, and if it was sold the purchaser may not want
slaughter – ‫ֹוחט‬ֵ ‫הֹול ְך וְ ׁש‬
ֵ ‫הֹודיעֹו‬
ִ ‫אם ל ֹא‬:ִ According to the Ramban, to slaughter it on that day.
this is the halakha only with regard to the four occasions men-
On those four occasions where it is for his benefit – ‫ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬
tioned in the mishna, as at those times the burden of notification
‫פ ָר ִקים ֵאלּ ּו דִּ זְ כוּת הוּא לֹו‬:ְ ּ The buyer acquires the meat and his money
is placed on the seller. During the rest of the year, the buyer must
is acquired by the seller, even if it turns out that this choice was not
inquire about the situation so as not to place himself in a posi-
in his best interest in the end, since at the moment the meat was
tion of possibly violating a prohibition by Torah law. The Rashba
procured for him it was certainly something he wanted (Maĥane
maintains that during the rest of the year as well, as long as the
Efrayim, Hilkhot Zekhiya UMattana 6, citing Rambam). The Meiri
seller did not notify him of any concern, the buyer may slaughter
maintains that if the buyer discovers only afterward that the bull
the animal whenever he wishes. This is because there are a number
died before being slaughtered, and he wants his money back, he
of uncertainties involved that support the assumption that he is
receives it.
not violating any prohibition: There may be no living mother or
offspring of the animal purchased, if there is such an animal it may

 ‫גפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ה קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek V . 83a 37

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says that there is a different
Your wheat was burned in the upper story of my
house – ‫נִש ְרפ ּו ִח ֶּטיךָ ַ ּב ֲע ִלּיָ ה‬:
ׂ ְ The concern here is that ‫יהם ַעל‬ ֶ ‫ ּ ְפ ָר ִקים ֵא ּל ּו ֶה ֱע ִמיד ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים דִּ ְב ֵר‬explanation: On those four occasions the Sages based their state-
ment on the Torah law that giving money effects acquisition, and
should the payment of money be sufficient to transfer .‫דִּ ין ּת ָֹורה‬
ownership, the seller of the goods might not bother to therefore, the payment of the buyer acquires the meat for him with
rescue them from a fire even when they are sitting in no need for pulling.
his house, since they are no longer his. Therefore the
Sages insisted that for the buyer’s own protection, the ,‫ דְּ ַבר ּת ָֹורה – ָמעֹות קֹונֹות‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬As Rabbi Yoĥanan says: By Torah law, giving money effects the
buyer himself must take possession of his purchase ‫ ו ַּמה ַּט ַעם ָא ְמר ּו ְמ ׁ ִש ָיכה קֹונָ ה? ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬acquisition of movable property with no need for pulling. And
and assume responsibility for it. what is the reason that the Sages said that pulling effects acquisi-
.‫״נִש ְרפ ּו ִח ֶּטיךָ ַ ּב ֲע ִלּיָ ה״‬
ׂ ְ :‫ֹאמר לֹו‬ ַ ‫י‬
tion? It is a rabbinic decree lest the seller, once he receives the
halakha money, be unconcerned about the welfare of the movable property
With regard to the prohibition, itself and its off- that he has sold, and, for example, not protect it from fire, so that
spring, the day follows the night – ‫ְ ּבאֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו ַהּיֹום‬ he will say to the buyer: Your wheat was burned in the upper
‫הֹול ְך ַא ַחר ַה ַּליְ ָלה‬:
ֵ With regard to the day mentioned in story of my houseb and I have no responsibility for it. For the
relation to the prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, the
benefit of rejoicing on the Festival, the Sages ordained that Torah
day follows the night. For example, if one slaughtered
the first animal at the beginning of Tuesday night, he law remains in effect on those four occasions and the buyer’s money
may not slaughter the second one until the begin- effects acquisition, and one compels the butcher to slaughter
ning of Wednesday night. If he slaughtered the first animals even against his will.
late Wednesday afternoon just before twilight, he may
slaughter the second at the beginning of Wednesday
night. If one slaughtered the first during twilight of
Wednesday night, he must wait until Thursday night
‫מתני׳ ״יֹום ֶא ָחד״ ָה ָאמוּר ְ ּבאֹותֹו וְ ֶאת‬
‫ ֶאת זֹו‬.‫הֹול ְך ַא ַחר ַה ַּליְ ָלה‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּבנֹו – ַהּיֹום‬
mishna With regard to the phrase “one day” that is
stated with regard to the prohibition
against slaughtering an animal itself and its offspring, the day
to slaughter the second; if he slaughtered the second ‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר ְ ּב ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬,‫זֹומא‬
ָ ‫דָּ ַר ׁש ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬ follows the night.h Therefore, one may slaughter an animal during
animal on Thursday itself, he is not flogged because of ‫ וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר ְ ּבאֹותֹו וְ ֶאת‬,‫ ״יֹום ֶא ָחד״‬:‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ the day and slaughter its offspring that night, but one may not
the uncertainty concerning the status of twilight, in
accordance with the ruling of the Tosefta (Rambam ‫ ָמה ״יֹום ֶא ָחד״ ָה ָאמוּר‬,‫ ״יֹום ֶא ָחד״‬:‫ְ ּבנֹו‬ slaughter an animal at night and slaughter its offspring the following
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:17; Shulĥan Arukh, ‫הֹול ְך ַא ַחר‬ ֵ ‫אשית – ַהּיֹום‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ְ ּב ֵר‬ day. Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma derived this by means of a verbal
Yoreh De’a 16:4).
‫ ַאף ״יֹום ֶא ָחד״ ָה ָאמוּר ְ ּבאֹותֹו וְ ֶאת‬,‫ַה ַּליְ ָלה‬ analogy. It is stated in the act of Creation: “One day” (Genesis
1:5), and it is stated with regard to the slaughter of an animal itself
.‫הֹולךְ ַא ַחר ַה ַּליְ ָלה‬
ֵ ‫ְ ּבנֹו – ַהּיֹום‬ and its offspring: “One day” (Leviticus 22:28). Just as concerning
notes
And with regard to sacrificial animals the night fol- the phrase “one day” that is stated in the act of Creation, the day
lows the day – ‫הֹול ְך ַא ַחר ַהּיֹום‬
ֵ ‫ו ְּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַליְ ָלה‬: Rashi follows the night, so too concerning the phrase “one day” that is
derives this from the verse: “It shall be eaten on the stated with regard to the slaughter of an animal itself and its
day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it until the offspring, the day follows the night.
morning” (Leviticus 7:15), which indicates that although
he shall not leave it until the following morning, he
may eat it during the night; therefore, the night fol-
lowing the “day of his offering” is considered part of
‫ ֶאת זֹו דָּ ַר ׁש ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬,‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬
‫ ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ָּכל ָה ִענְ יָ ן ּכו ּּלֹו ֵאינֹו ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר‬:‫זֹומא‬ ָ
gemara The Sages taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shi-
mon ben Zoma taught this explanation:
that day.
Because the entire section of the Torah where the prohibition:
ֵ ‫ ו ְּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַליְ ָלה‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬
‫הֹול ְך‬ Itself and its offspring, appears speaks only about sacrificial ani-
:‫ יָ כֹול ַאף זֶ ה ֵּכן? נֶ ֱא ַמר ָּכאן‬,‫ַא ַחר ַהּיֹום‬ mals, and with regard to sacrificial animals the night follows the
‫ ״יֹום‬:‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר ְ ּב ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ְ ּב ֵר‬,‫״יֹום ֶא ָחד״‬ day,n one might have thought that even with regard to this prohibi-
‫ ָמה ״יֹום ֶא ָחד״ ָה ָאמוּר ְ ּב ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬,‫ֶא ָחד״‬ tion it is so. Therefore, the following derivation is required: It is
‫ ַאף‬,‫הֹולךְ ַא ַחר ַה ַּליְ ָלה‬ ֵ ‫אשית – ַהּיֹום‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ stated here, with regard to the slaughter of an animal and its off-
spring: “One day,” and it is stated in the act of Creation: “One
ְ‫הֹולך‬
ֵ ‫״יֹום״ ָה ָאמוּר ְ ּבאֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו – ַהּיֹום‬ day.” Just as concerning the phrase “one day” that is stated in the
.‫ַא ַחר ַה ַּליְ ָלה‬ act of Creation, the day follows the night, so too concerning the
phrase “one day” that is stated with regard to the slaughter of an
animal itself and its offspring, the day follows the night.

Perek V
Daf 83 Amud b

‫ ״יֹום ֶא ָחד״ – יֹום ַה ְּמיו ָּחד ָטעוּן‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ § ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse: “You shall not slaughter
‫ ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ּ ְפ ָר ִקים ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬:ּ‫ ָּכרֹוז; ִמ ָּכאן ָא ְמרו‬it and its offspring both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28), is referring
to a special day, and it indicates that a special day requires a proc-
.‫הֹודיעֹו‬ ִ ‫ַה ּמ ֵֹוכר ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו צָ ִריךְ ְל‬
lamation to prevent buyers from slaughtering an animal together
with its offspring on that day. From here is derived that which
is stated in the mishna: On four occasions during the year,
which are special days, one who sells an animal to another must
inform him: I sold its mother for slaughter, or: I sold its offspring
for slaughter.
‫הדרן עלך אותו ואת בנו‬

38 Ĥullin . perek V . 83b . ‫גפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ה‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Summary of
Perek V

This chapter discussed all of the halakhot relating to the prohibition against slaughter-
ing an animal and its offspring in a single day.
The prohibition of: Itself and its offspring, applies to all domesticated animals,
whether cattle or sheep, whether both animals are non-sacred or sacred, or whether
one is sacred and the other is not. It does not apply to undomesticated animals or to
birds. Since it is a halakha unrelated to the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael, it applies both
in Eretz Yisrael and outside of it, and it is applied during the existence of the Temple
as well as in the present.
There is a dispute as to whether the prohibition applies only to a mother and its
offspring, since the offspring tends to cling to it, or whether slaughtering a father
animal and its offspring in a single day is also prohibited, as the verse describes the
animals using masculine terms. In relation to this dispute, the question of whether
one must be concerned with the paternity of animals is also addressed. This issue
has implications for various halakhot, including the prohibition against crossbreeding
diverse kinds of animals, where it affects the definition of the species of animals born
of crossbreeding. This, in turn, has an impact upon which mitzvot and prohibitions
apply to the animals, as well as with what animals they are permitted to mate. This
question is not completely resolved in the Gemara, nor have the authorities com-
pletely resolved it.
With regard to the order of slaughtering the two animals in a single day, it is accepted
that the phrase used in the verse: “It and its offspring,” despite mentioning the parent
first, renders slaughtering the offspring before the parent prohibited as well.
It is also determined in this chapter that the phrase: “You shall not slaughter” (Leviti-
cus 22:28), limits the prohibition specifically to animals that are slaughtered, both
with regard to the parent and with regard to the offspring. Consequently, if one or
both of the animals are killed in another way, the prohibition does not apply. Any
type of legitimate slaughtering, even slaughtering that is not fit and does not permit
the meat to be eaten, violates the prohibition.
With regard to the definition of not slaughtering the two animals on one day, the
mishna states that the day follows the night, as with most matters mentioned in the
Torah. Accordingly, the day, during the course of which one may slaughter only one of
the animals, is defined as beginning in the evening and lasting until the next evening.
Slaughtering an animal and its offspring in a single day, although prohibited, does
not disqualify the slaughter; consequently, the meat may be eaten. With regard to
sacrificial animals, the second animal is disqualified for use. The reason is that once
the first animal is slaughtered, the second one may not be slaughtered that day.
Therefore, it has the status of an offering whose time for sacrifice has not yet arrived.

39
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Since it has that status, if it is slaughtered outside the Temple, the slaughterer is not
liable for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple.
One who slaughters an animal and its offspring in a single day has violated a pro-
hibition for which one incurs forty lashes. Depending upon the circumstances, the
violator may be penalized with a single set of lashes or more than one set. For example,
the slaughter of a mother and one of its offspring incurs a single set of lashes, while
the slaughter of two of the offspring with the mother incurs two sets of lashes.
The Sages instituted that at times, one who sells a mother or its offspring must inform
the buyer when he is planning to slaughter the animal that he retains in his possession,
in order that the buyer should not accidentally violate the prohibition of: Itself and
its offspring. Therefore, at certain times during the year when many people tend to
slaughter animals and often slaughter them immediately after purchasing them, the
Sages required the seller to inform the buyer of an animal if its mother or offspring
was already sold that day.
These were the principal topics discussed in this chapter. During the deliberations on
these topics, the Gemara also examines rather extensively a few tangentially related
topics. One of these related topics is whether it is necessary to be concerned with
the paternity of animals in halakhic matters. Another related topic addressed is the
categorization of a koy, a kosher animal with characteristics of both domesticated
and undomesticated animals, as well as a few other animals about which there is
uncertainty as to whether they are domesticated or undomesticated. Additionally in
this chapter, the Gemara discusses how many sets of lashes are incurred by one who
transgresses the same prohibition multiple times, and the different circumstances
that may result in variations of that penalty.

40
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

And any man of the children of Israel, or of the strang-

ers that sojourn among them, who traps a trapping of
an undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten,
he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.
Introduction to
(Leviticus 17:13)
Perek VI

Although the mitzva of covering the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal

or a bird is stated explicitly in the Torah, its precise halakhot are not, and therefore,
there are aspects of the mitzva that must be clarified. The Torah states that the mitzva
of covering the blood applies to one who traps an undomesticated animal or a bird.
Is the act of trapping critical for the obligation of the mitzva, or is this obligation
applicable any time one slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird, even if no
trapping is involved? Moreover, does the mitzva of covering the blood apply only if
the act of slaughter is valid, i.e., when it permits the meat for consumption, or is it
applicable even when the slaughter is not valid?
Furthermore, the verse states that only a bird and an undomesticated animal are
included in the mitzva of covering the blood; domesticated animals are not included.
If so, given that undomesticated animals may not be offered as sacrifices, can it be
inferred that the mitzva of covering the blood applies only to non-sacred animals and
birds? Or does the Torah mean to exclude only sacrificial animals but not sacrificial
birds, in which case the mitzva to cover the blood applies to a sacrificial bird as well?
Other uncertainties arise with regard to the act of covering: Is the mitzva of covering
the blood incumbent only upon the one performing the slaughter, or is it incum-
bent upon any individual who sees the blood uncovered? What is the halakha in an
instance where the blood was covered as a result of natural causes, without human
intervention: Is the mitzva considered to have been performed? Must one cover the
blood of each slaughtered animal or bird separately, or may he cover all the blood at
the same time? Is the mitzva to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal separate
from the mitzva to cover the blood of a bird, or are these acts considered one mitzva?
It is also unclear how much blood needs to be covered: All of it or only part of it? If
the latter, which part of the blood needs to be covered? Must one cover specifically
the blood that spurts out at the time of the slaughter, or may one cover the blood
that issues from the animal in another manner?
The covering process itself requires clarification as well: Must the blood be covered
with only one layer of earth, or must the blood be covered with earth from both above
and below? What is the precise meaning of the term “earth” mentioned in the verse?
Is it limited to earth specifically, or is the verse referring even to other substances that
share a common characteristic with earth?
These are the primary subjects discussed in this chapter.

41
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VI
Daf 83 Amud b

‫נֹוהג ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ו ְּבחוּצָ ה‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳ ִּכ ּסוּי ַהדָּ ם‬

,‫ ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת וְ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬,‫ָל ָא ֶרץ‬
mishna The mitzva of covering the blood after
slaughter is in effect both in Eretz Yisraelh
notes
One is not obligated to cover the blood of sacrificial
birds – ‫ין…לא‬
ָ ‫מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִש‬: The Gemara assumes the mishna
and outside of Eretz Yisrael, both in the presence, i.e., the time, of is referring specifically to sacrificial birds, not animals,
ֵ ְ‫ ו‬.‫ְ ּבחו ִּּלין ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ְ ּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬
‫נֹוהג ְ ּב ַחּיָ ה‬ the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. And it is in since undomesticated animals are in any event never
‫נֹוהג ְ ּבכֹוי‬ֵ ְ‫ ו‬.‫ ִ ּב ְמזו ָּּמן ו ְּב ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמזו ָּּמן‬,‫ו ְּבעֹוף‬ effect with regard to non-sacred animals, but it is not in effect with sacrificed as offerings.
.‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשהוּא ָס ֵפק‬ regard to sacrificial ones. And it is in effect with regard to the
He must place earth beneath – ‫צָ ִריךְ ׁ ֶשּיִ ֵּתן ָע ָפר ְל ַמ ָּטה‬:
slaughter of an undomesticated animal and a bird, with regard to Tosafot comment that unlike the placing of earth
animals and birds that are readily available in his home, and with above the blood, which is a mitzva incumbent upon
regard to those that are not readily available and are hunted in the the slaughterer, the bottom layer of earth need not
wild. And it is in effect with regard to a koy, because it is uncertain be placed with specific intention for the mitzva; it is
whether a koy is a domesticated animal and one is exempt from the sufficient that the blood fall upon a layer of earth. By
covering of its blood or whether it is an undomesticated animal and contrast, Rashi maintains, based on the wording of the
Gemara on 31a, that the bottom layer of earth must
one is obligated to cover it. be designated for the mitzva as well. Consequently, if
earth was already there, the slaughterer must verbally
– ‫ וְ ִאם ׁ ָש ֲחט ּו‬,‫ֹוח ִטין אֹותֹו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬
ֲ ‫ וְ ֵאין ׁש‬And one may not slaughter a koy on a Festival,h because covering designate it for the mitzva.
.‫ ֵאין ְמ ַכ ִּסין ֶאת דָּ מֹו‬its blood entails the performance of prohibited labor that is permit-
ted only if there is a definite obligation to cover the blood. And if Constitutes an interposition – ‫קא ָהוֵ י ֲחצִ יצָ ה‬:ָ The
verse states with regard to a bird burnt offering: “And
one slaughtered a koy on a Festival after the fact, one does not
its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar”
cover its blood until after the Festival. (Leviticus 1:15), indicating that there may not be any

‫ימא‬
‫ֹוחט‬
ָ ‫גמ׳ מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא ָלא? ִא ֵיל‬
ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬
gemara The Gemara asks: What is the reason one
is not obligated to cover the blood of sac-
interposition between the blood and the altar (Ritva).

rificial birds?n If we say it is because of the statement of Rabbi

,‫יך ׁ ֶשּיִ ֵּתן ָע ָפר ְל ַמ ָּטה וְ ָע ָפר ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ְ ‫צָ ִר‬ Zeira, that is difficult. As Rabbi Zeira says: One who slaughters a
,‫ ״וְ ׁ ָש ַפךְ ֶאת דָּ מֹו וְ ִכ ָּסה ּו ֶ ּב ָע ָפר״‬:‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ bird or an undomesticated animal must place earth beneathnh the
‫״ב ָע ָפר״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד‬ ּ ֶ :‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫״ע ָפר״ ל ֹא נֶ ֱא ַמר‬ ָ blood and earth above it, as it is stated: “And he shall pour out its
‫יך ׁ ֶשּיִ ֵּתן ָע ָפר ְל ַמ ָּטה וְ ָע ָפר‬ ְ ‫ֹוחט צָ ִר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ַה ׁ ּש‬ blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13). It is not stated:
.‫ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ Cover it with earth, but rather, “in earth,” indicating that the blood
must be concealed inside the earth. The verse teaches that one
who slaughters a bird or undomesticated animal must place earth
beneath the blood and earth above the blood.

‫יתיב‬ ִ ‫יע ִביד? ֵל‬ ֲ ‫יכי ִל‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬,‫ וְ ָה ָכא ָלא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬The Gemara continues: And here, with regard to a bird offering,
‫״ה ּכֹל‬
ַ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫מֹוסיף ַא ִ ּבנְיָ ן‬
ִ ‫יה – ָק‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִל ַיב ְּט ֵל‬whose blood is presented on the altar, it is not possible for one to
cover the blood with earth from beneath it. As how should one
,‫ִ ּב ְכ ָתב ִמּיַ ד ה׳ ָע ַלי ִה ְ ׂש ִּכיל״‬
perform the covering of the blood? If one suggests that he should
place earth on the altar and nullify that earth to the altar such that
it will never be removed from there, this is unfeasible, since by
nullifying the earth to the altar, he is adding to the structure of
the altar. And it is written with regard to the construction of the
Temple: “All was in writing, from the hand of the Lord, which He
gave me to understand” (I Chronicles 28:19), indicating that the
dimensions of the Temple and all the vessels within were given
prophetically and are therefore not subject to change.

ּ ‫ ָלא ִל ַיב ְּט ֵל‬And if one suggests that he should not nullify the earth to the altar,
;‫יה – ָקא ָהוֵ י ֲחצִ יצָ ה‬
this too is problematic, as the earth constitutes an interpositionn
between the blood of the bird and the altar.

halakha
The mitzva of covering the blood is in effect in Eretz on a Festival only when there is a definite obligation by Torah law
Yisrael, etc. – ‫נֹוהג ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ וכו׳‬
ֵ ‫כ ּסוּי ַהדָּ ם‬:ִּ The mitzva of covering to do so. If one wrongly slaughtered such an animal on a Festival,
the blood after slaughter applies to one who slaughters kosher the blood may be covered only after the Festival’s conclusion
undomesticated animals and kosher birds, whether the animals or (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
birds are readily available or not. This mitzva applies only to non- De’a 28:3).
sacred animals and birds. It does not apply to sacrificial birds, both
One who slaughters must place earth beneath – ‫יך‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬
ְ ‫ֹוחט צָ ִר‬
those that were consecrated for the altar and those consecrated
‫שּיִ ֵּתן ָע ָפר ְל ַמ ָּטה‬:
ֶ ׁ One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or
for Temple maintenance (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita
a bird is required to place a layer of earth in the location where he
14:1–2; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:1).
intends for the blood to spurt onto the ground when he performs
And it is in effect with regard to a koy…and one may not the slaughter. If dirt was already found in the spot where the blood
slaughter it on a Festival – ‫ֹוח ִטין אֹותֹו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬
ֲ ‫נֹוהג ְ ּבכֹוי…וְ ֵאין ׁש‬
ֵ ְ‫ו‬: is to be spilled, the slaughterer must verbally designate it for the
The blood of a koy or any other animal that cannot be classified mitzva (Sefer HaIttur). The Rosh maintains that verbal designation
as a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal must be is not necessary (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:14;
covered only due to the uncertainty that it may be obligated by Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:5, and see Shakh and Rabbi Akiva
Torah law. The blood of such an animal may not be covered on a Eiger there).
Festival, as covering the blood is a labor that may be performed

 ‫גפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 83b 43

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫ ְל ַמ ְע ָלה – ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬,‫ נְ ִהי דִּ ְל ַמ ָּטה – ָלא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬The Gemara explains why this statement of Rabbi Zeira does not
Any measure that is suitable for mixing – ‫ָּכל ָה ָראוּי‬
‫ל ִב ָּילה‬:ְ The mishna (Menaĥot 103b) states that one ֲ ‫ ִל‬sufficiently explain why one is not required to cover the blood of
!‫יע ִביד ִּכ ּסוּי‬
who vows to bring a meal offering greater than sixty
sacrificial birds. Granted that it is impossible to place earth beneath
tenths of an ephah of flour is required to divide the the blood of the bird, but it is possible to place earth above the
volume of flour into two separate vessels, since such blood of the bird. If so, let him perform a covering of the blood
a large quantity of flour cannot be mixed properly from above.
with the requisite oil. The Gemara there asks why
it matters whether or not the flour can be properly :‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫יֹוסף‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן ֶ ּבן‬,‫ִמי ָלא ַּתנְ יָ א‬ The Gemara explains this suggestion: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that
mixed, given that the halakha deems even a non- ‫ׁ ָש ַחט ַחּיָ ה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ׁ ָש ַחט ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – ּ ָפטוּר‬ Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: If one slaughtered an undomesti-
mixed meal offering valid after the fact. Rabbi Zeira cated animal,h whose blood requires covering, and thereafter
responds that although the mixing of the oil with the ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ַחּיָ ה – ַחּיָ יב‬,‫ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬
slaughtered a domesticated animal, whose blood does not require
flour is not indispensable to the meal offering, it must ?‫ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬ covering, in the same location as the undomesticated animal, he is
at least be fit to be blended properly.
This principle, that one must at least be capable of exempt from the obligation to cover the blood of the undomesti-
fulfilling a requirement even if it is not indispensable cated animal, as it is covered with the blood of the domesticated
to the performance of a mitzva, appears with regard animal. But if one slaughtered a domesticated animal and thereaf-
to several other halakhot as well. The Rashbam (Bava ter slaughtered an undomesticated animal he is obligated to cover
Batra 81b) explains the reasoning behind this prin- the latter’s blood despite the fact that there is no earth, but rather
ciple: Although a particular requirement may not be
blood of the domesticated animal, beneath it. It is evident from this
indispensable to the performance of a certain mitzva,
since the Torah mentions this requirement as a part
baraita that the mitzva of covering the blood applies even when
of the mitzva’s proper fulfillment, performing the earth cannot be placed beneath the blood.
mitzva without even the possibility of fulfilling that
requirement is tantamount to performing a mitzva in ‫ ָּכל ָה ָראוּי‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬,‫ ִּכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬The Gemara responds: The exclusion of sacrificial birds from the
a manner not commanded by the Torah. ָּ ‫ילה – ֵאין ִ ּב‬
‫ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬,‫ילה ְמ ַע ֶּכ ֶבת ּבֹו‬ ָּ ‫ ְל ִב‬mitzva of covering the blood, even from above, is in accordance
with another statement of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira says with
.‫ָראוּי ְל ִב ָּילה – ִ ּב ָּילה ְמ ַע ֶּכ ֶבת ּבֹו‬
regard to meal offerings: For any measure of flour that is suitable
for mixingnh with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing does not
invalidate the meal offering. Even though there is a mitzva to mix
the oil with the flour ab initio, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice
even if the oil and the flour are not mixed together. And for any
measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal
offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal offering. Similarly,
if one slaughtered a domesticated animal and thereafter an undo-
mesticated animal, since it was possible to cover the blood of the
former before slaughtering the latter, which would allow the proper
fulfillment of the mitzva of covering the blood, one is still obligated
to cover the blood from above. By contrast, it is always impossible
to properly perform the mitzva in the case of sacrificial birds.

‫ִיתז‬
ָּ ‫ דָּ ם ַה ּנ‬:‫יה! ִמי ָלא ְּתנַ ן‬ ּ ‫יכ ֵּס‬
ַ ‫יה וְ ִל‬
ּ ‫ וְ ִליגָ ְר ֵר‬The Gemara asks: Still, why is the mitzva of covering the blood not
‫ ַא ְל ָמא דְּ גָ ֵריר‬,‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ַּס ִּכין – ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬applicable to sacrificial birds? Let one scrape the blood off the altar
and cover it elsewhere. Didn’t we learn in a mishna (87b): With
!‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה; ָה ָכא נַ ִמי – נִ גְ רֹור וְ נִ ַכ ֵּסי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ו ְּמ ַכ ֵּסי ֵל‬
regard to blood that spurts outside the pit in which the animal was
slaughtered, and blood that remained on the slaughtering knife,h
one is obligated to cover it? Evidently, the halakha is that one may
scrape off the blood and cover it in a location other than where it
spilled out. Here too, let us scrape the blood of a sacrificial bird off
the altar and cover it elsewhere.

‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי‬,‫ ִאי ְ ּב ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח – ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬The Gemara answers: If the ruling of the mishna was dealing with
.‫ ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְ ּב ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ֶ ּב ֶדק ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬items consecrated for the altar, indeed, the blood must be scraped
off and covered elsewhere. But here we are dealing with items
consecrated for Temple maintenance, i.e., birds donated to the
Temple in order to be sold, the profits of which would be used for
repairs. Such birds may not be slaughtered, and if one transgressed
and slaughtered them it is prohibited to derive any benefit from
them. The tanna of the mishna holds that the mitzva of covering
the blood does not apply to a slaughtered animal that is forbidden
for consumption.
halakha
If one slaughtered an undomesticated animal, etc. – ‫ׁ ָש ַחט ַחּיָ ה‬ is not indispensable for it, and it is valid even if it was not mixed. If
‫וכו׳‬: In a case where one slaughtered a bird or undomesticated it is not fit for mixing, the meal offering is not valid (Rambam Sefer
animal and then slaughtered a domesticated animal in the same Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 17:6).
location, it is unnecessary to cover the blood of the undomesti-
Blood that spurts and that remained on the knife – ‫ִיתז וְ ׁ ֶש ַעל‬
ָּ ‫דָּ ם ַה ּנ‬
cated animal, as it is covered with the blood of the domesticated
‫ה ַּס ִּכין‬:ַ Blood that spurts out from the animal being slaughtered, as
animal. In the reverse scenario, one is obligated to cover the blood
well as blood that remained on the slaughtering knife, must be
of the undomesticated animal, in accordance with the opinion of
covered, provided it is the only blood of the slaughtered animal
Rabbi Yonatan bar Yosef (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:14).
available, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the
Any measure that is suitable for mixing, etc. – ‫ָּכל ָה ָראוּי ְל ִב ָּילה‬ mishna on 87b (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:8 and
‫וכו׳‬: With regard to any meal offering that is fit to be mixed, mixing Ra’avad there; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:15).

44 Ĥullin . perek VI . 83b . ‫גפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VI
Daf 84 Amud a
notes
‫יכ ִּסינְ הוּ! ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן ַה ֲע ָמ ָדה‬
ַ ‫יפ ְר ִקינְ ה ּו וְ ִל‬
ְ ‫ וְ ִל‬The Gemara challenges: But even if the mishna is dealing with birds
But let one redeem them – ‫וְ ִל ְיפ ְר ִקינְ ה ּו‬: Animals conse-
.‫ וְ ַה ֲע ָר ָכה‬consecrated for Temple maintenance, let one redeem them after
n
crated for Temple maintenance that were slaughtered
they were slaughtered and then cover their blood. The Gemara have no useful purpose, as they may not be consumed
responds: This is not feasible, because in order to redeem a conse- or used. There is therefore a mitzva to redeem such an
crated animal we require setting and valuating,h i.e., the animal animal, so as to prevent the loss of consecrated prop-
must be stood before a priest in order to evaluate it and only then is erty. Accordingly, the slaughter of this animal cannot
it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). A slaughtered bird cannot be be considered one that is not fit to render the meat
stood before the priest; consequently, it cannot be redeemed. permitted, as it will ultimately be redeemed and then
consumed. If so, one should be obligated to cover its
blood (Tosafot).
‫ ַה ּכֹל ָהי ּו‬:‫ ו ְּכ ַמאן? ִאי ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר דְּ ָא ַמר‬The Gemara asks: But if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated
‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ ִ ּב ְכ ַלל ַה ֲע ָמ ָדה וְ ַה ֲע ָר ָכה – ָה ָא ַמר‬for Temple maintenance, in accordance with whose opinion is the Excluded is this which is lacking pouring, scraping,
mishna? If one suggests the mishna is in accordance with the opin- and covering – ‫יכה ְ ּג ִר ָירה וְ ִכ ּסוּי‬
ָ ‫יָ צָ א זֶ ה ׁ ֶש ְּמחו ָּּסר ׁ ְש ִפ‬:
!‫יטה‬ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה – ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ Although the mishna on 87b teaches that there is a
ion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Everything, i.e., animals consecrated
mitzva to cover blood that spurts on the wall, and cov-
both for the altar and for Temple maintenance, was included in the ering this blood requires that one first scrape it from the
requirement of setting and valuating, and therefore the slaughtered altar (see 83b), in that case, scraping would not have
birds may not be redeemed, this cannot be so. Doesn’t he also say been required in order to cover such blood had it not
that slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is never- spurted onto the wall. Accordingly, one may apply the
theless considered a halakhic act of slaughter that requires the principle of Rabbi Zeira: With regard to any substances
covering of the blood? If so, one should be obligated to cover the fit for mixing, mixing is not indispensable (see 83b).
By contrast, it is never possible to cover the blood of
blood of the bird even if it is not redeemed.
sacrificial animals without first scraping the blood off
the altar (Tosafot; Ramban).
‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬
ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ ִאי ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון דְּ ָא ַמר‬The Gemara continues: And if one suggests the mishna is in accor-
‫ ל ֹא‬:‫יטה – ָה ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ ְראוּיָ ה ָלא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬dance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Slaughter that halakha
is not fit to render the meat permitted is not considered a halakhic
!‫ָהי ּו ִ ּב ְכ ַלל ַה ֲע ָמ ָדה וְ ַה ֲע ָר ָכה‬ We require setting and valuating – ‫ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן ַה ֲע ָמ ָדה‬
act of slaughter and therefore the bird would require redemption
‫וְ ַה ֲע ָר ָכה‬: One who consecrates a living animal, whether
in order to cover its blood, this cannot be so. Doesn’t he also for the altar or for Temple maintenance, must stand
say that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not it before the court and have it evaluated before it is
included in the requirement of setting and valuating? If so, let one redeemed. This is in accordance with the opinion of
redeem the slaughtered birds and cover their blood. the Rabbis in the mishna in Temura (32a), as explained
by Rabbi Yoĥanan there on 32b (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a,
‫יבא‬ ּ ָ ‫נָסיב ָל ּה ַא ִּל‬
ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי ִהיא‬:‫יֹוסף‬
ֵ ‫ֲא ַמר ַרב‬ Rav Yosef said in reconciliation of this dilemma: The mishna’s ruling Hilkhot Arakhin VaĤaramim 5:12).

‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה – ָס ַבר‬ ָ ‫דְּ ַת ָּנ ֵאי; ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬ is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and
he formulates the mishna in accordance with the opinions of dif-
– ‫ ְ ּב ַה ֲע ָמ ָדה וְ ַה ֲע ָר ָכה‬,‫ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬
ferent tanna’im: With regard to the status of an act of slaughter that
.‫ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ is not fit to render the meat permitted he holds in accordance with
the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while with regard to the requirement
of setting and valuating he holds in accordance with the opinion
of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, since one cannot redeem a bird that was
consecrated for Temple maintenance once it has been slaughtered,
there is no obligation to cover its blood, as the slaughter was not fit
to render the meat permitted.

;‫ ּכו ָּּל ּה ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִהיא‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ And if you wish, say instead that the entire mishna is in accordance
– ‫ ״וְ ׁ ָש ַפךְ וְ ִכ ָּסה״‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫וְ ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָכא‬ with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that birds conse-
crated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed even after their
,‫יכה וְ ִכ ּסוּי‬ָ ‫ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמחו ָּּסר ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְש ִפ‬
slaughter. And although it would seem that their slaughter is fit to
.‫יכה ּ ְפ ִדּיָ יה וְ ִכ ּסוּי‬
ָ ‫יָ צָ א זֶ ה ׁ ֶש ְּמחו ָּּסר ׁ ְש ִפ‬ render the meat permitted and that one should therefore be obli-
gated in the mitzva of covering the blood, it is different here, as the
verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it” (Leviti-
cus 17:13). By juxtaposing “pour out” to “cover,” the verse indicates
that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is
lacking only pouring and covering, without any intervening step.
Excluded is this blood of birds consecrated for Temple maintenance,
which is lacking pouring, redeeming, and covering.

‫ימא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬,‫וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ֵתית ְל ָה ִכי‬

ָ ‫יל ּו ֵּת‬ The Gemara notes: And now that you have arrived at this explana-
‫ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח – ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמחו ָּּסר ֶא ָּלא‬ tion, you may even say that the mishna is referring to birds conse-
crated for the altar. As for the question asked earlier: Why not let
‫יכה‬
ָ ‫ יָ צָ א זֶ ה ׁ ֶש ְּמחו ָּּסר ׁ ְש ִפ‬,‫יכה וְ ִכ ּסוּי‬ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִפ‬
one scrape the blood from the altar and then cover it? The verse
.‫ְ ּג ִר ָירה וְ ִכ ּסוּי‬ states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it,” indicating
that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is
lacking only pouring and covering, without any intervening step.
Excluded is this blood of bird offerings, which is lacking pouring,
scraping, and covering.n
 ‫דפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 84a 45
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫״חּיָ ה‬
ַ :‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ ָמר ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ֲא ַמר‬The Gemara cites another source for the exclusion of consecrated
But a spring, etc. – ‫אךְ ַמ ְעיָ ן וכו׳‬:ַ No liquid except water
is valid for ritual immersion (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hil- ‫ ָמה ַחּיָ ה ֵאינָ ּה ק ֶֹד ׁש – ַאף עֹוף‬,‫ אֹו עֹוף״‬animals from the requirement of covering their blood: Mar bar Rav
Ashi said that the verse states with regard to the mitzva of covering
khot Mikvaot 7:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 201:24). .‫ֵאינֹו ק ֶֹד ׁש‬
the blood: “An undomesticated animal or bird” (Leviticus 17:13).
The juxtaposition of these two species intimates an analogy between
them: Just as the undomesticated animal referred to in the verse
is not consecrated,n as undomesticated animals are never fit for
sacrifice, so too, the bird referred to in the verse is not consecrated.

‫ ַאף‬,‫ ִאי ָמה ַחּיָ ה – ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּב ִמינֹו ק ֶֹד ׁש‬The Gemara asks: If it is so that the halakhot of slaughtering a bird
‫ עֹוף – ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּב ִמינֹו ק ֶֹד ׁש; אֹוצִ יא ּת ִֹורין‬are derived from those of an undomesticated animal, then say:
Just as the verse is referring to an undomesticated animal, whose
!‫ו ְּבנֵי יֹונָ ה ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ְ ּב ִמינָן ק ֶֹד ׁש‬
species cannot be consecrated as an offering, so too, the verse is
referring only to a bird whose species cannot be consecrated as
an offering. Therefore, I will exclude even non-sacred doves and
pigeons, whose species can be consecrated.

‫ ַאף‬,‫ ְּכ ַחּיָ ה; ָמה ַחּיָ ה – ל ֹא ִח ַּל ְק ָּת ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ ָלא‬The Gemara rejects this possibility: No, the juxtaposition indicates
.‫ עֹוף – ל ֹא ַּת ֲחלֹוק ּבֹו‬that the halakha with regard to the slaughter of birds is entirely like
that of an undomesticated animal. Therefore, just as in the case of
an undomesticated animal, you did not differentiate between its
various species and all non-sacred animals are included in the mitzva,
so too, with regard to the bird mentioned in the verse, you should
not differentiate between its various species.

‫ימא ָלן‬ ָ ְ‫ ָקי‬:‫יה יַ ֲעקֹב ִמינָ ָאה ְל ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ § ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Concerning the halakha that covering the blood does not apply
:‫ימא נַ ִמי‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬,‫ימנִין‬ָ ‫ ַחּיָ ה ִ ּב ְכ ַלל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְל ִס‬to a domesticated animal, the Gemara says that Ya’akov the heretic
said to Rava: We maintain that an undomesticated animal, e.g., a
!‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ִ ּב ְכ ַלל ַחּיָ ה ְל ִכ ּסוּי‬
deer, is included in the category of a domesticated animal with
regard to the characteristicsn necessary to determine whether the
animal is kosher, i.e., it chews its cud and has split hooves (see Deu-
teronomy 14:4–6). If so, I will also say that a domesticated animal
is included in the category of an undomesticated animal with
regard to the mitzva of covering the blood.

‫״על ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ַ :‫ ָע ֶליךָ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states in
– ‫ ַמה ַּמיִ ם ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ִּכ ּסוּי‬,‫ ִּת ׁ ְש ּ ְפ ֶכנּ ּו ַּכ ָּמיִ ם״‬reference to the blood of a domesticated animal: “You may slaughter
of your cattle and of your sheep…but be strong not to eat the blood…
.‫ַאף ַהאי נַ ִמי ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ִּכ ּסוּי‬
you shall pour it out on the ground, like water” (Deuteronomy
12:21–24). Accordingly, just as water does not require covering, so
too, this blood of a domesticated animal does not require covering.

ַ :‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה יַ ְט ִ ּביל ּו ּבֹו! ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the verse equates the blood of
ְ‫״אך‬
‫ ַמ ְעיָ ן וּבֹור ִמ ְקוֵ ה ַמיִ ם יִ ְהיֶ ה ָטהֹור״ – ָהנֵי‬a domesticated animal with water, then let one immerse ritually
impure items in it to purify them, just as he can immerse them in
.‫ ִמ ֵידי ַא ֲח ִרינָ א ָלא‬,‫ִאין‬
water. The Gemara responds: The verse states: “But a springh or a
cistern, or a gathering of water shall be pure” (Leviticus 11:36). The
exclusionary term: “But,” indicates that only concerning these bod-
ies of water, yes, they render pure an impure item, while something
else, e.g., blood, does not.

‫ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי – ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ׁ ְש ָאר ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara challenges: But perhaps one can say that this matter,
– ‫ ֲא ָבל דָּ ם דְּ ִא ְיק ִרי ַמיִ ם‬,‫ דְּ ָלא ִא ְיקר ּו ַמיִ ם‬i.e., the exclusionary term in the verse, serves only to exclude other
liquids that are not called water. But with regard to blood, which
!‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬
is called water, as the verse states: “You shall pour it out on the
ground, like water,” one may indeed immerse ritually impure items
in it.
notes
Just as the undomesticated animal is not consecrated – ‫ָמה‬ animal, as those verses mention undomesticated animals as well.
‫חּיָה ֵאינָ ּה ק ֶֹד ׁש‬:ַ Although one may consecrate an undomesticated The verse states: “These are the animals that you may eat: An
animal for Temple maintenance, as one may consecrate any item, ox, the seh of the sheep, and the seh of the goats, a deer, and a
the Gemara means to say that an unspecified undomesticated gazelle, and a fallow deer, and a wild goat, and an oryx, and an
animal is non-sacred, as it is not fit for sacrifice (Rashi). aurochs, and a wild sheep” (Deuteronomy 14:4–6). The gazelle,
fallow deer, and wild goat are undomesticated. This does not
An undomesticated animal is included in the category of necessarily mean that a domesticated animal is included in the
a domesticated animal with regard to the characteristics – category of an undomesticated one. Rashi explains that the matter
‫ימנִין‬
ָ ‫חּיָה ִ ּב ְכ ַלל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְל ִס‬:ַ The Sages derived that an undomesticated is based on the verse that states: “These are the living things [ĥaya]
animal is included in the category of a domesticated animal from which you may eat among all the animals [behema] that are on
the verses discussing the characteristics of a kosher domesticated the earth” (Leviticus 11:2).

46 Ĥullin . perek VI . 84a . ‫דפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫״מ ְעיַ ן ַמיִ ם״ ״וּבֹור‬
ַ :‫ ְּת ֵרי ִמיעו ֵּטי ְּכ ִת ִיבי‬The Gemara responds: Two exclusions are written in the verse
Flowing…gathered – ‫ין…מכו ּּנ ִָסין‬
ְ ‫זֹוח ִל‬:
ֲ The commentary
.‫ ַמיִ ם״‬discussing ritually purifying waters: A spring of water, and: A cis- follows the explanation of the Meiri. By contrast, Rashi
tern of water. The term “water” is understood as being attached to explains that when the Gemara refers to flowing water, it
each of the bodies mentioned in the verse. The additional exclusion is referring to the halakha that one may cause nineteen
serves to exclude blood. se’a of drawn water to flow into a ritual bath containing
twenty-one se’a of rainwater, in order to arrive at the forty
,‫ ִא ִידי וְ ִא ִידי ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ׁ ְש ָאר ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬The Gemara challenges: Say that both this phrase, a spring of water, se’a of water necessary for a valid ritual bath (see Mikvaot
5:5). The Gemara suggests that the verse is necessary
‫ וְ ַחד – ְל ַמעו ֵּטי‬,‫זֹוח ִלין‬ ֲ ‫ ַחד – ְל ַמעו ֵּטי‬and that phrase, a cistern of water, serve to exclude other liquids,
and not blood, whereby one phrase is to exclude flowing liquids to indicate that non-water liquids may not be used to
!‫ְמכו ּּנ ִָסין‬ complete the measure of a ritual bath in this manner.
that are not water from having the status of a spring, which renders
an item ritually pure even when it is flowing; and one phrase serves
to exclude gatheredn liquids that are not water from having the
halakha
status of a ritual bath, which renders an item pure only when the
The Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior,
water in the ritual bath is gathered. etc. – ‫ל ְּמ ָדה ּת ָֹורה דֶּ ֶרךְ ֶא ֶרץ וכו׳‬:ִ The Sages teach that the
ideal manner of conduct is not to eat meat at one’s whim,
‫״מ ְעיַ ן ַמיִ ם״ ״וּבֹור‬
ַ :‫ ְּת ָל ָתא ִמיעו ֵּטי ְּכ ִת ִיבי‬The Gemara responds: Three exclusions are written in the verse: but rather it is sufficient to eat meat once a week. If one
.‫״מ ְקוֵ ה ַמיִ ם״‬ִ ‫ ַמיִ ם״‬A spring of water, to exclude flowing liquids; and: A cistern of has the means, he may eat meat every day (Rambam
water, to exclude gathered liquids; and: A gathering of water, to Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Deot 5:10).
exclude blood.
language
‫״א ׁ ֶשר יָ צוּד״ – ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא‬ ֲ :‫ § ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to ְ ‫ל‬:ִ From the Greek λίτρα, litra, which has
Litra – ‫יט ָרא‬
,‫יהן ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬
ֶ ‫עֹומ ִדין ֵמ ֲא ֵל‬ ּ ,‫ ֲא ׁ ֶשר יָ צוּד‬covering the blood: “And any man of the children of Israel, or of the
ְ ְ‫נִצ ִֹודין ו‬ a variety of meanings: A measurement of volume, a
strangers that sojourn among them, who traps a trapping of an weight, and the name of a coin. The volume of a litra is
?‫גֹולים‬
ִ ְ‫ְּכגֹון ַא ָּווזִ ין וְ ַת ְרנ‬ less than 300 cc and is therefore a very small amount of
undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out
meat. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, the value of
its blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13). I have derived a Greek litra is the equivalent of one hundred dinars.
only that one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated
animal or bird that one traps. From where is it derived that undo- For his stewpot [lefaso] – ‫ל ָפסֹו‬:ְ This is a corruption of
le’ilfaso, meaning: For his stewpot [ilfas]. The word ilfas
mesticated animals or birds that are already considered trapped on
derives from the Greek λοπάς, lopas, which refers to a
their own, such as geese and chickens that do not roam freely, are flat dish or frying pan used for cooking. The ilpas had thin
also included in the mitzva of covering the blood? sides and a lid with sharp edges, which was sometimes
perforated. Apparently, the ilpas sometimes served as
,‫ ִאם ֵּכן‬.‫ ״צֵ יד״ ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ The verse states “a trapping” to indicate that in any case, one is an all-purpose cooking vessel, although it was primar-
‫״א ׁ ֶשר יָ צוּד״? ִל ְּמ ָדה‬
ֲ :‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד‬ obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal. If so, ily used either in the preparation of fast-cooking foods
what is the meaning when the verse states: “Who traps,” if it is not or for heating food that had already been cooked in a
ַ ‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא י‬,‫ּת ָֹורה דֶּ ֶרךְ ֶא ֶרץ‬
‫ֹאכל ָא ָדם ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ different pot.
to be understood literally? The baraita explains: The Torah taught
.‫ֶא ָּלא ַ ּב ַהזְ ָמנָ ה ַהּזֹאת‬ that it is a desired mode of behaviorh that a person should con-
sume meat only with this mode of preparation. That is, just as the
meat that one traps is not readily available, so too, one should not
become accustomed to consuming meat.

‫״כי יַ ְר ִחיב ה׳ ֱאל ֶֹהיךָ ֶאת‬ ִּ :‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬In a similar vein, the Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states:
‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬,‫“ ְ ּג ֻב ְלךָ ״ – ִל ְּמ ָדה ּת ָֹורה דֶּ ֶרךְ ֶא ֶרץ‬When the Lord, your God, expands your boundary…according
to every craving of your soul you may eat meat” (Deuteronomy
.‫ֹאכל ָא ָדם ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֶא ָּלא ְל ֵת ָאבֹון‬ ַ ‫י‬
12:20). The Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that
a person should consume meat due only to appetite. That is, one
should consume meat only when he feels a need to eat it.

‫ֹאכל? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ַ ‫יָ כֹול יִ ַ ּקח ָא ָדם ִמן ַה ׁ ּשוּק וְ י‬ The baraita continues: One might have thought that a person may
‫ יָ כֹול‬.‫ ״וְ זָ ַב ְח ָּת ִמ ְ ּב ָק ְרךָ ו ִּמ ּצֹאנְ ךָ ״‬:‫לֹומר‬
ַ purchase meat from the marketplace and consume it. Therefore,
the next verse states: “And you may slaughter of your cattle and Greek lopas
?‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ ָּכל צֹאנֹו וְ י‬,‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫יִ זְ ַ ּבח ָּכל ְ ּב ָקרֹו וְ י‬
of your flock,” indicating that one should consume the meat of
, ָ‫״מ ְ ּב ָק ְרךָ ״ – וְ ל ֹא ָּכל ְ ּב ָק ְרך‬
ִ :‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ animals of his own flock, not those purchased in the marketplace.
. ָ‫״מ ּצֹאנְ ךָ ״ – וְ ל ֹא ָּכל צֹאנְ ך‬ ִ One might have thought that a person may slaughter all of his
cattle, i.e., his only cow, and consume the meat, or slaughter all of
his flock, i.e., his only sheep, and consume the meat. Therefore, the
verse states: “Of your cattle,” indicating some, but not all of, your
cattle; “of your flock,” but not all of your flock.

‫ ִמי‬:‫ִמ ָּכאן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ From here, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria said: One who has one hun-
,‫יט ָרא יָ ָרק‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ָמנֶ ה – יִ ַ ּקח ְל ָפסֹו ִל‬ dred dinars should purchase a litral of vegetables for his stewpot
[lefaso];l one who has one thousand dinars should purchase a litra
,‫יט ָרא דָּ גִ ים‬ ְ ‫ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה ָמנֶ ה – יִ ַ ּקח ְל ָפסֹו ִל‬
of fish for his stewpot; one who has five thousand dinars should
ְ ‫ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ִשים ָמנֶ ה – יִ ַ ּקח ְל ָפסֹו ִל‬
,‫יט ָרא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ purchase a litra of meat for his stewpot; and if one has ten thou-
.‫ֵמ ָאה ָמנֶ ה – יִ ׁ ְש ּ ְפת ּו לֹו ְק ֵד ָרה ְב ָכל יֹום‬ sand dinars, his servants should place a pot of meat on the stove
.‫ימת? ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ְל ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬
ַ ‫וְ ִא ָּינךְ ֵא‬ for him every day. The Gemara asks: And with regard to these other
individuals mentioned by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, when, i.e., how
often, should they consume meat? The Gemara responds: Every
Shabbat eve.
 ‫דפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 84a 47
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

.‫ּש ְל ִד ְב ֵרי זָ ֵקן‬ׂ ‫יכין ָאנ ּו ָלחו‬ ִ ‫ צְ ִר‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ Rav says: We must be concerned for the statement of the elder,
‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ ַא ָ ּבא ִמ ִּמ ׁ ְש ּ ַפ ַחת ְ ּב ִר‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ i.e., Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, and be thrifty with our expenditure on
food items. Rabbi Yoĥanan says: Abba, i.e., Rav, was from a family
‫ ִמי ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ּ ְפרו ָּטה‬,ּ‫ ֲא ָבל ְּכגֹון ָאנו‬,‫ֲהוָ ה‬
of particularly healthy individuals, and was able to subsist on the
‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ְ ּבתֹוךְ ִּכיסֹו – יְ ִריצֶ ָּנה ַל ֶחנְ וָ ונִי‬ modest diet suggested by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. But with regard
.‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
ְ ְ‫ ְּכגֹון ָאנ ּו – לֹווִ ין ו‬:‫נַ ְח ָמן‬ to people such as us, who are not as healthy, one who has even one
peruta in his pocket should hasten with it to the storekeeper and
purchase food. Two generations later, Rav Naĥman said: With
regard to people such as us, who are physically weaker than those
in previous generations, not only do we not delay the purchase of
food items, we even borrow money to purchase food and eat.

‫״כ ָב ִ ׂשים ִל ְלבו ׁ ֶּשךָ ״ – ִמ ֵ ּגז ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים יְ ֵהא‬ ְּ The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to one’s livelihood:
– ‫ ״ ּו ְמ ִחיר ָ ׂש ֶדה ַע ּתו ִּדים״‬, ָ‫ַמ ְל ּב ּו ׁ ֶשך‬ The verse states: “The lambs will be for your clothing, and goats the
worth of a field. And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food,
,‫עֹולם יִ ְמ ּכֹור ָא ָדם ָ ׂש ֶדה וְ יִ ַ ּקח ַע ּתו ִּדים‬ ָ ‫ְל‬
for the food of your household; and sustenance for your maidens”
.‫וְ ַאל יִ ְמ ּכֹור ָא ָדם ַע ּתו ִּדים וְ יִ ַ ּקח ָ ׂש ֶדה‬ (Proverbs 27:26–27). “The lambs will be for your clothing” indi-
‫״וְ ֵדי ֲח ֵלב ִעּזִ ים״ – דַּ ּיֹו ְל ָא ָדם ׁ ֶשּיִ ְת ּ ַפ ְרנֵס‬ cates that your clothing should be produced from the shearings
.‫ֵמ ֲח ֵלב ְ ּג ָדיִ ים ו ְּט ָל ִאים ׁ ֶש ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֵ ּביתֹו‬ of lambs, i.e., purchase lambs from whose wool you can produce
clothing. “And goats the worth of a field” indicates that a person
should always seek to sell a field and purchase goats in order to
benefit from their milk, wool, and offspring, and a person should
not sell goats and purchase a field instead. “And there will be goats’
milk enough” indicates that it is sufficient for a person that he be
sustained from the milk of kids and lambs that are in his house.

‫קֹודם‬
ֵ ָ‫יתךָ ״ – ַל ְח ְמך‬ ֶ ‫״ל ַל ְח ְמךָ ְל ֶל ֶחם ֵ ּב‬ְ “For your food, for the food of your household” indicates that your
‫רֹותיךָ ״ – ֲא ַמר‬ ֶ ‫נַע‬ ֲ ‫ ״וְ ַחּיִ ים ְל‬. ָ‫יתך‬ְ ‫ְל ֶל ֶחם ֵ ּב‬ food comes before the food of your household, i.e., one must first
ensure that he has food for himself before providing for others. With
‫ ֵּתן ַחּיִ ים‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ּ ‫ַמר זו ְּט ָרא ְ ּב ֵר‬
regard to the phrase: “And sustenance for your maidens,” Mar
,‫יכן ִל ְּמ ָדה ּת ָֹורה דֶּ ֶרךְ ֶא ֶרץ‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ‬. ָ‫רֹותיך‬ֶ ‫נַע‬
ֲ ‫ְל‬ Zutra, son of Rav Naĥman, said: The verse indicates that you must
.‫ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יְ ַל ֵּמד ָא ָדם ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ יַ יִ ן‬ give sustenance to your youth, i.e., to your children. From here,
the Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a per-
son should not accustom his son to eat meat and drink wine;
rather, he should teach his children to eat less expensive foods.

:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan says:

Perek VI
Daf 84 Amud b
background
.‫ ָהרֹוצֶ ה ׁ ֶשּיִ ְת ַע ׁ ּ ֵשר – יַ ֲעסֹוק ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמה דַּ ָ ּקה‬One who wishes to become wealthy should engage in raising small
Cup of lukewarm water – ‫פֹוש ִרין‬
ְ ׁ ְּ‫כ ָסא ד‬:ָּ The warmth in
lukewarm water allows for the development of harmful ‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״וְ ַע ׁ ְש ְּתרֹת‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬domesticated animals. Rav Ĥisda said: What is the meaning of
that which is written: “And the flocks [ve’ashterot] of your sheep”
bacteria. Two opposite processes prevent this phenom- .‫יהן‬ֶ ‫צֹאנֶ ךָ ״ – ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַע ׁ ּ ְשרֹות ֶאת ַ ּב ֲע ֵל‬
enon: The first is cooling, which prevents oxidation and (Deuteronomy 7:13)? It means that sheep enrich [me’ashrot] their
decomposition. The second is boiling, which destroys the owners.
organisms in the liquid. The stagnancy of certain liquids
in metal vessels can also lead to risk factors associated ‫ ָּכ ָסא דְּ ָח ָר ׁ ִשין וְ ָלא ָּכ ָסא‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ The Gemara cites additional statements by Rabbi Yoĥanan provid-
with various chemical reactions between various sub- ,‫ילי – ִ ּב ְכ ֵלי ַמ ָּתכֹות‬ ֵּ ‫ וְ ָהנֵי ִמ‬.‫פֹוש ִרין‬
ְ ׁ ְּ‫ד‬ ing practical advice. Rabbi Yoĥanan says: It is preferable to drink
stances and the metal. from a cup of witches and not to drink from a cup of lukewarm
‫ֲא ָבל ִ ּב ְכ ֵלי ֶח ֶר ׂש – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה; ו ִּב ְכ ֵלי‬
water,b which is extremely unhealthy. Rabbi Yoĥanan qualifies his
language ‫ ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָלא ׁ ָש ֵדי‬,‫ַמ ָּתכֹות נַ ִמי ָלא ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ statement: We said this only with regard to lukewarm water in
Boiled [tzeyatz] – ‫צְ יַ ץ‬: An Aramaic term indicating a ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ָש ֵדי ְ ּבה ּו צִ ַיבּיָ א – ֵלית‬,‫ְ ּבה ּו צִ ַיבּיָ א‬ metal vessels, but in earthenware vessels we have no problem
delicate whistling or chirping sound. Other versions of ‫ָלן ָ ּב ּה; וְ ִכי ָלא ׁ ָש ֵדי ְ ּבה ּו צִ ַיבּיָ א נַ ִמי ָלא‬ with it. And even in metal vessels, we said that lukewarm water is
this word include tzuvatz and tzayyetz. It has a similar unhealthy only in a case where one did not cast flavorings into the
meaning in both Syriac and Hebrew: Chirping of birds,
‫ ֲא ָבל צְ יַ ץ – ֵלית‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָלא צְ יַ ץ‬,‫ֲא ַמ ַרן‬
.‫ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ water, but if he cast flavorings into the water we have no problem
or the noises made by infants. In this context, the word
refers to the boiling of water, which makes a sound akin with it. And even if one cast flavorings into the water, we said this
to a delicate chirping or whistling sound. only in a case where the water had not been boiled [tzeyatz],l but
if the water had been boiled we have no problem with it.
48 Ĥullin . perek VI . 84b . ‫דפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ִה ּנ ִַיח לֹו ָא ִביו ָמעֹות‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ And Rabbi Yoĥanan says: In the case of one whose father
bequeathed him a great deal of money and he seeks to lose it, he White glass – ‫יתא ִחי ַּו ְר ָּתא‬
ָ ִ‫זוּג‬: White glass, which
‫ וְ יִ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּמ ׁש‬,‫וְ רֹוצֶ ה ְל ַא ְ ּב ָדן – יִ ְל ַ ּב ׁש ְּכ ֵלי ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן‬ was apparently completely transparent, was more
should wear linen garments, and should use glass vessels, and
‫ֹוע ִלים וְ ַאל יֵ ׁ ֵשב‬ ֲ ‫ וְ יִ ְ ׂש ּכֹור ּפ‬,‫ִ ּב ְכ ֵלי זְ כו ִּכית‬ difficult to produce than colored glass, as it required
should hire laborers and not sit with them to supervise. The special care in selecting raw materials that were
,‫ יִ ְל ּב ֹׁוש ְּכ ֵלי ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן – ְ ּב ִכ ָּיתנָ א רו ִּמ ָיתא‬.‫ִע ָּמ ֶהן‬ Gemara elaborates: He should wear linen garments; this is stated free from any impurity. The vessels made of white
,‫יתא ִחי ַּו ְר ָּתא‬ ָ ִ‫וְ יִ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּמ ׁש ִ ּב ְכ ֵלי זְ כו ִּכית – ְ ּבזוּג‬ with regard to Roman linen, which becomes tattered quickly. He glass were extremely fragile, and therefore the use
,‫תֹורי‬
ֵ ‫ֹוע ִלים וְ ַאל יֵ ׁ ֵשב ִע ָּמ ֶהן – ְ ּב‬ ֲ ‫וְ יִ ְ ׂש ּכֹור ּפ‬ should use glass vessels; this is stated with regard to expensive of those vessels would often lead to financial loss
white glass.b And he should hire laborers and not sit with them; due to breakage of the glass.
.ּ‫דְּ נָ ֵפ ׁיש ּ ְפ ֵס ַידיְ יהו‬
this applies to laborers who work with oxen, whose potential for
causing damage is great if they are not supervised, as they will notes
trample the crops. One who slaughters for an ill person on Shab-
bat is obligated to cover the blood – ‫ֹוחט‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬
ּ ‫ימנִין ֲא ַמר ָל ּה ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬
‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְ ִ‫ ז‬,‫דָּ ַר ׁש ַרב ֲעוִ ָירא‬ Rav Avira interpreted the following verse homiletically, but some- ‫חֹולה ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬
ֶ ‫ל‬:ַ Rashi explains Rav Eina’s
times he said the interpretation in the name of Rabbi Ami and rationale as follows: Since the prohibition against
‫ ַמאי‬:‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי‬ ּ ‫ימנִין ֲא ַמר ָל ּה ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ ְ ִ‫ וְ ז‬,‫ַא ִּמי‬ slaughtering an animal on Shabbat is overridden
sometimes he said it in the name of Rabbi Asi: What is the mean-
‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״טֹוב ִא ׁיש חֹונֵן ו ַּמ ְלוֶ ה יְ ַכ ְל ֵּכל דְּ ָב ָריו‬ in this life-threatening situation, all halakhot appli-
ing of that which is written: “Good is the man who is gracious and cable to slaughter override Shabbat as well. There-
‫ֹאכל ָא ָדם וְ יִ ׁ ְש ֶּתה ּ ָפחֹות‬ ַ ‫עֹולם י‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפט״ – ְל‬ lends, who orders his affairs with justice” (Psalms 112:5)? It means fore, the requirement to cover the blood overrides
‫ וְ יִ ְל ַ ּב ׁש וְ יִ ְת ַּכ ֶּסה ְ ּב ַמה ׁ ּ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬,‫ִמ ַּמה ׁ ּ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו‬ to teach that a person should always eat and drink lessh than what Shabbat. It would appear that according to Rashi,
;‫יֹותר ִמ ַּמה ׁ ּ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו‬ ֵ ‫יכ ֵ ּבד ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו ו ָּבנָיו‬ ַ ִ‫ ו‬,‫לֹו‬ is within his means, and he should dress and cover himself in the mitzva of covering the blood is not viewed as
accordance with his means, and he should honor his wife and independent of the act of slaughtering, but as the
‫ וְ הוּא ָּתלוּי ְ ּב ִמי ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר וְ ָהיָ ה‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֵהן ְּתלוּיִ ין ּבֹו‬
children more than what is within his means; as they are depen- conclusion of the slaughter (see Ĥatam Sofer).
.‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ָה‬ According to many early commentaries, the
dent on him and he is dependent on the One Who spoke and the
Gemara here is referring to a case where the act of
world was created. covering the blood would not entail a prohibition
by Torah law such as digging or crumbling clods of
:‫דָּ ַר ׁש ַרב ֵעינָ א ַא ּ ִפ ְת ָחא דְּ ֵבי ֵר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬ § The mishna teaches that one may not slaughter a koy on a Festival earth, but rather a prohibition by rabbinic law. Nev-
.‫חֹולה ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬ ֶ ‫ֹוחט ַל‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬ since he may not cover its blood, as it is unclear whether there is an ertheless, it would seem from the conclusion of the
obligation by Torah law to do so. But if one transgressed and slaugh- Gemara that even if covering the blood entails the
‫יש ְמטו ּּה‬
ְ ׁ ‫ ִל‬,‫ֹומא ָק ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ׁ ְש ּת‬:‫ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַר ָ ּבה‬
tered a koy, one does not cover its blood. With regard to this, Rav transgression of a prohibition only by rabbinic law,
– ‫ ּכֹוי‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ֵיה‬
ּ ‫יה ִמ ּינ‬ּ ‫מֹור‬
ֵ ‫ְל ָא‬ Eina taught at the entrance to the house of the Exilarch: One who one does not cover the blood (see Torat HaBayit 1:5).
‫ וְ ִאם ׁ ָש ֲחט ּו – ֵאין‬,‫ֹוח ִטין אֹותֹו ְ ּביֹום טֹוב‬ ֲ ‫ֵאין ׁש‬ slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird for a critically ill
;‫ְמ ַכ ִּסין ֶאת דָּ מֹו‬ person on Shabbat,h for whom it is permitted to slaughter, is obli-
gated to cover its blood.n Rabba said to those present: Rav Eina is
saying an astonishing statement; remove his interpreter from
before him. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: One
may not slaughter a koy on a Festival, but if he slaughtered it, one
does not cover its blood until after the Festival.

– ‫ֹוחה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ ֶ ָ‫ִמ ַ ּקל ו‬

ֶ ּ‫ ו ַּמה ִּמ ָילה ׁ ֶש ַּודָּ ָא ּה ד‬:‫חֹומר‬ Rabbi Yosei elaborates: This can be derived from an a fortiori infer-
‫ ִּכ ּסוּי ׁ ֶש ֵאין וַ דָּ אֹו‬,‫ֹוחה יֹום טֹוב‬ ֶ ּ‫ֵאין ְס ֵפ ָיק ּה ד‬ ence: And if with regard to the mitzva of circumcision, concerning
which a definite obligation overrides Shabbat, nevertheless its
‫ֹוחה יֹום‬ ֶ ּ‫ֹוחה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ֵאין דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְס ֵפקֹו ד‬ ֶ ּ‫ד‬
uncertain obligation does not override a Festival;h then with
?‫טֹוב‬ regard to the mitzva of covering the blood, concerning which even
a definite obligation does not override Shabbat, is it not logical
that its uncertain obligation, e.g., covering the blood of a koy,
would not override a Festival? Although circumcision involves an
act of prohibited labor, one performs it on Shabbat for a male infant
whose eighth day from birth occurs on Shabbat. But in a case where
it is uncertain when the eighth day from birth occurs, it is forbidden
to circumcise the child on a Festival. By contrast, covering the blood
is never performed on Shabbat.

halakha
A person should always eat and drink less, etc. – ‫ֹאכל ָא ָדם‬ ַ ‫עֹולם י‬
ָ ‫ְל‬ Some suggest that if one had earth previously designated for
‫יִש ֶּתה ּ ָפחֹות וכו׳‬
ְ ׁ ְ‫ו‬: The Sages teach that a Torah scholar should manage use to cover one’s excrement on Shabbat, that earth may be used
his financial affairs judiciously. He should eat, drink, and provide for to cover the blood as well, as this would not even violate a prohibi-
his household in accordance with his income and degree of success tion by rabbinic law (Kolbo, citing Sefer HaMeorot). This opinion
without overexerting himself. Moreover, the Sages have directed is dismissed by the later commentaries (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
that one should always eat and drink less than what is within his Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:16, and see Beur
financial means, and that he should honor his wife and children HaGra and Pitĥei Teshuva there).
more than what is within his means (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hil-
Circumcision, whose definite obligation overrides Shabbat, and
khot Deot 5:10).
its uncertain obligation does not override a Festival – ‫ִמ ָילה ׁ ֶש ַּודָּ ָא ּה‬
One who slaughters for an ill person on Shabbat – ‫חֹולה‬ ֵ ‫ֹוחה יֹום טֹוב ַה ׁ ּש‬
ֶ ‫ֹוחט ַל‬ ֶ ּ‫ֹוחה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ֵאין ְס ֵפ ָיק ּה ד‬
ֶ ּ‫ד‬: In a case where a circumcision
‫ב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:ּ ְ One who slaughters an animal for an ill person on Shabbat takes place at its proper time, it overrides Shabbat. In a case where
may not cover its blood until after Shabbat. Although the act of the obligation to perform a circumcision is questionable, e.g., if the
slaughtering overrides Shabbat, covering the blood does not. This infant was born during twilight, it overrides neither Shabbat nor
is the halakha even if the covering would have entailed the violation a Festival. This is in accordance with the ruling of the Gemara in
of a prohibition by rabbinic law alone, e.g., the earth did not require tractate Shabbat 137a, and the opinion of Rabbi Yosei here (Rambam
crumbling. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Mila 1:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 266:2, 8).
who rejects the opinion of Rav Eina and instead rules in accordance
with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in the baraita.

 ‫דפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 84b 49

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
,‫יעת ׁש ָֹופר ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלים ּת ִֹוכ ַיח‬ַ ‫ ְּת ִק‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬The Sages said to him in rebuttal: The sounding of the shofar in
The sounding of the shofar in the provinces, etc. –
ֶ ּ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין וַ דָּ ָא ּה ד‬the provinces, i.e., outside the Temple, will prove that this a fortiori
h
‫יעת ׁש ָֹופר ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלים וכו׳‬
ַ ‫ת ִק‬:ְּ The sounding of the shofar on ‫ֹוחה‬ֶ ּ‫ ו ְּס ֵפ ָיק ּה ד‬,‫ֹוחה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬
inference is incorrect. This is because its definite obligation does
Rosh HaShana overrides the Festival. Even an individual !‫יֹום טֹוב‬
whose sex is undetermined, such as a tumtum or a not override Shabbat and it is prohibited to sound the shofar
hermaphrodite, is obligated to sound the shofar. This on Rosh HaShana that falls on Shabbat; and yet its uncertain
is in accordance with the statement of the baraita, as obligation overrides the Festival.
explained by the Gemara. When Rosh HaShana occurs
on Shabbat the shofar is not sounded outside the Tem- :‫יבי ְּת ׁשו ָּבה‬ ּ ִ ‫ֵה ׁ ִשיב ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַה ַ ּק ּ ָפר ְ ּב ִר‬ Rabbi Elazar HaKapparp the Distinguished responded with
ple, in accordance with the mishna in Rosh HaShana ‫נֹוהגֶ ת ְ ּב ֵל ֵילי‬ֶ ‫ַמה ְּל ִמ ָילה – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ֵאינָ ּה‬ another refutation of the a fortiori inference: It cannot be inferred
29b (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shofar VeSukka from circumcision that an uncertain obligation of the mitzva of
VeLulav 2:1, 6, 8; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 588:5). ‫ֹוהג ְ ּב ֵל ֵילי‬
ֵ ּ‫ֹאמר ְ ּב ִכ ּסוּי ׁ ֶשנ‬ ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫טֹובים‬ ִ ‫יָ ִמים‬
covering the blood does not override a Festival. What is notable
?‫טֹובים‬ ִ ‫יָ ִמים‬ about circumcision? It is notable in that it is not in effect on Fes-
tival nights, but is performed only during the daytime. Will you
then say with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood, which is
in effect on Festival nights, that it does not override a Festival?
Perhaps, since the mitzva of covering the blood is in effect during
both day and night, its uncertain obligation overrides a Festival
as well.

‫ זֶ ה ֶא ָחד ִמן ַהדְּ ָב ִרים‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬In reference to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar’s refutation, Rabbi Abba
,‫יהם ְּת ׁשו ָּבה‬ ֶ ‫ ֵאין ִלי ֲע ֵל‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬says: This a fortiori inference drawn by Rabbi Yosei is one of
the matters with regard to which Rabbi Ĥiyya says: I do not
ּ ִ ‫וְ ֵה ׁ ִשיב ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַה ַ ּק ּ ָפר ְ ּב ִר‬
.‫יבי ְּת ׁשו ָּבה‬
have any refutation for them, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the
Distinguished successfully responded with a refutation.

;‫ֹוחה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬
ֶ ּ‫ ִּכ ּסוּי ׁ ֶש ֵאין וַ דָּ אֹו ד‬:‫ ָק ָתנֵי ִמ ַיהת‬Rabba concludes his refutation of the statement of Rav Eina: In any
‫ ָלאו‬,‫ ַמאי וַ דָּ אֹו דְּ ִכ ּסוּי דְּ ָלא דָּ ֵחי ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬event, the baraita teaches that definite obligations with regard to
the mitzva of covering the blood do not override Shabbat. Now,
?‫חֹולה ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ֶ ‫ֹוחט ַל‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬
what is a case of a definite obligation of covering the blood that
does not override Shabbat? Is it not a case where one slaughters
an undomesticated animal or a bird for a critically ill person on
Shabbat? The baraita nevertheless teaches that one does not cover
the blood, in contradiction to the ruling of Rav Eina.

!‫ וְ ִד ְל ָמא דְּ ָע ַבר וְ ׁ ָש ַחט‬The Gemara asks: But perhaps the baraita is referring to an instance
where one transgressed Shabbat and slaughtered an animal for a
healthy person. But in a case where one slaughtered an animal for
an ill person, since it was permitted for him to slaughter the animal,
perhaps he must cover the blood as well.

‫ ַאף‬,‫ ַמה ִּמ ָילה – ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת‬,‫ דּ ו ְּמיָ א דְּ ִמ ָילה‬The Gemara responds: The baraita cannot be referring to such a case,
.‫ ִּכ ּסוּי נַ ִמי – ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּת‬since Rabbi Yosei compares it with circumcision. Therefore, it must
be similar to the case of circumcision, in that just as the circumci-
sion was performed with permission, as it is a mitzva to perform
circumcision even if the eighth day falls on Shabbat, so too, the
covering of the blood must be referring to a case where the slaughter
was done with permission, i.e., for an ill person. Accordingly, the
baraita poses a difficulty to the statement of Rav Eina.

,‫יעת ׁש ָֹופר ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין ּת ִֹוכ ַיח‬ ַ ‫ ְּת ִק‬:‫ § ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬The baraita states that the Sages said to Rabbi Yosei in refutation
‫ֹוחה‬ֶ ּ‫ֹוחה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ו ְּס ֵפ ָיק ּה ד‬ ֶ ּ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין וַ דָּ ָא ּה ד‬of his a fortiori inference: The sounding of the shofar in the prov-
inces will prove that the inference is incorrect, since its definite
?‫ ַמאי ְס ֵפ ָיק ּה‬.‫יֹום טֹוב‬
obligation does not override Shabbat and its uncertain obligation
overrides a Festival. The Gemara asks: What is its uncertain
obligation that overrides a Festival?

Personalities
Rabbi Elazar HaKappar – ‫ר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַה ַ ּק ּ ָפר‬:ַ Rabbi Elazar HaKappar
was a Sage who lived in the last generation of tanna’im. Several
of his halakhic statements are mentioned in baraitot and halakhic
midrash. His aggadic and ethical statements are mentioned in
the Mishna, Gemara, and midrashim. The details of his life are
unknown, other than the fact that he had a son named Rabbi
Eliezer. He apparently lived and was active for a period of time
in the city of Lod, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was his primary
disciple. The meaning of the title HaKappar is not clear; it may refer
to the place where he lived or to his occupation, which may have
involved wool [purkin]. Some speculate that he may have been a
relative of the Sage bar Kappara.
Ancient engraving and sketch. The inscription reads: This is the study hall of Rabbi
Elazar HaKappar

50 Ĥullin . perek VI . 84b . ‫דפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

;‫ימא ָס ֵפק חֹול ָס ֵפק יֹום טֹוב‬ ָ ‫יל‬ֵ ‫ ִא‬If we say that it is referring to uncertainty with regard to whether
‫ ָס ֵפק יֹום‬,‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא וַ דַּ אי יֹום טֹוב דָּ ְחיָ א‬one of the two days of Rosh HaShana is a weekday or a Festival,
this is unfeasible: Now that the sounding of the shofar overrides
?‫יב ֲעיָ א‬
ּ ָ ‫טֹוב ָס ֵפק חֹול ִמ‬
the definite Festival of Rosh HaShana, is it necessary to teach that
it overrides a day with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is
a Festival or a weekday? That is, if the uncertainty is with regard to
the Festival itself, then this case should have no bearing on the
halakha concerning the obligation to cover the blood of a koy on a
Festival, since the latter occurs on a definite Festival.

Perek VI
Daf 85 Amud a
background
.‫ ֶא ָּלא ָס ֵפק ִא ׁיש ָס ֵפק ִא ׁ ּ ָשה‬Rather, it must be that the uncertainty in the case of the sounding
Place their hands – ‫סֹומ ִכין‬:
ְ All offerings brought to the
of the shofar concerns whether a particular individual is a man or a
Temple by an individual require him to perform the act
woman, e.g., a tumtum, whose sexual organs are indeterminate. of placing hands, with the exceptions of the firstborn
Although a woman is not obligated in the mitzva of sounding the of a kosher animal, the Paschal offering, and an animal
shofar, a tumtum is in fact obligated, despite the uncertainty of sex. tithe offering. The ceremony is done by pressing both
It is therefore possible to derive from the sounding of the shofar that of one’s hands down with all his strength between the
if one slaughters a koy, an animal whose status as a domesticated horns on the head of the animal to be sacrificed, before
or undomesticated animal is uncertain, on a Festival, one covers it is slaughtered. No communal offerings require this
ceremony, apart from the bull brought for an unwitting
its blood.
communal sin and the scapegoat on Yom Kippur. When
performing this ritual for a sin offering, a guilt offering, or
‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה וַ דָּ ִאית‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫יֹוסי ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yosei, who does not accept this refu-
a voluntary burnt offering, the one bringing the offering
ְ ‫ ְ ּבנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ נַ ִמי ָּת ְק ָעה‬tation, conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: One
‫סֹומ ִכין‬ also recites a confessional prayer. An offering requiring
who is definitely a woman may also sound the shofar on Rosh
;‫סֹומכֹות‬
ְ ‫וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבנֹות יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ placing of hands is not invalidated if the ceremony is not
HaShana. As it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse that dis- performed. Women are not obligated to perform the act
cusses a burnt offering: “Speak to the sons of Israel…and he shall of placing hands. According to some opinions, they may
place his hands upon the head of the burnt offering” (Leviticus perform a similar rite if they so desire.
1:2–4). The verse indicates that the sons of Israel place their
handsb upon the head of an offering, but the daughters of Israel do
noth place their hands.

‫נָשים‬
ִ ׁ :‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ ‫יֹוסי וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: It is optional for women to
.‫סֹומכֹות ְר ׁשוּת‬ ְ place their hands on the head of an offering before it is slaughtered.
Even though women are not obligated to place their hands, doing
so is not considered to be performing labor with a sacrificial item,
an act normally prohibited, despite the fact that one performs the
placing of the hands by leaning with all of his weight on the animal.
Similarly, Rabbi Yosei holds that although women are not obligated
in the sounding of the shofar, it is optional for them to sound it, and
it is not considered a desecration of the Festival.

‫ נַ ִמי‬,‫ ו ְּל ַמאי דְּ ָק ָא ְמ ִרי ַר ָ ּבנַן‬:‫ֲא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬ Ravina said: And even according to what the Sages said, that a
– ‫יעת ׁש ָֹופר‬ ַ ‫ ַמה ִּל ְת ִק‬:‫יה ּ ִפ ְיר ָכא‬ ּ ‫ִאית ֵל‬ woman may not sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana but a tumtum
is nevertheless obligated due to uncertainty, there is a refutation
‫ֹאמר‬
ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫ֹוחה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ ֶ ּ‫ׁ ֶש ֵּכן וַ דָּ ָא ּה ד‬
to their claim as well. One cannot derive from this that the obliga-
!‫יה ְּכ ָלל‬
ּ ‫ית‬
ֵ ‫ְ ּב ִכ ּיסוּי – דְּ ֵל‬ tion to cover the blood of a koy overrides a Festival. What is notable
about the sounding of the shofar? It is notable in that its definite
obligation overrides Shabbat in the Temple, as it was sounded
in the Temple even when Rosh HaShana occurred on Shabbat,
and it is therefore understandable that its uncertain obligation over- High Priest placing hands on the goat of Yom Kippur
rides a Festival as well. Can you say the same with regard to the
mitzva of covering the blood, which does not override Shabbat in
any instance?

halakha
The sons of Israel place their hands but the daughters of Israel opinions of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon (Rambam Sefer Avoda,
do not – ‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬
ׂ ְ ‫סֹומ ִכין וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבנֹות‬
ְ ‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬
ׂ ְ ‫בנֵי‬:ּ ְ A woman is not per- Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 3:8).
mitted to place her hands upon her offering. This is in accordance
with the mishna in Menaĥot 93a and not in accordance with the

 ‫הפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 85a 51

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
,‫ ַמה ְּל ִמ ָילה‬:‫יבי‬ ּ ִ ‫ֵה ׁ ִשיב ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַה ַ ּק ּ ָפר ְ ּב ִר‬ The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita: Rabbi Elazar
Circumcision…is not in effect at night as it HaKappar the Distinguished responded with another refutation
is by day – ‫נֹוהגֶ ת ַ ּב ֵּלילֹות ְּכ ַבּיָ ִמים‬
ֶ ‫ה…אינָ ּה‬
ֵ ‫מ ָיל‬:ִ ‫ ְ ּב ֵל ֵילי‬.‫טֹובים‬
ִ ‫נֹוהגֶ ת ְ ּב ֵל ֵילי יָ ִמים‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ֵאינָ ּה‬
to Rabbi Yosei’s a fortiori inference: One cannot infer from the mitzva
Circumcision may be performed only during the ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָאר ֵל ֵילי‬,‫טֹובים הוּא דְּ ָלא נָ ֲהגָ א‬ ִ ‫יָ ִמים‬
day, after sunrise, in accordance with the ruling of of circumcision that an uncertain obligation to cover the blood of a
?‫נָ ֲהגָ א‬ koy does not override a Festival. What is notable about circumci-
the mishna in Megilla 20a (Rambam Sefer Ahava,
Hilkhot Mila 1:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 262:1). sion? It is notable in that it is not in effect on Festival nights. Can
One who slaughters and it is discovered to be you say the same with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood,
a tereifa, etc. – ‫יפה וכו׳‬ ֵ ‫ה ׁ ּש‬:ַ The
ָ ‫ֹוחט וְ נִ ְמצֵ את ְט ֵר‬ which is in effect on Festival nights? The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi
following are cases in which the mitzva of cover- Elazar HaKappar mean to say that the mitzva of circumcision is not
ing the blood does not apply, as the slaughter is in effect only on Festival nights, but it is in effect on other, non-
considered improper in that it does not render Festival nights? Isn’t circumcision always performed during the day?
the meat fit for consumption: The slaughter of a
tereifa; the slaughter of a non-sacred animal in
‫נֹוהגֶ ת ַ ּב ֵּלילֹות‬
ֶ ‫ ַמה ְּל ִמ ָילה – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ֵאינָ ּה‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ The Gemara responds: Rather, Rabbi Elazar HaKappar meant the
the Temple courtyard; the slaughter or either an
undomesticated animal or a bird, either of whom ‫ֹוהג ַ ּב ֵּלילֹות‬ ֵ ּ‫ֹאמר ְ ּב ִכ ּסוּי – ׁ ֶשנ‬ ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫ְּכ ַבּיָ ִמים‬ following: What is notable about circumcision? It is notable in that
are pending death by stoning; the slaughter for the it is not in effect at night as it is by day.h Can you say a similar hal-
‫ זֶ ה ֶא ָחד ִמן ַהדְּ ָב ִרים‬:‫ְּכ ַבּיָ ִמים! ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬
sake of idolatry; and an erroneous slaughter that akha with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood, which is in
rendered the animal or bird a carcass (Rambam
‫ וְ ֵה ׁ ִשיב‬,‫יהן ְּת ׁשו ָּבה‬
ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ֵאין ֲע ֵל‬ effect at night as it is by day? Rabbi Abba said: This a fortiori infer-
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:10; Shulĥan Arukh, .‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ִר ִ ּבי ְּת ׁשו ָּבה‬ ence drawn by Rabbi Yosei is one of the matters with regard to
Yoreh De’a 28:17). which Rabbi Ĥiyya says that there is no refutation for them, and
Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished successfully responded
notes with a refutation.
One who stabs [noĥer] and one who tears loose
[me’aker] – ‫ֹוחר וְ ַה ְמ ַע ֵ ּקר‬
ֵ ּ‫הנ‬:ַ Me’aker is generally
understood as referring to the act of uprooting
the windpipe and gullet, thereby killing the animal.
ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּש‬,‫ֹוחט וְ נִ ְמצֵ את ְט ֵר ָיפה‬
‫ֹוחט‬
‫ וְ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬,‫ֹוחט חו ִּּלין ִ ּב ְפנִים‬
ֵ ‫מתני׳ ַה ׁ ּש‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּש‬,‫בֹודה זָ ָרה‬
ָ ‫ַל ֲע‬
mishna In the case of one who slaughters an undo-
mesticated animal or a bird and it is discov-
With regard to noĥer, Rashi usually explains that it
ered to be an animal with a wound that would have caused it to
‫ ַחּיָ ה וְ עֹוף ַה ִּנ ְס ָק ִלים – ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ ַ ּבח ּוץ‬die within twelve months [tereifa];h and in the case of one who
refers to tearing the animal, beginning from the
nostrils, but here he explains that noĥer refers to .‫ֹוט ִרים‬
ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ּפ‬,‫ ְמ ַחּיֵ יב‬slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird for the sake of idol
strangulation. Some explain that noĥer refers to worship; and in the case of one who slaughters a non-sacred animal
stabbing. In any event, the mishna refers to some or bird inside the Temple courtyard or a sacrificial bird outside the
method of killing the animal that does not involve Temple courtyard; or in the case of one who slaughters an undomes-
a proper slaughter.
ticated animal or a bird that was sentenced to be stoned, e.g., for
Exempt from covering – ‫פטוּר ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬:ָ ּ Some sug- killing a person; in all these cases, even though it is prohibited to eat
gest this as a proof that covering the blood is not any of these animals or birds, Rabbi Meir deems one obligated to
an independent mitzva, but rather it is contingent cover their blood, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from doing so
on the slaughter. Others add that the covering is
seen as the completion of the slaughter. The early
because, in their opinion, slaughter that is not fit to render the meat
commentaries use these opinions to explain the permitted for consumption is not considered an act of slaughter.
position of the Halakhot Gedolot, which maintains
that one does not recite the blessing on the cover- – ‫ֹוחר וְ ַה ְמ ַע ֵ ּקר‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬One who slaughters an animal or bird and it became a carcass by
ֵ ּ‫ ַהנ‬,‫ֹוחט וְ נִ ְתנַ ְ ּב ָלה ְ ּביָ דֹו‬
ing of the blood prior to the act itself, as is typi- .‫ ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬his hand, i.e., the slaughter was performed incorrectly, and one who
cally done with regard to other blessings recited stabs the animal or bird, and one who tears loosen the windpipe and
when performing a mitzva, but only afterward. the gullet, are exempt from coveringn the blood, as no act of slaugh-
The rationale is that before the covering, the per-
ter took place, and one is obligated to cover blood only after a valid
son is considered as still involved in the mitzva of
slaughter, and one may not recite a blessing on a slaughter.

gemara
mitzva while in the middle of performing another
mitzva (see Ramban to 86b; Rabbeinu Yeruĥam). ָ ‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬
:‫יֹוחנָן‬ With regard to the dispute in the mishna
about whether an act of slaughter that is not
‫ָר ָאה ַר ִ ּבי דְּ ָב ָריו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ְ ּבאֹותֹו וְ ֶאת‬
fit to render the meat permitted renders one obligated to cover the
‫ ו ְּד ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ ְ ּבנֹו – ו ׁ ְּשנָ אֹו ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ֲח ָכ ִמים‬blood, Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: Rabbi
.‫ ְ ּב ִכ ּסוּי ַהדָּ ם – ו ׁ ְּשנָ אֹו ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ֲח ָכ ִמים‬Yehuda HaNasi, the redactor of the Mishna, saw as correct the state-
ment of Rabbi Meir, that ineffective slaughter is considered an act
of slaughter, with regard to the prohibition against slaughtering a
mother and its offspring on the same day, and taught that halakha
in the mishna (81b) using the term: The Rabbis, so that it would be
accepted. And he saw as correct the statement of Rabbi Shimon, that
ineffective slaughter is not considered an act of slaughter with regard
to the mitzva of covering the blood, and taught that halakha in the
mishna here using the term: The Rabbis.

?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ְ ּבאֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Meir holds that
‫יטה‬ָ ‫יטה ׁ ְש ִח‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬ineffective slaughter is considered an act of slaughter in the case of
ָ ‫ ָ ּג ַמר ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫הֹושע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬
a mother and its offspring? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: He
,‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְשחו ֵּטי חוּץ‬
derives his opinion by means of a verbal analogy of the terms slaugh-
ter and slaughter, from the case of sacrificial animals slaughtered
outside the Temple. The verse states with regard to a mother and its
offspring: “It and its offspring you shall not slaughter [lo tishĥatu] in
one day” (Leviticus 22:28), and the verse states with regard to sacri-
ficial animals: “Or that is slaughtered [yishĥat] outside the camp”
(Leviticus 17:3).
52 Ĥullin . perek VI . 85a . ‫הפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬ָ ‫ ָמה ָה ָתם – ׁ ְש ִח‬Accordingly, just as there, with regard to one who slaughters an
‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ ָ ‫ ַאף ָה ָכא נַ ִמי – ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬offering outside the Temple it is a case of slaughter that is not fit to
render the meat permitted, as one is prohibited from deriving any
.‫יטה‬
ָ ‫ְראוּיָ ה ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬
benefit from such meat, and it is nevertheless considered an act of
slaughter to render one liable for slaughtering it outside the Temple,
so too here, in the case of a mother and its offspring, an act of
slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is considered
an act of slaughter, and one is liable.

‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָמנִי ַ ּבר‬,‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason
ְּ ‫ ָ ּג ַמר ִמ‬:‫ ּ ָפ ִט ׁיש‬he holds that an ineffective slaughter is not considered an act of
– ‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן‬,‫״טב ַֹח ֶט ַבח וְ ָה ֵכן״‬
slaughter? Rabbi Mani bar Pattish said: Rabbi Shimon derives his
.‫יטה ְראוּיָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ַאף ָּכאן – ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫יטה ְראוּיָ ה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬
opinion from the verse: “Slaughter [tevo’aĥ] and prepare; for the
men shall dine with me at noon” (Genesis 43:16). Just as there, the
verse is referring to an act of slaughter that is fit to render the meat
permitted, so too here, in the case of a mother and its offspring,
only an act of slaughter that is fit to render the meat permitted is
considered an act of slaughter.

‫יטה‬ ְּ ‫ ִליגְ ַמר ִמ‬,‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר נַ ִמי‬The Gemara suggests: And as for Rabbi Meir as well, let him derive
ָ ‫״טב ַֹח״! דָּ נִין ׁ ְש ִח‬
.‫יחה‬ ָ ‫יטה ִמ ְּט ִב‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬from “tevo’aĥ” that only an effective slaughter is considered an act
ָ ‫ וְ ֵאין דָּ נִין ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫יטה‬
of slaughter. The Gemara responds: According to Rabbi Meir, one
derives the halakha with regard to a term of sheĥita from another
instance of a term of sheĥita, and one does not derive the halakha
with regard to the term of sheĥita from the term of teviĥa.

:‫יִש ָמ ֵעאל‬
ְ ׁ ‫ ַמה ָּנ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה? ָהא ָּתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara asks: Being that both terms refer to slaughter, what is
,‫ ״וְ ׁ ָשב ַה ּכ ֵֹהן״ ״ו ָּבא ַה ּכ ֵֹהן״ – זֹו ִהיא ׁ ִש ָיבה‬the difference which one is used; didn’t the school of Rabbi Yish-
mael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses: The
!‫יאה‬ ָ ‫זֹו ִהיא ִ ּב‬
verse states: “And the priest shall return [veshav] on the seventh
day” (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest’s
visit seven days later states: “And the priest shall come [uva] and
look” (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the
same meaning and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that
the halakha that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion
of the first week applies if it had spread again by the end of the
following week.

‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יכא דְּ ָד ֵמי ֵל‬ ָּ ‫יכא דְּ ֵל‬

ָ ‫ילי – ֵה‬ ֵּ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ‬The Gemara responds: This statement of the school of Rabbi Yish-
.‫יה יָ ְל ִפינַן‬
ּ ‫יה – ִמדְּ ָד ֵמי ֵל‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬mael applies only where there are no other terms that are identical
ּ ‫יכא דְּ ָד ֵמי ֵל‬
to it from which one could derive a verbal analogy. But if there is
another term that is identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy
from the term that is identical to it. Accordingly, Rabbi Meir derives
a verbal analogy from the instance of sheĥita that appears with regard
to sacrificial animals that are slaughtered outside the Temple.

‫ ִליגְ ַמר ִמ ׁ ּ ְשחו ֵּטי חוּץ! דָּ נִין‬,‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון נַ ִמי‬The Gemara suggests: And as for Rabbi Shimon as well, let him
.‫ וְ ֵאין דָּ נִין חו ִּּלין ִמ ָ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים‬,‫ חו ִּּלין ֵמחו ִּּלין‬derive from the case of sacrificial animals that were slaughtered
outside the Temple that ineffective slaughter is considered an act of
slaughter. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Shimon holds that one
derives the halakha with regard to the slaughter of non-sacred
animals from another instance of the slaughter of non-sacred ani-
mals, and one does not derive the halakha with regard to the slaugh-
ter of non-sacred animals from an instance of the slaughter of sac-
rificial animals. The prohibition against slaughtering a mother and
its offspring on the same day is stated primarily with regard to
non-sacred animals (see 78a).

‫ ַא ּט ּו אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו ְ ּב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ִמי‬:‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ The Gemara continues: And Rabbi Meir would respond: Is this
‫ ָר ָאה ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ָלא נָ ֵהיג? ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬ to say that the prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its
offspring on the same day does not apply to sacrificial animals?
‫ ו ׁ ְּשנָ אֹו‬,‫דְּ ָב ָריו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ְ ּבאֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬
Rather, since the prohibition also applies to sacrificial animals, one
.‫ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ can derive its halakha from the case of sacrificial animals that were
slaughtered outside the Temple. The Gemara comments: This is
what Rabbi Ĥiyya was referring to when he said that Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi saw as correct the statement of Rabbi Meir with regard to
the halakha of a mother and its offspring, and taught it in the
mishna using the term: The Rabbis.
 ‫הפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 85a 53
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ְ ּב ִכ ּסוּי ַהדָּ ם? ֲא ַמר‬ § The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute in the mishna:
‫יכה‬ ָ ‫יכה ׁ ְש ִפ‬ָ ‫ ָ ּג ַמר ׁ ְש ִפ‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ What is the reason that Rabbi Meir holds one is obligated in the
mitzva of covering the blood in a case of ineffective slaughter?
‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ָ ‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן – ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְשחו ֵּטי חוּץ‬
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Rabbi Meir derives this from a
‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ַאף ָּכאן – ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ְראוּיָ ה ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ verbal analogy between the terms pouring and pouring, from the
.‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ case of a sacrificial animal that was slaughtered outside the Temple
courtyard. One verse states with regard to covering the blood: “And
he shall pour out its blood” (Leviticus 17:13), and one verse states
with regard to sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple
courtyard: “He has poured blood” (Leviticus 17:4). Accordingly,
just as there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tem-
ple courtyard, it is a case of slaughter that is not fit to render the
meat permitted but is nevertheless considered an act of slaughter,
so too here, with regard to covering the blood, an act of slaughter
that is not fit to render the meat permitted is considered an act of
slaughter.

:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬.‫יֵא ֵכל״ ְּכ ִתיב‬

ָ ‫״א ׁ ֶשר‬
ֲ :‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ The Gemara continues: And Rabbi Shimon would respond: It is
‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ַההוּא ְל ַמעו ֵּטי עֹוף ָט ֵמא הוּא דְּ ָא ָתא‬ written with regard to covering the blood: “An undomesticated
animal or bird that may be eaten” (Leviticus 17:13), indicating that
‫ עֹוף ָט ֵמא ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא – דְּ ָלאו ַ ּבר‬:‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬
the verse is referring specifically to slaughter fit to render the meat
‫ ְט ֵר ָפה נַ ִמי – ָלאו ַ ּבר ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫ֲא ִכ ָילה הוּא‬ permitted for consumption. And Rabbi Meir holds: That phrase
.‫הוּא‬ comes to exclude a ritually impure bird from the mitzva of cover-
ing the blood. And Rabbi Shimon would respond: What is the
reason an impure bird is not included in the mitzva of covering the
blood? It is because it is not fit for consumption. If so, a tereifa
should also not be included in the mitzva of covering the blood,
since it is also not fit for consumption.

‫ ָר ָאה ַר ִ ּבי דְּ ָב ָריו‬:‫ וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬The Gemara comments: And this is what Rabbi Ĥiyya is saying
‫ ו ׁ ְּשנָ אֹו ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון‬,‫ ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְ ּב ִכ ּסוּי ַהדָּ ם‬when he said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw as correct the state-
ment of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the halakha of covering the
.‫ֲח ָכ ִמים‬
blood, and taught it in the mishna using the term: The Rabbis.

:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬ § Rabbi Abba says:

Perek VI
Daf 85 Amud b

‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ ָ ‫ל ֹא ַל ּכֹל ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ׁ ְש ִח‬ Not with regard to all halakhot did Rabbi Meir say an act of slaugh-
‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ֶ ,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ְרא ּויָ ה ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ ter that is not fit, e.g., where one slaughters a tereifa, is considered
an act of slaughter, as Rabbi Meir does concede that such an act
‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ִּת ָיר ָת ּה ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה; וְ ל ֹא ַל ּכֹל ָא ַמר‬
of slaughter does not render the meat of the animal permitted for
‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ל ֹא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ׁ ְש ִח‬ consumption. And not with regard to all halakhot did Rabbi Shi-
‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַט ַה ְר ָּת ּה ִמ ֵידי‬ ֶ ,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ mon say an act of slaughter that is not fit is not considered an act
.‫נְ ֵב ָלה‬ of slaughter, as Rabbi Shimon does concede that such an act of
slaughter renders the animal pure from having the impure status
of an unslaughtered animal carcass.

‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ל ֹא ַל ּכֹל ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ The Gemara analyzes this statement: The Master said that not
‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ with regard to all halakhot did Rabbi Meir say an act of slaughter
that is not fit is considered an act of slaughter, as Rabbi Meir
!‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫ֵמ ִאיר ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ִּת ָיר ָת ּה ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה‬
concedes that such an act of slaughter does not render the meat
?‫יש ַּת ְריָ א‬ְ ׁ ‫יטה ִמי ִמ‬ ָ ‫ְט ֵר ָפה ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬ of the animal permitted for consumption. The Gemara asks: Isn’t
this obvious? Can a tereifa become permitted for consumption
through slaughter?
54 Ĥullin . perek VI . 85b . ‫הפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ֹוחט ֶאת ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה ו ָּמצָ א ָ ּב ּה‬ ֵ ‫ ְל ׁש‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬,‫ָלא‬ The Gemara answers: No, this statement of Rabbi Abba is necessary
in a case where one slaughtered a tereifa and found a living nine- And found a living nine-month-old fetus inside
‫הֹואיל‬ ִ :‫ֶ ּבן ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה ַחי; ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬ it – ‫ו ָּמצָ א ָ ּב ּה ֶ ּבן ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה ַחי‬: Since the pregnancy is
month-old fetus inside it.nh It might enter your mind to say: Since
‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה‬ ָ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ׁ ְש ִח‬ complete, the fetus is no longer considered part of
Rabbi Meir said an act of slaughter that is not fit to render the meat its mother. Rather, it is viewed as an independent
,‫יטת ִא ּמֹו‬ ַ ‫יה ׁ ְש ִח‬ ּ ‫יטה – ְּת ַה ּנֵי ֵל‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ permitted is considered an act of slaughter, the slaughter of its creature and therefore not considered a tereifa. If it
.‫ ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעי ׁ ְש ִח‬ּ ָ ‫וְ ָלא ִל‬ mother should be effective to render the meat of the fetus permitted was found dead, or it was eight months old, it has
for consumption, as it normally does when the mother is not a tereifa; tereifa status like its mother (Tosafot).
and the fetus, after it is born, should not require its own slaughter.
Rabbi Abba therefore teaches us that according to Rabbi Meir,
slaughter that does not render the meat of the mother permitted for
consumption does not render the fetus permitted either.

‫ ֶ ּבן ּ ְפקו ָּעה ָטעוּן‬:‫ וְ ִת ְס ְ ּב ָרא? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬The Gemara asks: And how can you understand that without Rabbi
!‫יטה‬ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬Abba’s statement, one would have thought that according to Rabbi
Meir, the fetus does not require its own slaughter? But doesn’t Rabbi
Meir say that a fetus removed from its mother’s womb after the
mother was properly slaughtered [ben pekua], requires slaughter,
as the slaughter of the mother does not permit the fetus?

‫ וְ ָס ַבר‬,‫ דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ָלא צְ ִר‬ The Gemara responds: The statement of Rabbi Abba is not necessary
:‫ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן; ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר – דְּ ָא ַמר‬ for the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but it is for the opinion of Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi. This is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in
‫ וְ ָס ַבר‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir in one instance, and
;ּ‫יטת ִא ּמֹו ְמ ַט ֲה ַר ּתו‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנַן – דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in another. In a
case where one slaughtered a mother and its offspring on the same
day he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who
says an act of slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted
is considered an act of slaughter. And with regard to a ben pekua,
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of the
Rabbis, who say the proper slaughter of the mother renders the
fetus kosher, i.e., the fetus does not require its own ritual slaughter.

– ‫יטת ִא ּמֹו ְמ ַט ֲה ַר ּת ּו‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דַּ ֲאמוּר ַר ָ ּבנַן‬Therefore, since the Rabbis say the proper slaughter of the mother
,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעי ׁ ְש ִח‬
ּ ָ ‫ וְ ָלא ִל‬,‫יטת ִא ּמֹו‬ ַ ‫יה ׁ ְש ִח‬ּ ‫ ְּת ַה ּנֵי ֵל‬renders the fetus kosher, one might conclude that with regard to
a tereifa as well, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds the slaughter of the
.‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬
mother should be effective to render the meat of the fetus permitted
for consumption, and it should not require its own slaughter. In
light of this, Rabbi Abba teaches us that although Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi agrees with Rabbi Meir that an ineffective slaughter is con-
sidered an act of slaughter, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in the
case of a tereifa the slaughter of the mother is not effective for the fetus.

‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫״וְ ל ֹא ַל ּכֹל ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ The Gemara addresses the second statement of Rabbi Abba: And not
‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ֶ ,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ְראוּיָ ה ל ֹא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ with regard to all halakhot did Rabbi Shimon say an act of slaughter
that is not fit is not considered an act of slaughter, as Rabbi Shimon
‫יטא! דְּ ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַט ַה ְר ָּת ּה ִמ ֵידי נְ ֵב ָלה״‬
concedes that such an act of slaughter renders the animal pure from
‫נִיתא‬ָ ‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְ ּב ַמ ְת‬,‫ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ having the impure status of an unslaughtered animal carcass. The
‫ ״וְ ִכי יָ מוּת ִמן ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה״ – ִמ ְקצָ ת ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:‫ָּתנָ א‬ Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says,
‫ וְ ֵאי‬,‫ ו ִּמ ְקצָ ת ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה‬,‫ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה‬ and some say it was taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard
!‫זֹו – זֹו ְט ֵר ָפה ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָט ּה‬ to an animal carcass: “And if there dies of the animals…he that
touches its carcass shall be unclean” (Leviticus 11:39). The word “of ”
indicates that some animals transmit impurity as a carcass and
some animals do not transmit impurity. And which animal does
not? That is a tereifa that one slaughtered.h

halakha
One slaughtered a tereifa and found a living nine-month-old the Rabbis in the mishna on 74a, who disagree with the opinion of
fetus inside it – ‫ֹוחט ֶאת ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה ו ָּמצָ א ָ ּב ּה ֶ ּבן ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה ַחי‬
ֵ ‫ש‬:ׁ In the case Rabbi Meir, as explained by the Gemara on 75b. The Rema writes that
of one who slaughters an animal and discovers it to be kosher, and nowadays it is forbidden to consume any fetus found in the womb of
finds a viable, nine-month-old fetus inside it, the fetus may be con- a tereifa, even if the fetus was subsequently slaughtered, as there is
sumed without being slaughtered. This is the halakha provided it a concern it was less than nine months old (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
had not walked on the ground. If the fetus was found in the womb Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 5:14–15; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 13:2–3).
of an animal that one killed through tearing, or if the animal was
rendered a carcass due to improper slaughter, or if the animal was And some animals do not transmit impurity…that is a tereifa that
found to be a tereifa, the fetus may be consumed only if it itself is one slaughtered – ‫ו ִּמ ְקצָ ת ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה…זֹו ְט ֵר ָפה ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָט ּה‬: A
properly slaughtered. In a case where the fetus was nine months tereifa that was properly slaughtered is not permitted for consump-
old yet found dead, or if it was eight months old and living, its tion but is nevertheless pure from having the ritually impure status
consumption is forbidden. This is in accordance with the opinion of of a carcass (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 2:6).

 ‫הפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 85b 55

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ וְ ִהיא חו ִּּלין‬,‫ֹוחט ֶאת ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה‬ ֵ ‫ ְל ׁש‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ָלא צְ ִר‬ The Gemara responds: No, Rabbi Abba’s statement is necessary in
Decree to prevent violation of a decree – ‫ְ ּגזֵ ָירה‬ the case of one who slaughters a tereifa, and it is a non-sacred
‫לגְ זֵ ָירה‬:ִ The reason the Sages did not issue decrees ‫ וְ ֵכן‬,‫ֹוחט ֶאת ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרה‬
animal in the Temple courtyard.h As it is taught in a baraita:
to prevent the violation of a decree is that even – ‫ זֶ ה וְ זֶ ה חו ִּּלין ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרה‬,‫ֹוחט וְ נִ ְמצֵ את ְט ֵר ָיפה‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬
though it is derived from a verse that the Sages In the case of one who slaughters a known tereifa, and likewise
;‫אֹוס ִרין‬
ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַמ ִּתיר ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬ one who slaughters an animal and it was found to be a tereifa, and
must establish a fence around the mitzvot, i.e.,
protective measures to prevent violation of the this and that were non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple
mitzvot, they were not instructed to make a fence courtyard,h Rabbi Shimon permits one to derive benefit from
around that fence. If that were to be the case it them, as one is not considered to have transgressed the prohibition
could continue ad infinitum. In some cases, how-
against slaughtering a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard.
ever, the Gemara discusses a decree that seems
to prevent the violation of another decree, and
And the Rabbis prohibit one to derive benefit from them.
in those cases the Gemara explains that it was all
part of the original decree. ‫הֹואיל וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬
ִ :‫ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬ Accordingly, it might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon
,‫יטה ִהיא ְּכ ָלל‬ ָ ‫מו ָּּתר ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה – ַא ְל ָמא ָלאו ׁ ְש ִח‬ says it is permitted to derive benefit from such an animal, evi-
dently slaughtering a tereifa is not considered slaughter at all.
‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ ִמ ֵידי נְ ֵב ָלה נַ ִמי ָלא ְמ ַט ֲה ָרה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬
Therefore, say that slaughter does not have the ability to purify the
.‫ָלן‬ tereifa from having the status of a ritually impure animal carcass
either. Rabbi Abba therefore teaches us that even according to
Rabbi Shimon, the slaughter is effective to remove it from the status
of a carcass.

‫ וְ ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬:‫יה ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that
.‫ ִאין‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יתא ִהיא? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ַ ְּ‫חו ִּּלין ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרה ד‬
ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ the prohibition against deriving benefit from non-sacred animals
slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is by Torah law? Abaye said
‫ ח ו ִּּלין ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ֲחט ּו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬
to Rav Pappa: Yes he does. And we learned in a mishna (Temura
ׂ ָ ּ ‫ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרה‬
;‫ וְ ֵכן ַחּיָה ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ֲח ָטה ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרה‬,‫יִש ְרפ ּו ָ ּב ֵא ׁש‬ 33b) that Rabbi Shimon says: Non-sacred animals that were
‫יתא – ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ גָ זְ ִרינַן‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ד‬ slaughtered in the Temple courtyard shall be burned in the fire.
.‫ַחּיָ ה ַא ּט ּו ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ And likewise, an undomesticated animal that was slaughtered in
the Temple courtyardh shall be burned in the fire. Abaye continues:
Granted, if you say the meat of a non-sacred domesticated animal
slaughtered in the Temple courtyard is forbidden by Torah law, this
is the reason why we decree that the meat of an undomesticated
animal is prohibited as well, due to the Torah prohibition against
deriving benefit from the meat of a domesticated animal.

– ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬But if you say the meat of domesticated animals is forbidden by
‫יכל ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַ ּבחוּץ; ִהיא גּ ו ָּפ ּה‬ ַ ‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ָא ֵתי ְל ֵמ‬rabbinic law then the mishna is difficult: What is the reason the
meat of a non-sacred domesticated animal is forbidden? It is for-
?‫ וַ ֲאנַן נֵיקוּם וְ נִ גְ זֹור ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ִלגְ זֵ ָירה‬,‫ְ ּגזֵ ָרה‬
bidden lest one see someone consuming this meat outside the
Temple courtyard and arrive at the erroneous conclusion that it is
permitted to partake of sacrificial meat outside the Temple court-
yard. If so, the prohibition against deriving benefit from the meat
of a non-sacred domesticated animal is itself a rabbinic decree,
and will we then proceed to issue a decree prohibiting one to
derive benefit from a non-sacred undomesticated animal in order
to prevent the violation of a decree?b

‫ ֲא ָתא‬,‫נֵיה‬ּ ‫ית‬ָּ ‫אנִיבא ְ ּב ִכ‬

ָ ָ‫יה י‬ ּ ‫ § ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא נְ ַפל ֵל‬The mishna teaches that one who stabs an undomesticated ani-
‫עֹופא ו ׁ ְּשחֹוט‬
ָ ‫ ׁ ְשקֹול‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ְל ַק ֵּמ‬mal or bird, or who tears loose its windpipe and gullet, is exempt
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
from covering the blood. With regard to this the Gemara relates:
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫מֹורח דְּ ָמא וְ ׁ ָש ֵביק ֵל‬
ַ ְּ‫ ד‬,‫יתא דְּ ַמּיָ א‬ ָ ‫ַעל ּבו ִּב‬
Moths infested the flax of Rabbi Ĥiyya. He came before Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi to ask how to get rid of the moths. Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi said to him: Take a bird and slaughter it over the tub of
water in which the flax was soaked, as the moths will smell the
blood and leave the flax.

halakha
One who slaughters a tereifa and it is a…non-sacred animal Non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard – ‫חו ִּּלין‬
in the Temple courtyard – ‫ֹוחט ֶאת ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה וְ ִהיא…חו ִּּלין ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרה‬
ֵ ‫ש‬:ׁ It ‫ב ֲעזָ ָרה‬:
ּ ָ It is forbidden to derive benefit from non-sacred animals
is forbidden to derive benefit from a non-sacred animal that was that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard; they must be buried
slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, except if after being slaugh- (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 2:2).
tered it was discovered to be a tereifa. This is in accordance with the
An undomesticated animal that was slaughtered in the Temple
opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that an act of slaughter that
courtyard – ‫חּיָה ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ֲח ָטה ָ ּב ֲעזָ ָרה‬:ַ It is forbidden to derive benefit from
is not fit is not considered slaughter (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
a kosher undomesticated animal or bird that was slaughtered in the
Sheĥita 2:2, and see Kesef Mishne there).
Temple courtyard. However, it is permitted to derive benefit if it was
not of a kosher species. This ruling is based on the Tosefta (Rambam
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 2:2).

56 Ĥullin . perek VI . 85b . ‫הפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ֹוחט‬ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫יכי ֲע ִביד ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א‬
ִ ‫ ֵה‬The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Ĥiyya do this? But isn’t it taught
One who slaughters and needs the blood – ‫ֹוחט‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬
‫ ֵּכיצַ ד‬,‫יך ְל ָדם – ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬ ְ ‫ וְ צָ ִר‬in a baraita: One who slaughters a bird or an undomesticated animal, ‫יך ְל ָדם‬
ְ ‫וְ צָ ִר‬: One who slaughters a bird or an undomes-
ֲ ‫ יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה? אֹו‬and does so only because he needs the blood, is nevertheless obli-
h
!‫עֹוקרֹו‬
ְ ‫נֹוחרֹו אֹו‬ ticated animal, even if his sole purpose in slaughtering
gated to cover the blood and may not use it for any other purpose? it is to use the blood, is nevertheless obligated to cover
Rather, how should one who needs the blood act? He either stabs it the blood (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:18).
or tears loose its windpipe and its gullet, so that it is not killed with an
And about the majority of one siman of a bird – ‫וְ ַעל‬
act of slaughter. How, then, could Rabbi Ĥiyya use the blood of the bird ‫רֹוב ֶא ָחד ָ ּבעֹוף‬: A domesticated animal, an undomesti-
that he slaughtered to rid his flax of the moths? cated animal, and a bird all require slaughter by Torah
law. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
‫ ״צֵ א ְטרֹוף״‬:‫ימי ֲא ַמר‬ ִ ִּ‫ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬The Gemara responds: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that the requirement to
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Ĥiyya: Go out and render
‫ ״צֵ א‬:‫ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ֲא ַמר‬.‫יה‬ slaughter a bird is by Torah law (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
the bird a tereifa, and then slaughter it, as the mishna teaches that one Hilkhot Sheĥita 1:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 13:1).
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫נְ חֹור״ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
who slaughters a tereifa is not required to cover its blood. When Ravin
came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to
Rabbi Ĥiyya: Go out and tear loose the bird’s windpipe and gullet.

‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬,‫ ״צֵ א ְטרֹוף״‬:‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬The Gemara asks: According to the one who says that Rabbi Yehuda
?‫ ״צֵ א נְ חֹור״‬:‫ ָלא ֲא ַמר‬HaNasi said to Rabbi Ĥiyya: Go out and render the bird a tereifa, what
is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not say: Go out and tear
loose its windpipe and gullet?

‫יטה ָלעֹוף‬ ָ ‫ ֵאין ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ And if you would say the reason is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds
;‫יטתֹו‬ָ ‫ וּנְ ִח ָירתֹו זֹו ִהיא ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬ that slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah law, and conse-
quently the tearing loose of its windpipe and gullet is considered its
– ‫״כ ֲא ׁ ֶשר צִ ִּו ִיתךָ ״‬
ַּ :‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬
slaughter such that he would be required to cover the blood, this is
‫ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ּנִצְ ַט ָּוה מ ׁ ֶֹשה ַעל ַה ֵּו ׁ ֶשט וְ ַעל‬ untenable. As isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says:
‫ וְ ַעל רֹוב ֶא ָחד ָ ּבעֹוף וְ ַעל רֹוב‬,‫ַה ָ ּקנֶ ה‬ The verse states: “And you shall slaughter…as I have commanded you”
!‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ (Deuteronomy 12:21). This teaches that Moses was previously com-
manded concerning the mitzvot of slaughter, i.e., he was taught about
the gullet and the windpipe, that the cutting of these simanim consti-
tutes slaughter, and about the requirement to cut the majority of one
siman of a bird,h and about the requirement to cut the majority of
two simanim of an animal. If so, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the
slaughter of a bird is obligatory by Torah law.

Perek VI
Daf 86 Amud a

‫יב ֲעיָ א ״צֵ א‬ ּ ָ ‫ ָלא ִמ‬,‫יב ֲעיָ א ָק ָא ַמר‬ ּ ָ ‫ָלא ִמ‬ The Gemara responds: Rav Dimi is speaking utilizing the style of: It is
‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יטה ִהיא ְּכ ָלל‬ ָ ‫נְ חֹור״ – דְּ ָלאו ׁ ְש ִח‬ not necessary. That is, it is not necessary to teach: Go out and tear
loose, since it is obvious that this is not considered slaughter at all
‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫״צֵ א ְטרֹוף״ – ֵא‬
and one is not required to cover the blood. But with regard to the
,‫יב ֵעי ִּכ ּסוּי‬
ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִל‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ְראוּיָ ה ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ instruction: Go out and render the bird a tereifa, I would say that an
.‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן ִּכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ act of slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is neverthe-
less considered an act of slaughter, and the blood of this bird should
require covering. Therefore, Rav Dimi teaches us in accordance with
the statement of Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba (85a), that Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi holds with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood that an
act of slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is not con-
sidered an act of slaughter, and one is therefore not required to cover
the blood of this bird.

‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬,‫ ״צֵ א נְ חֹור״‬:‫ו ְּל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬ The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that Rabbi
,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ״צֵ א ְטרֹוף״? וְ ִכי ֵּת‬:‫ָלא ֲא ַמר‬ Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Ĥiyya: Go out and tear loose the wind-
pipe and gullet, what is the reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not say:
‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ָק ָס ַבר‬
Go out and render the bird a tereifa? And if you would say the reason
‫יטה; וְ ָהא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that an act of slaughter that is
‫ ָר ָאה ַר ִ ּבי דְּ ָב ָריו ׁ ֶשל‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ not fit to render the meat permitted is considered an act of slaughter,
‫ ו ׁ ְּשנָ אֹו ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְ ּב ִכ ּסוּי ַהדָּ ם‬ and one would be required to cover the blood, this is untenable. As
!‫ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ doesn’t Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi saw as correct the statement of Rabbi Shimon, that an
ineffective slaughter is not considered an act of slaughter with regard
to the mitzva of covering the blood, and taught it in the mishna here
using the term: The Rabbis?
 ‫ופ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 86a 57
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫יב ֲעיָ א ״צֵ א ְטרֹוף״‬ ּ ָ ‫ ָלא ִמ‬,‫יב ֲעיָ א ָק ָא ַמר‬
ּ ָ ‫ָלא ִמ‬ The Gemara responds: Ravin is speaking utilizing the style of: It is
From when the people of the Exile ascended – not necessary. That is, it is not necessary to teach: Go out and
‫מ ׁ ּ ֶש ָעל ּו ְ ּבנֵי ַהגּ ָֹולה‬:ִ Generally, when the Sages refer ,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יטה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְראוּיָ ה ָלא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ׁ ְש ִח‬ ָ ‫דִּ ׁ ְש ִח‬
render the bird a tereifa, since an act of slaughter that is not fit to
to the Exile without specification they are referring ‫יטה ָלעֹוף‬ ָ ‫ ֵאין ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֲא ָבל ״צֵ א נְ חֹור״ – ֵא‬
to the Babylonian exile. As Rashi notes, the Gemara render the meat permitted is not considered slaughter and one
‫יב ֵעי‬
ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִל‬,‫יטתֹו‬ָ ‫ וּנְ ִח ָירתֹו זֹו ִהיא ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬ would not be required to cover the blood of the bird. But with regard
is not referring to the ancient ascension of Jews to
Eretz Yisrael led by Ezra, but rather to a later wave .‫יתךָ ״‬ִ ‫״כ ֲא ׁ ֶשר צִ ִּו‬
ַּ :‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ִּכ ּסוּי‬ to the instruction: Go out and tear loose the windpipe and gullet,
of ascension to Eretz Yisrael in the lifetime of Rabbi I would say that the slaughter of a bird is not obligatory by Torah
Yehuda HaNasi. It was during this period that Rabbi law to render it permitted for consumption, and consequently, the
Ĥiyya and his sons ascended to Eretz Yisrael. This
tearing loose of its windpipe and gullet is considered its slaughter
incident involving Rabbi Ĥiyya’s flax must have
occurred once he was already in Eretz Yisrael, as he
and the blood of this bird should require covering. Therefore,
sought the advice of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was Ravin teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the slaughter
a resident of Eretz Yisrael. of a bird is obligatory by Torah law, as he himself derives from the
verse: “As I have commanded you” (Deuteronomy 12:21).
halakha
A deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor who
‫נֵיה? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ָר ִבין‬ּ ‫ית‬ ָּ ‫אנִיבא ְ ּב ִכ‬
ָ ָ‫יה י‬ ּ ‫ו ִּמי נְ ַפל ֵל‬ § The Gemara questions the very occurrence of the incident involv-
slaughtered – ‫ֹוטה וְ ָק ָטן ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו‬
ֶ ‫ח ֵר ׁש ׁש‬:ֵ In the case :‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָא ִבין ַ ּבר ׁ ְש ָבא‬,‫ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ ing Rabbi Ĥiyya: And could moths have infested his flax? But
of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor who slaugh- doesn’t Ravin bar Abba say, and some say Rabbi Avin bar Sheva
‫יקין וְ ַהּזְ וָ עֹות‬ִ ִ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ָעל ּו ְ ּבנֵי ַהגּ ָֹולה ּ ָפ ְסק ּו ַהּז‬
tered an undomesticated animal or a bird while says: From when the people of the Exile ascendedn from Babylo-
unsupervised, there is no obligation to cover the ‫ וְ ל ֹא ֶה ֱח ִמיץ יֵ ינָ ם וְ ל ֹא‬,‫וְ ָהרוּחֹות וְ ָה ְר ָע ִמים‬ nia to Eretz Yisrael there ceased to be meteors, earthquakes, storm
blood. Parenthetically, the Shakh maintains that ‫ינֵיהם ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬
ֶ ‫ וְ נָ ְתנ ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים ֵע‬,‫ָל ָקה ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתנָ ם‬ winds, and thunder; and their wine did not sour, and their flax
it is actually forbidden to cover the blood. This is
!‫ִחּיָ יא ו ָּבנָיו‬ was not stricken with an infestation of moths; and the Sages placed
because the majority of this population’s actions are
bungled, and the slaughter is therefore considered
their eyes, i.e., attributed these phenomena, to the merit of Rabbi
invalid. This is derived from the Gemara here (see Ĥiyya and his sons,p who ascended from Babylonia? If so, how was
Pitĥei Teshuva). If a competent adult observed their Rabbi Ĥiyya’s flax affected?
act of slaughter and confirmed it to be valid one is
obligated to cover the blood; and if the slaughterer .‫ ַאדִּ ְידה ּו – ָלא‬,‫ִּכי ְמ ַה ּנְיָא זְ כו ַּתיְ יה ּו – ַא ָע ְל ָמא‬ The Gemara responds: When their merit is effective, it is effective
from this population happened to be an expert in ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר‬,‫ִּכ ְד ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ for the rest of the world but not for themselves. And this is in
slaughtering, one must cover the blood and recite accordance with the statement that Rav Yehuda says in the name
the appropriate blessing as well (Shakh). :‫אֹומ ֶרת‬ֶ ְ‫ ְ ּב ָכל יֹום וָ יֹום ַ ּבת קֹול יֹוצֵ את ו‬:‫ַרב‬
of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Each and every day a
Similarly, if a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor ,‫עֹולם ּכו ּּלֹו – נִיּזֹון ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ֲחנִינָ א ְ ּבנִי‬ ָ ‫ָּכל ָה‬ Divine Voice emerges and says: The entire world is sustained in
slaughtered an animal while unsupervised, it is ‫וַ ֲחנִינָ א ְ ּבנִי – דַּ י לֹו ְ ּב ַקב ָחרו ִּבין ֵמ ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬
permitted to slaughter that animal’s offspring on
the merit of Ĥanina ben Dosa,p My son, and yet for Ĥanina, My
the same day. But if a competent adult observed .‫ְל ֶע ֶרב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬ son, a kav of carobs, i.e., a very small amount of inferior food, is
the act of slaughter and confirmed it to be valid, sufficient to sustain him from one Shabbat eve to the next Shabbat
it is forbidden to slaughter the animal’s offspring eve. Similarly, the merit of Rabbi Ĥiyya and his sons was effective
that day (Tur). The halakha is in accordance with for others but not for themselves.
the opinion of Rabbi Meir (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
Hilkhot Sheĥita 12:4, 14:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a
16:9, 28:17).
ֶ ‫מתני׳ ֵח ֵר ׁש ׁש‬
‫ֹוטה וְ ָק ָטן ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו וַ ֲא ֵח ִרים‬
– ‫אֹותם – ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות; ֵ ּבינָן ְל ֵבין ַעצְ ָמן‬ ָ ‫רֹואין‬ ִ
mishna In the case of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a
minor who slaughteredh an undomesticated
animal or a bird, and others saw them and ensured that the slaugh-
.‫ ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬ter was properly performed, in which case the slaughter is valid (see
2a), one who oversaw the slaughter is obligated to cover the blood.
If they slaughtered the animals among themselves without
supervision, one is exempt from the obligation to cover the blood.

Personalities
Rabbi Ĥiyya and his sons – ‫ר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ו ָּבנָיו‬:ַ Rabbi Ĥiyya ben Abba, of Torah scholars. His sons, Yehuda, son-in-law of Rabbi Yannai, and
from the city of Kafri in Babylonia, was among the last tanna’im. He Ĥizkiyya, were among the leading Torah scholars in the transitional
was descended from a family of distinguished lineage that traced its generation between tanna’im and amora’im, and they apparently
ancestry back to King David and produced many prominent Sages. replaced him at the head of his academy in Tiberias, where he
While he was still in Babylonia, Rabbi Ĥiyya was considered a Torah resided. All of the students of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi were his col-
luminary, among the prominent Torah scholars in his generation. leagues, and he was close with the tanna Rabbi Shimon ben Ĥalafta.
When he came to Eretz Yisrael, along with his twin sons, Ĥizkiyya The younger students of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, including Rabbi
and Yehuda, he became a disciple, a colleague, and indeed the Ĥanina, Rabbi Oshaya, Rabbi Yannai, and others, studied Torah under
right-hand man of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Although Rabbi Ĥiyya had Rabbi Ĥiyya and were, to a certain degree, his students as well.
a close relationship with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he was especially His primary disciples were his brother’s sons, Rabba bar Ĥana and,
close to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was also above all, the great amora Rav. He also appears as a central figure
his business partner. in the Zohar. Rabbi Ĥiyya was buried in Tiberias, and his two sons
In addition to his prominence as a Torah scholar, Rabbi Ĥiyya were later buried beside him.
was outstanding in his piety, as reflected in several episodes related
throughout the Talmud. His most significant project was the redac- Rabbi Ĥanina ben Dosa – ‫ֹוסא‬ ָ ּ‫ר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ֶ ּבן ד‬:ַ A tanna from the end
tion he did with his disciple-colleague, Rabbi Oshaya, of an anthol- of the Second Temple period, Rabbi Ĥanina ben Dosa was a disciple
ogy of external baraitot to complement the Mishna. Their anthology of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Zakkai. Even as a student he was renowned
was considered to be the most authoritative, to the point that it was for his righteousness and as someone who often had miracles
said that any baraita not reviewed by them was unfit to enter the performed for him. Only a very small number of Rabbi Ĥanina’s
study hall. Some believe he edited the Tosefta. Apparently, upon statements, mainly of aggada, have been preserved. He is primarily
his arrival in Eretz Yisrael Rabbi Ĥiyya received financial support known for the many stories concerning his piety and closeness to
from the house of the Nasi, but his primary livelihood was from God, his righteousness, and his ability to make do with little. Due to
trade, mostly of silk. all of these qualities, Rabbi Ĥanina is portrayed in rabbinic literature
In addition to his twin sons, Rabbi Ĥiyya also had twin daughters, as the symbol of a wholly righteous man.
Pazi and Tavi, who became the matriarchs of distinguished families

58 Ĥullin . perek VI . 86a . ‫ופ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ֲחט ּו וַ ֲא ֵח ִרים‬,‫וְ ֵכן ְל ִענְיַ ן אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬ And likewise with regard to the matter of slaughtering a mother
;‫יהם‬ֶ ‫אֹותן – ָאס ּור ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ָ ‫רֹואין‬
ִ and its offspring on the same day, if a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or
a minor slaughtered an undomesticated mother animal and oth-
‫ֵ ּבינָן ְל ֵבין ַעצְ ָמן – ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַמ ִּתיר ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט‬
ers saw them, it is prohibited to slaughter its offspring after them.
‫ּמֹודים ׁ ֶש ִאם‬ ִ ‫ ו‬.‫אֹוס ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ַא ֲח ֵר‬ If they slaughtered the mother animal among themselves, Rabbi
.‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ָש ַחט – ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬ Meir deems it permitted to slaughter its offspring after themn
and the Rabbis deem it prohibited. And the Rabbis concede that
if one slaughtered the offspring thereafter that he does not incur
the forty lashes, as it is possible the mother was not properly
slaughtered.

ָ ׁ ‫ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ֵר‬,‫גמ׳ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬

,‫ישא דְּ ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬
?‫ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ֵס ָיפא דִּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬
gemara The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis,
what is different about the first clause of
the mishna that discusses the covering of the blood, where they
do not disagree with the statement that if a deaf-mute, an imbecile,
or a minor slaughtered an animal without supervision one is
exempt from the obligation to cover the blood, which indicates
the Rabbis hold that such an act of slaughter is not considered an
act of slaughter; and what is different about the latter clause of
the mishna that discusses the prohibition against slaughtering a
mother and its offspring on the same day, where they disagree
with Rabbi Meir and hold that if a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a
minor slaughtered a mother animal without supervision one is
prohibited to subsequently slaughter its offspring, indicating they
hold that such an act of slaughter is in fact considered an act
of slaughter?

:‫ ִאי ָא ְמ ִרינַן ַחּיָ ִיבין ְל ַכ ּסֹות – ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬The Gemara responds: Actually, it is uncertain whether this slaugh-
‫יכל‬ַ ‫ וְ ָא ֵתי ְל ֵמ‬,‫יתא ִה יא‬ ָ ְ‫יטה ְמ ַע ַּלי‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬ter is valid or not. With regard to the first clause, if we say one is
obligated to cover the blood from an unsupervised slaughter,
ָ ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬
.‫יט ָתן‬
people might say this is because the slaughter performed by these
people is proper, and they will come to eat meat from their
slaughter, and it is in fact forbidden to eat from their slaughter.
Therefore, the Rabbis did not require the covering of the blood.

‫ ָאסוּר ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט‬:‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָק ָא ְמ ִרי ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫ ֵס ָיפא נַ ִמי‬The Gemara challenges: If so, then with regard to the latter clause
,‫יטה ְמ ַע ַּליְ ָיתא ִהיא‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫יהם – ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ֶ ‫ ַא ֲח ֵר‬of the mishna as well, since the Rabbis say it is prohibited to
slaughter the offspring of the mother after them, people might
!‫יט ָתן‬ָ ‫וְ ָא ֵתי ְל ֵמ ַיכל ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬
say this is because the slaughter performed by these people is
proper, and they will come to eat meat from their slaughter.

.‫יה‬
ּ ‫יב ֲעיָ א ֵל‬
ּ ָ ‫ ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא דְּ ָלא ָקא ִמ‬:‫ ֵס ָיפא ָא ְמ ִרי‬The Gemara rejects this: With regard to the latter clause, prohibit-
ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬ing the slaughter of the offspring will not cause people to conclude
! ְ‫ ְלנַ ֵ ּקר ֲחצֵ ירֹו הוּא צָ ִריך‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ישא נַ ִמי‬
the unsupervised slaughter of the mother by disqualified people
was valid. Rather, they will say: The reason the offspring is not
slaughtered is because the owner does not need the meat. The
Gemara asks: But with regard to the first clause as well, covering
the blood will not lead one to conclude that the unsupervised
slaughter was valid, as people will say: He is covering the blood
because he needs to clean his courtyard of the blood. If so, let
the Rabbis deem one obligated to cover the blood.

notes
If they slaughtered the mother among themselves Rabbi Meir a mother and its offspring (see 85a); with regard to the slaughter
deems it permitted to slaughter its offspring after them – ‫ֵ ּבינָן‬ of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor he maintains that it is
‫יהן‬
ֶ ‫ל ֵבין ַעצְ ָמן ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַמ ִּתיר ִל ׁ ְשחֹוט ַא ֲח ֵר‬:ְ This is because their slaugh- completely invalid, and it renders the animal a non-kosher ani-
ter is not considered a valid slaughter. It should be noted that mal carcass. This applies to both the halakha of a mother and its
although Rabbi Meir is of the opinion that an act of slaughter that offspring and that of covering the blood; in both cases Rabbi Meir
is not fit for rendering the animal permitted for consumption is holds that the unsupervised slaughter performed by a deaf-mute,
nevertheless considered a valid slaughter, both with regard to an imbecile, or a minor is not valid.
the mitzva to cover the blood and with regard to the halakha of

 ‫ופ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 86a 59

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ימר? ָ ּבא‬
ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬
ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬,‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ָ ּב ַא ׁ ְש ּ ָפה‬The Gemara rejects this: But if a disqualified person slaughtered
Append the minority to the presumptive status – ְ‫ְסמֹוך‬
‫מיעו ָּטא ַל ֲחזָ ָקה‬:ִ As explained on 9a, an animal maintains a ?‫ימר‬ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬
ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬, ְ‫ימ ֵלך‬ ָּ ‫ ִל‬the animal in a garbage dump, what can be said to allow the cover-
presumptive forbidden status until its method of slaugh-
ing of the blood? Obviously, people will not assume one covers the
ter is verified. According to Rashi, this presumptive status blood in order to clean a garbage dump. Similarly, if one comes to
stems from the prohibition against consuming a limb consult the court, what can be said? That is, if one sees from a
severed from a living animal, which was in effect before distance that a disqualified person slaughtered an animal and the
the animal was slaughtered. Tosafot in tractate Beitza blood is uncovered, and he comes to consult the court with regard
(25a) reject Rashi’s explanation, since the prohibition to the obligation to cover the blood, if the court tells him to cover
against consuming such a limb is obviously not in effect
the blood he might conclude that this is because the unsupervised
once the animal is dead. Instead, they explain that the
presumptive forbidden status stems from the prohibi-
slaughter was valid. Accordingly, since there are scenarios in which
tion against eating an unslaughtered animal, which is one might mistakenly conclude that the unsupervised slaughter of
in effect both during the animal’s lifetime and after it is inept people is valid, the Rabbis concede that one is exempt from
killed, unless it was slaughtered properly. covering the blood of such an act of slaughter in all cases.

‫ימ ֵל ְך ַמאי‬
ָּ ‫ ָ ּבא ִל‬,‫יפא נַ ִמי‬
ָ ‫ ֵס‬,‫יך‬
ְ ‫יט ְע ִמ‬
ַ ‫ וְ ִל‬The Gemara asks: But according to your reasoning that the Rabbis
?‫ימר‬ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ָּ ‫ ִא‬are concerned for the aforementioned scenarios, then with regard
to the latter clause as well, if one comes to consult the court with
regard to the slaughter of the offspring, what can be said? That
is, if one sees a disqualified person slaughter the mother, and he
comes to ask the court whether he may slaughter the offspring on
the same day, if the court prohibits him from slaughtering it he
might conclude that this is because the slaughter of the mother was
valid. Why, then, do the Rabbis prohibit one from slaughtering the
offspring?

‫נָט ִרי‬ ְּ ‫ ַר ָ ּבנַן ַא ּכו ָּּל ּה ִמ‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara concludes: Rather, it must be that the Rabbis dis-
ְ ְ‫ ו‬,‫יל ָתא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬
,‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַעד דְּ ַמ ֵּסיק ָל ּה ְל ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬agree concerning the entire matter, i.e., they disagree with regard
to covering the blood as well, and hold that if a disqualified person
ּ ֵ‫וַ ֲה ַדר ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ִע ָּילו‬
.‫יה‬
slaughtered an animal while unsupervised, one must cover the
blood; and the Rabbis waited for Rabbi Meir until he concluded
his statement, and then they disagreed with him on both
accounts.

,‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַר ָ ּבנַן – ְלחו ְּמ ָרא; ֶא ָּלא ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬The Gemara asks: If so, granted, the opinion of the Rabbis is
?‫ ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא‬understandable, as they consistently rule stringently. That is,
although it is prohibited to consume the meat of an unsupervised
slaughter performed by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, the
Rabbis require one to cover the blood and prohibit one to slaughter
the offspring, due to concern that the person may have performed
a valid slaughter. But with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir that
one is exempt from covering the blood and that one may slaughter
the offspring on the same day, what is the reason he does not rule
stringently due to uncertainty?

‫ ְמ ַחּיֵ יב‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ Rabbi Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: Rabbi Meir would
.‫יט ָתן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם נְ ֵב ָלה‬
ָ ‫ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַעל ׁ ְש ִח‬ deem one liable to receive lashes for eating from the slaughter of
a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, due to violation of the prohi-
‫הֹואיל וְ רֹוב‬
ִ :‫ַמאי ַט ְע ָמא? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִּמי‬
bition against eating from an animal carcass. According to Rabbi
.‫יהן ְמקו ְּל ָק ִלים‬
ֶ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂש‬ Meir there is no uncertainty with regard to such slaughter, and it is
not considered an act of slaughter at all. Consequently, one may
become liable to receive lashes for its consumption. The Gemara
asks: What is the reason? Rabbi Ami says: Since the majority of
actions of a deaf-mute, imbecile, and a minor are bungled, i.e., they
are performed incompetently, it can be assumed that their slaughter
was performed improperly as well.

‫יה דְּ ַרב‬

ּ ‫יה ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ְל ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬
ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Pappa said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and some
‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ּ ‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬,‫הֹוש ַע‬
ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ say that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: Why
did Rabbi Ami specifically state that the reasoning of Rabbi Meir
?‫ ַמאי ִא ְיריָ א רֹוב‬:‫הֹוש ַע ְל ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬
is based on the assumption that the majority of their actions are
‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמיעוּט נַ ִמי! דְּ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ָחיֵ ׁיש‬ bungled? Even if only a minority of their actions are bungled and
‫ וְ ִא ְת ַרע‬,‫ְל ִמיעו ָּטא; ְסמֹוךְ ִמיעו ָּטא ַל ֲחזָ ָקה‬ the majority are performed competently, Rabbi Meir would also
!‫יה רו ָ ּּבא‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ maintain that the animal is considered a carcass, as Rabbi Meir is
concerned for a minority when it can be combined with a pre-
sumptive status. If so, append the minority to the presumptive
statusn of an animal prior to its slaughter, i.e., that it is prohibited
for consumption, and the majority of competent acts of slaughter
is thereby weakened.
60 Ĥullin . perek VI . 86a . ‫ופ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫יסה ו ָּבצֵ ק‬ ָּ ‫ ִּתינֹוק ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א ְ ּבצַ ד ָה ִע‬:‫דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ The Gemara proves that Rabbi Meir is concerned for the minority:
As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 3:8): In the case of a ritually And the Rabbis deem it impure because it is the
,‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין‬,‫ְ ּביָ דֹו – ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ְמ ַט ֵהר‬ manner of a child to handle items – ‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין‬
impure child who is found alongside ritually pure started dough,h
‫ ַמאי‬:‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשדַּ ְר ּכֹו ׁ ֶשל ִּתינֹוק ְל ַט ּ ֵפ ַח; וְ ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬ ‫מ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשדַּ ְר ּכֹו ׁ ֶשל ִּתינֹוק ְל ַט ּ ֵפ ַח‬‎ִ : According to Rashi it is
and he has risen dough in his hand that may have been removed certain that the child touched the dough, as he is
‫ רֹוב ִּתינֹוקֹות‬:‫ַט ְע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר – ָק ָס ַבר‬ from the larger portion of started dough, Rabbi Meir deems the holding some in his hand, and since it is common for
‫יסה זֹו‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ִע‬,‫ ו ִּמיעוּט ֵאין ְמ ַט ּ ְפ ִחין‬,‫ְמ ַט ּ ְפ ִחין‬ started dough pure. This is because there is no proof the child children to touch items found among garbage heaps,
,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬
ֶ ‫ְ ּב ֶחזְ ַקת ָט ֳה ָרה‬ touched it; he might have been given the piece by someone else. in which there are ritually impure items, the Rabbis,
And the Rabbis deem it impure, as they assume he touched the concerned for the majority of cases, ruled stringently
and pronounced the dough ritually impure (see Kid-
started dough. The child is presumed to be impure because it is the
dushin 80a). Rabbi Meir deems the dough ritually
manner of a child to handle items.n And we say with regard to this pure, as there is a minority of young children who do
mishna: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? He holds that a not generally touch items and are therefore ritually
majority of children handle items, in this case the dough, that are pure, in addition to the presumptive ritually pure
within reach, and a minority do not handle items within reach, and status of the dough. According to Rabbi Meir, these
the dough itself retains a presumptive status of purity since its two factors combine to override the majority.
impurity has not been definitively determined. Other early commentaries find Rashi’s interpreta-
tion difficult. Instead, they concur with the explana-
tion of Rabbeinu Tam, who maintains that young
children have a presumptive status of being ritually
impure. They are concerned that it is likely the child
touched the batch of dough, rendering it ritually
halakha impure. The Rabbis maintain that the majority of
A child who is found alongside started dough – ‫ִּתינֹוק ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א ְ ּבצַ ד‬ the dough is considered ritually impure because it is the manner young children commonly touch the dough, thereby
‫יסה‬
ָּ ‫ה ִע‬:ָ In a case of uncertain impurity pertaining to an item that of young children to touch items, and he has likely touched an rendering the entire batch of dough ritually impure.
cannot be questioned in order to determine the actual status, it is impure item, rendering the dough ritually impure as well. Regard- Rabbi Meir relies on the minority of children who do
assumed to be ritually pure. But if the item had a presumptive status less, teruma is not burned on account of this presumptive status not touch the dough and therefore deems the batch
of impurity it is considered impure. For example, in a case where a (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 16:2, 3). of dough ritually pure, as it is possible the piece of
child is found alongside dough and is holding dough in his hand, dough was given to the child by a ritually pure adult.

Perek VI
Daf 86 Amud b

!‫יה רו ָ ּּבא‬
ּ ‫ וְ ִא ְית ַרע ֵל‬,‫ ְסמֹוךְ ִמיעו ָּטא ַל ֲחזָ ָקה‬One appends the minority of children who do not handle items
within reach to the presumptive status of purity of the dough, and
consequently the force of the majority of children who handle
items within reach is weakened. Therefore, the dough is considered
pure. Similarly, with regard to slaughter performed by inept people,
why does Rabbi Ami state that the reason behind Rabbi Meir’s
opinion is due to a majority? Let even a minority of bungled acts of
slaughter join with the presumptive prohibited status of the animal
to render this animal a carcass.

‫ֹאמר ּו ְס ֵפק‬
ְ ‫ י‬,‫ ִאם ָא ְמר ּו ְס ֵפק טו ְּמ ָאה ְל ַט ֵהר‬The Gemara responds that the two cases are not comparable: If they
?‫ ִא ּיסוּר ְל ַה ִּתיר‬said one may append the minority to the presumptive status with
regard to a case of uncertain ritual impurity in order to render the
dough pure, will they say that one may rely on a minority in the
case of an uncertain prohibition in order to permit it? In other
words, without the fact that a majority of the acts of slaughter of a
deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor are bungled, Rabbi Meir could
neither deem one exempt from covering the blood nor allow one
to slaughter the offspring immediately. Consequently, it is due
only to the majority that Rabbi Meir deems one liable for violation
of the prohibition against consuming an animal carcass when
consuming meat from their slaughter.

.‫הֹורה ַר ִ ּבי ַּכ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬

ָ ְ‫ ו‬,‫הֹורה ַר ִ ּבי ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬
ָ § With regard to the dispute in the mishna, the Gemara notes:
?‫יתא‬ָ ‫ ֵהי ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו דְּ ַא ֲח ִר‬Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Meir, who held that if a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor
slaughtered a mother animal, one may subsequently slaughter its
offspring; and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also ruled in accordance
with the opinion of the Rabbis, who held that it is prohibited to
slaughter it. The Gemara asks: Which of these two rulings is the
later, definitive ruling, and which ruling is the retracted one?
 ‫ופ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 86b 61
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר‬

ּ ‫ דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ְ ּב ֵר‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from an incident:
‫יס ִרי‬
ָ ‫ימי ְ ּב ׁשו ָּקא דְּ ֵק‬ ִ ְ‫ַא ָ ּבא וְ ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ֲהו ּו ָקי‬ Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba, and Rabbi Zeira were
standing in the marketplace of Caesarea, at the entrance to the
‫ נְ ַפ ק ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִּמי‬.‫ַא ּ ִפ ְת ָח א דְּ ֵבי ִמ ְד ְר ׁ ָשא‬
study hall. Rabbi Ami exited the study hall and found the two of
,ּ‫ ָלאו ָא ִמינָ א ְלכו‬:ּ‫ ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬,ּ‫ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ִחינְ הו‬ them standing there. Rabbi Ami said to them: Have I not told you
‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא‬,‫ְ ּב ִע ַידן ֵ ּבי ִמ ְד ְר ׁ ָשא ָלא ְּת ִקימ ּו ַא ָ ּב ַראי‬ that at the time when the study hall is in session you should not
‫ וְ ָא ֵתי‬,‫יה ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא‬ ּ ‫ינָש דְּ ִמיצְ ָט ְר ָכא ֵל‬ ׁ ‫יכא ֱא‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ stand outside, as perhaps there is a person inside the study hall
?‫יטרו ֵּדי‬ְּ ‫ְל ִא‬ who requires clarification of a halakha, and he will become both-
ered by it because you will not be inside to assist in offering the
proper explanation?

‫ יָ ְת ִבי וְ ָקא‬.‫ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ָלא ַעל‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ַעל‬ Rabbi Zeira entered the study hall, whereas Rabbi Abba did not
‫ ֵהי ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו ַא ֲח ִר ָיתא? ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ָ ‫ִמ‬ enter. The students were sitting and raising a dilemma: Which of
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s two rulings is the later one? Rabbi Zeira
,‫יה ְל ָס ָבא‬ּ ‫ישּיְ ֵיל‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ָלא ׁ ְש ַב ְק ּתוּן ִלי דֶּ ֱא‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬
said to them: You did not let me know that this is your dilemma
‫ֵיה‬ּ ‫ וַ ֲאבו ּּה ִמ ּינ‬,‫יה ֵמ ֲאבו ּּה‬ ּ ‫דִּ ְיל ָמא ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ֵל‬ while I was outside, which would have allowed me to ask the elder
‫ דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ָּכל ְּת ָל ִתין‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬ָ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ one, i.e., Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba, since perhaps
.‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫יה ַק ֵּמ‬ ּ ‫יֹומין ָקא ְמ ַהדַּ ר ַּת ְלמו ֵּד‬ ִ he heard the answer from his father, Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba. And
perhaps his father heard it from Rabbi Yoĥanan, as Rabbi Ĥiyya
bar Abba would review his studies in front of Rabbi Yoĥanan
every thirty days.

‫ דִּ ׁ ְש ַלח ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬,‫ַמאי ָהוֵ י ֲע ָל ּה? ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about it? The
ָ :‫ַל ּג ָֹולה‬
‫הֹורה ַר ִ ּבי ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר; וְ ָהא ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנַן נַ ִמי‬ Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: Rabbi Elazar sent a
message to the Jews in exile, i.e., Babylonia: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi
,‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ ָהא דְּ ַא ֲח ִר‬:‫אֹורי? ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ֵ
ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara
.‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ challenges: But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also ruled in accordance
with the opinion of the Rabbis. Why did Rabbi Elazar disregard
that ruling? The Gemara concludes: Rather, isn’t it correct to con-
clude from Rabbi Elazar’s message that this ruling of Rabbi Yehuda
HaNasi, which is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, is the later one?
The Gemara affirms: One may in fact conclude from here that this
is so.

– ‫מתני׳ ׁ ָש ַחט ֵמ ָאה ַחּיֹות ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד‬

– ‫ ֵמ ָאה עֹופֹות ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד‬,‫ִּכ ּסוּי ֶא ָחד ְלכו ָּּלן‬
mishna If one slaughtered one hundred undomes-
ticated animals in one place,h one covering
of the blood suffices for all the animals and there is no obligation
– ‫ ַחּיָ ה וְ עֹוף ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד‬.‫ִּכ ּסוּי ֶא ָחד ְלכו ָּּלן‬ to cover the blood of each animal separately. Likewise, if one slaugh-
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ִּכ ּסוּי ֶא ָחד ְלכו ָּּלן‬
‫ ׁ ָש ַחט‬:‫אֹומר‬ tered one hundred birds in one place, one covering of the blood
.‫ וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ יִ ׁ ְשחֹוט ֶאת ָהעֹוף‬,‫ַחּיָ ה – יְ ַכ ֶּס ָּנה‬ suffices for all the birds. If one slaughtered an undomesticated
animal and a bird in one place, one covering for all of the blood
is sufficient. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one slaughtered an undomes-
ticated animal, he should cover its blood immediately and only
thereafter he should slaughter the bird.

ַ :‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬

‫ ֵ ּבין‬,‫״חּיָ ה״ – ּכֹל ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ַחּיָ ה‬
,‫ְמרו ָ ּּבה ו ֵּבין מו ֶּע ֶטת; ״עֹוף״ – ּכֹל ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע עֹוף‬
gemara The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse
states with regard to the mitzva of covering
the blood: “An undomesticated animal or bird” (Leviticus 17:13).
‫ ׁ ָש ַחט‬:ּ‫ֵ ּבין ְמרו ֶ ּּבה ו ֵּבין מו ָּעט; ִמ ָּכאן ָא ְמרו‬ “Undomesticated animal” is inclusive, i.e., any number of animals
,‫ֵמ ָאה ַחּיֹות ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד – ִּכ ּסוּי ֶא ָחד ְלכו ָּּלן‬ is included in the term undomesticated animal, whether many or
,‫ֵמ ָאה עֹופֹות ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד – ִּכ ּסוּי ֶא ָחד ְלכו ָּּלן‬ few. Likewise, “bird” is inclusive, i.e., any amount is included in the
.‫ַחּיָ ה וְ עֹוף ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד – ִּכ ּסוּי ֶא ָחד ְלכו ָּּלן‬ term bird, whether many or few. From here the Rabbis stated: If
one slaughtered one hundred undomesticated animals in one
place, one covering of the blood suffices for all the animals. Like-
wise, if one slaughtered one hundred birds in one place, one cover-
ing of the blood suffices for all the birds. If one slaughtered an
undomesticated animal and a bird in one place, one covering for
all of the blood is sufficient.

‫ וְ ַא ַחר‬,‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ַחּיָ ה – יְ ַכ ֶּס ָּנה‬:‫אֹומר‬

ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says: If one slaughtered an
‫״חּיָ ה אֹו‬ַ :‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ ָּכ ְך יִ ׁ ְשחֹוט ֶאת ָהעֹוף‬undomesticated animal, he should cover its blood immediately
and only thereafter he should slaughter the bird, as it is stated:
.‫עֹוף״‬
“An undomesticated animal or bird” (Leviticus 17:13). The term
“or” indicates that each type must be attended to separately.

halakha
If one slaughtered one hundred undomesticated animals in is sufficient to cover their blood at one time (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
one place – ‫ש ַחט ֵמ ָאה ַחּיֹות ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד‬:
ָ ׁ If one slaughtered one Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:5).
hundred undomesticated animals and birds together in one place, it

62 Ĥullin . perek VI . 86b . ‫ופ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫״כי נֶ ֶפ ׁש ָּכל‬
ִּ ‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ֲה ֵרי הוּא‬:‫ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬ The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But the next verse states: “For
as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life Rabbi Yehuda would concede…that one recites only
‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר דָּ מֹו ְבנַ ְפ ׁשֹו הוּא״! ַמאי ָקא ְמ ַהדְּ ִרי‬ one blessing – ‫ה…ש ֵאינֹו ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬
ֶ ׁ ‫מֹודה ָהיָה ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּד‬
ֶ
thereof.” The Gemara asks: What are the Rabbis responding to
– ‫ ַהאי ״אֹו״‬:‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן‬
ּ ‫יה? ָה ִכי ָק ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ‫א ַחת‬:ַ Rashi explains that once the blood of the undomes-
Rabbi Yehuda with this statement? The Gemara explains: This is ticated animal is covered, it is not necessary for the one
.‫יה ְל ַח ֵּלק‬ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬
ּ ָ ‫ִמ‬ what the Rabbis are saying to him: This term “or” that interposes performing the slaughter to recite another blessing over
between an undomesticated animal and a bird is needed to sepa- the slaughter of the bird. This indicates that the blessing
rate them, in order to indicate that the obligation to cover the blood over the covering of the blood must be recited a second
applies after slaughtering either an undomesticated animal or a bird. time prior to covering the bird’s blood. The rationale is
that since the covering of the blood is viewed either
If not for the term “or” one might have thought the obligation to
as a qualification for the slaughter’s validity or as the
cover the blood takes effect only after slaughtering both an undo- completion of the extended act of slaughter, the act of
mesticated animal and a bird. Accordingly, one cannot derive from covering is not seen as an interruption between the first
this term that the blood of an undomesticated animal and a bird and second acts of slaughter. By contrast, the second
must be covered separately. act of slaughter is seen as an interruption between the
first covering of blood and the second, and therefore a
.‫ ְל ַח ֵּלק – ִמ״דָּ מֹו״ נָ ְפ ָקא‬,‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬And Rabbi Yehuda responds to this: The source for separating the second blessing is required over the covering of blood
(Rashba).
:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ״דָּ מֹו״ – טו ָּבא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬obligations with regard to an undomesticated animal and a bird is
derived from the verse: “And he shall pour out its blood” (Leviti- According to Rabbeinu Tam, only one blessing needs
.‫״כי נֶ ֶפ ׁש ָּכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר דָּ מֹו ְבנַ ְפ ׁשֹו הוּא״‬
ִּ to be recited for both acts of covering the blood. As the
cus 17:13). The verse makes reference to the blood of only one ani-
Gemara explains on the following amud, it is theoretically
mal, indicating that the obligation applies after slaughtering either possible for one to slaughter the bird while simultane-
a bird or an undomesticated animal. And the Rabbis respond that ously covering the blood of the undomesticated ani-
“its blood” also indicates many, as the term: Blood, can refer to any mal, and since no intrinsic interruption would be made
amount of blood. This is demonstrated by that which is written: between the two acts, one blessing therefore suffices
“For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the (Ramban; see Ritva).
life thereof ” (Leviticus 17:14).

‫מֹודה ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬

ֶ :‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ § Rabbi Ĥanina says: Although Rabbi Yehuda holds that one first
‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬,‫ְל ִענְיַ ן ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬ covers the blood of an undomesticated animal before slaughtering
the bird, Rabbi Yehuda would concede with regard to the matter
ּ ‫יה ָר ִבינָ א ְל ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬
‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ַא ַחת‬
of the blessing over their slaughter, i.e., that one recites only one
ּ ‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬,‫דְּ ָר ָבא‬
‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ blessing.nh The Gemara questions this assertion: Ravina said to
?‫ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ִמ ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי דְּ ַרב‬:‫ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, and some say that Rav Aĥa, son of Rava,
said to Rav Ashi: In what way is this case different from the
incident that occurred with the students of Rav?

‫דְּ ַרב ְ ּברוּנָ א וְ ַרב ֲחנַ נְ ֵאל ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי דְּ ַרב ֲהו ּו‬ As it occurred that Rav Beruna and Rav Ĥananel, the students of
‫ ָק ֵאי ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ַרב יֵ ָיבא‬,‫יָ ְת ִבי ִ ּב ְסעו ְּד ָתא‬ Rav, were sitting together at a meal, and Rav Yeiva the Elder stood
over them to serve them. They said to him: Give us a cup of wine
‫ ַהב ִל ְיב ִריךְ ! ֲהדוּר ֲא ַמר ּו‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל‬.‫ָס ָבא‬
over which to recite the blessings of Grace after Meals. They then
,‫יש ֵּתי! ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב יֵ ָיבא ָס ָבא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ַהב ִל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ changed their mind and said to him: Give us a cup of wine to drink.
– ‫״הב ִל ְיב ִריךְ ״‬ ַ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דַּ ֲא ַמר‬:‫ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר ַרב‬ Rav Yeiva the Elder said to them that this is what Rav said: Once
,‫יה ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ַח ְמ ָרא; ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬ ּ ‫ית ַסר ֵל‬ ְ ‫ִא‬ someone at a meal says: Give me a cuph over which to recite the
‫יה‬ ּ ‫יחּיַ יב ֵל‬
ַ ‫יה ְל ִכ ּסוּי – ִא‬ ַּ ‫ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִא‬
ּ ‫יט ּ ַפל ֵל‬ blessings of Grace after Meals, it is prohibited for him to drink
!‫ִל ְב ָר ָכה‬ any more wine, since he has expressed his desire to conclude his
meal. If he now wishes to drink more wine, he must recite a blessing
before drinking it. Ravina asks: Here too, since he is required to
cover the blood of the undomesticated animal before slaughtering
the bird, there is an interruption between the acts of slaughter, and
he has therefore become obligated to recite a new blessing before
slaughtering the bird.

halakha
Rabbi Yehuda would concede…that one recites only one circumstances (Mishna Berura). If he merely verbalized his wish
blessing – ‫ה…ש ֵאינֹו ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָר ָכה ַא ַחת‬
ֶ ׁ ‫מֹודה ָהיָה ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּד‬:
ֶ If one to conclude the meal it is considered as if he diverted his atten-
slaughters domesticated animals, undomesticated animals, and tion from continuing to drink, and therefore he may continue
birds, only one blessing is recited over all the acts of slaughter drinking only if he recites a new blessing. This is in accordance
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh with the opinion of Rav Yeiva the Elder, as explained by Rashi.
De’a 19:2). The Rosh maintains that eating has the same status as drinking.
Rabbeinu Yona holds that eating does not have the same status
Once someone says give me a cup, etc. – ‫כיוָ ן דַּ ֲא ַמר ַהב וכו׳‬:ֵּ as drinking. He maintains that so long as one has not yet washed
One who finished his meal and washed his hands with the last his hands with the last waters, even if the table was completely
waters, i.e., the water used for washing one’s hands at the con- cleared it is permitted to continue eating. It is preferable to act in
clusion of the meal before reciting the Grace after Meals, is not accordance with the opinion of the Rosh (Rambam Sefer Ahava,
permitted to eat or drink until after reciting the Grace after Meals, Hilkhot Berakhot 4:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 179:1 and Mishna
although the later commentaries make allowances under certain Berura there).

 ‫ופ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 86b 63

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VI
Daf 87 Amud a
notes
‫ ָה ִכי ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא? ָה ָתם – ִמ ׁ ְש ָּתא ו ָּברו ֵּכי ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי‬The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There,
So that mitzvot will not be contemptible him –
‫ש ּל ֹא יִ ְהי ּו ִמצְ �ֹות ְ ּבזוּיֹות ָע ָליו‬:
ֶ ׁ Alternatively, this is so ‫ ָה ָכא – ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר דְּ ׁ ָש ֵחיט‬,‫ ֲה ָד ֵדי ָלא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬in the incident involving the students of Rav, it is impossible to
drink and recite a blessing simultaneously. Accordingly, by
that mitzvot not be performed in a casual manner .‫ ו ְּמ ַכ ֵּסי ַ ּב ֲח ָדא‬,‫ַ ּב ֲח ָדא‬
(Tosefta 6:1). requesting a cup over which to recite the blessing of Grace after
Meals, they demonstrated their desire to cease drinking. Here, when
And Rabban Gamliel deemed him obligated to
one covers the blood of the undomesticated animal before slaugh-
ֵ ‫וְ ִחּיְ יבֹו ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬
give ten gold coins – ‫יאל ִל ֵּיתן לֹו ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה‬
‫זְ הו ִּבים‬: Clearly, this was not meant as payment of tering the bird, it is possible to slaughter the bird with the one
the value of the mitzva itself but as a fine for the hand and cover the blood of the undomesticated animal with the
pain incurred by the one who lost the opportunity other one. Accordingly, the act of covering the blood of the undo-
to perform the mitzva (Ĥatam Sofer). The early mesticated animal is not considered an interruption of the acts of
commentaries discuss the nature of this obligation. slaughter, since they could have been performed simultaneously.
The Rambam and the Shulĥan Arukh view this as a
fixed sum incumbent upon anyone who prevents
another from performing a mitzva. Others hold
that the sum of the fine is determined based on
‫ וְ ָר ָאה ּו ַא ֵחר – ַחּיָ יב‬,‫מתני׳ ׁ ָש ַחט וְ ל ֹא ִּכ ָּסה‬
‫ ִּכ ָּסה ּו‬.‫ ִּכ ָּסה ּו וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬.‫ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬
mishna If one slaughtered an undomesticated ani-
mal or bird and did not cover the blood, and
another person saw the uncovered blood,h the second person is
the judges’ assessment of the particular case. For .‫ ָהרו ַּח – ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬obligated to cover the blood. If one covered the blood and it was
instance, if the individual deprived of the mitzva
is particularly fastidious in his mitzva performance then uncovered, he is exempt from covering it again. If the wind
the fine is likely to be increased, while in an oppo- blew earth on the blood and covered it, and it was consequently
site case the fine is likely to be decreased (Sma). uncovered, he is obligated to cover the blood.
The early commentaries write that this penalty
does not apply nowadays, as the Jewish courts do
not adjudicate cases where there was no monetary
loss (Tosafot; see Bava Kamma 84b).
ְ‫ ״וְ ׁ ָש ַפךְ …וְ ִכ ָּסה״ – ִמי ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַפך‬:‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬
‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬,‫ וְ ָר ָאה ּו ַא ֵחר‬,‫ ׁ ָש ַחט וְ ל ֹא ִּכ ָּסה‬.‫יְ ַכ ֶּסה‬
gemara The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse
states: “And he shall pour out its blood and
cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13), indicating that the one who
– ‫יִש ָר ֵאל״‬ ׂ ְ ‫ ״וָ א ַֹמר ִל ְבנֵי‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות? ׁ ֶש ּנ ֱֶא ַמר‬poured out its blood, i.e., slaughtered the animal, shall cover it. If
.‫ ַאזְ ָה ָרה ְל ָכל ְ ּבנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬one slaughtered the animal or bird and did not cover the blood,
and another person saw the uncovered blood, from where is it
derived that the person who saw the blood is obligated to cover
it? It is derived from the following verse, as it is stated: “Therefore
I said to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 17:12), which is a warn-
ing to all the children of Israel to fulfill the mitzva of covering
the blood.

– ְ‫ ״וְ ׁ ָש ַפךְ…וְ ִכ ָּסה״ – ְ ּב ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַפך‬: ְ‫ַּתנְיָא ִא ָידך‬ It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour
‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ְהי ּו ִמצְ וֹת‬,‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יְ ַכ ֶּסנּ ּו ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬,‫ּבֹו יְ ַכ ֶּסה‬ out its blood and cover it with earth,” indicating that with that
which he poured out the blood he shall cover it, i.e., he must use
‫ ״וְ ׁ ָש ַפךְ…וְ ִכ ָּסה״ – ִמי‬: ְ‫ ַּתנְיָא ִא ָידך‬.‫ְ ּבזוּיֹות ָע ָליו‬
his hand, and he may not cover it with his foot,h so that mitzvot
,‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַחט‬.ּ‫ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַפ ְך הוּא יְ ַכ ֶּסנּ ו‬ will not be contemptible to him.n It is taught in another baraita:
‫יתן‬ֵּ ‫יאל ִל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִחּיְ יבֹו ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬,‫וְ ָק ַדם ֲח ֵבירֹו וְ ִכ ָּסה‬ The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with
.‫לֹו ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה זְ הו ִּבים‬ earth,” indicating that the one who poured out the blood shall
cover it. An incident occurred involving one who slaughtered an
undomesticated animal or bird and another individual preempted
him and covered the blood, and Rabban Gamliel deemed him
obligated to give ten gold coinsnh to the one who performed the
act of slaughter.

halakha
If one slaughtered and did not cover the blood and another per- to the mitzva (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:16; Shulĥan
son saw the uncovered blood – ‫ש ַחט וְ ל ֹא ִּכ ָּסה וְ ָר ָאה ּו ַא ֵחר‬:
ָ ׁ In a case Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:6).
where one slaughtered an undomesticated animal or a bird and
did not cover its blood, if another individual saw the exposed blood And Rabban Gamliel deemed him obligated to give ten gold
he is obligated to cover it. In a case where one covered the blood ֵ ‫וְ ִחּיְ יבֹו ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬: In a case where one
coins – ‫יאל ִל ֵּיתן לֹו ֲע ָ ׂש ָרה זְ הו ִּבים‬
and it became exposed again, he is exempt from the obligation to covers the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or a bird
cover it again. In a case where the wind blew earth and covered the without the slaughterer’s consent, the one who covered the blood
blood and the blood then became exposed, the obligation to cover is obligated to compensate the slaughterer according to the judges’
the blood remains (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:7, 15; assessment. Others maintain he pays the slaughterer the fixed sum
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:8, 11). of ten gold coins. The early commentaries write that although this
fine is not imposed nowadays, if the slaughterer received payment
He may not cover it with his foot – ‫ש ּל ֹא יְ ַכ ֶּסנּ ּו ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬:
ֶ ׁ The mitzva of from the one who covered the blood, the slaughterer is entitled to
covering the blood may be performed by using one’s hand, a knife, keep the money (Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot Ĥovel UMazik 7:14;
or another instrument. One may not use his foot, as this is degrading Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 382:1).

64 Ĥullin . perek VI . 87a . ‫זפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
?‫ אֹו ְ ׂש ַכר ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬,‫ ְ ׂש ַכר ִמצְ וָ ה‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬
ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Are these ten gold coins
compensation for the stolen mitzva or are they compensation for He Who created mountains did not create wind…
‫ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה – ְל ִב ְר ַּכת ַה ָּמזֹון; ִאי‬ the Lord the God of hosts is His name – ‫ִמי ׁ ֶשּיָ צַ ר‬
the stolen blessing recited over the mitzva? The Gemara elaborates:
‫ וְ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬,‫ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ְ ׂש ַכר ִמצְ וָ ה – ַא ַחת ִהיא‬ ‫ה ִרים ל ֹא ָ ּב ָרא רו ַּח…ה׳ צְ ָבאֹות ׁ ְשמֹו‬:ָ The term heretic in
What is the practical difference? The difference is with regard to a this context is a general reference to a heretic or a
?‫ ַמאי‬,‫ְ ׂש ַכר ְ ּב ָר ָכה – ָהוְ יָ ין ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ similar case involving Grace after Meals. If you say the coins are dissident to the Torah, and this includes Christians.
compensation for the mitzva, then with regard to Grace after Meals, These heretics were experts in Bible and utilized their
since all its blessings constitute one mitzva, one would be obligated expertise in attempting to prove the veracity of their
to give only ten gold coins. But if you say they are compensation for beliefs from the Bible itself. In the context of this
Gemara, the heretic attempted to demonstrate the
the lost blessing, then with regard to Grace after Meals the compen-
concept of ditheism, the distinction between a god
sation is forty gold coins, since Grace after Meals comprises four of day and a god of night, from a verse in the Bible
blessings. What is the conclusion? (see Gilyon HaShas). Rabbi Eliyahu of Paris writes that
as a result of this attempted claim, the Sages insti-
:‫יה ַההוּא ִמינָ א ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from an incident in tuted that a person mention: The Lord of hosts is His
‫ ו ִּמי ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ָרא‬,‫ִמי ׁ ֶשּיָ צַ ר ָה ִרים – ל ֹא ָ ּב ָרא רו ַּח‬ which a certain heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He who cre- name, at the conclusion of the first blessing recited
ated mountains did not create wind, and he who created wind did before Shema during the evening prayers (Ritva).
‫״כי ִה ֵּנה יֹוצֵ ר‬ ִּ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫רו ַּח – ל ֹא יָ צַ ר ָה ִרים‬
not create mountains; rather, each was created by a separate deity,
‫ ׁ ְש ִפיל‬,‫ֹוטה‬ ֶ ‫ ׁש‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָה ִרים ּוב ֵֹרא רו ַּח״! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ as it is written: “For behold, He Who forms the mountains and
.‫יה דִּ ְק ָרא – ״ה׳ צְ ָבאֹות ׁ ְשמֹו״‬ ּ ‫ְל ֵס ֵיפ‬ He Who creates the wind” (Amos 4:13), indicating that there are halakha

two deities: One who forms the mountains and one who creates the You shall return even one hundred times – ‫ָה ׁ ֵשב‬
ּ ‫א ִפ‬:
‫יל ּו ֵמ ָאה ּ ְפ ָע ִמים‬ ֲ There is no limit to the number
wind. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Imbecile, go to the end of
of times one is obligated to return the same lost
the verse, which states: “The Lord, the God of hosts, is His name.”n item. Therefore, if one returned a lost animal and it
The verse emphasizes that God is the One Who both forms and subsequently became lost once more, even the one
creates. who first returned it is obligated to return it again
(Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot Gezeila VaAveda 11:14;
,‫יֹומי‬
ֵ ‫ימנָ א ְּת ָל ָתא‬ ְ ִ‫ נְ קֹוט ִלי ז‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ The heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Give me three days’ time Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 267:2).
‫ יְ ֵתיב ַר ִ ּבי ְּת ָלת‬.‫ו ַּמ ְהדַּ ְרנָ א ָל ְך ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬ and I will respond to you with a rebuttal of your claim. Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi sat and fasted three days of fasting while awaiting
‫ ֲא ַמר ּו‬,‫ ִּכי ֲהוָ ה ָקא ָ ּב ֵעי ִמ ְיב ָר ְך‬.‫נִיתא‬
ָ ‫ַּת ֲע‬
the heretic, in order that he would not find a rebuttal. When Rabbi
‫ ״וַ ּיִ ְּתנ ּו‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ִמינָ א ָק ֵאי ַא ָ ּב ָבא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ Yehuda HaNasi wanted to have a meal at the conclusion of those
.‫רֹוש״ וְ גו׳‬
ׁ ‫ְ ּב ָברו ִּתי‬ three days, they said to him: That heretic is standing at the doorway.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi recited the following verse about himself:
“They put gall into my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar
to drink” (Psalms 69:22), i.e., my meal is embittered with the presence
of this heretic.

‫ ל ֹא‬, ָ‫ ְמ ַב ּ ֵ ׂשר טֹובֹות ֲאנִי ְלך‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to the door he saw that it was in
.‫ וְ נָ ַפל ִמן ַה ַ ּגג וָ ֵמת‬, ָ‫אֹויִבך‬
ְ ‫ָמצָ א ְּת ׁשו ָּבה‬ fact a different heretic, not the one who asked for three days to pre-
pare a rebuttal. This heretic said to him: Rabbi, I am a bearer of good
:‫ ְרצֹונְ ךָ ׁ ֶש ִּת ְסעֹוד ֶאצְ ִלי? ָא ַמר לֹו‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬
tidings for you: Your enemy did not find a response, and he threw
‫ ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬,ּ‫ ְל ַא ַחר ׁ ֶש ָא ְכל ּו וְ ׁ ָשתו‬.‫ֵהן‬ himself from the roof and died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the
‫ אֹו ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים זְ הו ִּבים‬,‫ֹותה‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּב ָר ָכה ַא ָּתה ׁש‬ heretic: Since you have brought me good tidings, would you like to
‫ ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ָר ָכה ֲאנִי‬:‫נֹוטל? ָא ַמר לֹו‬ ֵ ‫ַא ָּתה‬ dine with me? The heretic said to him: Yes. After they ate and drank,
‫ ּכֹוס ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ יָ צְ ָתה ַ ּבת קֹול וְ ָא ְמ ָרה‬.‫ֹותה‬ ֶ ‫ׁש‬ Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the heretic: Would you like to drink
.‫ְ ּב ָר ָכה יִ ׁ ְשוֶ ה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים זְ הו ִּבים‬ the cup of blessing, i.e., the cup of wine over which the Grace after
Meals is recited, or would you like to take forty gold coins instead,
and I will recite the Grace after Meals? The heretic said to him: I will
drink the cup of blessing. A Divine Voice emerged and said: The
cup of blessing is worth forty gold coins. Evidently, each one of the
blessings in the Grace after Meals is worth ten gold coins.

‫אֹות ּה‬
ָ ‫ ֲע ַדיִ ין יֶ ׁ ְשנָ ּה ְל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬The Gemara adds: Rabbi Yitzĥak says: That family of the heretic
‫אֹות ּה‬
ָ ‫קֹור ִאין‬ְ ְ‫ ו‬,‫רֹומי‬ ִ ‫דֹולי‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ָפ ָחה ֵ ּבין ְ ּג‬who dined with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi still exists among the promi-
nent families of Rome, and that family is called: The family of bar
.‫ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ַפ ַחת ַ ּבר לוּּיַ אנוּס‬
Luyyanus.

‫יה‬
ּ ‫יה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫״כ ָּסה ּו וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה״‬
ִּ § The mishna teaches that if one covered the blood and it was then
‫ ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ֵמ ֲה ׁ ָש ַבת‬:‫דְּ ָר ָבא ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ uncovered he is not obligated to cover it again. Rav Aĥa, son of Rava,
said to Rav Ashi: What is different about this case from the mitzva
‫״ה ׁ ֵשב״ – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵמ ָאה‬ָ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ָמר‬,‫ֲא ֵב ָדה‬
of returning a lost item, where the Master said: The verse states with
?‫ּ ְפ ָע ִמים‬ regard to the obligation to return a lost item: “You shall return them
to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1), even one hundred times?h

‫ ָה ָכא‬,‫ ָה ָתם ָלא ְּכ ִתיב ִמיעו ָּטא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rav Ashi said to Rav Aĥa: There, in the verse discussing the obliga-
.‫ ְּכ ִתיב ִמיעו ָּטא – ״וְ ִכ ָּסהוּ״‬tion to return a lost item, a restriction is not written in the verse to
limit the obligation. Here, in the verse discussing the obligation to
cover the blood, a restriction is written, as the verse states: “And he
shall cover it.” The usage of the term “it” indicates that one must cover
the blood only one time.
 ‫זפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 87a 65
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה‬.‫״כ ָּסה ּו ָהרו ַּח״‬ ִּ § The mishna teaches that if the wind blew earth on the blood and
One slaughters and its blood is absorbed by the covered it one is obligated to cover the blood. Rabba bar bar Ĥana
ֵ ‫ה ׁ ּש‬:ַ In a case where one
ground – ‫ֹוחט וְ נִ ְב ַלע דָּ ם ַ ּב ַ ּק ְר ַקע‬
‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ָחזַ ר‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬
says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: They taught this halakha only if the
slaughtered either a domesticated animal or a bird and its ‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ָחזַ ר וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה – ּ ָפטוּר‬,‫וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה‬
blood became absorbed into the ground, if the impres- blood was again uncovered. But if the blood was not again uncov-
‫ וְ ִכי ָחזַ ר וְ נִ ְת ַ ּג ָּלה ַמאי ָהוֵ י? ָהא‬.‫ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬ ered one is exempt from the obligation to cover it. The Gemara
sion of the blood is still discernable, the obligation to cover
the blood still remains (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot :‫אֹומ ֶרת‬
ֶ ‫ זֹאת‬,‫יה! ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫ִאידַּ ֵחי ֵל‬ asks: And when the blood was again uncovered, what of it? Isn’t
Sheĥita 14:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:10). .‫ֵאין דִּ יחוּי ֵאצֶ ל ִמצְ וֹת‬ it already rejected from the mitzva of covering since it was covered
The blood of an undomesticated animal or bird that by the wind? Rav Pappa said: That is to say that there is no per-
was mixed with water – ‫דָּ ם ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ֵרב ְ ּב ַמיִ ם‬: In a case manent rejection with regard to mitzvot. Although the wind cov-
where the blood of either an undomesticated animal or ered the blood, the mitzva to cover it was not rendered null; rather,
a bird became mixed with water, if the mixture retains the the mitzva simply could not be performed. Consequently, once the
appearance of blood one is obligated to cover it; if not, blood is again uncovered, the mitzva to cover the blood remains
there is no obligation. If the blood became mixed with
in place.
wine or with the blood of a domesticated animal, the
wine or blood of the domesticated animal is viewed as if
it is water and the aforementioned criterion is applied. This
ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫ ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ֵמ ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא‬The Gemara asks: But even if the wind covered the blood and it
‫ֹוחט וְ נִ ְב ַלע‬
halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in ‫ דָּ ם ַ ּב ַ ּק ְר ַקע – ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות? ָה ָתם‬remained covered, why is one exempt from performing the mitzva
the mishna (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:6; of covering the blood? What is different about this case from that
ָּ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִר ׁ ּשוּמֹו‬
.‫נִיכר‬
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:12–13). which is taught in a baraita: In a case where one slaughters an
undomesticated animal or a bird and its blood is absorbed by
the ground,h one is obligated to cover the blood? The Gemara
responds: There, the baraita is referring to a case where the impres-
sion of the blood is still recognizable, i.e., it was not entirely
absorbed in the ground.

‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש‬,‫מתני׳ דָּ ם ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ֵרב ְ ּב ַמיִ ם‬

‫ נִ ְת ָע ֵרב‬.‫ּבֹו ַמ ְר ִאית דָּ ם – ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬
mishna In a case of the blood of an undomesticated
animal or bird that was mixed with water,h
if there is in the mixture the appearance of blood one is obligated
.‫יל ּו הוּא ַמיִ ם‬ ּ ‫רֹואין אֹותֹו ְּכ ִא‬ ִ – ‫ ְ ּביַ יִ ן‬to cover it. If the blood was mixed with wine one views the wine
‫ נִ ְת ָע ֵרב ְ ּב ַדם ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬as though it is water, and if a mixture with that amount of water
would have the appearance of blood one is obligated to cover it.
Likewise, if the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird was
mixed with the blood of a domesticated animal, which one does
not have to cover,

Perek VI
Daf 87 Amud b
halakha
‫רֹואין אֹותֹו ְּכ ִאילּ ּו ֵהן‬
ִ – ‫ אֹו ְ ּב ַדם ַה ַחּיָ ה‬or with blood of the undomesticated animal that did not flow
Blood that spurts and that remained on the knife –
‫ִיתז וְ ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ַּס ִּכין‬
ָּ ‫דָּ ם ַה ּנ‬: In a case where the blood of an undo- ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ ַמיִ ם‬from the neck and does not require covering, one views the blood
‫ ֵאין דָּ ם ְמ ַב ֵּטל‬:‫אֹומר‬
as though it is water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify
mesticated animal or bird spurted out of the slaughter .‫דָּ ם‬
area or remained on the slaughtering knife, if no other blood. Therefore, even if the undomesticated animal’s blood, which
blood from the slaughter remains, one is obligated to one must cover, is not recognizable in this mixture, he is obligated
cover the blood that spurted out or that remained on the to cover the mixture nevertheless.
knife, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:8, and see .‫ִיתז וְ ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ַּס ִּכין – ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬
ָּ ‫דָּ ם ַה ּנ‬ With regard to blood that spurts outside the pit over which the
Ra’avad there; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:15). animal was slaughtered, or onto a wall, and blood that remained on
‫ימ ַתי? ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬
ָ ‫ ֵא‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬
Blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with the slaughtering knife,h one is obligated to cover it. Rabbi Yehuda
‫ ֲא ָבל יֵ ׁש ׁ ָשם דָּ ם‬,‫ׁ ָשם דָּ ם ֶא ָּלא הוּא‬
water, etc. – ‫דָּ ם ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ֵרב ְ ּב ַמיִ ם וכו׳‬: In a case where water said: When is this the halakha? When no blood remains there from
fell into blood that was in a basin, if it has the appearance .‫ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא הוּא – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬ the slaughter except that blood. But if blood remains there from
of blood it is fit. If red wine or non-sacred blood fell into the slaughter that is not that blood, he is exempt from covering it.
the blood one considers the wine as though it is water,
and if that amount of water would negate the appearance
of blood from the mixture it is unfit for presentation. If
that amount of water would leave the mixture with the
,‫ דָּ ם ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ֵרב ְ ּב ַמיִ ם‬:‫גמ׳ ְּתנַ ן ָה ָתם‬
‫ נִ ְת ָע ֵרב‬.‫ִאם יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ַמ ְר ִאית דָּ ם – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר‬
gemara We learned in a mishna there (Zevaĥim
77b): In the case of blood of an offering fit
appearance of blood it is fit for presentation. This halakha
for sacrifice that was mixed with water,h if the mixture has the
.‫יל ּו הוּא ַמיִ ם‬ ּ ‫רֹואין אֹותֹו ְּכ ִא‬ ִ – ‫ְ ּביַ יִ ן‬ appearance of blood it is fit for sprinkling on the altar, even though
is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam
Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 2:22). – ‫נִ ְת ָע ֵרב ְ ּב ַדם ְ ּב ֵה ָמה אֹו ְ ּב ַדם ַה ַחּיָ ה‬ the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood was mixed with
‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫רֹואין אֹותֹו ְּכ ִאילּ ּו הוּא ַמיִ ם‬
ִ red wine, one views the wine as though it is water. If that amount
.‫ ֵאין דָּ ם ְמ ַב ֵּטל דָּ ם‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood it
is fit for presentation. And likewise, if the blood was mixed with
the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or the blood of
a non-sacred undomesticated animal, one considers the non-
sacred blood as though it is water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does
not nullify blood. Therefore, the priest presents the blood of the
mixture on the altar.
66 Ĥullin . perek VI . 87b . ‫זפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬The mishna teaches that in a case where water became mixed with the
And render food susceptible to contracting
‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ָּנ ְפל ּו ַמיִ ם ְלתֹוךְ דָּ ם‬blood of an offering, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit, ritual impurity – ‫ו ַּמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬: The mishna (Makh-
despite the fact that there is more water than blood. Concerning this
.‫אשֹון ָ ּב ֵטל‬
ׁ ‫אשֹון ִר‬
ׁ ‫נָ ַפל דָּ ם ְלתֹוךְ ַמיִ ם – ִר‬ shirin 6:4) delineates seven liquids that render
Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: They taught food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity:
this halakha only in a case where the water fell into the blood. But Wine, blood, oil, milk, dew, honey, and water.
in a case where the blood fell into the water, the first drop of blood,
Is punishable by karet provided that there is at
and then the next first drop of blood, are nullifiedh in the water, i.e., least one olive-bulk of blood – ‫ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת וְ הוּא‬
each drop is nullified in turn. Consequently, the mixture is unfit for ‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
ָּ ‫דְּ ִא‬: Some explain this to mean one is
presentation, regardless of whether it has the appearance of blood. liable to receive karet as long as he consumes at
least one olive-bulk of blood, even if the mixture
‫ ֵאין דִּ חוּי‬,‫ ו ְּל ִענְיַ ן ִּכ ּסוּי ֵאינֹו ֵּכן‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬Rav Pappa says: But with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood contains so much clear plasma that the olive-
.‫ ֵאצֶ ל ִמצְ וֹת‬of birds or undomesticated animals that are slaughtered, it is not so. In bulk of blood would be consumed in a period
this case, even if the blood fell into water the mitzva of covering applies greater than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of
to it, provided the mixture has the appearance of blood. The blood is bread. This is because the blood is not nullified
by the plasma (Ritva). Others suggest that Rabbi
not nullified by the water because there is no permanent rejection
Yirmeya means one is liable to receive karet even
with regard to mitzvot other than those that relate to sacrificial rites. for consuming one olive-bulk of the plasma, pro-
Therefore, its nullification was merely temporary, but once there is vided it has a reddish hue (Rambam, as explained
enough blood in the water it reassumes its status of blood. by Torat Ĥayyim). Alternatively, some explain that
Rabbi Yirmeya is referring to the plasma alone, i.e.,
‫ ָּכל ַמ ְר ֵאה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ § With regard to mixtures of blood and water, Rav Yehuda says that one is liable to receive karet for the consumption
‫ וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין‬,‫ ו ַּמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין‬,‫ַא ְדמו ִּמית – ְמ ַכ ּ ְפ ִרין‬ Shmuel says: All mixtures of blood and water that maintain a reddish of a quantity of plasma that could coagulate and
hue are considered blood and effect atonement by being presented on form an olive-bulk of blood (Responsa Ĥatam
,‫ ַמאי ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן? ְמ ַכ ּ ְפ ִרין – ָּתנֵינָ א‬.‫ְ ּב ִכ ּסוּי‬ Sofer Yoreh De’a 70, citing Shabbat 77a).
the altar, and render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity,n
!‫ַחּיָ ִיבין ְ ּב ִכ ּסוּי – ָּתנֵינָ א‬ and are included in the obligation of covering the blood provided that
the blood is from the slaughter of an undomesticated animal or bird. background

The Gemara asks: What is Rav Yehuda teaching us? If he is teaching us Blood plasma – ‫צְ ַל ְל ָּתא דִּ ְד ָמא‬: This is a mostly
clear liquid with a yellowish hue and constitutes
that such mixtures effect atonement, we already learn this from the
approximately 55 percent of the body’s total
mishna in tractate Zevaĥim. And if he is teaching us that such mixtures blood volume. Ninety percent of plasma is water,
are included in the obligation of covering the blood, we already learn and the rest is made up of various proteins and
this in the mishna here. salts. The red part of the blood is essentially red
blood cells, which carry oxygen to the other cells
‫ ִאי‬,‫ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין נַ ִמי‬.‫יה‬ּ ‫יכא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ַמ ְכ ׁ ִש ִירין ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬Rather, it was necessary for Rav Yehuda to teach that such mixtures in the body.
‫ ִאי ַמּיָ א – ַא ְכ ׁשו ֵּרי‬,‫ דָּ ם – ַא ְכ ׁשו ֵּרי ַמ ְכ ׁ ַשר‬render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, as this was not Separation of the blood from the plasma
taught in a mishna. The Gemara challenges: It is also unnecessary to occurs naturally when blood is either stagnant
.‫ ׁ ֶש ִּת ְּמדֹו ְ ּב ֵמי גְ ׁ ָש ִמים‬,‫יכא‬ָ ‫ַמ ְכ ׁ ְש ִרי! ָלא צְ ִר‬ or clots. The scenario described by the Gemara,
teach that such mixtures render food susceptible to contracting ritual
in which the plasma retains a reddish hue from
impurity. If the mixture has the status of blood it renders food suscep-
the blood, is an intermediate stage, when the
tible, as does blood, and if the mixture has the status of water it ren- red blood cells separated only partially from the
ders food susceptible, as does water. The Gemara responds: No, this plasma, or is a case of hemolysis, which is the
statement is necessary in a case where the blood was mixed with rupture or destruction of red blood cells.
rainwater, which does not render food susceptible without the intent
or desire of the owner of the food. If the mixture is considered blood
it renders food susceptible.

– ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ׁ ָש ֵקיל וְ ָר ֵמי‬,‫ ֵמי גְ ׁ ָש ִמים נַ ִמי‬The Gemara challenges: With regard to rainwater as well, since one
.‫ ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ְמד ּו ֵמ ֲא ֵל ֶיהן‬,‫ ַא ְח ׁ ְש ִבינְ הוּ! ָלא צְ ִר ָיכא‬took it and placed it into a vessel containing blood, he has ascribed
significance to the rainwater and it should be capable of rendering food
susceptible. The Gemara responds: No, this statement is necessary in
a case where the rainwater was mixed with the blood by itself, i.e., it Tubes of blood plasma
was not gathered and poured purposefully.

.‫ ִ ּבצְ ַל ְל ָּתא דִּ ְד ָמא‬:‫אֹומר‬

ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ִמ ְּנ ַה ְר ִ ּביל‬ Rabbi Asi of Neharbil says: The statement of Rav Yehuda is referring
‫ וְ הוּא‬,‫ ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ִמדִּ ְפ ִּתי ֲא ַמר‬ to blood plasma,b i.e., if the plasma has a reddish hue due to the blood,
it has the status of blood and can render food susceptible to contracting
‫ ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאים‬:‫נִיתא ָּתנָ א‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ַמ ְת‬.‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
ָּ ‫דְּ ִא‬
ritual impurity. Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: Consumption of this
.‫יעית‬ ִ ‫יכא ְר ִב‬
ָּ ‫ וְ הוּא דְּ ִא‬,‫ְ ּבא ֶֹהל‬ plasma is punishable by karet, as is the halakha with regard to one who
consumes blood (see Leviticus 17:14), provided that there is at least
one olive-bulk of actual blood.n It was taught in a baraita: Blood
plasma that issues from a corpse that has a reddish hue imparts ritual
impurity in a tent, provided that there is at least a quarter-log of
actual blood,h which is the amount of a corpse’s blood that imparts
ritual impurity.
halakha
But if the blood fell into the water the first drop and then the next Imparts ritual impurity in a tent provided that there is at least a
first drop are nullified – ‫אשֹון ָ ּב ֵטל‬
ׁ ‫אשֹון ִר‬
ׁ ‫תֹוך ַמיִ ם ִר‬
ְ ‫א ָבל נָ ַפל דָּ ם ְל‬:
ֲ If quarter-log of blood – ‫יעית‬
ִ ‫יכא ְר ִב‬
ָּ ‫מ ַט ְּמ ִאים ְ ּבא ֶֹהל וְ הוּא דְּ ִא‬:ְ Touching
the blood of consecrated offerings became mixed into either water blood that issues from a corpse imparts ritual impurity in a tent to
or the blood of non-consecrated animals, such a mixture may not the same degree as touching or carrying the actual corpse, provided
be presented on the altar, even after the fact (Rambam Sefer Avoda, there was a minimum amount of a quarter-log of blood. Even the
Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 2:22). blood plasma imparts ritual impurity, provided it retains the reddish
hue of the blood (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 2:12, 3:13).

 ‫זפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 87b 67

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ חוּץ‬,‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ ָּכל ַמ ׁ ְש ֵקה ַה ֵּמת – ְט‬:‫ְּתנַן ָה ָתם‬ We learned in a baraita elsewhere (Tosefta, Oholot 4:5): All liquids
‫ִמדָּ מֹו; וְ ָכל ַמ ְר ֵאה ַא ְדמו ִּמית ׁ ֶש ּבֹו – ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין‬ that issue from a corpse, e.g., teardrops or breastmilk, are ritually
pure,h except for its blood. And all liquids that issue from a corpse
:ּ‫הֹורין? ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬ ִ ‫ ו ַּמ ׁ ְש ֵקה ַה ֵּמת ְט‬.‫ְ ּבא ֶֹהל‬
that contain a reddish hue of blood impart ritual impurity in a tent.
– ‫ ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַהּיֹוצְ ִאין ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו‬,‫ַמ ׁ ְש ֵקה ְטבוּל יֹום‬ The Gemara asks: But are liquids that issue from a corpse ritually
,‫ְּכ ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ׁ ֶשנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ָ ּב ֶהן‬ pure? And raise a contradiction from a mishna (Tevul Yom 2:1):
With regard to liquids that issue from one who immersed that
day,hn liquids that issue from him have the same status as liquids
that he touches.

halakha
All liquids that issue from a corpse are ritually pure – ‫ָּכל ַמ ׁ ְש ֵקה‬ the status of liquids touched by that individual; namely, first-degree
‫הֹורין‬
ִ ‫ה ֵּמת ְט‬:ַ All liquids that issue from a corpse are ritually pure, impurity. By contrast, liquids that issue from a zav are considered
except for its blood. Although the Sages decreed that all other primary sources of ritual impurity. Liquids that issue from one who
liquids that issue from other impure sources impart ritual impurity, immersed himself that day have the status of liquids that he himself
they saw no reason to decree this with regard to the liquids issuing touched. For instance, if he touched non-sacred liquid, the liquid is
from a corpse because people are careful to avoid contact. This is considered ritually pure. If he touched a liquid of teruma, it assumes
in accordance with the ruling of the baraita, as explained by the third-degree impurity. If he touched a liquid that was consecrated,
Gemara on 88a (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 3:13). the liquid assumes fourth-degree impurity. This is in accordance
Liquids that issue from one who immersed that day – ‫ַמ ׁ ְש ֵקה‬ with the mishna in Tevul Yom (2:1), as explained by the Gemara
‫טבוּל יֹום‬:ְ Liquids that issue from a ritually impure individual have on 88a (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 10:4).

notes
One who immersed that day – ‫טבוּל יֹום‬:ְ This refers to an individual ritual impurity and disqualifies teruma for consumption if touched
who immersed himself to remove ritual impurity, and the sun has by him. Nevertheless, the teruma he touches does not impart ritual
not yet set. Although he is ritually pure with regard to eating non- impurity to other teruma it touches, as teruma with a third-degree
sacred food and second tithe, he may not partake of teruma until status of impurity cannot impart fourth-degree impurity to other
nightfall. Until nightfall, he is considered to have second-degree teruma.

Perek VI
Daf 88 Amud a

,‫ ו ׁ ְּש ָאר ָּכל ַה ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬.‫וְ ֵאלּ ּו וָ ֵאלּ ּו ֵאין ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין‬ And both these and those, i.e., both liquids that issue from one who
‫ֵ ּבין ַק ִּלין ֵ ּבין ֲחמו ִּרין – ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַהּיֹוצְ ִאין ֵמ ֶהן‬ immersed himself that day and liquids he touches, do not impart
ritual impurity. And with regard to all other sources of impurity,
‫ חוּץ‬,‫ וְ ֵאלּ ּו וָ ֵאלּ ּו ְּת ִח ָּלה‬.‫ְּכ ַמ ׁ ְש ֶקה ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ָ ּב ֶהן‬
whether minor sources or major sources, liquids that issue from
.‫ִמן ַה ַּמ ׁ ְש ֶקה ׁ ֶשהוּא ַאב ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ them have the same status as liquids that touch them, and both
these and those have first-degree ritual impurity, since they touched
a primary source of ritual impurity upon exiting the source. This is
the halakha except for a liquid that is itself a primary source of
ritual impurity.n

notes
Except for a liquid that is a primary source of ritual impurity – ‫ חוּץ‬Semen of any man is also a primary source of impurity. The other
‫מן ַה ַּמ ׁ ְש ֶקה ׁ ֶשהוּא ַאב ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬:ִ This category includes blood from a liquids discussed in the mishna that are not primary sources of ritual
corpse, and the spittle, urine, or gonorrhea-like discharge of a zav. impurity are nasal mucus, teardrops, and blood from wounds.

68 Ĥullin . perek VI . 88a . ‫חפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
– ‫ ַק ִּלין‬,‫ ַמאי ַק ִּלין ו ַּמאי ֲחמו ִּרין? ַמאי ָלאו‬The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What is the meaning of minor
Creeping animal – ‫ש ֶרץ‬: ֶ ׁ There are eight creeping
,‫ ַק ִּלין – ׁ ֶש ֶרץ‬,‫ וַ ֲחמו ִּרין – ֵמת? ָלא‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ֶרץ וְ זָ ב‬sources and what is the meaning of major sources? What, is it not animals, small mammals, and lizards whose car-
that the term: Minor sources, is referring to a creeping animalb or
.‫וַ ֲחמו ִּרין – זָ ב‬ casses impart ritual impurity upon contact (Leviticus
a zav,b and that the term: Major sources, is referring to a corpse?bn 11:29–30). There is no clear oral tradition with regard
If so, the mishna teaches that all liquids that issue from a corpse to the identity of the animals listed in the Torah, and
are ritually impure, in contradiction to the baraita. The Gemara therefore determining their identity involves edu-
responds: No, the term: Minor sources, is referring to a creeping cated conjecture. Among the suggestions offered for
animal, e.g., urine found inside its body, which is not considered some of the animals listed are rat, mouse, dabb lizard,
gecko, monitor, and chameleon.
ritually impure, and the term: Major sources, is referring to a zav,
concerning whom all liquids that issue from him are ritually impure.
By contrast, liquids that issue from a corpse are ritually pure with the
exception of blood.

‫ ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א‬,‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ּ ‫ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א זָ ב דִּ גְ זַ ר ּו ֵ ּב‬ The Gemara asks: What is different with regard to a zav, concerning
‫ דְּ ָלא ְ ּב ִד ִילי‬,‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן? זָ ב‬ ּ ‫ֵמת דְּ ָלא ְ ּגזַ ר ּו ֵ ּב‬ whom the Sages decreed that liquids that issue from him are ritually
impure, and what is different with regard to a corpse, concerning
‫ דִּ ְב ִד ִילי‬,‫ ֵמת‬.‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ּ ‫ֵיה – ְ ּגזַ ר ּו ֵ ּב‬
ּ ‫ינָשי ִמ ּינ‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ֱא‬
which the Sages did not decree that liquids that issue from it are
ּ ‫ֵיה – ָלא ְ ּגזַ ר ּו ֵ ּב‬
.‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ּ ‫ינָשי ִמ ּינ‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ֱא‬ ritually impure? The Gemara responds: In the case of a zav, since Mediterranean house gecko
people do not naturally separate from him, the Sages decreed
Zav – ‫זָב‬: The term zav refers to a man suffering from
additional restrictions with regard to him in order to prevent others a gonorrhea-like condition. The halakhot relating to
from contracting impurity from liquids that issue from a zav that are the severe ritual impurity caused by this condition
impure by Torah law. In the case of a corpse, since people naturally are detailed in the Torah (see Leviticus 15:1–15) and in
separate from it, the Sages did not decree additional restrictions tractate Zavim. The zav becomes ritually impure as a
with regard to it. result of the secretion of a white, pus-like discharge
from his penis. A man who experiences a discharge
:‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫ִיתז וְ ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ַּס ִּכין״‬ ָּ ‫״דָּ ם ַה ּנ‬ § The mishna teaches that one is obligated to cover blood that of that kind on one occasion becomes ritually impure
spurts outside the pit over which the animal was slaughtered, or onto for one day, like a man who has discharged semen. If
‫ִיתז וְ ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ַּס ִּכין‬
ָּ ‫״וְ ִכ ָּסהוּ״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶשדַּ ם ַה ּנ‬ he experiences a second discharge on the same day
the wall, and blood that remained on the slaughtering knife. With
?‫ימ ַתי‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬ or the following day, or a prolonged initial discharge,
regard to this halakha, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: he contracts the more severe ritual impurity of a zav,
‫ ֲא ָבל ׁיֵש ׁ ָשם‬,‫ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׁ ָשם דָּ ם ֶא ָּלא הוּא‬ “And he shall cover it” (Leviticus 17:13), which teaches that one is which lasts seven days. If he experiences a third dis-
.‫דָּ ם ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא הוּא – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬ obligated to cover blood that spurted and blood that remained on charge within the next day, he is obligated to bring
the slaughtering knife. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this the hal- a pair of doves, one for a sin offering and one for a
akha? When there is no blood except that blood. But if there is burnt offering, as part of his purification process. Not
only does the man himself become ritually impure,
other blood that is not that blood, one is exempt from covering it.
he imparts ritual impurity by coming into contact
with vessels or people: By touching them, by being
‫ ״וְ ִכ ָּסהוּ״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ָּכל דָּ מֹו‬: ְ‫ַּתנְיָא ִא ָידך‬ It is taught in another baraita: The term: “And he shall cover it,”
touched by them, by being moved by them, by mov-
‫ִיתז וְ ׁ ֶש ַעל‬
ָּ ‫ דָּ ם ַה ּנ‬:ּ‫ ִמ ָּכאן ָא ְמרו‬.‫ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬ teaches that one is obligated to cover all of the blood. From here ing them, by lying or sitting on them, or through
the Sages stated: With regard to blood that spurts out and blood
‫ ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫ֲאגַ ּ ַפיִ ים – ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬ the medium of a large stone that the zav is lying on,
that remains on the sides of the animal’s throat where it was slaugh- which is positioned over them. The fluids he secretes,
‫יאל; ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים – ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬ ֵ ‫ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ tered, one is obligated to cover it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel i.e., his spittle, urine, and semen, impart ritual impu-
– ‫ ֲא ָבל ִּכ ָּסה דַּ ם ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש‬,‫ִּכ ָּסה דַּ ם ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש‬ said: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where rity, and any article on which he sits or lies becomes a
.‫ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬ one did not already cover the blood of the soul, i.e., the blood that primary source of ritual impurity and can itself impart
ritual impurity to other articles.
flows from the place of slaughter as the animal dies. But if one already
covered the blood of the soul,h he is exempt from the obligation Corpse – ‫מת‬:ֵ Human corpses are the ultimate
to cover the blood that spurted out or the blood remaining on the primary source of ritual impurity. A person or item
sides of the animal’s neck in the area of slaughter. rendered ritually impure by a corpse becomes one
of the primary sources of ritual impurity, and imparts
that ritual impurity to people and garments, for a
period of seven days, or longer if he foregoes the
purification ritual. A corpse transfers ritual impurity by
halakha contact and by being carried, and also, uniquely, by
what is known as impurity in a tent. The latter form of
Blood that spurts out…the blood of the soul – ‫ִיתז…דַּ ם‬ ָּ ‫דָּ ם ַה ּנ‬ in accordance with the opinion of the tanna stated in the mishna,
transference takes place if an individual enters a room
‫ה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש‬:ַ In a case where blood spurted out of the slaughtering area according to which a person is not obligated to cover all the blood.
that contains a corpse. Ritual impurity is imparted not
or remained on the slaughtering knife, if no other blood from the The Rema holds that one must take into consideration the opinion
only by a whole corpse but also by parts of it, though
slaughter is present, one is obligated to cover the spurted blood of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who maintains that all of the
there are many complex halakhot with regard to the
or the blood that remains on the knife. But if other blood from the lifeblood, and not the other blood, must be covered. Therefore, he
parts of a body considered significant enough to
slaughter is present, that blood may be covered instead, as there is rules that that even though the halakha is in accordance with the
impart this form of ritual impurity. Many authorities
no requirement to cover all the blood. This halakha is in accordance opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is best to cover at least some of the
claim that only Jewish corpses impart impurity in a
with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who is seen as explaining the lifeblood (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:8; Shulĥan
tent. The halakhot of the ritual impurity of a corpse
opinion of the first tanna in the mishna and in the first baraita. Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:15 and Beur HaGra there).
appear primarily in tractate Oholot.
Of the three opinions recorded in both baraitot, the halakha is

notes
Minor sources is referring to a creeping animal or a zav and status of a primary source of ritual impurity [av hatuma] to items
major sources is referring to a corpse, etc. – ‫ַק ִּלין ׁ ֶש ֶרץ וְ זָב וַ ֲחמו ִּרין‬ and people with which it comes in contact. The Gemara rejects
‫מת וכו׳‬:ֵ A creeping animal and a zav are both primary sources the proposition that the phrase: Major sources, mentioned in the
of ritual impurity, imparting first-degree impurity to an item or mishna is referring to a corpse, and explains that the mishna is not
person they touch. The item or person with first-degree impurity referring at all to a corpse. Rather, the phrase: Minor sources, refers
cannot impart ritual impurity to people or vessels, but they can only to a creeping animal, which is a minor source of impurity in
impart impurity to food items they touch. A corpse is the ultimate comparison to the impurity of a zav, as a creeping animal does not
primary source of ritual impurity [avi avot hatuma], imparting the impart ritual impurity to surfaces designated for lying or sitting.

 ‫חפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 88a 69

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ״דָּ מֹו״ – ָּכל‬:‫יפ ְלגִ י? ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָס ְב ִרי‬ַ ּ ‫ְ ּב ַמאי ָקא ִמ‬ The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter do they disagree?
Crushed potsherd – ‫ח ְר ִסית‬:ַ This term is found The Gemara responds: The Rabbis hold that the expression: “Its
throughout talmudic literature in the same context ‫ ״דָּ מֹו״ – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָס ַבר‬,‫דָּ מֹו‬
blood” (Leviticus 17:13), indicates an obligation to cover all of
as sand, earth, lime, gypsum, and clay. According – ‫ ״דָּ מֹו״‬:‫יאל ָס ַבר‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬,‫דָּ מֹו‬
to some, the term refers to a kind of earth that its blood, even the blood that spurts out. Rabbi Yehuda holds
.‫ַה ְמיו ָּחד‬ that “its blood” indicates that one may fulfill the mitzva with any
yields inferior-quality produce. From the Jerusalem
Talmud it seems this substance is white in color, part of the blood, even with a small amount of its blood. And
though darker than lime. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that “its blood” refers to the
Crushed potsherd was used in the produc- special blood, i.e., the blood of the soul.
tion of vessels. Some describe it as a substance
that, when made cement-like, could be smeared
on vessels and used to cement broken pieces of
pottery together. Others posit that it is an artificial
‫מתני׳ ַ ּב ֶּמה ְמ ַכ ִּסין ו ַּב ֶּמה ֵאין ְמ ַכ ִּסין? ְמ ַכ ִּסין‬
,‫ ו ְּב ַח ְר ִסית‬,‫ ְ ּב ִסיד‬,‫ ו ְּבחֹול ַהדַּ ק‬,‫ְ ּבזֶ ֶבל ַהדַּ ק‬
mishna With what substances may one cover the
blood and with what substances may one
substance, made from crushed earthenware or
not cover the blood? One may cover the blood with fine granulated
‫ ֲא ָבל ֵאין ְמ ַכ ִּסין‬.‫ו ִּב ְל ֵבנָ ה ו ִּב ְמגו ָּפה ׁ ֶש ְּכ ָת ׁ ָשן‬ manure, with fine sand, with lime, with crushed potsherd,b and
crushed stones and other materials, used in the
production of cement. In Modern Hebrew, the term ‫ וְ ל ֹא ִ ּב ְל ֵבנָ ה‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבחֹול ַה ַ ּגס‬,‫ל ֹא ְ ּבזֶ ֶבל ַה ַ ּגס‬ with a brick or the lidb of an earthenware barrel that one crushed.
refers either to a type of a clay substance composed ‫ וְ ל ֹא יִ ְכ ּ ֶפה ָע ָליו ֶאת‬,‫ו ִּב ְמגו ָּפה ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְּכ ָת ׁ ָשן‬ But one may not cover the blood with thick manure, nor with
of miniscule granules or to a group of minerals ‫ דָּ ָבר‬:‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ָלל ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬.‫ַה ֶּכ ִלי‬ thick, clumped sand, nor with a brick or the lid of an earthenware
known as clay minerals. barrel that one did not crush. Neither may one merely turn a
‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמגַ דֵּ ל‬,‫ׁ ֶש ְּמגַ דֵּ ל ּבֹו צְ ָמ ִחים – ְמ ַכ ִּסין ּבֹו‬
Lid – ‫מגו ָּפה‬:ְ The lid or stopper of a wine barrel vessel over the blood. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel stated a
was generally made of earthenware and placed in .‫צְ ָמ ִחים – ֵאין ְמ ַכ ִּסין ּבֹו‬ principle:n With regard to a substance in which plants grow, one
the narrow mouth of the barrel. This stopper was may cover blood with it; and with regard to a substance in which
effectively a vessel in its own right. When wine was
plants do not grow, one may not cover blood with it.
transported from one place to another or placed
in storage for an extended period, mud would be
pasted around the stopper to seal the mouth of
the barrel entirely. In order to open the barrel they
‫יכי דָּ ֵמי חֹול ַהדַּ ק? ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר‬
‫יך‬
ְ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַהּיֹוצֵ ר צָ ִר‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ִ ‫גמ׳ ֵה‬
ָ ‫ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬
gemara The mishna teaches that one may cover the
blood with fine sand. The Gemara asks:
would break the mud cover. What is considered fine sand? Rabba bar bar Ĥana says that
‫ ֲא ָבל ֵאין‬:‫יכא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ַא ֵּס ָיפא‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ִא‬.‫ְל ָכ ְת ׁשֹו‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan says: It is any sand that the pottery producer does
‫יכי‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬.‫ְמ ַכ ִּסין ל ֹא ְ ּבזֶ ֶבל ַה ַ ּגס וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבחֹול ַה ַ ּגס‬ not need to crush in order to use it. The Gemara notes: And some
notes
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel stated a principle –
‫דָּ ֵמי חֹול ַה ַ ּגס? ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ teach this statement in reference to the latter clause of the mishna,
ֵ ‫כ ָלל ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬:ְּ The early commentar-
‫יאל‬ .‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ַהּיֹוצֵ ר צָ ִריךְ ְל ָכ ְת ׁשֹו‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ which states: But one may not cover the blood with thick manure,
ies explain that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does nor with thick sand. The Gemara asks: What is considered thick
not disagree with that which is already mentioned sand? Rabba bar bar Ĥana says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: It is any
in the mishna. Rather, he is explaining that the sand that the pottery producer must crush in order to use it.
substances permitted are allowed because plants
can grow in them. , ְ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו דִּ צְ ִריךְ וְ ָלא צְ ִריך‬
ָּ ‫ ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ִא‬The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these
That crumbles – ‫יפרו ֵּכי‬
ְ ‫יך ִא‬
ְ ‫יפ ִר‬
ְ ‫דְּ ִמ‬: Rashi explains .‫ דְּ ִמ ְיפ ִריךְ ִא ְיפרו ֵּכי‬two versions? The Gemara responds: There is a difference between
this to mean that the sand can be crumbled with them with regard to sand that requires some crushing and sand
one’s hand and does not require a tool (see Rashba that does not require full crushing, i.e., that crumblesn in one’s
and Ran). hand and does not require a tool. According to the first version, as
long as the sand does not require crushing it may be used to cover
the blood. Therefore, sand that requires crumbling may be used
since it is not considered sand that requires crushing. According to
the second version, any sand that requires some crushing may not
be used. Therefore, sand that requires crumbling may not be used
to cover the blood.

‫ אֹו‬,‫ ״וְ ִכ ָּסהוּ״ – יָ כֹול יְ ַכ ֶּסנּ ּו ַ ּב ֲא ָבנִים‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ § The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the
.‫״ב ָע ָפר״‬
ּ ֶ :‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫יִ ְכ ּ ֶפה ָע ָליו ֶאת ַה ְּכ ִלי? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ mitzva of covering the blood: “And cover it” (Leviticus 17:13). One
might have thought that he may cover the blood with stones or
‫ וְ חֹול‬,‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶזֶבל ַהדַּ ק‬,‫וְ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ָע ָפר‬
merely turn a vessel over it. Therefore, the verse states: “With
,‫ ּו ׁ ְש ִח ַיקת ַח ְר ִסית‬,‫ ּו ׁ ְש ִח ַיקת ֲא ָבנִים‬,‫ַהדַּ ק‬ earth.” Based on this expression I have derived only that earth may
,‫ּנְעֹורת ּ ִפ ׁ ְש ָּתן דַּ ָ ּקה‬
ֶ ‫ו‬ be used. From where does one derive to include fine manure, fine
sand, crushed stones, crushed potsherd, fine chaff of flax,

Perek VI
Daf 88 Amud b

‫ ְל ֵבנָ ה‬,‫ וְ ַח ְר ִסית‬,‫ וְ ִסיד‬,‫ּנְסֹורת ׁ ֶשל ָח ָר ׁ ִשין דַּ ָ ּקה‬

ֶ ‫ו‬ fine sawdust of carpenters, lime, crushed potsherd, and a brick or
‫ ״וְ ִכ ָּסהוּ״; יָ כֹול‬:‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫ו ְּמגו ָּפה ׁ ֶש ְּכ ָת ׁ ָשן? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ the lid of an earthenware barrel that one crushed? The verse states:
“And cover it,” i.e., with any substance. One might have thought that
‫ ו ׁ ְּש ִח ַיקת‬,‫ וְ חֹול ַה ַ ּגס‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֲאנִי ַמ ְר ֶ ּבה ַאף ֶזֶבל ַה ַ ּגס‬
I will include even thick manure, and thick sand, filings of metal
,‫ ו ְּל ֵבנָ ה ו ְּמגו ָּפה ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְּכ ָת ׁ ָשן‬,‫ְּכ ֵלי ַמ ָּתכֹות‬ vessels, a brick or a lid that one did not crush, flour, bran, and
.‫״ב ָע ָפר״‬ ּ ֶ :‫לֹומר‬ַ ‫וְ ֶק ַמח וְ סו ִ ּּבין וּמו ְּר ָסן? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ coarse bran. Therefore, the verse states: “And cover it with earth,”
indicating that not all substances may be used to cover the blood.
70 Ĥullin . perek VI . 88b . ‫חפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ית ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ֵאלּ ּו ו ְּלהֹוצִ יא ֶאת‬ ָ ‫ו ָּמה ָר ִא‬ The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include
these substances and to exclude those? The Gemara responds: One may not cover except with a substance in which
‫ ַמ ְר ֶ ּבה‬,‫יעט‬
ֵ ‫יבה ַה ָּכתוּב ו ִּמ‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵאלּ וּ? ַא ַחר ׁ ֶש ִר‬ seed is sown and sprouts – ‫ּזֹור ִעין‬ ְ ‫ֵאין ְמ ַכ ִּסים ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָד ָבר ׁ ֶש‬
After noting that the verse included certain substances with the
‫ וּמֹוצִ יא ֲאנִי‬,‫ֲאנִי ֶאת ֵאלּ ּו ׁ ֶש ֵהן ִמין ָע ָפר‬ ‫בֹו ו ַּמצְ ִמ ַיח‬‎ּ : Any substance in which the seeds sown can
term: “And cover it,” and excluded others with the term: “With subsequently sprout is considered earth for the purposes
.‫ֶאת ֵאלּ ּו ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמין ָע ָפר‬ earth,” I include these substances, e.g., fine sand, which are a type of the mitzva of covering the blood and therefore may
of earth in which plants grow, and I exclude those substances, e.g., be used. Additionally, a substance that is called earth,
thick sand, which are not a type of earth, as plants do not grow even if it does not cause seeds sown in it to sprout, is also
in them. considered earth.
Accordingly, one can perform the mitzva of covering
the blood using fine manure, fine sand that the potter
,‫״ע ָפר״ – ּ ְפ ָרט‬ ָ ,‫ ״וְ ִכ ָּסהוּ״ – ְּכ ָלל‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬The Gemara asks: Why must the verse be interpreted in this man- does not need to crush in order to render it utilitarian, lime,
,‫ ְּכ ָלל ו ְּפ ָרט – ֵאין ַ ּב ְּכ ָלל ֶא ָּלא ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ַ ּב ּ ְפ ָרט‬ner? Say that the term: “And cover it,” is a generalization, and the crushed potsherd, and crushed brick. One can also use the
term: “With earth,” is a detail. Consequently, the verse consti- crushed lid of an earthenware barrel, crushed stone, fine
!‫ ִמ ֵידי ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ָלא‬,‫ָע ָפר – ִאין‬
tutes a generalization and a detail, and according to the corre- chaff of flax, carpenters’ fine sawdust, ashes of incinerated
sponding hermeneutical principle, the generalization includes clothing or vessels, coal dust, stibium, and shavings from
only what is mentioned explicitly in the detail. Therefore, only chiseling. One cannot use thick manure, sand that the
earth may be used to cover the blood, while any other substance, potter needs to crush in order to render it utilitarian, flour,
bran, coarse bran, or filings of metal vessels unless they
even substances in which plants grow, may not be used. were incinerated. Ground gold can be used, as the verse
in Job (28:6) refers to it as afar (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
ְ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָהוָ ה ְּכ ָלל ַה ָ ּצ ִר‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ָמ ִרי‬Rav Mari said in response: One should not suggest such an inter-
‫יך‬ Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:11–13; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:23).
‫ וְ ָכל ְּכ ָלל ַה ָ ּצ ִריךְ ִל ְפ ָרט – ֵאין דָּ נִין‬,‫ ִל ְפ ָרט‬pretation because the term “and cover it” is a generalization that If one is traveling in the desert – ‫היָה ְמ ַה ֵּל ְך ַ ּב ִּמ ְד ָ ּבר‬:ָ One
requires a detail to clarify its nature, and any generalization that
.‫אֹותֹו ִ ּב ְכ ָלל ו ְּפ ָרט‬ can use neither sand nor soil from the desert to perform
requires a detail to clarify its nature is not interpreted by the the mitzva of covering the blood, since they are not arable
hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail. It is (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:24; and see Rema and Shakh
necessary for the verse to state that the blood must be covered there).
with earth in order to clarify that the mitzva of covering the blood
is such that the blood must be covered with a substance that will notes
absorb the blood, and that it does not suffice to place a vessel This is an absurdity – ‫האי ּבו ְּר ָכא‬:ַ Rava understood that
over it. the mishna does not require the use of substances suf-
ficiently arable to grow the seeds sown therein in order
‫ ֵאין ְמ ַכ ִּסים‬:‫ § דְּ ַר ׁש ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬Rav Naĥman bar Rav Ĥisda taught: One may not cover the to cover the blood. Rather, substances that are capable of
generating some degree of growth are sufficient, as stated
ְ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָד ָבר ׁ ֶש‬blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird except with a sub-
‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ּזֹור ִעין ּבֹו ו ַּמצְ ִמ ַיח‬ by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the mishna, and as the
stance in which seed is sown and sprouts.h Rava said: This is an
.‫ ַהאי ּבו ְּר ָכא‬:‫ָר ָבא‬ baraita mentions concerning crushed potsherd and fine
absurdity [burkha],nl as the mishna and baraita both teach that chaff of flax (Ritva). Others suggest Rava understood that
one may use substances in which seeds do not sprout. the first tanna in the mishna disagrees with the statement
of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and one is not required
‫ ַמאי‬:‫יה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ְל ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said to Rava: What is the absurdity of to use a substance that sprouts the seeds sown therein or
his statement? I said this statement to Rav Naĥman bar Rav Ĥisda even a substance that is capable of generating any degree
‫ ו ֵּמ ָהא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫נִיה ֵל‬
ֲ ‫ית ּה‬ ָ ‫יה? ֲאנָ א ֲא ַמ ִר‬ ּ ‫ּבו ְּר ָכ ֵת‬
and I said it to him from this baraita: If one is traveling in the of growth at all (Ramban; Rashba).
‫ ָהיָ ה ְמ ַה ֵּל ְך‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫נִיה ֵל‬
ֲ ‫ית ּה‬ ָ ‫נִיתא ֲא ַמ ִר‬ָ ‫ַמ ְת‬
desert,h where the earth is not arable, and wishes to slaughter an
‫ֹוחק דִּ ינָ ר‬
ֵ ‫ַ ּב ִּמ ְד ָ ּבר וְ ֵאין לֹו ֵא ֶפר ְל ַכ ּסֹות – ׁש‬ undomesticated animal or a bird, but he does not have dirt with language
‫זָ ָהב ו ְּמ ַכ ֶּסה; ָהיָ ה ְמ ַה ֵּל ְך ִ ּב ְס ִפינָ ה וְ ֵאין‬ which to cover the blood, he may grind a gold dinar into powder Absurdity [burkha] – ‫בו ְּר ָכא‬:ּ The Arukh explains that this
word is a longer form of bur, meaning empty or unculti-
.‫לֹו ָע ָפר ְל ַכ ּסֹות – ׂש ֵֹורף ַט ִּליתֹו ו ְּמ ַכ ֶּסה‬ and cover the blood with it. If one is traveling on a ship and wants
vated, and therefore burkha means a hollow or absurd
to slaughter an undomesticated animal or a bird but he does not idea with no basis.
have earth with which to cover the blood, he may burn his gar-
ment and cover the blood with the ashes. It is evident from the
first clause of the baraita that desert sand, which does not allow
for the sprouting of seeds, may not be used to cover the blood of
an undomesticated animal or a bird.

‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ׂש ֵֹורף ַט ִּליתֹו ו ְּמ ַכ ֶּסה – ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחן‬The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Granted, it is understood that
?‫ ֶא ָּלא דִּ ינָ ר זָ ָהב ְמ ַנָלן‬,‫ ֵא ֶפר דְּ ִא ְיק ִרי ָע ָפר‬one may burn his garment and cover the blood with the ashes,
since we found a source for the fact that ashes are called earth
.‫ ״וְ ַע ְפרֹת זָ ָהב לֹו״‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬
[afar], as the Gemara will soon prove; accordingly, the use of
ashes is in accordance with the verse: “And cover it with earth.”
But with regard to a gold dinar, from where do we derive that
one may grind it into powder and use it to cover the blood? Rabbi
Zeira said: The verse states: “And it has dust of [afrot] gold” ( Job
28:6), indicating that gold is referred to as dust.

‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫ ֵאין ְמ ַכ ִּסין ֶא ָּלא ֶ ּב ָע ָפר‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ The Gemara cites a related baraita in which the Sages taught: One
‫ ָמצִ ינ ּו‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬,‫ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ may not cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird
except with earth; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And
‫ ״וְ ָל ְקח ּו‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫״ע ָפר״‬ ָ ‫ֵא ֶפר ׁ ֶש ָ ּקר ּוי‬
Beit Hillel say: We find that ashes are called dust [afar], as it is
‫ ֲע ַפר‬,‫ ו ֵּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬.‫ַל ָּט ֵמא ֵמ ֲע ַפר ְ ׂש ֵר ַיפת״‬ stated with regard to the red heifer: “And for the impure they
.‫ ָע ָפר ְס ָת ָמא ָלא ִא ְיק ֵרי‬,‫ְ ׂש ֵר ָיפה ִא ְיק ֵרי‬ shall take from the ashes [me’afar] of the burning of the purifi-
cation from sin” (Numbers 19:17). And Beit Shammai respond:
Ashes are called dust of the burning [afar sereifa], but they are
not called ordinary dust [afar].
 ‫חפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 88b 71
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫יהן ַה ׁ ּ ָשחֹור וְ ַה ְּכחֹול‬ ֶ ‫הֹוסיפ ּו ֲע ֵל‬
ִ :‫ ָּתנָ א‬The Gemara notes: It is taught that the Sages added the following
Coal dust – ‫ה ׁ ּ ָשחֹור‬:ַ Rashi explains this to mean crushed coals.
Some suggest the term refers to soot, while others suggest it ‫ ַאף‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬,‫יסו ִּלין‬ ּ ‫ וְ נִ ְק ַרת ּ ִפ‬to the list of substances in the mishna with which one may cover
the blood: Coal dust,n stibium [keĥol],b and shavings from
refers to the accumulated soot on walls that was used in the . ְ‫ַהּזַ ְרנִיך‬
manufacturing of ink (Rabbi Yehuda al-Madari). chiseling.n And some say they included even arsenic [zarnikh].lb
Shavings from chiseling – ‫נִ ְק ַרת ּ ִפ ּיסו ִּלין‬: According to Rashi ‫ ִ ּב ְ ׂש ַכר ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ַא ְב ָר ָהם‬:‫ § ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬The Gemara cites aggadic accounts relating to the mitzva of
this refers to the excess shavings of stone when carving out
the furrows in a millstone, while Rabbeinu Gershom Meor ‫ ָא ִבינ ּו ״וְ ָאנ ִֹכי ָע ָפר וָ ֵא ֶפר״ – זָ כ ּו ָ ּבנָיו‬covering the blood: Rava says: As reward for that which our Patri-
arch Abraham said: “And I am but dust [afar] and ashes” (Gen-
HaGola interprets the term as the thin shavings that fall when .‫סֹוטה‬ ָ ‫ ֵא ֶפר ּ ָפ ָרה וַ ֲע ַפר‬,‫ִל ׁ ְש ֵּתי ִמצְ וֹת‬
quarrying. esis 18:27), his children merited two mitzvot: The ashes of the
red heifer (see Numbers, chapter 19) and the dust of the sota, i.e.,
language
dirt taken from the ground of the Tabernacle that is mixed into the
Arsenic [zarnikh] – ‫נִיך‬
ְ ‫זַ ְר‬: Derived from the identical word in
water that examines whether or not a woman committed adultery
Persian, which is in turn derived from the Persian word zarrēn, (see Numbers 5:17).
meaning goldish.
– ‫יח ׁשֹוב נַ ִמי ֲע ַפר ִּכ ּסוּי ַהדָּ ם! ָה ָתם‬ְ ‫ וְ ִל‬The Gemara challenges: But let Rava also consider the earth used
.‫יכא‬ָּ ‫ ֲהנָ ָאה ֵל‬,‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ִמצְ וָ ה ִא‬in the mitzva of covering the blood. The Gemara responds: There,
the earth does serve as an accessory to the mitzva of covering the
blood, but there is no benefit imparted by it. It occurs after the
animal has been slaughtered and does not itself render the meat fit
for consumption. By contrast, the ashes of the red heifer and the
dust of the sota provide benefit, as the former purifies one who
became ritually impure and the latter leads to peace between hus-
band and wife when drinking the water proves that she did not
commit adultery.
‫ ִ ּב ְ ׂש ַכר ׁ ֶש ָא ַמר ַא ְב ָר ָהם‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬And Rava says: As reward for that which our Patriarch Abraham
,ּ‫ ָא ִבינו‬said to the king of Sodom:

background
Stibium [keĥol] – ‫כחֹול‬:ְּ Keĥol was a dark blue or black dye that Arsenic [zarnikh] – ‫נִיך‬
ְ ‫זַ ְר‬: Arsenic is an extremely toxic element
was extracted from the mineral stibnite (Sb2S3). The crystals of in the semi-metal family. Since ancient times it has been used
the mineral were ground up and used by women for painting for various functions, including medical purposes, dyeing, and
their eyes, thereby accenting them and making them appear poisoning. It is naturally found in two mineral states: Realgar,
larger than they actually were. Keĥol was also used as a cure which has a ruby-red color, and orpiment, which has a deep
for eye ailments. The dye was contained in a thin tube and was yellow hue. When heated, these minerals produce a highly
removed with a thin brush [mikĥol]. toxic white powder.

Realgar

Kohl tube with applicator, fourteenth century BCE

Orpiment

72 Ĥullin . perek VI . 88b . ‫חפ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VI
Daf 89 Amud a
background
‫נַעל״ – זָ כ ּו ָ ּבנָיו ִל ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬
ַ ְ‫״אם ִמחוּט וְ ַעד ְ ׂשרֹוך‬ ִ “That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is
Sky-blue dye is similar in its color to the sea –
.‫ ו ְּרצו ָּעה ׁ ֶשל ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬,‫ ְלחוּט ׁ ֶשל ְּת ֵכ ֶלת‬,‫ ִמצְ וֹת‬yours” (Genesis 14:23), distancing himself from anything not right- ‫ֹומה ְליָ ם‬
ֶ ּ‫ת ֵכ ֶלת ד‬:ְּ The precise identification of tekhe-
fully his, his children merited two mitzvot: The thread of sky-blue let is uncertain, as there is no clear tradition with
wool worn on ritual fringes and the strap of phylacteries. regard to the sky-blue wool used in the time of
the Sages, and the language used to refer to vari-
‫ ״וְ ָרא ּו ָּכל‬:‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְרצו ָּעה ׁ ֶשל ְּת ִפ ִּילין – ְּכ ִתיב‬ The Gemara asks: Granted, the strap of the phylacteries imparts ous hues shifts over the years. The descriptions of
‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ וְ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ַע ֵּמי ָה ָא ֶרץ ִּכי ׁ ֵשם ה׳ נִ ְק ָרא ָע ֶליךָ ״‬ benefit, as it is written: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see sky-blue dye mentioned in this Gemara are also
that the name of the Lord is called upon you; and they shall be somewhat ambiguous, since the sky and the sea
.‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ ֵאלּ ּו ְּת ִפ ִּילין ׁ ֶש ָ ּבר‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ַה ָ ּגדֹול‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬
afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). And it is taught in a baraita contain various hues depending on season and
?‫ חוּט ׁ ֶשל ְּת ֵכ ֶלת ַמאי ִהיא‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is a reference to the phylac- time of day. Moreover, there are several state-
teries of the head, upon which the name of God is written. Phylac- ments of the Sages indicating that sky-blue wool
resembles leek-green or the color of grass.
teries therefore impart the splendor and grandeur of God and are a
There are a number of identifications of sky-
fit reward. But what is the benefit imparted by the thread of sky- blue in the early commentaries. Rav Se’adya Gaon
blue wool? and the Rambam hold that it is the color of a clear
sky, namely light blue. Rashi understands it to refer
‫ ַמה ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּת ָּנה ְּת ֵכ ֶלת‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir to a shade of green, or possibly turquoise. Rabbi
‫ וְ יָ ם‬,‫ֹומה ְליָ ם‬ֶ ּ‫ִמ ָּכל ַה ִ ּצ ְבעֹונִין? ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵכ ֶלת ד‬ would say: What is different about sky-blue from all other colors Moshe HaDarshan holds that it refers to the color
such that it was specified for the mitzva of ritual fringes? It is because of the sky when it darkens toward the end of the
‫ וְ ֶא ֶבן‬,‫ֹומה ְל ֶא ֶבן ַס ּ ִפיר‬ֶ ּ‫ וְ ָר ִק ַיע ד‬,‫ֹומה ָל ָר ִק ַיע‬ ֶ ּ‫ד‬
sky-blue dye is similar in its color to the sea,b and the sea is similar day. According to this it would be closer to purple.
‫ ״וַ ּיִ ְרא ּו‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ֹומה ְל ִכ ֵּסא ַה ָּכבֹוד‬ ָ ּ‫ַס ּ ִפיר ד‬ to the sky, and the sky is similar to a sapphire stone, and a sapphire A similar range of opinions can be found among
:‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ֵאת ֱאל ֵֹהי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ַת ַחת ַרגְ ָליו״ וְ גו׳‬ stone is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And they modern researchers.
Another approach to identifying sky-blue is
.‫״כ ַמ ְר ֵאה ֶא ֶבן ַס ּ ִפיר דְּ מוּת ִּכ ֵּסא״‬ ְּ saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a
through inference, based on the fact that its color
paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for is known to be very similar to indigo. Based on this,
clearness” (Exodus 24:10). This verse shows that the heavens are it would seem that sky-blue is a deep, dark blue.
similar to sapphire, and it is written: “And above the firmament that
was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance
of a sapphire stone” (Ezekiel 1:26). Therefore, the throne is similar
to the heavens. The color of sky blue dye acts as an indication of the
bond between the Jewish people and the Divine Presence.
ּ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲא ִפ‬,‫ ָק ׁ ֶשה ֶ ּגזֶ ל ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬The Gemara above mentioned that Abraham refused to accept prop-
‫יל ּו‬
ִ ְ‫ צַ דִּ ִיקים ְ ּגמו ִּרים ֵאינָן י‬erty that did not belong to him. With regard to this, Rabbi Abba
:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫כֹולין ְל ַה ֲחזִ ירֹו‬
says: Difficult is the return of theft that has been consumed, as
.‫״ב ְל ָע ַדי ַרק ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָא ְכל ּו ַה ּנ ְָע ִרים״‬
ִּ
even the perfectly righteous are unable to return it, as it is stated:
“That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is
yours…except only that which the young men have eaten with
me” (Genesis 14:23–24). Even the righteous Abraham was unable
to return that which the young men had already consumed.
:‫יֹוחנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬
ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ § Rabbi Yoĥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi
‫יעזֶ ר‬ֶ ‫ָּכל ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה מֹוצֵ א דְּ ָב ָריו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ Shimon: Any place where you find the statements of Rabbi
Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in reference to aggada, make
ָ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי ְ ּב ַה ָ ּג ָדה – ֲע ֵ ׂשה ָאזְ נֶיך‬
ֵ ‫ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי‬
your ears like a funnel [ka’afarkeset],l i.e., be receptive to his words.
‫ַּכ ֲא ַפ ְר ֶּכ ֶסת; ״ל ֹא ֵמ ֻר ְ ּב ֶכם ִמ ָּכל ָה ַע ִּמים ָח ׁ ַשק‬ As Rabbi Eliezer interpreted the verse: “Not because you are more
‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ָל ֶהם ַה ָ ּק‬,‫ה׳ ָ ּב ֶכם״ וְ גו׳‬ in number than any people did the Lord desire you and choose
‫ ׁ ֶש ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ׁ ָש ָעה ׁ ֶש ֲאנִי‬,‫חֹוש ְקנִי ָ ּב ֶכם‬
ֵ ׁ :‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬ ׂ ְ ‫ְל‬ you, for you were the fewest of all peoples” (Deuteronomy 7:7), as
‫ַמ ׁ ְש ּ ִפ ַיע ָל ֶכם ְ ּגדו ָּּלה – ַא ֶּתם ְמ ַמ ֲע ִטין ַעצְ ְמ ֶכם‬ follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people:
;‫ְל ָפנַי‬ I desire you, since even at a time that I bestow greatness upon you,
you diminish, i.e., humble, yourselves before Me.
language
Funnel [afarkeset] – ‫א ַפ ְר ֶּכ ֶסת‬:ֲ Afarkas refers to a funnel-like vessel
through which grain passes into the gap of the two millstones. Mills
were often made of a cone-shaped stationary bed stone, which
protruded upward into a hollow, hourglass-shaped runner stone. The
grain would be poured into the runner stone and funneled through
the top half to its midpoint, below which it would be trapped and
ground between the two stones. Poles were inserted into the runner
stone by means of which people or donkeys would rotate it, grinding
the grain between it and the stationary bed stone. Some postulate
that the root of the word is from the Greek πρόχοος, prochoos,
referring to a vessel for pouring out, or a jug.

Roman mill

 ‫טפ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 89a 73

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ״וְ ָאנ ִֹכי‬:‫ נָ ַת ִּתי ְ ּגדו ָּּלה ְל ַא ְב ָר ָהם – ָא ַמר ְל ָפנַי‬I granted greatness to Abraham, yet he said before Me: “And I
He said, come let us build a city – ‫ָא ַמר ָה ָבה נִ ְבנֶ ה‬
‫לנ ּו ִעיר‬:ָּ These words were stated by the generation ,‫ ״וְ נַ ְחנ ּו ָמה״‬:‫ ְלמ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ ַא ֲהרֹן – ָא ַמר‬,‫ ָע ָפר וָ ֵא ֶפר״‬am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). I granted greatness to
Moses and Aaron, yet Moses said of the two of them: “And what
of the dispersion upon finding a valley in the land of .‫תֹול ַעת וְ ל ֹא ִא ׁיש״‬
ַ ‫ ״וְ ָאנ ִֹכי‬:‫ְל ָדוִ ד – ָא ַמר‬
Shinar and settling there (see Genesis 11:1–9). With are we” (Exodus 16:7). I granted greatness to David, yet he said:
regard to Nimrod himself, the verse states: “He was “But I am a worm, and no man” (Psalms 22:7).
a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Genesis 10:9),
which the Sages understood as a reference to the ‫ נָ ַת ִּתי ְ ּגדו ָּּלה‬,‫עֹולם ֵאינָ ן ֵּכן‬ ָ ‫ֲא ָבל או ּּמֹות ָה‬ But the gentile nations of the world are not so. I granted great-
fact that he incited the people of his generation to ness to Nimrod, yet he said: “Come, let us build a cityn and a
– ‫ ְל ַפ ְרעֹה‬,‫״ה ָבה נִ ְבנֶ ה ָּלנ ּו ִעיר״‬ ָ :‫ְלנִ ְמרֹוד – ָא ַמר‬
rebel against God. The verse also states of Nimrod: tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name”
“And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and ‫״מי ְ ּב ָכל ֱאל ֵֹהי‬ ִ :‫ ְל ַסנְ ֵח ִריב – ָא ַמר‬,‫״מי ה׳״‬ ִ :‫ָא ַמר‬
(Genesis 11:4). I granted greatness to Pharaoh, yet he said: “Who
Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar” ‫״א ֱע ֶלה ַעל‬ ֶ :‫נֶצר – ָא ַמר‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִלנְ בו ַּכ ְד‬,‫ָה ֲא ָרצֹות״ וְ גו׳‬ is the Lord” (Exodus 5:2). I granted greatness to Sennacherib,
(Genesis 10:10). The Sages concluded from this that
Nimrod was the king of Shinar during the generation
‫״מֹושב‬
ַׁ :‫ ְל ִח ָירם ֶמ ֶלךְ צֹור – ָא ַמר‬,‫ָ ּב ֳמ ֵתי ָעב״‬ yet he said: “Who are they among all the gods of the countries
of the dispersion. .‫ֱאל ִֹהים יָ ׁ ַש ְב ִּתי ְ ּב ֵלב יַ ִּמים״‬ that have delivered their country out of my hand, that the Lord
He said, I will ascend above the heights of the
should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand” (II Kings 18:35). I
clouds – ‫א ַמר ֶא ֱע ֶלה ַעל ָ ּב ֳמ ֵתי ָעב‬:ָ This verse was stated granted greatness to Nebuchadnezzar, yet he said: “I will ascend
by Isaiah in his prophecy of the Babylonian king’s above the heights of the clouds” (Isaiah 14:14).n I granted great-
impending doom. According to the Sages, Isaiah ness to Ĥiram, king of Tyre, yet he said: “I sit in the seat of God,
refers specifically to Nebuchadnezzar, whose hubris in the heart of the seas” (Ezekiel 28:2).
was well known, as recorded in the book of Daniel.
‫ ָ ּגדֹול ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי‬ָ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ The Gemara relates: Rava says, and some say Rabbi Yoĥanan
halakha
,‫יֹותר ִמ ַּמה ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ְ ּב ַא ְב ָר ָהם‬
ֵ ‫ְ ּבמ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ ַא ֲהרֹן‬ says: Greater is that which is stated with regard to Moses and
One may cover with the dust of an idolatrous city –
ּ ‫דְּ ִא‬ Aaron than that which is stated with regard to Abraham. As
‫מ ַכ ִּסין ַ ּב ֲע ַפר ִעיר ַה ּנִדַּ ַחת‬:ְ One can perform the mitzva of
,‫ ״וְ ָאנ ִֹכי ָע ָפר וָ ֵא ֶפר״‬:‫יל ּו ְ ּב ַא ְב ָר ָהם ְּכ ִתיב‬
with regard to Abraham it is written: “And I am but dust and
covering the blood of a slaughtered undomesticated ‫ וְ ָא ַמר‬.‫ ״וְ נַ ְחנ ּו ָמה״‬:‫וְ ִאילּ ּו ְ ּבמ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ ַא ֲהרֹן ְּכ ִתיב‬ ashes,” while with regard to Moses and Aaron it is written:
animal or a bird using the dust of an idolatrous city ‫עֹולם ִמ ְת ַקּיֵ ים‬ ָ ‫ ֵאין ָה‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ָ ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ית‬ֵ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ָר ָבא‬
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:13).
“And what are we,” i.e., we are not even dust and ashes. And Rava
‫ ״וְ נַ ְחנ ּו‬:‫ ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל מ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ ַא ֲהרֹן‬ says, and some say Rabbi Yoĥanan says: The world endures
.‫ימה״‬ ָ ‫״ת ֶֹלה ֶא ֶרץ ַעל ְ ּב ִל‬ ּ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם‬,‫ָמה״‬ only in the merit of Moses and Aaron. It is written here: “And
background
what are we,” and it written elsewhere: “He hangs the earth
Idolatrous city – ‫עיר ַה ּנִדַּ ַחת‬:ִ The Torah (see Deuter-
upon nothing” ( Job 26:7). That is, the earth endures in the merit
onomy 13:13–19) discusses the unique halakha of a of those who said of themselves that they are nothing, i.e., Moses
city where the majority of inhabitants are guilty of and Aaron.
idolatry. The city is judged by the Great Sanhedrin,
the court of seventy-one, which is authorized to ‫עֹולם ִמ ְת ַקּיֵ ים ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ ‫ ֵאין ָה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְיל ָעא‬ With regard to that verse, Rabbi Ile’a says: The world endures
send an army to subdue the city if necessary. After- only in the merit of one who restrains [shebolem] himself dur-
ward, courts are convened and each of the city’s
,‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ִמי ׁ ֶש ּב ֵֹולם ֶאת ַעצְ מֹו ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ְמ ִר ָיבה‬
ing a quarrel, as it is stated: “He hangs the earth upon nothing
adult inhabitants is judged. Those found guilty of idol ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו‬.‫ימה״‬ ָ ‫״ת ֶֹלה ֶא ֶרץ ַעל ְ ּב ִל‬ ּ :‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬
worship are beheaded rather than stoned, the usual
[belima]. Rabbi Abbahu says: The world endures only in the
:‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵּמ ִ ׂשים ַעצְ מֹו ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ merit of one who renders himself as if he were non-existent, as
penalty for idolatry. The innocent are not slain. All
the property in the city, including the property of the .‫עֹולם״‬
ָ ‫״ו ִּמ ַּת ַחת זְ רֹועֹות‬ it is stated: “And underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deu-
righteous, is destroyed, and all its buildings are razed teronomy 33:27), i.e., one who considers himself to be underneath
to the ground. The city must remain in ruins forever. everything else is the everlasting arm that upholds the world.

‫״ה ֻא ְמנָ ם ֵא ֶלם‬ ַ ‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬ Rabbi Yitzĥak says: What is the meaning of that which is writ-
‫יש ִרים ִּת ׁ ְש ּ ְפט ּו ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם״? ָמה‬
ָ ׁ ‫צֶ ֶדק ְּת ַד ֵ ּברוּן ֵמ‬ ten: “Do you indeed [ha’umnam] speak as a righteous company
[elem]? Do you judge with equity [meisharim] the sons of men”
‫עֹולם ַהּזֶ ה – יָ ִ ׂשים ַעצְ מֹו‬ ָ ‫או ָּּמנוּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ָא ָדם ָ ּב‬
(Psalms 58:2)? The verse is interpreted as follows: What should
:‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫תֹורה? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ָ ‫ְּכ ִא ֵּלם; יָ כֹול ַאף ְל ִד ְב ֵרי‬ be a person’s occupation [umanut] in this world? He should
:‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫״צֶ ֶדק ְּת ַד ֵ ּברוּן״; יָ כֹול יָגִ יס דַּ ְע ּתֹו? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ render himself silent as a mute [ilem]. If so, one might have
.‫יש ִרים ִּת ׁ ְש ּ ְפט ּו ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם״‬ָ ׁ ‫״מ‬
ֵ thought that he should render himself as a mute even with
regard to words of Torah. Therefore, the verse states: “Speak as
a righteous company,” indicating that one should speak the righ-
teous words of Torah. If so, he might have thought that one who
speaks words of Torah has the right to become arrogant. There-
fore, the verse states: “Judge with equity [meisharim] the sons
of men.” Even a learned judge must take extra care to judge with
equity, and not assume that he will immediately arrive at the
correct understanding.

:‫ימא ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬ ֵ ‫ § ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זְ ֵע ָירא וְ ִא‬The Gemara returns to discuss the mitzva of covering the
ָ ‫ית‬
ּ ‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי? ִא‬.‫ ְמ ַכ ִּסין ַ ּב ֲע ַפר ִעיר ַה ִּנדַּ ַחת‬blood: Rabbi Zeira says, and some say Rabba bar Yirmeya says:
‫יסו ֵּרי‬
One may cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird
!‫ֲהנָ ָאה הוּא‬
with the dust of an idolatrous city.hb The Torah states that the
city and anything contained therein must be burned (see Deuter-
onomy 13:17). The Gemara, assuming the statement of Rabbi
Zeira refers to the ashes of a burned idolatrous city, asks: But
why may one use these ashes to cover the blood? These ashes
are items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, as the
verse states: “And there shall cleave none of the banned property
to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).
74 Ĥullin . perek VI . 89a . ‫טפ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ו‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ָלא נִצְ ְר ָכה ֶא ָּלא ַל ֲע ַפר‬:‫ֲא ַמר זְ ֵע ִירי‬ Ze’eiri said: Rabbi Zeira is not referring to the ashes of the burned
city, which may not be used. Rather, his statement is necessary only A shofar of idol worship – ‫בֹודה זָ ָרה‬
ָ ‫ש ָֹופר ׁ ֶשל ֲע‬:ׁ If one
‫ ״וְ ֶאת ָּכל ׁ ְש ָל ָל ּה ִּת ְק ּבֹץ‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ֲע ָפ ָר ּה‬ blew a shofar owned by a Jew which had previously
concerning the dust of its dust, i.e., the dust of the ground of the
‫ֹוך ְרח ָֹב ּה וְ ָ ׂש ַר ְפ ָּת״ – ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬ ְ ‫ֶאל ּת‬ been the object of idol worship he has not fulfilled his
idolatrous city, from which deriving benefit is not prohibited, as it is obligation. The reasoning behind this is the following:
‫ יָ צָ א זֶ ה‬,‫ּש ֵר ָפה‬ ׂ ְ ‫ְמחו ָּּסר ֶא ָּלא ְק ִביצָ ה ו‬ written: “And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of the Since its status as an object of idol worship can never
.‫ּש ֵר ָפה‬ ׂ ְ ‫ישה ְק ִביצָ ה ו‬ ָ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶש ְּמחו ָּּסר ְּת ִל‬ broad place thereof, and shall burn with fire the city” (Deuteron- be nullified, the shofar is therefore considered as if it
omy 13:17). Accordingly, items lacking only the acts of gathering and were already non-existent because, like all objects of
burning must be burned. This serves to exclude this dust of the idol worship, it is inevitably destined to be burned.
The halakha differs concerning a shofar owned
ground, which lacks the acts of removal from the ground, gathering,
by a gentile which had previously been the object of
and burning. The dust must also be removed from the ground before idol worship. A Jew may not blow such a shofar ab
it can be gathered and burned. initio, and he may not blow a shofar that served as an
accoutrement of an idol owned by a gentile. But if he
.ּ‫נִיתנו‬
ְּ ‫יהנֹות‬
ָ ‫ ִמצְ �ות ָלאו ֵל‬:‫ וְ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬And Rava says: One can even use the ashes from the idolatrous city did so he has fulfilled his obligation, provided he had
to cover the blood, despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive any no intention of acquiring the shofar. If the Jew blow-
benefit from them. This is because mitzvot were not given for ben- ing the shofar had intention of acquiring it he has not
efit, that is, the fulfillment of a mitzva is not considered deriving fulfilled his obligation, since by acquiring the shofar it
benefit, but the fulfillment of a divine decree. becomes a Jew’s idol.
The Mordekhai maintains a stricter opinion and says
.‫יְ ֵתיב ָר ִבינָ א וְ ָק ָא ַמר ָל ּה ְל ָהא ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא‬ The Gemara relates that Ravina was sitting and saying this halakha, that even in the case where the Jew had no intention
that one may use the ashes of an idolatrous city to cover the blood. of acquiring the gentile-owned shofar, he fulfills his
‫ ׁש ָֹופר ׁ ֶשל‬:‫יה ַרב ְרחו ִּמי ְל ָר ִבינָ א‬ ּ ‫ית ֵיב‬
ִ ‫ֵא‬ obligation only if the status of the object of idol wor-
Rav Reĥumi raised an objection to Ravina from a baraita: With
‫ ִאם‬,‫בֹודה זָ ָרה ל ֹא יִ ְת ַקע ּבֹו; ַמאי ָלאו‬ ָ ‫ֲע‬ ship was nullified before the arrival of Rosh HaShana
regard to a shofar of idol worship,h from which it is prohibited to (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shofar VeSukka VeLu-
.‫ ִאם ָּת ַקע יָ צָ א‬,‫ָּת ַקע ל ֹא יָ צָ א? ָלא‬ derive benefit, one may not blow with it. What, is it not that the lav 1:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 586:3).
baraita means to say that if one blew with it he has not fulfilled his
A lulav of idol worship – ‫בֹודה זָ ָרה‬
ָ ‫לו ָּלב ׁ ֶשל ֲע‬: A lulav, or
obligation? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that one any other of the four species brought on the festival of
should not use such a shofar ab initio, but if one blew with it he has Sukkot, that is from an idolatrous city or from a tree used
fulfilled his obligation. as part of idolatrous rites that belongs to a Jew, is not
valid for being used for the mitzva. If the lulav belongs
‫בֹודה זָ ָרה ל ֹא יִ ּטֹול; ַמאי‬ָ ‫לו ָּלב ׁ ֶשל ֲע‬ Rav Reĥumi persists: It is taught in another baraita that with regard to a gentile it should not be used ab initio, but if one
‫ ִאם נָ ַטל‬,‫ ִאם נָ ַטל ל ֹא יָ צָ א? ָלא‬,‫ָלאו‬ to a lulav of idol worship,h one may not take it to perform the mitzva. did use it for the mitzva he has fulfilled his obligation,
What, is it not that the baraita means to say that if one took such a provided he had no intention of acquiring it (Ram-
– ‫ נָ ַטל‬,‫ ָּת ַקע – ל ֹא יָ צָ א‬:‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬.‫יָ צָ א‬ bam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shofar VeSukka VeLulav 8:1;
lulav he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara responds: No,
!‫ל ֹא יָ צָ א‬ the baraita means that one should not use such a lulav ab initio, but if Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 649:3).

one took it he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: But isn’t
it taught in a baraita that if one blew a shofar of idolatry he has not
fulfilled his obligation? And isn’t it taught in another baraita that if
one took a lulav of idolatry to perform the mitzva he has not fulfilled
his obligation?

‫ ָה ִכי ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא? ָה ָתם‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬Rav Ashi said in response: How can these cases be compared to the
case of covering the blood? There, with regard to a shofar and lulav
of idol worship, although the use of such items for a mitzva does not
constitute benefit, one cannot fulfill his obligation with them, because

Perek VI
Daf 89 Amud b

‫בֹודה זָ ָרה ַּכ ּתו ֵּתי‬

ָ ‫ וַ ֲע‬,‫ ׁ ִשיע ּו ָרא ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן‬we require a minimum measure in order to fulfill these mitzvot. A
‫ ָה ָכא – ָּכל ַמה דְּ ִמ ַכ ַּתת‬,‫ ִמ ַכ ַּתת ׁ ִשיעו ָּרא‬shofar must be large enough that, when grasped, part of it protrudes
.‫ ְמ ַע ֵּלי ְל ִכ ּסוּי‬from both sides of one’s hand, and a lulav must be at least four hand-
breadths long. And since an object of idol worship and its effects
must be burned, its size as required for the mitzva is seen by halakha
as crushed into powder. Since a shofar or lulav of idol worship is
destined for burning, it is considered as if it is already burned, and it
therefore lacks the requisite measurement for fulfilling the mitzva. By
contrast, here, with regard to the ashes used to perform the mitzva
of covering the blood, no minimum measure is required to fulfill the
mitzva; in fact, the more the ash is crushed, the better it is for the
mitzva of covering the blood.
‫הדרן עלך כסוי הדם‬

 ‫טפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ו קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VI . 89b 75

This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Summary of
Perek VI

This chapter dealt primarily with the halakhot concerning the mitzva of covering the
blood of a slaughtered undomesticated animal or bird, based on careful analysis of
the relevant verse (Leviticus 17:13).
The mitzva to cover the blood applies both within Eretz Yisrael and outside it, and
is in effect independent of the existence of the Temple. As stated in the Torah, the
mitzva of covering the blood applies only to the blood of birds and undomesticated
animals. Additionally, only non-sacred animals or birds are included in the mitzva,
either because it is impossible to properly cover the blood upon the altar or due to
the fact that the verse limits the mitzva to undomesticated animals, which cannot
be brought as offerings.
An undomesticated animal and a bird are counted together as one unit with regard
to the mitzva of covering their blood. That is to say, if one slaughtered both an undo-
mesticated animal and a bird, he may cover all the blood together, just as he would
cover the blood of multiple undomesticated animals together.
Although the verse mentions the obligation to cover the blood in a case where one
traps the animal or bird, the Gemara derives that the obligation applies even in a case
where one slaughters undomesticated animals or birds that were not trapped. Nev-
ertheless, the Sages interpreted the verse as an injunction with regard to the proper
consumption of meat, i.e., meat should be consumed only after one exerts himself
to obtain the animal, and meat should not be readily available in one’s home. The
mention of this halakha leads to a further digression in which the Gemara discusses
financial management and suggests the proper manner in which one should support
his family.
The mitzva of covering the blood applies only to the blood that was spilled due to
slaughter, not to blood that was spilled due to another form of killing. Additionally,
the mitzva applies only in the case of an act of slaughter that permits the meat for
consumption. If one slaughtered an undomesticated animal or a bird and found it to
be a tereifa, or if one slaughtered an undomesticated animal or a bird for the purpose
of idol-worship, one is not required to cover the blood. The early commentaries
explain that the mitzva of covering the blood is part of the mitzva of ritual slaughter
and is therefore applicable only if the slaughter itself is valid.
The mitzva of covering the blood is primarily incumbent upon the one slaughtering
the animal. If he did not cover the blood, the obligation falls upon any bystander who
notices the uncovered blood. Due to this discussion, the Gemara briefly discusses
an individual’s rights with regard to the performance of a mitzva and the penalty
incurred by one who prevents another from performing that mitzva.
If, after properly covering the blood, it subsequently becomes uncovered, one is

77
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

exempt from covering the blood a second time. But if the blood was initially covered
by earth blown by the wind, although one is not required to cover the blood so long
as it remains covered, should the blood become uncovered he must cover it. This
is in accordance with the principle that there is no rejection with regard to mitzvot.
With regard to the question of which blood must be covered, the Gemara concluded
that the obligation is to cover the blood of the soul, which includes blood that spurts
from the area where the slaughter is performed as well as blood remaining on the
slaughtering knife. One is not required to cover all the blood.
In cases where the blood became mixed with water or another liquid, if the mixture
is such that it still maintains the appearance of blood, one is obligated to cover the
mixture. In light of this halakha, the Gemara also discusses the characteristics neces-
sary to define a liquid as blood, as well as the status of blood plasma. The Gemara
concludes that if the plasma maintains a reddish hue, it is considered actual blood
with all the halakhic ramifications.
With regard to the manner of covering the blood, the Gemara concludes that one
must cover the blood from above and below, and that simply covering it from above
is insufficient. One should cover the blood using his hand or the slaughtering knife,
but not with his foot, so that the mitzva will not become contemptible to him.
The Gemara also concludes that the verse does not require specifically the use of
earth to cover the blood. Rather, one may use any substance that, like earth, is finely
crushed and allows for the growth of plants inside it. One may not cover the blood
with a vessel, nor may he use thick substances. Also, any powder produced from
ground metals may not be used for the mitzva except that produced from ground
gold, to which the Gemara attributes a unique status.
Unlike some mitzvot, with regard to which one may not perform them using a
substance from which he is prohibited to derive benefit, with regard to the mitzva
of covering the blood, he is permitted to cover it with a substance from which he
is prohibited to derive benefit. This is in accordance with the principle that mitzvot
were not given for benefit; rather, their performance is meant solely to fulfill a divine
decree.
These were the primary topics discussed in the chapter. Other topics were discussed
tangentially, e.g., the halakha of an ineffective slaughter, aggadic accounts and lessons
with regard to one’s income, and the mitzvot gained in the merit of our forefather
Abraham.

78
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic

nerve that is upon the spoon of the thigh, until this
day; because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh,
on the sciatic nerve.
Introduction to
Perek VII
(Genesis 32:33)

This verse teaches the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. Yet, unlike almost all
other mitzvot written in the Torah, this prohibition is not stated clearly as an instruc-
tion to Moses but is mentioned in the context of events that occurred long before the
Torah was given on Mount Sinai. For this reason, there are many practical questions
that arise about this topic.
Some of the questions raised in this chapter with regard to the prohibition of eat-
ing the sciatic nerve include: Does this prohibition apply with regard to all living
creatures or only to some of them? Does it apply to non-kosher species of animals?
Does it apply to the nerve in only one thigh or to the nerves in both thighs? Does this
prohibition apply with regard to consecrated animals? Does it apply only in Eretz
Yisrael or also in the Diaspora?
Although the verse specifies that a nerve in the thigh is forbidden, it is not clear from
the verse precisely which nerve it is. The Gemara therefore seeks to clarify exactly
which nerve this is and whether the entire length of the nerve is forbidden or just a
part of it.
The Gemara also discusses the practicalities of removing this nerve from the thigh.
How must it be removed? Is it just the nerve that must be removed, or must one
remove some of the surrounding flesh?
Another type of practical issue that is discussed in this chapter pertains to interac-
tions between Jews and gentiles. In a location where all animals are slaughtered only
by Jews, and the butchers publicize when they sell a tereifa to a gentile, a Jew may
purchase raw meat from a gentile. The Gemara explores whether in such a case a Jew
may send a whole animal thigh to a gentile as a gift, or whether he must be concerned
that the gentile may then sell it to a Jew without removing the sciatic nerve.
Other issues discussed include whether the sciatic nerve has the status of meat or
whether it is considered inedible. This question has important ramifications with
regard to principles governing mixtures of forbidden and permitted substances, as
well as whether the sciatic nerve imparts forbidden flavor to the thigh if it is not
removed before the thigh is cooked. These questions and related topics form the
basis of the material discussed in this chapter.

79
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VII
Daf 89 Amud b

‫נֹוהג ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ו ְּבחוּצָ ה‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬

,‫ ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת וְ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬,‫ָל ָא ֶרץ‬
mishna The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerveb
applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of
background
Sciatic nerve – ‫גיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬:ּ ִ The sciatic nerve, Nervus
ischiadicus, is a large nerve that emerges from the
Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of, i.e., the time of, the Temple and sacral part of the spinal cord and travels down the
ֵ ְ‫ ו‬.‫ְ ּבחו ִּּלין ו ְּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬
,‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ו ַּב ַחּיָ ה‬ not in the presence of the Temple,h and with regard to non-sacred length of the thigh until the calf. This nerve transmits
‫נֹוהג‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו‬,‫ְ ּביָ ֵרךְ ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין ו ְּביָ ֵרךְ ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂשמֹאל‬ animals and with regard to sacrificial animals. And it applies to messages from the brain to the leg, and sends sensory
.‫ָ ּבעֹוף – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו ַּכף‬ domesticated animals and to undomesticated animals,h to the information back from the leg to the brain.
thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg.h But it does
not apply to a bird, due to the fact that the verse makes reference
to the sciatic nerve as being “upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis
32:33), and a bird has no spoon of the thigh.

‫נֹוהג‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬

ֵ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬And the prohibition applies to a late-term animal fetus [shalil]hn in
.‫ ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל וְ ֶח ְל ּבֹו מו ָּּתר‬the womb. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus; and
similarly, its fat is permitted.h

‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫ וְ ֵאין ַה ַּט ָ ּב ִחין נֶ ֱא ָמנִין ַעל ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬And butchers are not deemed credible to say that the sciatic nerve
,‫ נֶ ֱא ָמנִין ָע ָליו‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬was removed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis
say: They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerveh and about
.‫וְ ַעל ַה ֵח ֶלב‬
the forbidden fat.

ּ ‫יטא! ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַא ְקדְּ ׁ ֵש‬

‫יה‬
?‫ֵיה‬
ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬,‫גמ׳ מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬
ּ ‫יה ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּגיד ִמ ּינ‬ ּ ‫ּ ָפ ַקע ֵל‬
gemara The mishna teaches that the prohibition of
eating the sciatic nerve applies to both non-
sacred animals and sacrificial animals. The Gemara asks: Is it not
obvious that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals? Would
it be reasonable to suggest that because one consecrated it, he has
abrogated the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve from it?
Hindquarters of a cow

halakha
In Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of And it applies to a late-term fetus – ‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬
ֵ ְ‫ו‬: The sciatic nerve
the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple – ‫ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ו ְּבחוּצָ ה‬ of a fetus is not forbidden, because a fetus does not require slaugh-
‫ל ָא ֶרץ ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת וְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬:ָ The prohibition of eating the sciatic ter, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Some say that
nerve applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, and if the fetus is fully formed and alive, its sciatic nerve is forbidden,
applies both when the Temple was standing and after its destruc- in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna. The Rema rules
tion, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna. Although the that the custom is to be stringent like the latter opinion, based on
Rambam does not specify these details, the commentaries explain a tradition from Rabbi Yaakov ibn Ĥaviv (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
that there was no need for him to specify them, since the prohibi- Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:7).
tion of eating the sciatic nerve is an obligation that applies to the
individual, and all mitzvot that apply to the individual apply in all Its fat is permitted – ‫ח ְל ּבֹו מו ָּּתר‬:ֶ If one slaughters an animal and
places and at all times (Maggid Mishne on Rambam Sefer Kedusha, finds a fetus inside, even one that is fully formed, whether it is alive
Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:1). or dead the fat and sciatic nerve of that fetus are permitted. This
ruling applies only if the animal has not walked on the ground. If
it has walked on the ground, its fat and sciatic nerve are forbidden.
And it applies to domesticated animals and to undomesticated
Some say that if the fetus is fully formed and alive, even if it has not
animals – ‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ו ַּב ַחּיָה‬
ֵ ְ‫ו‬: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve
walked on the ground, its fat is forbidden, and one who eats it is
applies to both domesticated and undomesticated animals, and
liable to receive karet (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
applies even if they do not have a rounded protrusion on their
Assurot 7:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 64:2).
thigh bone (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:1;
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:5).
They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve – ‫נֶ ֱא ָמנִין ָע ָליו‬:
Butchers are deemed credible to say that they have removed the
To the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg – ְ‫ְ ּביָ ֵרך‬ sciatic nerve from the animal. Nevertheless, one may not purchase
‫של יָ ִמין ו ְּביָ ֵר ְך ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂשמֹאל‬:
ֶ ׁ The sciatic nerves of both the right and left meat from a butcher who slaughters and sells without supervision
thighs are forbidden, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna unless he has a presumptive status of trustworthiness, in accor-
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:1; Shulĥan dance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hil-
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:5). khot Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:21, 8:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:14).

notes
And it applies to a fetus [shalil] – ‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬
ֵ ְ‫ו‬: The early com- Rambam (Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:1) as say-
mentaries disagree as to the meaning of the term shalil. Rashi ing that the fetus referred to here is not fully formed and is not
explains, based on the opinion of Rabbi Elazar on 74b citing Rabbi necessarily full term, although the Shulĥan Arukh (Yoreh De’a 65:7)
Oshaya, that it is referring to a full-term fetus that is alive inside interprets the Rambam otherwise (see Rambam’s Commentary on
the slaughtered mother. Other commentaries understand the the Mishna; see Meromei Sadeh).

 ‫טפ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 89b 81

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ וְ ָא ֵתי ִא ּיסוּר‬,‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫ יֵ ׁש ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין ְ ּב‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ And if you would say that sciatic nerves have the ability to impart
And if you would say nerves have the ability flavor,n i.e., they possess flavor, and the mishna is teaching that the
to impart flavor, etc. – ‫נֹותן‬ ֵ ‫ימא יֵ ׁש ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין ְ ּב‬
ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ‫ ַהאי ״מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬,‫מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין וְ ָחיֵ יל ַא ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּגיד‬
prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals comes and takes
‫ט ַעם וכו׳‬:ַ The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve ‫ ֵאין ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין‬:‫יה! ֶא ָּלא ָק ָס ַבר‬ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ָ ‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ִ ּגיד״ ִמ‬
ֵ
applies whether or not it possesses flavor. Neverthe- effect upon the sciatic nerve despite the fact that it is already sub-
,‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּגיד – ִא‬,‫ ו ְּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬,‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב‬ ject to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, the mishna
less, if the sciatic nerve does not possess flavor, it
is not considered meat and is not subject to the .‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ִא ּיסוּר מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין – ֵל‬ should have stated: The prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial
prohibition of eating the meat of sacrificial animals. animals applies to the sciatic nerve. The Gemara suggests: Rather,
The Gemara here is suggesting that the mishna’s the tanna of the mishna holds that the sciatic nerve does not have
statement teaches two points: Nerves possess fla-
the ability to impart flavor,n and the mishna is teaching that with
vor and are therefore subject to the prohibition of
eating sacrificial meat; and this prohibition takes
regard to sacrificial animals there is a prohibition of eating the
effect with regard to the sciatic nerve despite the sciatic nerve but there is no additional prohibition of eating the
fact that the nerve is already subject to a different meat of a sacrificial animal.
prohibition (Rashi).
ֵ ‫ וְ ָס ַבר ַּת ָּנא דִּ ָידן ֵאין ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין ְ ּב‬The Gemara challenges this explanation: And does the tanna of
:‫נֹותן ַט ַעם? וְ ָה ְתנַן‬
The sciatic nerve does not have the ability to
ֵ ‫אין ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין ְ ּב‬:ֵ The commen-
impart flavor – ‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫ ִאם ׁיֵש ָ ּב ּה ְ ּב‬,‫ יָ ֵרךְ ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָ ּב ּה ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬our mishna hold that the sciatic nerve does not have the ability
‫נֹותן‬
to impart flavor? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (96b): In the
taries question how it is possible for there to be a !‫ַט ַעם – ֲה ֵרי זֹו ֲאסו ָּרה‬
dispute on this matter, as one could find out by case of a thigh that was cooked with the sciatic nerve in it, if
asking a gentile to eat a sciatic nerve and report there is enough of the sciatic nerve in the thigh to impart its flavor
whether or not it has flavor. The Rashba explains to the meat, the entire thigh is forbidden? Consequently, it is
that everyone agrees that it only has a faint flavor. clear that the tanna of the mishna holds that the sciatic nerve does
The dispute is with regard to the degree of flavor
possess flavor.
that confers on the nerve the status of meat.
:‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּבוַ ְלדֹות ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ָע ְס ִקינַן‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ Rather, in the mishna here we are dealing with offspring of sac-
halakha
‫ וַ ְלדֹות ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ִ ּב ְמ ֵעי‬:‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬ֵ rificial animals. And the tanna holds that the prohibition of eating
A nazirite shaves…for an olive-bulk of a corpse – the sciatic nerve applies with regard to a fetus, and he also holds
ַ ‫ה ּנָזִ יר ְמגַ ֵּל ַח‬:ַ A nazirite shaves his hair
‫…על ַּכּזַ יִ ת ִמן ַה ֵּמת‬ ‫ דְּ ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּגיד וְ ִא ּיסוּר מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬,‫דֹושים‬
ִ ׁ ‫ִא ָּמן ֵהן ְק‬
that the offspring of sacrificial animals are consecrated even while
if he comes into contact with an olive-bulk of .‫ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי ָק ָא ֵתי‬ they are in the womb of their mother. Consequently, the prohibi-
flesh of a corpse (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, Hilkhot
Nezirut 7:2).
tion of eating the sciatic nerve and the prohibition of eating
sacrificial animals come into effect at the same time, and therefore
A miscarried fetus whose limbs had not become both prohibitions apply and one does not say that a prohibition
joined to its sinews – ‫לנֶ ֶפל ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נִ ְק ׁ ְשר ּו ֵא ָב ָריו ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין‬:ְ
A nazirite must shave his hair if he comes into con-
does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.
tact with a dead human fetus, even if its limbs are
not connected with sinews, in accordance with
‫ וְ ָהא ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫מֹוק ַמת ָל ּה ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬ ְ ‫ו ִּמי ָמצֵ ית‬ The Gemara challenges this explanation: Can you interpret this
Rabbi Yoĥanan’s explanation of the mishna in trac- ‫ישא ָלאו‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ֵר‬,‫״נֹוהג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל״‬ֵ ‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ֵס‬ clause of the mishna as referring to a fetus? From the fact that the
tate Nazir (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, Hilkhot Nezirut latter clause teaches: It applies to a late-term fetus, and Rabbi
‫לֹוקת‬ֶ ‫ דָּ ָבר זֶ ה ַמ ֲח‬:‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל ָע ְס ִקינַן! ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬
7:2). Yehuda holds that it does not apply to a late-term fetus, it may be
.‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with a fetus.
The Gemara explains: This is what the tanna of the mishna is say-
ing: This matter that was taught in the first clause is a matter of
dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

?ּ‫ ו ִּמי ָמצֵ ית ָא ְמ ַר ְּת דְּ ַת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי ָק ָאתו‬The Gemara again challenges the explanation that the first clause
‫ ַעל ַה ֵּמת‬:‫ ַעל ֵאלּ ּו טו ְּמאֹות ַה ּנָזִ יר ְמגַ ֵּל ַח‬,‫ וְ ָה ְתנַן‬of the mishna is referring to a fetus: And how can you say that
both prohibitions come into effect at the same time? But didn’t
.‫וְ ַעל ַּכּזַ יִ ת ִמן ַה ֵּמת‬
we learn in a mishna (Nazir 49b): A nazirite shaves for having
become impure from these sources of ritual impurity: For impu-
rity imparted by a corpse and for impurity imparted by an olive-
bulk of a corpse.h

‫ ַעל ּכו ּּלֹו‬,‫ ַעל ַּכּזַ יִ ת ִמן ַה ֵּמת ְמגַ ֵּל ַח‬:‫ וְ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָלן‬And the clause: For impurity imparted by a corpse, is difficult for
‫ ל ֹא נִצְ ְר ָכה ֶא ָּלא‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן? וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬us, as it seems unnecessary; if a nazirite must shave for impurity
imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse, is it not all the more so
.‫ְלנֶ ֶפל ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נִ ְק ׁ ְשר ּו ֵא ָב ָריו ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין‬
true that he must shave for impurity imparted by an entire corpse?
And Rabbi Yoĥanan says: It is necessary only for a miscarried
human fetus whose limbs had not yet become joined to its
sinews.h Since the spine is complete the fetus is considered a full
corpse, but as the limbs have not yet joined to the sinews it does
not contain an olive-bulk of flesh.

Perek VII
Daf 90 Amud a

!‫ ִא ּיסוּר מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ָק ֵדים‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬Evidently, the limbs of the body are formed before the nerves and
sinews, and therefore the prohibition of eating sacrificial animals
precedes the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve.
82 Ĥullin . perek VII . 90a . ‫צ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ָא ֵתי‬,‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ִא ּיסוּר מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ָק ֵדים‬The Gemara answers: Even though the prohibition of eating sac-
ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ִא ּיסוּרֹו‬,ּ‫ ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּגיד ָחיֵ יל ֲע ַליְ יהו‬rificial animals precedes the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve,
‫נֹוהג‬
the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve comes and takes effect
.‫ִ ּב ְבנֵי נ ַֹח‬
upon the offspring of consecrated animals, because the prohibition
of eating the sciatic nerve adds an extra stringency in that it applies
also to descendants of Noah.n The prohibition of eating the sciatic
nerve was in effect from the time Jacob wrestled with the angel (see
Genesis 32:25–33), before the Torah was given. At that time, Jacob
and his sons had the status of descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles.
Therefore, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve is broader than
the prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals, which took
effect only when the Torah was given.

,‫יה ַהאי ְס ָב ָרא – ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ּ ‫ַמאן ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬ The Gemara challenges this answer: Whom did you hear holds in
:‫ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫נִיתין דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ִ ‫וְ ָהא ַמ ְת‬ accordance with this reasoning? It is Rabbi Yehuda, cited in a later
mishna (100b). But the mishna here is not in accordance with the
ְ‫ ְ ּביָ ֵרךְ ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין ו ְּביָ ֵרך‬,‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ו ַּב ַחּיָ ה‬
ֵ
opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it teaches that the prohibition of eat-
!‫ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂשמֹאל‬ ing the sciatic nerve applies to domesticated animals and to undo-
mesticated animals, to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh
of the left leg. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition
applies only with regard to the sciatic nerve in the thigh of one leg
(see 90b).

‫ ו ָּפ ֵליג‬,‫יה ַ ּב ֲח ָדא‬ ֵ ָ‫ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא ְס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכו‬The Gemara explains: The tanna of this mishna holds in accor-
ּ ‫ות‬
ּ ‫ ֲע ֵל‬dance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one hal-
.‫יה ַ ּב ֲח ָדא‬
akha, i.e., that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to
the descendants of Noah, and disagrees with his opinion with
regard to one halakha and holds that the prohibition applies to the
sciatic nerves of both legs.

– ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ִ ּב ְט ֵמ ָאה‬

ּ ‫ימר דְּ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬
ַ ‫ ֵא‬The Gemara challenges: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda
‫ ִמי‬,‫יסוּר ָּכ ֵרת‬ּ ‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים דְּ ִא‬,‫יסוּר ָלאו‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬rules that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve takes effect in
addition to the prohibition with regard to a non-kosher animal,
?‫יה‬ּ ‫ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬
which is a prohibition punishable by lashes. Since the prohibition
of the sciatic nerve is broader in that it applies to the descendants
of Noah, it takes effect even though the animal is already prohibited
as being not kosher. But in the case of sacrificial animals, whose
consumption by an impure person is a prohibition punishable by
karet, did you hear that Rabbi Yehuda considers the prohibition of
eating the sciatic nerve more stringent, such that it takes effect even
though the animal is already prohibited? Therefore, this answer
is rejected.

‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמ ְב ֶּכ ֶרת ָע ְס ִקינַ ן – דִּ ְב ֶר ֶחם‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara offers an alternative answer: Rather, here in the mishna
ׁ ‫ ָק‬we are dealing with a non-sacred animal giving birth to its first-
.‫דֹוש‬
born, which becomes sanctified as it leaves the womb. The mishna
teaches that although the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve does
not apply to the offspring of sacrificial animals, because their sacri-
ficial status renders them prohibited for consumption before the
prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect, that is not the case with
regard to a firstborn. The sanctified status of a firstborn takes effect
only as it leaves the womb, which is after the prohibition of the
sciatic nerve takes effect.

notes
The prohibition applies also to descendants of Noah – ‫ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬ Noah, and at that time it applied to all animals, therefore even after
‫נֹוהג ִ ּב ְבנֵי נ ַֹח‬
ֵ ‫א ּיסוּרֹו‬‎ִ : Commentaries disagree as to the meaning of it no longer applies to gentiles, it remains in effect for Jews even
this phrase as employed throughout this sugya, as well as later with regard to non-kosher species of animals, as it was initially
in the chapter (100b). Some early commentaries explain that (Ramban).
this does not mean Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition of Other early commentaries hold that even before the Torah was
the sciatic nerve applies nowadays to gentiles, but rather that given the prohibition applied only to the children of Israel, the
it applied to gentiles before the Torah was given. Since the time descendants of Jacob. When the Gemara here is referring to the
the Torah was given, this mitzva applies only to Jews. Yet, as the descendants of Noah, it means the descendants of Jacob before
prohibition applied to gentiles before the Torah was given, it has the Torah was given (Tosafot; Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a). A third opin-
halakhic implications today in that the prohibition applies also to ion appears to understand the Gemara here in its straightforward
non-kosher species of animals, even though normally a prohibi- sense, that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the prohibition of eating
tion does not take effect where another prohibition is already in the sciatic nerve applies to gentiles even following the giving of
place. As the prohibition was initially given to the descendants of the Torah (see Tosafot on Pesaĥim 22a).

 ‫צ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 90a 83

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫יתן‬
ָ ָ‫ וַ ְלדֹות ָק ָד ׁ ִשים – ַ ּב ֲהוָ וי‬:‫ימא‬
ָ ‫ וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is dealing with the
The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies both to
sacrificial animals that are eaten and to sacrificial ִ ׁ ‫ ֵהן ְק‬offspring of all sacrificial animals, and this tanna holds that such
.‫דֹושים‬
animals that are not eaten – ‫ֶא ָחד ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכ ִלין‬
animals are sanctified only when they come into being as inde-
ֵ ‫וְ ֶא ָחד ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ׁ ֶש ֵאין נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלין ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּגיד‬: The sciatic
‫נֹוהג ָ ּב ֶהן‬ pendent creatures, i.e., at birth. Consequently, the prohibition of
nerve of all sacrificial animals is forbidden, whether or the sciatic nerve takes effect before the animal becomes prohib-
not the offering is to be eaten, in accordance with the ited at the time of its birth; or, according to the opinion that the
opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, sciatic nerve is permitted in a fetus, the two prohibitions take
Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:1). effect simultaneously.
Even if they are already at the top of the altar, they
shall descend – ‫ֹאשֹו ׁ ֶשל ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח יֵ ְרד ּו‬ ּ ‫א ִפ‬:
ׁ ‫יל ּו ְ ּבר‬ ֲ With ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬:‫יֹוסף‬ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר‬ § Having addressed the need for the mishna to state that the
regard to the bones, the sinews, the horns, and the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies with regard to
hooves, when they are no longer attached to the ‫ ֲא ָבל ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ן נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלין – ֵאין‬,‫ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכ ִלין‬
sacrificial animals, the Gemara discusses which types of sacrificial
flesh of an offering, if they ascended upon the altar, ‫ ֶא ָחד‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר‬ ֵ ‫יסוּר ִ ּגיד‬
ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫נֹוהג ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ּ ‫ִא‬
they must descend, in accordance with the ruling of animals are included in this prohibition. Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Yosef
– ‫ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַה ֶּנ ֱא ָכ ִלין וְ ֶא ָחד ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ׁ ֶש ֵאין נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלין‬ says: The Sages taught that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve
the mishna in tractate Zevaĥim 83a (Rambam Sefer
Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 3:16). ֵ ‫ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּגיד‬
.‫נֹוהג ָ ּב ֶהן‬ applies only with regard to sacrificial animals that are eaten, e.g.,
sin offerings, guilt offerings and peace offerings; but with regard
to sacrificial animals that are not eaten, e.g., burnt offerings, the
prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply. And Rabbi
Yoĥanan says: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies both
with regard to sacrificial animals that are eaten and with regard
to sacrificial animals that are not eaten.h

– ‫ ָּכאן‬,‫ ָּכאן ְל ַה ְלקֹותֹו‬,‫ וְ ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoĥanan do
.‫ ְל ַה ֲעלֹותֹו‬not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here,
Rabbi Yoĥanan says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve
applies with regard to flogging one who eats it. There, Rabbi
Ĥiyya bar Yosef says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does
not apply with regard to bringing the meat of the animal up to
the altar, i.e., offerings that are burned on the altar are brought up
with the sciatic nerve. Burning the sciatic nerve on the altar is not
comparable to eating it and is not prohibited.

– ‫ ָּכאן‬,‫ וְ ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬

ָּ ‫ ִא‬There are those who say that Rav Pappa said as follows: Rabbi
.‫ וְ ָכאן – ְל ַה ֲעלֹותֹו‬,‫ ְל ַח ְּלצֹו‬Ĥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoĥanan do not disagree; they are
merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Yosef
says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply to
burnt offerings, in that one is not required to remove it before
burning the offering on the altar. There, Rabbi Yoĥanan says that
he prohibition does apply, in that if one did remove the sciatic
nerve, it is prohibited to bring it up onto the altar independently.

,‫ ְל ַה ֲעלֹותֹו ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬:‫ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ֲא ַמר‬Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak disagreed with Rav Pappa and said:
– ‫ ״וְ ִה ְק ִטיר ַה ּכ ֵֹהן ֶאת ַה ּכֹל ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ָחה״‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoĥanan disagree with regard
to whether it is permitted to bring up the sciatic nerve to the altar
.‫ְל ַר ּבֹות ָה ֲעצָ מֹות וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידין וְ ַה ַ ּק ְרנַיִ ם וְ ַה ְּט ָל ַפיִ ם‬
even when it remains in the thigh. As it is taught in a baraita: In
the verse: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar”
(Leviticus 1:9), the term “it all” serves to include the bones, and
the sinews, and the horns, and the hooves among those items
burned on the altar.

‫ית‬
ָ ‫ ״וְ ָע ִ ׂש‬:‫לֹומר‬ ּ ‫ יָ כֹול ֲא ִפ‬One might have thought that even if they became detached from
ַ ‫יל ּו ּ ָפ ְר ׁשוּ? ַּת ְלמוּד‬
ֹ the flesh of the burnt offering they are burned upon the altar.
.‫על ֶֹתיךָ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ַהדָּ ם״‬
Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt
offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord
your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only the flesh
and the blood are offered upon the altar.

‫ וְ יַ ֲע ֶלה‬,‫יַחלֹוץ ִ ּג ִידים וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬ֲ ‫ יָ כֹול‬,‫ִאי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ָדם‬ The baraita continues: If it is only the flesh and the blood that
‫ ״וְ ִה ְק ִטיר ַה ּכ ֵֹהן‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬:‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְלגַ ֵ ּבי ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬ are offered on the altar, one might have thought that a priest must
first remove the sinews and bones from an offering and only
,ּ‫ ְמחו ָ ּּב ִרין – יַ ֲעלו‬:‫ ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד‬,‫ֶאת ַה ּכֹל ַה ִּמ ֵ ּזְב ָחה״‬
then may he bring up the flesh to be burned upon the altar.
ׁ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּבר‬,ּ‫ּ ָפ ְר ׁשו‬
.ּ‫ֹאשֹו ׁ ֶשל ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח – יֵ ְרדו‬ Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall make it all
smoke on the altar,” including the sinews and bones. How can
these texts be reconciled? If the sinews and bones are attached
to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they became detached from the
flesh, then even if they are already at the top of the altar, they
shall descend.h
84 Ĥullin . perek VII . 90a . ‫צ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫יה דַּ ֲא ַמר ּ ָפ ְר ׁש ּו‬ ּ ‫ו ַּמאן ַּת ָּנא דְּ ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬ The Gemara comments: And who is the tanna that you heard, who
said if they became detached from the flesh, they shall descend? Partially consumed flesh you return – ‫יכו ֵּלי ָב ָ ׂשר ַא ָּתה‬
ּ ‫ִע‬
‫ ״וְ ִה ְק ִטיר ַה ּכ ֵֹהן‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫יֵ ְרדוּ? ַר ִ ּבי ִהיא‬ ‫מ ֲחזִ יר‬:ַ Incompletely burned limbs that are dislodged from
It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: In the verse
‫ֶאת ַה ּכֹל״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ָה ֲעצָ מֹות וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידים‬ the fire on the altar must be returned, even if they are
that states: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,” the dislodged after midnight. If they have no substance, then
.ּ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו ּ ָפ ְר ׁשו‬,‫וְ ַה ַ ּק ְרנַיִ ם וְ ַה ְּט ָל ַפיִ ם‬ term “it all” serves to include the bones, and the sinews, and the even if they were dislodged before midnight they do not
horns, and the hooves among those items burned on the altar, and need to be returned. If the meat is so charred that it is like
that is the halakha even if they became detached from the flesh of wood and it was dislodged before midnight, it must be
the offering. returned. If it was dislodged after midnight it need not
be returned, in accordance with the ruling of the baraita
(Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 6:3).
ָ‫ית עֹל ֶֹתיך‬
ָ ‫וְ ָהא ָמה ֲאנִי ְמ ַקּיֵ ים ״וְ ָע ִ ׂש‬ The baraita continues: But if so, how do I realize the meaning of
:‫ ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד‬,‫פֹוק ִעין‬ ְ ‫ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ַהדָּ ם״ – ְ ּב‬ the verse: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and
the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy
‫ וְ ִאי ַא ָּתה‬,‫יכו ֵּלי ָב ָ ׂשר ַא ָּתה ַמ ֲחזִ יר‬ ּ ‫ִע‬
12:27), which indicates that only the flesh and blood of an offering
.‫יכו ֵּלי גִ ִידים וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬
ּ ‫ַמ ֲחזִ יר ִע‬ are offered on the altar? It is referring to parts of the offering that
become dislodged from the fire. How so? If the partially consumed
flesh of a burnt offering is dislodged from the altar, you returnh it
to the fire, but you do not return the partially consumed sinews
and bones that become dislodged.

‫אֹומר ״וְ ִה ְק ִטיר‬ ֵ ‫ ָּכתוּב ֶא ָחד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse
‫ וְ ָכתוּב ֶא ָחד‬,‫יבה‬ ּ ָ ‫ַה ּכ ֵֹהן ֶאת ַה ּכֹל״ – ִר‬ states: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,” which
included sinews and bones. And one verse states: “And you shall
– ‫על ֶֹתיךָ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ַהדָּ ם״‬ ֹ ‫ית‬ ָ ‫אֹומר ״וְ ָע ִ ׂש‬
ֵ
offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” which
,ּ‫ ּ ָפ ְר ׁשו‬,ּ‫ ְמחו ָ ּּב ִרין – יַ ֲעלו‬:‫ ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד‬.‫יעט‬ ֵ ‫ִמ‬ excluded any part other than the flesh and the blood. How can
ׁ ‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּבר‬
.ּ‫ֹאשֹו ׁ ֶשל ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח – יֵ ְרדו‬ these texts be reconciled? If the sinews and bones were attached to
the flesh, they shall ascend. If they became detached from the flesh,
then even if they are already on top of the altar, they shall descend.

‫יך ְק ָרא‬
ְ ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן – ְמחו ָ ּּב ִרין ָלא ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬The Gemara explains their dispute: And the Rabbis hold that with
,‫עֹולה‬
ָ ‫ֹאש ּה ׁ ֶשל‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ִמ ִידי דַּ ֲהוָ ה ַאר‬,‫ ְל ַר ּבוּיֵ י‬regard to sinews and bones that are attached to the flesh it was not
necessary for a verse to include the obligation to bring them up to
.ּ‫ִּכי ִאיצְ ְט ִריךְ ְק ָרא – ְל ָפ ְר ׁשו‬
the altar. It is clear that they must be brought up, just as it is the
halakha that the head of a burnt offering, which contains many
bones, is brought up, as stated explicitly in the verse: “And Aaron’s
sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, and the head, and the fat, in
order upon the wood that is on the fire that is upon the altar” (Leviti-
cus 1:8). When a verse was necessary it was for the case where the
sinews and bones became detached from the flesh. Consequently,
when the verse uses the inclusive phrase “it all,” it is to include sinews
and bones that became detached.

‫ית ָירא‬
ֵּ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי – ְמחו ָ ּּב ִרין דְּ ֶה‬But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that with regard to sinews and
bones that are attached to the flesh and that are permitted to
be eaten,

Perek VII
Daf 90 Amud b

ְ‫ ִּכי ִאיצְ ְט ִריך‬,‫ ָלא ִאיצְ ְט ִריךְ ְק ָרא ְל ַר ּבוּיֵ י‬it was not necessary for the verse to include them. When a verse
.‫ ְק ָרא – ְלגִ יד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ִ ּב ְמחו ָ ּּבר‬was necessary it was for the sciatic nerve that is still attached to
the flesh. The term “it all” teaches that if the sciatic nerve is attached
to the flesh it is brought up to the altar.

‫״מ ַּמ ׁ ְש ֵקה יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ – ִמן ַה ּמו ָּּתר‬

ִ – ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬And the Rabbis would explain their opinion based upon the verse:
.‫“ ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬And one lamb of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-
watered pastures [mimashke] of Israel; for a meal offering, and for
a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make atonement for
them, says the Lord God” (Ezekiel 45:15). Since the term mashke
also means beverage, which is consumed, the verse is interpreted to
mean that offerings may be sacrificed only from that which is per-
mitted to the Jewish people for consumption. Since the sciatic
nerve is not permitted for consumption, it may not be sacrificed on
the altar. Consequently, the term “it all” is understood to include
sinews and bones even if they have become detached from the flesh.
 ‫צ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 90b 85
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
– ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי – ִמ ִידי דַּ ֲהוָ ה ַא ֵח ֶלב וְ ָדם‬And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would respond that a sciatic nerve that
The sciatic nerve of a burnt offering – ‫ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל‬
‫עֹולה‬:
ָ When one cuts a burnt offering into pieces, the .‫ ִמצְ וָ ָתן ְ ּב ָכךְ ׁ ָשאנֵי‬is attached to the flesh may be brought up to the altar, just as it is
sciatic nerve is removed and thrown onto the circular
permitted to sacrifice forbidden fat and blood upon the altar even
mound of ashes in the center of the altar, in accordance though they are forbidden for consumption. And the Rabbis would
with Rav Huna (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Ma’aseh say that forbidden fat and blood are different, because the Torah
HaKorbanot 6:4). explicitly states that their mitzva is to be offered on the altar in this
way, whereas the Torah never mandates the sacrifice of the sciatic
background nerve upon the altar. According to Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak, Rabbi
Circular mound of ashes [tappuaĥ] – ‫ת ּפו ַּח‬‎ַּ : This is refer- Ĥiyya bar Yosef agrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the sciatic
ring to a circular pile of ashes collected on the top of the nerve is offered upon the altar together with the rest of the animal,
altar from the many offerings that were burned there. whereas Rabbi Yoĥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of
Every morning, as the first rite of the day, a priest would the Rabbis that the sciatic nerve is not offered upon the altar.
move the coals used during the burning of offerings
the night before that had not been completely con-
sumed and would place them to the side of the altar.
ָ ‫ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬
‫עֹולה‬ § The Gemara cites another discussion with regard to the sciatic
!‫ ָמ ִרי ִד ִיכי‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬.‫חֹולצֹו ַל ַּת ּפו ַּח‬
ְ nerve of a burnt offering. Rav Huna says: The sciatic nerve of a
He would then use a shovel to remove some completely
burnt offeringh is not placed upon the altar with the rest of the
consumed coals together with ashes, descend from the ‫״על‬
ַ ?‫ֹאכל ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח״‬ַ ‫״על ֵּכן ל ֹא י‬ ַ ‫ִמי ְּכ ִתיב‬
altar holding the shovel, and place the ashes on a certain animal. Rather, one removes it and places it on the circular mound
flagstone on the floor of the Temple courtyard to the east
.‫ֹאכל ּו ְבנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ ְּכ ִתיב‬
ְ ‫ֵּכן ל ֹא י‬ of ashesb in the center of the altar. Rav Ĥisda said: Master of this
of the altar. This stage was known as: Removal of the [mari dikhi]l ruling! Is it written in the Torah: Therefore the altar
ashes [terumat hadeshen], and this flagstone was known does not consume the sciatic nerve? This would indicate that it is
as: The place of the ashes, where the ashes would sink prohibited to sacrifice the sciatic nerve on the altar. Rather, it is
into the ground miraculously. Afterward, many priests
would ascend the altar to push the remaining ashes into
written: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve”
the center of the altar, and would make an additional (Genesis 32:33).
pile of ashes there. This is the pile of ashes referred to
in the Gemara as the circular mound of ashes [tappuaĥ], ‫״מ ַּמ ׁ ְש ֵקה יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ – ִמן‬
ִ – ‫ וְ ַרב הוּנָ א‬And Rav Huna holds that the phrase: “From the well-watered
meaning swollen [tafuaĥ], due to its round, raised shape. .‫ ַה ּמו ָּּתר ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬pastures of Israel,” indicates that offerings may be sacrificed only
When there were too many ashes in this pile, priests from that which is permitted to the Jewish people. Since the sci-
would remove the excess to a place outside of Jerusalem atic nerve is not permitted for consumption, it may not be sacrificed
known as: The place of pouring ashes. This additional upon the altar.
task of removal of the ashes outside the city was known
as: Removal of the ashes [hotza’at hadeshen]. According ‫ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְש ָל ִמים – ְמ ַכ ְ ּבדֹו‬:‫ ֵמ ִית ֵיבי‬The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna’s opinion. It is taught
to some commentaries, this removal of ashes outside of
Jerusalem took place daily regardless of how many ashes ,‫ ַמאי ָלאו‬.ּ‫עֹולה – ַמ ֲע ֵלהו‬ ָ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶשל‬,‫ ָל ַא ָּמה‬in a baraita: What should one do with the sciatic nerve of a peace
offering,bn since the meat of the offering must be eaten but the
remained on the altar. ?‫ַמ ֲע ֵלה ּו ו ַּמ ְק ִטירֹו‬
sciatic nerve is forbidden? One sweeps it to the Temple courtyard
drain.b And in the case of the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering, one
brings it up to the altar. The Gemara comments: What, is it not
that the baraita means that he brings it up to the altar and burns
it with the rest of the animal, which contradicts the statement of
Rav Huna?

,‫חֹולצֹו‬
ְ ‫ ו ֵּמ ַא ַחר ׁ ֶש‬.‫חֹולצֹו‬ְ ְ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵלה ּו ו‬,‫ ָלא‬The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that he brings it up
ַ ‫ ָל ָּמה ַמ ֲע ֵלהוּ? ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬to the altar and removes it from the thigh before placing the thigh
‫״ה ְק ִר ֵיבה ּו‬
on the fire. The Gemara asks: But since he removes it from the
.‫נָ א ְל ֶפ ָח ֶתךָ ״‬
thigh, why does he bring it up to the altar? The Gemara answers
Altar and ramp that one cannot bring the thigh up to the altar after the sciatic nerve
has been removed because it is stated with regard to one who
Peace offering – ‫ש ָל ִמים‬:
ְ ׁ A peace offering, which is
brought from male or female cattle, sheep, or goats, is
sacrifices offerings that are damaged or unattractive: “Present it
an offering of lesser sanctity and may be slaughtered now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you, or will he
anywhere within the Temple courtyard. Following the accept your person? says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:8). Conse-
slaughter, the blood is sprinkled on the two diagonally quently, the leg of the animal must be brought up to the altar while
opposite corners of the altar in such a manner that it it is whole, and the sciatic nerve must be removed on top of the altar.
will descend on each of the altar’s four sides. Unlike the
burnt offering, which is completely consumed on the
altar, only part of the peace offering is burned on the
altar, while the breast and thigh are given to the priest.
The rest of the animal is eaten by the one bringing the
offering and his family anywhere in the city of Jerusalem.
It may be eaten on the day the animal is sacrificed, the
following day, and during the intervening night. With
the exception of the Festival peace offering and a few
other cases, peace offerings were brought voluntarily. language
Master of this [mari dikhi] – ‫יכי‬ִ ‫מ ִרי ִד‬:ָ This phrase, used uniquely Rashi on Bava Kamma 49a). Others explain that the phrase is an
Temple courtyard drain – ‫א ָּמה‬: ַ This was a drainage by Rav Ĥisda (see Bava Kamma 49a and Zevaĥim 43b), is an expression referring to God, as if to say: Master of the Universe
channel that passed through the Temple courtyard. All expression of surprise. Some explain it literally as meaning: Master (Arukh HaShalem). The Arukh cites a version of the text that reads:
the blood, water, and other liquids from the Temple of this ruling, i.e., the one at whom Rav Ĥisda is surprised (see My Master and teacher.
flowed into it and out of the Temple.

notes
The sciatic nerve of a peace offering – ‫גיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְש ָל ִמים‬:ּ ִ The as a peace offering may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem. They
early commentaries were uncertain as to the reason that the explain that the text of the Gemara is incorrect and should read:
sciatic nerve of a peace offering must be swept specifically into The sciatic nerve of a sin offering and a guilt offering, as these
the Temple courtyard drain after being removed from the animal, offerings are eaten only in the Temple courtyard.

86 Ĥullin . perek VII . 90b . ‫צ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א‬
ּ ‫ות‬ ֵ ָ‫ ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav
Kor – ‫כֹור‬:ּ The kor is the largest measurement of volume
ָ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶשל‬,‫ ׁ ְש ָל ִמים – ְמ ַכ ְ ּבדֹו ָל ַא ָּמה‬Huna: With regard to the sciatic nerve of a peace offering, one
– ‫עֹולה‬ mentioned in talmudic sources. The kor contains thirty
sweeps it into the Temple courtyard drain; and with regard to the
.‫חֹולצֹו ַל ַּת ּפו ַּח‬
ְ se’a, which various opinions estimate as being equivalent
sciatic nerve of a burnt offering, one removes it and places it on to between 216 and 432 ℓ.
the circular mound of ashes in the center of the altar.
Golden vine – ‫ג ֶפן ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב‬:ּ ֶ
,‫ ַּת ּפו ַּח ָהיָ ה ְ ּב ֶא ְמצַ ע ַה ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח‬:‫ ְּתנַן ָה ָתם‬We learned in a mishna there (Tamid 28b): There was a circular
.‫ ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ָהיָ ה ָע ָליו ִּכ ׁ ְשל ֹׁש ֵמאֹות ּכֹור‬mound of ashes in the center of the altar, and sometimes there
was as much as three hundred korb of ashes upon it. Rava said: This
.‫ גּ וּזְ ָמא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬
description is an exaggeration [guzma];l the tanna means merely
that there was a significant quantity of ashes.

‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ ִה ׁ ְשק ּו ֶאת ַה ָּת ִמיד ְ ּבכֹוס ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב‬Similarly, it is taught in a mishna (Tamid 30a) that before slaughter-
.‫ גּ וּזְ ָמא‬:‫ ָר ָבא‬ing the daily offering the priests gave the lamb selected for the daily
offering water to drink in a golden cup, in order to render the
animal easier to flay after slaughter. With regard to this mishna, Rava
said: It is an exaggeration, as the priests did not actually let the
animal drink from a golden vessel.

,‫ דִּ ְ ּב ָרה ּת ָֹורה ְל ׁשֹון ֲהוַ אי‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬ The Gemara provides other examples of statements not meant liter-
‫ דִּ ְ ּבר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫יאים ְל ׁשֹון ֲהוַ אי‬ ִ ‫דִּ ְ ּבר ּו נְ ִב‬ ally. Rabbi Ami says: In some instances, the Torah spoke employing
exaggerated [havai]l language, the Prophets spoke employing
– ‫ דִּ ְ ּבר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים ְל ׁשֹון ֲהוַ אי‬.‫ְל ׁשֹון ֲהוַ אי‬
exaggerated language, and the Sages spoke employing exaggerated
,‫ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ language. The fact that the Sages spoke employing exaggerated
language is evident from that which we stated above, concerning
the mound of ashes and the lamb of the daily offering.

‫״ע ִרים ְ ּגדֹולֹות‬

ָ – ‫ דִּ ְ ּב ָרה ּת ָֹורה ְל ׁשֹון ֲהוַ אי‬The Torah spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written:
‫יאים ְל ׁשֹון‬ִ ‫ דִּ ְ ּבר ּו נְ ִב‬,‫“ ו ְּבצוּרֹות ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ָמיִ ם״‬Hear, Israel: You are passing over the Jordan this day, to go in to Entrance hall of the Sanctuary, adorned with a golden vine
dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, cities great and
.‫קֹולם״‬
ָ ‫ֲהוַ אי – ״וַ ִּת ָ ּב ַקע ָה ָא ֶרץ ְל‬
fortified up to heaven” (Deuteronomy 9:1), whereas the fortifica-
tions obviously did not actually reach up to heaven. The Prophets
spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written with regard
to the coronation of King Solomon: “And all the people came up
after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great
joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them” (I Kings 1:40),
where the verse means merely that the sound was very loud.

:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר נַ ְח ָמנִי ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ Rabbi Yitzĥak bar Naĥmani says that Shmuel says: In three places
‫ִ ּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְמקֹומֹות דִּ ְ ּבר ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים ְל ׁשֹון‬ the Sages spoke in exaggerated language, and they are with regard
to the circular mound of ashes on the altar; the vine; and the Cur-
ֶ ‫ ו ָּפ‬,‫ ֶ ּג ֶפן‬,‫ ַּת ּפו ַּח‬:‫ ֵא ּל ּו ֵהן‬,‫ֲהוַ אי‬
.‫רֹוכת‬
tain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies. The case of the
.‫ַּת ּפו ַּח – ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ circular mound of ashes is that which we said.

‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ ֶ ‫ ֶ ּג ֶפן ׁ ֶשל זָ ָהב ָהיְ ָתה‬:‫ֶ ּג ֶפן – דִּ ְתנַן‬ The case of the vine is as we learned in a mishna (Middot 36a):
‫ מו ְּד ָלה ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬,‫יכל‬ ָ ‫ַעל ּ ִפ ְתחֹו ׁ ֶשל ֵה‬ A golden ornament in the form of a vineb was standing at the
entrance to the Sanctuary, and it was hung upon poles. And who-
‫ וְ ָכל ִמי ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ִמ ְתנַ דֵּ ב ַ ּג ְר ִ ּגיר‬,‫ְּכלֹונְסֹות‬
ever would donate an ornamental golden leaf, grape, or cluster of
‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫תֹולה ָ ּב ּה‬ ֶ ְ‫אֹו ֶא ׁ ְש ּכֹול ֵמ ִביא ו‬ grapes to the Temple would bring it to the Temple and hang it upon
‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ָהיָ ה וְ נִ ְמנ ּו‬:‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק‬ the vine. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: There was once
.‫ֹות ּה‬
ָ ּ‫יה ׁ ְשל ֹׁש ֵמאֹות ּכ ֲֹהנִים ְל ַפנ‬ ָ ‫ָע ֶל‬ an incident, and three hundred priests were enlisted to move
the vine because of its immense weight. According to Shmuel, this
description is also an exaggeration.

language
Exaggeration [guzma] – ‫ ּגוּזְ ָמא‬: The source of this term is unclear. Exaggerated [havai] – ‫הוַ אי‬:ֲ This word means nonsense, and is
It may stem from the word gazam, meaning cut, which in turn used to refer to an exaggeration or to imprecise language. Some
was used in rabbinic Hebrew in the form guzma to refer to a explain that it describes an unlearned person who is not careful
threat or an attempt to frighten. Its meaning may then have with his language. Although he does not intend to tell a lie, his
been expanded to refer to any statement made merely to make words lack precision (Rashi).
an impression, without being taken literally.

 ‫צ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 90b 87

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Personalities
‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬:‫רֹוכת – דִּ ְתנַן‬ ֶ ‫ּ ָפ‬ The case of the Curtain is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 8:2):
Rabbi Shimon the deputy High Priest – ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon,
‫ש ְמעֹון ַה ְּסגָ ן‬:
ִ ׁ This Sage is mentioned infrequently in ,‫יָה ֶט ַפח‬ ּ ‫עֹוב‬ְ – ‫רֹוכת‬ ֶ ‫ ּ ָפ‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַה ְּסגָ ן‬
the deputy High Priest:p The Curtain is the thickness of a hand-
the Mishna. Apparently the title: Deputy, is a title ‫נִימה‬
ָ ‫ וְ ַעל ָּכל‬,‫נִירים נֶ ֱא ֶרגֶ ת‬ ִ ‫וְ ַעל ׁ ִש ְב ִעים ו ׁ ְּשנַיִ ם‬
of honor, and not part of his name. According to breadth [tefaĥ].hl It is woven from seventy-two strands [nirim]
‫ ָא ְר ָּכ ּה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬.‫נִימה ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים וְ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה חו ִּטין‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬ of yarn, and each and every strand [nima]l of those seventy-two
some commentaries, the text of the Gemara should
read: Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest. ּ
‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ְשמֹונִים‬,‫ְ ּב ַא ָּמה וְ ָר ְח ָ ּב ּה ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים ְ ּב ַא ָּמה‬ is made from twenty-four threads consisting of six threads each
If so, this individual was actually the son of Rabbi ,‫עֹושים ְ ּב ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ ׂ ִ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַּתיִ ם‬,‫נַע ֵ ׂשת‬ ֲ ‫ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ִר ּבֹוא‬ of sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen. Its
Ĥanina, the deputy High Priest, who is the deputy length is forty cubits, the height of the Sanctuary, and its width
.‫אֹות ּה‬
ָ ‫ו ׁ ְּשל ֹׁש ֵמאֹות ּכ ֲֹהנִים ַמ ְט ִ ּב ִילין‬
most often mentioned in the sources and one is twenty cubits, the width of the entrance. And it is made from
of the prominent Sages in the generation of the
destruction of the Temple (Rambam). Some hold
eighty-two ten-thousands,n i.e., 820,000 dinars. And the overseers
that this Rabbi Shimon is identical with Rabbi Shi- of the Temple make two new Curtains every year.n And the Cur-
mon bar Kahana mentioned in the Tosefta. Since tain was so heavy that when it was immersed, three hundred
he was either the deputy High Priest or the son of priests would immerse it.
the deputy High Priest, his testimony has particular
significance in any matters relevant to priesthood. ‫נִיתין‬
ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬.‫״ביָ ֵרךְ ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין ו ְּביָ ֵרךְ ׁ ֶשל ְ ׂשמֹאל״‬ ְּ § The mishna teaches that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve
:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ applies to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg.
halakha The Gemara says: The mishna is not in accordance with the opin-
– ‫ וְ ַהדַּ ַעת ַמ ְכ ַר ַעת‬,‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַא ַחת‬ ֵ ‫ֵאינֹו‬
The Curtain is the thickness of a handbreadth, etc. – ion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda
‫עֹוביָ ּה ֶט ַפח וכו׳‬
ְ ‫רֹוכת‬
ֶ ‫פ‬:ָ ּ Two curtains each year were .‫ֶאת ׁ ֶשל יָ ִמין‬ says: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only to the sciatic
made to separate the Sanctuary from the Holy of nerve in one of the animal’s thighs, and logic dictates that it is the
Holies. The Curtain was woven from four different right thigh.
types of yarn: Fine linen, sky-blue wool, purple wool,
and scarlet wool. Each strand consisted of six threads ‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫יטא ֵל‬ ָ ‫יפ ׁ ַשט ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬
ְ ‫ ִמ‬:‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלה ּו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it obvious to Rabbi
of each of the four materials, totaling twenty-four
‫ אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא‬,‫ ו ַּמאי ״דַּ ַעת״? דַּ ַעת ּת ָֹורה‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ Yehuda that the prohibition applies only to the sciatic nerve in the
threads. The Curtain, which was forty cubits long
right thigh, and accordingly, what does he mean when he says that
and twenty cubits wide, was woven on seventy-two ‫ ּו ַמאי ״דַּ ַעת״? דַּ ַעת‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַס ּפ ּו ֵקי ִמ ַּס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬
looms and was one handbreadth thick. This is in logic dictates? He means the logic of the Torah. Or perhaps he is
?‫נֹוטה‬ ָ uncertain as to whether it applies only to the right thigh or only to
accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben
Gamliel, citing Rabbi Shimon the deputy High Priest the left, and accordingly, what does he mean when he says that
(Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 7:16). logic dictates? He means that logic inclines one to believe that the
The bones, and the sinews, and the leftover meat prohibition applies to the right thigh.
should be burned on the sixteenth – ‫ָה ֲעצָ מֹות‬
ָ ּ‫וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידים וְ ַהנ‬: Although the
‫ֹותר יִ ּ ָ ׂש ְרפ ּו ְל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ – ‫ֹותר‬ ָ ּ‫ ָה ֲעצָ מֹות וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידים וְ ַהנ‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution based upon the
leftovers of peace offerings are forbidden for con- ‫ ָהנֵי ִ ּג ֵידי ַמאי‬:‫ וְ ָהוֵ ינַן ָ ּב ּה‬,‫יִ ּ ָ ׂש ְרפ ּו ְל ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ following mishna (Pesaĥim 83a): The bones of the Paschal offering
sumption from the beginning of the third night that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is pro-
after being sacrificed, they are not burned until the
ְ ‫ֲע ִב ְיד ַּתיְ יהוּ? ִאי ִ ּג ֵידי ָב ָ ׂשר – ֵל‬
‫יכ ִלינְ הוּ! וְ ִאי‬
hibited to break the bones of the Paschal offering; and the sinews;
following day. The reason is that leftover meat may ‫ ִאי‬,‫נֹותר! ֶא ָּלא ִ ּג ֵידי ַצ ָּואר‬ ָ ‫דְּ ַאיְ יתוּר – ַהיְ ינ ּו‬ and the leftover meat should all be burned on the sixteenthh of
be burned only during the daytime, whether that !ּ‫יש ִדינְ הו‬ ְ ׁ ‫ָלאו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר נִינְ ה ּו – ִל‬
day is the first day following the time that the meat
Nisan, not on the fifteenth, the first day of Passover. And we dis-
became leftover, or whether more than one day cussed it: What are the circumstances in which these sinews
had already passed. Burning the leftover parts of an must be burned? If we say they are sinews of meat, let one eat
offering does not override a Festival and certainly them. Why are they burned? And if they are sinews that were left
does not override Shabbat (Rambam Sefer Avoda, over and not eaten, that is the case of leftover meat; why does the
Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 19:5). mishna list sinews separately? Rather, the mishna is referring to
sinews of the neck, which are different from other sinews and
language are therefore mentioned separately. But if they are not meat,
Handbreadth [tefaĥ] – ‫ט ַפח‬:ֶ The handbreadth is why do they require burning? Let one simply discard them like
the basic measurement of length, and is mentioned other waste.
in the Torah (Exodus 25:25). It refers to the width of
four fingers, excluding the thumb, when they are ,‫ ָלא נִצְ ְר ָכא ֶא ָּלא ְלגִ יד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬:‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬And Rav Ĥisda said: The mishna’s mention of sinews is necessary
side by side. Modern estimates range between 8
and 9.6 cm. ‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא‬ ֵ ‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה דַּ ֲא ַמר ֵאינֹו‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ַא ִּל‬only in order to teach the halakha of the sciatic nerve, and in
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The
Strands [nirim]…strand [nima] – ‫ים…נִימה‬ ָ ‫נִיר‬:
ִ .‫ְ ּב ַא ַחת‬
prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only to the sciatic nerve in
Although two different Hebrew words are used one of the animal’s thighs, and not to both.
here, one in plural and the other in singular, they are
similar to each other and share the same meaning.
The word nima comes from the Greek νῆμα, nēma,
meaning thread or hair.

notes
And it is made from eighty-two ten-thousands [ribbo] – ‫ו ִּמ ׁ ּ ְשמֹונִים‬ And they make two Curtains every year – ‫עֹושים ְ ּב ׁ ָשנָ ה‬
ׂ ִ ‫ו ׁ ְּש ַּתיִ ם‬:
‫נַע ֵ ׂשת‬
ֲ ‫ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ִר ּבֹוא‬: The commentary follows the interpretation of the Some explain that this is referring to the two Curtains that separated
Rambam that this number is referring to the cost of the curtain. the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary in the Second Temple. These
Other commentaries claim that it is referring to the number of were spaced a cubit apart, and they replaced the cubit-width divid-
young girls who have not yet menstruated, and are therefore cer- ing wall, called the amma teraksin, of the First Temple. An alternate
tainly ritually pure, who were needed to weave the curtain. Weaving explanation of the two curtains is that one is for the Holy of Holies
was traditionally women’s work, and women were paid to weave and the other for the Entrance Hall (Rashi). New curtains were
the curtain for the Temple (Commentary on Tamid). According to needed each year because they would become ruined by the large
this interpretation, the text should read rivot, young girls, rather than quantity of smoke produced from the incense (Rosh).
ribbo, ten-thousands. Some explain that the number is referring to
the number of threads that were in the curtain (Rabbeinu Barukh).

88 Ĥullin . perek VII . 90b . ‫צ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

– ‫יה‬
ּ ‫ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַס ּפו ֵּקי ִמ ַּס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬ The Gemara explains how this resolves the dilemma: Granted if you
ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִמ ְיפ ׁ ַשט ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬,‫ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר‬
‫יטא‬ say that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain as to whether it is the sciatic
nerve of the right or the left thigh, it works out well. Since it is
– ‫יסו ָּרא‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫יכ ֵל‬ְ ‫ית ָירא – ֵל‬ ֵּ ‫ דְּ ֶה‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬
uncertain which thigh may be eaten, one may not eat either of them,
!‫ייה‬
ּ ‫ִל ׁ ְש ֵד‬ and one must burn each of them on the sixteenth due to the pos-
sibility that it was the permitted one and now has the status of
leftover meat. But if you say that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that
the sciatic nerve of only the right thigh is forbidden, let him eat the
sciatic nerve of the permitted left thigh, and let him throw away
only the sciatic nerve of the forbidden right thigh. Neither one
should be burned.

‫ימא‬
ָ ‫עֹולם ֵא‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ִא ָיקא ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א‬The Gemara responds: Rav Ika bar Ĥanina said: Actually I could
‫ וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יטא ֵל‬ ְ ‫ ָל ְך ִמ‬say to you that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve
ָ ‫יפ ׁ ַשט ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬
of only the right thigh is forbidden. Nevertheless, here we are
.ּ‫ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְּכ ׁ ֶשהו ְּּכר ּו ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף נִ ְת ָע ְרבו‬
dealing with a case where the sciatic nerves were identified and
removed, but ultimately the sciatic nerves became intermingled
and one cannot tell which is from the right thigh and which is from
the left thigh. Consequently, they must both be left over until the
next day and then burned.

Perek VII
Daf 91 Amud a
background
,‫ ָלא נִצְ ְר ָכא ֶא ָּלא ְל ׁ ַש ְמנֹו‬:‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ֲא ַמר‬Rav Ashi said: The mishna’s ruling that the sinews must be burned
Two nerves – ‫שנֵי ִ ּג ִידין‬:
ְ ׁ The sciatic nerve emerges from
‫דֹושים‬ִ ׁ ‫ וְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְק‬,‫ ׁ ַש ְמנֹו מו ָּּתר‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָ א‬is necessary only with regard to the fat around the sciatic nerve, as the pelvis (1) and runs down the thigh. At the end of the
it is taught in a baraita: The fath around the sciatic nerve is permit-
.‫נָ ֲהג ּו ּבֹו ִא ּיסוּר‬ thigh it branches in two (2): The tibial nerve, which runs
ted by Torah law, but the Jewish people are holy and treated it as down the back of the leg (3), and the common fibular
forbidden. Since it is permitted by Torah law, it has the status of nerve, which runs down the outside of the leg. There
sacrificial meat and may not be simply discarded. Nevertheless, are two traditions as to the identity and placement of
since the Jewish people treat it as forbidden, they do not eat it even these outer and inner nerves mentioned in the Gemara.
from the Paschal offering, despite the mitzva to eat that offering in According to one tradition, accepted by the Yemenite
community, the inner nerve consists of the tibial nerve
its entirety. Therefore, it is left until after the time when the meat
and part of the sciatic nerve, while the common fibular
may be eaten and it is burned as leftover sacrificial meat. nerve is the outer nerve.
According to the second tradition, accepted by the
‫ ָלא נִצְ ְר ָכא ֶא ָּלא ְל ִכ ְד ַרב‬:‫ָר ִבינָ א ֲא ַמר‬ Ravina said: The mishna’s statement is necessary only with regard Ashkenazic community, all of the aforementioned nerves
‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ to the outer nerve, and it is in accordance with that which Rav comprise the inner nerve. It is referred to as being the
Yehuda said that Shmuel said. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel inner one because its base is close to the base of the
ִ ‫ ּ ְפ‬.‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ִ ּג ִידין ֵהן‬:‫ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬
ְ‫ ָסמוּך‬,‫נִימי‬
said: There are two nervesbh included in the prohibition of the coccygeal bone and runs to the end of the femur (4). The
ְ‫ ָסמוּך‬,‫ ִחיצֹון‬.‫ָל ֶעצֶ ם – ָאסוּר וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו‬ sciatic nerve. The inner nerve that is next to the bone is forbidden outer nerve is the femoral nerve, which emerges higher
.‫ַל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָאסוּר וְ ֵאין ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו‬ by Torah law, and one is liable to be flogged for eating it. The outer up in the spine, before the hind leg (5). From there it
runs diagonally to the muscle of the thigh, crossing the
nerve that is next to the flesh is forbidden by rabbinic law, and
femur on its way (6).
therefore one is not liable to be flogged for eating it. In the case of
a Paschal offering, since the outer nerve is permitted by Torah law,
it assumes the status of leftover sacrificial meat when it is not eaten.

– ‫ ָא ַכל ִמּזֶ ה ַּכּזַ יִ ת ו ִּמּזֶ ה ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another resolution to the
‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫סֹופג ׁ ְשמֹונִים‬ ֵ dilemma about Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, from a mishna (96a): If
one ate an olive-bulk from this sciatic nerve of the right leg and an
.‫סֹופג ֶא ָּלא ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬
ֵ
olive-bulk from that sciatic nerve of the left leg, he incurs eighty
lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes.

halakha
Fat – ‫ש ְמנֹו‬:
ַ ׁ Even though the fat attached to the sciatic nerve is There are two nerves – ‫שנֵי ִ ּג ִידין ֵהן‬:
ְ ׁ There are two major nerves
permitted by Torah law, the Jewish people are holy and treat it in the thigh, an inner nerve close to the bone, and an outer one
as forbidden. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir closer to the hide, both of which are forbidden. The inner one Hindquarters of a cow
in the baraita later (92b) and in accordance with the baraita here is forbidden by Torah law and the outer one by rabbinic law, in
(Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:8). accordance with the opinion of Shmuel (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:8).

 ‫אצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 91a 89

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

– ‫יה‬ ּ ‫יטא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ִמ ְיפ ׁ ַשט ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ Granted, if you say it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic
– ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ַס ּפו ֵּקי ִמ ַּס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬,‫ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר‬ nerve of the right thigh is the one forbidden by Torah law, it is well.
But if you say he is uncertain, why would he hold that one incurs any
‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ וְ ׁ ָש ְמ ִעינַן ֵל‬,‫ָהוְ יָ א ָל ּה ַה ְת ָר ַאת ָס ֵפק‬
lashes? When the individual is forewarned not to partake of each
‫ ַה ְת ָר ַאת ָס ֵפק ל ֹא ׁ ְש ָמ ּה‬:‫יְ הו ָּדה דַּ ֲא ַמר‬ sciatic nerve, which is necessary in order to be liable for incurring
!‫ַה ְת ָר ָאה‬ lashes, it is an uncertain forewarning, and we have heard about
Rabbi Yehuda that he said: An uncertain forewarning is not
characterized as forewarning.

‫ ִק ֵּלל‬,‫ ִה ָּכה ֶאת זֶ ה וְ ָחזַ ר וְ ִה ָּכה ֶאת זֶ ה‬:‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ As it is taught in a baraita: If one is uncertain which of two men is his
‫נֵיהם ְ ּב ַבת‬ ֶ ‫ ִה ָּכה ׁ ְש‬,‫ֶאת זֶ ה וְ ָחזַ ר וְ ִק ֵּלל ֶאת זֶ ה‬ father and he struck this one and then struck that one, or cursed
this one and then cursed that one, or struck both of them simulta-
.‫נֵיהם ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת ַחּיָ יב‬ ֶ ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ִּק ֵּלל ׁ ְש‬,‫ַא ַחת‬
neously, or cursed both of them simultaneously, he is liable to
‫ ְ ּבזֶ ה‬,‫ ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת – ַחּיָ יב‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ receive the death penalty, as he certainly struck or cursed his father.
!‫ַא ַחר זֶ ה – ּ ָפטוּר‬ Rabbi Yehuda says: If he struck or cursed both of them simultane-
ously he is liable, provided he was forewarned that his action will
certainly render him liable to receive the death penalty. But if he struck
or cursed them one after the other he is exempt. Apparently, Rabbi
Yehuda is of the opinion that one is not punished after uncertain
forewarning; since in this case it is impossible to determine which of
them is the father, inevitably each forewarning is uncertain. Similarly,
if Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain which sciatic nerve is forbidden by Torah
law, he should hold that since the forewarning before eating either
sciatic nerve is uncertain, one who consumes both should be exempt.

.‫ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא ְס ַבר ַלה ְּכ ִא ָידךְ ַּת ָּנא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬The Gemara answers: This tanna of that mishna, on 96a, holds in
.‫ ַה ְת ָר ַאת ָס ֵפק ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ַה ְת ָר ָאה‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬accordance with the opinion of another tanna with regard to the
opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that Rabbi Yehuda holds that an
uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning.

– ‫תֹותיר ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַעד ּב ֶֹקר״ וגו׳‬ ִ ‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the Paschal
,‫יתן ֲע ֵ ׂשה ַא ַחר ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ֵּ ‫ ָ ּבא ַה ָּכתוּב ִל‬offering: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that
which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus
.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫לֹוקין ָע ָליו‬
ִ ‫לֹומר ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬
ַ
12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the
leftover meat after it has taught a prohibition against leaving it over,
to say that one is not flogged for violation of the prohibition; this is
the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is not
flogged for any transgression that can be rectified by the performance
of a positive mitzva.

‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ ל ֹא ִמן ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם הוּא זֶ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬

ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬Rabbi Ya’akov says: This, the halakha that one is not flogged, is not
‫ וְ ָכל ָלאו‬,‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ֲהוָ ה ָלאו ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬for that reason. Rather, it is because leaving over sacrificial meat is
a prohibition that does not involve an action, as one violates the
.‫לֹוקין ָע ָליו‬
ִ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ֵאין‬
prohibition through failure to take action, and concerning any pro-
hibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its
violation. The forewarning one could receive for this transgression is
an uncertain one, because witnesses who forewarn the individual
cannot be certain until daybreak that he will leave it over. Nevertheless,
this baraita indicates that if not for the fact that leaving over sacrificial
meat can be rectified by a positive mitzva, Rabbi Yehuda would hold
that one is flogged for leaving over sacrificial meat.

‫ ָא ַכל ׁ ְשנֵי ִ ּג ִידין ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵּתי יְ ֵרכֹות‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the uncertainty
‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫סֹופג ׁ ְשמֹונִים‬ ֵ – ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵּתי ְ ּב ֵהמֹות‬with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda from a baraita: If one ate
two sciatic nerves from two thighs of two different animals, he
.‫סֹופג ֶא ָּלא ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬
ֵ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ
incurs eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes.

‫״מ ׁ ּ ְש ֵּתי יְ ֵרכֹות ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵּתי ְ ּב ֵהמֹות״‬ ִ ‫ִמדְּ ָק ָא ַמר‬ The Gemara comments: From the fact that the first tanna said that he
‫ ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫יטא דְּ ַת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ְל ִא ּיסו ָּרא‬ ָ ‫ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ was referring to two thighs of two different animals, it is obvious that
he meant they were both from the right thigh, because if one were
,‫יה‬
ּ ‫יטא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ְיפ ׁ ַשט ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬:‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬, ְ‫ִאיצְ ְט ִריך‬
from the right thigh and one were from the left thigh it would not
.‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ matter if they were from two different animals or from the same ani-
mal. Consequently, both sciatic nerves are definitely forbidden by
Torah law, and according to the first tanna one incurs eighty lashes for
eating them. And it was necessary to teach that according to Rabbi
Yehuda one incurs only forty lashes, as will be explained. Conclude
from this baraita that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that it is the sciatic
nerve of the right thigh that is forbidden by Torah law. The Gemara
affirms: Conclude from it that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.
90 Ĥullin . perek VII . 91a . ‫אצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ וְ ת ּו‬,‫סֹופג ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ֵ ‫ ַא ַּמאי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יטא ֵל‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאי ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ The Gemara seeks to clarify the baraita: But if it is obvious to Rabbi
Yehuda that the sciatic nerve from the right thigh is prohibited by A man who hugs – ‫חֹובק‬
ֵ ‫א ָדם ׁ ֶש‬:ָ
‫ָלא? ִל ְיל ֵקי ׁ ְשמֹונִים! ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן ְּכגֹון‬
Torah law, why does he incur forty lashes and nothing more? Let
– ‫ ֲא ָכלֹו וְ ֵאין ּבֹו ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫דְּ ֵלית ּבֹו ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
him be flogged eighty times. The Gemara answers: Here we are
.‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ּבֹו ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ַחּיָ יב‬ dealing with a case where the volume of one of the sciatic nerves is
not an olive-bulk, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that in such a case one is
not flogged for its consumption. As it is taught in a baraita: If one
ate the entire sciatic nerve and its volume is not an olive-bulk, he is
nevertheless liable to be flogged, because he ate a complete, natural
unit of forbidden food. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is not liable unless it
has a volume of at least an olive-bulk.

– ‫״הּיָ ֵרךְ ״‬
ַ :‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫ וְ ַט ֲע ָמא ַמאי? ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda holds
. ְ‫ ַה ְמיו ֶּּמנֶ ת ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּיָ ֵרך‬that only the sciatic nerve of the right thigh is forbidden by Torah
law? Rava said that it is because the verse states: “Therefore the
children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve that is upon the spoon of
the thigh” (Genesis 32:33). The definite article indicates that this is
referring to the most important thigh.

ּ ‫יה ְ ּבכו ֵּּל‬

, ְ‫יה יָ ֵרך‬ ּ ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן – ַההוּא דְּ ָפ ׁ ֵשיט ִא ּיסו ֵּר‬And the Rabbis, who hold that the sciatic nerves of both the right
.‫ ְל ַא ּפו ֵּקי ִחיצֹון דְּ ָלא‬and left thighs are forbidden by Torah law, explain the definite article Wrestling hug, with one wrestler’s hand reaching the
as teaching that the prohibition applies to the one whose prohibition
other’s thigh
spreads through the entire thigh, i.e., the inner nerve. This serves to
exclude the outer nerve, which is not prohibited by Torah law.
halakha

‫״ב ֵה ָא ְבקֹו‬ּ ְ :‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫יְהֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ֲא ַמר‬

ֻ ׁ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the A Jew who is joined by a gentile on the road –
‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ּ ַפל לֹו גּ ֹוי ַ ּבדֶּ ֶר ְך‬: If a Jew finds himself
ֵ ‫ ִע ּמֹו״ – ְּכ ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש‬sciatic nerve of the right thigh is forbidden because the verse states:
‫ וְ יָ דֹו ַמ ַ ּג ַעת‬,‫חֹובק ֶאת ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ walking on a road with a gentile armed with a
“And when he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched
.‫ְל ַכף יְ ִמינֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ sword, the Jew should ensure that the gentile
the spoon of his thigh; and the spoon of Jacob’s thigh was strained, as is to his right. According to the Haggahot Mai-
he wrestled with him” (Genesis 32:26). The angel grappled with moniyyot, the reason is that if necessary, he can
Jacob like a man who hugsb another in order to throw him to the quickly grab the gentile’s sword using his right
ground, and his hand reaches to the spoon of the right thigh of the hand, as people usually carried their swords on
other. their left sides (Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot
Rotze’aĥ UShmirat HaNefesh 12:7; Shulĥan Arukh,
Yoreh De’a 153:3).
,‫ ְּכגֹוי נִ ְד ָמה לֹו‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ְח ָמנִי ָא ַמר‬Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani says: The angel appeared to him as a
– ‫ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ּ ַפל לֹו גּ ֹוי ַ ּבדֶּ ֶר ְך‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ָמר‬gentile, as the Master said: A Jew who is joined by a gentile on the One who walks to the right of his teacher is
roadh and continues his travels with him should position the gentile ִ ‫ה ְמ ַה ֵּל ְך ִל‬:ַ If
an ignoramus – ‫ימין ַר ּבֹו ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה ּבוּר‬
.‫ימינֹו‬
ִ ‫טֹופלֹו ִל‬
ְ three Torah scholars are walking along the road,
to his right, close to one’s dominant hand. This allows the Jew to
the teacher walks in the middle, with the more
defend himself against any potential attack. Since Jacob followed this
senior student to the teacher’s right and the
practice, it was therefore Jacob’s right thigh that the angel touched. junior student to the teacher’s left (Rambam
Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 6:5; Shulĥan
ּ ‫יה דְּ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬
‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ַא ָחא ַק ֵּמ‬Rav Shmuel bar Aĥa said before Rav Pappa in the name of Rava Arukh, Yoreh De’a 242:17).
,‫ ְּכ ַת ְל ִמיד ָח ָכם ְנִד ָמה לֹו‬:‫ דְּ ָר ָבא ַ ּבר עו ָּּלא ָא ַמר‬bar Ulla that the angel appeared to Jacob as a Torah scholar, and
therefore Jacob positioned the angel on his right side, as the Master
.‫ימין ַר ּבֹו – ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה ּבוּר‬ ִ ‫ ַה ְמ ַה ֵּלךְ ִל‬:‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ָמר‬
said: One who walks to the right of his teacher is an ignoramus,h
in that he does not know how to act with good manners. Conse-
quently, it was Jacob’s right thigh that the angel touched.

.ּ‫יה ְ ּב ַת ְרוַ יְ יהו‬

ּ ֵ‫נָשי‬
ְ ׁ ְ‫ ו‬,‫יה ֲא ָתא‬
ּ ‫חֹור‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן – ֵמ ֲא‬And the Rabbis, who hold that the sciatic nerves of both thighs are
forbidden, understand that the angel came from behind Jacob and
hit him on both thighs.

?‫יה‬ ּ ‫״ב ֵה ָא ְבקֹו ִע ּמֹו״ ַמאי דָּ ְר ׁ ִשי ֵ ּב‬ ּ ְ ‫ ַהאי‬,‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they derive from this
,‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה ִל ְכ ִא ָיד ְך דְּ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ּ ‫ִמ ָ ּב ֵעי ֵל‬ phrase: “As he wrestled with him” (Genesis 32:26)? The Gemara
answers: They require it for the other interpretation of Rabbi
‫ ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ֶה ֱעל ּו‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬
Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This teaches
‫ ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא‬.‫לֹותם ַעד ִּכ ֵּסא ַה ָּכבֹוד‬ ָ ‫ֲא ַבק ַמ ְר ְ ּג‬ that the dust [avak] from their feet ascended to the throne of glory.
‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם ״וְ ָענָ ן ֲא ַבק‬,‫״ב ֵה ָא ְבקֹו ִע ּמֹו״‬ ְּ It is written here: “As he wrestled [behe’avko] with him,” and it is
.‫ַרגְ ָליו״‬ written there in a description of how God will punish the wicked:
“The Lord, in the whirlwind and in the storm is His way, and the
clouds are the dust of His feet” (Nahum 1:3).

ֻ ׁ ְ‫ § וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬The Gemara cites another statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi
‫ ָל ָּמה נִ ְק ָרא ׁ ְשמֹו ״ ִ ּגיד‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ֵכן הוּא‬,‫ ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה״? ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ָָשה ִמ ְּמקֹומֹו וְ ָע ָלה‬concerning the sciatic nerve: And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says:
:‫אֹומר‬
Why is its name called sciatic nerve [gid hanashe]? It is because the
.‫נָשים״‬ ִ ׁ ‫״נָש ָתה ְ ּגבו ָּר ָתם ָהי ּו ְל‬
ָׁ
sciatic nerve left [nasha] its place and rose. And similarly the verse
says: “The mighty men of Babylon have ceased to fight, they remain
in their strongholds; their might has left [nashata], they are become
as women” ( Jeremiah 51:30).
 ‫אצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 91a 91
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
:‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ The Gemara continues with other expositions pertaining to the
Small pitchers – ‫פ ִּכין ְק ַט ּנִים‬:ַ ּ Pitchers were small, sciatic nerve. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ĥanina, said: What is the
typically earthenware vessels, used as receptacles ‫״דָּ ָבר ׁ ָש ַלח ְ ּביַ ֲעקֹב וְ נָ ַפל ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״? ״דָּ ָבר‬
meaning of that which is written: “The Lord sent a word to Jacob,
for liquids. As a pitcher had a narrow opening, it was ‫ ״וְ נָ ַפל‬,‫ׁ ָש ַלח ְ ּביַ ֲעקֹב״ – זֶ ה ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬
impossible to insert even one’s finger into a smaller and it has fallen upon Israel” (Isaiah 9:7)? “He sent a word to
.‫ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ – ׁ ֶש ּ ָפ ׁ ַשט ִא ּיסוּרֹו ְ ּב ָכל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ Jacob”; this is a reference to the sciatic nerve. “And it has fallen
pitcher.
upon Israel”; this teaches that its prohibition has been extended
to the entire Jewish people.

:‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ ֵ ‫וַ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ĥanina, also said: What is the
ָ ‫״ו ְּטב ַֹח ֶט ַבח וְ ָה ֵכן״ – ּ ְפ ַרע ָל ֶהן ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬
,‫יטה‬ meaning of that which is written: “And when Joseph saw Benjamin
with them, he said to the steward of his house: Bring the men into
‫ ְּכ ַמאן‬.‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫״וְ ָה ֵכן״ – טֹול ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ִ ּב ְפ‬
the house, and slaughter the animals, and prepare the meat; for
.‫ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה נֶ ֱא ַסר ִל ְבנֵי נ ַֹח‬:‫דַּ ֲא ַמר‬ the men shall dine with me at noon” (Genesis 43:16)? Joseph com-
manded his steward: Expose the place of the slaughter on the neck
of the animal to them so that the brothers will know that it is being
slaughtered correctly. “And prepare” teaches that Joseph instructed
the steward to remove the sciatic nerve in their presence so that
the brothers would know that it had been fully removed. The
Gemara comments that this opinion is according to the one who
said that the sciatic nerve was forbidden to the children of Jacob
even before the Torah was given, when they still had the status of
descendants of Noah.

:‫״וַ ּיִ וָ ֵתר יַ ֲעקֹב ְל ַבדּ ֹו״ – ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ The Gemara returns to the verse of Jacob wrestling with the angel.
Small pitcher from the Second Temple era The verse states: “And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with
‫ ִמ ָּכאן ַל ַ ּצדִּ ִיקים‬,‫ׁ ֶש ּנ ׁ ְִש ַּתּיֵ יר ַעל ּ ַפ ִּכין ְק ַט ּנִים‬
him until the breaking of the day” (Genesis 32:25). Rabbi Elazar
halakha ‫ וְ ָכל‬,‫יֹותר ִמגּ ו ָּפם‬ ֵ ‫יהם ָממֹונָ ם‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ָח ִביב ֲע ֵל‬
says: The reason Jacob remained alone was that he remained to
A Torah scholar should not go out of his house .‫יהן ְ ּבגֵ זֶ ל‬
ֶ ‫ֹוש ִטין יְ ֵד‬
ְ ׁ ‫ָּכךְ ָל ָּמה? ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּפ‬ collect some small pitchersb that had been left behind. From here
alone at night – ‫ל ַת ְל ִמיד ָח ָכם ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יֵ צֵ א יְ ִח ִידי ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬:ְ
it is derived that the possessions of the righteous are dearer to
A Torah scholar may not go out alone at night unless
it is his set time to go out to learn, due to concern of
them than their bodies. And why do they care so much about their
suspicion of engaging in illicit behavior. This ruling possessions? It is because they do not stretch out their hands to
is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzĥak partake of stolen property.
(Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Deot 5:9).
‫״וַ ּיֵ ָא ֵבק ִא ׁיש ִע ּמֹו ַעד ֲעלֹות ַה ׁ ּ ָש ַחר״ – ָא ַמר‬ The verse states: “And a man wrestled with him until the breaking
‫ ִמ ָּכאן ְל ַת ְל ִמיד ָח ָכם ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יֵ צֵ א‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬ of the day.” Rabbi Yitzĥak says: From here it is derived that a
Torah scholar should not go out of his house alone at night,hn as
‫ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ָּכ ֲהנָ א ֲא ַמר‬.‫יְ ִח ִידי ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬
Jacob went out alone at night and was injured. Rabbi Abba bar
:‫ֵמ ָה ָכא‬ Kahana said that the source for this instruction is from here:
notes
From here it is derived that a Torah scholar should not go out the Gemara states elsewhere (Pesaĥim 2a) that one should set
alone at night – ‫מ ָּכאן ְל ַת ְל ִמיד ָח ָכם ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא יֵ צֵ א יְ ִח ִידי ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה‬:ִ Tosafot out on a journey only during daylight hours and should come
write that this applies specifically to a Torah scholar because he to a settled place at night, indicating that this advice applies to
requires extra protection, similar to a bridegroom, who also requires all people, that is referring to a long journey, due to the various
extra protection (see Berakhot 54b). The reason is that evil forces dangers on the road, such as potholes or bandits, which are more
single him out specifically, and night is a time when evil has more dangerous at night.
power, especially over those who are walking alone. Although

Perek VII
Daf 91 Amud b

.‫״ה ֵּנה הוּא ז ֶֹרה ֶאת ֶגֹּרן ַה ּ ְ ׂשע ִֹרים״‬

ִ “And now is there not Boaz our kinsman, whose maidens you were
with? Behold, he winnows barley tonight in the threshing floor…
and it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall mark the place
where he shall lie” (Ruth 3:2–3). This teaches that the reason Boaz
did not return home from the threshing floor was that a Torah
scholar should not go out alone at night.

‫ ״וַ ּיַ ׁ ְש ֵּכם ַא ְב ָר ָהם‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו ֲא ַמר ֵמ ָה ָכא‬Rabbi Abbahu said that the source is from here: “And Abraham
.‫ ַ ּב ּב ֶֹקר וַ ּיַ ֲחב ֹׁש ֶאת״ וגו׳‬rose early in the morning, and saddled his donkey, and took two
of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split the wood
for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went to the place that God
had told him” (Genesis 22:3). The fact that Abraham waited until
morning and did not set off at night, even though others were travel-
ing with him, indicates that a Torah scholar should not go out at
night at all, and certainly not alone.
92 Ĥullin . perek VII . 91b . ‫אצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
‫״לךְ נָ א ְר ֵאה ֶאת ׁ ְשלֹום‬ֶ :‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָא ְמ ִרי ֵמ ָה ָכא‬And the Rabbis say that the source is from here, the verse that
Meat market [itliz] – ‫יט ִליז‬
ְ ‫א‬:
ִ Most experts hold
.‫ ַא ֶחיךָ וְ ֶאת ׁ ְשלֹום״ וגו׳‬describes when Jacob sent Joseph to his brothers: “And he said to that itliz is derived from the Greek κατάλυσις,
him: Go now, see whether it is well with you brothers and well with katalusis, meaning resting place, quarters, market-
the flock; and bring me back word. So he sent him out of the valley place, or communal square. Some hold that the
of Hebron, and he came to Shechem” (Genesis 37:14). The verse source is the Greek word ἀτελής, atelēs, meaning
indicates that Jacob sent Joseph at a time when he could see his a tax-exempt area, and by extension a trade fair.
brothers, i.e., during the day. This shows that a Torah scholar should Parasang [parsa] – ‫פ ְר ָסא‬:ַ ּ From the Middle
not go out alone at night. Persian frasang, via the Greek παρασάγγης,
parasangēs, which is a unit of measurement. In
.‫ ״וַ ּיִ זְ ַרח לֹו ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמ ׁש״‬:‫ ַרב ֲא ַמר ֵמ ָה ָכא‬Rav said that the source is from here: “And the sun rose for him as the Talmud, one parasang [parsa] is equal to four
he passed over Peniel, and he limped upon his thigh” (Genesis 32:32). mil.
This indicates that Jacob remained where he was all night and left
in the morning, because a Torah scholar should not go out alone background
at night. Emmaus – ‫ימאוּם‬ ָ ‫א‬:
ֵ An ancient Judean town
approximately 30 km northwest of the Old City
‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ָש ַא ְל ִּתי ֶאת ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ The Gemara cites an incident involving the final verse cited above. of Jerusalem, near modern-day Latrun. Emmaus
,‫ימא ּום‬ ָ ‫יט ִליז ׁ ֶשל ֵא‬ ְ ‫הֹוש ַע ְ ּב ִא‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫וְ ֶאת ַר ִ ּבי י‬ Rabbi Akiva says: I asked the following question of Rabban Gam- marks the border between the Judean hills and
liel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market [be’itliz]l of the town the plains, and was mentioned in the books of
‫יקח ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ֵּתה ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ָ ּבן‬ ּ ַ ‫ׁ ֶש ָה ְלכ ּו ִל‬ the Hasmoneans (I Maccabees 3:55–4:22). Over
Emmaus,b where they went to purchase an animal for the wedding
‫ וְ ִכי ׁ ֶש ֶמ ׁש‬,‫ ְּכ ִתיב ״וַ ּיִ זְ ַרח לֹו ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמ ׁש״‬,‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ feast of Rabban Gamliel’s son: It is written in the verse: “And the the years, it developed into a resort town due to
the hot springs and baths there. In fact, the name
!‫עֹולם זָ ְר ָחה‬ ָ ‫לֹו ְל ַבד זָ ְר ָחה? וַ ֲהל ֹא ְל ָכל ָה‬ sun shone for him when he passed Peniel, and he limped upon his Emmaus is the Latin translation of the original
thigh” (Genesis 32:32). But did the sun shine only for him? Didn’t Hebrew name Ĥamat, meaning warm spring.
it shine for the entire world? From the Gemara here it appears that it was also
an important center for trade.
‫ זָ ְר ָחה‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ֶמ ׁש ַה ָ ּב ָאה ַ ּב ֲעבוּרֹו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬ Rabbi Yitzĥak says: The verse means that the sun, which set early
‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״וַ ּיֵ צֵ א יַ ֲעקֹב ִמ ְ ּב ֵאר ׁ ָש ַבע‬,‫ַ ּב ֲעבוּרֹו‬ exclusively for him, also shone early exclusively for him in order to
rectify the disparity created by the premature sunset. The Gemara
‫ ִּכי‬,‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ״וַ ּיִ ְפ ַ ּגע ַ ּב ָּמקֹום״‬,‫וַ ּיֵ ֶל ְך ָח ָרנָ ה״‬
explains when the sun set early for him: As it is written: “And Jacob
‫ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ָע ַב ְר ִּתי ַעל ָמקֹום‬:‫ְמ ָטא ְל ָח ָרן ֲא ַמר‬ went out from Beersheba and went toward Haran” (Genesis 28:10).
‫ וַ ֲאנִי ל ֹא ִה ְת ּ ַפ ַּל ְל ִּתי? ַּכד‬,‫בֹותי‬
ַ ‫ׁ ֶש ִה ְת ּ ַפ ְּלל ּו ֲא‬ And it is written thereafter: “And he encountered the place, and he
,‫יה ַא ְר ָעא‬ ּ ‫יה ַדר – ָק ְפצָ ה ֵל‬ ֲ ‫יה ְל ִמ‬
ּ ‫יָ ֵהיב דַּ ְע ֵּת‬ slept there, because the sun had set” (Genesis 28:11). When Jacob
.‫ִמּיָ ד – ״וַ ּיִ ְפ ַ ּגע ַ ּב ָּמקֹום״‬ arrived at Haran, he said: Is it possible that I passed a place where
my fathers prayed and I did not pray there? When he set his mind
to return, the land contracted for him. Immediately the verse
states: “And he encountered the place,” indicating that he arrived
there miraculously.

ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ַה ָ ּק‬,‫ ַּכד צְ ֵלי ָ ּב ֵעי ְל ִמ ֲיה ַדר‬When he had finished praying and he wanted to return to Haran,
:‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא‬
?‫ וְ יִ ּ ָפ ֵטר ְ ּבל ֹא ִלינָ ה‬,‫ צַ דִּ יק זֶ ה ָ ּבא ְל ֵבית ְמלֹונִי‬the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: This righteous man came to
my lodging place and he will depart without remaining overnight?
.‫ִמּיָ ד ָ ּבא ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶמ ׁש‬
Immediately, the sun set before its proper time so that Jacob would
stay overnight in that place.

‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ״וַ ּיִ ַ ּקח‬,‫ְּכ ִתיב ״וַ ּיִ ַ ּקח ֵמ ַא ְבנֵי ַה ָּמקֹום״‬ The Gemara cites another exposition of Rabbi Yitzĥak to explain
‫ ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַק ְ ּבצ ּו‬:‫ֶאת ָה ֶא ֶבן״! ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬ an apparent contradiction between two verses pertaining to this
incident. It is written: “And he took of the stones of the place,
‫ וְ ָכל ַא ַחת‬,‫אֹותן ֲא ָבנִים ְל ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ‫ָּכל‬
and placed them under his head, and lay down in that place to
.‫ֹאשֹו״‬ ׁ ‫״ע ַלי יַ ּנ ִַיח צַ דִּ יק זֶ ה ר‬ ָ ‫אֹומ ֶרת‬ֶ ‫וְ ַא ַחת‬ sleep” (Genesis 28:11). And it is written: “And Jacob rose up early in
.‫ וְ כו ָּּלן נִ ְב ְלע ּו ְ ּב ֶא ָחד‬:‫ָּתנָ א‬ the morning, and he took the stone that he had placed under his
head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it”
(Genesis 28:18). The first verse indicates that Jacob took several
stones, whereas the latter verse indicates that he took only one stone.
Rabbi Yitzĥak says: This teaches that all those stones gathered to
one place and each one said: Let this righteous man place his head
upon me. And it was taught: And all of them were absorbed into
one large rock.

‫ ַּכ ָּמה‬:‫ ָּתנָ א‬,‫״וַ ּיַ ֲחל ֹם וְ ִה ֵּנה ֻס ָּלם ֻמ ָ ּצב ַא ְרצָ ה״‬ The Gemara expounds other verses pertaining to the same incident.
,‫ָר ְח ּבֹו ׁ ֶשל סו ָּּלם – ׁ ְשמֹונַ ת ֲא ָל ִפים ּ ַפ ְר ָסאֹות‬ The verse states: “And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on
the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels
‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״וְ ִה ֵּנה ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ֱאל ִֹהים ע ִֹלים וְ י ְֹר ִדים‬
of God ascending and descending on it” (Genesis 28:12). It was
‫ וְ ִכי‬,‫ ״וְ י ְֹר ִדים״ – ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬,‫ ״ע ִֹלים״ – ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬,‫ּבֹו״‬ taught: How wide was the ladder? It was eight thousand parasangs
,‫ּ ָפגְ ע ּו ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי – ָהו ּו ְלה ּו ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ [parsaot],l as it is written: “And behold the angels of God ascend-
ing and descending on it.” The word “ascending [olim],” written in
plural, indicates that there were two angels ascending simultaneously.
Likewise, the term “and descending [veyordim],” also in the plural,
indicates that two angels were descending simultaneously. And when
they met one another they were a total of four in one place, so the
ladder must have been wide enough to accommodate four angels.
 ‫אצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 91b 93
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
‫ וּגְ ִמ ִירי‬,‫יה ַ ּב ַּמ ְל ָאךְ ״וּגְ וִ ּיָ תֹו ְּכ ַת ְר ׁ ִש ׁיש״‬
ּ ‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ֵ ּב‬And it is written in a verse with regard to an angel: “His body was
Image [deyokan] – ‫יֹוקן‬ָ ‫ד‬:ּ ְ Some hold that this
word comes from the Greek δείκανον, deikanon, .ּ‫ דְּ ַת ְר ׁ ִש ׁיש ְּת ֵרי ַא ְל ֵפי ּ ַפ ְר ֵסי ָהוו‬like Tarshish” (Daniel 10:6). And it is learned as a tradition that the
city of Tarshish was two thousand parasangs. Consequently, in
meaning an engraved or embroidered image. The
ge’onim explain that it is a combination of two order to accommodate four angels, the ladder must have been eight
words, dio-ikonin, from the Greek εἰκών, eikon, thousands parasangs wide.
meaning image or form. The word therefore
means a duplicate or copy of an image. ,‫יֹוקנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ְ ‫עֹולין ו ִּמ ְס ַּת ְּכ ִלין ִ ּב ְד‬
ִ :‫ָּתנָ א‬ It was taught that the angels were ascending and gazing at the image
‫ ָ ּבע ּו‬.‫יֹוקנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַמ ָּטה‬ְ ‫יֹור ִדין ו ִּמ ְס ַּת ְּכ ִלין ִ ּב ְד‬
ְ ְ‫ו‬ of [bidyokeno]l Jacob above,b engraved on the Throne of Glory, and
Gambler [kuveyustus] – ‫קו ְּביו ְּסטוּס‬: From the
descending and gazing at his image below. The angels subsequently
Greek κυβευτής, kubeutēs, meaning one who ‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫נִצב ָע ָליו״‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִמּיָ ד – ״וְ ִה ֵּנה ה׳‬,‫ּנֵיה‬ ּ ‫ְל ַס ּכו‬
plays with dice. became jealous of Jacob, and wanted to endanger his life. Immedi-
,‫ ִא ְל ָמ ֵלא ִמ ְק ָרא ָּכתוּב‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ately Jacob received divine protection, as the verse states: “And
.‫ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל ָא ְמרֹו – ְּכ ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ֵּמנִיף ַעל ְ ּבנֹו‬ behold, the Lord stood over him” (Genesis 28:13). Rabbi Shimon
ben Lakish says: Were it not written in a verse it would be impos-
sible to utter it, in deference to God, since it describes God as stand-
ing over Jacob to protect him from the angels like a man who waves
a fan over his son to cool him down.

‫יה״ וגו׳ – ַמאי‬ ָ ‫״ה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ׁ ֶשר ַא ָּתה ׁש ֵֹכב ָע ֶל‬ ָ The Gemara explains another verse from Jacob’s dream. “And behold,
‫ ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ִּק ּ ְפ ָל ּה‬:‫יה? ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬
ּ ‫ְרבו ֵּת‬ the Lord stood over him and said: I am the Lord, the God of Abra-
ham your father and the God of Isaac. The land upon which you lie,
‫ִיח ּה‬ ׁ ‫ַה ָ ּק‬
ָ ‫דֹוש ָ ּברוּךְ הוּא ְל ָכל ֶא ֶרץ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ִה ּנ‬
to you will I give it, and to your seed” (Genesis 28:13). The Gemara
‫יכ ֵב ׁש‬ ָּ ‫נֹוחה ִל‬ָ ‫ ׁ ֶש ְּת ֵהא‬,ּ‫ַּת ַחת יַ ֲעקֹב ָא ִבינו‬ asks: What is the greatness of this promise, i.e., why is it expressed
.‫ְל ָבנָיו‬ in this way despite the fact that in a literal sense Jacob was lying on a
very small amount of land? Rabbi Yitzĥak says: This teaches that
the Holy One, Blessed be He, folded up the entirety of Eretz Yis-
rael and placed it under Jacob, our patriarch, so that it would be
easy for his children to conquer.

‫ ַ ּג ָּנב‬:‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬,‫ֹאמר ׁ ַש ְּל ֵחנִי ִּכי ָע ָלה ַה ׁ ּ ָש ַחר״‬ ֶ ‫״וַ ּי‬ The Gemara returns to the verses that describe Jacob wrestling with
‫ ׁ ֶש ִּמ ְתיָ ֵירא ִמן‬,‫ אֹו קו ְּביו ְּסטוּס ַא ָּתה‬,‫ַא ָּתה‬ the angel. “And he said: Let me go, for the dawn has risen. And
he said: I will not let you go until you bless me” (Genesis 32:27).
‫אתי‬ִ ‫ ו ִּמּיֹום ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְב ֵר‬,‫ ַמ ְל ָאךְ ֲאנִי‬:‫ַה ׁ ּ ַש ַחר? ָא ַמר לֹו‬
Jacob said to the angel: Are you a thief, or are you a gambler
.‫לֹומר ׁ ִש ָירה ַעד ַע ְכ ׁ ָשיו‬ ַ ‫ל ֹא ִה ִ ּג ַיע זְ ַמ ּנִי‬ [kuveyustus],l who is afraid of dawn? The angel said to him: I am
an angel, and from the day I was created my time to recite a song
before God has not arrived, until now. Now I must ascend so that I
can sing songs of praise to God.

‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬,‫יה ְל ַרב ֲחנַ נְ ֵאל ֲא ַמר ַרב‬ ּ ‫ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rav Ĥananel
‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ִּכ ּתֹות ׁ ֶשל ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי‬:‫ֲחנַ נְ ֵאל ֲא ַמר ַרב‬ when he related what Rav said. As Rav Ĥananel said that Rav said:
Three groups of ministering angels recite a song every day from
‫אֹומ ֶרת‬
ֶ ‫ ַא ַחת‬,‫אֹומרֹות ׁ ִש ָירה ְ ּב ָכל יֹום‬ְ ‫ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֵרת‬
the verse “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord”; one says: “Holy,” and
‫ וְ ַא ַחת‬,‫דֹוש״‬ ׁ ‫״ק‬ָ ‫אֹומ ֶרת‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַא ַחת‬,‫דֹוש״‬
ׁ ‫״ק‬ ָ another one says: “Holy,” and another one says: “Holy is the Lord
.‫דֹוש ה׳ צְ ָבאֹות״‬ ׁ ‫״ק‬ ָ ‫אֹומ ֶרת‬
ֶ of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3).

ׁ ‫ ֲח ִב ִיבין יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ִל ְפנֵי ַה ָ ּק‬:‫ית ֵיבי‬

‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: The
‫יֹותר ִמ ַּמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֵרת – ׁ ֶשּיִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫הוּא‬ Jewish people are more dear to the Holy One, Blessed be He,
than the ministering angels, as the Jewish people may recite a
‫ ו ַּמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֵרת ֵאין‬,‫אֹומ ִרים ׁ ִש ָירה ְ ּב ָכל ׁ ָש ָעה‬ְ
song of praise to God at any time, but ministering angels recite a
‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫אֹומ ִרים ׁ ִש ָירה ֶא ָּלא ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ְ ּביֹום‬ ְ song of praise only one time per day. And some say that the minis-
‫ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬,‫ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ְ ּב ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:‫ָל ּה‬ tering angels recite a song of praise one time per week. And some
‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ְ ּב ׁ ָשנָ ה‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬,‫חֹוד ׁש‬
ֶ ‫ְ ּב‬ say that they recite a song of praise one time per month. And
‫ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬,‫ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ְ ּב ׁ ָשבו ַּע‬:‫ָל ּה‬ some say that they recite a song of praise one time per year. And
.‫עֹולם‬ָ ‫ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת ָ ּב‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬,‫יֹובל‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב‬ some say that they recite a song of praise one time in every seven
years. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time per
Jubilee. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time in
the entire history of the world.

,‫וְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַמזְ ִּכ ִירין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם ַא ַחר ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֵּתיבֹות‬ And furthermore, the Jewish people mention the name of God after
‫ ּו ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי‬,‫״ש ַמע יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ה׳״ וגו׳‬ ְ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ two words, as it is stated: “Hear, Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord
is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). But the ministering angels mention
‫ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֵרת ֵאין ַמזְ ִּכ ִירין ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם ֶא ָּלא ְל ַא ַחר‬
the name of God only after three words, as it is written: “And one
‫דֹוש‬
ׁ ‫דֹוש ָק‬ ׁ ‫דֹוש ָק‬
ׁ ‫״ק‬ ָ ‫ ְּכ ִד ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ֵּתיבֹות‬ called unto another, and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
.‫ה׳ צְ ָבאֹות״‬ the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3).

background
The image of above – ‫יֹוקנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַמ ְע ָלה‬
ְ ‫ד‬:ּ ְ In his vision of heaven, Ezekiel four had also the face of an eagle” (Ezekiel 1:10). There is a tradition
describes angels with four faces. “As for the likeness of their faces, that the face of the man was the face of Jacob, which may be the
they had the face of a man; and the four had the face of a lion on the image referred to in the Gemara here.
right side; and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; and the

94 Ĥullin . perek VII . 91b . ‫אצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫אֹומ ִרים ׁ ִש ָירה ְל ַמ ְע ָלה‬ ְ ‫וְ ֵאין ַמ ְל ֲא ֵכי ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֵרת‬ And the ministering angels do not recite their song above until
‫״ב ָרן‬ ּ ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ֹאמר ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְל ַמ ָּטה‬
ְ ‫ַעד ׁ ֶשּי‬ the Jewish people recite their song below, on earth, as it is stated:
“When the morning stars sang together” ( Job 38:7), referring to
‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ״וַ ּיָ ִריע ּו ָּכל ְ ּבנֵי‬,‫ֹוכ ֵבי ב ֶֹקר״‬ ְ ‫יַ ַחד ּכ‬
the Jewish people, who are compared to stars; and only then does
!‫ֱאל ִֹהים״‬ the verse state: “And all the sons of God shouted for joy,” which is
a reference to the angels. This baraita teaches that the angels men-
tion the name of God only after three words, i.e., after saying the
word “holy” three times, whereas according to what Rav Ĥananel
stated that Rav said, the third group of angels says the word “holy”
once and then immediately mentions the name of God.

‫אֹומ ֶרת‬
ֶ ‫ וְ ַא ַחת‬,‫דֹוש״‬ ׁ ‫״ק‬ ֶ ‫ ַא ַחת‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara emends Rav Ĥananel’s statement citing Rav: Rather,
ָ ‫אֹומ ֶרת‬
‫דֹוש‬
ׁ ‫דֹוש ָק‬
ׁ ‫״ק‬ ָ ‫אֹומ ֶרת‬
ֶ ‫ וְ ַא ַחת‬,‫דֹוש״‬
ׁ ‫דֹוש ָק‬
ׁ ‫״ק‬ָ Rav said that one group of ministering angels says: “Holy,” and
another one says: “Holy, holy,” and another one says: “Holy, holy,
!‫״ברו ְּך״‬
ּ ָ ‫יכא‬
ָּ ‫ וְ ָה ִא‬.‫דֹוש ה׳ צְ ָבאֹות״‬
ׁ ‫ָק‬
holy is the Lord of hosts.” The Gemara challenges the statement of
the baraita that the angels mention the name of God only after three
words: But there is the verse: “Then a spirit lifted me up, and I heard
behind me the voice of a great rushing: Blessed be the glory of the
Lord from His place” (Ezekiel 3:12). In this praise, “Blessed be the
glory of the Lord,” the word “Lord” appears as the third Hebrew
word, apparently uttered by the ministering angels.

Perek VII
Daf 92 Amud a
background
‫יב ֵעית‬
ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬.‫יה‬
ּ ‫אֹופ ּנִים הוּא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬
ַ – ‫״ברוּךְ ״‬ ּ ָ The Gemara answers that it is the ofanim who say the verse:
Exilarch [reish galuta] – ‫ר ׁיש ָ ּגלו ָּתא‬:ֵ The Exilarch, who
ָ ‫“ ֵא‬Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His place,” as the next verse
.‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִא ְתיְ ִהיב ְר ׁשו ָּתא – ִא ְתיְ ִהיב‬:‫ימא‬ was always a descendant of the House of David was
mentions “the noise of the ofanim” (Ezekiel 3:13), and Rav Ĥanina’s recognized by the Jews as the heir to the scepter of
statement citing Rav was referring not to ofanim but to ministering Judah (see Genesis 49:10) and entrusted with broad
angels. And if you wish, say that once permission has been given official powers. As the leader of the Jews of the
to them to mention the name of God after three words when they Persian Empire, he was their representative to the
say: “Holy, holy, holy,” permission is also given to them to mention authorities, who regarded him as a member of a royal
the name of God again while praising Him even after fewer than dynasty. Consequently, he enjoyed a lofty position
within the Persian court, and in certain periods he
three words.
was considered third in the royal hierarchy.
The Exilarch was responsible for the collection
‫ ֵאינִי‬,‫״וַ ּיָ ַ ׂשר ֶאל ַמ ְל ָאךְ וַ ּיֻ ָכל ָ ּב ָכה וַ ּיִ ְת ַח ּנֶן לֹו״‬ The Gemara continues to discuss Jacob wrestling with the angel. The
of a major portion of the government taxes and
‫״כי‬ִּ :‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫נַע ָ ׂשה ַ ׂשר ְל ִמי‬ ֲ ‫יֹוד ַע ִמי‬ ֵ prophet states: “So he strove [vayyasar] with an angel, and pre- could appoint leaders and judges whose powers
vailed; he wept, and made supplication to him; at Beth El he
‫נַע ָ ׂשה‬
ֲ ‫ יַ ֲעקֹב‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ֱהוֵ י‬,‫ית ִעם ֱאל ִֹהים״‬ ָ ‫ָ ׂש ִר‬ included the imposition of corporal, and sometimes
would find him, and there he would speak with us” (Hosea 12:5). capital, punishment. Adjacent to the Exilarch’s home
. ְ‫ַ ׂשר ַל ַּמ ְל ָאך‬ From this verse I do not know who became master [sar], i.e., was was a special rabbinical court appointed by him to
victorious, over whom. When another verse states: “And he said: judge monetary cases. The Exilarchs themselves
Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have were referred to in the Talmud by the honorific title
Mar before or after their name. While not all were
striven with angels and with men, and have prevailed” (Genesis
learned, they were devoted to the Torah, and some
32:29), you must say that Jacob became master over the angel. were significant scholars.

,‫יֹוד ַע ִמי ָ ּב ָכה ְל ִמי‬

ֵ ‫ ֵאינִי‬,‫״ב ָכה וַ ּיִ ְת ַח ּנֶן לֹו״‬
ּ ָ The verse in Hosea states: “He wept, and made supplication to The Nasi who is in Eretz Yisrael – ‫נָשיא ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ‬
ִׂ
‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬: The Nasi, chosen for his wisdom, was the
ֵ ‫ ֱהוֵ י‬,‫ֹאמר ׁ ַש ְּל ֵחנִי״‬
:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬him.” From this verse I do not know who cried to whom. When
ֶ ‫ ״וַ ּי‬:‫אֹומר‬ president of the High Court in Eretz Yisrael, and for a
another verse states: “And he said: Let me go, for the dawn has
.‫ַמ ְל ָאךְ ָ ּב ָכה ְליַ ֲעקֹב‬ long period this was considered the highest position
risen” (Genesis 32:27), you must say that the angel cried to Jacob. within the Jewish people. Many of those Nesi’im who
are known by name are from the time of the tanna’im,
‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫נָשים״‬ ִ ׁ ‫ית ִעם ֱאל ִֹהים וְ ִעם ֲא‬ ָ ‫״כי ָ ׂש ִר‬ִּ The verse states: “And he said: Your name shall no longer be called
beginning with Hillel.
‫ ֶר ֶמז ָר ַמז לֹו ׁ ֶש ֲע ִת ִידים ׁ ְשנֵי ָ ׂש ִרים ָלצֵ את‬:‫ַר ָ ּבה‬ Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with angels [elohim] and Aside from his duties in the High Court, the Nasi
with men, and have prevailed” (Genesis 32:29). Rabba says: The represented the Jewish people to the Roman rul-
ׂ ִ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ֹאש ּג ָֹולה ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָב ֶבל‬
‫נָשיא ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ‬ ׁ ‫ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו – ר‬
angel intimated to Jacob that in the future two princes would ers and participated in certain halakhic rulings, e.g.,
.‫ ִמ ָּכאן ָר ַמז לֹו ָ ּגלוּת‬,‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ emerge from him: They are the Exilarchb who is in Babylonia establishing the New Month. He also appointed
and the Nasi who is in Eretz Yisrael.bn And from here he also representatives to act on his behalf in collecting
intimated to Jacob that there would be an exile. taxes from the Jewish communities in exile, used to
support the office of the Nasi. This tax was ratified by
Imperial Rome, and collected under Roman authority.
notes
The Exilarch who is in Babylonia and the Nasi who is in Eretz an allusion to the Nasi of Eretz Yisrael, who was formally granted
Yisrael – ‫נָשיא ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬
ׂ ִ ְ‫ֹּולה ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָב ֶבל ו‬
ָ ‫ֹאש ג‬
ׁ ‫ר‬: Rashi explains that ordination. The word “men” alludes to the Exilarch in Babylonia.
the word elohim, which can refer to judges (see Exodus 22:8), is

 ‫בצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 92a 95

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬,‫״ו ַּב ֶ ּג ֶפן ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָ ׂש ִריגִ ם״‬ Similarly, with regard to the dream of Pharaoh’s butler, the verse
Rabbana – ‫ר ָ ּבנָ א‬:ַ This special title was given to states: “And in the vine were three branches [sarigim]; and as it
Sages who were from the family of the Exilarch. ‫ ֵא ּל ּו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָ ׂש ֵרי ֵ ּג ִאים ַהּיֹוצְ ִאים‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬
was budding, its blossoms shot forth, and its clusters brought forth
They were known as Rabbana rather than as Rav, ‫ ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְשנַיִ ם ָּכאן‬,‫ִמּיִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְ ּב ָכל דּ ֹור וָ דֹור‬
to indicate their prestigious lineage. ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). Rav Ĥiyya bar Abba says that Rav
‫ ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְשנַיִ ם ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ‬,‫וְ ֶא ָחד ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ says: These three branches refer to the three proud princes [sarei
‫ יְ ִהיב ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן ֵעינַיְ יה ּו ְ ּב ַר ָ ּבנָ א‬.‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ֶא ָחד ָּכאן‬ ge’im] who emerge from the Jewish people in each and every
language
Young priests [pirĥei khehunna] – ‫פ ְר ֵחי ְכהו ָּּנה‬:ִ ּ The .‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ּ ‫עו ְּק ָבא וְ ַר ָ ּבנָ א נְ ֶח ְמיָ ה ְ ּבנֵי ְ ּב ַר ֵּת‬ generation. There are times when two are here in Babylonia and
word pirĥei refers to something young and small one is in Eretz Yisrael, and there are times when two are in Eretz
that is still in the process of maturation and bloom- Yisrael and one is here in Babylonia. When this was stated in the
ing, as in peraĥ, a flower, or the Aramaic pirĥata, study hall, the Sages present turned their eyes toward Rabbanab
meaning chick. Accordingly, pirĥei kehunna means Ukva and Rabbana Neĥemya,p the sons of the daughter of Rav,
young priests. who were from the family of the Exilarch and were two leaders of
the generation who resided in Babylonia.

‫ ֵא ּל ּו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ָ ׂש ֵרי גּ ֹויִ ם ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַל ְּמ ִדים‬:‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬Rava says a different explanation of the verse: These three
.‫ זְ כוּת ַעל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְ ּב ָכל דּ ֹור וָ דֹור‬branches [sarigim] are the three ministering angels appointed to
oversee the gentiles [sarei goyim], who plead in favor of the
Jewish people in each and every generation.

,‫עֹולם‬
ָ ‫״ג ֶפן״ – זֶ ה ָה‬ ּ ֶ :‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says an alternate interpreta-
,‫״של ׁ ָֹשה ָ ׂש ִריגִ ם״ – זֶ ה ַא ְב ָר ָהם יִ צְ ָחק וְ יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ְׁ tion of the verse. “Vine”; this is a reference to the world. “Three
branches”; this is a reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. “And
,‫נִצ ּה״ – ֵאלּ ּו ָה ִא ָּמהֹות‬ ּ ָ ‫״וְ ִהיא ְכפ ַֹר ַחת ָע ְל ָתה‬
as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth”; these are the matri-
.‫״ה ְב ׁ ִשיל ּו ַא ׁ ְש ְּכל ֶֹת ָיה ֲענָ ִבים״ – ֵאלּ ּו ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָב ִטים‬
ִ archs. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the
twelve tribes, i.e., the twelve sons of Jacob.

‫ וְ ִכי ַמ ְר ִאין לֹו ָל ָא ָדם‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי י‬ Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: But is a person shown in a dream
‫ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ָהיָ ה? וַ ֲהל ֹא ֵאין ַמ ְר ִאין לֹו ְל ָא ָדם ֶא ָּלא‬ what was in the past? Isn’t it true that one is shown only what
ּ ֶ :‫ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ָע ִתיד ִל ְהיֹות! ֶא ָּלא‬ will be in the future? Since the patriarchs, matriarchs, and sons
,‫״ג ֶפן״ – זֶ ה ּת ָֹורה‬
of Jacob were all born prior to this dream, the dream was not
,‫״של ׁ ָֹשה ָ ׂש ִריגִ ים״ – ֵאלּ ּו מ ׁ ֶֹשה וְ ַא ֲהרֹן ו ִּמ ְריָ ם‬ ְׁ alluding to them. Rather, the verse should be interpreted as fol-
,‫נִצ ּה״ – ֵא ּל ּו ַסנְ ֶה ְד ִרין‬
ּ ָ ‫״וְ ִהיא ְכפ ַֹר ַחת ָע ְל ָתה‬ lows: “Vine”; this is a reference to the Torah. “Three branches”;
‫יה ֲענָ ִבים״ – ֵאלּ ּו ַה ַ ּצדִּ ִיקים‬ ָ ‫״ה ְב ׁ ִשיל ּו ַא ׁ ְש ְּכל ֶֹת‬
ִ these are Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “And as it was budding,
.‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָכל דּ ֹור וָ דֹור‬ its blossoms shot forth”; these are the members of the Sanhe-
drin. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the
righteous people who live in each and every generation.

,‫מֹוד ִעי‬
ָ ‫יכין ָאנ ּו ְל‬ ִ ‫ ֲע ַדיִ ין צְ ִר‬:‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ Rabban Gamliel said: In order to understand this verse (Genesis
‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬.‫יה ְ ּב ַחד ָמקֹום‬ ּ ‫יה ּכו ֵּּל‬ ּ ‫מֹוקים ֵל‬ ֵ ְּ‫ד‬ 40:10) we still need the explanation of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i,p
ּ ֶ :‫אֹומר‬ who is an expert in matters of aggada, as he interprets all of the
‫״של ׁ ָֹשה‬ ְ ׁ ,‫״ג ֶפן״ – זֶ ה יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬ ֵ ‫ַה ּמ ָֹוד ִעי‬
phrases in the verse as referring to one location. Rabbi Elazar
‫ ״וְ ִהיא‬,‫ וְ כ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול‬, ְ‫ ֶמ ֶלך‬,‫ָ ׂש ִריגִ ים״ – זֶ ה ִמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ HaModa’i says: “Vine”; this is a reference to Jerusalem. “Three
,‫נִצ ּה״ – ֵא ּל ּו ּ ִפ ְר ֵחי ְכהו ָּּנה‬ ּ ָ ‫ְכפ ַֹר ַחת ָע ְל ָתה‬ branches”; this is a reference to the Temple, the king and the
.‫נְס ִכים‬ ָ ‫יה ֲענָ ִבים״ – ֵאלּ ּו‬ ָ ‫״ה ְב ׁ ִשיל ּו ַא ׁ ְש ְּכל ֶֹת‬ ִ High Priest. “And as it was budding [poraĥat], its blossoms shot
forth”; these are the young priests [pirĥei khehunna].l “And its
clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the wine libations.

‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫מֹוקים ָל ּה ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנֹות‬ ִ ‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ַר ִ ּבי י‬ Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi interprets it with reference to the gifts
‫״של ׁ ָֹשה‬ ְ ׁ ,‫״ג ֶפן״ – זֹו ּת ָֹורה‬ ּ ֶ :‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬
ֻ ׁ ְ‫ַר ִ ּבי י‬ that God gave the Jewish people, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi
said: “Vine”; this is a reference to the Torah. “Three branches”;
‫ ״וְ ִהיא‬,‫ ו ָּמן‬,‫ ַע ּמוּד ָענָ ן‬,‫ָ ׂש ִריגִ ים״ – זֶ ה ְ ּב ֵאר‬
this is a reference to the miraculous items that accompanied the
‫״ה ְב ׁ ִשיל ּו‬ִ ,‫נִצ ּה״ – ֵאלּ ּו ַה ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים‬ ּ ָ ‫ְכפ ַֹר ַחת ָע ְל ָתה‬ Jewish people in the wilderness and sustained and protected them:
.‫נְס ִכים‬ ָ ‫יה ֲענָ ִבים״ – ֵאלּ ּו‬ ָ ‫ַא ׁ ְש ְּכל ֶֹת‬ The well, the pillar of cloud, and the manna. “And as it was bud-
ding, its blossoms shot forth”; these are the first fruits that are
brought to the Temple. “And its clusters brought forth ripe
grapes”; these are the wine libations.

Personalities
Rabbana Ukva and Rabbana Neĥemya – ‫ר ָ ּבנָ א עו ְּק ָבא וְ ַר ָ ּבנָ א נְ ֶח ְמיָה‬:ַ Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i – ‫ר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַה ּמ ָֹוד ִעי‬:ַ Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i
Rabbana Ukva and Rabbana Neĥemya were the sons of Rav’s lived after the destruction of the Temple and was apparently a
daughter. Their honorific indicates that they were of the family of the young student of Rabban Yoĥanan ben Zakkai. Most of the quota-
Exilarch, and this is corroborated by other sources as well. There are tions cited in his name are aggadic in nature, and Rabban Gam-
indications that they were also grandsons of the Exilarch Mar Ukva, liel often remarked with regard to his statements: We still need
who was a contemporary and friend of Rav. Apparently, these two HaModa’i. As his name indicates, this Sage was from the city of
Sages were students of Rav Ĥisda, and Rabbana Ukva even delivered Modi’in. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i was the brother of bar Kokheva’s
public homilies under Rav Ĥisda’s direction. As they personified mother, and he died during the siege of Beitar.
the confluence of Torah scholarship and greatness, i.e., wealth and
power, in one place, they were described as: Lofty Princes of Israel.
They lived in the city of Kafri, near Sura, the hometown of both Rav
and Mar Ukva.

96 Ĥullin . perek VII . 92a . ‫בצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
,‫״ג ֶפן״ – ֵאלּ ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ּ ֶ :‫ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ָא ַמר‬ Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: “Vine”; this is a reference to the
Jewish people, and similarly another verse states: “You plucked Branches, clusters, leaves, tendrils – ‫זְ מֹורֹות‬
‫״של ׁ ָֹשה‬ ְ ׁ ,‫״ג ֶפן ִמ ִּמצְ ַריִ ם ַּת ִּס ַיע״‬ ּ ֶ ‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫וְ ֵכן הוּא‬ ‫נֹוקנֹות‬
ָ ‫א ׁ ְש ּכֹולֹות ָע ִלין ְק‬:ֶ
up a vine out of Egypt; You drove out the nations and planted it”
ִ ‫ָ ׂש ִריגִ ים״ – ֵאלּ ּו ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְרגָ ִלים ׁ ֶשּיִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬
‫עֹולין‬
(Psalms 80:9). “Three branches”; these are the three pilgrimage
‫ ״וְ ִהיא ְכפ ַֹר ַחת ָע ְל ָתה‬,‫ָ ּב ֶהן ְ ּב ָכל ׁ ָשנָ ה וְ ׁ ָשנָ ה‬ Festivals, on which the Jewish people ascend to Jerusalem every
,‫נִצ ּה״ – ִה ִ ּג ַיע זְ ַמ ּנָן ׁ ֶשל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ִל ְפרֹות וְ ִל ְר ּבֹות‬ ָּ year. “And as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth,” means that
,‫אֹומר ״ו ְּבנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ּ ָפר ּו וַ ּיִ ׁ ְש ְרצוּ״‬
ֵ ‫וְ ֵכן הוּא‬ the time has arrived for the Jewish people to be fruitful and
multiply, and similarly another verse states: “And the children
of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied,
and became exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them”
(Exodus 1:7).

,‫נִצ ּה״ – ִה ִ ּג ַיע זְ ַמן ׁ ֶשל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ִל ָ ּיג ֵאל‬ ּ ָ ‫״ע ְל ָתה‬ ָ “Its blossoms [nitzah] shot forth” means that the time has arrived
‫אֹומר ״וְ יֵ ז נִצְ ָחם ַעל ְ ּבגָ ַדי וְ ָכל ַמ ְל ּבו ׁ ַּשי‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֵכן הוּא‬ for the Jewish people to be redeemed. And similarly another verse
states: “And their eternity [nitzĥam] is dashed against My gar-
‫יה ֲענָ ִבים״ – ִה ִ ּג ַיע‬ ָ ‫״ה ְב ׁ ִשיל ּו ַא ׁ ְש ְּכל ֶֹת‬
ִ ,‫ֶאגְ ָא ְל ִּתי״‬
ments, and I have redeemed all My raiment” (Isaiah 63:3). “And Grape cluster and its supporting branch
.‫זְ ַמ ָּנ ּה ׁ ֶשל ִמצְ ַריִ ם ִל ׁ ְש ּתֹות ּכֹוס ַה ַּת ְר ֵע ָלה‬ its clusters brought forth ripe grapes” means that the time has
arrived for Egypt to drink the cup of fury, i.e., to receive its notes
punishment. As were it not for the leaves the clusters
would not survive – ‫ימן‬ ָ ְ‫דְּ ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלא ַע ְליָא ָלא ִמ ְת ַקּי‬
‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ּכֹוסֹות ָה ֲאמוּרֹות‬:‫וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דַּ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ And this is as Rava said: Why are there three cups stated with ‫ית ַּכ ְליָ א‬
ְ ‫א‬:
ִ As the leaves of the vine cover the
regard to Egypt in the dream of Pharaoh’s butler (see Genesis 40:11)? clusters of grapes and protect them from wind
ֵ ‫ְ ּב ִמצְ ַריִ ם ָל ָּמה? ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ָתה ִ ּב‬
‫ וְ ֶא ָחד‬,‫ימי מ ׁ ֶֹשה‬
They are an allusion to three cups of misfortune that would later befall and direct sunlight, they allow the clusters of
‫ וְ ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ֲע ִת ָידה‬,‫ימי ּ ַפ ְרעֹה נְ כֹה‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ָתה ִ ּב‬ grapes to survive. Similarly those who are not
Egypt: One that Egypt drank in the days of Moses during the ten
.‫ִל ׁ ְש ּתֹות ִעם ָּכל ַהגּ ֹויִ ם‬ plagues and the Exodus; one that Egypt drank in the days of Pha-
Torah scholars plow, sow, and harvest, providing
the Torah scholars with food (Rashi).
raoh Nekho, the king of Egypt defeated by Nebuchadnezzar; and
one that Egypt will drink in the future with all the other nations,
when they are punished in the time of the Messiah.

‫ ִּכי‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ְל ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba: When Rav inter-
‫ות ְך‬ָ ָ‫ דָּ ֵר ׁיש ְלה ּו ַרב ְל ָהנֵי ְק ָר ֵאי ְ ּב ַא ַ ּג ְד ָּתא – ְּכו‬preted these verses homiletically he interpreted them according
to the way in which you have interpreted them, and not according
.ּ‫דָּ ֵר ׁיש ְלהו‬
to any of the other opinions cited above.

‫ א ּו ָּמה זֹו ְּכגֶ ֶפן‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ Similar to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba’s interpretation of the word vine
,‫ זְ מֹורֹות ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ּה – ֵא ּל ּו ַ ּב ֲע ֵלי ָ ּב ִּתים‬,‫נִ ְמ ׁ ְש ָלה‬ as an allusion to the Jewish people, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:
This nation is likened to a vine. The branches of the vine support
‫ ָע ִלין‬,‫ֶא ׁ ְש ּכֹולֹות ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ּה – ֵאלּ ּו ַּת ְל ִמ ֵידי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬
the clusters of grapes, the leaves, and the tendrils;b these are repre-
‫נֹוקנֹות ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ּה – ֵאלּ ּו‬ָ ‫ ְק‬,‫ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ּה – ֵאלּ ּו ַע ֵּמי ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ sented among the Jewish people by the homeowners, who provide
.‫ֵר ָיקנִים ׁ ֶש ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ financial support for the entire nation. The clusters of grapes on the
vine, these are the Torah scholars. The leaves on the vine, which
protect the grapes, these are the ignoramuses, who protect the
Torah scholars. The tendrils of the vine, which do not directly
serve the grapes themselves, these are the empty ones of the
Jewish people.

‫ית ַּכ ְליָ א‬

ְ ‫יב ֵעי ַר ֲח ִמים ִא‬
ּ ָ ‫ ִל‬:‫ וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ׁ ָש ְלח ּו ִמ ָּתם‬And this is the meaning of the instruction that they sent from there,
‫ימן‬
ָ ְ‫יל ָמ ֵלא ַע ְליָ א ָלא ִמ ְת ַקּי‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫ ַעל ַע ְליָ א‬i.e., from Eretz Yisrael: Let the clusters of grapes pray for the leaves,
as were it not for the leaves, the clusters of grapes would not
.‫ית ַּכ ְליָ א‬ְ ‫ִא‬
survive.n

ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ § ״וָ ֶא ְּכ ֶר ָה ִּלי ַ ּב ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר ָּכ ֶסף״‬The Gemara cites homiletical interpretations of other verses that
‫יֹוחנָן‬
‫ ֵאין ִּכ ָירה ֶא ָּלא‬:‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן יְ הֹוצָ ָדק‬pertain to the leaders of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael and Baby-
lonia. The verse states: “So I bought her [va’ekkereha] to me for
,‫״ב ִק ְב ִרי ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָּכ ִר ִיתי ִלי״‬
ּ ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫ְל ׁשֹון ְמ ִכ ָירה‬
fifteen pieces of silver, and a ĥomer of barley, and a half-ĥomer of
barley” (Hosea 3:2). Rabbi Yoĥanan says in the name of Rabbi
Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The term kira, which forms the basis of
the verb va’ekkereha, is nothing other than language referring to a
sale [mekhira], as it is stated that Joseph said: “My father made me
swear, saying: Lo, I die; in my grave that I have acquired [kariti] for
me in the land of Canaan, there shall you bury me” (Genesis 50:5).

ָ ‫״ב ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר״ – זֶ ה ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר ְ ּב‬

‫נִיסן ׁ ֶש ּבֹו‬ ּ ַ Rabbi Yoĥanan continues: “For fifteen pieces of silver”; this is a
,‫״כ ֶסף״ – ֵאלּ ּו צַ דִּ ִיקים‬ ָּ ,‫ נִ גְ ֲאל ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ִמ ִּמצְ ַריִ ם‬reference to the fifteenth of Nisan, the date on which the Jewish
people were redeemed from Egypt. “Silver”; these are the righ-
,‫אֹומר ״צְ רֹור ַה ֶּכ ֶסף ָל ַקח ְ ּביָ דֹו״‬
ֵ ‫וְ ֵכן הוּא‬
teous people. And similarly, another verse states: “He has taken the
bag of silver with him” (Proverbs 7:20), a reference to God taking
the righteous away prior to the destruction of the First Temple (see
Sanhedrin 96b).
 ‫בצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 92a 97
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫״ח ֶֹמר ְ ׂשע ִֹרים וְ ֶל ֶת ְך ְ ׂשע ִֹרים״ – ֵא ּל ּו‬ The verse states: “A ĥomerb of barley, and a half-ĥomerb of barley.”
Ĥomer – ‫חֹומר‬:
ֶ The ĥomer, referred to by the Sages as a kor, A ĥomer equals thirty se’a, and a half-ĥomer equals fifteen se’a, totaling
is the largest dry measure of volume that appears both ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫יקים ׁ ֶש ָה‬ ִ ִּ‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים וַ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה צַ ד‬
forty-five se’a; these are the forty-five righteous individuals in
in the Bible and in rabbinic literature. It is equal to ten ‫יֹוד ַע ִאם ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵאינִי‬,‫ִמ ְת ַקּיֵ ים ָ ּב ֶהם‬
ephah (Ezekiel 45:14), and each ephah is equal to three se’a whose merit the world continues to exist. And although the verse
‫ָּכאן וַ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ ִאם‬ alludes to the fact that thirty of these righteous individuals are in one
(Menaĥot 76b); a ĥomer is therefore equivalent to thirty
se’a. As there is a dispute with regard to the precise volume ‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וַ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר‬ place and fifteen are elsewhere, I do not know if thirty are here in
of a se’a, with opinions ranging from 7.2 to 14.4 ℓ, a ĥomer ‫אֹומר ״וָ ֶא ְק ָחה ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫ָּכאן‬ Babylonia and fifteen are in Eretz Yisrael, or if thirty are in Eretz
may be anywhere between 216 liters and 432 liters. Yisrael and fifteen are here in Babylonia. When it says in a different
,‫ֶּכ ֶסף וָ ַא ׁ ְש ִליךְ אֹתֹו ֵ ּבית ה׳ ֶאל ַהּיֹוצֵ ר״‬
Half-ĥomer [letekh] – ‫ל ֶת ְך‬:ֶ This measurement is men-
‫אֹומר – ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים ְ ּב ֶא ֶרץ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ֵ ‫ֱהוֵ י‬ verse: “And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them into the
tioned once in the Bible (see Hosea 3:2). Although the treasury, in the house of the Lord” (Zechariah 11:13), you must say
origin of the term letekh is unknown, it is a dry measure .‫וַ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ָע ָ ׂשר ָּכאן‬ that thirty of the righteous individuals are in Eretz Yisrael and
of 15 se’a, or half of a kor. fifteen are here in Babylonia.
The synagogue under the upper room – ‫נִיש ָּתא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ֵ ּבי ְּכ‬
‫דְּ תו ֵּתי ַא ְפ ָתא‬: Some explain that this does not refer to a ‫ וְ רו ַ ּּביְ יה ּו ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּכ ִחי ְ ּב ֵבי‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ Abaye said: And most of the fifteen righteous individuals in Baby-
specific synagogue, but to a specific place in the syna- lonia are found in the synagogue under the upper room.b And this
gogue, either under the balcony (Rashi) or a small building ‫ וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬.‫נִיש ָּתא דְּ תו ֵּתי ַא ְפ ָתא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ְּכ‬
is the meaning of that which is written: “And I said to them: If it is
next to the side or back of the synagogue (Rashbam on ‫ינֵיכם ָהב ּו‬ֶ ‫יהם ִאם טֹוב ְ ּב ֵע‬ ֶ ‫״וָ א ַֹמר ֲא ֵל‬
Bava Batra 61a). According to both of these explanations good in your eyes, give me my hire; and if not, refrain. And they
‫ְ ׂש ָכ ִרי וְ ִאם ל ֹא ֲח ָדל ּו וַ ּיִ ׁ ְש ְקל ּו ֶאת ְ ׂש ָכ ִרי‬ weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver” (Zechariah 11:12).n
this is the least desirable part of the synagogue, and the
least important people sit there. Others explain that it is .‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים ָּכ ֶסף״‬
referring to a specific synagogue that was at the entrance
to the city of Meĥoza in Babylonia. It was notable for its ‫ ֵאלּ ּו ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים צַ דִּ ֵיקי‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ Rabbi Yehuda says: These are the thirty righteous individuals
simplicity and the fact that the congregation consisted of ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ֶשא ּו ּמֹות ָה‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫א ּו ּמֹות ָה‬ among the nations of the world, in whose merit the nations of the
people who were not particularly distinguished. world continue to exist. Ulla says: These are the thirty mitzvot that
‫ ֵא ּל ּו‬:‫ עו ָּּלא ָא ַמר‬,‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ימים ֲע ֵל‬ ִ ְ‫ִמ ְת ַקּי‬
the descendants of Noah initially accepted upon themselves;n but
ֶ ‫ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים ִמצְ וֹת ׁ ֶש ִּק ְ ּבל ּו ֲע ֵל‬
,‫יהם ְ ּבנֵי נ ַֹח‬ they fulfill only three of them. One of these three mitzvot is
‫ ַא ַחת‬:‫ימין ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ ִ ְ‫וְ ֵאין ְמ ַקּי‬

notes
And they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver – ‫וַ ּיִ ׁ ְש ְקל ּו‬ among the nations of the world, indicates that these righteous
‫את ְ ׂש ָכ ִרי ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים ָּכ ֶסף‬:ֶ In this verse, the nations of the world return individuals are in fact gentiles (Maharsha).
to God, as it were, the thirty righteous individuals that were
placed among the nations of the world. In the following verse, The thirty mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted
God commands Zechariah to cast them into the Temple treasury, ֶ ‫של ׁ ִֹשים ִמצְ וֹת ׁ ֶש ִּק ְ ּבל ּו ֲע ֵל‬‎
upon themselves – ‫יהם ְ ּבנֵי נ ַֹח‬ ְ ׁ : In con-
indicating that these thirty righteous individuals will exist among trast to the interpretation given in the Gemara, in the Jerusalem
the Jewish people in every generation (Rashi). It would seem Talmud (Avoda Zara 2:1) it is stated in the name of Rav Huna and
from Rashi’s explanation that the righteous referred to here are in the name of Rav that these are the thirty mitzvot that the
Jews that were dispersed among the gentiles to provide them descendants of Noah will accept upon themselves in the future.
with additional merit. Other commentaries suggest that the Rabbi Menaĥem Azarya of Fano (Asara Ma’amarot) explains
straightforward meaning of the Gemara’s language: Righteous which mitzvot are included in those thirty.

Perek VII
Daf 92 Amud b
notes
– ‫ וְ ַא ַחת‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּכ ְֹות ִבין ְּכתו ָ ּּבה ִלזְ ָכ ִרים‬that they do not write a marriage contract for a wedding between
That they do not weigh the flesh of the dead in butcher
shops – ‫ש ֵאין ׁש ְֹוק ִלין ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ַה ֵּמת ְ ּב ַמ ּקו ִּלין‬:
ֶ ׁ Rashi gives two ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ׁש‬two males; although they violate the prohibition against engaging
,‫ֹוק ִלין ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ַה ֵּמת ְ ּב ַמ ּקו ִּלין‬
in homosexuality, they are not so brazen as to write a marriage con-
explanations of the term: Flesh of the dead. The first is .‫וְ ַא ַחת – ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַכ ְ ּב ִדין ֶאת ַה ּת ָֹורה‬
that it is referring to the flesh of a human corpse, while the tract as for a regular marriage. And one of the three mitzvot is that
second is that it is referring to flesh of an animal carcass although they are suspected of eating human beings, they do not
that died without being slaughtered. weigh the flesh of the dead in butcher shops [bemakkulin]nl and
sell it publicly; and one is that they honor the Torah.
language
Butcher shops [makkulin] – ‫מ ּקו ִּלין‬:ַ From the Latin macel- ֵ ‫ § וְ ֵאינֹו‬The mishna teaches (89b) that the prohibition of eating the sciatic
‫ וְ ָהא ָקא ָחזֵ ינַן דְּ ִאית‬.‫נֹוהג ָ ּבעֹוף‬
lum, meaning butcher’s stall or meat market. Some com-
.‫יה וְ ָלא ָעגֵ יל‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬nerve does not apply to a bird due to the fact that the verse is refer-
ּ ‫יה! ִאית ֵל‬
mentaries understand this term as referring to people ring to the sciatic nerve as being “upon the spoon of the thigh” (Gen-
who sell their products in the market (Tosafot on 95a).
esis 32:33), and a bird has no spoon of the thigh. The Gemara chal-
lenges: But we see that it does have a protrusion of flesh on its thigh.
The Gemara answers: It has a protrusion, but that protrusion is
not rounded.b
background
It has a protrusion but it is not rounded – ‫יה וְ ָלא ָעגֵ יל‬
ּ ‫אית ֵל‬:
ִ Torah with the term: “The spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33),
The femur of a bird, unlike that of an animal, is pointed at the understood by the Gemara (96a) to mean rounded and convex
end rather than rounded. Therefore birds are not included in like a spoon.
the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, which is defined by the

98 Ĥullin . perek VII . 92b . ‫בצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
,‫יה ָלעֹוף – וְ ָעגֵ יל‬ ּ ‫ ִאית ֵל‬:‫ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If a bird has a protrusion on its
thigh bone and it is rounded,h or an animal has a protrusion on its If a bird has a protrusion and it is rounded – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִאית ֵל‬
‫ ָ ּב ַתר‬,‫ ַמאי‬,‫יה ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – וְ ָלא ָעגֵ יל‬ּ ‫ִאית ֵל‬ ‫לעֹוף וְ ָעגֵ יל‬:ָ The prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not
thigh bone but it is not rounded,h what is the halakha? Do we
?‫ֵיה ָאזְ ִלינַ ן‬
ּ ‫ אֹו ָ ּב ַתר ִמ ּינ‬,‫יה ָאזְ ִלינַ ן‬ ּ ‫דִּ ֵיד‬ apply to a bird, because a bird does not have a rounded
follow it, i.e., does the status of the sciatic nerve depend upon the protrusion on its thigh bone. But if such a rounded
.ּ‫ֵּתיקו‬ physical properties of each particular animal, or do we follow its protrusion on its thigh bone were found in a bird, its
species, so that the sciatic nerve of an animal is always forbidden sciatic nerve would be forbidden, though one would not
and that of a bird is always permitted? The Gemara responds: The be liable to receive lashes for eating it. Although Rabbi
question shall stand unresolved. Yirmeya’s question was left unanswered, the halakha is
stringent, since it is a case of uncertainty with regard to
ֵ ְ‫ § ״ו‬The mishna states that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies
‫ וְ ֶח ְל ּבֹו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל״‬ Torah law. Nevertheless, there is no need to examine
whether or not a bird has a rounded protrusion on its
.‫ מו ָּּתר ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬to a late-term animal fetus in the womb. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does thigh bone (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
not apply to a fetus; and its fat is permitted. Shmuel says: When Assurot 8:4 and Maggid Mishne there; Shulĥan Arukh,
the mishna states: And its fat is permitted, that is according to Yoreh De’a 65:5).
everyone.
An animal has a protrusion but it is not rounded –
‫יה ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה וְ ָלא ָעגֵ יל‬
ּ ‫אית ֵל‬:
ִ The prohibition of the sciatic
‫ימא דְּ ׁ ָש ִליל – וְ ָהא‬ ָ ‫ֶח ְל ּבֹו דְּ ַמאי? ִא ֵיל‬ The Gemara asks: The fat of what? If we say that it is referring to
nerve applies to the sciatic nerve of both domestic and
,‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬
ֵ :‫יה! דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ ּ ‫ִמ ְיפ ַלג ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ֵ ּב‬ the fat of a fetus, don’t the tanna’im disagree about it, as it is taught
undomesticated animals. It is forbidden even if the ani-
in a baraita: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to a late-
‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫וְ ֶח ְל ּבֹו ָאסוּר‬ mal does not have a rounded protrusion on its thigh
term fetus, and its fat is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi bone, although one is not liable to receive lashes for
.‫ וְ ֶח ְל ּבֹו מו ָּּתר‬,‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬
ֵ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve eating it. Even though Rabbi Yirmeya’s question was
does not apply to a late-term fetus, and its fat is permitted. left unanswered, the halakha is stringent, since it is a
case of uncertainty with regard to Torah law (Rambam
:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬
ַ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬And Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says in explanation of Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:4 and Maggid
Mishne there; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:5).
‫ וְ ָה ַלךְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫לֹוקת ְ ּב ֶבן ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה ַחי‬ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬the baraita: This dispute applies to a nine-month-old, i.e., a full-
term, fetus that remains alive after its mother has been slaughtered. The sciatic nerve, one scrapes around it – ,‫ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬
.‫יטתֹו‬ ָּ ‫יטתֹו וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְל ׁ ִש‬
ָּ ‫ְל ׁ ִש‬
And Rabbi Meir followed his general opinion in this regard (see ‫מ ַח ֵּטט ַא ֲח ָריו‬:ְ When removing the sciatic nerve one must
74a), that this fetus is considered a live animal independent of its scrape around it to ensure that there is no nerve or fat
mother. Consequently, it must undergo ritual slaughter in order for remaining. This is in accordance with the baraita and the
opinion of Rabbi Meir (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
its meat to be permitted for consumption, and its fats and sciatic
Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:8).
nerve are forbidden like those of any other animal. And Rabbi
Yehuda followed his general opinion that such a fetus is not con-
background
sidered a live animal but rather part of its mother. Consequently, it
One cuts out the nerve and fat level with the
does not require ritual slaughter, and its fats and sciatic nerve are
ְ ּ‫ג‬: Rashi previously (91a) and else-
flesh – ‫ֹוממֹו ִעם ַה ׁ ּשו ִּפי‬
permitted. where (Avoda Zara 25a) defines this as the flesh along the
length of the leg, beginning near the hip and extending
!‫וְ ֶא ָּלא ֶח ְל ּבֹו דְּ גִ יד – ָהא ִמ ְיפ ַלג ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ָ ּב ּה‬ But rather, perhaps Shmuel’s statement was said with regard to the until the tibia, the area above the solid line in the image.
‫ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה – ְמ ַח ֵּטט ַא ֲח ָריו ְ ּב ָכל‬:‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ fat of the sciatic nerve. But the tanna’im disagree about this case Others explain that the term is referring to a specific mus-
as well, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the sciatic nerve, cle in the thigh known by butchers as the yad. According
‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫יקרֹו‬ ּ ָ ‫חֹותךְ ׁ ַש ְמנֹו ֵמ ִע‬
ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ָמקֹום ׁ ֶשהוּא‬
one scrapes around ith to remove it entirely in any place that it is to the understanding of Rabbi Yehuda, one must remove
‫ֹוממֹו ִעם‬ ְ ּ‫ ג‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ found in the thigh, and one cuts out its fat from its source, i.e., the entire portion of the sciatic nerve that extends over
!‫ַה ׁ ּשו ִּפי‬ even the fat that is embedded in the flesh; this is the statement of the outside of this muscle, and all the fat that is attached
to the nerve there, so that it not appear as though one is
Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: One cuts out the nerve and fat
eating the sciatic nerve.
so that they are level with the flesh [hashufi]bl of the thigh, but
there is no need to scrape out the parts embedded in the flesh.
Consequently, there is a dispute about the fat surrounding the
sciatic nerve as well.

‫מֹודה ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל דִּ ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֶ ,‫עֹולם ֶח ְל ּבֹו דְּ גִ יד‬ָ ‫ְל‬ The Gemara answers: Actually, Shmuel was referring to the fat
‫ וְ ׁ ַש ְמנֹו‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָ א‬.‫ֵמ ִאיר – ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָאסוּר‬ of the sciatic nerve, and Shmuel concedes that according to the
opinion of Rabbi Meir the fat surrounding the sciatic nerve is
.‫דֹושים נָ ֲהג ּו ּבֹו ִא ּיסוּר‬ ִ ׁ ‫ וְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְק‬,‫מו ָּּתר‬
forbidden by rabbinic law but permitted by Torah law. As it is
‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ִהיא דַּ ֲא ַמר מו ָּּתר‬,‫ַמאי ָלאו‬ taught in a baraita: Its fat is permitted by Torah law, but the Jewish
.‫ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה – וְ ָאסוּר ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ people are holy and treated it as forbidden. The Gemara infers:
What, is it not that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion
of Rabbi Meir, who said that the fat is permitted by Torah law but
forbidden by rabbinic law?
Path of the sciatic nerve

language
Flesh [shufi] – ‫שו ִּפי‬:ּ ׁ While this term is clearly a reference to the Aramaic word meaning an object that protrudes from its place,
acetabulum socket that surrounds the head of the femur (Rashi as in: Let him jump [linshof ] four cubits from where he stands
on Avoda Zara 25a), the source of the word is unclear. Some say (Berakhot 51a). According to these understandings, the mean-
it is from the Hebrew word referring to an elevated object, as in ing of the phrase im hashufi is that when one cuts, he makes
the verse: “Set up a flag upon the high mountain [nishpeh], lift a straight line that flattens the protruding or elevated area that
up the voice to them, wave the hand, so that they may go into was there originally.
the gates of the nobles” (Isaiah 13:2). Alternatively it is from the

 ‫בצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 92b 99

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ֲא ָבל ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ִמ ַּמאי? דִּ ְיל ָמא ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ִהיא‬The Gemara challenges this: From where can it be proven that this
One scrapes around it any place that it is found,
and its fat is permitted – ‫ְמ ַח ֵּטט ַא ֲח ָריו ְ ּב ָכל ָמקֹום‬ !‫יתא נַ ִמי ֲא ִסיר‬ ַ ְּ‫ ֵמ ִאיר ִמד‬baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Perhaps
ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
‫שהוּא וְ ׁ ַש ְמנֹו מו ָּּתר‬:
ֶ ׁ Some commentaries interpret the
it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but accord-
ruling that the fat of the sciatic nerve is permitted ing to the opinion of Rabbi Meir it is even forbidden by Torah law.
as applying even by rabbinic law. Nevertheless, the
custom is to treat it as forbidden (Ran). Others hold – ‫ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬,‫ָלא ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּת ְך‬ The Gemara rejects this challenge: It would not enter your mind
that the baraita means that the fat is permitted by ‫ וְ ׁ ַש ְמנֹו‬,‫ְמ ַח ֵּטט ַא ֲח ָריו ְ ּב ָכל ָמקֹום ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,
Torah law. Consequently, according to Rabbi Meir the as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the sciatic nerve, one
?‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יה ֲח ִט‬ּ ‫יה דְּ ִאית ֵל‬ ּ ‫ ַמאן ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬.‫מו ָּּתר‬
requirement to scrape around the sciatic nerve and scrapes around it to remove it entirely from any place that it is
entirely remove it is also by Torah law. They explain .‫ ׁ ַש ְמנֹו מו ָּּתר‬:‫ וְ ָק ָא ַמר‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ found in the thigh, and its fat is permitted.n The Gemara explains:
the ensuing discussion accordingly (Ramban). Whom have you heard who holds that scraping is required? It is
The Torah prohibited only its thin tendril-like nerve Rabbi Meir. And the baraita states that its fat is permitted. Con-
ָ ‫ל ֹא ָא ְס ָרה ּת ָֹורה ֶא ָּלא ְק‬: These Sages
fibers – ‫נֹוקנֹות ׁ ֶש ּבֹו‬ sequently, Rabbi Meir must hold that the fat surrounding the sciatic
hold in accordance with the opinion that the sciatic nerve is permitted by Torah law and forbidden by rabbinic law.
nerve does not possess any flavor, which is the con-
clusion later (99b). If the sciatic nerve itself has no
‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫ § ָא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ָמ ְר ָתא‬With regard to the sciatic nerve Rav Yitzĥak bar Shmuel bar
flavor, it is logical that the Torah does not prohibit
the actual nerve, as it is considered similar to wood. ָ ‫ ל ֹא ָא ְס ָרה ּת ָֹורה ֶא ָּלא ְק‬:‫ ַרב‬Marta says that Rav says: The Torah prohibited only its thin,
.‫נֹוקנֹות ׁ ֶש ּבֹו‬
tendril-like nerve fibers [kenokanot]nbl that branch off and run
Rather, only the surrounding tissue would be forbid- .‫ וְ ַה ּת ָֹורה ִחּיְ ָיבה ָע ָליו‬,‫ ֵעץ הוּא‬:‫עו ָּּלא ָא ַמר‬
den, as it contains the fat and the flavor. By contrast, alongside the sciatic nerve, under the flesh. By contrast, the sciatic
Ulla holds that even though the nerve itself has the nerve itself, which is inedible and has no flavor, is therefore consid-
status of wood, the Torah deemed one liable for eat- ered like wood rather than food, and is not forbidden. Conversely,
ing it. According to Ulla, the surrounding tissue is Ulla says: The sciatic nerve is inedible and has no flavor, like wood,
permitted by Torah law. Nevertheless, Rav Aĥa Gaon but nevertheless the Torah rendered one liable for eating it.h
adds that it is forbidden by rabbinic law.
‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה דְּ עו ָּּלא ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬
ּ ‫ ְּכוָ ֵות‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance
background
– ‫ חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֵח ֶלב‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ִסי‬,‫ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬ with the opinion of Ulla, because Rav Sheshet said that Rav Asi
Tendril-like nerve fibers – ‫נֹוקנֹות‬
ָ ‫ק‬:ְ said: The strands of veins that are in the forbidden fath are forbid-
‫״ח ֶלב״‬ ֵ – ‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ֵאין ַחּיָ ִיבין ֲע ֵל‬,‫ֲאסו ִּרין‬
den, but one is not liable for eating them. Apparently, when the
‫״גיד״‬ּ ִ – ‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬.‫ וְ ל ֹא חו ִּטין‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ Merciful One states in the Torah that it is prohibited to eat fat, the
.‫נֹוקנֹות‬
ָ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ְק‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ prohibition applies only to the fat itself but not to the strands of
veins. Here also, the Merciful One states in the Torah that it is
prohibited to eat the sciatic nerve, but that does not include the
tendril-like nerve fibers.

‫ חו ִּטין‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ִסי‬,‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬,‫גּ ו ָּפא‬ § The Gemara now returns to the matter itself cited in the discus-
.‫יהן‬ֶ ‫יבין ֲע ֵל‬ ִ ָ‫ וְ ֵאין ַחּי‬,‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֵח ֶלב – ֲאס ּו ִרין‬ sion above: Rav Sheshet said that Rav Asi said: The strands of
Fibers of the sciatic nerve veins that are in the forbidden fat are forbidden, but one is not
‫לֹובן‬
ֶ .‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּכו ְּליָ א – ֲאסו ִּרין וְ ֵאין ַחּיָ ִיבין ֲע ֵל‬
liable for eating them. The strands of veins that are in the kidneyh
language .‫ ַחד ֲא ַסר וְ ַחד ׁ ָש ֵרי‬,‫ּכו ְּליָ א – ַר ִ ּבי וְ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬ are forbidden, but one is not liable for eating them. With regard
Thin tendril-like nerve fibers [kenokanot] – ‫נֹוקנֹות‬
ָ ‫ק‬:ְ to the white fat of the kidney,h there is a dispute between Rabbi
The word kenokanot is primarily a botanic term, refer-
Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ĥiyya: One of them prohibits its con-
ring to thin tendrils that wind around a rock or tree
and allow the plant to climb. In this context of zool-
sumption, because it is similar to the fats that are prohibited by the
ogy, it is referring to thin nerve fibers that spread Torah; and one of them permits eating it.
throughout the body of the animal.
,‫יה‬ּ ‫יֹוחנָן ְמ ָמ ְר ֵטט ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫ַר ָ ּבה ְמ ָמ ְר ֵטט ֵל‬ The Gemara relates that Rabba would scrape every remnant of
‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ָ ּג ֵאים ֵל‬
ּ ‫ ְּכוָ ֵות‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫יה‬ white fat away from the kidney. Similarly, Rabbi Yoĥanan would
scrape it away from the kidney. By contrast, Rabbi Asi would cut
‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬,‫ַא ִסי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬
it from the surface of the kidney but would not scrape out the rest
:‫ ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ of it. Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accor-
dance with the opinion of Rabbi Asi, because Rabbi Abba said
that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

halakha
It is like wood, but the Torah rendered one liable for eating it – receive the punishment of karet for eating them. This is in accor-
‫עץ הוּא וְ ַה ּת ָֹורה ִחּיְ ָיבה ָע ָליו‬:ֵ Although it is forbidden by Torah law, dance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet, citing Rav Asi (Rambam
the sciatic nerve itself has no flavor and is considered to be like Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
wood. Therefore, if it is cooked with other food it does not impart De’a 64:12).
forbidden flavor to that food. This ruling is in accordance with the
opinion of Ulla (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:9, and see 100:2; see White fat of the kidney – ‫לֹובן ּכו ְּליָ א‬:
ֶ The white fat on the outside
Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 15:17, 16:6). of the kidneys is forbidden, but not the fat inside the kidneys. Nev-
ertheless, one should remove the fat from the inside of the kidneys,
The strands of veins that are in the forbidden fat – ‫חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֵח ֶלב‬: although one is not required to scrape around it. Some are stringent
The strands of veins in the forbidden fat are themselves forbidden, and require scraping around it. The Rema writes that if one did not
but one is not liable to receive the punishment of karet for eating scrape around it and left a small amount inside the kidney that
them, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet, citing Rav was then cooked, it is permitted according to all opinions. This
Asi (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:6; Shulĥan applies specifically to the fat inside the kidney, but the fat on the
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 64:10). outside of the kidney is forbidden according to everyone. This is
in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi, as Abaye agreed with
That are in the kidney – ‫ש ַ ּב ּכו ְּליָ א‬:
ֶ ׁ The strands of veins that are his opinion (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:7;
in the kidneys are forbidden to consume, but one is not liable to Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 64:12).

100 Ĥullin . perek VII . 92b . ‫בצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VII
Daf 93 Amud a
background
– ‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬,‫חֹופה אֹותֹו – מו ָּּתר‬ ֶ ‫ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ The fat that is covered by the fleshbh is permitted. Apparently,
when the Merciful One states in the Torah that the fat that is upon Fat that is covered by the flesh – ‫חֹופה‬ ֶ ‫ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬
ְ‫ וְ ל ֹא ׁ ֶש ְ ּבתֹוך‬,‫ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ְּכ ָס ִלים ֲא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ‫אֹותֹו‬: The fat of the loins, which is beneath the kidneys,
the loins is prohibited (see Leviticus 3:4), it is referring only to the
‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי – ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ְּכ ָליֹות ֲא ַמר‬.‫ַה ְּכ ָס ִלים‬ can be seen at the top of the loins. It is then covered
fat above the loins but not the fat that is inside the loins.b Here by a thin layer of red flesh and spread throughout the
.‫ וְ ל ֹא ׁ ֶש ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ְּכ ָליֹות‬,‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ also, the Merciful One states in the Torah that the fat that is upon loins. The halakha is that the part that is covered with
the kidneys is prohibited (see Leviticus 3:4), but this does not flesh is permitted.
include the fat that is inside the kidneys.n Loins – ‫כ ָס ִלים‬:ְּ Loins is a general term for the folds of
muscle and flesh at the back of the animal, between
‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬,‫ּגו ָּפא‬ § The Gemara addresses the matter itself cited in the discussion the ribs and the thighs and near the kidneys. The
.‫חֹופה אֹותֹו – מו ָּּתר‬
ֶ ‫ ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ above: Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: term includes three layers of flesh that have layers of
The fat that is covered by the flesh is permitted. The Gemara asks: fat between them.
,‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬,‫ִאינִי‬
Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Abba say that Rav Yehuda said that
– ‫ ַהאי ַּת ְר ָ ּבא דְּ תו ֵּתי ָמ ְתנֵי‬:‫ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ Shmuel said: This fat that is under the loinsbh is forbidden, even
!‫ֲא ִסיר‬ though it is covered by flesh?

.‫יה ּ ֵפרו ֵּקי ִמ ְיפ ְר ָקא‬

ָ ֶ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב ַחּי‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ The Gemara answers that Abaye said: When an animal is alive its
‫ ֲאנָ א ָלאו ַט ָ ּב ָחא ֲאנָ א וְ ָלאו‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ limbs separate at the joints as it walks, so that the fat under the loins
is not covered by flesh. Therefore, even after it has been slaughtered
‫ וּנְ ִה ְירנָ א דְּ ָה ִכי ָהו ּו ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ַ ּבר ַט ָ ּב ָחא ֲאנָ א‬
this fat is forbidden and does not have the status of fat that is covered
.‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב ַחּיֶ ָיה ּ ֵפרו ֵּקי ִמ ְיפ ְר ָקא‬:‫ֵ ּבי ִמ ְד ְר ׁ ָשא‬ by flesh. Rabbi Yoĥanan said: I am not a butcher and I am not the
son of a butcher, i.e., I am not expert in the anatomy of animals, but
I remember that this is what they would say in the study hall:
When an animal is alive its limbs separate at the joints as it walks,
Loins of an animal hanging by the legs
so that the fat under the loins is exposed.
Fat that is under the loins – ‫ת ְר ָ ּבא דְּ תו ֵּתי ָמ ְתנֵי‬:ַּ Accord-
‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬ § Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The ing to Rashi this is referring to the fat near the spine
– ‫ ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ַעל ֶה ְמ ֵסס ו ֵּבית ַה ּכֹוסֹות‬:‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ fat that is on the omasum and the reticulumh is forbidden, and from within, i.e., the area of the vertebrae and the
its consumption is punishable by karet. And this is the fat that is small ribs in the stomach cavity. The Rambam explains
.‫ וְ זֶ ה ּו ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ֶ ּק ֶרב‬,‫ֲאסו ִּרין וְ ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬ that it is referring to the fat that is close to the joint
referred to in the Torah as being upon the innards (see Leviticus
‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬ 3:3). Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This
between the femur and the hip.
,‫יבו ְּס ָתא – ָאסוּר‬ ּ ‫ ַהאי ַּת ְר ָ ּבא דִּ ְק ִל‬:‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ fat of the coccygeal bonebh is forbidden, and its consumption is
.‫ וְ זֶ ה ּו ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ְּכ ָס ִלים‬,‫וְ ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬ punishable by karet. And this is the fat that is referred to in the
Torah as being upon the loins (see Leviticus 3:4).

Fat under the loins

Coccygeal bone – ‫יבו ְּס ָתא‬
ּ ‫ק ִל‬:ְ The coccygeal bone
halakha
is the tailbone, at the end of the spine. It sits on the
pelvic bone, and the fat of the tail is attached to it.
Fat that is covered by the flesh – ‫חֹופה אֹותֹו‬
ֶ ‫ח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:ֵ Fat that The fat that is on the omasum and the reticulum – ‫ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ַעל‬
is covered by flesh is permitted, in accordance with the opinion ‫ה ְמ ֵסס ו ֵּבית ַה ּכֹוסֹות‬:ֶ The fat that is on the omasum and the reticulum
of Shmuel (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:7; is forbidden, and one who consumes it is liable to receive karet. This
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 64:4). is the fat the Torah refers to as being upon the innards (Leviticus 3:3).
This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel (Rambam
Fat that is under the loins – ‫ת ְר ָ ּבא דְּ תו ֵּתי ָמ ְתנֵי‬:ַּ An animal has fat in
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
the main loin area, close to the top of the thigh. When the animal
De’a 64:8).
is alive this can be seen in the intestines, but after it dies the two
adjacent pieces of flesh stick together and cover this fat, and it can- Fat of the coccygeal bone – ‫יבו ְּס ָתא‬
ּ ‫ת ְר ָ ּבא דִּ ְק ִל‬:ַּ The fat that is upon
not be seen until the flesh is separated. This fat is not considered to the loins and the membrane covering the loins are forbidden, in
be fat covered by the flesh, and it is forbidden, in accordance with accordance with the opinion of Shmuel (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
the opinion of Shmuel (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:7, 11; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 64:6). Coccygeal bone
Assurot 7:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 64:7).

notes
Not fat that is inside the kidneys – ‫ל ֹא ׁ ֶש ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ְּכ ָליֹות‬: There is a loins are not offered on the altar, so if the fat contained within was
dispute between the early commentaries as to the status of the forbidden the Torah would have said: Inside the loins, and not:
white fat that is inside the kidneys. Some hold that it is forbid- “Upon the loins.” By contrast, the kidneys are offered upon the
den, in accordance with the opinion of Rabba and Rabbi Yoĥanan, altar. Therefore, the Torah did not need to specify the fat within the
who would scrape it away from the kidney. These commentaries kidneys as being included, as it is part of the kidney. Other early
are stringent even though the halakha is in accordance with the commentaries hold that the white fat within the kidneys is permit-
opinion of Shmuel that the fat that is covered by flesh is permitted ted, and one is required to remove only the fat that is on the surface
(Ba’al HaMaor; Sefer HaTerumot; Rashi). The distinction is that the of the kidneys, in accordance with the custom of Rav Asi (Rif; Ran).

 ‫גצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 93a 101

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫וְ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬ And Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The
Sinews [ĥutin] that are in the tailbone [oketz] – ‫חו ִּטין‬ veins that are in the forelegh of an animal are forbidden. Rav Safra
‫עֹוקץ‬
ֶ ‫ש ָ ּב‬:
ֶ ׁ According to Rashi the term ĥutin is referring ‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּיָ ד ֲאסו ִּרין‬:‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬
said to Rabbi Abba: Moses! Did the Merciful One sayn in the
to the nerves that come out from the sacrum, which ‫ מ ׁ ֶֹשה! ִמי ֲא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָלא ֵּתיכוּל‬:‫ָס ְפ ָרא‬
are attached to the hip, and the word oketz refers to the Torah: Do not eat meat? The veins of the foreleg are part of the meat
‫ מ ׁ ֶֹשה! ִמי ֲא ַמר‬:‫יש ָרא?! ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ׂ ְ ‫ִ ּב‬ and are not forbidden. Rava said: Moses! Did the Merciful One
hip. The sciatic nerve emerges from the spine through
an opening in the pelvis and then branches out through – ‫יה‬ּ ‫יה ו ַּמ ְל ֵח‬
ּ ‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ֱאכֹול דָּ ָמא?! ַח ְת ֵכ‬ say in the Torah: Eat blood? The reason that these veins are forbid-
the flesh of the loins. According to Rashi the five sinews .‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִל ְק ֵד ָירה נַ ִמי ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי‬ den is that they are filled with blood. Therefore, if one cuts the
serve as an explanation of Rav Yehuda’s statement. foreleg open and salts it to remove the blood, it is permitted even
According to others, oketz refers to the coccygeal
to cook it in a pot; and it is certainly permitted to roast it over a fire,
bone, also known as the tailbone, through which nerves
pass from the kidneys (Mordekhai), and this is the expla-
which also draws out the blood.
nation followed in the commentary here. According to
the Rambam, the nerves in the oketz are forbidden due ‫ ֵר ׁיש ֵמ ֲעיָ א‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat on the top cubit of the
ֵ ‫ וְ זֶ ה ּו‬,‫ ְ ּב ַא ְּמ ָתא ְ ּב ֵעי ְ ּג ִר ָירה‬small intestine requires scraping, i.e., it is forbidden and must be
h
to blood and not due to forbidden fat, but he does not ‫״ח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ַעל‬
state the location of the oketz. removed. And this is the fat referred to by the Sages (see 49b) as
.‫ַהדַּ ִּקין״‬
the fat that is on the small intestine.
Spleen – ‫ט ְח ִלי‬:ַ
– ‫עֹוקץ‬ ֶ ‫ ח ּו ִטין ׁ ֶש ָ ּב‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ ה ּו ָדה‬ And Rav Yehuda says: The sinews that are in the tailbonebh are
,‫יה ְ ּב ִכ ְפ ָלא‬
ּ ‫ ַח ְמ ׁ ָשא חו ֵּטי ִאית ֵ ּב‬.‫ֲאסו ִּרין‬ forbidden for consumption, because they contain forbidden fat.
There are five sinews in the tail: Three on the right and two on
‫ ְּת ָל ָתא‬,‫אלא‬ ָ ‫ימינָ א וְ ַת ְר ֵּתי ִמ ּ ְ ׂש ָמ‬
ִ ‫ְּת ָל ָתא ִמ‬
the left. The three on the right each split into two, and the two on
‫ ְּת ֵרי ִמ ְפצְ ִלי ִל ְת ָל ָתא‬,‫ִמ ְפצְ ִלי ִל ְת ֵרי ְּת ֵרי‬ the left each split into three. The practical difference, i.e., the rea-
‫ דְּ ִאי ׁ ָש ֵליף ְלה ּו ַעד‬,‫ נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫ְּת ָל ָתא‬ son the Gemara describes this in detail, is that if one draws them
‫ וְ ִאי ָלא – ָ ּב ֵעי ֲחטו ֵּטי‬,‫ימי – ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּל ִפי‬ֵ ‫דַּ ֲח ִמ‬ out while they are still warm soon after slaughter they are drawn
.ּ‫ַ ּב ְת ַריְ יהו‬ out easily, but if not, he is required to scrape around them, i.e., dig
into the flesh to remove them. It is important to know how many
there are to ensure that one removes them all.

‫ ַח ְמ ׁ ָשא‬:‫ימא ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ ָ ‫ית‬ֵ ‫ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י וְ ִא‬ Abaye said, and some say that Rav Yehuda said: There are five
‫ ו ְּת ֵרין‬,‫ ְּת ָל ָתא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַּת ְר ָ ּבא‬.ּ‫חו ֵּטי ָהוו‬ strands that are forbidden for consumption; three of them are
forbidden because they contain forbidden fat, and two are forbid-
– ‫ דְּ ַט ְח ִלי ו ְּד ַכ ְפ ִלי ו ְּדכו ְּליְ ָתא‬.‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דָּ ָמא‬
den because they contain blood. The ligaments of the spleenb and
‫לֹועא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ָ ‫ דִּ ָידא ו ְּד‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַּת ְר ָ ּבא‬ of the tail and of the kidneysb are forbidden because they contain
.‫דָּ ָמא‬ forbidden fat. And the veins of the foreleg and of the pharynx, i.e.,
Mammalian spleen
the carotid artery, are forbidden because they contain blood.
Kidneys – ‫כו ְּליְ ָתא‬:ּ
‫ ְל ַמאי נָ ְפ ָקא ִמ ָּינ ּה? ָהנֵי דְּ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דָּ ָמא – ִאי‬The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether they are forbid-
– ְ‫ ָהנָ ך‬,‫ ְמ ַח ֵּתךְ ְלה ּו ו ְּמ ַלח ְלה ּו ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי‬den due to fat or due to blood? The Gemara answers: With regard
to these veins and arteries that are forbidden because they contain
.‫ֵלית ְלה ּו ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא‬
blood, if one cuts them open and then salts them to remove the
blood they are permitted. But those strands that contain forbidden
fat have no rectification and can never be eaten.

Kidneys with fat

halakha
The veins that are in the foreleg – ‫חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּיָ ד‬: The veins in the entire cubit, and for this reason the custom is to be lenient and
foreleg are forbidden due to the blood within them, in accor- to estimate a cubit (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
dance with the opinion of Shmuel (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Assurot 7:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 64:15).
Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:1).
The fat on the top cubit of the intestine requires scraping – The sinews that are in the tailbone – ‫עֹוקץ‬ֶ ‫חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ָ ּב‬: The sinews
‫ר ׁיש ֵמ ֲעיָ א ְ ּב ַא ְּמ ָתא ְ ּב ֵעי ְ ּג ִר ָירה‬:ֵ The fat on the top cubit of the small that are in the tailbone are forbidden. There are five sinews: Three
intestine after it leaves the abomasum is forbidden. Below this on the right and two on the left. The three on the right each split
point, the fat is permitted, in accordance with the opinion of into two, and the two on the left each split into three. One end
Shmuel. Some say that the reference to the top of the small of each is connected to the tailbone on the spine, and the other
intestine is referring to the end of the intestine that leads to the end is connected under the breast at the top of the ribs. This
rectum. One who is God-fearing should follow both opinions and ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda (Rambam
scrape one cubit of fat from each end of the intestine. The Rema Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
writes that some say that the area that is scraped need not be an De’a 64:13).

notes
Moses! Did the Merciful One say – ‫מ ׁ ֶֹשה ִמי ֲא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬: This Torah scholar. Alternatively, it is referring to an oath, as if to say that
expression is used often by Rav Safra (see Shabbat 101b, Sukka Rav Safra would take an oath by Moses’ honor that his words are
39a, and Beitza 38b). Rashi explains that it is an appellation for a correct (Rashi on Beitza 38b).

102 Ĥullin . perek VII . 93a . ‫גצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ַח ְמ ׁ ָשא‬:‫ימא ַרב יְהו ָּדה‬ ָ ‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָא וְ ִא ֵית‬ Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Rav Yehuda who said:
There are five membranes that are forbidden for consumption; three Testicles – ‫יעי‬
ֵ ‫ב‬:ּ ֵ
‫ ו ְּת ֵרי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ ְּת ָל ָתא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַּת ְר ָ ּבא‬.ּ‫ְק ָר ֵמי ָהוו‬
of them are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat, and two
‫ דְּ ַט ְח ִלי דְּ ַכ ְפ ִלי ו ְּדכו ְּליְ ָתא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫דָּ ָמא‬
are forbidden because they contain blood. The membranes of the
.‫מֹוק ָרא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דָּ ָמא‬ ְ ‫יעי ו ְּד‬ ֵ ‫ דְּ ֵב‬,‫ַּת ְר ָ ּבא‬ spleen and of the tail and of the kidneys are forbidden because they
contain forbidden fat. And the membranes of the testiclesb and of
the brain are forbidden because they contain blood.b

‫יה‬ּ ‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א ֲהוָ ה ָקא ָק ֵליף ֵל‬ ַ ׁ ‫ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ַ ּבר‬ The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya was peeling the
‫ ֲהוָ ה‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א ַ ּבר ִחּיָ יא‬ ּ ‫ַט ְח ָלא ְל ֵלוִ י ְ ּב ֵר‬ membranes from a spleen for Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ĥiyya. He
was cutting them only from the upper surface of the spleen. Levi
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ חוּת ֵ ּב‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יה ֵמ ִע ָּיל ֵאי‬ ּ ‫ָקא ָ ּג ִאים ֵל‬
said to Rav Yehuda: Go down further, i.e., remove the fat that is lower
‫ ָה ִכי‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְט ֵפי! ֲא ָתא ֲאבו ּּה ַא ׁ ְש ְּכ ֵח‬ down as well. Levi’s father, Rav Huna bar Ĥiyya, came and found
‫ ו ַּמנּ ּו – ַרב‬,‫ֲא ַמר ֲאבו ּּה דְּ ִא ָּמךְ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַרב‬ him as Levi was saying this to Rav Yehuda. Rav Huna bar Ĥiyya said
‫ ל ֹא ָא ְס ָרה ּת ָֹורה ֶא ָּלא‬:‫יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ to him: This is what your mother’s father said in the name of Rav;
.‫ׁ ֶש ַעל ַהדַּ ד ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ and who was Levi’s mother’s father? It was Rav Yirmeya bar Abba.
He said: The Torah prohibits only the membranes that are on the
thick, upper surface of the spleen.h Testicle of an animal
Blood – ‫דָּ ָמא‬: The Torah’s prohibition against con-
‫ ְקרוּם ׁ ֶש ַעל‬:‫ ָּתנָ א‬,‫ וְ ָה ֲא ַמר ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א‬,‫ִאינִי‬ Levi asked: Is that so? But didn’t Rav Hamnuna say that it was suming blood (see Leviticus 7:26) applies to the
ִ ‫ ֵה‬.‫ וְ ֵאין ַחּיָ ִיבים ָע ָליו‬,‫ַה ְּטחֹול – ָאסוּר‬
‫יכי‬ taught in a baraita that the membrane that is on the spleen is forbid- blood of both kosher and non-kosher animals and
den, but one is not liable to receive the punishment of karet for birds. One who consumes blood intentionally is
‫ימא ׁ ֶש ַעל ַהדַּ ד – ַא ַּמאי ֵאין‬ ָ ‫דָּ ֵמי? ִא ֵיל‬ liable to receive karet, and one who does so unwit-
eating it? Levi clarifies: What are the circumstances referred to in
‫ ִאי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו? ֶא ָּלא דְּ כו ֵּּל‬ the baraita? If we say that it is referring to the membranes that are tingly is required to bring a sin offering. Meat must
.‫ ַּתנְיָא‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ be salted before it is cooked in order to remove
on the thick, upper surface of the spleen, why is one not liable to the the blood.
punishment of karet for eating it? Rather, it must be referring to the
membranes on all sides of the spleen, even the underside. Rav Huna
bar Ĥiyya said to his son, Levi: If this baraita is taught, it is taught,
and I cannot take issue with it.

‫ ְקרוּם ׁ ֶש ַעל‬:‫ ָּתנָ א‬,‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א‬,‫גּ ו ָּפא‬ § The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself mentioned above:
‫ ְקרוּם‬.‫ וְ ֵאין ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו‬,‫ַה ְּטחֹול – ָאסוּר‬ Rav Hamnuna said that it was taught in a baraita: The membrane
that is on the spleen is forbidden, but one is not liable to receive
.‫ וְ ֵאין ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו‬,‫ׁ ֶש ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ּכו ְּליָ א – ָאסוּר‬
karet for eating it. The membrane that is on the kidneyh is forbidden,
!‫ ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו‬:‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ but one is not liable to receive karet for eating it. The Gemara chal-
lenges this statement: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that one is liable
to receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen or the kidney?

,‫ ָהא – ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַהדַּ ד‬,‫ ְטחֹול ַא ְּטחֹול ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the baraita
.‫ ָהא – ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַהדַּ ד‬that states that one is not liable to receive karet for eating the mem-
brane on the spleen and the baraita that states that one is liable to
receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen is not difficult:
This baraita that states that one is liable is referring to the membrane
on the thick, upper part of the spleen, whereas that baraita that states
that one is not liable is referring to the membrane that is not on the
thick part of the spleen.

– ‫ ָהא‬,‫ ּכו ְּליָ א ַא ּכו ְּליָ א נַ ִמי ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬Likewise, the apparent contradiction between the baraita that states
.‫ ָהא – ְ ּב ַת ָּת ָאה‬,‫ ְ ּב ִע ָּיל ָאה‬that one is not liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the
kidney and the baraita that states that one is liable to receive karet for
eating the membrane on the kidney is not difficult: This baraita that
states that one is liable is referring to the membrane on the upper
part of the kidney, whereas that baraita that states that one is not
liable is referring to the membrane on the lower part of the kidney.

halakha
The Torah prohibits only the membranes that are on the thick The membrane that is on the kidney – ‫קרוּם ׁ ֶש ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ּכו ְּליָ א‬:ְ The
upper surface of the spleen – ‫ל ֹא ָא ְס ָרה ּת ָֹורה ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ַעל ַהדַּ ד ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬: kidney has two membranes. One is liable for consuming the upper,
One is liable to receive karet for consuming the membrane cover- or outer membrane, but not for consuming the lower, or inner
ing the thicker surface of the spleen. The membrane covering the membrane. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to consume the lower
rest of the spleen and the sinews within it are forbidden, but one membrane and the sinews within it, in accordance with the opinion
is not liable for eating them, in accordance with the opinion of of Rav Hamnuna (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot
Rav Yirmeya bar Abba (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot 7:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 64:12).
Assurot 7:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 64:10).

 ‫גצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 93a 103

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

ֵ ‫ § ֵ ּב‬With regard to testicles that were crushed while the animal was
‫ ַחד‬,‫ ַרב ַא ִמי וְ ַרב ַא ִסי‬:‫יעי ֲח ׁ ִש ָיל ָתא‬
,‫ ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַסר‬.‫ ֲא ַסר וְ ַחד ׁ ָש ֵרי‬alive but were still attached to their cords in the scrotum, there is a
dispute between Rav Ami and Rav Asi. One of them prohibits
eating the testicles after the animal is slaughtered and one of them
permits eating them. The Gemara clarifies: The one who prohibits
them holds that

Perek VII
Daf 93 Amud b

Personalities
‫ ִמדְּ ָלא ָקא ָ ּב ְריָ ין – ָהנֵי ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬since these testicles do not heal, they are considered a limb severed
Rav Shemen bar Abba – ‫רב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬:ַ This is Rav
Shimon, or Shemen, bar Abba HaKohen, a second- – ‫ ִמדְּ ָלא ָקא ַמ ְס ְר ָחן‬:‫ ַמאן דְּ ׁ ָש ֵרי‬.ּ‫ נִינְ הו‬from a living animal even though they are still attached to the ani-
mal. Consequently, they are forbidden even after the animal is
generation amora in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Shimon bar Abba .ּ‫ָהנֵי ִחּיו ָּתא ִאית ְ ּבהו‬
originally came from Babylonia, where he studied with slaughtered. And the one who permits eating crushed testicles
Shmuel, but he apparently arrived in Eretz Yisrael at a holds that since they do not rot, there is vitality in them, and they
relatively young age, and was among the students of are not considered to have been detached from the animal.
Rabbi Ĥanina there. His principal teacher was Rabbi
Yoĥanan, to whom he attended with great affection. ‫ ַהאי דְּ ָלא ָקא ַמ ְס ְר ָחן – דְּ ָלא ָקא‬, ְ‫ וְ ִא ָידך‬And the other opinion, which holds that crushed testicles are for-
The Sages applied the verse “There is no bread to the ‫ ַהאי דְּ ָלא‬,‫ וְ ִא ָיד ְך‬.‫ ׁ ַש ִּליט ְ ּבה ּו ֲאוִ ָירא‬bidden, holds that the reason the testicles do not rot is not because
wise” (Ecclesiastes 9:11) to him due to his poverty, and they have vitality but rather because air does not penetrate the
he was renowned for great righteousness and extensive .ּ‫ָ ּב ְריָ ין – ְּכ ִח ׁישו ָּתא הוּא דְּ נָ ַקט ְלהו‬
scrotum, and it is contact with air that would cause them to rot. And
wisdom.
the other opinion, which holds that crushed testicles are permitted,
holds that the fact that they do not heal is because they have been
halakha
struck with weakness, but not because they are entirely devoid of
These crushed testicles – ‫יעי ֲח ׁ ִש ָיל ָתא‬
ֵ ‫הנֵי ֵ ּב‬:ָ Testicles of an
vitality. Consequently, they should not be considered detached
animal that have been pulled from their natural position
but are still entwined within the scrotum are permitted from the body.
by Torah law, because they still have a trace of life, which
is the reason they do not rot. Nevertheless, it is prohibited :‫יֹוחנָן ְל ַרב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬
ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Yoĥanan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba:p These crushed
ֵ ‫ ָהנֵי ֵ ּב‬testicles are permitted for consumption, but you should not eat
h
to eat them anywhere (Rambam), or at least in those ‫ וְ ַא ְּת ָלא‬,‫יעי ֲח ׁ ִש ָיל ָתא – ׁ ָש ְריָ ין‬
places where the custom is to forbid them (Rashi; Rashba; them due to the dictum: “And do not forsake the Torah of your
.‫ֵּתיכוּל ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ״וְ ַאל ִּת ּט ֹׁש ּת ַֹורת ִא ֶּמךָ ״‬
Maggid Mishne). This ruling is based on the custom of mother” (Proverbs 1:8).n Since Rav Shemen bar Abba was from
the Jewish people to not eat them because they are Babylonia, where it was customary to be stringent, it was prohibited
similar to a limb from a living animal, and is in accordance for him to eat crushed testicles even when he was in Eretz Yisrael.
with Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement to Rav Shemen bar Abba
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 5:7;
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 62:4).
,‫יעי דְּ גַ ְדיָ א‬
ֵ ‫ ָהנֵי ֵ ּב‬:‫ֲא ַמר ָמר ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ § The Gemara cites other halakhot related to testicles. Mar bar Rav
.‫יפה‬ ָ ‫יֹומין – ׁ ָש ְריָ ין ְ ּב ָלא ְק ִל‬ ִ ‫ַעד ְּת ָל ִתין‬ Ashi said: With regard to these testicles of goats,h from the time
These testicles of goats – ‫יעי דְּ גַ ְדיָ א‬
ֵ ‫הנֵי ֵ ּב‬:ָ Testicles of an the goat is born until the goat is thirty days old, its testicles are
animal less than thirty days old may be cooked with- ‫ וְ ִאי‬,‫ ִאי ִאזְ ְר ָען – ֲאסו ִּרין‬, ְ‫ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילך‬
permitted without peeling off the membrane that encloses them,
out first removing the membranes even if they contain ‫ ְמנָ א יָ ְד ִעינַן? ִאי ִאית‬.‫ָלא ִאזְ ְר ָען – ׁ ָש ְריָ ין‬ because they are presumed not to contain blood. From this point
many red sinews. If the animal is more than thirty days
‫ ֵלית ְ ּבה ּו‬,‫ְ ּבה ּו ׁשו ַּריְ ֵיקי סו ָּּמ ֵקי – ֲא ִס ָירן‬ forward, if they contain semen they are forbidden, but if they do
old and contains many red sinews they are forbidden to
be cooked without first removing the membrane, but .‫ׁשו ַּריְ ֵיקי סו ָּּמ ֵקי – ׁ ָש ְריָ ין‬ not contain semen they are permitted. The Gemara asks: How can
it is permitted to roast them. The Rema writes that the we know whether or not they contain semen? The Gemara answers:
custom is to remove the membrane even from an animal If they have red streaks in them they are forbidden. If they do not
less than thirty days old. This ruling is in accordance with have red streaks in them they are permitted.
the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a ‫ ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ָב ּה ַרב ַא ָחא‬,‫יעי ו ִּמזְ ְר ֵקי‬
ֵ ‫או ְּמצֵ י ֵ ּב‬ The Gemara quotes a related discussion pertaining to three cases:
65:4). With regard to raw meat that is eaten without being salted, testicles
‫ ְ ּב ָכל ַה ּת ָֹורה ּכו ָּּל ּה ָר ִבינָ א‬.‫וְ ָר ִבינָ א‬
of an animal, and the large veins of the neck, Rav Aĥa and Ravina
notes ‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬,‫ְלקו ָּּלא וְ ַרב ַא ָחא ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬
disagree about the halakha. The Gemara points out: In all of their
Due to: And do not forsake the Torah of your mother – ‫ ְל ַבר ֵמ ָהנֵי ְּת ָלת דְּ ַרב‬,‫ְּכ ָר ִבינָ א ְלקו ָּּלא‬ disputes with regard to other realms of the Torah where it is not
ָ‫מ ׁ ּשוּם וְ ַאל ִּת ּט ֹׁש ּת ַֹורת ִא ֶּמך‬:ִ This phrase is usually applied ‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬,‫ַא ָחא ְלקו ָּּלא וְ ָר ִבינָ א ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬ clear which of them holds which opinion, the opinion of Ravina is
to Jewish customs, such as not eating crushed testicles.
The phrase “the Torah of your mother [immekha]” is homi- .‫ְּכ ַרב ַא ָחא ְלקו ָּּלא‬ lenient, and the opinion of Rav Aĥa is stringent, and the halakha
letically interpreted as the Torah of the nation [umma], is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina to be lenient. This
thereby granting authority to the custom of the Jewish applies to all their disputes except for these three, in which Rav
people. Aĥa is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the halakha is in
accordance with the opinion of Rav Aĥa to be lenient.
104 Ĥullin . perek VII . 93b . ‫גצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
ּ ‫ ֲח ָת ָכ ּה ו ְּמ ָל ָח ּה – ֲא ִפ‬,‫או ְּמצָ א דְּ ַא ְס ִמיק‬
‫יל ּו‬ The Gemara explains: With regard to raw meat that became redhn
from the blood inside it, if one cut it and salted it, it is permitted Raw meat that became red – ‫או ְּמצָ א דְּ ַא ְס ִמיק‬:
– ‫יה נַ ִמי ְ ּב ׁ ַש ּפו ָּדא‬ ּ ָ‫ ָּת ְלי‬.‫ִל ְק ֵד ָרה נַ ִמי ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי‬ Meat that has turned red is permitted to be cooked
even to cook it in a pot, because the salt removes blood from meat.
‫ ַאגּ ו ְּמ ֵרי – ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ָ ּב ּה ַרב ַא ָחא‬.‫דָּ ֵאיב דָּ ָמא‬ if it has been cut and salted correctly. If it has not
It is also permitted if one hung it on a spit in order to roast it, been cut or salted but is instead roasted on coals
‫ וְ ַחד‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ַאב ׁ ְש ִא ִיבי ֵל‬:‫ ַחד ֲא ַמר‬,‫וְ ָר ִבינָ א‬ because the blood is drawn out by the heat of the fire. With regard it is permitted, because the roasting draws out the
.‫ וְ ֵכן ִמזְ ְר ֵקי‬,‫יעי‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ֵכן ֵ ּב‬.‫יה‬ּ ‫ ִמצְ ַמת צָ ְמ ִתי ֵל‬:‫ֲא ַמר‬ to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav Aĥa and Ravina dis- blood (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
agree about the halakha: One says that the coals draw out the Assurot 6:13, and see Maggid Mishne, Leĥem Mishne,
blood from the meat, and one says that the coals cause the meat to and Mishne LaMelekh there; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
De’a 67:4).
shrivel and harden, trapping the blood inside. And similarly Ravina
and Rav Aĥa disagree with regard to testicles placed on coals, and And similarly testicles and similarly veins – ‫וְ ֵכן‬
similarly with regard to the large veinsh of the neck that were placed ‫יעי וְ ֵכן ִמזְ ְר ֵקי‬
ֵ ‫ב‬:
ּ ֵ With regard to testicles of domes-
on coals. ticated and undomesticated animals within their
membranes, and with regard to the neck, which
– ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יה ַא ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬
ּ ‫אֹות ֵב‬
ְ ,‫ישא ְ ּב ִכ ְיב ׁ ָשא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֵר‬ § Apropos raw meat placed on coals, the Gemara discusses a related contains veins filled with blood, if one cut them
and salted them properly it is permitted to cook
.‫ ַא ְ ּצ ָד ִדין – ִמ ְיק ּ ָפא ָק ֵפי וְ ָאסוּר‬,‫דָּ יֵ יב דָּ ָמא וְ ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ topic. In a case where one wants to remove the hair from the head them. If one did not cut them but roasted the tes-
of an animal by placing it in hot ashes, if one placed it with the neck
‫ וְ ִאי‬,‫יה ִמ ֵידי – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ּ ‫ דָּ ץ ֵ ּב‬,‫יה‬ּ ‫יה ַא ְּנ ִח ֵיר‬
ּ ‫אֹות ֵב‬
ְ ticles on a spit or roasted the neck with its opening
down so that the location of the slaughterh is in the ashes, the facing downward, they are permitted. They are
.‫ָלא – ֲא ִסיר‬ blood is drawn out by the heat and the meat is permitted. But if also permitted if they were roasted on coals (Ram-
one placed the head in the ashes on one of its sides, the blood bam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:13;
congeals inside the head and cannot flow out, and therefore the Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:4).
head is forbidden for consumption. In a case where one placed Placed it so that the location of the slaughter –
the head down on its nostrils,h if he inserted something into the ‫יטה‬ָ ‫יה ַא ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬
ּ ‫אֹות ֵב‬:
ְ If one hangs the head of an
nostrils to keep them open and allow the blood to flow out, the meat animal in order to roast it, he must ensure that the
is permitted, but if he did not do so it is forbidden. neck is facing down so that the blood can flow
out. If he placed it on its side, the brain and its
membrane are forbidden, but the rest of the head
– ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יה וְ ַא ֵ ּבית ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬ּ ‫ ַא ְּנ ִח ֵיר‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬
ָּ ‫ ִא‬There are those who say: If the head was placed on its nostrils or
is permitted. If he punctured the skull and placed
‫ וְ ִאי‬,‫יה ִמ ֵידי – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ּ ‫ ִאי דָּ ץ ֵ ּב‬,‫ ַא ְ ּצ ָד ִדין‬.‫ דָּ ֵאיב‬on the location of the slaughter, the blood is drawn out and the the hole downward the brain and membrane are
meat is permitted. If he placed it on one of its sides, then if he
.‫ָלא – ֲא ִסיר‬ permitted, even if he did not puncture the mem-
inserted something into it in order to allow the blood to flow out, brane, because the blood can flow out through
it is permitted, and if not it is forbidden. the hole. The Rema writes that the custom is to
be stringent ab initio, and not roast an entire head.
,‫ ׁ ְשנֵי גִ ִידין ֵהן‬:‫ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ § ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬The Gemara returns to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. Even if one wants to hang it so that the neck is
.‫ וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו‬,‫נִימי ָסמו ְּך ָל ֶעצֶ ם – ָאסוּר‬ ִ ‫ ַה ּ ְפ‬Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: There are two nerves included facing down, the custom is to not roast the entire
in the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. The inner nerve, which is head, as there is concern that it may tip onto its
.‫ וְ ֵאין ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו‬,‫ִחיצֹון ָסמוּךְ ַל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָאסוּר‬ side and the blood will not come out while it is
next to the bone, is forbidden by Torah law, and one is liable to
being roasted. Rather, the custom is to remove the
be flogged for eating it. The outer nerve, which is next to the flesh, brain and salt the brain before roasting it (Ram-
is forbidden by rabbinic law, and therefore one is not liable to be bam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:14;
flogged for eating it. Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 68:1 and Shakh there).

,‫נִימי ָסמוּךְ ַל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר! ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא‬

ִ ‫ ּ ְפ‬:‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the inner nerve, Placed on its nostrils – ‫יה‬
ּ ‫יה ַא ְּנ ִח ֵיר‬
ּ ‫אֹות ֵב‬:
ְ In a case
where the head of an animal is placed nostrils
.‫ ִא ְיקלו ִּדי ִמ ְיק ִליד‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬which is forbidden by Torah law, is next to the flesh? The Gemara down in an oven in order to roast it, if two straws or
answers: Rav Aĥa said that Rav Kahana said: The inner nerve is reeds are placed in its nostrils so that they remain
next to the bone, but it bores into the flesh as well. open and the blood can flow out through them,
the brain is permitted. If not, the brain is forbid-
‫ ִחיצֹון ַה ָּסמו ְּך ָל ֶעצֶ ם! ֲא ַמר ַרב‬:‫ וְ ָהא ַּתנְ יָ א‬The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The outer den (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
ָ ‫ ֵה‬:‫ יְ הו ָּדה‬nerve is next to the bone? The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda said:
.‫יכא דְּ ָפ ְר ֵעי ַט ָ ּב ֵחי‬ Assurot 6:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 68:2 and
This is referring to the spot where the butchers cut the leg open and Shakh there).
reveal the nerve, and at that point in the leg the outer nerve is closest A butcher who removed the forbidden fats and
to the bone. yet forbidden fat was found after – ‫ַט ָ ּבח ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א‬
‫ח ֶלב ַא ֲח ָריו‬:ֵ With regard to a butcher whose task is
‫ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ ַט ָ ּבח ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְמצָ א ֵח ֶלב ַא ֲח ָריו‬,‫ית ַמר‬ְּ ‫ § ִא‬It was stated: With regard to a butcher who removed the forbid- to remove the forbidden fats, nerves and sinews
ָ ‫ ְ ּב ִכ ְ ׂש‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬den fats of the animal, and yet forbidden fat was found after he
h
.‫ ְ ּב ַכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬
ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫עֹורה‬ from the animal, if he leaves behind some sinews
completed his work, Rav Yehuda says that the butcher is held liable or membranes, he must be taught and warned
if there is forbidden fat remaining that is the size of a barley grain. not to treat forbidden foods lightly. If he fails to
Rabbi Yoĥanan says that the butcher is held liable only if there is remove forbidden fat the size of a barley grain,
he is removed from his job. If he fails to remove
forbidden fat remaining that is the size of an olive-bulk. an olive-bulk of forbidden fat, even scattered in
several places, he receives lashes for rebelliousness
and is then removed from his job. The Rema writes
that the court determines when he has repented
sufficiently and regains his presumptive status of
reliability in this regard, which also depends on
whether he transgressed intentionally or unwit-
tingly. The correct custom is that the butcher first
removes the forbidden parts before selling the
meat, so that the purchasers do not stumble and
notes
transgress in this matter (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
Raw meat that became red – ‫או ְּמצָ א דְּ ַא ְס ִמיק‬: Some explain that explanation of the Riva, citing Halakhot Gedolot, that the phrase is Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:21; Shulĥan Arukh,
this phrase is referring to raw meat that became red due to an referring to a piece of meat that had been placed in vinegar, causing Yoreh De’a 64:21).
accumulation of blood from a wound that the animal received while the blood to remain in the meat even when salted, unless the meat
still alive. In such a case, salting the meat without cutting it open is is cut open (Rosh; Ramban; Tosafot on Pesaĥim 74b).
insufficient to remove the blood (Rabbi Yeshaya Pick). Others cite the

 ‫גצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 93b 105

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫ ָּכאן – ְל ַה ְלקֹותֹו‬,‫ וְ ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬Rav Pappa said: Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Yoĥanan are referring to two
.‫ ָּכאן – ְל ַע ְברֹו‬different levels of liability, and they do not disagree. Here, when Rabbi
Yoĥanan said he is liable only if there is an olive-bulk of forbidden fat
remaining, he was referring to flogging him. There, when Rav Yehuda
said he is liable even he leaves forbidden fat the size of a barley grain, he
was referring to removing him from his position as a butcher.

,‫עֹורה – ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ‫ ִּכ ְ ׂש‬:‫ֲא ַמר ָמר זו ְּט ָרא‬ Mar Zutra said an alternative explanation: If the butcher left forbidden
ּ ‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת – ֲא ִפ‬
.‫יל ּו ִ ּב ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ו ִּב ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ְמקֹומֹות‬ fat the size of a barley grain in one place he is liable, and if he left forbid-
den fat the size of an olive-bulk, he is liable even if it is spread out in
‫ ְל ַע ְברֹו‬,‫ ְל ַה ְל קֹותֹו – ְ ּב ַכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬
two or three places. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that
.‫עֹורה‬
ָ ‫ְ ּב ִכ ְ ׂש‬ with regard to flogging him, the butcher is liable only if he left forbid-
den fat the size of an olive-bulk. With regard to removing him, the
butcher is liable even if he left forbidden fat the size of a barley grain.

ֵ § The mishna stated (89b): Butchers are not deemed credible to say
‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬.]‫״אין ַה ַּט ָ ּב ִחין נֶ ֱא ָמנִין״ [וכו׳‬
.‫לֹומר נֶ ֱא ָמנִין‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬that the sciatic nerve was removed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
ַ ‫ ָחזְ ר ּו‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve.
Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: The Rabbis
initially held that butchers are not deemed credible about the sciatic
nerve, and subsequently they retracted and said that butchers are
deemed credible in this regard.

ּ ָ ‫ ִא ַּכ ׁ ּשוּר דָּ ֵרי? ֵמ ִע‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬Rav Naĥman said to him: Have the later generations improved such
‫יק ָרא דְּ ָהו ּו‬
,‫ימנֵי‬ְ ‫ ָס ְב ִרי ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר – ָלא ָהו ּו ְמ ֵה‬that butchers are more reliable than they were in earlier generations?
The Gemara answers: Initially, when the Rabbis held in accordance
.‫ו ְּל ַב ּסֹוף ָס ְב ִרי ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬
with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one must scrape around the flesh
in order to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, butchers were not
deemed credible, due to the exertion involved in this process. But later
the Rabbis held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that
it is unnecessary to scrape around the flesh. Consequently, removing
the sciatic nerve is not especially arduous, and butchers are deemed
credible to say that they removed it.

:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ ‫ ״וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬:‫ִא ָּיכא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ַא ֵּס ָיפא‬ There are those who teach this discussion with regard to the latter
‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר‬,‫נֶ ֱא ָמנִין ָע ָליו וְ ַעל ַה ֵח ֶלב״‬ clause of the mishna, as follows: And the Rabbis say: They are deemed
credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat. Rabbi
.‫לֹומר ֵאין נֶ ֱא ָמנִין‬ַ ‫ ָחזְ ר ּו‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַא ָ ּבא‬
Ĥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: They subsequently
.‫ ַ ּבּזְ ַמן ַהּזֶ ה – נֶ ֱא ָמנִין‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ retracted this opinion and said that butchers are not deemed credible.
Rav Naĥman says: Today the butchers are deemed credible.

ּ ָ ‫ ִא ַּכ ׁ ּשוּר דָּ ֵרי? ֵמ ִע‬The Gemara asks: Have the later generations improved such that
,‫יק ָרא ַס ְברו ָּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬
,‫ ֲה ַדר ַס ְברו ָּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬butchers are more reliable than they were in earlier generations? The
Gemara answers: Initially they held that the halakha is in accordance
with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that one is not required to scrape
around the flesh to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, and therefore
butchers were deemed credible to say that they removed it. The Rabbis
then reversed their opinion and held that the halakha is in accordance
with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one is required to scrape around
the flesh.

‫ ַּכ ָּמה דְּ ָהו ּו דְּ ִכ ִירי ָל ּה ִל ְד ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה – ָלא‬As long as the butchers remembered the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and
– ‫נְשיו ָּה ִל ְד ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ְ ‫ ְמ ֵה‬did not scrape around the flesh to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve,
ְ ׁ ‫ וְ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ַא‬,‫ימנֵי‬
they were not deemed credible to say that they removed it; but now
.‫ימנֵי‬
ְ ‫ְמ ֵה‬
that they have forgotten the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and have grown
accustomed to scraping around the flesh to remove the roots of the
sciatic nerve, they are deemed credible.

‫יה? ָה ִכי‬ּ ‫ ֵח ֶלב ַמאן דְּ ַכר ׁ ְש ֵמ‬.‫ § ״וְ ַעל ַה ֵח ֶלב״‬The mishna teaches that the Rabbis maintain that butchers are
‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫ ֵאין נֶ ֱא ָמנִין ָע ָליו וְ ַעל ַה ֵח ֶלב‬:‫ ָק ָא ַמר‬deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat.
The Gemara asks: Who mentioned anything about forbidden fat?
.‫אֹומ ִרים נֶ ֱא ָמנִין ָע ָליו וְ ַעל ַה ֵח ֶלב‬
ְ
The topic of discussion in the mishna until this point is the sciatic
nerve, not forbidden fat; why do the Rabbis mention forbidden fat?
The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: The butchers
are not deemed credible about the sciatic nerve or about the forbid-
den fat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis say: The
butchers are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the
forbidden fat.
106 Ĥullin . perek VII . 93b . ‫גצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫מתני׳ ׁש ֵֹול ַח ָא ָדם יָ ֵר ְך ְלגֹוי ׁ ֶש ִ ּגיד‬

.‫נִיכר‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ְּמקֹומֹו‬,‫תֹוכ ּה‬
ָ ‫ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ְ ּב‬
mishna Although it is prohibited for Jews to eat the
sciatic nerve, a Jewish person may send the
thigh of an animal to a gentile with the sciatic nerve in it, without
concern that the gentile will then sell the thigh to a Jew and the Jew
will eat the sciatic nerve. This leniency is due to the fact that the
place of the sciatic nerve is conspicuous in the thigh.

.‫ ֲחתו ָּכה – ָלא‬,‫גמ׳ ׁ ְש ֵל ָמה – ִאין‬

‫ימא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬
ָ ‫ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן? ִא ֵיל‬
gemara The mishna’s statement that a Jew may
send a thigh to a gentile indicates that if it
is whole, yes, a Jew may send it to a gentile, but if the thigh has been
‫ ַמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬cut, a Jew may not send it to a gentile. The Gemara asks: What are
we dealing with? If we say that the mishna is referring to a place
where all the butchers are Jewish but they do not announce pub-
licly when they have sold to a gentile an animal that turns out to
have a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa],
then it is prohibited for Jews to purchase any meat from gentiles,
due to the possibility that it was from an animal that was a tereifa.

Perek VII
Daf 94 Amud a

‫ דְּ ָהא ָלא ָאת ּו‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יש ַדר ֵל‬ ְ ׁ ‫ֲחתו ָּכה נַ ִמי ִל‬ Consequently, it should also be permitted to send to a gentile a
– ‫ֵיה! ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬ּ ‫ְל ִמ ַ ּזְבן ִמ ּינ‬ thigh that has been cut, because Jews will not come to purchase it
from him. Rather, if the mishna is referring to a place where all the
‫יך‬ ְ ‫ דַּ ֲח ִת‬,‫יה‬ּ ‫יש ַדר ֵל‬ ְ ׁ ‫ימה נַ ִמי ָלא ִל‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ֵל‬
butchers are Jewish, and they announce every time they sell a tereifa
!‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ו ְּמזַ ֵ ּבין ֵל‬ּ ‫ֵל‬ to a gentile, in which case Jews may purchase meat from the local
gentiles when such an announcement is not made, one should not
be permitted to send even a whole thigh to a gentile, due to the
concern that he might cut it up and sell it to Jews who would not
realize that it still contains the sciatic nerve.

‫ וְ ִאי‬,‫ימא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬

ָ ‫ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬The Gemara offers two answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is
.‫ימא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬ ָ ‫ ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬referring to a place where they announce every time they sell a
tereifa; and if you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a place
where they do not announce every time they sell a tereifa.

:‫ימא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that the mishna is referring
.‫ ִח ּיתו ָּכא דְּ גֹוי ֵמ ַידע יְ ִד ַיע‬to a place where they announce every time they sell a tereifa, and
nevertheless it is permitted to send a whole thigh of meat to a gentile.
There is no concern that the gentile will sell the thigh to a Jew,
because the Jew would know that it is non-kosher by the manner
of cutting of the gentile. Jewish butchers would cut the meat in a
distinctive manner that would not be replicated by a gentile who
cut the meat.

:‫ימא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬

ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬And if you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a place where
‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יִ ְּתנֶ ָּנה לֹו ִ ּב ְפנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬they do not announce every time they sell a tereifa, and neverthe-
less it is prohibited to give the gentile a thigh that has been cut up.
.‫ַא ֵחר‬
The Sages issued a decree against doing so, lest he give it to the
gentile in the presence of another Jew, who will think that it is
kosher and purchase it from the gentile.
 ‫דצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 94a 107
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
ּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָקא ָ ּגנֵיב ֵל‬:‫ימא‬
‫יה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬And if you wish, say that there is an entirely different reason why
It is prohibited to deceive people, and even a
gentile – ‫אסוּר ִלגְ נֹוב דַּ ַעת ַה ְ ּב ִרּיֹות וַ ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו דַּ ְע ּתֹו ׁ ֶשל גּ ֹוי‬:
ָ ‫ ָאסוּר ִלגְ נֹוב דַּ ַעת‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ְל ַד ְע ֵּת‬one may not send a gentile a cut-up thigh without removing the
sciatic nerve: Because he thereby deceives the gentile. The gentile
The Sages state (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 7:8) that deceiv- .‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו דַּ ְע ּתֹו ׁ ֶשל גּ ֹוי‬,‫ַה ְ ּב ִרּיֹות‬
ing another is equivalent to actually stealing from him, will think that the Jew has exerted himself to cut up the leg and
and one who does so is called a thief. They cite proof remove the sciatic nerve and that although the Jew could have eaten
from a verse with regard to Absalom: “And in this man- the meat himself he decided to send it to the gentile. The gentile will
ner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for therefore be more appreciative of the gift than he would be if he
judgment; so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of realized that the sciatic nerve had not been removed. This is as
Israel” (II Samuel 15:6). Some of the early commentar-
Shmuelp said: It is prohibited to deceive people, and even to
ies write that deceiving another, whether a Jew or a
gentile, violates a prohibition by Torah law (Ritva).
deceive a gentile.nh

‫ית ַמר ֶא ָּלא‬ ְּ ‫ ָלאו ְ ּב ֵפירו ּׁש ִא‬,‫וְ ָהא דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ And the Gemara points out that this ruling of Shmuel was not
halakha stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference, i.e., it was
‫ דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ֲהוָ ה ָקא ֲע ַבר‬.‫ית ַמר‬ ְּ ‫ִמ ְּכ ָל ָלא ִא‬
It is prohibited to deceive people, and even a inferred based upon the following incident: Shmuel was once
gentile – ‫אסוּר ִלגְ נֹוב דַּ ַעת ַה ְ ּב ִרּיֹות וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו דַּ ְע ּתֹו ׁ ֶשל גֹּוי‬:ָ It is ‫יה‬
ּ ‫יס‬ֵ ְ‫ ּ ַפּי‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫יה ְל ׁ ַש ָּמ ֵע‬ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ְ ּב ַמ ְב ָרא‬
crossing a river in a ferry [mavra].l He said to his attendant:
prohibited to deceive people in business. For example, .‫ וְ ִא ְיק ּ ַפד‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫יס‬
ֵ ְ‫ ּ ַפּי‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫בֹור‬
ֵ ‫ְל ַמ‬ Compensate the ferryman with an appropriate gift. The attendant
if there is a blemish on merchandise the seller must
inform the purchaser. This halakha applies to deceiv- compensated him, but Shmuel became angry with his attendant.
ing a gentile as well. Therefore, one may not sell non-
kosher meat to a gentile under the presumption that ‫גֹולת‬ ֶ ְ‫ ַּת ְרנ‬:‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא ִא ְיק ּ ַפד? ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Shmuel became angry?
it is kosher. This is in accordance with the opinion of .‫יה ְ ּב ַמר דִּ ׁ ְשחו ָּטה‬ ּ ‫נִיה ֵל‬
ֲ ‫יה ָב ּה‬ ֲ ִ‫ ו‬,‫ְט ֵר ָפה ֲהוַ אי‬ Abaye said: The compensation that the attendant gave the ferryman
Shmuel (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Deot 2:6 was a chicken that was a tereifa, and he gave it to him as though it
and Sefer Kinyan, Hilkhot Mekhira 18:1, 3; Shulĥan Arukh,
,‫יה ְל ַא ׁ ְשקוּיֵ י‬ ּ ‫ ַאנְ ּ ָפ ָקא ֲא ַמר ֵל‬:‫ָר ָבא ֲא ַמר‬
were a slaughtered, kosher chicken. Rava said: Shmuel told him
Ĥoshen Mishpat 228:6). .‫ייה ַח ְמ ָרא ְמזִ יגָ א‬
ּ ‫וְ ַא ׁ ְש ֵק‬ to give the ferryman wine for drinking in an anpaka,l i.e., a utensil
A person may not importune another to eat with that holds a quarter-log and which was generally used for undiluted
him, etc. – ‫אל יְ ַס ְר ֵהב ָא ָדם ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו ִל ְסעֹוד ֶאצְ לֹו וכו׳‬:
ַ wine, but he gave him diluted wineb for drinking. According to
It is prohibited to deceive another verbally or to both Abaye and Rava, Shmuel was upset that his attendant deceived
deceptively appear to perform an action on behalf of the gentile ferryman.
another. For example, one may not importune another
to eat with him knowing that he will not accept. Like-
‫ וְ ִכי ִמ ְּכ ָל ָלא ַמאי? ְל ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר ְט ֵר ָפה‬The Gemara asks: And if Shmuel’s opinion was derived by inference,
wise, he may not send gifts to another knowing that
he will not accept them. He may also not open new ּ ‫ ֲהוַ אי – ֲא ַמר ֵל‬what of it? The story clearly demonstrates that according to Shmuel
?‫ ַא ַּמאי ַּת ׁ ְש ֶהא ִא ּיסו ָּרא‬:‫יה‬
barrels of wine for sale when the recipient believes it is prohibited to deceive a gentile. The Gemara answers that it
they were opened in his honor. He must first tell him cannot be ascertained with certainty that this is the reason Shmuel
that he is not opening them especially for his honor. became angry. According to the one who said it was a chicken
This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that was a tereifa that was given as compensation, perhaps Shmuel
(Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Deot 2:6 and Sefer became angry and said to his attendant: Why did you retain in your
Kinyan, Hilkhot Mekhira 18:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen possession an animal that is forbidden for consumption? This could
Mishpat 228:6).
have led to a Jew accidentally eating it.
language – ‫יה ְל ַא ׁ ְשקוּיֵ י‬
ּ ‫ ְל ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר ַאנְ ּ ָפ ָקא ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Similarly, according to the one who said that Shmuel told him to
Ferry [mavra] – ‫מ ְב ָרא‬:ַ An abridged form of the Ara-
.‫ ַחּיָ יא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ ַאנְ ּ ָפ ָקא‬give the ferryman wine to drink in an anpaka, since anpaka indi-
maic ma’abera, meaning a small boat or raft used to cates undiluted wine and the attendant gave the ferryman diluted
cross a river. As these ferries were usually designated
wine, perhaps Shmuel became angry simply because his attendant
for short trips, they generally did not have extra stor-
age space or a place to securely hold animals.
disobeyed his instruction.
Anpaka – ‫אנְ ּ ָפ ָקא‬:ַ The source of this word is unclear, ‫ ַאל יְ ַס ְר ֵהב‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ַּתנְ יָ א‬ § Apropos the prohibition against acting deceitfully, the Gemara
but apparently it is related to the Armenian empak, cites other statements on this topic. It is taught in a baraita that
meaning drinking vessel.
‫יֹוד ַע ּבֹו ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬
ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ָא ָדם ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו ִל ְסעֹוד ֶאצְ לֹו‬
Rabbi Meir would say: A person may not importune [yesarhev]l
‫יֹוד ַע ּבֹו‬
ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫רֹובת‬ֶ ‫ וְ ל ֹא יַ ְר ֶ ּבה לֹו ְ ּב ִת ְק‬.‫סֹועד‬
ֵ
Importune [yesarhev] – ‫יְ ַס ְר ֵהב‬: Although this word another to eat with him,h making it seem as though he genuinely
means to pressure or entreat, it is similar to the word .‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמ ַק ֵ ּבל‬ wants his company, but in reality he entreats him only because he
refuse [yesarev], which can also mean to pressure. knows that the other will not eat with him, i.e., will not accept the
Some explain that the root of the word is rahav, denot-
invitation. And similarly, one may not send another person many
ing power or arrogance, or riv, meaning quarrel.
gifts merely because he knows that the other will not accept them.
background
Diluted wine – ‫ח ְמ ָרא ְמזִ יגָ א‬:ַ In antiquity, wine was
customarily drunk only after being diluted with water.
The ratio of wine to water depended on local custom
and preference.

Personalities
Shmuel – ‫שמו ֵּאל‬:
ְ ׁ Shmuel was a first-generation amora who was Together with his colleague Rav, Shmuel raised the standard of
born and ultimately passed away in Neharde’a. A child prodigy, Torah study in Babylonia to a level where thousands of students
he was renowned not only for his Torah knowledge, but for his chose to remain there rather than to travel to Eretz Yisrael to attend
secular learning as well. The Gemara is replete with stories of his the academy there. Shmuel viewed Babylonia as second in sanctity
expertise in such areas as language, medicine, astronomy, and the only to Eretz Yisrael and ruled that it was forbidden to leave it to
natural sciences. In fact, the Gemara records that Shmuel, who travel to other locations in the Diaspora. He was a close friend of
had traveled to Eretz Yisrael to study with the students of Rabbi King Shapur I of Persia, a benevolent monarch who was tolerant
Yehuda HaNasi, treated Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s eye ailment, and of religious diversity in his kingdom.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi regretted that he was unable to find an Shmuel lived to an old age, leaving behind two daughters
opportunity to ordain him. After his return to Babylonia, Shmuel famous for their wisdom and modesty.
was appointed as one of the judges of the Diaspora community.

108 Ĥullin . perek VII . 94a . ‫דצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
,‫וְ ל ֹא יִ ְפ ַּתח לֹו ָח ִבּיֹות ַה ְמכוּרֹות ַל ֶחנְ וָ נִי‬ And one may not open barrels of wine for a guest if they have
already been sold to a storekeeper,n unless he notifies the guest Jug [lagin] – ‫לגִ ין‬:ָ Apparently from the Greek λάγηνος,
ְ‫ֹאמר לֹו ״סוּך‬ ִ ‫ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן‬
ַ ‫ וְ ל ֹא י‬.‫הֹודיעֹו‬ lagēnos, or the Latin lagena, both of which denote a
beforehand that the barrel had been sold. And he may not say to
– ‫ וְ ִאם ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ְּכבֹודֹו‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֶמן״ ִמ ּ ַפךְ ֵר ָיקן‬ container similar to a bottle or small jug.
another: Anoint yourself with oil, and place an empty jugh before
.‫מו ָּּתר‬ him with the knowledge that he will not attempt to anoint himself. Crowd of people [ĥever ir] – ‫ח ֶבר ִעיר‬:ֶ According to many
commentaries, the ĥever ir is a type of city council on
But if he does so for the guest’s honor, to show that he holds his
which the leading Sages sat, either in official capacities
guest in high esteem, rather than to deceive the guest so that he will or solely as religious leaders. Alternatively, the ge’onim
feel indebted to him, it is permitted. and Rashi elsewhere explain the term as an outstanding
Torah scholar in whose honor the other important people
,‫ וְ ָהא עו ָּּלא ִא ְיק ַלע ְל ֵבי ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ִאינִי‬ The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Ulla happen to come to of the city would gather. In this context, though, Rashi
‫ּ ָפ ַתח לֹו ָח ִבּיֹות ַה ְמכוּרֹות ַל ֶחנְ וָ נִי! אֹודו ֵּעי‬ the house of Rav Yehuda, and Rav Yehuda opened barrels of wine interprets it as a group of people gathered together.
for Ulla that had already been sold to a storekeeper? The Gemara
‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי עו ָּּלא‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬.‫יה‬
ּ ‫אֹוד ֵע‬
ְ
answers: Rav Yehuda notified Ulla that he was not opening the background
‫ דִּ ְב ָלאו ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬,‫יה ְל ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬
ּ ‫דְּ ָח ִביב ֵל‬ barrels especially for him. And if you wish, say that Ulla is different Jug – ‫לגִ ין‬:ָ A jug was a vessel usually made from earth-
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫ּ ְפתו ֵּחי ִמ ְפ ַּתח ֵל‬ from an ordinary guest because he was very dear to Rav Yehuda, enware that served as a container for beverages kept on
so that even without this, i.e., even if he had not already sold the the table in order to pour those beverages into the cups
barrels to a storekeeper, Rav Yehuda would have opened the barrels of those dining there, similar to the use of a jug or bottle
for him. in modern times. Such jugs held a maximum volume of
two to three liters.
,‫ ל ֹא יֵ ֵל ְך ָא ָדם ְל ֵבית ָה ֵא ֶבל‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not go to a house of
‫ וְ ל ֹא יְ ַמ ְּל ֶאנּ ּו‬.‫ו ְּביָ דֹו ָלגִ ין ַה ִּמ ְת ַק ׁ ְש ֵק ׁש‬ mourning with a wine jug [lagin]lb in his hand that is mostly
empty and where the small amount of wine rattlesh about, because
‫ וְ ִאם יֵ ׁש ׁ ָשם ֶח ֶבר‬.ּ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְת ֵעהו‬,‫ַמיִ ם‬
the mourner will think that his visitor is bringing him a full jug of
.‫ִעיר – מו ָּּתר‬ wine. And he may not fill up that jug of wine with water, because
he thereby misleads the mourner into thinking he has brought him
a full jug of undiluted wine. But if there is a crowd of people [ĥever
ir]l and the guest wants to honor the mourner in their presence, it
is permitted.

‫ ל ֹא יִ ְמ ּכֹור ָא ָדם ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו ַסנְ דָּ ל‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not sell to another a
‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬,‫ׁ ֶשל ֵמ ָתה ִ ּב ְכ ַלל ׁ ֶשל ַחּיָ ה ׁ ְשחו ָּטה‬ sandalbh made from the hide of an animal that died of natural causes
as though it were a sandal made from the hide of a healthy animal
,‫ ֶא ָחד – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְת ֵעה ּו‬:‫ׁ ְשנֵי ְד ָב ִרים‬
that was slaughtered. This is prohibited due to two factors: One,
.‫וְ ֶא ָחד – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ַה ַּס ָּכנָ ה‬ because he misleads the customer into thinking that the leather is
of higher quality than it really is; and another, because of the Jug from the talmudic period
danger involved, as it is possible that the animal died from a snake-
bite and the poison seeped into the part of the animal’s hide from Sandal – ‫סנְדָּ ל‬:ַ
which the sandal is made.

notes
And one may not open barrels if they have already been sold to produce wine and sell the unopened barrels to storekeepers,
to a storekeeper – ‫וְ ל ֹא יִ ְפ ַּתח לֹו ָח ִבּיֹות ַה ְמכוּרֹות ַל ֶחנְ וָ נִי‬: Wine from who would then sell the contents little by little to customers. If
a newly opened barrel is of superior quality, but once the barrel the host has already sold the barrel to a storekeeper, it would be
is open the wine begins to lose some of its flavor. If one still had misleading to take some of the wine from the barrel, for which
wine in his open barrel, he would not open a new barrel unless he he will then pay the storekeeper, giving the impression that he
was honoring a distinguished guest. It was common for people was opening his own barrel in honor of the guest.

halakha
And he may not say to him anoint yourself with oil, and place empty vessel such that the mourner thinks it is filled with wine,
an empty jug – ‫ֹאמר לֹו סו ְּך ׁ ֶש ֶמן ִמ ּ ַפךְ ֵר ָיקן‬
ַ ‫וְ ל ֹא י‬: One may not tell because he thereby deceives the mourner. If he does so in order
another to anoint himself with oil from a certain container if to honor the mourner it is permitted. This ruling is in accordance Detail of statue with sandal, from the talmudic period
he knows it is empty, because he thereby deceives him. This with the baraita (Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 228:7).
is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But if there is
oil within, it is permitted for him to tell another to anoint from A person may not sell to another a sandal, etc. – ‫ל ֹא יִ ְמ ּכֹור‬
it, even knowing that he will not do so, because it shows him ‫א ָדם ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו ַסנְדָּ ל וכו׳‬:ָ One may not sell an item made of leather
honor (Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 228:7 and Sma and Netivot from an animal that died of natural causes as if it were made of
HaMishpat there). leather from a slaughtered animal, because he thereby deceives
the purchaser. This is in accordance with the baraita (Ram-
A person may not go to a house of mourning with a wine bam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Deot 2:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen
jug in his hand that rattles – ‫ל ֹא יֵ ֵל ְך ָא ָדם ְל ֵבית ָה ֵא ֶבל ו ְּביָ דֹו ָלגִ ין‬ Mishpat 228:8).
‫ה ִּמ ְת ַק ׁ ְש ֵק ׁש‬:ַ One may not go to a house of morning carrying an

 ‫דצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 94a 109

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֶמן‬,‫וְ ל ֹא יְ ׁ ַש ֵ ּגר ָא ָדם ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו ָח ִבית ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן‬ And furthermore a person may not send a barrel of wine to
‫ ו ַּמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש ֵ ּיגר ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬.‫יה‬ ָ ‫צָ ף ַעל ּ ִפ‬ another with oil floating at its mouth,h such that the recipient
thinks that it is a barrel of oil. There was an incident involving a
‫ימן‬ֵּ ִ‫ וְ ָה ַלךְ וְ ז‬.‫יה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֶמן צָ ף ַעל ּ ִפ‬,‫ָח ִבית ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן‬
certain individual who sent a barrel of wine to another with oil
– ‫ ְמצָ ָא ּה ׁ ֶש ִהיא ׁ ֶשל יַ יִ ן‬.ּ‫ וְ נִ ְכנְסו‬,‫אֹור ִחין‬ ְ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ָע ֶל‬ floating at its mouth, and that recipient, thinking it was a barrel of
.‫וְ ָחנַ ק ֶאת ַעצְ מֹו‬ oil, went and invited guests to share it with him, and the guests
arrived. When the host went to bring them oil, he found that it was
a barrel of wine rather than oil, and in his shame at not having oil
for them, he hanged himself and died.

‫נֵיהם‬ֶ ‫יתן ִמ ַּמה ׁ ּ ֶש ִּל ְפ‬

ֵּ ‫אֹור ִחין ַר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין ִל‬
ְ ‫ וְ ֵאין ָה‬The baraita continues: And guests are not permitted to give some
‫ ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן‬,‫ ִל ְבנֹו ו ְּל ִב ּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬of the food that is placed before them to the son or to the daughter
of the hosth unless they first receive permission from the host.
.‫נָטל ּו ְר ׁשוּת ִמ ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬
ְ

‫אֹור ִחין ִ ּב ׁ ְשנֵי‬

ְ ‫ו ַּמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ְ ּב ֶא ָחד ׁ ֶשּזִ ֵּמן ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬ And there was an incident involving a certain individual who
‫נֵיהם ֶא ָּלא‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָהיָ ה לֹו ְל ַה ּנ ִַיח ִל ְפ‬,‫ַב ּצ ֶֹורת‬ invited three guests during years of famine, and he had enough
to place only three eggs before them. The son of the host came,
‫נָטל‬ַ ,‫ ָ ּבא ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬.‫ְּכ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ֵ ּביצִ ים‬
and one of the guests took his portion and gave it to the son. And
‫ וְ ֵכן‬,‫ וְ ֵכן ׁ ֵשנִי‬,‫ֶא ָחד ֵמ ֶהן ֶח ְלקֹו – וּנְ ָתנֹו לֹו‬ similarly the second guest gave his portion to the son, and simi-
‫ ָ ּבא ָא ִביו ׁ ֶשל ִּתינֹוק ְמצָ אֹו ׁ ֶשעֹוזֵ ק‬.‫ישי‬ ִ ׁ ‫ׁ ְש ִל‬ larly the third guest. The father of the child came and found that
.‫ ֲח ָבטֹו ַ ּב ַ ּק ְר ַקע ו ֵּמת‬,‫ֶא ָחד ְ ּב ִפיו ו ׁ ְּש ַּתיִ ם ְ ּביָ דֹו‬ his son was holding one egg in his mouth and two in his hand. The
,‫ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ָר ֲא ָתה ִא ּמֹו – ָע ְל ָתה ַל ַ ּגג וְ נָ ְפ ָלה ו ֵּמ ָתה‬ father became so angry with his son for taking all the food that he
.‫ַאף הוּא ָע ָלה ַל ַ ּגג וְ נָ ַפל ו ֵּמת‬ hit the son to the ground, and the son died. When his mother saw
what had happened, she ascended to the roof and fell down to the
ground and died. And when the father saw that both his son and
his wife were dead he also ascended to the roof and fell down to
the ground and died.

‫ ַעל דָּ ָבר זֶ ה נֶ ֶה ְרג ּו‬:‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן יַ ֲעקֹב‬

ֶ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: For this matter of giving food to
– ‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש נְ ָפ ׁשֹות ִמּיִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל! ַמאי ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬the child of the host, three Jewish souls were killed. The Gemara
asks: What does this statement teach us? It is obvious from the
.‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן יַ ֲעקֹב ִהיא‬ ֶ ‫דְּ כו ָּּל ּה ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬
incident that three people were killed. The Gemara answers:
It teaches that the entire baraita is taught by Rabbi Eliezer
ben Yaakov.

‫ימה – ֵאינֹו‬ ָ ‫ ׁ ְש ֵל‬.‫ ַה ׁ ּש ֵֹול ַח יָ ֵרךְ ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ § The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who sends a
– ‫ ֲחתו ָּכה‬.‫ימ ָּנה ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬ ֶ ‫יך ׁ ֶשּיִ ּטֹול ֵה‬ ְ ‫צָ ִר‬ whole thigh of an animal to another, he is not required to first
ּ ‫יך ִל‬ remove the sciatic nerve from it. This is because the recipient can
‫ ֵ ּבין‬,‫ ו ְּבגֹוי‬.‫ימ ָּנה ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬ ֶ ‫יטֹול ֵה‬ ְ ‫צָ ִר‬
see that it has not yet been removed and will not eat it until he
‫ימ ָּנה‬ֶ ‫ימה – ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ִל ּיטֹול ֵה‬ ָ ‫ֲחתו ָּכה ו ֵּבין ׁ ְש ֵל‬ removes the sciatic nerve himself. But if one sends a thigh that has
.‫ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬ been cut up, he is required to first remove the sciatic nerve from
it so that the recipient does not eat it unwittingly. And in the case
of one who sends a thigh to a gentile, regardless of whether it is cut
or whole he is not required to remove the sciatic nerve from it.

‫מֹוכ ִרין נְ ֵבילֹות‬

ְ ‫ ֵאין‬,ּ‫ ו ִּמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ְשנֵי ְד ָב ִרים ָא ְמרו‬And it was due to two factors that the Sages said that one may not
– ‫ וְ ֶא ָחד‬,ּ‫ ֶא ָחד – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְת ֵעהו‬.‫ ו ְּט ֵרפֹות ְלגֹוי‬sell meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot to a gen-
tile: One, because it misleads him, as he thinks that it is kosher
.‫ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ֲחזֹור וְ יִ ְמ ְּכ ֶר ָּנה ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַא ֵחר‬
meat, which is more desirable; and another factor is the concern
lest the gentile then sell the meat to another Jew, who will think it
is kosher since it originally was sold by a Jew.

,‫״קח ִלי ְ ּב ִדינָ ר זֶ ה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬

ַ :‫ֹאמר ָא ָדם ְלגֹוי‬ ַ ‫ וְ ל ֹא י‬And similarly, a person may not say to a gentile: Purchase meat
:‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ְשנֵי ְד ָב ִרים‬for me from a Jewish butcher with this dinar, due to two factors:

halakha
A barrel of wine to another with oil floating at its mouth – ‫ָח ִבית‬ food placed before them and give it to the children or servants of
‫יה‬
ָ ‫של יַ יִ ן וְ ׁ ֶש ֶמן צָ ף ַעל ּ ִפ‬:
ֶ ׁ One may not send a barrel of wine to another the host without first asking permission. But if there is plenty of
with oil floating at its mouth, because he thereby deceives him, in food on the table, so that there is certainly enough for them, they
accordance with the baraita (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Deot do not need to ask permission (Magen Avraham). If the guests have
2:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 228:8). already finished eating and there is food remaining, they certainly
may give the leftovers without asking permission (Mishna Berura).
Guests are not permitted to give of food that is placed before Some authorities, such as the Shemen Roke’aĥ, hold that one must
them to the son or to the daughter of the host – ‫אֹור ִחין ַר ׁ ּ ָש ִאין‬ ְ ‫ֵאין ָה‬ be stringent in every case (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot
ֶ ‫ל ֵּיתן ִמ ַּמה ׁ ּ ֶש ִּל ְפ‬:ִ Guests may not take the
‫נֵיהם ִל ְבנֹו ו ְּל ִב ּתֹו ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ 7:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 170:19).

110 Ĥullin . perek VII . 94a . ‫דצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VII
Daf 94 Amud b
background
‫מֹוכ ִרין לֹו‬
ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬,‫ וְ ֶא ָחד‬.‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָה ַא ּנ ִָסין‬,‫ ֶא ָחד‬One factor is because of the oppressors,b i.e., the concern that
Oppressors – ‫א ּנ ִָסין‬:
ַ The Gemara in tractate Bava
.‫ נְ ֵבלֹות ו ְּט ֵרפֹות‬perhaps the gentile will keep the money for himself and force the Metzia (28b) describes an era when the oppressors
merchant to give him the meat without payment. And another proliferated. These were officials who would confiscate
factor is lest the merchant sell him meat from unslaughtered property by force for the king’s storehouse. There were
carcasses or tereifot without realizing that the gentile is purchas- also others who used the king’s authority to pressure
ing the meat on behalf of a Jew. people and extort money for their own use through
fear.
‫ימה ֵ ּבין ֲחתו ָּכה ֵאינֹו‬ ָ ‫ ֵ ּבין ׁ ְש ֵל‬,‫ ו ְּבגֹוי‬:‫ֲא ַמר ָמר‬ The Master said in the baraita: And in the case of one who sends
?‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן‬.‫ימ ָּנה ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬ֶ ‫צָ ִריךְ ִל ּיטֹול ֵה‬ a thigh to a gentile, regardless of whether it is cut or whole he is
not required to remove the sciatic nerve from it. The Gemara
‫ימא ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ִריזִ ין – ֲחתו ָּכה ַא ַּמאי‬ ָ ‫ִא ֵיל‬
asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that it is referring to a
ֶ ‫ֵאינֹו צָ ִריךְ ִל ּיטֹול ֵה‬
‫ימ ָּנה ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה? ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָלא‬ place where all the butchers are Jewish and they announce every
!‫ֵיה‬
ּ ‫ ָא ֵתי ְל ִמיזְ ַ ּבן ִמ ּינ‬,‫ַא ְכרוּז‬ time they sell non-kosher meat to a gentile, then in the case of a
thigh that has been cut, why is one not required to remove the
sciatic nerve? Since it was not announced that they sold non-
kosher meat, a Jew might come to purchase it from a gentile
without realizing that it still contains the sciatic nerve.

‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬,‫ ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬:‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ Rather, it is obvious that it is referring to a place where they do
‫מֹוכ ִרין‬
ְ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ְשנֵי ְד ָב ִרים ָא ְמר ּו ֵאין‬:‫יע ָתא‬ ֲ ִ‫ְמצ‬ not announce every time they sell non-kosher meat, and in such
a place a Jew would not purchase meat from a gentile. But say the
.ּ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְט ֵעהו‬,‫ ֶא ָחד‬.‫נְ ֵבלֹות ו ְּט ֵרפֹות ְלגֹוי‬
middle clause of the baraita: And it was due to two factors that
.‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ֲחזֹור וְ יִ ְמ ְּכ ֶר ָּנה ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַא ֵחר‬,‫וְ ֶא ָחד‬ the Sages said that one may not sell meat from unslaughtered
animal carcasses or tereifot to a gentile: One is because it mis-
leads him; and another is the concern lest the gentile then sell
the meat to another Jew, who will think it is kosher since it
originally was sold by a Jew.

‫ וְ ִאי ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְכ ִריזִ ין – ָהא ָלא ָא ֵתי‬But if the baraita is referring to a place where they do not
ּ ‫ ְל ִמיזְ ַ ּבן ִמ ֵּינ‬announce every time they sell non-kosher meat to a gentile, a Jew
ָ ‫יה ! ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬
‫ ְ ּב ָמ קֹום‬:‫יט א‬
will not come to purchase the meat from the gentile. Rather, it
.‫ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬
is obvious that the baraita is referring to a place where they
announce every time they sell non-kosher meat.

‫״קח ִלי‬ ַ ‫ֹאמר ָא ָדם ְלגֹוי‬ ַ ‫ ל ֹא י‬:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ימא ֵס‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ But say the latter clause: And similarly, a person may not say to
,‫ ֶא ָחד‬:‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ְשנֵי ְד ָב ִרים‬,‫ְ ּב ִדינָ ר זֶ ה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬ a gentile: Purchase meat for me with this dinar, due to two
factors. One factor is because of the oppressors, and another
‫מֹוכ ִרין לֹו נְ ֵבילֹות‬
ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬,‫ וְ ֶא ָחד‬.‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָה ַא ּנ ִָסין‬
factor is lest the merchant sell him meat from unslaughtered
‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִאי ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ִריזִ ין – ִאי ִא‬.‫ו ְּט ֵרפֹות‬ carcasses or tereifot without realizing that the gentile is purchas-
!‫ ַא ְכרוּזִ י ֲהו ּו ַמ ְכ ְרזֵ י‬,‫דַּ ֲהוָ ה ְט ֵר ָפה‬ ing the meat on behalf of a Jew. But if it is referring to a place
where they announce every time non-kosher meat is sold, if
it would happen that it was a tereifa the butchers would have
announced the fact, and the Jew would know not to eat that meat.

‫ישא‬
ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬,‫ ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬:‫יטא‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a place where
– ‫יע ָתא‬ ֲ ִ‫ ְמצ‬,‫ וְ ֵס ָיפא – ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬they do not announce every time non-kosher meat is sold. But
is it possible that the first clause and the latter clause of the
?‫ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬
baraita are referring to a place where they do not announce
every time non-kosher meat is sold but the middle clause is
referring to a place where they do announce every time non-
kosher meat is sold?

‫ישא וְ ֵס ָיפא – ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬,‫ ִאין‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Abaye said: Yes, the first clause and the latter clause of the
.‫יע ָתא – ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬ ֲ ִ‫ ְמצ‬,‫ ַמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬baraita are referring to a place where they do not announce
every time non-kosher meat is sold, and the middle clause is
referring to a place where they do announce every time non-
kosher meat is sold.

‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬,‫ ּכו ָּּל ּה ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ַּמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬:‫ ָר ָבא ֲא ַמר‬Rava said: The entire baraita is referring to a place where they
.ּ‫יע ָתא – ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִה ְכ ִריזו‬ ֲ ִ‫ ְמצ‬,ּ‫ וְ ֵס ָיפא – ׁ ֶש ִה ְכ ִריזו‬announce every time non-kosher meat is sold. The first clause
and the latter clause are referring to days when they announced
that non-kosher meat had been sold, and the middle clause is
referring to a day when they did not announce that non-kosher
meat had been sold.
 ‫דצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 94b 111
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
,‫ ּכו ָּּל ּה ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ְכ ִריזִ ין‬:‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ֲא ַמר‬Rav Ashi said: The entire baraita is referring to a place where they
Sikhra – ‫ס ְיכ ָרא‬:ִ Sikhra, a commercial city located on
the west bank of the Tigris River, north of Meĥoza, ‫יע ָתא – ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יִ ְמ ְּכ ֶר ָּנה ִ ּב ְפנֵי‬ ֲ ִ‫ ּו ְמצ‬do not announce every time non-kosher meat is sold. And the
reason that the middle clause teaches that it is prohibited to sell
was connected to other regions via a series of nearby .‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬
water canals and took its name from an ancient dam meat from unslaughtered carcasses or tereifot to a gentile is due to a
[sakhar] near the city. The amora Rav Ĥiyya bar Yosef, rabbinic decree lest the Jew sell it to the gentile in the presence
a student of Rav, served as rabbi of Sikhra. of another Jew,h who will think that this particular piece of meat
Bei Meĥoza – ‫בי ְמחֹוזָ א‬: ּ ֵ Meĥoza, or its less com- is kosher.
mon name Bei Meĥoza, was a city on the Tigris River
located near the Malka River. It was a large commer- ‫ נְ ַפל‬:‫יֹוסף‬
ֵ ‫יכי ַמ ְכ ְרזִ ינַן? ֲא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר‬ ִ ‫ § ֵה‬The Gemara noted that there were places where they would
cial city with a significant number of Jewish inhabit- .‫יש ָרא ִל ְבנֵי ֵח ָילא‬ ׂ ְ ‫ ִ ּב‬announce whenever non-kosher meat was sold to a gentile. The
ants, many of whom were converts or immigrants Gemara asks: How do we announce that non-kosher meat has been
from other countries. Unlike the case of most other sold? The Gemara answers that Rav Yitzĥak bar Yosef said: Meat
Jewish communities, the Jews in Meĥoza generally has fallen into our possession for the soldiers, i.e., the gentiles.
earned their living from commerce.
The great amora Rava was influential in the devel- .‫ נְ ַפל ְט ֵר ְיפ ָתא ִל ְבנֵי ֵח ָילא! ָלא זָ ְבנִי‬:‫ימא‬
ָ ‫ וְ ֵל‬The Gemara objects: But let them say: A tereifa has fallen into our
opment of Meĥoza, and established an academy possession for the soldiers. The Gemara answers that if a butcher
there that taught many students. He also served as
would publicize the fact that it is a tereifa, the gentiles would not
the head of the court.
purchase it from him because they would not want an animal
rejected by the Jews.

‫ וְ ָהא ָק ַמ ְט ִעי ְלה ּו! ִאינְ ה ּו הוּא דְּ ָק ַמ ְטע ּו‬The Gemara asks: But if the announcement is made in a way that
.ּ‫ נַ ְפ ׁ ַשיְ יהו‬obscures from the gentiles the fact that the animal is a tereifa, doesn’t
this deceive them? The Gemara answers: It is they who deceive
themselves,hn because the seller does not specify which kind of
meat he is selling.

‫יה דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ֲהוָ ה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָמר זו ְּט ָרא ְ ּב ֵר‬,‫ִּכי ָהא‬ The Gemara cites proof that it is permitted to allow others to mislead
‫ וְ ָר ָבא וְ ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬,‫ָק ָאזֵ יל ִמ ִּס ְיכ ָרא ְל ֵבי ְמחֹוזָ א‬ themselves. It is like this incident when Mar Zutra, son of Rav
Naĥman, was going from the city of Sikhrab to the city of Bei
‫ הוּא‬.‫ ּ ָפגְ ע ּו ַא ֲה ָד ֵדי‬,‫יכ ָרא‬ ְ ‫ָהו ּו ָקא ָאת ּו ְל ִס‬
Meĥoza,b and at the same time Rava and Rav Safra were going to
‫ ָל ָּמה‬:ּ‫ ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬.ּ‫יה הוּא דְּ ָק ָאתו‬ ּ ‫ ְל ַא ּ ֵפ‬:‫ְס ַבר‬ Sikhra. They met each other, and Mar Zutra thought they were
Locations of Sikhra and Meĥoza ּ ‫ְלה ּו ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן דִּ ְטרו ַּח וְ ָאת ּו ּכו ֵּּלי ַהאי? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
‫יה‬ coming out to greet him. He said to them: Why did the Rabbis
,‫ ֲאנַן ָלא ֲהוָ ה יָ ְד ִעינַן דְּ ָק ָא ֵתי ָמר‬:‫ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬ exert themselves and come all this way to greet me? Rav Safra said
.‫ִאי ֲהוָ ה יָ ְד ִעינַן – ְט ֵפי ֲהוָ ה ָט ְר ִחינַן‬ to him: We did not know that the Master was coming; if we would
have known we would have exerted ourselves more.

,‫יה ָה ִכי‬ ּ ‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ֵל‬:‫יה ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to Rav Safra: What is the reason that you said this to Mar
‫ וְ ָהא ָקא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ַד ְע ֵּת‬ ְ ׁ ‫ דְּ ַא ְח ִל‬Zutra? By telling him that we were not coming to greet him you
ּ ‫יש ֵּת‬
upset him. Rav Safra said to Rava: But if I would not have said so
.‫יה‬ּ ‫יה! ִאיה ּו הוּא דְּ ָקא ַמ ְט ֵעי נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ ּ ‫ַמ ְט ִעינַן ֵל‬
we would have misled him. Rava responded: Mar Zutra misled
himself, since we never said we were coming to greet him.

:‫יה‬
ּ ‫יה ְל ַח ְב ֵר‬
ּ ‫ַההוּא ַט ָ ּב ָחא דַּ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ § The Gemara returns to the topic of selling non-kosher meat to a
gentile. There was a certain Jewish butcher who said to another
individual:

halakha
A rabbinic decree lest the Jew sell it in the presence of another It is they who deceive themselves – ‫אינְ ה ּו הוּא דְּ ָק ַמ ְטע ּו נַ ְפ ׁ ַשיְ יה ּו‬:
ִ
ׂ ְ ‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יִ ְמ ְּכ ֶר ָּנה ִ ּב ְפנֵי‬: One may send a thigh of an ani-
Jew – ‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬ One is permitted to perform an action that is not for the honor of
mal containing the sciatic nerve to a gentile regardless of whether it another without notifying him, even if that person will mistakenly
is whole or cut, in accordance with the mishna and with the baraita think it is for his honor. For example if one meets another on the
on 94a. But if the thigh has been cut into pieces, one may not give it road and that person thinks he came especially to greet him, there
to a gentile in the presence of a Jew and say that it is kosher unless is no need to disabuse him of this idea (Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen
the sciatic nerve has been removed, based on the statement of the Mishpat 228:6).
Gemara here (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot
8:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:11).

notes
It is they who deceive themselves – ‫אינְ ה ּו הוּא דְּ ָק ַמ ְטע ּו נַ ְפ ׁ ַשיְ יה ּו‬:
ִ actually are, as the purchasers should be expected to realize that
Some later authorities derive from this incident that even in a case this is the custom of the butchers (Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh De’a 1:31).
where a person intentionally deceives another, if the one deceived Other authorities disagree and maintain that such practices are
could have reasonably considered the possibility that he was being permitted only when this is one’s only method to prevent a loss to
deceived, but did not bother to consider it, this is not classified as oneself, but not otherwise. They explain that in the incident with
deceiving people. Rather, it is considered an indirect causation of Mar Zutra, the butchers announced the sale of an animal that was a
such deception, and as the Gemara states: It is they who deceive tereifa in a deceptive way only because there was no other manner
themselves, and this action is permitted (Sma). Based on this, Rabbi of successfully selling the meat, and failure to sell it would have
Moshe Feinstein permits butchers to place livers into blood prior caused them significant loss (Yosef Da’at; see Shulĥan Arukh HaRav,
to selling them so that they will appear of better quality than they Ĥoshen Mishpat 228:19).

112 Ĥullin . perek VII . 94b . ‫דצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VII
Daf 95 Amud a
background
ְ‫ ִמי ָלא ָס ְפיֵ י ָלך‬,‫יסת ִמ ַּינאי‬ ַ ְ‫ִאי ֲהוָ ות ּ ָפי‬ If you would have made peace with me yesterday, wouldn’t I have
given you a cut from the fattened bullb that I prepared yesterday? Fattened bull – ‫שֹור ׁ ֶשל ּ ְפ ָטם‬:ׁ This expression is referring to
‫ דַּ ֲע ַב ִדי ֶא ְתמֹול? ֲא ַמר‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּשֹור ׁ ֶשל ּ ְפ ָטם‬ an animal that has been fattened for its meat. Fattening
The other individual said to him: Nevertheless I ate from the finest
:‫יה‬ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ ָא ְכ ִלי ִמ ׁ ּשו ְּפ ֵרי ׁשו ְּפ ֵרי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ it increases both the weight at which it is sold and the
of the fine of that bull that you prepared. The butcher said to him: quality of the meat. Normally such an animal was kept in
‫ ו ְּס ָפא‬,‫ דִּ זְ ַבן ּ ְפלֹונִי גּ ֹוי‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ְמ ָנָלךְ ? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ From where did you get a piece? The other said to him: So-and-so a pen and not given to a cowherd, who would allow it to
‫ וְ ַההוּא ְט ֵר ָפה‬,‫ ְּת ֵרי ָע ְב ִדי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ִלי‬ the gentile bought it and fed it to me. The butcher said to him: I eat whatever food it could find in the field.
.‫ֲהוָ ה‬ prepared two bulls yesterday. One was kosher, but that one you
ate was a tereifa, which is why I sold it to a gentile. notes
Found in the possession of a gentile is different – ‫נִ ְמצָ א‬
‫ֹוטה זֶ ה ׁ ֶש ָע ָ ׂשה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬
ֶ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ׁש‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said when he heard of this incident: Because ‫ביַ ד גּ ֹוי ׁ ָשאנֵי‬:
ּ ְ The reason is that the common practice
?‫ ָאנ ּו נֶ ֱאסֹור ָּכל ַה ַּמ ּקו ִּלין‬,‫ ַּכהֹוגֶ ן‬of this imbecile who acted improperly and sold non-kosher meat at that time was to not set aside the meat until it was
to the gentile butcher without publicizing that he did so, should we cooked and eaten. Therefore, there is no concern that the
forbid all of the meat from gentile butcher shops in the city? meat is non-kosher, unless it is placed on the ground, like
a discarded carcass. As long as a person, even a gentile, is
‫ ַמ ּקו ִּלין וְ ַט ָ ּב ֵחי‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conforms to his occupied with it, it is not presumed to be a non-kosher
carcass (Ba’al HaMaor). The early commentaries also write
.‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ִּנ ְמצָ א ְ ּביַ ד גּ ֹוי – מו ָּּתר‬,‫ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there that the meat is forbidden only in a place where there is
are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat,
a chance that ravens or other animals had brought it. If a
any meat found in the possession of a gentile, i.e., in a gentile’s piece of meat is found hanging in a way that an animal
butcher shop, is permitted. There is no concern that the meat is could not have placed it there, the meat is permitted.
from an animal that was a tereifa, because the Jewish butcher would
not have sold it to a gentile to sell in his butcher shop.

‫ֹוטה זֶ ה‬
ֶ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁש‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬The Gemara presents an alternate version of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s
‫ ָאנ ּו נֶ ֱאסֹור‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫יה ְל ַח ְב ֵר‬ ּ ‫יכ ַּוון ְלצַ עו ֵּר‬ַּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬reaction to the incident cited above: There are those who say
that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Because of this imbecile, who
?‫ָּכל ַה ַּמ ּקו ִּלין‬
intended only to cause distress to his fellow, should we forbid
all of the meat from gentile butcher shops? That butcher was
presumably lying about the meat having been from a tereifa.

‫ ָהא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ַח ְב ֵר‬

ּ ‫יכ ַּוון ְלצַ עו ֵּר‬
ַּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫ַט ֲע ָמא‬ The Gemara notes that the reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi considers
:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ָלאו ָה ִכי – ָאסוּר‬ the meat to be kosher is that the butcher intended only to cause
distress to his fellow. This indicates that if that were not so, all the
‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ִּנ ְמצָ א‬,‫ַמ ּקו ִּלין וְ ַט ָ ּב ֵחי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬
meat in the gentile butcher shops would be forbidden. But isn’t it
‫ְ ּביַ ד ּגֹוי – מו ָּּתר! ׁ ָשאנִי ָה ָכא – ְד ִא ַּית ְחזַ ק‬ taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are
.‫ִא ּיסו ָּרא‬ butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat,
any meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted? The
Gemara answers: It is different here because it has been estab-
lished that there is forbidden meat being sold in the butcher shops.
Since it is known that a Jewish butcher sold non-kosher meat to a
gentile proprietor of a butcher shop, one must be concerned that
this was not an isolated incident.

– ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַע ֵּלם ִמן ָה ַעיִ ן‬,‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ § Apropos meat in the possession of a gentile, the Gemara cites a
‫ ַמ ּקו ִּלין וְ ַט ָ ּב ֵחי‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ֵמ ִית ֵיבי‬.‫ָאסוּר‬ related discussion. Rav says: Once meat is obscured from sight
and unsupervised, it is forbidden, as one must be concerned that
!‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ִּנ ְמצָ א ְ ּביַ ד גּ ֹוי – מו ָּּתר‬,‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬
it was exchanged for non-kosher meat. The Gemara raises an objec-
.‫נִ ְמצָ א ְ ּביַ ד ּגֹוי ׁ ָשאנֵי‬ tion based on a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are
butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchersh prepare the meat,
any meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted. The
Gemara answers: Meat found in the possession of a gentile is
different,n because the meat was not left unsupervised.

halakha
Butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers, etc. – ‫ַמ ּקו ִּלין וְ ַט ָ ּב ֵחי‬ purchased. If the majority of meat sellers in that town are Jews,
‫יִש ָר ֵאל וכו׳‬:
ׂ ְ If meat was found lying in the marketplace, its status is by Torah law the meat is permitted to be eaten. The Sages pro-
determined in accordance with the majority, in accordance with hibited any meat that was found, whether in the marketplace or
the principle that anything separated from a group is presumed in the possession of a gentile, even if all the butchers are Jews
to be from the majority. Therefore, if the majority of the meat and all the butcher stores in the town sell only kosher meat. This
sellers in that town are gentiles, the meat is prohibited. If the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rav (Rambam Sefer
majority of meat sellers are Jews, it is permitted. Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:11–12; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
The same halakha applies to meat that is found in the pos- De’a 63:1, 110:3).
session of a gentile, where it is not known from whom it was

 ‫הצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 95a 113

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
ְ ‫ ֵּת ׁ ַשע ָחנוּיֹות ּכו ָּּלן‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬
‫מֹוכרֹות‬ The Gemara raises another objection to the statement of Rav.
And one sells meat from animal carcasses – ‫מֹוכ ֶרת‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַא ַחת‬ Come and hear the following baraita: With regard to nine stores
‫ב ָ ׂשר נְ ֵב ָלה‬:ּ ָ If nine stores in a city sell kosher meat and one ,‫מֹוכ ֶרת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר נְ ֵב ָלה‬
ֶ ‫ וְ ַא ַחת‬,‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ׁ ְשחו ָּטה‬
in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal,
store sells non-kosher meat, and a person bought meat ‫יֹוד ַע ֵמ ֵאיזֶ ה ֵמ ֶהן‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו‬,‫וְ ָל ַקח ֵמ ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן‬
from one of them but does not remember which one, the and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal
‫ ו ַּב ִּנ ְמצָ א – ַה ֵּלךְ ַא ַחר‬.‫ָל ַקח – ְס ֵפקֹו ָאסוּר‬ carcasses,h and an individual purchased meat from one of the
meat is forbidden. This is in accordance with the principle
that anything that is fixed, i.e., remains in its original loca- .‫ ְ ּבנִ ְמצָ א ְ ּביַ ד גּ ֹוי‬:‫ָהרֹוב! ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬ stores and he does not know from which store he purchased
tion, is considered to be an evenly balanced uncertainty. the meat, in this case of uncertainty, the meat is forbidden. But
If the meat was found outside the stores, it is permitted, in in the case of meat found outside, follow the majority.b Conse-
accordance with the ruling of the baraita (Rambam Sefer
quently, since most of the stores sell kosher meat, it may be
Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:11; Shulĥan Arukh,
Yoreh De’a 110:3).
assumed that the meat found outside is kosher, which contradicts
Rav’s statement that meat that was left unsupervised is forbidden.
background
The Gemara answers: Here also the baraita is referring to a case
where the meat was not unsupervised but rather was found in the
Follow the majority – ‫ה ֵּלךְ ַא ַחר ָהרֹוב‬:ַ This principle applies
to many dilemmas with regard to the halakhot of prohib- possession of a gentile.
ited and permitted mixtures. It means that if an item or
person whose status is unclear is found separated from ְ‫(אם ַחי) – ַה ֵּלך‬ ִ ‫ ָמצָ א ָ ּב ּה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara cites another challenge to the opinion of Rav: Come
a group, one can assume that it has the character of the ‫ וְ ִאם ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל – ַה ֵּל ְך‬,‫ ַא ַחר רֹוב ַט ָ ּב ִחים‬and hear the following mishna (Makhshirin 2:9): If one found
majority of items in that group. Nevertheless, one may meat in a city inhabited by both Jews and gentiles, if the meat is
rely on this principle only where the item emerged from .‫אֹוכ ֵלי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬
ְ ‫ַא ַחר רֹוב‬
raw, follow the majority of butchers, so that if the majority of the
its original place, but not when the item remains in the
butchers are Jewish, the meat is presumed to be kosher. And if the
mixture. In that case, the sample is flawed and there is
room for concern that the item in question is not really
meat is cooked, follow the majority of meat eaters, because even
from the majority component. In that case, the principle if the majority of the butchers are Jewish, if the meat was cooked
is: Anything that is fixed, i.e., remains in its original location, by a gentile it is forbidden. This mishna indicates that there are
is considered an evenly balanced uncertainty, and the item circumstances when the meat is permitted even though it was
is not attributed to the majority. obscured from sight.
It was not stated explicitly, rather it was stated based on
an inference – ‫לאו ְ ּב ֵפירו ּׁש ִא ְּת ַמר ֶא ָּלא ִמ ְּכ ָל ָלא ִא ְּת ַמר‬:ָ This ,‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי ְ ּבנִ ְמצָ א ְ ּביַ ד גּ ֹוי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ And if you would say that here also it is referring to a case where
comment, that a specific halakha was not stated explicitly ְ ‫ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל – ַה ֵּל ְך ַא ַחר רֹוב‬
?‫אֹוכ ֵלי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ the meat is found in the possession of a gentile, why does the
but only inferred, is not uncommon in the Talmud. It is baraita state that if the meat is cooked, one should follow the
not merely an attempt to ascertain the precise manner in ‫ ִאי דְּ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬,‫יה‬ּ ‫ ִאי דְּ גֹוי נְ ֵקיט ֵל‬,‫וְ נֶ ֱחזִ י‬
majority of meat eaters? Let us see whether a gentile is holding
which the statement was transmitted. Rather, the Gemara ‫עֹומד‬
ֵ ‫ ְ ּב‬:‫יה! ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן‬ ּ ‫נְ ֵקיט ֵל‬ it or a Jew is holding it. The Gemara answers: Here we are deal-
is calling attention to the fact that one cannot rely on the
.ּ‫רֹואהו‬
ֵ ְ‫ו‬ ing with a case where the meat was on the ground but someone
formulation of a specific statement as it appears, as it was
not stated in that form, but was inferred from a statement was standing and watching it from the time it was dropped on
made in a different context. the ground, so that it was never left unsupervised. Yet, the person
watching does not know whether it was dropped by a Jew or a
gentile, and therefore a determination must be made based upon
the majority of the people in the city.

– ‫ ֵא ָב ִרים‬,‫ נִ ְמצָ א ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלין‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara cites another challenge to the opinion of Rav from a
:‫ימא‬
ָ ‫ וְ ִכי ֵּת‬.‫ ֲח ִתיכֹות – מו ָּּתרֹות‬,‫נְ ֵבלֹות‬ mishna (Shekalim 19a). Come and hear: With regard to meat
found in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, if it is found as
– ‫ ֵא ָב ִרים‬,ּ‫רֹואהו‬
ֵ ְ‫עֹומד ו‬ ֵ ‫ָה ָכא נַ ִמי – ְ ּב‬
whole limbs, the meat presumably comes from carcasses of ani-
?‫ ַא ַּמאי‬,‫נְ ֵבלֹות‬ mals that were not properly slaughtered, as carcasses were gener-
ally cut up into full limbs and fed to dogs or sold to gentiles. But
if it is in small pieces, it is presumably kosher and permitted to
be eaten, as kosher meat was ordinarily cut up into small pieces.
This mishna indicates that even though the meat was obscured
from sight, it remains permitted. And if you would say that here
also it is referring to a case where someone was standing and
watching it, why is it assumed to be from a carcass if it is cut into
whole limbs?

‫ית ַמר‬ ְ ‫ ָהא ִא‬,‫ ִמ ֵידי הוּא ַט ֲע ָמא ֶא ָּלא ְל ַרב‬The Gemara answers: This mishna requires explanation only
‫ וְ ֵלוִ י‬,‫ מו ָּּתרֹות ִמ ׁ ּשוּם נְ ֵב ָלה‬:‫ ַרב ָא ַמר‬,‫ ֲע ָל ּה‬according to Rav, but wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna:
Rav says that the correct version of the mishna is that the small
.‫ מו ָּּתרֹות ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה‬:‫ָא ַמר‬
pieces of meat are permitted, in that they are not considered
impure and that one who eats them is not liable to be flogged, as
would be the case if it were meat from a carcass. But it is not actu-
ally permitted to eat the meat, due to the fact that it was obscured
from sight. And Levi says: The mishna means to say that the small
pieces of meat are even permitted to be eaten.

‫ ָלאו ְ ּב ֵפיר ּו ׁש ִא ְּת ַמר ֶא ָּלא‬,‫וְ ָהא דְּ ַרב‬ The Gemara comments: And this statement of Rav, that meat that
‫ דְּ ַרב ֲהוָ ה יְ ֵתיב ַא ַּמ ְב ָרא‬.‫ִמ ְּכ ָל ָלא ִא ְּת ַמר‬ was obscured from sight is forbidden, was not stated explicitly by
Rav. Rather, it was stated that he held this opinion based on an
‫ ַחזְ יָ א ְל ַההוּא ַ ּג ְב ָרא דַּ ֲהוָ ה‬,‫יש ְּת ִטית‬
ְ ׁ ‫דְּ ִא‬
inferenceb from a different statement of Rav. As, Rav was once
‫ָקא‬ sitting on the ford of the Ishtetit River. He saw a certain man
who was
114 Ĥullin . perek VII . 95a . ‫הצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VII
Daf 95 Amud b
background
‫יתי‬
ֵ ְ‫ ֲאזַ ל ַאי‬,‫ֵיה‬
ּ ‫ נְ ַפל ִמ ּינ‬.‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ְמ ַח ַּוור ֵר‬cleaning the head of an animal in the river. The head fell from him.
Basket – ‫ס ְיל ָּתא‬:ִ This is referring to a basket made of
:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬.‫ ׁ ְש ָדא – ַא ֵּסיק ְּת ֵרין‬,‫ ִס ְיל ָּתא‬He went and brought a basket, cast the basket into the river, and
b
woven palm or willow leaves that was usually used for
pulled out two animal heads. Rav said to him: Does it commonly
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫נִיה ֵל‬
ֲ ‫ָע ְב ִדי נַ ִמי ָה ִכי?! ָא ְס ִרינְ ה ּו‬ transporting or storing food. Such baskets were primarily
happen this way that one loses one item and finds two? Just as one used for transporting or storing bread, but they were
of the animal heads is not the one you dropped, it is possible that used for fruit and other food as well. Some say that the
neither of them is the one you dropped. Therefore, Rav rendered term means a thorn (Meiri) or a piece of wood (Rabbeinu
both of them forbidden to him. Gershom Meor HaGola), which can be used to draw out
items that have sunk in the water.
:‫יה ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א וְ ַרב ַא ִסי ְל ַרב‬ ּ ‫ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Is forbidden meat common
?‫יחי‬ ִ ‫ דְּ ִא ּיסו ָּרא ׁ ְש ִכ‬but permitted meat not common? Most of the meat in this general
ִ ‫ דְּ ֶה ֵּת ָירא ָלא ׁ ְש ִכ‬,‫יחי‬
location is kosher, so why did you forbid the two animal heads? He
.‫יחי ְט ֵפי‬
ִ ‫ דְּ ִא ּיסו ָּרא ׁ ְש ִכ‬:ּ‫ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬
said to them: Forbidden meat is more common. From this incident
the Sages derived that according to Rav, meat that has been obscured
from sight becomes forbidden due to the possibility that the meat
one finds now was actually deposited by ravens, who transported it
from a location where the majority of the meat is forbidden.

.‫ותא דְּ גֹויִ ם ֲהוַ אי‬ ָ ָ‫ וְ ִכי ִמ ְּכ ָל ָלא ַמאי? ּ ַפ ְרו‬The Gemara asks: And what does it matter if this opinion of Rav is
‫יחי‬
ִ ‫יסו ָּרא ׁ ְש ִכ‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬:ּ‫ דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ְלהו‬,‫ ֵּת ַדע‬known by inference based on this incident, rather than by an explicit
statement made by Rav? The Gemara answers: There is room to say
.‫ְט ֵפי‬
that this incident cannot serve as a precedent for a general policy,
because that location was a port of gentiles, where most of the meat Mosaic from late antiquity depicting a basket used in the grape harvest
was non-kosher. Know that this is the case, as Rav said to Rav
Kahana and Rav Asi: Forbidden meat is more common. Conse- halakha
quently, it is possible that Rav would not have prohibited the meat Tied and sealed…a distinguishing mark – ‫ְ ּבצָ יְ ָירא‬
in a location where the majority of the meat is kosher. ‫ימנָ א‬
ָ ‫א…ב ִס‬
ּ ְ ‫וַ ֲחתו ָּמ‬: If one purchases meat and brings it
home and it was then obscured from sight, it is permitted
,‫יה‬
ּ ‫יכי ֲא ַכל ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא? ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְע ֵּת‬ִ ‫ֶא ָּלא ַרב ֵה‬ The Gemara asks: But how did Rav ever eat meat if he holds that only if there is a distinguishing mark, visual identification,
:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬.‫ֵיה‬
ּ ּ ּ ‫דְּ ָלא ֲע ִלים ֵע‬
‫ינ‬‫מ‬ִ ‫ינֵיה‬ meat becomes forbidden if it is unsupervised for even a short time? or if it was bound and sealed. This ruling is in accordance
The Gemara answers: Rav ate meat only in its time, i.e., shortly after with the opinion of Rav and the Gemara’s explanation
.‫ימנָ א‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ִס‬:‫ וְ ִאי נַ ִמי‬.‫ְ ּבצָ יְ ָירא וַ ֲחתו ָּמא‬ here (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot
it was slaughtered, when it had not been obscured from his sight
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ִּכי ָהא דְּ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ְמ ַח ֵּתךְ ֵל‬ from the time of the slaughter until he ate it. Alternatively, if you 8:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 63:1).
.‫ַא ְּת ָלת ַק ְרנָ ָתא‬ wish, say that Rav ate meat that was tied and sealed in a way that
proved it had not been swapped for non-kosher meat. Or alterna-
tively, he ate meat that could be recognized by a distinguishing
mark,h like that practice of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who would cut
meat into pieces with three corners, i.e., triangles, before he would
send it to his family members.

‫ ֲחזֵ י‬,‫נֵיה‬
ּ ‫ ַרב ֲהוָ ה ָק ָאזֵ יל ְל ֵבי ַרב ָחנָן ֲח ָת‬The Gemara relates that Rav was going to the home of Rav Ĥanan,
‫ ַמ ְב ָרא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַמ ְב ָרא דְּ ָק ָא ֵתי ְל ַא ּ ֵפ‬his son-in-law. He saw that the ferry was coming toward him just
when he arrived at the riverbank. He said: The ferry is coming
.‫יֹומא ָט ָבא ְלגֹו‬ ָ ,‫ָק ָא ֵתי ְל ַא ּ ִפי‬
toward me even though I did not arrange for it to come now; this is
a sign that a good day, i.e., a festive meal, awaits me in the place
where I am going.

,‫אֹודיק ְ ּב ִבזְ ָעא דְּ ַד ׁ ּ ָשא‬ ִ ,‫ֲאזַ ל ָקם ַא ָ ּב ָבא‬ After crossing the river on the ferry, Rav went and stood at the gate
‫ נְ פוּק‬,‫ ְט ַרף ַא ָ ּב ָבא‬.‫ֲחזֵ י ֵחיוָ ָתא דְּ ַת ְליָ א‬ of Rav Ĥanan’s home. He looked through a crack in the door
and saw an animal that was hanging and ready to be cooked. He
‫ ֲא ָתא ַט ָ ּב ֵחי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָאת ּו ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ְל ַא ּ ֵפ‬
knocked on the gate, and everyone went out to greet him, and the
:ּ‫ ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬.‫ֵיה‬ ּ ‫ינֵיה ִמ ּינ‬
ּ ‫ ָלא ֲע ִלים ַרב ֵע‬,‫נַ ִמי‬ butchers also came out to greet him. Rav did not remove his eyes
‫ ְס ִפית ּו ְלה ּו ִא ּיסו ָּרא ִל ְבנֵי‬,‫ֵאיכ ּו ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ from the meat that the butchers were preparing. He said to them:
.‫יש ָרא‬ׂ ְ ‫ְ ּב ָרת! ָלא ֲא ַכל ַרב ֵמ ַההוּא ִ ּב‬ If you had eaten the meat based upon the supervision you provided
now, you would have fed forbidden meat to the sons of my daugh-
ter because no one apart from me was watching the meat when you
all came out to greet me. And despite the fact that he had kept the
meat in his sight Rav did not eat from that meat.

ֲ ‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא? ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִא‬The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav did not eat the meat?
‫יעלו ֵּמי – ָהא‬
ֲ ‫ ָלא ִא‬If one suggests that he was concerned because it had been obscured
.‫ ֶא ָּלא דְּ נָ ֵח ׁיש‬.‫יע ִלים‬
from sight, that cannot be the reason, as Rav kept watching it so that
it was not obscured from sight. Rather, Rav did not eat because he
divined, i.e., he saw the arrival of the ferry as a good omen. This is
prohibited, and therefore Rav penalized himself and abstained from
the meat.
 ‫הצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 95b 115
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫יעזֶ ר ֶע ֶבד‬ ֶ ‫ ָּכל נַ ַח ׁש ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ֶּכ ֱא ִל‬:‫וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב‬ The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav say that any divination that is
Any divination that is not like Eliezer the servant of not like the divination of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, when
Abraham…is not divination – ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ָּכל נַ ַח ׁש ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ֶּכ ֱא ִל‬ ‫ַא ְב ָר ָהם ו ְּכיֹונָ ָתן ֶ ּבן ׁ ָשאוּל ֵאינֹו נַ ַח ׁש! ֶא ָּלא‬
he went to seek a bride for Isaac (see Genesis 24:14), or like the
‫ם…אינֹו נַ ַח ׁש‬
ֵ ‫ע ֶבד ַא ְב ָר ָה‬:ֶ Some say that it is permitted ‫ וְ ַרב ָלא ִמ ְת ַה ּנֵי‬,‫ְסעו ַּדת ָה ְר ׁשוּת ֲהוַ אי‬
for one to make a sign for himself, basing his actions divination of Jonathan, son of Saul,n who sought an omen as to
.‫ִמ ְּסעו ַּדת ָה ְר ׁשוּת‬ whether he and his arms bearer would defeat the Philistines (see
upon whether or not a future event occurs, similar to
Abraham’s servant Eliezer, or Jonathan (Tur; Radak). I Samuel 14:8–12), is not divination?h Since Rav did not rely on the
Others hold that it is prohibited (Rambam; Smag). omen in his decision making, he did not violate the prohibition
One who walks with complete trust in God will be against divination, and there was no reason for him to penalize
surrounded with kindness (Rambam Sefer HaMadda,
himself. The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason Rav did not eat
Hilkhot Avoda Zara 11:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 179:4
in the comment of Rema).
the meat is that it was an optional feast, rather than a feast associ-
ated with a mitzva, and Rav would not derive pleasure from an
Would not derive pleasure from an optional feast – optional feast.h
‫לא ִמ ְת ַה ּנֵי ִמ ְּסעו ַּדת ָה ְר ׁשוּת‬:ָ A Torah scholar should eat at
a large, festive meal only if it is part of the celebration
,‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָ ּב ֵדיק ְ ּב ָס ְפ ָרא‬,‫ ַרב ָ ּב ֵדיק ְ ּב ַמ ְב ָרא‬Having mentioned Rav’s reaction to the ferry in the incident cited
associated with a mitzva, e.g., a meal of an engage-
ment, or the wedding of a Torah scholar to the daugh- ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬above, the Gemara states that Rav would check whether to travel
.‫יֹוחנָן ָ ּב ֵדיק ְ ּביָ נו ָּקא‬
ter of a Torah scholar. This is in accordance with Rav’s based upon the ferry; if it came quickly he would take the ferry, but
custom (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Deot 5:2). otherwise he would not. And Shmuel would check what would
happen to him by opening a scroll and reading from wherever it was
Check by asking a child – ‫ב ֵדיק ְ ּביָ נו ָּקא‬:ּ ָ It is permitted
for one to ask a child: What verse are you learning? If
open to. Rabbi Yoĥanan would check what was in store for him by
the child recites a verse of blessing one may view it as asking a childh to recite the verse he was learning.
a good sign. This is permitted since he does not base
his actions upon the child’s answer but sees it only as :‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ֲהוָ ה ְּכ ַתב ֵל‬,‫ּכו ְּּלה ּו ׁ ְשנֵי דְּ ַרב‬ The Gemara relates an incident when Rabbi Yoĥanan checked his
a sign for what has already happened. This is in accor- ‫ ֲהוָ ה‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ִּכי נָ ח נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬.‫״ל ְק ַדם ַר ֵ ּבינ ּו ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָב ֶבל״‬
ִ luck based on a child’s verse. During all the years when Rav lived
dance with the custom of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam in Babylonia, Rabbi Yoĥanan, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, would
Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Avoda Zara 11:5; Shulĥan Arukh,
.‫״ל ְק ַדם ֲח ֵב ֵירינ ּו ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָב ֶבל״‬ ִ :‫ְּכ ַתב ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬
write to him and begin with the greeting: To our Master who is
Yoreh De’a 179:4). ‫יה ֲאנָ א?! ְּכ ַתב‬ ּ ‫ ָלא יָ ַדע ִלי ִמ ִידי דְּ ַר ֵ ּב‬:‫ֲא ַמר‬ in Babylonia. When Rav died, Rabbi Yoĥanan would write to
After a home, a child, or a woman, etc. – ‫ַ ּביִ ת‬ :‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יתין ׁ ְשנֵי‬ ִּ ‫יב ּו ָרא דְּ ׁ ִש‬ ּ ‫יה ִע‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְש ַדר ֵל‬ Shmuel and begin with the greeting: To our colleague who is in
‫תינֹוק וְ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה וכו׳‬:ִּ It is prohibited to rely on omens or .‫ חו ׁ ְּש ְ ּבנָ א ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא יָ ַדע‬,‫ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ Babylonia. Shmuel said: Does Rabbi Yoĥanan not know any mat-
propitious events. It is permitted to view success- ter in which I am his master? Shmuel wrote and sent to Rabbi
ful activities following building a house or having Yoĥanan the calculation of the leap years for the next sixty years.
a child or marrying a wife as a sign. For example, if
the first business deal one conducts after building a
Rabbi Yoĥanan was not impressed by this and said: Now he has
new home is successful, he may attribute his success merely demonstrated that he knows mathematics, which does not
to having built the house. This is in accordance with make him my master.
the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar (Rambam
Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Avoda Zara 11:5; Shulĥan Arukh, .‫יה ְּת ֵל ַיסר ַ ּג ְמ ֵלי ְס ֵפ ֵקי ְט ֵר ְיפ ָתא‬
ּ ‫ְּכ ַתב ׁ ְש ַדר ֵל‬ Shmuel then wrote and sent to Rabbi Yoĥanan explications of
Yoreh De’a 179:4). .‫יה‬
ּ ֵ‫יחזְ י‬
ַ ‫ ֵאיזִ יל ִא‬,‫ ִאית ִלי ַרב ְ ּב ָב ֶבל‬:‫ֲא ַמר‬ uncertainties pertaining to tereifot that had to be transported on
thirteen camels. Rabbi Yoĥanan was impressed by this and said: I
‫ ּ ְפסֹוק ִלי ּ ְפסו ֵּקיךְ ! ֲא ַמר‬:‫יה ְליָ נו ָּקא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
have a Master in Babylonia; I will go and see him. Before depart-
‫ נָ ח‬,‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ״ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ֵמת״‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ ing on his journey, Rabbi Yoĥanan said to a child: Recite to me
.‫יה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ּ ‫נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ your verse that you studied today. The child recited the following
verse to Rabbi Yoĥanan: “Now Samuel was dead” (I Samuel 28:3).
Rabbi Yoĥanan said to himself: Learn from this that Shmuel has
died. Therefore, Rabbi Yoĥanan did not go to see Shmuel.

‫ ֶא ָּלא ִּכי ֵה ִיכי‬,‫ ָלא ׁ ְש ִכיב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ וְ ָלא ִהיא‬The Gemara comments: But it was not so; Shmuel had not died.
.‫יֹוחנָן‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ָלא ִל‬Rather, the reason Rabbi Yoĥanan was given this sign was so that
ָ ‫יט ַרח ַר ִ ּבי‬
Rabbi Yoĥanan would not trouble himself to embark on the long
and arduous journey from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia.

‫ ַ ּביִ ת‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬,‫ ַּתנְיָ א‬It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With
‫ יֵ ׁש‬,‫ ִּתינֹוק וְ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה – ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאין נַ ַח ׁש‬regard to one who is successful with his first business transaction
after he has built a home, after the birth of a child, or after he mar-
.‫ימן‬
ָ ‫ִס‬
ries a woman,h even though he may not use this as a means of divi-
nation to decide upon future courses of action, it is an auspicious
sign that he will continue to be successful. Conversely, if his first
transaction is not successful he may take that as an inauspicious sign.

notes
Any divination that is not like Eliezer the servant of Abraham The commentaries also explain that Jonathan did not rely on
or like Jonathan the son of Saul – ‫יעזֶ ר ֶע ֶבד‬ ֶ ‫ָּכל נַ ַח ׁש ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ֶּכ ֱא ִל‬ divination, but proposed his test only to encourage the youth who
‫א ְב ָר ָהם ו ְּכיֹונָ ָתן ֶ ּבן ׁ ָשאוּל‬:
ַ The early commentaries ask how it was was with him. Jonathan himself was prepared to fight without any
permitted for Eliezer or Jonathan themselves to make use of pro- sign (Tosafot). Others write that divination is prohibited only if it
hibited divination. Some answer that Eliezer did not rely on the leads one to act in a way that is irrational. Jonathan’s divination
divination completely, and he gave Rebekah the gifts only after was not prohibited, because in times of war it is possible that two
he first verified that she was from a suitable family (Tosafot). Other or three warriors can defeat a much larger number of panicked
commentaries explain that a test is not considered prohibited divi- enemy soldiers, and through his test he would know if the Philis-
nation if it is one that makes sense. Eliezer used a sign that would tines were panicked (Ran).
indicate a woman of suitable character to be a wife for Isaac (Ran).

116 Ĥullin . perek VII . 95b . ‫הצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Personalities
‫ וְ הוּא ְד ִא ַּית ְחזַ ק ְּת ָל ָתא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬Rabbi Elazar said: But this is provided that the sign has been
Rav – ‫רב‬:ַ Rav was the first, and perhaps the great-
‫״יֹוסף ֵאינֶ נּ ּו וְ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֵאינֶ נּ ּו‬
ֵ :‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ימנֵי‬ ְ ִ‫ ז‬established by repeating itself three times. This is based on a verse, est, of the Babylonian amora’im, and the academy he
as it is written: “And Jacob their father said to them: Me you have
.‫וְ ֶאת ִ ּבנְיָ ִמן ִּת ָ ּקחוּ״‬ established in Sura lasted for over eight hundred years,
bereaved of my children: Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and through the period of the ge’onim. His full name was
you will take Benjamin away; upon me are all these things come” Rabbi Abba bar Aivu, but he was also known as Abba
(Genesis 42:36). If calamity were to befall Benjamin, that would Arikha due to his great height, as arikha means long. The
establish a pattern of three tragedies. Gemara reports that aside from the visiting students who
attended the academy only during the kalla months of
?ּ‫ ַ ּב ֲחרוּזִ ין ַמהו‬:‫ֵיה ַרב הוּנָ א ֵמ ַרב‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬ § The Gemara returns to discuss distinguishing marks that prevent Adar and Elul, 1,200 full-time students learned in the
meat from being prohibited despite its having been obscured from academy throughout the year. In his youth, Rav traveled
‫ֹוטה! ַ ּב ֲחרוּזִ ין ֲה ֵרי‬
ֶ ‫ ַאל ְּת ִהי ׁש‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ to Eretz Yisrael with his uncle, Rabbi Ĥiyya, where he
sight. Rav Huna inquired of Rav:p If pieces of meat were strung
‫ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ימן‬ ָ ‫זֶ ה ִס‬ studied under Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the redactor of the
together and then were obscured from sight, what is the halakha? Mishna. He traveled back and forth between Eretz Yisrael
.‫ימן‬
ָ ‫ ַ ּב ֲחרוּזִ ין ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה ִס‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ Rav said to him: Do not be an imbecile; of course if the meat is and Babylonia until he settled in Babylonia in the year
strung together it is considered to be a distinguishing mark, and 219 CE. Rav’s prominence is apparent not only in the large
the meat is permitted. There are those who say this halakha as fol- number of amora’im who were his students and who
lows: Rav Huna said that Rav said: If pieces of meat are strung quote him throughout the Gemara, but also by the fact
together it is a distinguishing mark, and the meat remains that despite his status as an amora he is simultaneously
recognized as the last of the tanna’im, and he is permitted
permitted even if it is obscured from sight.
to disagree with tannaitic rulings.
‫יק ַלע ְלגַ ֵ ּבי ַרב‬ ְ ‫ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ִמ ְּנ ַה ְרדְּ ָעא ִא‬ The Gemara relates that Rav Naĥman of Neharde’ap arrived at the Rav Naĥman of Neharde’a – ‫רב נַ ְח ָמן ִמ ְּנ ַה ְרדְּ ָעא‬:ַ A fourth-
,‫יֹומא ְד ִכ ּפו ֵּרי‬
ָ ‫ָּכ ֲהנָ א ְלפוּם נַ ֲה ָרא ְ ּב ַמ ֲע ֵלי‬ home of Rav Kahana in Pum Naharab on the eve of Yom Kippur, generation Babylonian amora, Rav Naĥman of Neharde’a,
which is a day when people commonly eat meat. Ravens came and or, in a different version of the text, Rav Ĥanan, was a
‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫עֹור ֵבי ׁ ְשד ּו ַּכ ְב ֵדי וְ כו ְּליָ ָתא‬
ְ ‫ָאת ּו‬ close student of Rav Kahana, and would discuss matters
dropped livers and kidneys. Rav Kahana said to Rav Naĥman:
‫ית ָרא‬ ֵּ ‫ ָה ִא ָידנָ א דְּ ֶה‬,‫ ׁ ְשקֹול וֶ ֱאכֹול‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ Take these livers and kidneys and eatn them, as they are not forbid-
with him. He was a different Sage than Rav Naĥman bar
Ya’akov or Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak, both of whom were
.‫ׁ ְש ִכ ַיח ְט ֵפי‬ den, even though they were obscured from sight. This is because at better known.
this time permitted meat is more common than forbidden meat,
since Jews slaughter many animals on this day. background
Pum Nahara – ‫פוּם נַ ֲה ָרא‬:ּ The city of Pum Nahara was
‫יה ַּכ ְר ְּכ ׁ ָשא‬ּ ‫ית ַבד ֵל‬ ְ ‫ַרב ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ָא ִבין ִא‬ Rav Ĥiyya bar Avin lost a cut of meat from an animal intestine b
located on the bank of a canal that led to the Tigris River.
‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬,‫ֵ ּבי ִדינָ א‬ among the barrelsn of wine in his wine cellar. When he found it, he The city was known as an important center for both Torah
came before Rav Huna to ask whether the meat was now prohib-
:‫יה‬
ּ ‫יה? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ימנָ א ְ ּבגַ ֵּו‬ ָ ‫ ִאית ָלךְ ִס‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ study and agriculture, primarily with regard to its vine-
ited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Huna said to him: yards, which were planted all the way to the bank of the
‫יה? ֲא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ ִאית ָלךְ ְט ִביעוּת ֵעינָ א ְ ּבגַ ֵּו‬.‫ָלא‬ Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you can identify canal. Rav Kahana, a renowned Sage of the city, became
.‫ זִ יל ׁ ְשקֹול‬,‫ ִאם ֵּכן‬.‫ ִאין‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ it? Rav Ĥiyya bar Avin said to him: No. Rav Huna asked him: Do the head of the court and retained a strong connection
you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ĥiyya bar Avin said to him: with the academy in Neharde’a.
Yes. Rav Huna said: If so, go and take it and eat it.

‫יה ַ ּג ָ ּבא‬
ּ ‫ית ַבד ֵל‬ ְ ‫ַרב ֲחנִינָ א חֹוזָ ָאה ִא‬ Rav Ĥanina Ĥoza’a lost a side of meat. When he found it, he came
‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬,‫דְּ ִב ְ ׂש ָרא‬ before Rav Naĥman and asked him whether the meat was now
prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Naĥman
:‫יה‬
ּ ‫יה? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ימנָ א ְ ּבגַ ֵּו‬ ָ ‫ ִאית ָלךְ ִס‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬
said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you
‫יה? ֲא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ ִאית ָלךְ ְט ִביעוּת ֵעינָ א ְ ּבגַ ֵּו‬.‫ָלא‬ can identify it? Rav Ĥanina Ĥoza’a said to him: No. Rav Naĥman
.‫ זִ יל ׁ ְשקֹול‬,‫ ִאם ֵּכן‬.‫ ִאין‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ĥanina
Ĥoza’a said to him: Yes. Rav Naĥman said: If so, go and take it and
eat it.

Location of Pum Nahara

Intestine – ‫כ ְר ְּכ ׁ ָשא‬:ַּ This is a reference to the rectum, the

notes lower section of the large intestine, through which excre-
Rav Kahana said to him, take and eat, etc. – ‫יה ׁ ְשקֹול‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ concede that the meat is forbidden without some distinguish- ment passes before it leaves the body.
‫וֶ ֱאכֹול וכו׳‬: The early commentaries disagree as to the opinion of ing mark (Sefer HaTerumot; Rashba; Rosh, citing Rashbam). This
Rav Kahana. Some write that Rav Kahana disagrees with Rav and opinion is cited in the Shulĥan Arukh (Yoreh De’a 63:2) with the
holds that meat that was obscured from sight is not prohibited preface: There are those who are lenient. The Rema writes that
in a place where most of the butchers are Jewish, in accordance this is the custom.
with the opinion of Levi (Rashi). Based on this they rule that the Other commentaries explain that Rav Kahana agrees with Rav,
halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav. They explain but Rav limits the prohibition on meat obscured from sight to a
that Rav Huna, Rav Naĥman, and Rav Ĥisda, who did not permit case where the area from which ravens might bring meat is one
the meat without some sign or distinguishing mark or visual where the majority of meat is not kosher. But in the case of Rav
recognition, all hold like Rav, and they may have all been his Kahana and Rav Naĥman, the majority of slaughtered meat in the
students. Alternatively, they were being stringent in their own area from which the ravens could bring it was kosher (Tosafot; Rif;
practice (Ba’al HaMaor). Rambam; Shulĥan Arukh).
Others explain that even if Rav Kahana holds in accordance
with the opinion of Levi, Levi himself may hold that meat Among the barrels – ‫בי ִדינָ א‬: ּ ֵ The text of the Vilna Talmud
obscured from sight is permitted only if the meat is in the same includes the words bei dina, which means rabbinical court. By
place where it was left and the majority of meat in that area is contrast, the version of the text recorded by the Rif and the Rosh
kosher meat. In the cases ruled by the aforementioned Sages, reads beinei danei, among the barrels, which would read more
the meat was not where it had been left, and even Levi would easily in context.

 ‫הצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 95b 117

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫יב ּו ָרא‬
ּ ‫יה ִק‬ ּ ‫ית ַבד ֵל‬ ְ ‫ַרב נָ ָתן ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י ִא‬ Rav Natan bar Abaye lost a skein of sky-blue wool prepared for
‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬,‫דִּ ְת ֶכ ְל ָּתא‬ use in ritual fringes. He searched for it and found it. He came
before Rav Ĥisda to ask whether the wool was now prohibited
.‫ ָלא‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫יה? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ימנָ א ְ ּבגַ ֵּו‬
ָ ‫ ִאית ָלךְ ִס‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬
because it had been obscured from sight and may have become
:‫יה‬
ּ ‫יה? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ִאית ָלךְ ְט ִביעוּת ֵעינָ א ְ ּבגַ ֵּו‬ confused with other blue wool that is not valid for ritual fringes.
.‫ זִ יל ׁ ְשקֹול‬,‫ ִאם ֵּכן‬.‫ִאין‬ Rav Ĥisda said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark in it
so that you can identify it? Rav Natan bar Abaye said to him: No.
Rav Ĥisda asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav
Natan bar Abaye said to him: Yes. Rav Ĥisda said: If so, go and
take it, and you may use it for ritual fringes.

‫ימנָ א‬ ָ ‫ ִס‬,‫ישא ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵמ ֵר‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava said: At first I would say that a distinguishing mark is
‫ דְּ ָהא ְמ ַהדְּ ִרינַ ן‬,‫ ָע ִדיף ִמ ְּט ִביעוּת ֵעינָ א‬preferable to visual recognition, because we return a lost item
to its owner based on a distinguishing mark,
,‫ימנָ א‬
ָ ‫ֲא ֵב ְיד ָתא ְ ּב ִס‬

Perek VII
Daf 96 Amud a
halakha
‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬.‫ וְ ָלא ְמ ַהדְּ ִרינַ ן ִ ּב ְט ִביעוּת ֵעינָ א‬but we do not return a lost item to one who claims to be its
One who removes the sciatic nerve – ‫ֹוטל ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬
ֵ ּ‫הנ‬:ַ
One who removes the sciatic nerve must scrape away :‫ ָא ִמינָ א‬,‫ דִּ ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ִתינְ ה ּו ְל ָהנֵי ׁ ְש ַמ ְע ָת ָתא‬owner based solely on visual recognition. But now that I have
heard these statements pertaining to meat or sky-blue wool
the surrounding flesh until he is certain that no part of .‫ְט ִביעוּת ֵעינָ א ֲע ִד ָיפא‬
the nerve remains. This is in accordance with the opin- that were obscured from sight and then permitted based upon
ion of the first tanna (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot visual recognition, I say that visual recognition is preferable to a
Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:8). distinguishing mark.

‫יא ְך סו ָּמא מו ָּּתר‬ ָ ‫ ֵה‬,‫ימא ָה ִכי‬ ָ ‫דְּ ִאי ָלא ֵּת‬ Furthermore, one must hold that sensory recognition is reliable
‫יהן‬
ֶ ‫ֹות‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו? ו ְּבנֵי ָא ָדם ֵאיךְ מו ָּּת ִרין ִ ּב ׁנְש‬ even without identifying marks, for if you do not say so, how is a
blind man permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife
‫ ָה ָכא‬,‫ַ ּב ַּליְ ָלה? ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְט ִביעוּת ֵעינָ א דְּ ָק ָלא‬
despite the fact that he cannot identify her by means of her iden-
.‫נַ ִמי ִ ּב ְט ִביעוּת ֵעינָ א‬ tifying marks? And similarly, how are any men permitted to
engage in intercourse with their wives at night, when it is dark
and they cannot see their wives’ identifying marks? Rather, one
must say that they identify their wives based on voice recognition.
Here too, in these cases of lost meat and sky-blue wool, they
remain permitted based on visual recognition.

,‫ ֵּת ַדע‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ְמ ׁ ָש ְר ׁ ִשּיָ א‬

ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ְ ּב ֵר‬ Rav Yitzĥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, said: You can know that
‫ דְּ ַהאי‬,‫ ּ ְפ ָלנְ יָ א‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫יל ּו ָאת ּו ֵ ּב ְת ֵרי‬ ּ ‫דְּ ִא‬ visual recognition is preferable to a distinguishing mark, because
if two witnesses come to court and say: So-and-so, who has this
‫ ְק ַטל נַ ְפ ׁ ָשא – ָלא‬,‫נֵיה‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ ָ ‫נֵיה וְ ַהאי ִס‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ ָ ‫ִס‬
distinguishing mark and that distinguishing mark, killed a per-
‫ ִאית ָלן ְט ִביעוּת‬:‫ וְ ִאילּ ּו ָא ְמ ִרי‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָק ְט ִלינַן ֵל‬ son, we would not kill him based on this testimony. But if the two
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫יה – ָק ְט ִלינַן ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֵעינָ א ְ ּבגַ ֵּו‬ witnesses say: We have visual recognition of him, and they con-
firm that the accused individual committed murder, we kill him
based on their testimony.

‫ינִיש‬
ׁ ‫יה ִא‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִאילּ ּו ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫ ֵּת ַדע‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ Rav Ashi said: You can know that visual recognition is preferable
‫נֵיה‬
ּ ‫ימ‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ַהאי ִס‬,‫יה ִל ְפ ָלנְיָ א‬ ּ ֵ‫ ָק ְרי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִל ׁ ְשלו ֵּח‬ to a distinguishing mark, because if a man says to his agent: Call
so-and-so, who has this distinguishing mark and that distin-
‫יה ָס ֵפק ָלא יְ ַדע‬ ּ ‫נֵיה – ָס ֵפק יְ ַדע ֵל‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ ָ ‫וְ ַהאי ִס‬
guishing mark, it is uncertain whether the agent will recognize
– ‫יה‬
ּ ‫יה ְט ִביעוּת ֵעינָ א ְ ּבגַ ֵּו‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִאילּ ּו ִאית ֵל‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ him and know whom to call or whether he will not know him. But
.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ יְ ַדע ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִּכי ָחזֵ י ֵל‬ if he has visual recognition of him, when he sees him he will
know it is him.

‫יך ׁ ֶשּיִ ּטֹול‬ ֵ ּ‫מתני׳ ַהנ‬

ְ ‫ צָ ִר‬,‫ֹוטל ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ֶאת ּכוּלּ ֹו‬
‫ ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַקּיֵ ים ּבֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬
mishna One who removes the sciatic nerveh must
scrape away the flesh in the area surround-
ing the nerve to ensure that he will remove all of it. Rabbi Yehuda
.‫נְט ָילה‬
ִ ‫ ִמצְ וַ ת‬says: Scraping is not required; it is sufficient to excise it from the
area above the rounded protrusion in order to thereby fulfill the
mitzva of removal of the sciatic nerve.
118 Ĥullin . perek VII . 96a . ‫וצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
ֵ – ‫אֹוכל ִמ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
,‫סֹופג ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ֵ ‫ָה‬ One who eats an olive-bulk of the sciatic nerveh incurs forty lashes.
If one eats an entire sciatic nerve and it does not constitute an olive- Incurs [sofeg] – ‫סֹופג‬:
ֵ The source of this word is the
‫ ָא ַכל ִמּזֶ ה ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬.‫ֲא ָכלֹו וְ ֵאין ּבֹו ַּכּזַ יִ ת – ַחּיָ יב‬ Hebrew sefog, meaning sponge. It is derived from
bulk, he is nevertheless liable to receive lashes, because a complete
:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬.‫סֹופג ׁ ְשמֹונִים‬ ֵ – ‫ו ִּמּזֶ ה ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ the Greek σπόγγος, spongos, meaning absorption
sciatic nerve is a complete entity. If one ate an olive-bulk from this or drawing out. The meaning of the Hebrew word
.‫סֹופג ֶא ָּלא ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ֵ ‫ֵאינֹו‬ sciatic nerve in the right leg, and an olive-bulk from thath sciatic was later broadened to include other types of non-
nerve in the left leg, he incurs [sofeg]l eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda literal absorption, whether relating to money or
says: He incurs only forty lashes, for eating the olive-bulk from the other matters, such as incurring lashes, which can
right leg, and he is exempt for eating the olive-bulk from the left leg. also be considered as absorbing them. In the Arukh
an opinion appears connecting the usage in rela-
‫יה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל וְ ָקא‬
:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יה‬
ִ ‫גמ׳ ַ ּבר ּ ְפ‬
ּ ‫יֹולי ֲהוָ ה ָק ֵאי ַק ֵּמ‬
ּ ‫ ֲהוָ ה ָקא ָ ּג ִאים ֵל‬,‫ְמנַ ֵ ּקר ַא ְט ָמא‬
gemara A man known as bar Peyoli was standing
before Shmuel and was removing the sci-
tion to lashes to the term for clapping [sofek], since
receiving lashes can be seen as being clapped on
one’s body.
atic nerve from the leg of an animal. He was cutting out the nerve
‫יתא‬ָ ‫ ְס ִפ‬, ְ‫יתך‬
ָ ִ‫יה ְט ֵפי! ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ָלא ֲחז‬ ּ ‫ חוּת ֵ ּב‬without scraping away the surrounding flesh, in accordance with the
!‫ ִלי ִא ּיסו ָּרא‬opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Shmuel said to him: Go down further background
Spoon – ‫כף‬:ַּ The section referred to here as the
and scrape away the flesh in order to remove the entire nerve. Now,
spoon is a rounded muscle that covers the entire
if I would not have seen you and instructed you in the process of length of the femur (1), and also the area where
removing the sciatic nerve, you would have fed me forbidden meat. the femur is joined with the hip (2). The portion of
the sciatic nerve considered to be on the spoon is
‫ ָלא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יה‬
ּ ‫ נְ ַפל ַס ִּכינָ א ִמ ֵיד‬,‫ ִא ְיר ַתת‬Bar Peyoli became afraid due to Shmuel’s rebuke and the knife fell the portion that passes above the upper section of
. ְ‫אֹורי ָלך‬ ֵ ְּ‫ ד‬,‫ ִּת ְיר ַתת‬from his hand. Shmuel said to him: Do not be afraid. I do not think
ֵ ‫אֹורי ָלךְ – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ the femur (3). This is the only spot where the sci-
that you are an ignoramus or a wicked person. You are removing the atic nerve passes in close proximity to a bone, and
sciatic nerve as you were taught; the person who taught you must only one who consumes this portion of the sciatic
hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this is nerve has violated the Torah prohibition; one who
consumes any other portion has violated a rabbinic
how he taught you to remove the sciatic nerve. But I hold that the
prohibition. According to another interpretation,
entire sciatic nerve must be removed, in accordance with the opinion the portion forbidden by Torah law includes the
of the first tanna. entire section of the nerve that extends within the
flesh around the femur (4), and not only the portion
– ‫יֹולי‬ ִ ‫ ַמאי דִּ ׁ ְש ַקל ַ ּבר ּ ְפ‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬ Rav Sheshet said in explanation of this incident: That which bar located on the top of the femur.
‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫אֹוריְ ָיתא ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬
ַ ְּ‫ד‬ Peyoli removed was the section of the sciatic nerve one is required
to remove by Torah law according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
‫אֹורי‬
ֵ ‫יה – ְּכ ַמאן‬ ּ ‫אֹורי ֵל‬ֵ ְּ‫ ֶא ָּלא ד‬,‫ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬
The Gemara asks: Based upon this statement, one can derive by
?‫יה‬ּ ‫ֵל‬ inference that he left behind the section of the sciatic nerve one is
required to remove by rabbinic law according to the opinion of
Rabbi Yehuda. But if so, in accordance with whose opinion did
the person who taught him how to remove the sciatic nerve teach
him? Even according to Rabbi Yehuda he would have transgressed
a rabbinic prohibition.

ִ ‫ ַמאי דִּ ׁ ְש ַקל ַ ּבר ּ ְפ‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬Rather, Rav Sheshet said: That which bar Peyoli removed was the
– ‫יֹולי‬
ַ ְּ‫ ד‬section of the sciatic nerve that is forbidden by Torah law. And that
.‫ ו ַּמאי דְּ ׁ ַשּיֵ יר – דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫אֹוריְ ָיתא‬
which he left over is forbidden by rabbinic law according to the
.‫דְּ ִאי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן ׁ ָש ֵרי‬
opinion of Rabbi Meir, as explained above (92b) in a baraita; as if
one were to follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the section that
Path of the sciatic nerve through the hind leg of a cow
bar Peyoli left over is permitted even by rabbinic law.

:‫ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.]‫אֹוכל ִמ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה״ [וכו׳‬

ֵ ‫״ה‬ ָ § The mishna teaches: One who eats an olive-bulk of the sciatic
,‫ ל ֹא ָא ְס ָרה ּת ָֹורה ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ַּכף ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬nerve incurs forty lashes. Shmuel says: The Torah prohibits only
the part of the sciatic nerve that is on the rounded protrusion of flesh
.‫״על ַּכף ַהּיָ ֵרךְ ״‬
ַ :‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬
shaped like a spoonbh that is near the end of the femur. This is as it
is stated in the verse: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the
sciatic nerve that is upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33).

halakha
One who eats…of the sciatic nerve – ‫אֹוכל ִמ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬
ֵ ‫ה‬:ָ One who of the right leg and an olive-bulk of the sciatic nerve from the left
eats part of the inner sciatic nerve from the protrusion at the upper leg, he receives eighty lashes. He also receives eighty lashes if he eats
part of the femur receives lashes. If he eats from the fats of the two entire sciatic nerves, even if they do not contain an olive-bulk.
sciatic nerve, from other parts of the inner nerve, or from the outer This is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna (Rambam
sciatic nerve, he receives lashes for rebelliousness. For this purpose, Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:3).
eating is defined as the consumption of one olive-bulk. If he eats
the entire nerve, even if it is not an olive-bulk, he also receives
The Torah prohibits only the part that is on the spoon – ‫ל ֹא ָא ְס ָרה‬
lashes, because it is an entire entity (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
‫ת ָֹורה ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ַּכף ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬:ּ The primary part of the sciatic nerve that
Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:2).
is forbidden is that part that is on the rounded protrusion of flesh
If one ate an olive-bulk from this and an olive-bulk from that – shaped like a spoon, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel
‫א ַכל ִמּזֶ ה ַּכּזַ יִ ת ו ִּמּזֶ ה ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:ָ If one eats an olive-bulk of the sciatic nerve (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 100:1 in the comment of Rema).

 ‫וצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 96a 119

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ֲא ָכלֹו וְ ֵאין ּבֹו‬:‫ ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬Rav Pappa says: This statement of Shmuel is subject to a dispute
Subject to a dispute between tanna’im – ‫כ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬:ְּ This
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬,‫ ַּכּזַ יִ ת – ַחּיָ יב‬between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If one ate the entire
b
term indicates that an amoraic dispute will be shown to ‫ ַעד ׁ ֶש ֵּיְהא‬:‫אֹומר‬
sciatic nerve and it did not contain an olive-bulk, he is neverthe-
parallel a tannaitic dispute. When the Gemara uses this .‫ּבֹו ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
expression without preceding it with the expression: less liable to be flogged. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is not liable unless
Let us say, the proposed parallel between the amoraic it has a volume of at least an olive-bulk.
dispute and the tannaitic dispute is usually accepted.
The general benefit to matching an amoraic dispute to )‫(ב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬
ּ ִ ‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן – ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה‬Rav Pappa explains how this relates to Shmuel’s statement. What is
a tannaitic one is that the earlier dispute helps to clarify .‫ ִהיא‬the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi
the later one. If, for example, the principles are parallel Yehuda? They hold that the sciatic nerve is a distinct entity.n There-
but the applications in the two texts differ, an alternative fore, even if one eats less than an olive-bulk it is a significant act of
expression of the respective opinions helps elucidate
eating, and one is liable.
the reasoning behind each ruling. By contrast, when
the Gemara uses the term: Let us say, it might signal an
notes
investigation as to the difference between the current
amoraic debate and the earlier tannaitic one, based on It is a distinct entity – ‫ב ִרּיָה ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה ִהיא‬:ּ ְ This reference to the According to those early commentaries who disagree with
the assumption that amora’im do not simply repeat an sciatic nerve as a distinct entity is somewhat difficult, as according Tosafot and hold that only a complete item that has always been
issue that has already been discussed. Consequently, a to Shmuel, whose opinion is accepted by the Rabbis on the next forbidden is defined as an entity, the difficulty can be resolved
clarification is in order. amud, only the portion of the sciatic nerve that is on the protru- by explaining that the Rabbis hold that one who eats the entire
sion of flesh near the end of the femur is included in the Torah sciatic nerve is liable due to its importance, even if the forbidden
prohibition, and this portion is not a distinct entity. One sugges- portion is less than an olive-bulk. But one who eats only the part
tion is that according to Tosafot, anywhere that the Torah defines of the sciatic nerve that is attached to the spoon of the thigh is
an item as prohibited, e.g., the sciatic nerve or a non-kosher bird, not liable unless it is an olive-bulk. The Rema does not accept
it is as if the Torah explicitly wrote that regardless of size this item this suggestion, as he rules that one who eats the portion on the
is forbidden, provided it is whole. Since the Torah defines the part rounded protrusion is liable even if it is less than an olive-bulk
of the sciatic nerve next to the spoon of the thigh as the forbidden (Kehillot Ya’akov).
sciatic nerve, it is as if the Torah stated explicitly that it is forbidden
regardless of whether it is truly a complete, distinct entity.

Perek VII
Daf 96 Amud b

?‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫יה‬
ּ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה? ֲא ִכ ָילה ְּכ ִת ָיבה ֵ ּב‬And what does Rabbi Yehuda hold? He holds that since the term:
‫יה ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬ ּ ‫ ַה ִהיא ֲא ִכ ָילה דְּ ִכי ִאית ֵ ּב‬Eating, is written with regard to the sciatic nerve, and a significant
act of eating is generally defined as eating an olive-bulk, one is liable
.‫יחּיַ יב‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה זֵ ִיתים וְ ָא ַכל ַחד ַּכּזַ יִ ת – ִמ‬
only if he eats an olive-bulk. And what do the Rabbis derive from
this term? That usage of the term eating indicates that in a case
where the sciatic nerve contains four or five olive-bulks and one
ate only one olive-bulk, he is liable. Nevertheless, if one eats the
entire sciatic nerve, he is liable even if it contains less than an
olive-bulk.

‫״א ׁ ֶשר ַעל ַּכף ַהּיָ ֵר ְך״‬

ֲ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה? ֵמ‬And according to Rabbi Yehuda, from where is it derived that one
.‫ נָ ְפ ָקא‬is liable for eating one olive-bulk of a larger sciatic nerve? He holds
that it is derived from the phrase “that is upon the spoon of the
thigh,” which indicates that even if one eats only the part of the
sciatic nerve that is upon the spoon of the thigh, rather than the
entire sciatic nerve, he is liable.

,‫יה ִל ְכ ִד ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬

ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן? ַההוּא ִמ‬ And how do the Rabbis interpret that phrase? That phrase is neces-
‫ ל ֹא ָא ְס ָרה ּת ָֹורה ֶא ָּלא‬:‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ sary to teach the halakha stated by Shmuel, as Shmuel said: The
Torah prohibits only the part of the sciatic nerve that is on the
‫״הּיָ ֵר ְך״‬
ַ ?‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ׁ ֶש ַעל ַּכף ַהּיָ ֵר ְך‬
rounded protrusion of flesh shaped like a spoon. And what does
. ְ‫ְּכ ִתיב – דְּ כו ָּּל ּה יָ ֵרך‬ Rabbi Yehuda hold with regard to the halakha stated by Shmuel?
He derives from the fact that it is written: “The spoon of the thigh,”
that the sciatic nerve of the entire thigh is forbidden, not just the
part that is on the rounded protrusion of flesh shaped like a spoon.

ּ ‫יה ְ ּבכו ֵּּל‬

‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן? ַההוּא – דְּ ָפ ׁ ֵשיט ִא ּיסו ֵּר‬And how do the Rabbis interpret “the spoon of the thigh”? Accord-
‫עֹולם ׁ ֶש ַעל‬ ָ ‫ ו ְּל‬,‫ ְל ַא ּפו ֵּקי ִחיצֹון – דְּ ָלא‬, ְ‫ יָ ֵרך‬ing to the Rabbis, this expression indicates that the prohibition of
the sciatic nerve applies to the nerve that extends throughout the
.‫ַה ַּכף‬
entire thigh, i.e., the inner nerve, which serves to exclude the outer
nerve, which is not forbidden by Torah law; but in fact, only the
part of the inner nerve that is on the protrusion of flesh shaped like
a spoon is forbidden, not the entire inner nerve.
120 Ĥullin . perek VII . 96b . ‫וצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
,‫יה ְל ַמעו ֵּטי עֹוף‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬
ּ ָ ‫״כף״ ִמ‬ַּ ‫ וְ ַהאי‬The Gemara objects: But this term “spoon” is required to exclude
If it was roasted inside, one may peel away and eat
.‫״כף״ ְּכ ִת ִיבי‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ֵלית ֵל‬the sciatic nerve of a bird, which does not have a rounded protrusion
ַּ ‫יה ַּכף! ְּת ֵרי‬ it until he reaches the nerve – ‫אֹוכל ַעד‬ ֵ ְ‫קֹולף ו‬
ֵ ‫נִצְ ָלה ָ ּב ּה‬
on its thigh bone that can be described as the spoon of the thigh, as ‫ש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ַל ִ ּגיד‬:
ֶ ׁ If a thigh was roasted with its sciatic nerve,
taught in the mishna (89b). The Gemara explains: There are two one must remove the nerve and a finger’s thickness of
usages of the term “spoon” written in the verse, and therefore two meat surrounding it, in accordance with the opinion
separate halakhot can be derived from this term. of Shmuel (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
Assurot 15:32; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 105:4).
,‫מתני׳ יָ ֵר ְך ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָ ּב ּה ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬
.‫נֹותן ַט ַעם – ֲה ֵרי זֹו ֲאסו ָּרה‬
mishna
ֵ ‫ִאם יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ְ ּב‬
In the case of a thigh that was cooked with
the sciatic nerve in it, if there is enough of
the sciatic nerve in it to impart its flavor to the thigh, the entire thigh
.‫אֹות ּה – ְּכ ָב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ֶל ֶפת‬ ָ ‫ ֵּכיצַ ד ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרין‬is forbidden for consumption. How does one measuren whether
there is enough sciatic nerve to impart flavor to the meat of the entire
thigh? One relates to it as though the sciatic nerve were meat impart-
ing flavor to a turnip.nb If meat the volume of the sciatic nerve would
impart flavor to a turnip the volume of the thigh when they were
cooked together, then the entire thigh is forbidden.

‫ ִ ּבזְ ַמן‬,‫ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל ִעם ַה ִ ּג ִידים‬With regard to a sciatic nerve that was cooked with other sinews,
‫ וְ ִאם ָלאו – ּכו ָּּלן‬,‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִּכירֹו – ְ ּב‬when one identifies the sciatic nerve and removes it, the other sinews
are forbidden if the sciatic nerve was large enough to impart flavor.
.‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ֵ ‫רֹוטב – ְ ּב‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָה‬,‫ֲאסו ִּרין‬
And if he does not identify it, all the sinews are forbidden because
each one could be the sciatic nerve; but the broth is forbidden only
if the sciatic nerve imparts flavor to the broth.

‫ וְ ֵכן ֲח ִת ָיכה ׁ ֶשל דָּ ג‬,‫וְ ֵכן ֲח ִת ָיכה ׁ ֶשל נְ ֵב ָלה‬ And similarly, in the case of a piece of an animal carcass or a piece
‫ ִ ּבזְ ַמן‬,‫ָט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָלה ִעם ַה ֲח ִתיכֹות‬ of non-kosher fish that was cooked with similar pieces of kosher
meat or fish, when one identifies the forbidden piece and removes
‫ וְ ִאם ָלאו – ּכו ָּּלן‬,‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִּכ ָירן – ְ ּב‬
it, the rest of the meat or fish is forbidden only if the forbidden piece
.‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬
ֵ ‫רֹוטב – ְ ּב‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָה‬,‫ֲאסוּרֹות‬ was large enough to impart flavor to the entire mixture. And if he
does not identify and remove the forbidden piece, all the pieces
are forbidden, due to the possibility that each piece one selects
might be the forbidden piece; but the broth is forbidden only if the
forbidden piece imparts flavor to the broth.

‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬

ֵ – ‫ ֲא ָבל נִצְ ָלה ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָ ּב ּה‬
‫קֹולף‬
gemara The mishna teaches that a thigh that was
cooked with the sciatic nerve is forbidden if
the nerve imparts flavor to the thigh. Shmuel says: The Sages taught
.‫אֹוכל ַעד ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע ַל ִ ּגיד‬
ֵ ְ‫ ו‬that the thigh is entirely forbidden only when it was cooked with the
sciatic nerve inside it. But if the sciatic nerve was roasted inside the
thigh, one may peel away the meat and eat it until he reaches the
sciatic nerve,h and then he removes the nerve.

‫ ְ ּג ִדי ׁ ֶש ְ ּצ ָלאֹו‬:‫ וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬,‫ ִאינִי‬The Gemara challenges: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Huna say: With
‫ֹאש‬
ׁ ‫יל ּו ֵמר‬ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ֶח ְל ּבֹו – ָאסוּר ֶל ֱאכֹול ֲא ִפ‬regard to a kid that was roasted with its forbidden fat, it is prohib-
ited to eat any part of the animal, even from the top of its ear? This
!‫ָאזְ נֹו‬
proves that roasting, like cooking, spreads the flavor of the forbidden
fat throughout the entire animal.

notes
How does one measure – ‫אֹות ּה ְּכ ָב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ֶל ֶפת‬
ָ ‫כיצַ ד ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרין‬:ֵּ This As though it were meat imparting flavor to a turnip – ‫ְּכ ָב ָ ׂשר‬
method of measuring is necessary since the sciatic nerve has ‫ב ֶל ֶפת‬:
ּ ְ The measure of nullification is a halakha transmitted to
the same flavor as the meat and cannot be tasted in the thigh. Moses from Sinai. The received tradition is that this is how one
Moreover, even if one could taste it, it is forbidden for a Jew to assesses the ratio of sciatic nerve to meat at which the meat
taste the thigh with the sciatic nerve in it, since the thigh may be becomes forbidden, even though if it were assessed with a differ-
forbidden (Meiri). ent type of vegetable the ratio would be greater or lesser (Rashi).

background
Turnip – ‫ל ֶפת‬:ֶ The turnip, Brassica rapa, a round tuber, is a winter
garden vegetable from the mustard and cabbage family used for
food, including animal fodder, and often cooked and eaten as a
side dish with meat. It is not usually particularly large, weighing up
to a kilogram, but in some cases it can grow to exceptional sizes.

Turnip

 ‫וצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 96b 121

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VII
Daf 97 Amud a
background
.‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ֵח ֶלב – דִּ ְמ ַפ ְע ּ ֵפ ַע‬The Gemara answers: Forbidden fat is different from the sciatic
Synagogue of the town Maon – ‫נִיש ָּתא דְּ ָמעֹון‬
ְ ׁ ‫כ‬:ְּ This nerve, because its flavor permeates throughout the animal, unlike
refers to the large synagogue in the town of Maon,
or Beit Maon, which was a suburb west of Tiberias.
that of the sciatic nerve.
Beit Maon was the home town of the priestly watch
of the Ĥuppa family.
:‫ו ְּב ֵח ֶלב ָאסוּר? וְ ָה ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה‬ The Gemara challenges Rav Huna’s statement: And in the case of a
‫נִיש ָּתא‬ ְ ׁ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ִ ּב ְכ‬
ָ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫עו ְּב ָדא ֲהוָ ה ַק ֵּמ‬ kid roasted with its forbidden fat, is the meat forbidden? But didn’t
Rabba bar bar Ĥana say: There was an incident that came before
‫ וְ ָאת ּו וְ ׁ ַשיְ ילו ּּה‬,‫ ִ ּבגְ ִדי ׁ ֶש ְ ּצ ָלאֹו ְ ּב ֶח ְל ּבֹו‬,‫דְּ ָמעֹון‬
Rabbi Yoĥanan in the synagogue of the town of Maon,b where a
‫אֹוכל ַעד ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע‬ ֵ ְ‫קֹולף ו‬ ֵ :‫ וַ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ young goat was roasted with its fat, and the people came and
.‫ ָּכחו ּׁש ֲהוָ ה‬,‫ְל ֶח ְל ּבֹו! ַההוּא‬ asked Rabbi Yoĥanan about the status of the meat, and he said:
Peel away the meat and eat it until you reach the forbidden fat?
This indicates that the flavor of the fat does not permeate the entire
animal in which it is roasted. The Gemara answers: That kid was
leanh and had so little fat that its flavor did not permeate throughout
the animal.

‫ ּכו ְּליָ א ְ ּב ֶח ְל ָ ּב ּה‬:‫ַרב הוּנָ א ַ ּבר יְ הו ָּדה ֲא ַמר‬ Rav Huna bar Yehuda said: That was a case of a kidney of a young
‫ ִּכ ְיל ִכית‬:‫ ָר ִבין ַ ּבר ַרב ַאדָּ א ֲא ַמר‬.‫ וְ ׁ ָש ְריָא‬,‫ֲהוָ ה‬ goat roasted with its forbidden fat,h and Rabbi Yoĥanan permitted
it to be eaten because there is a membrane that separates the fat from
,‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ָ ‫ וְ ָאת ּו ׁ ַשיְ ילו ּּה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָ ּב ִא ְיל ּ ַפס ֲהוָ ה‬
the kidney and prevents the fat from penetrating the kidney. Ravin
.‫יה ַק ּ ֵפ ָילא ַא ְר ָמ ָאה‬ּ ‫יט ֲע ֵמ‬
ְ ‫ ִל‬:ּ‫וַ ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬ bar Rav Adda said: That was a case of a small, non-kosher fish
known as kilkhit, which fell into a stewpot [ilpas],l and they came
to ask Rabbi Yoĥanan about its status. And he said to them: Let a
gentile cook [kapeila]l taste it in order to determine whether the
flavor of the non-kosher fish has permeated the entire mixture.

‫ ֵמ ֵר ׁיש ֲהוָ ה ָקא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ִלי ָהא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ Rava said: Initially that which is taught in the following baraita
Location of Beit Maon ‫ ְק ֵד ָרה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָ ּב ּה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ל ֹא ַיְב ׁ ּ ֵשל‬,‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ posed a difficulty for me: With regard to a pot in which one
cooked meat,h one may not cook milk in it; and if he did cook
– ‫ ְּתרו ָּמה‬.‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִאם ִ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל – ְ ּב‬,‫ָ ּב ּה ָח ָלב‬
language milk in it, the meat absorbed by the pot renders the milk forbidden
ִ From the Greek λοπάς,
Stewpot [ilpas] – ‫א ְיל ּ ַפס‬:
ֵ ‫ וְ ִאם ִ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל – ְ ּב‬,‫ל ֹא יְ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָ ּב ּה חו ִּּלין‬
‫נֹותן‬ if it imparts flavor to the milk. Similarly, if one cooked terumah in
lopas, referring to a flat dish, frying pan, or large ves- .‫ַט ַעם‬ a pot, one may not cook non-sacred food in it; and if one did cook
sel used for cooking and eating. non-sacred food in it, the absorbed teruma renders the food in the
Cook [kapeila] – ‫ק ּ ֵפ ָילא‬:ַ From the Greek κάπηλος, pot sacred if it imparts flavor to it.
kapēlos, meaning peddler, owner of a small store,
or innkeeper. ,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְּתרו ָּמה – ָט ֵעים ָל ּה ּכ ֵֹהן‬ Rava explains: Granted, in the case of a pot used for teruma, a priest,
‫יה? ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ ּ ‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב – ַמאן ָט ֵעים ֵל‬ who is permitted to partake of teruma, can taste the non-sacred food
subsequently cooked in the pot in order to determine whether the
,‫ ָס ְמ ִכינַן ַא ַק ּ ֵפ ָילא ַא ְר ָמ ָאה‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬
teruma imparted flavor to the non-sacred food. But in a case where
.‫ָה ָכא נַ ִמי – ָס ְמ ִכינַן ַא ַק ּ ֵפ ָילא ַא ְר ָמ ָאה‬ it is not known whether meat imparted flavor into milk, who can
taste it? If the meat did impart flavor to the milk, it would be forbid-
den for any Jew to consume the milk. But now that Rabbi Yoĥanan
said: We rely on a gentile cook in the case of the kilkhit, here also
we rely on a gentile cook to taste it and say whether the meat has
imparted flavor to the milk.

halakha
Forbidden fat is different because its flavor permeates…that A kidney with its forbidden fat – ‫כו ְּליָא ְ ּב ֶח ְל ָ ּב ּה‬:ּ If a kidney was milk is forbidden unless there is sixty times as much milk as the
was lean – ‫…כחו ּׁש ֲהוָ ה‬
ָּ ‫שאנֵי ֵח ֶלב דִּ ְמ ַפ ְע ּ ֵפ ַע‬:
ָ ׁ If a fatty young goat roasted with its forbidden fat, the fat renders its surrounding material of the entire pot itself. If the pot has not been used to
was roasted with its forbidden fat and does not contain sixty area prohibited only to the depth that is removed by peeling, cook meat for more than twenty-four hours before the milk
times as much permitted meat as forbidden fat, it is forbidden because the membrane prevents the flavor of the fat from was cooked, the flavor of the meat is tainted and the food is
to eat even from the tip of its ear. Since it is fatty the forbidden entering. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi permitted. Nevertheless, it is prohibited to use the pot itself for
fat permeates throughout the entire animal. But if the goat was Yoĥanan according to Rav Huna bar Yehuda’s explanation. The cooking either meat or milk, although it is permitted to cook
lean, the forbidden fat renders the area around it prohibited Rema writes that some hold that the entire kidney is forbidden, other foods in it (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
only to the depth of a fingerbreadth, even if there is not sixty and that this is the custom and one may not deviate from it. Assurot 9:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 93:1, and in the comment
times as much permitted meat as the forbidden fat, because Consequently, it is treated the same as any other case of forbid- of Rema, and Shakh there).
the fat of a lean animal is lean in its nature and does not perme- den fat that was roasted with meat. If the kidney was cooked
ate. This ruling is in accordance with the rulings of Rav Huna with its fat it becomes non-kosher, and the rest of the food in A pot in which one cooked…teruma – ‫…תרו ָּמה‬ ְּ ‫ק ֵד ָרה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָ ּב ּה‬:ְ
and Rabbi Yoĥanan and the Gemara’s explanation. The Rema the pot is permitted only if there is sixty times as much permit- One may not cook non-sacred food in a pot that has been
writes that some say that nowadays the distinction between ted food as the entire kidney (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 105:8). used to cook teruma. If one does cook non-sacred food in a
fatty and lean is not known. Therefore, the meat is forbidden pot that has been used to cook teruma the food is forbidden
in every case unless there is sixty times as much permitted A pot in which one cooked meat – ‫ק ֵד ָרה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָ ּב ּה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:ְ A pot to an Israelite if it has any flavor from the teruma. A priest must
meat as forbidden, and even then the surface surrounding the in which meat has been cooked may not be used to cook milk. taste it to determine whether or not any of the flavor from the
fat to the depth of a fingerbreadth must be removed around If one did cook milk in a meat pot within twenty-four hours teruma remains (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 15:19).
the forbidden parts. This is in fact the custom (Rambam Sefer of cooking the meat, the milk is forbidden if the flavor of the
Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 15:32; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh meat is noticeable in the milk, which may be determined by
De’a 105:5, and in the comment of Rema). giving it to a gentile cook to taste. The Rema writes that the

122 Ĥullin . perek VII . 97a . ‫זצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫ ֲאמוּר ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ְ ּב ַט ֲע ָמא‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬The Gemara summarizes the guidelines that determine when an
Rava said – ‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬: As printed in the Vilna Talmud, this
,‫ וַ ֲאמוּר ַר ָ ּבנַן ְ ּב ַק ּ ֵפ ָילא‬item cooked with another item affects the status of the mixture. phrase would be rendered: As Rava said. But many manu-
Rava said:n The Sages said that there are cases where one relies on scripts omit the prefix dalet so that the phrase reads: Rava
a Jew tasting the food, and the Sages said that there are some cases said, thereby setting this statement apart from the previous
where one relies on a gentile cook to taste the food, discussion.

Perek VII
Daf 97 Amud b
halakha
‫ ִמין‬:‫ ִה ְל ָּכ ְך‬.‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬:‫ וַ ֲאמ ּור ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬and the Sages said that there are cases where the mixture is permit-
A type mixed with food not of its own type…when
ֵּ ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמינֹו דְּ ֶה‬ted if there is sixty times as much permitted food as forbidden food.
,‫ית ָרא – ְ ּב ַט ֲע ָמא‬ potentially forbidden – ‫יסו ָּרא‬ ּ ‫מין ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמינֹו…דְּ ִא‬:ִ In the
Therefore, in a case where the mixture is a type of food mixed with
.‫דְּ ִא ּיסו ָּרא – ְ ּב ַק ּ ֵפ ָילא‬ case where forbidden food becomes mixed with permit-
food not of its own type, so that there is a difference in taste between ted food of a different type, such as forbidden fat that was
the two components, when there are Jews for whom the mixture is mixed with meat, the mixture should be tasted by a gentile.
permitted, one relies on a Jew tasting the mixture. This is the hal- If the gentile says that there is no taste of forbidden fat in
akha when teruma is cooked with non-sacred food. When the mix- the mixture or if he says that he tastes fat but it is tainted,
ture is potentially forbidden,h e.g., in the case of meat cooked with the food is permitted. This applies only if the taste will not
improve over time. In addition, this gentile must not know
milk, one relies on a gentile cookn to taste it.
that he is being relied upon and that his answer is important.
If there is no gentile who can taste it, the forbidden fat is
,‫יכא ְל ֵמ ָיקם ַא ַּט ֲע ָמא‬ ָּ ‫ ו ִּמין ְ ּב ִמינֹו דְּ ֵל‬And if the mixture is composed of a type of food mixed with food
nullified if there is a ratio of at least sixty to one of permitted
ּ ‫ ִאי נַ ִמי ִמין ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמינֹו דְּ ִא‬of its own type, where one cannot ascertain whether the forbidden
‫יסו ָּרא‬ food to forbidden food. The Rema writes that nowadays the
component has imparted flavor; or if it is composed of a type of
.‫יכא ַק ּ ֵפ ָילא – ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬ ָּ ‫דְּ ֵל‬ custom is not to rely on a gentile but to always nullify using
food mixed with food not of its own type when the mixture may the measurement of sixty (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
be forbidden and it is a case where there is no gentile cook available Ma’akhalot Assurot 15:30; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 98:1, and
to taste it, the mixture is permitted if there is sixty times as much in the comment of Rema, and see Shakh).
permitted food as forbidden food. Salted food is like a boiling hot food – ‫רֹות ַח‬
ֵ ‫מ ִל ַיח ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ‬‎ָ :
A food so salty that it cannot be eaten is considered to have
‫ימ ִליח ּו ֵ ּבי ֵר ׁיש‬
ְ ‫ָהנְ ה ּו ַא ְט ְמ ָה ָתא דְּ ִא‬ § The Gemara (96b) cited Shmuel’s opinion with regard to the thigh the same status as boiling hot food and imparts flavor that
,‫ ָר ִבינָ א – ֲא ַסר‬,‫נַשיָ א‬ ְ ׁ ‫ָ ּגלו ָּתא ְ ּבגִ ָידא‬ of an animal that was roasted or cooked with the sciatic nerve still can render other foods forbidden. The Shulĥan Arukh details
inside. The Gemara relates the following incident: There were those the extent to which this food can render other foods forbid-
‫ ָאת ּו‬.‫ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ den, and the proportion in which it is nullified in such a
animal thighs that were salted in the home of the Exilarch with
:ּ‫ ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬,‫ׁ ַשיְ ילו ּּה ְל ָמר ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ the sciatic nerve still inside; Ravina ruled that they were forbidden, mixture (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot
.‫ַא ָ ּבא ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ 9:18; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 105:9).
whereas Rav Aĥa bar Rav Ashi ruled that they were permitted.
They came and asked Mar bar Rav Ashi to render a decision. He Marinated is like a cooked food item – ‫ָּכבו ּׁש ֲה ֵרי הוּא‬
said to them: My father permitted the meat in such circumstances. ‫כ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬:ִּ Food that has soaked for twenty-four hours in a
cold liquid is considered to be marinated and has the same
,‫יה ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ַרב ְל ָר ִבינָ א‬ status as if it had been cooked. Therefore, if forbidden food
ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Aĥa bar Rav said to Ravina: What is your reasoning in pro-
is soaked with permitted food for twenty-four hours every-
‫ ָמ ִל ַיח‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫יך‬
ְ ‫ַמאי דַּ ְע ֵּת‬ hibiting the meat? Is it because of what Shmuel said: A salted food
thing becomes forbidden. If it is soaked for less than twenty-
item is considered like a boiling hoth food item, and a food item
‫ ָּכבו ּׁש – ֲה ֵרי הוּא‬,‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ‬ four hours it is sufficient to simply rinse the permitted food
marinated in vinegar, brine, or the like is considered like a cooked (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 15:34
?‫ִּכ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬ food item?hn Perhaps based on this statement of Shmuel you con- and Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 15:9–10; Shulĥan Arukh,
sider the salted thighs as though they have been cooked with their Yoreh De’a 105:1).
sciatic nerves, in which case they are forbidden.

notes
On a gentile cook – ‫ב ַק ּ ֵפ ָילא‬:ּ ְ There is a dispute among the early write that nowadays the custom is never to rely on a gentile
commentaries as to the reason the testimony of a gentile cook for these issues, but to assess everything by measuring sixty
is deemed credible. Some say that in general a gentile is not times the volume of the forbidden item (Rema on Shulĥan
deemed credible because he may have an ulterior motive, but Arukh, Yoreh De’a 98:1).
that applies only where he knows that he is being relied upon.
If he does not realize the importance of his words and speaks Marinated is like a cooked food item – ‫כבו ּׁש ֲה ֵרי הוּא ִּכ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬:ָּ
offhandedly he is deemed credible (Rashi). Others suggest that Rashi defines the word marinated as being soaked in vinegar.
since he is a cook, he does not want to risk his reputation by This is ostensibly difficult, as the Gemara elsewhere (Pesaĥim
giving false information about the flavor of food. Therefore 44b) refers to meat that was marinated in milk, indicating that
even if he knows that he is being relied upon he is deemed the term marinated does not necessarily mean soaked in vin-
credible (Ran). Some say that both of these opinions are correct, egar. The Ĥatam Sofer explains that milk sours and becomes like
and accept the evidence of either a gentile cook, or a regular vinegar after twenty-four hours of meat being soaked in it.
gentile speaking offhandedly (Beit Yosef ). The later authorities

 ‫זצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 97b 123

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו – ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל‬:‫ וְ ָה ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬But didn’t Shmuel also say (96b): They taught that the thigh is
Onion – ‫בצָ ל‬:ּ ָ The onion, Allium cepa, is a biennial
root crop from the genus Allium, which also contains ‫אֹוכל ַעד ׁ ֶש ַּמ ִ ּג ַיע‬ֵ ְ‫קֹולף ו‬ ֵ – ‫ ֲא ָבל נִצְ ָלה ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ ָ ּב ּה‬entirely forbidden only when it was cooked with the sciatic nerve
inside it. But if the sciatic nerve was roasted inside the thigh, one
garlic, shallots, and chives, and in fact onions and !‫ַל ִ ּגיד‬
garlic are often mentioned together (e.g., Numbers may peel away the meat and eat it until he reaches the sciatic nerve,
11:5). The modern plant typically grows to a height and then he removes the nerve.
of 15 to 45 cm. Onions were inexpensive and widely
eaten in the talmudic era and were used for flavoring ‫רֹות ַח‬
ֵ ‫רֹות ַח״ דְּ ָק ָא ַמר – ְּכ‬
ֵ ‫״כ‬ ְּ ‫ ַמאי‬,‫ימא‬ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ And if you would say: What is the meaning of the phrase: Like a
due to their strong taste. ‫״כבו ּׁש ֲה ֵרי הוּא‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ָהא ִמדְּ ָק ָא ַמר‬,‫דִּ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬ boiling hot food item, that Shmuel said? It is like boiling hot food
that was cooked rather than hot food that was roasted, and therefore
ֵ ְּ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל ד‬,‫ִּכ ְמ ב ּו ׁ ּ ָשל״‬
!‫רֹות ַח דִּ צְ ִלי ָק ָא ַמר‬
if the thigh was salted with its sciatic nerve the entire thigh becomes
.‫ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ forbidden. This is not a convincing claim, because from the fact that
Shmuel said: A food item marinated in vinegar, brine, or the like
is considered like a cooked food item, it may be understood by
inference that when he said that salted food is like boiling hot food
he was saying that it is like boiling hot food that is roasted. The
Gemara concludes: This poses a difficulty to the opinion of Ravina.

‫ ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרין‬,‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרין‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ § The Gemara elaborates on the statement that if permitted and
‫ ִא ָּיכא‬.‫ ו ִּב ְק ֵד ָרה‬,‫ ו ַּב ֲח ִתיכֹות‬,‫ ו ְּב ִק ָיפה‬,‫רֹוטב‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּב‬ forbidden foods are cooked together and there is sixty times as
much permitted food as forbidden food, the mixture is permitted.
:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ ִ ּב ְק ֵד ָרה ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬:‫דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬
Rabbi Ĥanina says: When they assess whether or not there is
.‫ְ ּב ַמאי דְּ ָב ְל ָעה ְק ֵד ָרה‬ sixty times as much permitted food, they assess the volume of the
broth,h the deposits [kifa],l the pieces of permitted food cooked
in the pot, and the pot itself. The Gemara explains this last point:
There are those who say this means that one includes the volume
of the material of the pot itself, and there are those who say it
means that one includes the volume of that which the pot has
absorbed from the permitted food. When meat cooks its volume
Roots, leaves, and bulbs of the onion plant decreases, and some of the meat that constitutes that discrepancy is
Pepper – ‫פ ְל ּ ְפ ִלין‬:ִ ּ When pepper is mentioned by the absorbed into the sides of the pot.
Sages it refers to Piper nigrum, black pepper. The pep-
per plant is a climber that reaches a height between ‫ ָּכל ִא ּיסו ִּרין‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara continues its discussion of nullification. Rabbi Abbahu
5 and 7 m, although it is similar to the grapevine in .‫ ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרינַן ְּכ ִאילּ ּו ֵהן ָ ּבצָ ל וְ ַק ְפלֹוט‬says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: With regard to all forbidden foods
that it spreads its leaves on the ground when there that are prohibited in the Torah, if they are cooked with permitted
is no opportunity for it to climb. At the ends of the food and one cannot tell whether they have imparted flavor to the
branches, white blossoms grow, and from these
blossoms, fruits the shape and size of a pea sprout
permitted food, we assess the mixture as though the forbidden food
grow and then ripen and turn red. The fruits were were onionb or leek [kaflot].l If that amount of onions or leeks
used primarily for spices after being ground up in a would impart flavor to the permitted food, one must assume that
metal mill uniquely suited for this purpose. the mixture is forbidden.
The pepper is native to southern India. Appar-
ently, in the talmudic era this plant was grown in ‫ ו ְּל ׁ ַש ֲע ִרינְ ה ּו‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rabbi Abba said to Abaye: But let one assess the mixture as though
select locations in Eretz Yisrael as well. !‫ דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְ ּב ֶא ֶלף ל ֹא ְ ּב ֵט ִלין‬,‫ְ ּב ִפ ְל ּ ְפ ִלין וְ ַת ְב ִלין‬ the forbidden food were pepperb or other spices, which are even
more pungent, in which case they would not be nullified even if
‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫יער ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים דְּ ֵאין‬ ֲ ‫ ׁ ִש‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
they were mixed with a thousand times as much permitted food.
.‫יֹותר ִמ ָ ּבצָ ל וְ ַק ְפלֹוט‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּב ִא ּיסו ִּרין‬ Abaye said to him: The Sages ascertained that with regard to
forbidden foods, there is nothing that imparts more flavor to a
mixture than onion and leek.

halakha
When they assess they assess the broth, etc. – ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֵהן ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרין‬ a type of food mixed with a food of its own type. But if it is a type of
‫רֹוטב וכו׳‬
ֶ ‫מ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרין ְ ּב‬:ְ When assessing the ratio of any potentially for- food mixed with a food not of its own type, one assesses the ratio
bidden mixture, whether it is nullified in sixty times its volume or based on the current amount of food, and does not include any
one hundred times its volume, one includes within the volume of amount that might have been in the sides of the pot. This ruling is
the permitted food the broth, spices, and everything else in the in accordance with the second version of the Gemara’s explanation
pot. In addition one includes food that the pot has absorbed, an of the statement of Rabbi Ĥanina (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
Branch of the pepper tree amount one must estimate, since it is impossible to know exactly Ma’akhalot Assurot 15:24; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 99:4).
how much the pot has absorbed. This applies specifically when it is

language
Deposits [kifa] – ‫ק ָיפה‬:ִ Although this word is found in multiple Leek [kaflot] – ‫ק ְפלֹוט‬:ַ From the Greek κεφαλωτόν, kefaloton, liter-
forms, it appears that the root of the word is kafa, referring to that ally meaning head, a description assigned to several plants and
part of the dish crusted on the sides of the pot [kufa]. This contains animals. The Sages use the term primarily in reference to leeks,
small parts of cooked food and fat, and is in contrast to the broth, which have a thick and prominent head.
which is liquid. Even when the deposit is liquid, it is viscous and
hardens quickly.

124 Ĥullin . perek VII . 97b . ‫זצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ִ ּגיד ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים – וְ ֵאין ִ ּגיד ִמן‬:‫ § ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬The Gemara continues to discuss the nullification of forbidden notes
An udder in sixty times – ‫כ ָחל ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬:ְּ The meat of an
‫ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬.‫ ְּכ ָחל ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים – ו ְּכ ָחל ִמן ַה ִּמנְיָ ן‬.‫ ַה ִּמנְיָ ן‬foods. Rav Naĥman says: A sciatic nerve that was cooked with udder is permitted to be eaten. Although there is milk
kosher food is nullified if the mixture contains permitted food that
.‫ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים – וְ ֵאין ֵ ּביצָ ה ִמן ַה ִּמנְיָ ן‬ within it, that milk does not render it forbidden. Milk
is sixty times the nerve’s volume, and the sciatic nerve itself is not inside an udder of a slaughtered animal is forbidden
counted in that number,h because it cannot nullify itself. If an udder, to be eaten with meat only by rabbinic law, and the
which is meat but also contains milk, is cooked with other meat, the Sages prohibited only other meat that was cooked
milk is nullified if the meat is sixty timesn its volume, and the udder with the milk of an udder, not the meat of the udder
itself is countedh with the rest of the meat. If the egg of a non-kosher itself. If one cooks an udder with other meat, the milk
bird is cooked with kosher food, it is nullified if the permitted food from the udder renders the other meat in the pot
forbidden. The udder itself is included in the sixty
is sixty times its volume, and the egg itself is not countedh in that times measurement of meat necessary to nullify the
number, as it cannot nullify itself. taste of the milk (Ran).

‫ ו ְּכ ָחל‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ְמ ׁ ָש ְר ׁ ִשּיָ א‬

ּ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ְ ּב ֵר‬Rabbi Yitzĥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, says: In the case of
– ‫ וְ ִאי נְ ַפל ִל ְק ֵד ָרה ַא ֶח ֶרת‬,‫ ַעצְ מֹו – ָאסוּר‬an udder cooked with meat, even if the meat is sixty times the vol-
ume of the milk, so that the meat is permitted, the udder itself is
.‫אֹוסר‬
ֵ
forbidden,h because the meat imparts flavor to the milk contained
within the udder, which then renders the udder forbidden. And
if the udder subsequently falls into another pot, it also renders
the contents of that pot forbidden unless they are sixty times the
volume of the udder.

‫יב ֲעיָא‬
ּ ַ ‫ ִּכי ָהוֵ ינַן ֵ ּבי ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ִא‬,‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬Rav Ashi said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana, a
‫ אֹו‬,‫יה ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרינַ ן‬ ּ ‫ ִּכי ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרינַ ן – ְ ּב ִד ֵיד‬:‫ ָלן‬dilemma was raised before us: When we assess whether the con-
tents of the pot are sufficient to nullify the udder, do we assess
?‫ֵיה ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרינַן‬
ּ ‫ְ ּב ַמאי דִּ נְ ַפק ִמ ּינ‬
whether the pot contains sixty times as much permitted food as the
entire volume of the meat of the udder itself, or do we assess only
that milk which came out from the udder, since the udder itself has
been removed from the mixture?

‫ דְּ ִאי ְ ּב ַמה‬,‫יה ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרינַ ן‬

ּ ‫יטא ִד ְב ִד ֵיד‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬The Gemara responds: It is obvious that we assess the entire vol-
,‫ ְמנָ א יָ ְד ִעינַ ן? ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬,‫ֵיה‬ ּ ‫ דִּ נְ ַפק ִמ ּינ‬ume of the meat of the udder itself, as if we were to attempt to assess
only that which came out of it, how would we know how much
!‫נָ ַפל ִל ְק ֵד ָרה ַא ֶח ֶרת ל ֹא יֵ ָא ֵסר‬
came out? The Gemara objects: If that is so, then if the udder falls
into another pot, it should not render the food in that second pot
forbidden, because it has been assumed that all the milk in the
udder has been released into the first pot.

:‫יה דְּ ַרב ְמ ׁ ָש ְר ׁ ִשּיָ א‬

ּ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ְ ּב ֵר‬The Gemara explains: Since Rav Yitzĥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya,
ָ ‫ ׁ ָשוְ יו ּּה ַר ָ ּבנַן ַּכ ֲח ִת‬,‫ ו ְּכ ָחל ַעצְ מֹו – ָאסוּר‬says that even if there is sixty times as much meat in the pot as there
‫יכה‬
is milk in the udder, the udder itself is forbidden, clearly the Sages
.‫דִּ נְ ֵב ָלה‬
equated the udder with a piece of non-kosher meat. Consequently,
the reason the udder renders the contents of the second pot forbid-
den is that the udder is intrinsically forbidden, not because of the
milk that is released into the pot while it is being cooked.

halakha
The sciatic nerve is not counted in that number – ‫ֵאין ִ ּגיד ִמן‬ eaten after the fact. If it was cooked with other meat, it is nullified
‫ה ִּמנְיָ ן‬:ַ The sciatic nerve does not have flavor, and therefore does if there is sixty times as much meat, and the udder itself is included
not render other foods prohibited. By contrast, the forbidden fat within the sixty. The udder itself, though, is forbidden. Otherwise,
surrounding the sciatic nerve does have flavor, and is nullified only the entire mixture is forbidden (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
if there is sixty times as much permitted food. If the sciatic nerve Ma’akhalot Assurot 15:18; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 90:1).
was not removed from the thigh and the entire thigh was cooked,
the halakha is as follows: If there is sixty times as much permitted The egg itself is not counted – ‫אין ֵ ּביצָ ה ִמן ַה ִּמנְיָ ן‬:
ֵ An egg that
meat as forbidden fat and one identifies the sciatic nerve, the contains blood or a chick inside renders anything cooked with it
nerve must be removed, and the remainder is permitted. If he forbidden even though the egg has a shell. Therefore, if the egg
cannot identify the sciatic nerve, all the pieces of meat are forbid- was cooked with other eggs, it is nullified only if it is cooked with
den, but the broth is permitted. If the sciatic nerve has dissolved sixty-one other eggs (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
completely, the entire mixture is permitted if there is sixty times as Assurot 15:19; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 86:5).
much permitted meat as the nerve and the forbidden fat together
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 15:17; Shulĥan The udder itself is forbidden – ‫ו ְּכ ָחל ַעצְ מֹו ָאסוּר‬: An udder that was
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 100:2). cooked without its milk having been removed becomes a piece
of non-kosher meat. Its bulk is estimated as it is after it is cooked
The udder itself is counted – ‫כ ָחל ִמן ַה ִּמנְיָ ן‬:ְ It is forbidden to cook and not as it was when it fell into the pot (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
an udder that was not torn open to remove the milk, whether it Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 90:1).
is an udder of a young cow who has never nursed, or of an adult
cow. If one cooked or roasted it on its own it is permitted to be

 ‫זצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 97b 125

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ֵ ּביצָ ה ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים וְ ֵאין ֵ ּביצָ ה ִמן ַה ִּמנְיָ ן‬

‫יה‬ § The Gemara addresses Rav Naĥman’s statement that if the egg of
‫יה ָב ּה‬
ָ ִּ‫ימ ָרא ד‬ ְ ‫ ְל ֵמ‬:‫ַרב ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ a non-kosher bird is cooked with kosher food, it is nullified if the
permitted food is sixty times its volume, and the egg itself is not
‫יעי‬ֵ ‫ינָשי ִּכי ַמּיָ א דְּ ֵב‬
ֵ ׁ ‫ַט ֲע ָמא? וְ ָהא ָא ְמ ִרי ֱא‬
counted in that number, as it cannot nullify itself. Rav Idi bar Avin
!‫ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬ said to Abaye: Is this to say that the forbidden egg imparts flavor
to the food with which it is cooked? But isn’t it true that when
people want to indicate that food is tasteless, they say: This is like
mere egg-water? This indicates that an egg does not impart flavor.

‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן‬:‫יה‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Abaye said to him: Here we are dealing with

Perek VII
Daf 98 Amud a

.‫ ֲא ָבל ְט ֵמ ָאה – ל ֹא‬,‫רֹוח‬

ַ ‫ ְ ּב ֵביצַ ת ֶא ְפ‬an egg that contains a chick, as the chick imparts flavor to the food
in which the egg is cooked. But with regard to an egg that does not
contain a chick but is from a non-kosher bird, it does not impart
flavor to the food with which it is cooked.

‫ ֵ ּביצִ ים ְטהֹורֹות ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָל ָקן ִעם ֵ ּביצִ ים‬:‫יה‬

ּ ‫ֵא ִית ֵיב‬ Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection to this answer based on a
‫נֹותן ַט ַעם – ּכו ָּּלן‬ ֵ ‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ְ ּב‬,‫ְט ֵמאֹות‬ baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 9:5): With regard to kosher eggs that one
boiled with non-kosher eggs, if they have a ratio that allows the
‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי‬.‫רֹוח‬
ַ ‫ֲאסוּרֹות! ָה ָכא נַ ִמי – ְ ּב ֵביצַ ת ֶא ְפ‬
non-kosher eggs to impart flavor to the kosher eggs, they are all
‫רֹוח ָק ֵרי‬
ַ ‫״ט ֵמ ָאה״? ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִאית ָ ּב ּה ֶא ְפ‬ְ ‫ָק ֵרי ָל ּה‬ forbidden. This indicates that eggs from non-kosher birds do have
.‫״ט ֵמ ָאה״‬
ְ ‫ָל ּה‬ flavor. Abaye answered: Here, too it is referring to an egg from a
kosher bird that contains a chick. And why does the baraita call this
a non-kosher egg, indicating that it is an egg from a non-kosher
species? Since it has a chick inside, which causes the egg to be
forbidden, the baraita calls it non-kosher.

‫ ֵ ּביצִ ים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָל ָקן וְ נִ ְמצָ א‬:‫וְ ָהא ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס ָיפא‬ The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches:
‫נֹותן‬
ֵ ‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ְ ּב‬,‫רֹוח ְ ּב ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן‬ ַ ‫ֶא ְפ‬ With regard to eggs that one boiled and a chick was found in one
of them, if they have a ratio that allows the chick to impart flavor
‫ דְּ ֵלית‬,‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ֵר‬,‫ַט ַעם – ּכו ָּּלן ֲאסוּרֹות‬
to them, they are all forbidden, it may be inferred that in the first
!‫רֹוח ָע ְס ִקינַן‬
ַ ‫ָ ּב ּה ֶא ְפ‬ clause we are dealing with an egg that does not have a chick inside.

‫ ֵ ּביצִ ים ְטהֹורֹות ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָל ָקן‬,‫ּ ֵפירו ׁ ֵּשי ָקא ְמ ָפ ֵר ׁש‬ The Gemara explains that this is an incorrect inference, as the latter
– ‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫ ִאם ׁיֵש ָ ּב ֶהן ְ ּב‬,‫ִעם ֵ ּביצִ ים ְט ֵמאֹות‬ clause is explaining the first clause, so that the baraita should be read
as follows: With regard to kosher eggs that one boiled with non-
‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָל ָקן וְ נִ ְמצָ א‬,‫ ֵּכיצַ ד‬,‫ּכו ָּּלן ֲאסוּרֹות‬
kosher eggs, if they have a ratio that allows the non-kosher eggs to
.‫רֹוח ְ ּב ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן‬
ַ ‫ֶא ְפ‬ impart flavor to the kosher eggs, they are all forbidden. How so?
It can be referring to a case where one boiled them and a chick was
found in one of them.

‫ישא‬
ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬: ְ‫ דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתך‬,‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬The Gemara adds: So too it is reasonable to explain the baraita in
– ‫רֹוח‬
ַ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ֵלית ָ ּב ּה ֶא ְפ‬,‫רֹוח‬ַ ‫ דְּ ֵלית ָ ּב ּה ֶא ְפ‬this manner, as if it would enter your mind to say that the first
clause is referring to a case where there is no chick in the egg, the
!‫יב ֲעיָ א‬ּ ָ ‫רֹוח ִמ‬
ַ ‫ דְּ ִאית ָ ּב ּה ֶא ְפ‬,‫ֲאסו ָּרה‬
latter clause is redundant: Now that the tanna has taught that in a
case where there is no chick inside, the non-kosher egg imparts
flavor to the kosher eggs and renders them forbidden, is it necessary
for the tanna to teach that an egg that has a chick inside imparts
flavor to the kosher eggs?

‫ ָּתנָ א ֵס ָיפא ְלגַ לּ וּיֵ י‬,‫ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָהא – ָלא ִא ְיריָא‬ The Gemara rejects this argument: If it is due to that reason, there
‫ישא – דְּ ִאית ָ ּב ּה‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬:‫ֹאמר‬ַ ‫ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ּת‬,‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֵר‬ is no conclusive argument, i.e., the proof of the argument is incon-
clusive. The reason is that one can say that the tanna taught the latter
‫ ָּתנָ א‬,‫רֹוח – ׁ ָש ְריָ א‬ ַ ‫ ֲא ָבל ֵלית ָ ּב ּה ֶא ְפ‬,‫רֹוח‬ַ ‫ֶא ְפ‬
clause to reveal the meaning of the first clause. The latter clause was
– ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ֵר‬,‫רֹוח‬ַ ‫יפא דְּ ִאית ָ ּב ּה ֶא ְפ‬ ָ ‫ֵס‬ stated so that you would not mistakenly say that the first clause is
.‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָה ִכי ֲא ִס ָירא‬,‫רֹוח‬
ַ ‫דְּ ֵלית ָ ּב ּה ֶא ְפ‬ referring only to a case where the egg has a chick inside, but if there
is no chick inside the kosher eggs would be permitted. Therefore,
the tanna teaches the latter clause and specifies that it is referring
to an egg that has a chick inside. By inference the first clause is
referring to a case of an egg that does not have a chick inside, and
even so it renders all of the other eggs forbidden.
126 Ĥullin . perek VII . 98a . ‫חצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫יתא ַּת ְר ָ ּבא דִּ נְ ַפל ְ ּב ִדיקו ָּלא‬ ָ ֵ‫ַההוּא ְּכז‬ § The Gemara continues discussing the nullification of forbidden notes

foods. There was once a certain olive-bulk of forbidden fat that Into a pot [dikula] – ‫ב ִדיקו ָּלא‬:ּ ְ Some explain that dikula
‫יה ְ ּב ַמאי‬ּ ‫ ְס ַבר ַרב ַא ִסי ְל ׁ ַשעו ֵּר‬,‫דְּ ִב ְ ׂש ָרא‬ refers to a pot (Rashi). Others explain that it is referring
fell into a potn of kosher meat. Rav Asi thought to measuren
:‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬
ּ ‫ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬.‫דְּ ָב ַלע דִּ יקו ָּלא‬ to a basket in which meat is salted. According to the lat-
the volume of the kosher meat together with that which the pot ter explanation, in this case the meat was salted with its
?‫ דְּ ִא ּיסו ָּרא ָלא ָ ּב ַלע‬,‫ַא ּט ּו דְּ ֶה ֵּית ָרא ָ ּב ַלע‬ had absorbed. The Rabbis said to Rav Ashi: Is that to say that forbidden fat, and the Gemara is in accordance with the
the pot absorbed the permitted meat but did not absorb the opinion that such meat is forbidden unless there is sixty
forbidden fat? times the volume because the fat permeates throughout
the meat (Ran). Others explain that it is referring to a bas-
‫יתא דְּ ַת ְר ָ ּבא דִּ נְ ַפל‬ ָ ֵ‫ַהה ּוא ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא דְּ ז‬ The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was once a certain ket containing hot meat, and the fat spreads from one
half-olive-bulk of forbidden fath that fell into a pot of kosher piece of meat to another even without broth connecting
‫ ְס ַבר ָמר ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬,‫ְ ּב ִדיקו ָּלא דְּ ִב ְ ׂש ָרא‬
meat. Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to measure the amount of them (Tosafot on 100a).
‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יתא‬ ָ ֵ‫יה ִ ּב ְת ָל ִתין ּ ַפ ְלגֵ י דְּ ז‬ּ ‫ְל ׁ ַשעו ֵּר‬
kosher meat needed to nullify the forbidden fat as thirty half- Rav Asi thought to measure – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ס ַבר ַרב ַא ִסי ְל ׁ ַשעו ֵּר‬:ְ
‫ ָלאו ָא ִמינָ א ָל ְך ָלא ְּתזַ ְלזֵ ל‬:‫יה ֲאבו ּּה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ olive-bulks, rather than sixty. His father, Rav Ashi, said to him: The text of this line is emended in Masoret HaShas to read:
:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ָה ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ְ ּב ׁ ִשיעו ִּרין דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן? וְ עֹוד‬ Have I not told you: Do not treat measures lightly even with Rav Ashi, instead of Rav Asi. This is consistent with the
continuation of the paragraph.
.‫ֲחצִ י ׁ ִשיעוּר ָאסוּר ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬ regard to rabbinic prohibitions? And furthermore, didn’t Rabbi
Yoĥanan say: A half-measure is prohibited by Torah law?h Con- An egg with sixty, that is forbidden; sixty-one, that is
sequently, the half-olive-bulk of forbidden fat is nullified only in permitted – ‫ֵ ּביצָ ה ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים וְ ִהיא ֲאסו ָּרה ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים וְ ַא ַחת וְ ִהיא‬
sixty times its volume of permitted meat. ‫מו ֶּּת ֶרת‬: The Sages were more stringent with eggs than
with other prohibited foods because eggs come in differ-
‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִא ִידי‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ § The Gemara continues its discussion of nullifying forbidden ent sizes, and one could easily err when measuring sixty
times the volume. Others write that the reason for the
,‫ ָא ַמר ֵלוִ י ַ ּבר ּ ְפ ָר ָטא‬,‫ַ ּבר ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ֵ ּג ְר ׁשֹם‬ foods. Rav Shemen bar Abba says that Rav Idi bar Idi bar Ger- added stringency is because an egg has the status of an
shom says that Levi bar Perata says that Rabbi Naĥum says that
‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִ ּב ְיריָ ים ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי נַ חוּם‬ entity, and therefore the Sages were stringent to require
Rabbi Biryamp says in the name of a certain elder, and his name an extra one (Rambam).
‫יאה‬ ָ ‫נְש‬ׂ ִ ‫ דְּ ֵבי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫זָ ֵקן ֶא ָחד וְ ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב ׁ ְש ֵמ‬ was Rabbi Ya’akov, that the Sages in the house of the Nasi said:
‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים – ֲאסו ָּרה‬,‫ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬:ּ‫ָא ְמרו‬ If a non-kosher egg is mixed with kosher eggs, if there are sixty Personalities
.‫וְ ַא ַחת – מו ֶּּת ֶרת‬ eggs they are all forbidden, but if there are sixty-one eggs they are Rabbi Biryam – ‫ר ִ ּבי ִ ּב ְיריָ ים‬:ַ Rabbi Biryam was a third-
all permitted. generation amora from Eretz Yisrael. There are differ-
ent versions of his name: Biryas, Biryam, and Birayim. It
‫ ְר ֵאה‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ְל ַרב ׁ ֶש ֶמן ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: See, one can infer appears that it is a Greek name, perhaps connected to the
‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי ׁ ְשנֵי‬,‫יתר‬ ֵּ ‫ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה ַמ ִּטיל ָ ּב ּה ְ ּגבוּל ֶה‬ from your words that you fix a limit to permit the eggs if there is word for the north wind, Βορέας, Boreas. He cites state-
a total of sixty-one eggs, including the non-kosher egg. This is a ments of amora’im who preceded him and occasionally
‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫דֹולי ַהדּ ֹור ל ֹא ּ ֵפ ְיר ׁש ּו ֶאת ַהדָּ ָבר‬ ֵ ְ‫ג‬ cites the later tanna’im as well.
revelation, because the two most eminent Sages of the genera-
,‫יַ ֲעקֹב ַ ּבר ִא ִידי וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ְח ָמנִי‬ tion did not clarify this matter. These two eminent Sages were
‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ּ ‫ַּת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬
ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naĥmani, and both
‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים – ֲאסו ָּרה‬,‫ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬:‫ָא ְמ ִרי‬ of them said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: In a case
.‫וְ ַא ַחת – מו ֶּּת ֶרת‬ where a non-kosher egg is mixed with kosher eggs, if there are
sixty eggs they are all forbidden, but if there are sixty-one eggs
they are all permitted.

‫ ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים וְ ַא ַחת‬:ּ‫יב ְעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ וְ ִא‬And a dilemma was raised before these Sages: When Rabbi
,‫ אֹו דִּ ְיל ָמא ְל ַבר ִמ ָּינ ּה? וְ ָלא ּ ָפ ׁ ֵשיט‬,‫ דִּ ָיד ּה‬Yehoshua ben Levi said they are permitted if there are sixty-one
eggs, does that mean there are sixty-one eggs altogether, with the
!‫ו ָּמר ּ ָפ ׁ ֵשיט ָל ּה ִמ ְפ ׁ ַשט‬
non-kosher egg, or does it perhaps mean that there must be sixty-
one kosher eggs aside from the non-kosher egg? And they did not
resolve this dilemma. And yet, it appears as though the Master,
Rav Shemen, has resolved the dilemma, because you implied that
the mixture is kosher if there are a total of sixty-one eggs including
the non-kosher egg.

:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶח ְל ּבֹו‬,‫ ִא ְּת ַמר‬The Gemara continues: It was stated that Rabbi Ĥelbo says that
‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים וְ ִהיא – ֲאסו ָּרה‬,‫ ֵ ּביצָ ה‬Rav Huna says: If a non-kosher egg becomes mixed with kosher
eggs, if there are sixty kosher eggs in addition to that non-kosher
.‫וְ ַא ַחת וְ ִהיא – מו ֶּּת ֶרת‬
egg,h the entire mixture is forbidden. But if there are sixty-one
kosher eggs in addition to that one non-kosher egg, the mixture
is permitted.n

halakha
Half-olive-bulk of forbidden fat – ‫פ ְל ָ ּגא דְּ זֵ ָיתא דְּ ַת ְר ָ ּבא‬:ַ ּ If a half- amount he is liable to receive lashes for rebelliousness (Rambam
olive-bulk of non-kosher food fell into a pot of kosher food, there Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 14:2, and see Rambam
must be a volume of sixty half-olive-bulks, i.e., thirty olive-bulks, Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shevitat Asor 2:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
of kosher food to nullify it. The reason is that a half-measure is De’a 98:6).
prohibited by Torah law. Nevertheless one does not receive lashes
for eating a half-measure (Shakh). This ruling is in accordance An egg with sixty in addition to that egg – ‫ביצָ ה ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים וְ ִהיא‬:ּ ֵ
with the opinion of Rav Ashi (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 98:6). An egg that contains a chick or a drop of blood renders the
entire contents of the pot forbidden, even if the egg is still in
A half-measure is prohibited by Torah law – ‫ֲחצִ י ׁ ִשיעוּר ָאסוּר‬ its shell. Therefore if the egg was cooked with other eggs, there
‫מן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬:ִ Although the Torah prohibits the consumption of any must be sixty-one other eggs in the pot to nullify it (Rambam
amount of forbidden food, one does not receive lashes unless he Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 15:19; Shulĥan Arukh,
consumes at least one olive-bulk. If he consumes less than this Yoreh De’a 86:5).

 ‫חצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 98a 127

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

ּ ‫ § ַההוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬There was a certain person who came before Rabban Gamliel
ֵ ‫יה דְּ ַר ָ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬
,‫יאל ַ ּבר ַר ִ ּבי‬
,‫יער ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים וְ ׁ ֶש ַבע‬ ֵ ‫ ַא ָ ּבא ל ֹא ׁ ִש‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with a half-olive-bulk of non-kosher food
that had been mixed with a larger amount of kosher food. Rabban
.‫וַ ֲאנִי ֲא ׁ ַש ֵער ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים וְ ָח ֵמ ׁש‬
Gamliel said to him: A similar case came before my father, and even
though he did not measuren the kosher food as being sixty times
the volume of the non-kosher food, he nevertheless permitted the
mixture due to the fact that there was forty-seven times as much
kosher food as non-kosher food. And similarly, I will permit the
mixture because I measure that the kosher food is forty-five times
the volume of the non-kosher food.

,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַ ּבר ַר ִ ּבי‬

ּ ‫ ַההוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬Similarly there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Shi-
,‫יער ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים וְ ָח ֵמ ׁש‬
ֵ ‫ ַא ָ ּבא ל ֹא ׁ ִש‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬mon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with a mixture of kosher and non-
kosher food. Rabbi Shimon said to him: A similar case came before
.‫וַ ֲאנִי ֲא ׁ ַש ֵער ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים וְ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬
my father, and even though he did not measure the kosher food as
being sixty times the volume of the non-kosher food, he neverthe-
less permitted the mixture due to the fact that there was forty-five
times as much kosher food as non-kosher food. And similarly, I
will permit the mixture because I measure that the kosher food is
forty-three times the volume of the non-kosher food.

:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬
ּ ‫ ַההוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Ĥiyya with a
?‫ ְּכלוּם יֵ ׁש ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים‬mixture of kosher and non-kosher food. Rabbi Ĥiyya said to him:
Is there even thirty times the volume of permitted food as
forbidden food? Clearly, the mixture is forbidden.

‫יכא‬
ָּ ‫ ָהא ִא‬,‫יכא ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים‬ ָּ ‫ ַט ֲע ָמא – דְּ ֵל‬The Gemara seeks to clarify: This indicates that the reason that he
.‫ ּגוּזְ ָמא‬:‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים – ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרין! ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬prohibited the mixture is that there was not thirty times as much
kosher food as non-kosher food. But it may then be inferred that if
there is thirty times as much kosher food as non-kosher food, one
may assess, i.e., permit, the mixture. And this contradicts the hal-
akha that non-kosher food is nullified only in a mixture containing
sixty times as much kosher food as non-kosher food. Rabbi Ĥanina
said: Rabbi Ĥiyya did not make this statement to set a halakhic
principle, but merely as an exaggeration. There was not even thirty
times the volume of kosher food, so it was obvious that the mixture
was forbidden.

‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן‬
ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ § Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says
– ‫ ָּכל ִא ּיסו ִּרין ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬:‫ֵלוִ י ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַ ּבר ַק ּ ָפ ָרא‬ in the name of bar Kappara: All the forbidden foods in the Torah
are nullified when they are mixed with kosher food that is sixty
‫ ָא ַמר ְל ָפנָיו ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ַרב‬.‫ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬
times their volume. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzĥak said before
‫אֹומר ֵּכן? ָה ִכי ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ֵ ‫ ַא ָּתה‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יִ צְ ָחק‬ Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba: My teacher, you say this citing Rabbi
‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַ ּבר‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬,‫ַא ִסי‬ Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that bar Kappara said it. But this is
.‫ ָּכל ִא ּיסו ִּרין ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה – ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה‬:‫ַק ּ ָפ ָרא‬ what Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name
of bar Kappara: All the forbidden foods in the Torah are nullified
when they are mixed with kosher food that is one hundred times
their volume.

ַ ְ‫נֵיהם ל ֹא ְל ָמדו ָּה ֶא ָּלא ִמ״ז‬

,‫רֹוע ְ ּב ׁ ֵש ָלה״‬ ֶ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש‬The Gemara adds: And both of them learned their principles of
,‫ ״וְ ָל ַקח ַה ּכ ֵֹהן ֶאת ַהּזְ ר ַֹע ְ ּב ׁ ֵש ָלה״ וגו׳‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬nullification only from the term: “Cooked foreleg,” as it is written
with regard to the nazirite’s ram: “And the priest shall take the
,‫״ב ׁ ֵש ָלה״‬
ּ ְ :‫וְ ַתנְיָא‬
cooked foreleg of the ram” (Numbers 6:19). And it is taught in a
baraita: The verse states: “Cooked,”

notes
My father did not measure, etc. – ‫יער וכו׳‬ ֵ ‫א ָ ּבא ל ֹא ׁ ִש‬:ַ Rashi cites Rashi’s second explanation is that Rabban Gamliel was speak-
two explanations of this passage. His first explanation is that Rabbi ing rhetorically and saying: My father did not permit a mixture of
Yehuda HaNasi permitted the mixture even though the kosher food non-kosher food with forty-seven times its volume of kosher food;
was less than sixty times the volume of the non-kosher food due to shall I permit a mixture that contains only forty-five times as much
the fact that there was less than an olive-bulk of non-kosher food. kosher food as non-kosher food? According to this explanation,
Similarly, Rabban Gamliel permitted a mixture that contained less the case can be one in which there was a full olive-bulk of kosher
than an olive-bulk of non-kosher food that had been mixed with food. The Gemara’s next case involving Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi
forty-five times its volume of kosher food, even though the ratio of Yehuda HaNasi can also be interpreted according to both of these
kosher food to non-kosher food was slightly lower than the ratio in explanations.
the mixture that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had permitted.

128 Ĥullin . perek VII . 98a . ‫חצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VII
Daf 98 Amud b
halakha
‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫ימה‬ ָ ‫״ב ׁ ֵש ָלה״ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְש ֵל‬ּ ְ ‫ ֵאין‬and the term “cooked” indicates that the verse is referring only
We assess the ratio of meat and bones to meat and
‫״ב ׁ ֵש ָלה״ ֶא ָּלא‬ ּ ְ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוחאי‬ ַ ‫ ֶ ּבן‬to a foreleg that is whole. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai disagrees and bones – ‫ב ָ ׂשר וַ ֲעצָ מֹות ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וַ ֲעצָ מֹות ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרינַן‬:ּ ָ The Sages
says: The term “cooked” indicates that the verse is referring only
.‫ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָלה ִעם ָה ַאיִ ל‬ derive that forbidden food is nullified in sixty times its vol-
to a foreleg that is cooked with the entire ram. ume from the case of the foreleg of the nazirite’s ram, which
is one-sixtieth of the rest of the ram, as it is cooked with it
‫ ָמר‬,‫ ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ַאיִ ל ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָל ּה‬:‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא‬The Gemara clarifies their dispute: Everyone agrees that one in the same pot but does not render the rest of the ram
‫ ו ָּמר‬,‫ ְמ ַח ֵּת ְך ָל ּה וַ ֲה ַדר ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָל ּה‬:‫ ְס ַבר‬cooks the foreleg with the rest of the ram. But one Sage holds forbidden to a non-priest. This is based on the verse: “And
that one first cuts the foreleg off the animal and then cooks it the priest shall take the cooked foreleg of the ram, and one
.‫ ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָל ּה וַ ֲה ַדר ְמ ַח ֵּתךְ ָל ּה‬:‫ְס ַבר‬ cake of matza out of the basket, and one matza wafer, and
along with the rest of the animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon
shall put them upon the hands of the nazirite, after he has
bar Yoĥai, holds that one first cooks the entire ram and then cuts
shaved his consecrated head” (Numbers 6:19). This ruling is
off the foreleg. in accordance with the Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba’s tradition of
the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi citing bar Kappara
ְ‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא – ְמ ַח ֵּתך‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬ And if you wish, say that everyone agrees that one first cuts off (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 15:21).
:‫ ָמר ְס ַבר‬,ּ‫ ִמיהו‬.‫ָל ּה וַ ֲה ַדר ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָל ּה‬ the foreleg and then cooks it. But one Sage, Rabbi Shimon bar
Yoĥai, holds that one cooks the foreleg with the rest of the ram,
‫ ִ ּב ְק ֵד ָרה‬:‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬,‫ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ַאיִ ל ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָל ּה‬ notes
and one Sage holds that he cooks the foreleg in another pot, We assess the volume of the meat to the meat – ‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬
.‫ַא ֶח ֶרת ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָל ּה‬ separate from the rest of the ram. ‫ב ֲה ֵדי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרינַן‬:ּ ַ The early commentaries discuss why this
opinion does not state that the volume of the permitted
,‫יבא דְּ ִד ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬ ּ ָ ‫ישנָ א ַק ָּמא – ַא ִּל‬ָ ּ ׁ ‫ ְל ִל‬The foreleg of the nazirite’s ram is permitted to be eaten only by a meat is assessed together with the volume of the permitted
bones in nullifying the foreleg. They explain that this opin-
ּ ָ ‫ישנָ א ַ ּב ְת ָרא – ַא ִּל‬
‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ ְל ִל‬priest, whereas the rest of the ram is eaten by the nazirite even if
he is not a priest. Consequently, according to the first formula- ion holds that the bones do not combine with the meat to
.‫יֹוחאי‬
ַ ‫ֶ ּבן‬ nullify the foreleg. By contrast, the first opinion disagrees
tion, all agree that the principle of nullification may be derived
and holds that the permitted bones are also included in the
from here, since all agree that the foreleg is cooked together with calculation for nullification.
the rest of the ram, and yet it does not cause the rest of the ram to The commentaries also discuss a statement in the
be forbidden to a non-priest. According to the latter formulation, Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 5:3) that shells of orla produce
the principle of nullification may be derived from here in accor- combine with the permitted food to nullify the prohibited
dance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoĥai, who says food. This appears to contradict the Gemara here that all
that the foreleg is cooked together with the rest of the ram. But agree that the forbidden inedible portions, such as bones,
do not combine with the permitted portions to nullify the
according to the latter formulation the first tanna holds that the foreleg. Some say that the Gemara here disagrees with the
foreleg is not cooked with the rest of the ram, in which case the Jerusalem Talmud, and holds that prohibited bones and
principle of nullification cannot be derived from here. shells do not combine with the permitted food to nullify the
prohibited food. Since they themselves are forbidden they
‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬:‫ ְס ַבר‬,‫ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬ The Gemara now returns to the dispute about whether non- cannot nullify prohibited items (Ramban; Rashba). Others
kosher food is nullified in sixty or one hundred times its volume say that the bones that are soft and contain marrow, such
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ וַ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וַ ֲעצָ מֹות ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרינַן‬
of kosher food, and explains how each opinion is derived from as those of the foreleg, are treated as meat. Therefore, they
‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ ְס ַבר‬,‫ ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה‬.‫ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬ must also be nullified along with the rest of the foreleg. But
the halakha of the foreleg of the nazirite’s ram. The one who said
.‫יה ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרינַן‬ that non-kosher food is nullified in sixty times its volume of
bones that are dry and do not contain marrow are assessed
together with the permitted food (Ran; Ra’ah; Ritva).
kosher food holds that we assess the ratio of meat and bones of
the foreleg to the meat and bonesh of the rest of the ram, and this
is a ratio of one to sixty. The one who said that non-kosher food
is nullified in one hundred times its volume of kosher food holds
that we assess only the volume of the meat of the foreleg to the
meatn of the rest of the ram, and this is a ratio of one to one
hundred.

‫ זֶ ה ּו ֶה ֵּיתר ַה ָ ּבא‬:‫ ו ִּמי יָ ְל ִפינַן ִמ ָּינ ּה? וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬The Gemara asks: And do we derive the principles of nullification
‫ ״זֶ הוּ״ ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ַמאי – ָלאו‬,‫ ִמ ְּכ ַלל ִא ּיסוּר‬from the case of the nazirite’s ram? But isn’t it taught in a baraita
with regard to the nazirite’s ram, which absorbs the flavor of the
?‫ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ָּכל ִא ּיסו ִּרין ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬
foreleg with which it was cooked: This is a case of permitted meat
that comes from the category of forbidden food, i.e., it is permit-
ted despite the fact that it was cooked with forbidden food. The
Gemara infers: What does the expression: This is, in the baraita
serve to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude all the other for-
bidden foods that are in the Torah? This indicates that only the
cooked foreleg of the nazirite’s ram is nullified in sixty or one
hundred times its volume of permitted food, but other prohibited
foods are not subject to the principle of nullification.

,‫ ָלא נִצְ ְר ָכא ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬The Gemara answers that Abaye said: This emphasis is necessary
‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫ ִמין ְ ּב ִמינֹו – ָלא ָ ּב ֵטיל‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that
in general, a type of food mixed with food of its own type is
.‫ דְּ ָה ָכא ָ ּב ֵטיל‬:‫ָלן‬
not nullified. Therefore the baraita teaches us that here, the
flavor imparted by the foreleg to the rest of the nazirite’s ram
is nullified.
 ‫חצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 98b 129
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ֵיה! ַ ּג ֵּלי ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״וְ ָל ַקח ִמדַּ ם‬ ּ ‫ וְ ִליגְ ַמר ִמ ּינ‬The Gemara objects: Let Rabbi Yehuda learn from this case that
Of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat –
‫מדַּ ם ַה ּ ָפר ו ִּמדַּ ם ַה ּ ָ ׂש ִעיר‬:ִ On Yom Kippur, the High Priest ‫ ַה ּ ָפר ו ִּמדַּ ם ַה ּ ָ ׂש ִעיר״ – ַּת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי‬all forbidden food can be nullified when it is mixed with permitted
food of its own type. The Gemara explains: The Merciful One
offers a bull as a sin offering for himself, his family, and .‫ וְ ָלא ָ ּב ְט ִלי‬,ּ‫נִינְ הו‬
all the members of the priesthood (Leviticus 16:3, 6). The revealed in the Torah: “And he shall take of the blood of the bull
bull’s slaughter, the burning of its flesh, and the sprin- and of the blood of the goatb and put it upon the corners of the
kling of its blood resemble the procedures employed for altar round about” (Leviticus 16:18). Both of these two bloods
the bulls that are burned outside Jerusalem. In contrast are mixed with each other, and although a bull has more blood
to those, its blood is also sprinkled between the staves than a goat has, the verse makes reference to the blood of the goat,
of the Holy Ark in the Holy of Holies. The blood of this
indicating that it maintains its own identity and is not nullified.
bull is first sprinkled on its own; afterward it is mixed
with the blood of the goat sacrificed as a sin offering for
!‫ ִליגְ ַמר ֵמ ַהאי‬, ְ‫ ו ַּמאי ָחזֵ ית דְּ גָ ְמ ִרית ֵמ ָה ֵאיך‬The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, what did you
the entire people, and the mixture is sprinkled on the
golden incense altar. .‫ ו ֵּמ ִחדּ ו ּׁש ָלא ָ ּג ְמ ִרינַן‬,‫ ִחדּ ו ּׁש הוּא‬see that caused you to derive a principle from that verse with
regard to the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat? Derive a
principle from this verse about the foreleg of the nazirite’s ram. The
Gemara answers: The case of the nazirite’s ram is a novelty, because
even when nullification does apply one may not nullify a forbidden
food ab initio, whereas here one is supposed to cook the foreleg
together with the rest of the ram; and we do not learn principles
from a novelty.

!‫ ְל ֵמ ָאה וְ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים נַ ִמי ָלא ִליגְ ַמר‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara challenges: If so, if Rabbi Yehuda does not consider
the case of the nazirite’s ram a viable precedent for general halakhic
principles, then let him also not learn from that case that when
forbidden food is mixed with permitted food of a different type, it
is nullified in either one hundred or sixty times its own volume.
As discussed above, the two opinions in this regard are each based
on the case of the nazirite’s ram.

,‫ ְלחו ְּמ ָרא ָ ּג ְמ ִרינַן‬,‫ ַא ּט ּו ֲאנַן ְלקו ָּּלא ָ ּג ְמ ִרינַן‬The Gemara explains: Is that to say that we learn that forbidden
.‫יתא – ְ ּברו ָ ּּבא ָ ּב ֵטיל‬ ַ ְּ‫ דְּ ִמד‬food is nullified in sixty or one hundred times its volume of permit-
ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ted food as a leniency? We learn it only as a stringency, as if it were
not for this derivation, we would say that by Torah law forbidden
food is nullified in a mixture in which there is a simple majority
of permitted food.

ּ ָ ‫ ָלא נִצְ ְר ָכא ֶא ָּלא ְל ַט ַעם ְּכ ִע‬:‫ ָר ָבא ֲא ַמר‬Rava stated an alternative explanation of the term: This is, which
,‫יקר‬
‫ ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן דְּ ָה ָכא‬,‫ דִּ ְב ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ָאסוּר‬appears in the baraita with regard to the nazirite’s ram: This limita-
tion is necessary only for the principle that the halakhic status of
.‫ׁ ָש ֵרי‬
the flavor of forbidden food is like that of its substance. If the
flavor of sacrificial food is absorbed into another food, it renders
that food forbidden, i.e., it is not nullified. Therefore, the baraita
teaches us that here, in the case of the nazirite’s ram, the rest of the
ram is permitted even to non-priests.

Perek VII
Daf 99 Amud a

ּ ‫ֵיה! ַ ּג ֵּלי ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַ ּג ַ ּבי ַח ָּטאת‬

‫״כֹל‬ ּ ‫וְ ִליגְ ַמר ִמ ּינ‬ The Gemara objects: Let us learn from the case of the nazirite’s
ָ ‫ ִל ְהיֹות ָּכ‬,‫ֲא ׁ ֶשר ַ ּיִגע ִ ּב ְב ָ ׂש ָר ּה יִ ְקדָּ ׁש״‬
,‫מֹוה‬ ram that the flavor of sacrificial food can be nullified. The Gemara
explains: The Merciful One revealed in the Torah with regard to
– ‫ וְ ִאם ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬,‫ׁ ֶש ִאם ּ ְפסו ָּלה – ִּת ּ ָפ ֵסל‬
the sin offering: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be holy”
.‫ֵּת ָא ֵכל ְּכ ָחמוּר ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ּה‬ (Leviticus 6:20). This teaches that the halakhic status of any food
that touches and absorbs flavor from a sin offering becomes like it,
so that if the sin offering is disqualified,h this food shall also be
disqualified, and if the sin offering is valid, this food may be eaten
in accordance with the stringencies that apply to a sin offering.

halakha
Becomes like it so that if it is disqualified, etc. – ‫מֹוה ׁ ֶש ִאם‬
ָ ‫ִל ְהיֹות ָּכ‬ the offering becomes like that of the sin offering itself. Therefore,
‫פסו ָּלה וכו׳‬:ְ ּ The verse states with regard to a sin offering: “Anything if the sin offering is disqualified, this food item will also be dis-
that shall touch its flesh shall become consecrated; and when its qualified. And if the sin offering is valid, the item that touched it
blood is sprinkled upon any garment, you shall wash that where it may be eaten in accordance with the more stringent standards
was sprinkled in a holy place” (Leviticus 6:20). This teaches that the of a sin offering with regard to when and where it may be eaten
halakhic status of any food that touched or absorbed the flavor of (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 8:15).

130 Ĥullin . perek VII . 99a . ‫טצ ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
!‫ ִליגְ ַמר ֵמ ַהאי‬, ְ‫ ו ַּמאי ָחזֵ ית דְּ גָ ְמ ִרינַן ֵמ ָה ֵאיך‬The Gemara asks: And what did you see to indicate that we learn
This is a novelty and we do not learn from a novelty –
.‫ ו ֵּמ ִחדּ ו ּׁש ָלא ָ ּג ְמ ִרינַן‬,‫ ִחדּ ו ּׁש הוּא‬the principle of nullification concerning sacrificial food from that ‫חדּ ו ּׁש הוּא ו ֵּמ ִחדּ ו ּׁש ָלא ָ ּג ְמ ִרינַן‬:ִ The concept of a novelty
verse of the sin offering? Derive it instead from this verse concern- is defined by the early commentaries as any case that
ing the foreleg of the nazirite’s ram. The Gemara answers: This case contains some unusual element not found in other
of the nazirite’s ram is a novelty, and we do not learn principles prohibitions (Rashi on Pesaĥim 44b). In addition, one
from a novelty.n would have thought to act in such a case in the oppo-
site manner than that which the Torah teaches (Noda
!‫ ְל ֵמ ָאה וְ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים נַ ִמי ָלא ִליגְ ַמר‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara objects: If so, if the case of the nazirite’s ram is not a BiYehuda).
‫ ַא ּט ּו ֲאנַן ְלקו ָּּלא ָקא ָ ּג ְמ ִרינַן?! ְלחו ְּמ ָרא ָקא‬viable precedent for general halakhic principles, then one should
also not learn from that case that when forbidden food is mixed background
.‫יתא – ְ ּברו ָ ּּבא ָ ּב ֵטיל‬ ַ ְּ‫ דְּ ִמד‬,‫ָ ּג ְמ ִרינַן‬
ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
with permitted food of a different type, it is nullified in either one Split beans – ‫יסין‬ ִ ‫ג ִר‬:ּ ְ The Sages interpreted this term
hundred or sixty times its own volume. As discussed above, the two as referring to the split Cilician bean, known today as
opinions in this regard are both based on the case of the nazirite’s the broad bean or fava bean. Beans were often split in
ram. The Gemara responds: Is that to say that we learn that forbid- two along their seams in preparation for cooking. A
split bean was also a convenient measure for a small
den food is nullified in sixty or one hundred times its volume of
area, such as that of a mark or a stain, since the interior
permitted food as a leniency? We learn it only as a stringency, as if side was smooth and could be laid down flat on the
it were not for this derivation, one would say that by Torah law skin or a piece of cloth. Among contemporary halakhic
forbidden food is nullified in a mixture in which there is a simple authorities, the area of a broad bean is held to be equal
majority of permitted food. to that of a circle between 19 and 21 mm in diameter.
Lentils – ‫ע ָד ׁ ִשים‬:ֲ The lentils referred to by the Gemara
‫ ָלא נִצְ ְר ָכא ֶא ָּלא ִל ְמקֹום‬:‫ ָר ִבינָ א ֲא ַמר‬Ravina said an alternative explanation of the term: This is, that are generally red lentils. Due to the availability and
,‫ ְמקֹום ֲח ָתךְ ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא ָאסוּר‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬, ְ‫ ֲח ָתך‬appears in the baraita with regard to the nazirite’s ram. This limita- fixed size of lentils, they were used as a measure of
tion is necessary only for the place where the foreleg is cut from area.
.‫וְ ָה ָכא ׁ ָש ֵרי‬
the body of the ram, as it was said that in a case where permitted and
forbidden foods were attached and one cut the forbidden section
from the permitted section, the place of the cut on the permitted
part is generally forbidden. But here, in the case of the nazirite’s
ram, it is permitted.

.‫ימי וְ ָק ָא ַמר ָל ּה ְל ָהא ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא‬

ִ ִּ‫יְ ִתיב ַרב ד‬ § The Gemara returns to discussing the statement of Rabbi Shmuel
bar Rav Yitzĥak (98a) that forbidden food is nullified in a mixture
only if there is one hundred times its volume of permitted food. Rav
Dimi sat and said this halakha.

‫יסו ִּרין ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה‬

ּ ‫ וְ ָכל ִא‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬
ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Abaye said to him: And is it true that all the forbidden foods in the
‫ ָל ָּמה ָא ְמר ּו ָּכל ַה ְּמ ַח ֵּמץ‬:‫ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה? וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬ Torah that are mixed with permitted foods are nullified only in a
mixture containing one hundred times their volume of permitted
,‫ּו ְמ ַת ֵ ּבל ּו ְמ ַד ֵּמ ַע ְל ַה ְח ִמיר – ִמין ּו ִמינֹו‬
food? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Orla 2:6): Why did the Sages
,‫ְל ָה ֵקל ו ְּל ַה ְח ִמיר – ִמין וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמינֹו‬ say that with regard to anyone who leavens non-sacred food with a
leavening agent that is teruma or flavors it with spices of teruma or
mixes teruma into non-sacred food, thereby making the food forbid-
den for non-priests, the halakha is to be stringent if he mixed one
type of food that is teruma with non-sacred food of the same type.
But the halakha is to be lenient and to be stringent if he mixed one
type of teruma with non-sacred food of a different type.

‫ ְל ָה ֵקל ו ְּל ַה ְח ִמיר ִמין וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬:‫וְ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס ָיפא‬ And it is taught in the latter clause, i.e., in the following mishna
ִ ‫ ֵּכיצַ ד – ְ ּג ִר‬,‫ִמינֹו‬
‫יסין ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְשל ּו ִעם‬ (Orla 2:7): When it is stated that the halakha is to be lenient and to
be stringent if he mixed one type of teruma with non-sacred food
‫ ֵ ּבין‬,‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהם ְ ּב‬,‫ָה ֲע ָד ׁ ִשים‬
not of its type,h how is this accomplished? For example, in a case of
‫ ֵ ּבין ֵאין‬,‫יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ְל ַה ֲעלֹות ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶא ָחד‬ split beansb of teruma that were cooked with non-sacred lentils,b if
.‫ָ ּב ֶהן ְל ַה ֲעלֹות ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶא ָחד – ָאסוּר‬ there are enough split beans relative to the lentils to impart flavor
to the lentils, then regardless of whether there are enough lentils to
neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their vol-
ume, i.e., the volume of the lentils is one hundred and one times the
volume of the split beans, or whether there are not enough lentils
to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times their
volume, the entire mixture is forbidden to a non-priest.

halakha
One type with food not of its type – ‫מין וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמינֹו‬:ִ If a se’a in, which is a gift to him. If the mixture has no flavor from the
of teruma of one type falls into less than one hundred times its teruma, it is all permitted to be eaten by non-priests. This ruling
volume of non-sacred food of a different type, the entire food has is in accordance with the mishna in tractate Orla (Rambam Sefer
the status of teruma if the teruma imparts flavor. In that case, the Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 13:2).
food must be sold to a priest except for the teruma that is mixed

 ‫טצ ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 99a 131

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ְל ַה ֲעלֹות‬,‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬

ֵ ‫ ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ְ ּב‬Conversely, if there are not enough split beans of teruma to impart
‫ ֵ ּבין ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ְל ַה ֲעלֹות ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה‬,‫ ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶא ָחד‬flavor to the lentils, then regardless of whether there are enough
lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times
.‫וְ ֶא ָחד – מו ָּּתר‬
their volume, or whether there are not enough lentils to neutralize
the split beans in one hundred and one times their volume, the
mixture is permitted even to a non-priest.

‫ ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן ְל ַה ֲעלֹות ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶא ָחד ֶא ָּלא‬Abaye commented: When the mishna says that there are not enough
?‫ ְ ּב ַמאי – ָלאו ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬lentils to neutralize the split beans in one hundred and one times
their volume, and nevertheless if the split beans did not impart flavor
to the lentils, the mixture is permitted, in what amount of lentils are
the split beans nullified? Is it not that the split beans are permitted
because they are mixed with sixty times their volume of non-sacred
lentils? This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzĥak.

Perek VII
Daf 99 Amud b
halakha
.‫ ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה‬,‫ ָלא‬Rav Dimi answered Abaye: No, the mishna means that although there
Leaven of teruma wheat that fell into dough of
is not one hundred and one times as much non-sacred food as teruma,
non-sacred wheat – ‫יסת‬ ַּ ‫ְ ׂשאֹור ׁ ֶשל ִח ִּטין ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַפל ְל ִע‬
‫ח ִּטין‬:ִ If leaven of teruma wheat falls into dough
the teruma is nullified because there is one hundred times its volume
made of non-sacred wheat, and there is enough of non-sacred food.
to cause the entire mixture to become leavened,
the entire dough is prohibited to a non-priest, even .‫ ָהוֵ י ֵס ָיפא ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬,‫ישא ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה‬ ָ ׁ ‫וְ ָהא ִמדְּ ֵר‬ Abaye responded: But since the first clause states that it is nullified
if the leaven is only one-thousandth of the entire ,‫ ֵּכיצַ ד‬,‫ ְל ַה ְח ִמיר – ִמין ו ִּמינֹו‬:‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫דְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵר‬ in one hundred times its volume, it must be that the latter clause
mixture (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot is referring to a case where there is sixty times its volume. As the
Assurot 16:2).
‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬,‫יסת ִח ִּטין‬ ַּ ‫ְ ׂשאֹור ׁ ֶשל ִח ִּטין ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַפל ְל ִע‬
mishna (Orla 2:6) teaches in the first clause: When it is stated that
‫ ֵ ּבין יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַה ֲעלֹות‬,‫ּבֹו ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַח ֵּמץ‬ the halakha is to be stringent if one type of teruma is mixed with
‫ ֵ ּבין ֵאין ּבֹו ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַה ֲעלֹות‬,‫ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶא ָחד‬ non-sacred food of its type, how is this accomplished? For example,
.‫ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶא ָחד – ָאסוּר‬ in a case of leaven of teruma wheat that fell into dough made of
non-sacred wheat,h and there is enough teruma to cause the non-
sacred wheat to become leavened, whether there is enough non-
sacred wheat to neutralize the teruma in one hundred and one times
its volume, or whether there is not enough non-sacred wheat to
neutralize the teruma in one hundred and one times its volume, the
entire dough is forbidden to a non-priest.

‫ ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬,‫ ֵאין ּבֹו ְל ַה ֲעלֹות ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה וְ ֶא ָחד‬But if there is not enough non-sacred wheat to neutralize the teruma
,‫ ֵ ּבין ֵאין ּבֹו ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַח ֵּמץ – ָאסוּר‬,‫ ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַח ֵּמץ‬in one hundred and one times its volume, then whether there is
enough teruma to cause the non-sacred wheat to become leavened
!?‫ישא וְ ֵס ָיפא ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֵר‬
or whether there is not enough teruma to cause the non-sacred
wheat to become leavened, the entire dough is forbidden to a non-
priest. Would you suggest that both the first clause and the latter
clause are stating that the teruma is nullified in one hundred times
its volume?

.‫ וְ ֵס ָיפא – ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה‬,‫ישא – ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה וְ ַחד‬

ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬,‫ ָלא‬Rav Dimi answered: No. The first clause is referring to a case where
the teruma is mixed with one hundred and one times its volume of
non-sacred food, and the latter clause is referring to a case where
the teruma is mixed with one hundred times its volume of non-
sacred food.

‫ ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה וְ ַחד ַא ַּמאי‬,‫ וְ ִכי יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ְּכ ֵדי ְל ַח ֵּמץ‬Abaye asked Rav Dimi: If so, when the mishna states that if there is
.‫יש ִּתיק‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ָלא ָ ּב ֵטיל? ִא‬enough teruma to cause the non-sacred wheat to become leavened
the entire mixture is forbidden to non-priests, why is that the case?
If leaven is mixed with one hundred and one times its volume of
non-sacred wheat it will have no leavening effect, so why is it not
nullified? Rav Dimi did not have an answer and was silent.
132 Ĥullin . perek VII . 99b . ‫טצ ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ימוּצֹו‬ ּ ‫ דִּ ְל ָמא ׁ ָשאנֵי ְ ׂשאֹור דְּ ִח‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Abaye said to him: Perhaps leaven is different, because its
leavening properties are potent, and there are some forms of The brine of a non-kosher fish is forbidden – ‫דָּ ג ָט ֵמא צִ ירֹו‬
‫ ַא ְד ַּכ ְר ָּתן ִמ ְּיל ָתא דַּ ֲא ַמר‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ָק ׁ ֶשה? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ‫אסוּר‬:ָ Brine of non-kosher fish is forbidden by rabbinic law.
leaven that can have an effect on such a large quantity of dough.
‫ ל ֹא ָּכל ַה ׁ ּ ִשיעו ִּרין‬:‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬
ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ Therefore, it is permitted to buy salted kosher fish from a
Rav Dimi said to him: You reminded me of a matter that Rabbi gentile, even if they are in the same container as non-kosher
.‫אתיִ ם‬ַ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי צִ יר ׁ ִשיעוּרֹו ָקרֹוב ְל ָמ‬,‫ׁ ָשוִ ין‬ Yosei, son of Rabbi Ĥanina, said: Not all the measures are fish. The Rema writes that some prohibit this if they are
‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ דָּ ג ָט ֵמא – צִ ירֹו ָאסוּר‬,‫דִּ ְתנַן‬ equal, because the measure required in order to nullify non- placed in the same container. The custom is not to purchase
.‫אתיִ ם‬ ַ ‫יעית ְ ּב ָס‬ִ ‫ ְר ִב‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ kosher fish brine is close to two hundred times its volume. As such fish, even if one sees that it is only that they are placed
we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:8): The brine of a non- on the table with the non-kosher fish. The exception is
herring, which is always permitted, because it is not usually
kosher fish is forbidden.h Rabbi Yehuda says: A quarter-log of
salted together with non-kosher fish. Even with other types
non-kosher fish brine renders kosher food forbidden even if it is of kosher fish one need not be stringent to check whether
mixed with two se’a of permitted food, which is one hundred there are other non-kosher fish mixed in with them. If one
ninety-two times as much as a quarter-log. sees that there are non-kosher fish soaked in water with the
kosher fish, even herring, the kosher fish is forbidden, but as
!‫ וְ ָה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ִמין ְ ּב ִמינֹו ָלא ָ ּב ֵטיל‬The Gemara asks: How can Rabbi Yehuda say that fish brine is long as one does not see that they were soaked together,
.‫יעה ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬ ָ ֵ‫ דְּ ז‬,‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי צִ יר‬nullified at all? Doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that a type of food one need not be concerned about this.
mixed with food of its own type is not nullified? The Gemara All of the these halakhot are ab initio. After the fact, if
answers: Brine is different because it is merely sweat,n i.e., it they have already been purchased, one may permit the
kosher fish in any case. The reason is that as the brine of
does not have the halakhic status of the fish itself.
non-kosher fish is prohibited by rabbinic law and there is
‫ ְּכ ָב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬.‫״כיצַ ד ְמ ׁ ַש ֲע ִרינַן״‬ ֵּ § The mishna (96b) teaches: How does one measure whether uncertainty as to whether or not they were salted together,
one may be lenient. This applies when there is no fat, and
‫נִיתין דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַהאי‬ ִ ‫ ַמ ְת‬.‫אשי ְל ָפתֹות‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ָר‬ there is enough sciatic nerve to impart flavor to the meat of the most salted fish do not have fat. If the non-kosher fish do
entire thigh? One relates to it as though the sciatic nerve were have fat, the mixture is forbidden by Torah law. Therefore,
‫ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ַּת ָּנא‬
meat and the thigh were a turnip. If the meat would impart flavor in a case of uncertainty, one must be stringent like with
‫נֹותן‬ֵ ‫ ֵאין ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין ְ ּב‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫רֹוקה‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן ְ ּב‬
ָ to the turnip when they were cooked together, then the entire regard to other Torah laws. If the salted fish are dry, they are
.‫ַט ַעם‬ thigh is forbidden. The Gemara states that Rav Huna says: The certainly permitted, since there is no transfer of flavor. Nev-
mishna means that it is measured like meat cooked in a pot ertheless, the custom is to be stringent ab initio if there are
any non-kosher fish among them (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
with turnip heads.b The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in
Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 3:22; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a
accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a 83:5, and in the comment of Rema).
baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka,
says: Sciatic nerves do not impart flavorh at all. Nerves do not impart flavor – ‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫אין ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין ְ ּב‬:
ֵ
Although the sciatic nerve itself is considered like wood,
‫ ֲהוָ ה‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬ because it has no taste, the Torah nevertheless forbids it.
ּ ‫ַההוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Ĥanina to ask
But since it has no taste, if it is cooked with other food and
‫ ִּכי‬,‫יָ ֵתיב ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ַ ּבר זְ ִבינָ א ַא ָ ּב ָבא‬ about the status of a thigh of an animal that was cooked with its
the nerve itself is removed, it does not render the other
sciatic nerve, and Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina was sitting at the
:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ַמאי ֲא ַמר ָלךְ ? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫נְ ַפק ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ food forbidden, in accordance with the conclusion of the
gate. When the man left, Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina said to him: Gemara (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot
ּ ‫נִיה ֵל‬
.‫יה‬ ֲ ‫ׁ ָש ְריָ א‬ What did Rabbi Ĥanina say to you? The man said to him: He 15:17; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:9 and 100:2).
permitted me to eat the thigh. A sciatic nerve that was cooked – ‫גיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל‬:ּ ִ If
the thigh of an animal is cooked with the sciatic nerve
‫ ַמאן‬:‫יה! ֲא ַמר‬
ּ ‫יה ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ ּ ‫ ֲה ַדר ַעיְ ֵיל‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevina said to him: Bring the animal before inside, if one can identify the nerve, he must remove it. The
‫יה ְל ַמאן‬
ּ ‫ימא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ַהאי דְּ ָקא ְמצַ ֵער ִלי? זִ יל ֵא‬him again; perhaps he did not fully understand the question. remainder is permitted provided that there is sixty times as
When the man returned to Rabbi Ĥanina, Rabbi Ĥanina said: much meat as the volume of the fat of the sciatic nerve. If
ֵ ‫ ֵאין ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין ְ ּב‬:‫דְּ יָ ֵתיב ַא ָ ּב ָבא‬
.‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬
Who is this person who is bothering me? Go and say to the he cannot identify the sciatic nerve, all the pieces of meat
individual who is sitting at the gate, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda bar cooked together with it are forbidden. Since the sciatic
Zevina: Sciatic nerves do not impart flavor. Consequently, he nerve is a distinct entity, it is considered significant and is
can remove the sciatic nerve and the rest of the meat is permitted. not nullified (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
Assurot 16:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 100:2).
‫ ְמ ׁ ַשדַּ ר ְלה ּו‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬ ּ ‫ִּכי ָאת ּו ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ When people would come before Rabbi Ami to ask about the
‫מֹורי ָ ּב ּה‬ ֵ ְּ‫ ד‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק ֶ ּבן ֲחלֹוב‬ ּ ‫ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ halakha of a thigh that was cooked with the sciatic nerve inside, notes
he would send them before Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Ĥalov, who Brine is different because it is merely sweat – ‫ׁ ָשאנֵי צִ יר‬
‫יה‬ ֻ ׁ ‫ְל ֶה ֵּית ָירא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ וְ ֵל‬,‫יְהֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ‫יעה ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬
ָ ֵ‫דְּ ז‬: The early commentaries explain that fish
would rule leniently about this issue and say that is was permit-
‫ ֵאין ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין‬:‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָלא ְס ִב ָירא ֵל‬ ted, in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Ami him- brine is forbidden by rabbinic decree and not by Torah law,
.‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬
ֵ ‫ְ ּב‬ since it is treated merely as sweat. This is why Rabbi Yehuda
self did not hold accordingly, but he did not wish to rule strin- holds that it can be nullified (Tosafot; Ramban; Rashba;
gently for others. And the halakha is that sciatic nerves do not Ritva; Rosh). The commentaries also write that with regard
impart flavor at all. to fish brine, the principle that the halakhic status of the
flavor is like that of its substance does not apply by Torah
!‫ וְ ִל ְיבטוּל ְ ּברו ָ ּּבא‬.‫״ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל״‬ § The mishna states (96b): With regard to a sciatic nerve that law. Therefore, fish brine does not have the same status as
was cookedh with other sinews, when one identifies the sciatic broth that was cooked with a fish. Some explain that the
nerve and removes it, the other sinews are forbidden if the sciatic halakha depends on the usual method of preparing the fish.
nerve was large enough to impart flavor. And if he does not iden- If the fish is most commonly used in brine, then the brine is
in fact forbidden by Torah law, based on the principle that
tify it, all the sinews are forbidden because each one could be the
the halakhic status of the flavor is like that of its substance
sciatic nerve. The Gemara challenges: Let the sciatic nerve be (Ĥazon Ish, citing Rashba).
nullified by a simple majority. The commentaries note that this statement that brine
is forbidden by rabbinic decree applies specifically to the
brine of non-kosher fish. By contrast, the brine of other non-
kosher creatures is forbidden by Torah law. This is derived
by the Gemara (120a) from the verse: “These are they that
background are impure to you among all that swarm” (Leviticus 11:31).
Turnip heads – ‫אשי ְל ָפתֹות‬
ֵ ׁ ‫ר‬:ָ There are different opinions as it is referring to the root of the vegetable that is in the ground, The word “impure” is interpreted to mean that the brine,
to the meaning of the phrase: Turnip heads. Some say that it and that the word: Head, in this context means the round head- broth and deposits of these swarming creatures are also
is referring to the upper part of the vegetable. Others say that shaped bulb. forbidden by Torah law (Tosafot).

 ‫טצ ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 99b 133

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VII
Daf 100 Amud a
notes
.‫ ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה ׁ ָשאנֵי‬The Gemara answers that the sciatic nerve is a distinct entity, and
An entity is different – ‫ב ִרּיָ ה ׁ ָשאנֵי‬:
ּ ְ The concept of an therefore it is differentn in that it is not subject to nullification.
entity applies only to an item that is complete or distinct.
If the entity, or part of it, was crushed, it loses its status
ָ ‫ § ״וְ ֵכן ֲח ִת‬The mishna states: And similarly, in the case of a piece of an
‫ וְ ִת ְב ִטיל‬.]‫יכה ׁ ֶשל נְ ֵב ָלה״ [וכו׳‬
as an entity. Furthermore, an entity is defined as an item
that does not have the same name when it is divided. For !‫ ְ ּברו ָ ּּבא‬animal carcass or a piece of non-kosher fish that was cooked with
example, a sciatic nerve that is cut into pieces is called a similar pieces of kosher meat or fish, when one identifies the forbid-
piece of a sciatic nerve. Therefore a sciatic nerve is con- den piece and removes it, the rest of the meat or fish is forbidden
sidered an entity. By contrast, an animal carcass [neveila] only if the forbidden piece was large enough to impart flavor to the
that is cut into pieces is still called neveila, and for this entire mixture. And if he does not identify and remove the forbid-
reason it is not considered to be an entity. den piece, all the pieces are forbidden, due to the possibility that
Any item whose manner is to be counted, etc. – each piece one selects might be the forbidden piece. The Gemara
‫ימנֹות וכו׳‬
ָּ ‫כל ׁ ֶשדַּ ְר ּכֹו ִל‬:ָּ Rabbi Yoĥanan and Reish Lakish challenges: Even if the piece of an animal carcass was not removed,
disagree about this issue (Beitza 3b). Rabbi Yoĥanan holds let it be nullified by a simple majority, as the majority of the pieces
that an item that is only sold by number is not nullified are kosher.
(Rashi on Beitza 3b; Rabbi Shimshon of Saens on Orla
3:6). By contrast, Reish Lakish holds that an item that
‫ימנֹות‬ ָּ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶשדַּ ְר ּכֹו ִל‬:‫נִיחא ְל ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר‬
ָ ‫ָה‬ The Gemara clarifies its challenge. This ruling works out well
is normally sold by number is not nullified, even if it is
‫ ֶאת ׁ ֶשדַּ ְר ּכֹו‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,ּ‫ׁ ָשנִינו‬ according to the one who said that we learned: Any item whose
occasionally sold in bulk or the seller adds extra.
manner is to be counted,n i.e., that is sometimes sold by unit rather
A piece is different since it is suitable to give honor ‫ימר? ׁ ָשאנֵי‬ ַ ‫ ַמאי ִא ָּיכא ְל ֵמ‬,ּ‫ימנֹות ׁ ָשנִינו‬ ָּ ‫ִל‬
than by weight or volume, is considered significant and therefore is
with it before guests – ‫הֹואיל ו ְּראוּיָ ה ְל ִה ְת ַּכ ֵ ּבד ָ ּב ּה‬
ִ ‫יכה‬
ָ ‫ֲח ִת‬ ‫הֹואיל ו ְּראוּיָ ה ְל ִה ְת ַּכ ֵ ּבד ָ ּב ּה‬ ִ – ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ֲח ִת‬ not subject to nullification. But according to the one who said that
‫אֹור ִחים‬
ְ ‫ל ְפנֵי ָה‬:ִ The early commentaries define this as a .‫אֹור ִחים‬
ְ ‫ִל ְפנֵי ָה‬
piece that is currently unsuitable to place before guests
we learned: It is only an item whose manner is exclusively to be
because it is forbidden to be eaten, but if it were to counted, i.e., that is always sold by unit, that is considered signifi-
be nullified it would also be permitted and suitable to cant, and is therefore not subject to nullification, what can be said?
place before guests (Sefer HaTeruma; Roke’aĥ; Tosafot). Since pieces of meat or fish are not always sold by unit, they should
Alternatively, it means that a similar piece of permitted be subject to nullification. The Gemara answers: A piece of meat or
food would be suitable to place before guests (Ra’ah; fish is different, since it is suitable to give honor with it by placing
Ritva; Meiri).
it before guests.n Therefore, due to its significance it is not subject
Commentaries disagree as to the reason that such
a piece is not subject to nullification. Some say that it to nullification.
is similar to an item whose manner is to be counted,
which is not subject to nullification, since one counts ‫ דְּ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ְמ ִעינַ ן ִ ּגיד – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫יכא‬
ָ ‫ ּוצְ ִר‬The Gemara adds: And it was necessary for the mishna to teach
the pieces according to the number of invited guests ,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל ֲח ִת ָיכה – ֵא‬,‫ דִּ ְב ִרּיָ ה ִהיא‬both the halakha that the sciatic nerve is not nullified and the hal-
(Tosafot; Ramban; Ritva). Others say it is not subject to akha that a piece of non-kosher meat or fish is not nullified, as if the
nullification because it has significance (Ran; Rabbeinu mishna had taught us only the case of a sciatic nerve, one might
Gershom Meor HaGola). think that it is not nullified because it is a distinct entity, but in the
case of a piece of non-kosher meat, say it is not significant, and it is
subject to nullification.

‫הֹואיל ו ְּראוּיָ ה‬
ִ – ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ְמ ִעינַן ֲח ִת‬And if the mishna had taught us the halakha only in the case of a
ְ ‫ ְל ִה ְת ַּכ ֵ ּבד ָ ּב ּה ִל ְפנֵי ָה‬piece of non-kosher meat or fish, one might think that it is not nul-
– ‫ ֲא ָבל ִ ּגיד‬,‫אֹור ִחים‬
lified since it is suitable to give honor with it by placing it before
.‫יכא‬ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬,‫ימא ָלא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬
the guests. But in the case of a sciatic nerve, say it is not significant,
and it is subject to nullification. Therefore it was necessary for the
mishna to teach both cases.

‫ ֲח ִת ָיכה ׁ ֶשל נְ ֵב ָלה‬:‫ § דָּ ַר ׁש ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה‬Rabba bar bar Ĥana taught: A piece of meat of an unslaugh-
ֶ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶשל דָּ ג ָט ֵמא – ֵאינָ ּה‬tered carcass or of a non-kosher species of fish that fell into a pot
h h
‫ ַעד ׁ ֶש ִּת ֵּתן‬,‫אֹוס ֶרת‬
of kosher food does not render the contents of the pot forbidden
.‫רֹוטב ו ַּב ִּק ָיפה ו ַּב ֲח ִתיכֹות‬
ֶ ‫ַט ַעם ָ ּב‬
unless it imparts flavor to the broth and to the deposits of food
remaining in the pot and to the other pieces of food in the pot.

halakha
A piece of an unslaughtered carcass – ‫יכה ׁ ֶשל נְ ֵב ָלה‬
ָ ‫ח ִת‬:ֲ A piece Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 92:2–3, 101:1, and in the comment of
of non-kosher meat that is significant enough to place before Rema, and Shakh there).
guests has the same status as a distinct entity and is not nul-
A piece of an unslaughtered carcass or of a non-kosher fish –
lified even if it falls into one thousand pieces of kosher meat. ‫ח ִת ָיכה ׁ ֶשל נְ ֵב ָלה וְ ׁ ֶשל דָּ ג ָט ֵמא‬:ֲ If a piece of meat, significant enough
Even if it is a food from which it is prohibited to derive benefit it piece to place before guests, from an unslaughtered animal car-
is not nullified. The Rema adds that even if its prohibition is by cass or from a non-kosher species of animal, bird, or fish becomes
rabbinic law it is not nullified. If it is uncertain whether or not mixed even with many thousands of pieces of permitted meat, all
it is a piece of meat that is significant enough to place before of the pieces are forbidden until the non-kosher meat is removed.
guests one may be lenient, even if its prohibition is by Torah After it has been removed the rest of the mixture is permitted if it
law. If it is certainly significant enough to place before guests is sixty times the volume of the forbidden piece. If one does not
but it is uncertain whether or not it is actually forbidden, it is not remove the piece of non-kosher meat it is not nullified (Rambam
nullified (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 16:5; Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 16:5).

134 Ĥullin . perek VII . 100a . ‫ק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬:‫יה וְ ָד ַר ׁש‬
ּ ‫מֹורא ֲע ֵל‬ָ ‫אֹוקי ַרב ָא‬ ֵ Rav disagreed with Rabba bar bar Ĥana and appointed a dissemi-
natorb to stand before him and teach his statement to a wider audi- Disseminator [amora] – ‫מֹורא‬ ָ ‫א‬:ָ The custom in the time of
‫ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתן ַט ַעם ַ ּב ֲח ִת ָיכה – ֲח ִת ָיכה ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬ the Sages was to appoint a disseminator before the Sage
ence, and he taught: Once the non-kosher meat or fish has imparted
‫אֹוס ֶרת ָּכל ַה ֲח ִתיכֹות‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫נַע ֵ ׂשת נְ ֵב ָלה‬ ֲ giving a lecture. The term amora has the same meaning as
flavor to another piece in the pot, that second piece itself becomes the word meturgeman used in the Mishna. This person was
.‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵהן ִמינָ ּה‬,‫ּכו ָּּלן‬ non-kosher.n And this second piece renders all the pieces of meat often a scholar himself, sometimes even an important Sage,
or fish in the pot forbidden, because they are of the same type; whose job it was to translate the exposition from Hebrew
therefore, nullification does not apply. to Aramaic and to project it so that it could be heard by
everyone. Sometimes, there was more than one dissemina-
,‫ ִמ ְּכ ֵדי‬:‫יה ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Safra said to Abaye: Now, in accordance with whose opinion tor if the speech needed to be projected to a large group.
did Rav say his statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of Often, the disseminator would not only translate but also
‫יה – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ַרב ְּכ ַמאן ֲא ַמ ָר ּה ִל ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ֵת‬ explain the exposition, as the Sage would say the most basic
Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a type of food mixed with food of its
,‫ ִמין ְ ּב ִמינֹו – ָלא ָ ּב ֵטיל‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ ideas, and the disseminator would expand and develop
own type is not nullified. But if so, why does Rav state specifically them. For this reason, the Sages of the talmudic period
‫ַמאי ִא ְיריָ א ִּכי נָ ַתן ַט ַעם? ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִּכי‬ that the non-kosher meat renders all the pieces forbidden only when describe themselves as amora’im, as they saw their job as
‫ ָה ָכא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ל ֹא נָ ַתן ַט ַעם נַ ִמי! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ it has imparted flavor to another piece? Even if it did not impart disseminating the statements of the Sages of the Mishna.
.‫ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ַדם וְ ִס ְּלקֹו‬ flavor to another piece it should render all the contents of the pot Occasionally a Sage would establish a disseminator to
forbidden. Abaye said to him: Here we are dealing with a case announce a particular statement, or to negate his own
where he cooked the non-kosher piece with one kosher piece and mistaken statement or that of another Sage, as is the case
in the Gemara here.
first removed the non-kosher piece before adding the other pieces.
Consequently, the remaining pieces are forbidden only if the non-
kosher piece imparted flavor to the piece it was cooked with.

:‫ ָר ָבא ֲא ַמר‬Rava said an alternate answer to Rav Safra’s challenge of Rav’s

statement:

notes
The piece itself becomes non-kosher – ‫נַע ֵ ׂשת‬ ֲ ‫יכה ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬
ָ ‫ֲח ִת‬ But with regard to meat and milk mixed together, everyone
‫נְ ֵב ָלה‬: The early commentaries disagree with regard to the agrees that the entire piece is treated as if it is non-kosher, and
status of a piece of permitted food that has absorbed flavor its total volume must be nullified. This is because the meat and
from a forbidden food. Some hold that from the moment of the milk are permitted separately, and they become forbidden
absorption, the entire piece is treated as forbidden, and if it only when mixed together. The reason Rav holds it is forbidden
is subsequently cooked with other pieces it is nullified only is that he holds that a type of food mixed with other food of its
if there is sixty times its volume of permitted food (Rabbeinu type is never nullified. Therefore the piece that has absorbed
Tam; Rabbeinu Yitzĥak). Others hold that only the amount of the forbidden flavor renders all the other pieces forbidden. The
forbidden flavor that the piece has absorbed must be nullified halakha is that a type of food mixed with other food of its own
(Rabbeinu Efrayim; Rashba; Rosh; Maggid Mishne on Rambam). type is nullified in sixty times its volume.

Perek VII
Daf 100 Amud b

‫ ָהוֵ י‬,‫ימא – ל ֹא ָק ַדם וְ ִס ְּלקֹו‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֵּת‬You may even say that it is referring to a case where he did not first
,‫ ִמין ו ִּמינֹו וְ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר‬remove the piece of non-kosher meat or fish. Nevertheless, this is a
case of a mixture of one type of food with its own type of food and
with something else, i.e., the spices and broth in the pot.

‫ וְ ָכל ִמין ו ִּמינֹו וְ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר – ַס ֵּלק ֶאת‬And in any case of a type of forbidden food mixed with its own type
‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמינֹו – ַר ֶ ּבה‬,‫ ִמינֹו ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬of food and with something else, disregard the food that is its own
type, as though it is not present in the mixture, and if the amount
.‫ָע ָליו ו ְּמ ַב ְּטלֹו‬
of permitted food that is not its own type is sixty times greater than
the forbidden food, the permitted food nullifies it. Rav’s ruling
applies to a case where the forbidden piece of meat or fish imparts
flavor to another piece before the spices and broth are added, and
there is a total volume sixty times greater than the original non-
kosher piece. Consequently, even if the amount of spices and broth
is eventually sixty times greater than the original non-kosher piece
of meat or fish, the entire mixture is forbidden, as the spices and
broth are not sixty times greater than the two pieces of meat or fish
which are now non-kosher.
 ‫ק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 100b 135
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Throat – ‫יעה‬
background
ָ ‫בית ַה ְ ּב ִל‬:ּ ֵ This is referring to the back of
the mouth, especially the pharynx. When the food
.‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬
ֵ ‫הֹורה וְ ֵאינֹו‬
‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ַאף ַ ּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫מתני׳‬
ָ ‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ְּט‬
ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬
mishna The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve
applies to a kosher animal and does not
reaches this place it is swallowed automatically and
apply to a non-kosher animal.h Rabbi Yehuda says: It applies even
,‫ וַ ֲהל ֹא ִמ ְ ּבנֵי יַ ֲעקֹב נֶ ֱא ַסר ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬:‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ to a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yehuda said in explanation: Wasn’t
involuntarily. One can prevent it from being swal-
lowed only by forcibly gagging. ‫וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה מו ֶּּת ֶרת ָל ֶהן! ָא ְמר ּו‬ the sciatic nerve forbidden for the children of Jacob, as it is writ-
.‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכ ַּתב ִ ּב ְמקֹומֹו‬,‫ ְ ּב ִסינַי נֶ ֱא ַמר‬:‫לֹו‬ ten: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve” (Gen-
esis 32:33), yet the meat of a non-kosher animal was still permitted
to them? Since the sciatic nerve of non-kosher animals became
forbidden at that time, it remains forbidden now. The Rabbis said
to Rabbi Yehuda: The prohibition was stated in Sinai, but it was
written in its place, in the battle of Jacob and the angel despite the
fact that the prohibition did not take effect then.

?‫גמ׳ וְ ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ִא ּיסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר‬

‫ יָ כֹול ְּת ֵהא נִ ְב ַלת‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬,‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬
gemara The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda
hold that a prohibition takes effect where
another prohibition already exists? But isn’t it taught in a baraita:
?‫יעה‬ ָ ‫ עֹוף ָט ֵמא ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּבגָ ִדים ְ ּב ֵבית ַה ְ ּב ִל‬Rabbi Yehuda says: One might have thought that the carcass of a
non-kosher bird renders the garments of one who swallows it
ritually impure when it is in the throat,bh similar to the carcass of
a kosher bird.

‫ֹאכל‬ַ ‫לֹומר ״נְ ֵב ָלה ו ְּט ֵר ָפה ל ֹא י‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ Therefore the verse states concerning the impurity of carcasses of
‫״בל‬ּ ַ ‫יסוּרֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ּ ‫ְל ָט ְמ ָאה ָב ּה״ – ִמי ׁ ֶש ִא‬ birds: “A carcass, or that which is torn of animals, he shall not eat
to defile himself with it” (Leviticus 22:8). The verse indicates that
‫ יָ צָ א זֶ ה ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִא ּיסוּרֹו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ֹאכל נְ ֵב ָלה״‬
ַ ‫ּת‬
only those birds that are forbidden specifically due to the prohibi-
‫ֹאכל‬
ַ ‫״בל ּת‬ ּ ַ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬,‫ֹאכל נְ ֵב ָלה״‬
ַ ‫״בל ּת‬ ַּ tion: You shall not eat of a carcass, i.e., kosher birds that died
!‫ְט ֵמ ָאה״‬ without ritual slaughter, cause impurity in this manner. This serves
to exclude any bird that is not forbidden due to the prohibition:
You shall not eat of a carcass, but rather due to the prohibition:
You shall not eat a non-kosher bird. This indicates that according
to Rabbi Yehuda, the prohibition of eating a carcass does not take
effect with regard to a non-kosher bird, because it is already subject
to a different prohibition.

ֵ ‫ ֵאין ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין ְ ּב‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫ימא‬

,‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִכי ֵּת‬The Gemara continues with its question: And if you would say that
ָּ ‫ ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּגיד – ִא‬,‫ ו ַּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה נַ ִמי‬Rabbi Yehuda holds that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor, i.e.,
‫ ִא ּיסוּר‬,‫יכא‬
they do not have flavor and therefore are not classified as food, and
,‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה – ֵל‬
even with regard to a non-kosher animal it is prohibited to eat the
sciatic nerve because the general prohibition of eating a sciatic
nerve applies, whereas the prohibition of eating non-kosher ani-
mals does not apply because the sciatic nerve is not considered
food, this is untenable.

?‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֵאין ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין ְ ּב‬ The Gemara explains: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that sciatic
‫אֹוכל ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ ֵ ‫ ָה‬:‫וְ ָה ַתנְ יָ א‬ nerves do not impart flavor? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With
regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal,h
‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ְט ֵמ ָאה – ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬
Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to receive two sets of lashes, one
!‫ֹוטר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ּפ‬ for eating the sciatic nerve and one for eating the meat of a non-
kosher animal, and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely from
lashes. This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sciatic nerve
does have flavor.

halakha
Applies to a kosher animal and does not apply to a non-kosher himself in water, and be impure until the evening; then shall he be
animal – ‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬ ָ ‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ְּט‬:
ֵ ‫הֹורה וְ ֵאינֹו‬ ֵ The prohibition of eating pure” (Leviticus 17:15), applies only to one who eats a carcass of a
the sciatic nerve applies to every kosher animal, even if it was not kosher species of bird, which is forbidden due to the prohibitions of
slaughtered or it became a tereifa. The prohibition does not apply an unslaughtered carcass and tereifa (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
to the sciatic nerve of non-kosher species of animals, in accordance She’ar Avot HaTumot 3:1).
with the opinion of the first tanna (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
One who eats the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal – ‫אֹוכל‬ ֵ ‫ָה‬
Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:1, 5).
‫גיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה‬:ּ ִ One who eats the sciatic nerve of a
One might have thought the carcass of a non-kosher bird ren- non-kosher species of animal is exempt from lashes, because the
ders garments ritually impure in the throat – ‫ יָ כֹול ְּת ֵהא נִ ְב ַלת עֹוף‬prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies only to kosher spe-
‫יעה‬
ָ ‫ט ֵמא ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּבגָ ִדים ְ ּב ֵבית ַה ְ ּב ִל‬:ָ The Sages learned by tradition that cies of animal. Eating the sciatic nerve is not considered like eating
the verse referring to ritual impurity, which states: “And every soul the meat of the animal, since the sciatic nerve has no flavor. This
that eats that which dies of itself, or that which is a tereifa, whether ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon (Rambam
he be homeborn or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:5, 4:18).

136 Ĥullin . perek VII . 100b . ‫ק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ז‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫ יֵ ׁש ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין ְ ּב‬:‫עֹולם ָק ָס ַבר‬ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara answers: Actually Rabbi Yehuda holds that sciatic
ֵ :‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר‬nerves do impart flavor, and he also holds that the prohibition of
‫ דְּ ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּגיד וְ ִא ּיסוּר‬,‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬
eating the sciatic nerve applies to the sciatic nerve of an animal fetus.
.‫טו ְּמ ָאה – ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי ָק ָא ֵתי‬
Consequently, although Rabbi Yehuda holds that a prohibition does
not take effect where another already exists, one who eats the sciatic
nerve of a non-kosher animal is flogged twice, because the prohibi-
tion of eating a sciatic nerve and the prohibition of eating meat from
a non-kosher animal come into effect at the same time.

:‫ וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬,‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬

ֵ ‫ ו ִּמי ָמצֵ ית ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬The Gemara challenges this answer: And can you say that Rabbi
‫נֹוהג‬ֵ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬ֵ Yehuda holds that the prohibition of eating a sciatic nerve applies to
the sciatic nerve of a fetus? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (89b):
!‫ וְ ֶח ְל ּבֹו מו ָּּתר‬,‫ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬
The prohibition applies to a late-term fetus in the womb. Rabbi
Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus, and similarly the fat of a
fetus is permitted?

ֵּ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ‬The Gemara answers: This statement, that the prohibition of eating
ָ ‫ ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ְט‬,‫ילי‬
:‫ דְּ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ֲא ַמר‬,‫הֹורה‬
‫ ֲא ָבל ַ ּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬,‫ֹאכלוּ״‬
ֵ ‫ה…ת‬
ּ ‫ל…ב ְ ּב ֵה ָמ‬ ּ ַ ‫״כ‬ ָּ the sciatic nerve does not apply to a fetus, is with regard to a kosher
species of animal, because the Merciful One stated in the Torah:
.‫נֹוהג‬
ֵ
“And every animal that divides the hoof, and has the hoof wholly
cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the animals [babehema],
that you may eat” (Deuteronomy 14:6). The term babehema may also
be translated as: Inside the animals, indicating that anything inside a
kosher animal when it is slaughtered is permitted for consumption,
including all parts of a fetus. But with regard to a non-kosher species
of animal the prohibition applies.

‫ ו ִּמי ָמצֵ ית ָא ְמ ַר ְּת דְּ ַת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי‬The Gemara challenges the assertion that the prohibitions of eating
‫ ַעל ֵא ּל ּו טו ְּמאֹות ַה ָּנזִ יר‬,‫ ָק ָאתוּ? וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬the sciatic nerve and of eating non-kosher meat take effect at the same
time. And can you say that they both come into effect at the same
.‫ וְ ַעל ַּכּזַ יִ ת ִמן ַה ֵּמת‬,‫ ַעל ַה ֵּמת‬:‫ְמגַ ֵּל ַח‬
time? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nazir 49b): A nazirite shaves
for having become impure from these following sources of ritual
impurity: For having become impure with impurity imparted by a
corpse; and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse.

‫ ַעל‬,‫ ַעל ַּכּזַ יִ ת ִמן ַה ֵּמת ְמגַ ֵּל ַח‬:‫וְ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָלן‬ And this poses a difficulty for us: If a nazirite shaves for becoming
ָ ‫ַה ֵּמת ּכוּלּ ֹו ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן? וַ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬
:‫יֹוחנָן‬ impure from an olive-bulk of a corpse, is it not obvious that all the
more so he must shave for becoming impure from an entire corpse?
‫ָלא נִצְ ְר ָכא ֶא ָּלא ְלנֶ ֶפל ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא נִ ְת ַק ׁ ּ ְשר ּו‬
And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: It is necessary only with regard to a
‫יסוּר טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ּ ‫ ִא‬:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫ֵא ָב ָריו ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין‬ miscarried fetus whose limbs have not yet become joined to its
!‫ָק ֵדים‬ sinews. Although the fetus does not yet contain an olive-bulk of flesh,
since it is a complete entity, it transmits impurity to anything under
the same roof. Evidently, the limbs of the body are formed before
the nerves and sinews, and therefore the prohibition of eating non-
kosher meat takes effect prior to the prohibition of the sciatic nerve.

‫ ָא ֵתי‬,‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ִא ּיסוּר טו ְּמ ָאה ָק ֵדים‬The Gemara answers: Even though the prohibition of eating non-
‫נֹוהג‬ ּ ‫ ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּגיד ָחיֵ יל ֲע ֵל‬kosher meat takes effect prior to the prohibition of eating the sciatic
ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ִא ּיסוּרֹו‬,‫יה‬
nerve, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve also comes and takes
.‫ִ ּב ְבנֵי נ ַֹח‬
effect upon a non-kosher animal because this prohibition applies
to descendants of Noah, i.e., to gentiles. Since the prohibition of
eating the sciatic nerve adds an additional stringency that did not
exist with regard to non-kosher meat, it takes effect even though there
was an already existing prohibition.

‫ וַ ֲהל ֹא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬,‫ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫ דַּ יְ ָקא נַ ִמי‬According to this answer, the language of the mishna is also precise,
‫ וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין‬,‫ ִמ ְ ּבנֵי יַ ֲעקֹב נֶ ֱא ַסר ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬as it teaches: Rabbi Yehuda said: Wasn’t the sciatic nerve forbid-
den for the children of Jacob, as it is written: “Therefore the children
.‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה מו ֶּּת ֶרת ָל ֶהם‬
of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33), yet the meat of
a non-kosher animal was still permitted to them? This indicates
that the basis of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is the fact that the sciatic
nerve was forbidden to the children of Jacob, who had the status of
descendants of Noah.

‫אֹוכל ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ ֵ ‫ ָה‬,‫ § גּ ו ָּפא‬The Gemara returns to the matter itself cited above. With regard
,‫ ְט ֵמ ָאה – ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬to one who eats the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal, Rabbi
Yehuda deems him liable to receive two sets of lashes: One for
eating the sciatic nerve and one for eating the meat of a non-
kosher animal;
 ‫ק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 100b 137
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VII
Daf 101 Amud a
notes
.‫ֹוטר‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ּפ‬and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely.
A prohibition takes effect where another prohibition
already exists – ‫יסוּר‬ ּ ‫יסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא‬
ּ ‫א‬:
ִ Tanna’im dispute ‫ ִאי ִא ּיסוּר ָחל‬: ָ‫ ַמה ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָשך‬,‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ The Gemara objects: But according to Rabbi Shimon, whichever
whether to accept this concept, and if it is accepted, the way you look at it, it is difficult. If a prohibition takes effect where
specifics of its application. Most hold that a prohibition does .‫יחּיֵ יב נַ ִמי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ּגיד‬ ַ ‫יסוּר – ִל‬ ּ ‫ַעל ִא‬
another prohibition already exists,n let Rabbi Shimon deem one
take effect in addition to another prohibition if they both ‫יחּיֵ יב‬
ַ ‫ִאי ֵאין ִא ּיסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר – ִל‬
take effect at the same moment. Some tanna’im hold that liable for eating non-kosher meat and also due to the prohibition
‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם טו ְּמ ָאה דְּ ָק ֵדים! וְ ִאי ֵאין ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידין‬ of eating the sciatic nerve. Conversely, if a prohibition does not
a second prohibition takes effect if it is a more inclusive
prohibition in that it adds more items to the prohibition for !‫יחּיֵ יב ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִ ּגיד‬
ַ ‫נֹותן ַט ַעם – ִל‬ֵ ‫ְ ּב‬ take effect where another prohibition already exists, let Rabbi
the same individual. Others hold that even if a second prohi- Shimon deem one liable due to the prohibition of eating meat
bition does not usually take effect, nevertheless it does take from a non-kosher species, which preceded the prohibition of the
effect if it is a more expanded prohibition that incorporates sciatic nerve. And if Rabbi Shimon holds that sciatic nerves do
additional people into the list of those to whom the original
item is prohibited. According to the Rashba, the concept of
not impart flavor, and therefore the prohibition of eating non-
an expanded prohibition applies in a case where an item kosher meat does not apply, let him deem one liable due to the
that was previously forbidden to eat becomes an item from prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve.
which it is forbidden to benefit. Other commentaries hold
that it also applies when the additional prohibition merely ‫ ֵאין ַ ּב ִ ּג ִידים‬,‫עֹולם ָק ָס ַבר‬
ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ Rava said in response: Actually Rabbi Shimon holds that sciatic
increases the severity of the punishment, even if nothing nerves do not impart flavor, and therefore they are not subject to
:‫ וְ ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם – דַּ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ֵ ‫ְ ּב‬
new was prohibited (Peirush Romerog on Kiddushin 77b). the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat. And the reason the
‫ֹאכל ּו ְבנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאת ִ ּגיד‬ְ ‫״על ֵּכן ל ֹא י‬ ַ
An ox that is stoned – ‫שֹור ַה ּנ ְִס ָקל‬:ׁ This is referring to an ox prohibition of eating the sciatic nerves does not apply to non-
that killed a person (see Exodus 21:28–32). Although the ,‫ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה״ – ִמי ׁ ֶש ִ ּגידֹו ָאסוּר ו ְּב ָ ׂשרֹו מו ָּּתר‬ kosher animals is that it is different there, because the verse
same halakha applies to any creature that killed a human .‫יָ צְ ָתה זֹו – ׁ ֶש ִ ּגידֹו ָאסוּר ו ְּב ָ ׂשרֹו ָאסוּר‬ states: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve”
being, the Sages use the example of an ox because it
(Genesis 32:33). This teaches that the prohibition applies only to a
appears in the verse. The halakha that no benefit may be
derived from the ox after the verdict is derived from the
species whose sciatic nerve is forbidden but whose meat is per-
phrase: “But the owner of the ox shall be clear” (Exodus mitted, and excludes this case of a non-kosher animal, whose
21:28). This applies even before the animal is stoned (Bava sciatic nerve would be forbidden and whose meat would also
Kamma 41a). be forbidden.

‫אֹוכל ִ ּגיד‬
ֵ ‫ ָה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ § Having discussed the status of the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher
‫ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל נְ ֵב ָלה – ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ְמ ַחּיֵ יב‬ animal, the Gemara addresses the status of the sciatic nerve of a
kosher animal that did not undergo a proper ritual slaughter. Rav
‫ ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬
Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to one who eats the sciatic
.‫ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת‬ nerve of an unslaughtered carcass,h Rabbi Meir deems him lia-
ble to receive two sets of lashes, and the Rabbis say: He is liable
to receive only one set of lashes.

‫אֹוכל ִ ּגיד‬
ֵ ‫ּמֹודים ֲח ָכ ִמים ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ְ ּב‬ ִ ‫ ו‬And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in a case where one eats
ָ ‫ ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל‬the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering or of an ox that is stoned
h n
– ‫עֹולה וְ ׁ ֶשל ׁשֹור ַה ּנ ְִס ָקל‬
that he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. The prohibitions
.‫ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ יב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬
concerning a burnt offering and an ox that is stoned are more
severe than that of the sciatic nerve, in that it is forbidden to derive
any benefit from them, whereas the sciatic nerve is merely forbid-
den for consumption. Consequently, these prohibitions take effect
even with regard to the sciatic nerve, despite the fact that the sciatic
nerve was already forbidden before the animal was consecrated or
before it gored a person and became liable to be stoned.

– ‫יס ּור ּכ ֵֹולל‬ּ ‫ ּו ַמאן ַהאי ַּת ָּנא דִּ ְב ִא‬The Gemara challenges: And who is this tanna who does not
ּ ‫ ִא ּיסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר ֵלית ֵל‬hold that in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, the prohibi-
‫ ִא ּיסוּר‬,‫יה‬
tion takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and
?‫יה‬
ּ ‫ּכ ֵֹולל ְ ּב ִא ּיסוּר ָחמוּר ִאית ֵל‬
consequently, according to his opinion the prohibition of eating
an unslaughtered animal, which applies to the entire animal, does
not take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve. Yet, he does hold
that where the second prohibition is both a more inclusive prohi-
bition and a more stringent prohibition, it does take effect, and
therefore the prohibition of eating a burnt offering or an ox that is
stoned does take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve.
halakha
One who eats the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered carcass – ָ ‫ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל‬: One who
Sciatic nerve of a burnt offering – ‫עֹולה‬
‫אֹוכל ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ׁ ֶשל נְ ֵב ָלה‬
ֵ ‫ה‬:ָ One who eats the sciatic nerve of an eats the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering is liable to receive two
unslaughtered carcass is liable to two sets of lashes. He is liable sets of lashes, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. In
to one set of lashes for violating the general prohibition of eat- this instance even the Rabbis agree with him (Rambam Sefer
ing an unslaughtered carcass, and another set for consuming Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:6).
the sciatic nerve itself, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
Meir (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:6).

138 Ĥullin . perek VII . 101a . ‫ףד‬ ‫אק‬. ‫׳ז קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ָט ֵמא‬,‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬.‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי ִהיא‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava said: It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili who holds that a more
One who is ritually impure who ate sacrificial food – ‫ָט ֵמא‬
– ‫ ֵ ּבין ק ֶֹד ׁש ָט ֵמא ֵ ּבין ק ֶֹד ׁש ָטהֹור‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ק ֶֹד ׁש‬inclusive prohibition does not take effect where there is an ‫ש ָא ַכל ק ֶֹד ׁש‬:
ֶ ׁ In a case where one is impure to a degree that
already existing prohibition. As we learned in a mishna
.‫ַחּיָ יב‬ renders him liable to the punishment of karet for enter-
(Zevaĥim 106a): One who is ritually impure who ate sacrifi- ing the Temple, if he intentionally ate an olive-bulk of a
cial food,h whether it was ritually impure sacrificial food or sacrificial animal he is liable to receive the punishment
ritually pure sacrificial food, is liable to receive karet if he did of karet, whether the meat was ritually pure or impure.
so intentionally and to bring a sliding-scale offering if he did If he ate the sacrificial meat unwittingly he must bring a
so unwittingly. sliding-scale offering. This ruling is in accordance with the
opinion of the first tanna (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot
Pesulei HaMukdashin 18:13).
‫ ָט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ֶאת‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: An impure individual who ate
– ‫ ָט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ֶאת ַה ָּט ֵמא‬,‫ ַה ָּטהֹור – ַחּיָ יב‬pure sacrificial food is liable. But an impure individual who
ate impure sacrificial food is exempt, as he merely ate an
.‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָא ַכל ֶא ָּלא דָּ ָבר ָט ֵמא‬,‫ּ ָפטוּר‬
impure item, and the prohibition of eating sacrificial food
while one is impure does not apply to impure sacrificial food.

‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫ ַאף ָט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ֶאת ַה ָּטהֹור‬:‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו‬The Rabbis said to him: According to your logic, this halakha
!ּ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּנגַ ע ּבֹו – ִט ְּמ ָאהו‬would apply even in a case of an impure individual who ate
what had been pure sacrificial food, because once he has
touched it, he has thereby rendered it impure. Yet, in such
a case, he is certainly liable for eating it. So too, an impure
individual who ate impure sacrificial food is liable.

!‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬
ֵ ‫יה ַר ָ ּבנַן ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר ָקא ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬ The Gemara asks: The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Yosei
‫ ְ ּבנִ ְט ָמא ַהגּ וּף וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך נִ ְט ָמא‬:‫וַ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ HaGelili; why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagree? And Rava
said in elaboration of the dispute: In a case where the person’s
‫ דְּ ִא ּיסוּר‬,‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דְּ ַחּיָ יב‬
body became impure and then afterward the sacrificial meat
.‫ָּכ ֵרת ָק ֵדים‬ became impure, everyone agrees that he is liable if he eats
the meat, as the prohibition of eating sacrificial meat while
impure, which carries the punishment of karet, preceded the
prohibition of eating impure sacrificial meat.

.‫נִט ָמא ַה ּגוּף‬ ְ ְ‫נִט ָמא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ַא ַחר ָּכך‬ְ ‫ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ְ ּב‬ They disagree when the meat became impure and then after-
ַ ‫ דְּ ִמגּ ֹו דְּ ִמ‬,‫ַר ָ ּבנַן – ִאית ְלה ּו ִא ּיסוּר ּכ ֵֹולל‬
‫יחּיַ יב‬ ward the person’s body became impure. The Rabbis hold
that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect even where
‫יחּיַ יב נַ ִמי‬ַ ‫ַא ֲח ִתיכֹות ְטהֹורֹות דְּ ָע ְל ָמא – ִמ‬
there is an already existing prohibition. Consequently, since
.‫יכה ְט ֵמ ָאה‬ ָ ‫ַא ֲח ִת‬ the prohibition for an impure person to eat sacrificial meat is
more inclusive than the prohibition for a pure person to eat
impure sacrificial meat, as an impure person is liable for eating
even pure pieces of sacrificial meat that are permitted to the
rest of the world, he is also liable for this prohibition when
he eats an impure piece of sacrificial meat.

,‫יסוּר ּכ ֵֹולל‬ ּ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי – ֵלית ֵל‬

ּ ‫יה ִא‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not accept the principle that
.‫ ״דְּ ִמגּ ֹו״ ָלא ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬a more inclusive prohibition takes effect even where there is
an already existing prohibition, as he holds that we do not say
that since it applies to cases that were not yet prohibited it
applies to all cases.

ּ ‫ נְ ִהי דְּ ִא ּיסוּר ּכ ֵֹולל ֵלית ֵל‬,‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬

,‫יה‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ The Gemara objects: But even according to Rabbi Yosei
‫ְ ּב ִא ּיסוּר ַקל יָ בֹא ִא ּיסוּר ָחמוּר יָ חוּל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר‬ Ha­Gelili, granted that he does not hold that a more inclusive
prohibition always takes effect where there is an already exist-
‫ ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי טו ְּמ ַאת‬,‫ ו ַּמאי נִיה ּו – טו ְּמ ַאת ַה ּגוּף‬,‫ַקל‬
ing prohibition. But in the case of an already existing lenient
!‫ַהגּ וּף ְ ּב ָכ ֵרת‬ prohibition, a more stringent prohibition should come and
take effect on the more lenient prohibition. And what is the
more stringent prohibition? The prohibition due to the impu-
rity of a person’s body, as one who eats sacrificial food when
he has impurity of the body is liable to karet, whereas a pure
person who eats impure sacrificial food is merely liable to be
flogged. Consequently, the prohibition of eating sacrificial
food while impure should apply even though the meat became
impure before the person became impure.

‫ימא ָלן דְּ טו ְּמ ַאת ַהגּ וּף‬ָ ‫ ַמאן ֵל‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬Rav Ashi said: Who can say to us that the prohibition due to
‫ דְּ ֵלית‬,‫ דִּ ְל ָמא טו ְּמ ַאת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֲחמו ָּרה‬,‫ ֲחמו ָּרה‬the impurity of a person’s body is more stringent? Perhaps
the prohibition due to the impurity of the meat is more strin-
!‫יה ָט ֳה ָרה ְ ּב ִמ ְקוֶ ה‬
ּ ‫ֵל‬
gent, as impure meat does not have the possibility of restor-
ing its state of purity via immersion in a ritual bath, whereas
a ritually impure person can become pure in this manner.
 ‫אק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 101a 139
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VII
Daf 101 Amud b
language
ּ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי ֵלית ֵל‬
?‫יה ִא ּיסוּר ּכ ֵֹולל‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili not hold that a
The presentation of this teaching [hatza’a shel more inclusive prohibition takes effect where there is an already
mishna] – ‫ה ָ ּצ ָעה ׁ ֶשל ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה‬:ַ In this idiom, which literally
means the spreading of the mishna, the word hatza’a
existing prohibition?
denotes clear and plain presentation, similar to the
spreading of [hatza’at] a sheet on a bed, which can be ‫ ׁ ָשגַ ג וְ ָע ָ ׂשה‬,‫ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת וְ יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬:‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When Shabbat and Yom Kippur
clearly seen. It presents the precise and correct formula- ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ יב ַעל זֶ ה ְ ּב ַעצְ מֹו וְ ַעל‬,‫אכה‬ ָ ‫ְמ ָל‬ occur on the same day, if one acted unwittingly and performed
tion of a mishna. prohibited labor,h from where is it derived that he is liable for this
,‫״ש ָ ּבת ִהיא״‬ ַ ׁ ‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫זֶ ה ְ ּב ַעצְ מֹו – ַּת ְלמוּד‬
by itself and for that by itself,n i.e., he is liable to bring two sin
.‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬
ֵ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫״יֹום ַה ִּכ ּ ֻפ ִרים הוּא״‬ offerings, for having transgressed both Shabbat and Yom Kippur?
!‫ ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ The verse states: “You shall do no manner of work; it is a Shabbat
for the Lord in all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:3), and another
verse states: “It is Yom Kippur” (Leviticus 23:27). The term “it is”
in each verse teaches that each of these days is considered indepen-
dently even when it occurs together with another holy day. This is
the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: He is
liable to bring only one sin offering because a prohibition does not
take effect where another prohibition already exists.

ֵ ‫ ׁ ָש ַלח ָר ִבין ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara answers that on this topic Ravin sent a letter citing a
:‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬
. ְ‫ וְ ֵא ּיפוּך‬,‫ ָּכךְ ַה ָ ּצ ָעה ׁ ֶשל ִמ ׁ ְשנָ ה‬statement in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ĥanina: This
is the correct presentation of this teaching [hatza’a shel mishna],l
i.e., the opinions in this baraita are accurate, but one must reverse
the attributions of each opinion so that the first opinion is that of
Rabbi Akiva and the second opinion is that of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.
Consequently, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that two prohibitions
do not take effect at the same time even if one is more inclusive or
stringent than the other.

ֵ ‫ׁ ָש ַלח ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב ַ ּבר ִ ּג‬

‫ּיֹורי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Yosei
‫ ְל ַמאי‬,‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬
ֵ ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ Ha­Gelili. Rav Yitzĥak bar Ya’akov bar Giyorei sent a letter citing
a statement in the name of Rabbi Yoĥanan: According to the
– ‫ ׁ ָשגַ ג ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ֵהזִ יד ְ ּביֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬,‫דַּ ֲא ַפ ַכן‬
statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as stated in the baraita once
– ‫ ֵהזִ יד ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת וְ ׁ ָשגַ ג ְ ּביֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬,‫ַחּיָ יב‬ the attributions have been reversed, if one unwittingly performed
.‫ּ ָפטוּר‬ a forbidden labor on a Yom Kippur that occurred on Shabbat, he
is obligated to bring one sin offering. If he acted unwittingly with
regard to the fact that it was Shabbat, i.e., he forgot that it was
Shabbat, but acted intentionally with regard to Yom Kippur, he
is obligated to bring a sin offering. But if he acted intentionally
with regard to Shabbat but unwittingly with regard to Yom
Kippur, he is exempt from bringing any offering.

‫יעא‬
ָ ‫ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת – ְק ִב‬:‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא? ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yoĥanan’s state-
‫ יֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים – ֵ ּבי ִדינָ א דְּ ָקא‬,‫ימא‬ ָ ְ‫ וְ ַקּי‬ment? Abaye said: Shabbat is established and permanent, i.e., it
always occurs on the seventh day of the week, whereas in the case
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫ָק ְב ִעי ֵל‬
of Yom Kippur, it is the court that establishes it, as the Sages
determine the New Moon. Consequently, Shabbat is considered
to have preceded Yom Kippur, and the prohibition to perform labor
on Yom Kippur does not apply, due to the fact that labor is already
prohibited because it is Shabbat. Since one brings a sin offering
only due to unwitting transgression, he is obligated to bring a sin
offering only if he performed labor without realizing it was Shabbat.

halakha
If one acted unwittingly and performed prohibited labor – ‫ׁ ָשגַ ג‬ offerings, because both prohibitions take effect simultaneously.
‫אכה‬ָ ‫וְ ָע ָ ׂשה ְמ ָל‬: One who unwittingly performs forbidden labor This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna
on Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat is liable to bring two sin (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Shegagot 4:1).

notes
He is liable for this by itself and for that by itself – ‫ַחּיָ יב ַעל זֶ ה‬ it being prohibited to perform labor. Conversely, Shabbat is a more
‫ב ַעצְ מֹו וְ ַעל זֶ ה ְ ּב ַעצְ מֹו‬:ּ ְ According to this baraita, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili extensive prohibition than Yom Kippur in that one who performs
holds that both prohibitions apply together. This is because the a prohibited labor is liable to receive the death penalty, whereas
prohibitions of Yom Kippur are more inclusive than those of Shab- on Yom Kippur he is liable to receive only karet.
bat, as it is prohibited to eat and drink on Yom Kippur in addition to

140 Ĥullin . perek VII . 101b . ‫ףד‬ ‫אק‬: ‫׳ז קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ַּת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו‬,‫ סֹוף סֹוף‬:‫יה ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rava said to Abaye: Ultimately both of them, i.e., Shabbat and Yom
Kippur, come into effect at the same time. Since both take effect at That Yom Kippur of this year will be observed on
,‫ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי ָק ָאתוּ! ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ Shabbat – ‫יֹומא ְד ִכ ּפו ֵּרי דְּ ָהא ׁ ַש ָּתא ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא הוּא‬
ָ ְּ‫ד‬: Some early
the beginning of the calendar day, it cannot be said that Shabbat
‫יֹומא‬ָ ְּ‫ ד‬:‫ וְ ׁ ָש ְלח ּו ִמ ָּתם‬,‫ׁ ְש ָמ ָדא ֲהוָ ה‬ commentaries explain that in that year the tenth of Tishrei,
precedes Yom Kippur. Rather Rava said a different explanation. It the date of Yom Kippur, fell on a weekday. Due to the perse-
.‫ְד ִכ ּפו ֵּרי דְּ ָהא ׁ ַש ָּתא – ׁ ַש ְ ּב ָתא הוּא‬ was a time of religious persecution, and they sent from there, i.e., cution they were unable to observe Yom Kippur on that day,
‫ ֲא ַמרו ָּה‬,‫חֹותי‬ ֵ ָ‫וְ ֵכן ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין וְ ָכל נ‬ from Eretz Yisrael, a directive stating that Yom Kippur of this year but in order that they not forget Yom Kippur they observed
.‫ְּכ ָר ָבא‬ will not be observed on its proper day but rather on Shabbat.n Rabbi it on Shabbat instead, when the persecutors would not
Yoĥanan was merely stating that on that particular year one who notice (Rashi). Others challenge this explanation, querying
why the Rabbis would forego Yom Kippur due to religious
would unwittingly transgress Yom Kippur would be exempt from
persecution, when such a case should be one for which one
bringing a sin offering. And similarly, when Ravinp and all those is obligated to give up his life (Sanhedrin 74b). They answer
who descendedb from Eretz Yisrael came to Babylonia, they said that the decree was not against observing Yom Kippur
that the true explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rava. specifically, but against the Jews fixing a calendar. Fixing
the calendar is a positive mitzva, and one is not obligated
ָ § The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda said in explanation: Wasn’t
‫״א ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה וַ ֲהל ֹא ִמ ְ ּבנֵי יַ ֲעקֹב״‬ to give up one’s life to fulfill a positive mitzva (Ritva).
Others explain that due to the persecution the Sages
.]‫ [וכו׳‬the sciatic nerve forbidden for the children of Jacob, as it is written: were afraid to send the calendar to the Jews in Babylonia
“Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve” (Genesis in the usual way. That year Yom Kippur happened to occur
32:33), yet the meat of a non-kosher animal was still permitted to on Shabbat, so they sent a coded message to that effect in
them? Since the sciatic nerve of non-kosher animals became the name of Rabbi Akiva, using the language recorded in
forbidden at that time, it remains forbidden now. the baraita: When Shabbat and Yom Kippur occur on the
same day, from where is it derived that he is liable for this by
itself and for that by itself? The verse states: “It is a Shabbat
‫ וְ ִכי נֶ ֱא ַמר‬:‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו ְל ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ It is taught in a baraita that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But
for the Lord” and “it is Yom Kippur.” The Jews of Babylonia
‫ֹאכל ּו ְבנֵי יַ ֲעקֹב״? וַ ֲהל ֹא‬ ְ ‫״על ֵּכן ל ֹא י‬ ַ is it stated in the verse: Therefore the children of Jacob do not eat understood from this that Yom Kippur of that year occurred
the sciatic nerve? Isn’t it true that it is stated only that: “Therefore on Shabbat. According to this explanation, Rava completely
‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫״בנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬ ְ ‫ל ֹא נֶ ֱא ַמר ֶא ָּלא‬
the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve?” And the Jewish rejects the explanation of Rav Yitzĥak bar Yaakov bar Giyorei,
,‫״בנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״ ַעד ִסינַי! ֶא ָּלא‬ ּ ְ ‫נִ ְק ְרא ּו‬ people were not called “the children of Israel” until they received and is instead saying that when the instruction was given to
‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכ ַּתב ִ ּב ְמקֹומֹו‬,‫ְ ּב ִסינַי נֶ ֱא ַמר‬ the Torah at Mount Sinai. Rather, this terminology indicates that reverse the opinions, it was only in order to communicate to
.‫ֵל ַידע ֵמ ֵאיזֶ ה ַט ַעם נֶ ֱא ַסר ָל ֶהם‬ the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was stated to the Jewish the Jews in Babylonia that Yom Kippur fell on Shabbat that
year. Since Rabbi Akiva’s opinion was generally considered
people at Sinai, but was written in its place, after the incident of
authoritative, they attributed the ruling citing the verse
Jacob wrestling with the angel, to allow the Jewish people to know to him, even though it was actually that of Rabbi Yosei
the reason the sciatic nerve was forbidden to them. Since the pro- HaGelili (Ramban).
hibition came into effect only at Sinai, there is no proof that it ever
applied with regard to non-kosher animals. Personalities
Ravin – ‫ר ִבין‬:ָ Ravin, a fourth-generation amora, studied in
‫ ״וַ ּיִ ְ ׂשא ּו ְבנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאת‬:‫ ְמ ִתיב ָר ָבא‬Rava raises an objection to this baraita: The verse states: “And Jacob Eretz Yisrael under Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Zeira, and Rabbi Ilai.
.‫יהם״! ְל ַא ַחר ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬ ֶ ‫ יַ ֲעקֹב ֲא ִב‬rose up from Beersheba; and the children of Israel carried Jacob He is best known for all of the statements that he brought
their father, and their little ones, and their wives in the wagons that with him from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, which are fre-
Pharaoh had sent to carry him” (Genesis 46:5). This occurred before quently quoted in the Talmud with the introductory phrase:
When Ravin came. The source of many of these statements
the Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore proves that the title was Rabbi Yoĥanan, and they were considered to be very
“the children of Israel” was in use before the Torah was given. The precise. It seems that Ravin also returned to visit his teach-
Gemara answers: Nevertheless, this occurred after the incident, i.e., ers in Eretz Yisrael and sent messages back to Babylonia
after Jacob wrestled with the angel and after the prophetic vision in with the statements he learned from them (see Ketubot
which God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Genesis 35:10). 49b and Bava Metzia 114a). In the Jerusalem Talmud, where
he is known as Rabbi Avin or Rabbi Bun, a number of his
own rulings and some miraculous events that occurred to
‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא ְל ַרב‬
ּ ‫יה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: In that case, the sciatic him are cited. Ravin was an orphan from birth, as his father,
!‫ית ַסר‬ ְ ‫ ֵמ ַה ִהיא ׁ ַש ְע ָּתא ִל‬:‫ ַא ׁ ִשי‬nerve should be understood as having become forbidden to them who was also called Rabbi Avin, died before he was born
from that time when they were first called the children of Israel. and his mother died during childbirth.
Since this was before the giving of the Torah, this would be in accor-
dance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not that of the Rabbis. background
Descended – ‫חֹותי‬
ֵ ָ‫נ‬: This is referring to the Sages who
‫ וְ ִכי ּת ָֹורה ּ ְפ ָע ִמים ּ ְפ ָע ִמים‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Ashi said to him: Was the Torah given piecemeal, on numerous would come from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, either for busi-
‫נִיתנָ ה? ַההוּא ׁ ַש ְע ָּתא – ָלאו ׁ ְש ַעת‬ ְּ different occasions? It was given at Sinai. Rather, that time when ness or because they were sent by the community. While
the title “children of Israel” was first used was not the time when they were in Babylonia they reported halakhot that had
‫ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ֲהוַ אי וְ ָלא ׁ ְש ַעת ַמ ַּתן ּת ָֹורה‬ been taught in Eretz Yisrael.
the incident of Jacob wrestling with the angel occurred and also
.‫ֲהוַ אי‬ was not the time of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. There-
fore, there is no reason to assume that the prohibition took effect at halakha

that time. A limb from a living animal applies, etc. – ‫ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬
‫נֹוהג וכו׳‬:
ֵ The prohibition against eating a limb from a living
animal applies to kosher species of animals and to birds.
‫נֹוהג ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמה‬
ֵ ‫ ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ § The mishna taught a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rab- It does not apply to non-kosher species of animals, in
,‫הֹורין‬
ִ ‫ ֵ ּבין ְט ֵמ ִאין ו ֵּבין ְט‬,‫ַחּיָ ה וְ עֹוף‬ bis with regard to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. The accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer
Gemara now cites a similar dispute between them with regard to Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 5:1).
‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬
eating a limb from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: The
ִ ‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְט‬
.‫הֹורין‬ ֵ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal appliesh whether
the limb comes from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated
animal, or a bird, and whether it is from a non-kosher species or
from a kosher species; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and
Rabbi Elazar. But the Rabbis say: The prohibition of eating a limb
from a living animal applies only to a limb from a kosher species.
 ‫אק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 101b 141
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

.ּ‫נֵיהן ִמ ְק ָרא ֶא ָחד דָּ ְר ׁשו‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan says: And both of them, i.e., the Rabbis as well as
ֶ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
‫ ַ״רק ֲחזַ ק ְל ִב ְל ִּתי ֲאכֹל ַהדָּ ם ִּכי ַהדָּ ם הוּא‬Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, derived their opinions from one
verse: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood
,‫ַה ָּנ ֶפ ׁש‬
is the life;

Perek VII
Daf 102 Amud a
notes
‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ֹאכל ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש ִעם ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬
ַ ‫ל ֹא ת‬ and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23).n
You shall not eat the life with the flesh – ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ל ֹא ת‬
‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל‬:‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ָס ְב ִרי‬ Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar hold that with regard to any
‫ה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש ִעם ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:ַ This verse is understood to mean that
animal whose blood you are commanded not to eat, you are com-
one may not eat flesh severed from a living animal. ‫ וְ ָהנֵי ְט ֵמ ִאין‬.‫דָּ מֹו – ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל ֵא ָב ָריו‬
manded with regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from
‫הֹואיל וְ ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל דָּ ָמן – ַא ָּתה‬ ִ ,‫נַ ִמי‬ eating its limbs that were severed while it was still alive. Conse-
.‫ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל ֵא ָב ִרין‬ quently, with regard to these non-kosher species also, since you
are commanded not to eat their blood, you are commanded with
regard to their limbs.

– ‫ֹאכל ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש ִעם ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬ַ ‫ ״ל ֹא ת‬:‫וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ָס ְב ִרי‬ And the Rabbis hold that the verse indicates: “And you shall not
– ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו מו ָּּתר‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְלחו ֵּד‬ eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23), but rather you
shall eat the flesh alone, i.e., when the animal is no longer alive.
‫ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו‬,‫ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל ֵא ָב ָריו‬
Consequently, with regard to any animal whose flesh is permitted
.‫מו ָּּתר – ִאי ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל ֵא ָב ָריו‬ when it is slaughtered, you are commanded with regard to its
limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were severed
while it was still alive. But with regard to any animal whose flesh is
not permitted when it is slaughtered, you are not commanded
with regard to its limbs, i.e., the prohibition of eating limbs that
were severed while it was still alive does not apply.

‫יסוּר‬ּ ‫יתי ִא‬ ֵ ‫יה ְק ָרא? ֵל‬ ּ ‫ ָל ָּמה ֵל‬,‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that
‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ִא ּיסוּרֹו‬,‫ ֵא ָבר ֵליחוּל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר טו ְּמ ָאה‬a prohibition takes effect upon an already existing, less stringent
prohibition, why does he need to derive this from a verse? Let
!‫נֹוהג ִ ּב ְבנֵי נ ַֹח‬
ֵ
the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal come and
take effect on the prohibition of eating meat from a non-kosher
animal, as it is more stringent since its prohibition applies also to
descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles.

‫יך ְק ָרא – ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬

ְ ‫ וְ ִכי ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬,‫ ִאין ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬The Gemara responds: Yes, that is indeed so. Rabbi Yehuda does
.‫ ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬not need to derive this halakha from a verse, and the verse was
necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who
holds that a prohibition does not take effect where there is an
already existing prohibition, even if the second prohibition is more
stringent.

‫נֹוהג ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמה‬
ֵ ‫ ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬:‫ ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬This fact that it is Rabbi Elazar who derives this halakha from the
ָ ‫ ֵ ּבין ְט ֵמ ָאה ֵ ּבין ְט‬,‫ ַחּיָ ה וְ עֹוף‬verse, as opposed to Rabbi Yehuda, is also taught in a baraita: The
‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫הֹורה‬
prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies with
‫ַ״רק ֲחזַ ק ְל ִב ְל ִּתי ֲאכֹל ַהדָּ ם״‬
regard to a limb from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated
animal, or a bird, and whether it is from a non-kosher species or
a kosher species, as it is stated: “Only be steadfast in not eating
the blood, for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with
the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23).

‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל דָּ מֹו – ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל‬This verse indicates that with regard to any species whose blood
‫ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ִאי ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל דָּ מֹו – ִאי‬,‫ ֵא ָב ָריו‬you are commanded not to eat, you are commanded with regard
to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that were
.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬.‫ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל ֵא ָב ָריו‬
severed while it was still alive. And any species about whose blood
you are not commanded, i.e., with regard to which the prohibition
of eating blood does not apply, you are not commanded with
regard to their limbs. Since the prohibition of eating blood applies
even with regard to non-kosher species, the prohibition of eating
limbs severed from a living animal also applies; this is the statement
of Rabbi Elazar.
142 Ĥullin . perek VII . 102a . ‫ףד‬ ‫בק‬. ‫׳ז קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
ִ ‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְט‬
,‫הֹורין‬ ֵ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ And the Rabbis say: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living
animal applies only to kosher species, as it is stated in the verse: A descendant of Noah is prohibited from eat-
– ‫ֹאכל ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש ִעם ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬ ַ ‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״ל ֹא ת‬ ing a limb from a living animal, etc.– ‫ֵא ָבר ִמן‬
“And you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23),
‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו מו ָּּתר – ַא ָּתה‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְלחו ֵּד‬ ‫ה ַחי ֶ ּבן נ ַֹח מוּזְ ָהר ָע ָליו וכו׳‬:ַ Descendants of Noah
but rather you shall eat the flesh alone, i.e., when the animal is no are liable for eating a limb from a living animal,
‫ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְ ּב ָ ׂשרֹו מו ָּּתר – ֵאין‬,‫ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל ֵא ָב ָריו‬ longer alive. Consequently, with regard to any animal whose flesh whether from a kosher species or a non-kosher
.‫ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ַעל ֵא ָב ָריו‬ is permitted when it is slaughtered, you are commanded with species (Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Melakhim
regard to its limbs, i.e., you are prohibited from eating its limbs that UMilĥemoteihem 9:13).
were severed while it was still alive. But with regard to any animal
whose flesh is not permitted when it is slaughtered, you are not
commanded with regard to its limbs, i.e., the prohibition of eating
limbs that were severed while it was still alive does not apply.

‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמה‬

ֵ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬Rabbi Meir says that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living
ָ ‫ ְט‬animal applies only with regard to a kosher species of domesti-
.‫הֹורה ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬
cated animal, but not with regard to undomesticated animals or
fowl, even if they are kosher.

.)‫ימי‬
ִ ‫ ׁ ִש‬,‫ ׁ ֵש ָילא‬,‫ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬:‫ימן‬
ָ ‫(ס‬
ִ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the different opinions with
regard to the name of one of the Sages cited in the upcoming
discussion: Shmuel, Sheila, Shimi.

,‫ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ Rabba bar Shmuel said that Rav Ĥisda said, and some say that it
‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬.‫יֹוסף‬
ֵ ‫ימא ַרב‬ ָ ‫ית‬ֵ ‫וְ ִא‬ was Rav Yosef who said the following statement. And some say the
attributions as follows: Rabba bar Sheila said that Rav Ĥisda said,
.‫יֹוסף‬
ֵ ‫ימא ַרב‬ ָ ‫ית‬ֵ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ׁ ֵש ָילא ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬
and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said; and some say the
,‫ימי ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ִ ‫ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ׁ ִש‬:‫וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬ attributions as follows: Rabba bar Shimi said that Rav Ĥisda said,
?‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ימא ַרב‬ ָ ‫וְ ִא ֵית‬ and some say that it was Rav Yosef who said: What is the reason
for the opinion of Rabbi Meir that the prohibition of eating a limb
from a living animal applies only with regard to a kosher species of
domesticated animal?

.‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא ״וְ זָ ַב ְח ָּת ִמ ְ ּב ָק ְרךָ ו ִּמ ּצֹאנְ ךָ ״‬It is that the verse states: “Then you shall slaughter of your cattle
and of your sheep” (Deuteronomy 12:21). This verse is closely fol-
lowed by the verse that serves as the source of the prohibition to eat
a limb severed from a living animal (Deuteronomy 12:23), indicating
that the prohibition applies only to kosher domesticated animals.

ֶ ‫ ַמ ֲח‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִ ּגידֵּ ל‬Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The dispute between the Rabbis
,‫לֹוקת – ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬
‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ֶבן נ ַֹח – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל מוּזְ ָהר ַעל ַה ְּט ֵמ ִאין‬and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer about whether the prohibition
of eating a limb severed from a living animal applies with regard to
.‫הֹורין‬ִ ‫ַּכ ְּט‬
non-kosher species is only with regard to Jews. But with regard to
descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles, everyone agrees that they are
prohibited from eating a limb from a living non-kosher species of
animal just like they are prohibited from eating a limb from a living
kosher species.

,‫ ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי ֶ ּבן נ ַֹח מוּזְ ָהר ָע ָליו‬:‫ ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara comments that this is also taught in a baraita: A
ִ ‫ ַעל ַה ְּט ֵמ ִאים ִּכ ְט‬descendant of Noah is prohibited from eating a limb from a living
b
‫ וְ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֵאינֹו מוּזְ ָהר‬,‫הֹורים‬
animal from non-kosher species just as from kosher species. But
h
ִ ‫ֶא ָּלא ַעל ַה ְּט‬
.‫הֹורין ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬
a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from a living animal of kosher
species only.

‫יכא‬
ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫הֹורה‬ָ ‫ ְט‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬There are those who say that the correct wording of the baraita is
ִ ‫ ְט‬:‫ דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬that a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from a living kosher
.‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫הֹורים‬
species, in singular, and it is in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Meir, who holds that the prohibition is limited to kosher
domestic animals. And there are those who say that the correct
wording of the baraita is that a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb
from living kosher species, in plural, and it is in accordance with the
opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the prohibition also applies
to a limb from a living bird or a living undomesticated animal of
kosher species.

background
A descendant of Noah is prohibited – ‫בן נ ַֹח מוּזְ ָהר‬:ּ ֶ There are seven to establish courts of law. A gentile who disobeys one of these
universal laws binding on all humanity. These are: (1) The prohibition mitzvot is liable to receive the death penalty if he lives under the
of idolatry. (2) The prohibition of murder. (3) The prohibition of incest, rule of a Jewish state. Although the commonly accepted number
adultery, and certain other sexual deviancies. (4) The prohibition of for the Noahide laws is seven, some authorities have compiled more
robbery and kidnapping. (5) The prohibition of blasphemy. (6) The extensive lists consisting of up to thirty mitzvot (see 92a). The death
prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal. (7) The obligation penalty applies only to the seven listed here.

 ‫בק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 102a 143

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
:‫ ַאף ֲאנַ ן נַ ִמי ָּתנֵינָ א‬,‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵשיזְ ִבי‬Rav Sheizvi said: We learn in the mishna as well that a gentile is
A limb from a living animal requires an olive-bulk – ‫ֵא ָבר‬
‫מן ַה ַחי צָ ִריךְ ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:ִ One who eats an olive-bulk of a limb from ֵ ‫ ָא ַכל ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה – ֵאינֹו‬prohibited from eating a limb from a living being even with regard
‫סֹופג‬
to non-kosher species (Teharot 1:3): If one ate a limb severed from
a living animal is flogged. Even if he ate an entire limb, the .‫יטה ְמ ַט ַה ְר ָּת ּה‬
ָ ‫ וְ ֵאין ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬
halakha is the same: If it was an olive-bulk, he is liable, but a living non-kosher bird, he does not incur forty lashes, and
if it was less than an olive-bulk he is exempt. If he cut an slaughter does not purify it, i.e., cause it to become permitted
olive-bulk of the meat, sinews, and bones of a limb and ate it for consumption.
as is, he is flogged, even though there is only a small amount
of actual meat (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot ‫יטא‬
ָ ‫ימא ְביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל – ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬
ָ ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי? ִא ֵיל‬Rav Sheizvi clarifies: With regard to what case does the mishna
Assurot 5:3). ‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו‬.‫יטה ְמ ַט ַה ְר ָּת ּה‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ֵאין ׁ ְש ִח‬issue this ruling? If we say that it is referring to a Jew who ate the
limb, it is obvious that slaughter does not purify it, because it is
.‫ ִמ ְּכ ַלל דְּ ָאסוּר‬,‫ִ ּב ְבנֵי נ ַֹח‬
a non-kosher species and cannot be made kosher. Rather is it not
referring to descendants of Noah and teaching that even after the
bird is slaughtered the limb severed while it was alive remains
forbidden? By inference, it is clear from the mishna that it is pro-
hibited for a gentile to eat a limb severed from a living being even
from a non-kosher species.

,‫ישא ַא ֵּס ָיפא‬ָ ׁ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ָמנִי ַ ּבר ּ ַפ ִּט ׁיש ָר ֵמי ֵר‬Rabbi Mani bar Pattish raises a contradiction between the first
– ‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵס‬,‫ישא – ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬:‫ ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ּנֵי‬clause of that mishna, which states that one does not receive lashes
for eating a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, and the
.‫ְ ּב ֶבן נ ַֹח‬
latter clause of the mishna, which states that a limb severed from
a living non-kosher bird remains forbidden after the bird is slaugh-
tered. The first clause indicates that the prohibition of eating a limb
severed from a living creature applies only to kosher species, while
the latter clause indicates that it applies also to non-kosher species.
And he answers this contradiction by explaining that the first
clause is referring to a Jew and the latter clause is referring to a
descendant of Noah.

‫ ַמאי‬,‫ ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי צָ ִריךְ ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫ § ָא ַמר ַרב‬The Gemara continues discussing the prohibition of eating a
.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַט ֲע ָמא – ֲא ִכ ָילה ְּכ ִת ָיבה ֵ ּב‬limb severed from a living creature. Rav says: A limb severed from
a living animal requires an olive-bulkh in order to render one who
eats it liable to receive lashes. What is the reason for this? It is
because the term: Eating, is written with regard to the prohibition
of a limb severed from a living animal, and the definition of eating
is the consumption of at least one olive-bulk.

‫ ָא ַכל ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬:‫ְמ ִתיב ַרב ַע ְמ ָרם‬ Rav Amram raises an objection from the mishna cited above
‫סֹופג ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים וְ ֵאין‬ֵ ‫ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה – ֵאינֹו‬ (Teharot 1:3): If one ate a limb severed from a living non-kosher
bird, he does not incur the forty lashes, and slaughter does not
ְ‫ וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתך‬.‫יטה ְמ ַט ַה ְר ָּת ּה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬
purify it, i.e., cause it to become permitted. But if it enters your
!‫יה דְּ ָק ָא ַכל ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
ּ ‫ ֵּת ּיפֹוק ֵל‬,‫ָ ּב ֵעינַן ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ mind that we require an olive-bulk in order for one to receive
lashes for eating a limb severed from a living creature, that mishna
must be referring to such a case; therefore, it should emerge that
he is liable to receive lashes because he ate an olive-bulk of a non-
kosher bird.

‫ ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִ ּג ִידין‬:‫ ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬The Gemara answers: This can be explained as Rav Naĥman said
‫ ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִ ּג ִידין‬,‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬.‫ וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬with regard to another issue, that it is referring to a case of eating a
small amount of meat together with sinews and bones and the
.‫וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬
total volume is an olive-bulk. Here also, the mishna is referring to
a case of eating a small amount of meat together with sinews
and bones.n

:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara raises another challenge to Rav’s statement that one
receives lashes for eating a limb severed from a living animal only
if he eats an olive-bulk: Come and hear a proof in this regard, as
Rav said:

notes
A small amount of meat with sinews and bones – ‫ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו‬ and bones are counted toward the amount of an olive-bulk to
‫ב ָ ׂשר ִ ּג ִידין וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬:ּ ָ The commentaries explain that only the meat render one liable to receive lashes for eating a limb severed from
is actually prohibited. Nevertheless the sinews and bones com- a living animal, but are not counted toward the amount of an
bine with the meat to make a total of an olive-bulk. Since they olive-bulk with regard to the prohibition of eating the meat of
are attached to the meat they combine with it, and in this way a non-kosher animal.
it is considered to be an entire limb. Consequently, the sinews

144 Ĥullin . perek VII . 102a . ‫ףד‬ ‫בק‬. ‫׳ז קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VII
Daf 102 Amud b
halakha
,‫יה – ְ ּב ָכל ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ָ ֶ‫ ְ ּב ַחּי‬,‫הֹורה‬
ָ ‫ָא ַכל צִ ּפֹור ְט‬ If one ate a kosher birdh alive, one is punished with lashes for any
amount, i.e., even if he ate less than an olive-bulk. If the bird was If one ate a kosher bird – ‫הֹורה‬ ָ ‫א ַכל צִ ּפֹור ְט‬:
ָ One
‫יה ֵ ּבין‬ ָ ֶ‫ ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ַחּי‬,‫ ו ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬.‫ית ָת ּה – ְ ּב ַכּזַ יִ ת‬
ָ ‫ְ ּב ִמ‬ who eats an entire live bird of a kosher species is
dead and was not ritually slaughtered, one is punished with lashes
‫ ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו‬:‫ית ָת ּה – ְ ּב ָכל ׁ ֶשהוּא! ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ִמ‬ punished with lashes for violating the prohibition
only if he ate an olive-bulk. And if one ate a whole bird of a non- of consuming an unslaughtered carcass, even if he
.‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִ ּג ִידים וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬ kosher species, whether he ate it when it was alive or dead, he is ate less than an olive-bulk. If he ate the bird after
punished with lashes for any amount, i.e., even if the bird contained it had died he is liable only if he ate an olive-bulk.
less than an olive-bulk of meat. The Gemara answers: Here also If the entirety of the bird was an olive-bulk even
explain that Rav’s statement is referring to a case of eating a small though the amount of meat is less, he is still liable
for the consumption of an unslaughtered carcass.
amount of meat along with sinews and bones, and the total volume
Although the Gemara indicates that in these cases
is an olive-bulk. one is liable for violating the prohibition against
eating a limb from a living animal, the later com-
– ‫נָטל צִ ּפֹור ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ַּכּזַ יִ ת וַ ֲא ָכלֹו‬ ַ :‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ Come and hear another challenge based upon a baraita: With mentaries discuss how the ruling of the Rambam
.‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַ ּבר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְמ ַחּיֵ יב‬,‫ֹוטר‬
ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ּפ‬ regard to one who took a live bird of a kosher species that did not can be reconciled with the Gemara (Rambam Sefer
have a volume of an olive-bulk and ate it, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 4:3, and Leĥem
‫ ַעל‬,‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫ ַקל ו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬
exempts him from lashes and Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon Mishne and Ĥiddushei Rabbeinu Ĥayyim HaLevi al
!‫ ַעל ּכו ָּּל ּה – ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬,‫ֵא ָבר ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה – ַחּיָ יב‬ deems him liable for lashes. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, HaRambam there).
.‫ֲחנָ ָק ּה וַ ֲא ָכ ָל ּה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ְ ּב ַכּזַ יִ ת‬ said: He should be liable based upon an a fortiori inference:b If one
is liable to receive lashes for eating a limb of a living animal, all the
more so is it not clear that one is liable to receive lashes for eating
all of it? The baraita concludes: With regard to one who strangled
the bird and ate it, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive lashes
only if it had the volume of an olive-bulk.

ָ ֶ‫ ַעד ָּכאן ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָמר ְס ַבר – ְ ּב ַחּי‬The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi
‫יה‬
‫יה ָלאו‬ ָ ֶ‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר – ְ ּב ַחּי‬,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ֶ ‫ ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, disagree only with regard to one who
ate an entire live bird, as one Sage, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shi-
.‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ֶ ‫ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬
mon, holds that even during its life all creatures stand to be divided
into limbs, i.e., they will ultimately be cut into pieces. Consequently,
each of its limbs is considered a separate entity, and even if one eats
a limb without first separating it from the rest of the body, one
violates the prohibition of eating a limb from a living being. And
one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that during its life it does
not stand to be divided into limbs. Therefore, one does not violate
the prohibition of eating a limb from a living being unless he severs
a limb from the body.

ָ ‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ִמ‬But in any event, everyone agrees that we do not require one to
‫יהא ָלא ָ ּב ֵעינַן ַּכּזַ יִ ת! ָא ַמר ַרב‬
.‫ ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִ ּג ִידים וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬:‫ נַ ְח ָמן‬eat an olive-bulk of meat in order to be liable for lashes for eating
a limb from a living being, which is the basis of the a fortiori infer-
ence of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Naĥman says in
response: Explain that the baraita is referring to a case where one
ate a small amount of meat together with sinews and bones,
making a total of an olive-bulk.

,‫יה ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬

ּ ‫יה ֵלית ֵ ּב‬ ּ ‫ ו ִּמי ִא ָּיכא ִמ ֵידי דִּ ְבכו ֵּּל‬The Gemara challenges this answer: But is there any bird that does
‫ ו ְּב ַחד ֵא ָבר ִאית ַּכּזַ יִ ת ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִ ּג ִידין‬not have an olive-bulk of meat in its whole body, but in one limb
it has an olive-bulk of the combination of a small amount of meat
.‫נִיתא‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּב ְק ָל‬,‫ ִאין‬:‫וַ ֲעצָ מֹות? ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ֵר ְביָ א‬
together with sinews and bones? Rav Sherevya said: Yes, this
is the case with regard to the kelanita,b a bird that is very small
and scrawny.

background
A fortiori inference – ‫חֹומר‬ֶ ָ‫קל ו‬:ַ One of the fundamental principles Sages compiled lists of verses in which a fortiori inferences appear.
of rabbinic exegesis, the a fortiori inference appears in all of the For example: “If you have run with the foot-soldiers, and they have
standard lists of exegetical principles. It is a principle of logical argu- wearied you, how can you contend with horses?” (Jeremiah 12:5).
mentation where a comparison is drawn between two cases, one
more lenient and the other more stringent. The a fortiori inference Kelanita – ‫נִיתא‬
ָ ‫ק ָל‬:ְ Various explanations have been offered for the
asserts that if the halakha is stringent in a case where the ruling is origin of this term. It is possibly Greek for swallow or Persian for
usually lenient, then all the more so will it be stringent in a more starling, but these birds do not fit the descriptions here. Some
stringent case. Likewise, if the halakha is lenient in a case where the commentaries suggest that this is referring to a sea bird, e.g., the
ruling is not usually lenient, then it will certainly be lenient in a less petrel, which is bony and scrawny and whose meat is tough and
stringent case. A fortiori argumentation appears in the Bible, and the virtually inedible.

 ‫בק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 102b 145

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
.‫ ֲחנָ ָק ּה וַ ֲא ָכ ָל ּה – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ְ ּב ַכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫ימא ֵס ָיפא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ The Gemara challenges this answer that the baraita is referring to
A non-kosher bird, whether when it is alive or a kelanita. Say the latter clause: With regard to one who strangled
dead – ‫יה ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ִמ ָית ָת ּה‬
ָ ֶ‫ט ֵמ ָאה ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ַחּי‬:ְ One who eats ‫ ְט ֵמ ָאה‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫נִיתא עֹוף ָט ֵמא הוּא‬ ָ ‫וְ ָהא ְק ָל‬
the bird and ate it, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive
an entire non-kosher entity is punished with lashes ‫ ְּכ ֵעין‬:‫ית ָת ּה – ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשהוּ! ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ ‫יה ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ִמ‬
ָ ֶ‫ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ַחּי‬
by Torah law. This is the halakha whether it was alive lashes only if it had the volume of an olive-bulk. But a kelanita is
.‫נִיתא‬ ָ ‫ְק ָל‬ a non-kosher bird, and Rav says: If one eats a whole non-kosher
or dead, and even if its volume is less than that of
a mustard seed, in accordance with the opinion bird, whether he eats it when it is alive or dead,h he is punished
of Rav (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot with lashes for eating any amount. The Gemara answers: The
Assurot 2:21). baraita is not referring to an actual kelanita, but rather to a kosher
This is a limb from a living animal – ‫זֶ ה ֵא ָבר ִמן‬ species of bird similar to a kelanita in that it is small and scrawny.
‫ה ַחי‬:ַ The Sages learned as a tradition that when
the Torah states: “You shall not eat the life with the ‫לֹומר ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי ַמ ֲח ׁ ֶש ֶבת‬ ַ ‫ימצֵ י‬ ְ ‫ ִאם ִּת‬:‫ § ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬The Gemara above cited a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda
flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23), it is referring to a limb ‫אֹוכ ָל ּה ֵא ָבר‬
ְ ‫ישב ְל‬ ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ ִח‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה‬ ָ HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, with regard to
severed from a living animal. With regard to eating one who eats an entire live kosher bird that is less than an olive-
such a limb the Torah states that God told Noah: .‫ וַ ֲא ָכ ָל ּה ּכו ָּּל ּה – ַחּיָ יב‬,‫ֵא ָבר‬
bulk. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who
“Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall
not eat” (Genesis 9:4). This is in accordance with the
holds that an entire bird is not considered to be a limb and is
opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, therefore not included in the prohibition of eating a limb from a
Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 5:1). living animal, Rava said: If you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi
holds that thought with regard to food is considered thought,
This is flesh severed from the living – ‫זֶ ה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִמן‬
‫ה ַחי‬:ַ Flesh severed from the living is forbidden by i.e., one’s thoughts have halakhic significance in determining a
the verse: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is food’s status, then in a case where one thought to eat the bird
torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30). Even if flesh is dis- limb by limb, and instead ate it all at once, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi
connected but remains within the animal, e.g., if would hold that he is liable for transgressing the prohibition of
one severs part of the animal’s spleen or one kidney, eating a limb from a living animal.
and leaves it inside the animal, it is forbidden due
to the prohibition of eating a limb from a living ‫ דְּ ִאילּ ּו ָא ֵכיל‬,‫יכא ִמ ֵידי‬ ָּ ‫ ו ִּמי ִא‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Abaye said to Rava: But is there anything with regard to which
animal. This is in accordance with the opinion of if another person ate it he would not be liable, but if this person
Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot – ‫יה ַהאי‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָא ֵכיל ֵל‬,‫יחּיַ יב‬ ַ ‫יה ַא ֵחר – ָלא ִמ‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬
ate it he is liable? Rava said to Abaye: There can be different
Ma’akhalot Assurot 4:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh ‫ זֶ ה ְל ִפי ַמ ְח ׁ ַש ְב ּתֹו וְ זֶ ה ְל ִפי‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫יחּיַ יב? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ַ ‫ִמ‬
De’a 62:2). outcomes for different people who perform the same act, as this
.‫ַמ ְח ׁ ַש ְב ּתֹו‬ individual’s action is judged according to his thought and that
individual’s action is judged according to his thought.

‫לֹומר ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ַ ‫ ִאם ִּת ְמצֵ י‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬And Rava also said: If you say that Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi
ָ ‫ ַ ּבר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַמ ֲח ׁ ֶש ֶבת‬Shimon holds that thought with regard to food is considered
,‫אֹוכ ִלין ׁ ְש ָמ ּה ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה‬
thought, then in a case where one at first intended to eat the
.‫ וַ ֲא ָכ ָל ּה ַחּיָ ה – ּ ָפטוּר‬,‫אֹוכ ָל ּה ֵמ ָתה‬
ְ ‫ישב ְל‬ ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ִח‬
entire bird after it had died, but ultimately he ate it alive, Rabbi
Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon would hold that he is exempt from lashes,
as according to his thought it does not stand to be divided into
limbs while alive.

‫ דְּ ִאילּ ּו ָא ֵכיל‬,‫יכא ִמ ֵידי‬ ָּ ‫ ו ִּמי ִא‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Abaye said to Rava: But is there anything that if another person
?‫יה ַהאי – ּ ָפטוּר‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָא ֵכיל ֵל‬,‫יה ַא ֵחר – ִמ ַחּיַ יב‬ ּ ‫ ֵל‬ate it he would be liable, but if this person ate it he is exempt?
Rava said to Abaye: This individual’s action is judged according
.‫ זֶ ה ְל ִפי ַמ ְח ׁ ַש ְב ּתֹו וְ זֶ ה ְל ִפי ַמ ְח ׁ ַש ְב ּתֹו‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
to his thought and that individual’s action is judged according to
his thought.

‫ֹאכל ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש ִעם‬ ַ ‫ ״ ל ֹא ת‬:‫יֹוח נָ ן‬

ָ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ § The Gemara discusses the source of the prohibition of eating a
‫ ״ו ָּב ָ ׂשר ַ ּב ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה‬,‫ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״ – זֶ ה ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬ limb from a living animal. Rabbi Yoĥanan says: “You shall not
eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23); this is the source
‫ֹאכלוּ״ – זֶ ה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִמן ַה ַחי ו ָּב ָ ׂשר‬
ֵ ‫ְט ֵר ָפה ל ֹא ת‬
for the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal.h And the
.‫ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה‬ verse: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn in the field”
(Exodus 22:30); this is the source for the prohibition of eating
flesh severed from the livingh and flesh severed from a tereifa,
even if it is not an entire limb.

‫ֹאכל ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש‬

ַ ‫ ״ל ֹא ת‬:‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר‬ And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: “You shall not eat the life
,‫ִעם ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״ – זֶ ה ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי ו ָּב ָ ׂשר ִמן ַה ַחי‬ with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23); this is the source for the
prohibitions of eating a limb from a living animal and of eating
ֵ ‫״ו ָּב ָ ׂשר ַ ּב ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה ְט ֵר ָפה ל ֹא ת‬
‫ֹאכלוּ״ – זֶ ה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬
flesh severed from the living.n And the verse: “And you shall not
.‫ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה‬ eat any flesh that is torn in the field” (Exodus 22:30); this is the
source for the prohibition of eating flesh severed from a tereifa.

notes
This is a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from the The later authorities point out that this derivation is in accordance
living – ‫זֶ ה ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי ו ָּב ָ ׂשר ִמן ַה ַחי‬: According to Reish Lakish the with Ibn Ezra’s interpretive method to many verses (e.g., Genesis 2:8,
prohibition of “You shall not eat” applies both to the term that 19, 20) where he states that sometimes a phrase draws one concept
immediately follows, “the life,” which refers to the prohibition of eat- and the subsequent one, meaning that one phrase can refer both
ing a limb from a living animal, and also to the entire phrase “the life to the phrase that immediately follows as well as the phrase after
with the flesh,” which prohibits flesh severed from the living (Rashi). that (Halakhot Ketannot).

146 Ĥullin . perek VII . 102b . ‫ףד‬ ‫בק‬: ‫׳ז קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָא ַכל ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי ו ָּב ָ ׂשר ִמן ַה ַחי‬ The Gemara clarifies the difference between these two opinions. If
‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬,‫יֹוחנָ ן – ַחּיָ יב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬ ָ one ate a limb from a living animal and flesh severed from the
living, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan he is liable
‫ ָא ַכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬.‫ָל ִק ׁיש – ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת‬
to receive two sets of lashes but according to the opinion of Rabbi
‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬,‫ִמן ַה ַחי ו ָּב ָ ׂשר ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה‬ Shimon ben Lakish he is liable to receive only one set of lashes.
‫יֹוחנָן – ֵאינֹו‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָל ִק ׁיש – ַחּיָ יב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬ Conversely, if one ate flesh severed from the living and flesh sev-
‫ ָא ַכל ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי ו ָּב ָ ׂשר‬.‫ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת‬ ered from a tereifa, then according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon
.‫ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה – ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ַחּיָ יב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬ ben Lakish he is liable to receive two sets of lashes but according
to the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan he is liable to receive only one
set of lashes. If one ate a limb from a living animal and flesh severed
from a tereifa, everyone agrees that he is liable to receive two sets
of lashes.

:ּ‫ ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the claim that everyone
agrees that one who eats both a limb from a living animal and flesh
severed from a tereifa is liable to receive two sets of lashes, based
upon the following statement:

Perek VII
Daf 103 Amud a

ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ָא ַכל ֵא ָבר ִמן ַה ַחי ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה‬With regard to one who ate a limb from a living animal that is a
‫יֹוחנָן‬
‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬,‫ ַחּיָ יב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬:‫ ָא ַמר‬tereifa, Rabbi Yoĥanan says: He is liable to receive two sets of
lashes, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He is liable to receive
.‫ ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ֶא ָּלא ַא ַחת‬:‫ָא ַמר‬
only one set of lashes.

‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫נִיחא‬
ָ – ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of
!‫ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬Rabbi Yoĥanan, this works out well because the prohibitions of
eating a limb from a living animal and of eating flesh severed from
a tereifa are derived from two different verses. But according to the
opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, it is difficult; why does he
hold that the individual receives only one set of lashes?

‫ ָּכאן – ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמה‬,‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ַמר ַרב‬ Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. Here it is referring to one
‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי‬.‫ ָּכאן – ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְ ּב ֵהמֹות‬,‫ַא ַחת‬ animal, but there it is referring to two animals. Rav Yosef clarifies:
In a case of two animals, e.g., where one ate a limb from a living
– ‫ ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמה ַא ַחת‬,‫יחּיַ יב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬
ַ ‫ְ ּב ֵהמֹות – ִמ‬
animal and flesh severed from a different animal that was a tereifa,
.‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ everyone agrees that he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. But
in a case where he ate from one animal, e.g., he ate a limb severed
from a live tereifa animal, Rabbi Yoĥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben
Lakish disagree.

:‫ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמה ַא ַחת ְ ּב ַמאי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י? ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ The Gemara asks: With regard to the case of one animal, in what
:‫ ָמר ְס ַבר‬.‫יאת רו ָ ּּב ּה‬ ַ ִ‫ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ְר ָפה ִעם יְ צ‬ case do they disagree? Abaye said: They disagree, for example,
in a case where the animal became a tereifa as the majority of it
‫ וְ ִא ּיסוּר‬,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ֶ ‫יה ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬ ָ ֶ‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב ַחּי‬
emerged from its mother’s womb. One Sage, Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds
.ּ‫ְט ֵר ָפה וְ ִא ּיסוּר ֵא ָבר ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי ָק ָאתו‬ that an animal, even during its life, stands to be divided into limbs,
and therefore each of its limbs is considered a separate entity; and
here the prohibition of eating a tereifa and the prohibition of
eating a limb from a living animal come into effect at the same time.
Consequently, both prohibitions apply.

‫יה ָלאו ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬ָ ֶ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב ַחּי‬:‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, holds that during its life
‫יס ּור ֵא ָבר ָחיֵ יל‬
ּ ‫ וְ ָלא ָא ֵתי ִא‬,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ ֶ an animal does not stand to be divided into limbs. Consequently,
although the prohibition of eating a tereifa comes into effect when
.‫ַא ִא ּיסוּר ְט ֵר ָפה‬
it is born, the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal does
not take effect until the limb is actually severed from the animal, and
at that point the prohibition of a limb from a living animal does
not come and take effect upon the already existing prohibition of
a tereifa.
 ‫גק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 103a 147
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא – ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב ַחּיֶ ָיה‬,‫ימא‬
ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ּ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that during its
Where he severed a limb from it and rendered life an animal does not stand to be divided into limbs, and they
it a tereifa – ‫ש ָּת ַל ׁש ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה ֵא ָבר ו ְּט ָר ָפ ּה ּבֹו‬:
ֶ ׁ If one ‫יסוּר ֵא ָבר‬ ּ ‫יתי ִא‬ ֵ ‫ ו ְּב ֵמ‬,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬
ֶ ‫ָלאו ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬
disagree with regard to whether the prohibition of a limb from a
removes a limb from a living animal, thereby ren- :‫ ָמר ְס ַבר‬.‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ ַ ּ ‫יסוּר ְט ֵר ָפה ָקא ִמ‬ ּ ‫יחל ַא ִא‬ ַ ‫ֵמ‬
dering the animal a tereifa, and then eats the limb, living animal comes and takes effect upon the already existing
‫ ו ָּמר‬.‫יסוּר ְט ֵר ָפה‬ ּ ‫יסוּר ֵא ָבר ָחיֵ יל ַא ִא‬ ּ ‫ָא ֵתי ִא‬ prohibition of a tereifa. One Sage, Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds that the
he is liable for the violation of two prohibitions: The
consumption of a limb from a living animal and ‫יסוּר‬ ּ ‫יסוּר ֵא ָבר ָחיֵ יל ַא ִא‬ ּ ‫ ָלא ָא ֵתי ִא‬:‫ְס ַבר‬ prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, which applies to
the consumption of a tereifa. This is because both .‫ְט ֵר ָפה‬ gentiles as well as to Jews, comes and takes effect upon the already
prohibitions take effect simultaneously. This ruling existing prohibition of eating a tereifa. And one Sage, Rabbi Shi-
is in accordance with Rava’s explanation of Rabbi
mon ben Lakish, holds that the prohibition of eating a limb from
Yoĥanan’s opinion (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
Ma’akhalot Assurot 5:5).
a living animal does not come and take effect upon the already
existing prohibition of eating a tereifa.
If one ate forbidden fat from a living animal that
is a tereifa he is liable to three – ‫ָא ַכל ֵח ֶלב ִמן ַה ַחי ִמן‬
‫ה ְּט ֵר ָפה ַחּיָ יב ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬:ַ One who removes forbidden fat
ָ ֶ‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא – ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב ַחּי‬,‫ימא‬
‫יה‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ִא‬ And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that an animal,
from a living animal, thereby rendering the animal a ,‫ ו ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ְר ָפה ְל ַא ַחר ִמ ָּכאן‬,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬
ֶ ‫ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬ even during its life, stands to be divided into limbs, and the dis-
tereifa, and eats the fat, receives three sets of lashes: pute is about a case where the animal became a tereifa afterward,
‫יתי ִא ּיסוּר ְט ֵר ָפה ָחיֵ יל ַא ִא ּיסוּר ֵא ָבר ָקא‬ ֵ ‫ו ְּב ֵמ‬
One for eating forbidden fat, one for eating a limb i.e., after it was born, and they disagree with regard to whether the
from a living animal, and one for eating meat from .‫ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ prohibition of a tereifa comes and takes effect upon the already
a tereifa (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot existing prohibition of a limb from a living animal.
Assurot 5:5).
.‫ ָלא ָא ֵתי וְ ָחיֵ יל‬:‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬.‫ ָא ֵתי וְ ָחיֵ יל‬:‫ ָמר ְס ַבר‬One Sage, Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds that the prohibition of eating a
notes tereifa comes and takes effect in addition to the already existing
If one ate forbidden fat from a living animal that prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal. And one Sage,
is a tereifa – ‫א ַכל ֵח ֶלב ִמן ַה ַחי ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה‬:ָ Early com- Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, holds that the prohibition of eating a
mentaries dispute the meaning of this statement.
tereifa does not come and take effect in addition to the already
Some write that it is referring to one who eats a
kidney with its fat, as consumption of the kidney existing prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal.
violates the prohibition of eating a limb from a
living animal, and one would therefore be liable .‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָּת ַל ׁש ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה ֵא ָבר ו ְּט ָר ָפ ּה ּבֹו‬:‫ ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬Rava says an alternative explanation: This is referring to a case
for a total of three violations: Eating a limb from a ֶ ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב ַחּיֶ ָיה ְל ֵא ָב ִרים ֵאינָ ּה‬:‫ ָמר ְס ַבר‬where he severed a limb from the animal and thereby rendered
,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬
living animal, eating forbidden fat, and eating from the animal a tereifa.h One Sage, Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds that during
a tereifa. When eating other forbidden fat that is not .ּ‫ִא ּיסוּר ֵא ָבר וְ ִא ּיסוּר ְט ֵר ָפה ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי ָק ָאתו‬
its life, an animal does not stand to be divided into limbs. Con-
together with a limb, one would be liable for only
sequently, the prohibition of a limb from a living animal and the
two violations, as the prohibitions against eating
flesh severed from a living animal and eating from
prohibition of a tereifa come into effect at the same time.
a tereifa are both derived from the same verse and
do not come into effect simultaneously (Ramban). ,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬
ֶ ‫יה ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬ ָ ֶ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב ַחּי‬:‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר‬And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, holds that even during
Other early commentaries hold that the forbidden .‫ וְ ָלא ָא ֵתי ִא ּיסוּר ְט ֵר ָפה ָחיֵ יל ַא ִא ּיסוּר ֵא ָבר‬its life, an animal stands to be divided into limbs, and therefore
fat itself is defined as a limb, and when one con- the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal takes effect
sumes any forbidden fat he is liable for eating a limb when the animal is born. Consequently, the prohibition of a
from a living animal (Rashba; Rambam). tereifa does not come and take effect upon the already existing
prohibition of a limb from a living animal.

‫ ָא ַכל‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ § Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: If one ate
‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ֵח ֶלב ִמן ַה ַחי ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה – ַחּיָ יב ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬ forbidden fat from a living animal that is a tereifan he is liable to
receive two sets of lashes. Rabbi Ami said to him: But let the
‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֲאנִי‬,‫״של ֹׁש״‬ ָ ׁ ‫ימא ָמר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵל‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬
ּ ‫ֵל‬
Master say that he is liable to three sets of lashes, because I say that
‫ ָא ַמר‬,ּ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהו‬,‫ית ַמר נַ ִמי‬ ְ ‫ ִא‬.‫״של ֹׁש״‬ ָׁ the correct version of Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement is that he is liable
‫ ָא ַכל ֵח ֶלב ִמן ַה ַחי ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה ַחּיָ יב‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ to three sets of lashes. It was also stated: Rabbi Abbahu says that
.‫ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan says: If one ate forbidden fat from a living animal
that is a tereifa he is liable to threeh sets of lashes.

‫יאת‬ ַ ִ‫יפ ְלגִ י? ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְר ָפה ִעם יְ צ‬ ַ ּ ‫ְ ּב ַמאי ָק ִמ‬ The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Ĥiyya
‫יה‬
ָ ֶ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב ַחּי‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫ ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר ׁ ָשל ֹׁש‬.‫רו ָ ּּב ּה‬ bar Abba and Rabbi Ami disagree? They disagree in a case where
the animal became a tereifa as the majority of it emerged from its
‫ דְּ ִא ּיסוּר ֵח ֶלב וְ ִא ּיסוּר ֵא ָבר‬,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ ֶ ‫ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬
mother’s womb; the one who said that he is liable to three sets of
.ּ‫וְ ִא ּיסוּר ְט ֵר ָפה ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ֲה ָד ֵדי ָק ָאתו‬ lashes holds that even during its life an animal stands to be
divided into limbs, and each of its limbs is considered as a separate
entity, so that the prohibition of eating forbidden fat, the prohibi-
tion of eating a limb from a living animal, and the prohibition of
eating a tereifa come into effect at the same time.

‫יה ָלאו‬ָ ֶ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב ַחּי‬:‫ ו ַּמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם ָק ָס ַבר‬And the one who said that he is liable to two sets of lashes holds
– ‫ וְ ִא ּיסוּר ֵח ֶלב וְ ִא ּיסוּר ְט ֵר ָפה‬,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ ֶ ‫ ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬that during its life, an animal does not stand to be divided into
limbs, i.e., its limbs are not considered separate entities while the
.‫ ִא ּיסוּר ֵא ָבר – ָלא ָא ֵתי ָחיֵ יל‬,‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬
animal is alive. Consequently, the prohibition of eating forbidden
fat and the prohibition of eating a tereifa animal apply, as they
came into effect at the same time, when the animal was born. By
contrast, the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal does
not come and take effect, due to the fact that other prohibitions
already apply.
148 Ĥullin . perek VII . 103a . ‫ףד‬ ‫גק‬. ‫׳ז קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא – ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:‫ימא‬ָ ‫וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬ And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that during its
‫יתי‬ֵ ‫ ו ְּב ֵמ‬,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬
ֶ ‫יה ָלאו ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬ ָ ֶ‫ְ ּב ַחּי‬ life an animal does not stand to be divided into limbs, and each of
its limbs is not considered as a separate entity. But they disagree
‫ִא ּיסוּר ֵא ָבר וְ ָחיֵ יל ַא ִא ּיסוּר ֵח ֶלב וְ ַא ִא ּיסוּר‬
with regard to whether the prohibition of eating a limb from a
,‫ ָא ֵתי ָחיֵ יל‬:‫ ָמר ְס ַבר‬.‫ְט ֵר ָפה ָקא ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ living animal comes and takes effect upon the already existing
.‫ ָלא ָא ֵתי ָחיֵ יל‬:‫ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬ prohibition of eating forbidden fat and the already existing prohi-
bition of eating a tereifa. One Sage, Rabbi Ami, holds that it does
come and take effect, and one Sage, Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba, holds
that it does not come and take effect.

‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא – ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬ And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that during its
‫ ו ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ְר ָפה‬,‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ ֶ ‫יה ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬
ָ ֶ‫ְ ּב ַחּי‬ life an animal stands to be divided into limbs, and it is a case where
the animal became a tereifa afterward, i.e., after it was born; and
‫יחל‬
ַ ‫ ו ְּב ֵמ ֵיתי ִא ּיסוּר ְט ֵר ָפה ֵמ‬,‫ְל ַא ַחר ִמ ָּכאן‬
they disagree with regard to whether the prohibition of eating a
.‫ַא ִא ּיסוּר ֵא ָבר ָקא ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ tereifa comes and takes effect upon the already existing prohibition
of eating a limb from a living animal.

.‫ ִמ ֵידי דַּ ֲהוָ ה ַא ֵח ֶלב‬,‫ ָא ֵתי ָחיֵ יל‬:‫ָמר ְס ַבר‬ One Sage, Rabbi Ami, holds that it does come and take effect, just
‫יסוּר‬
ּ ‫ יָ בֹא ִא‬,‫ ַה ּת ָֹורה ָא ְמ ָרה‬:‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ָמר‬ as is the halakha with forbidden fat. As the Master said that in the
verse: “And the fat of a carcass, and the fat of a tereifa may be used for
‫ וְ יָ בֹא ִא ּיסוּר‬,‫נְ ֵב ָלה יָ חוּל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר ֵח ֶלב‬
any other service; but you shall in no way eat of it” (Leviticus 7:24),
.‫ְט ֵר ָפה יָ חוּל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר ֵח ֶלב‬ the Torah said: Let the prohibition of eating a carcass come and
take effect upon the prohibition of eating forbidden fat, despite the
fact that the prohibition of forbidden fat came into effect first. And
similarly, the word “tereifa” teaches: Let the prohibition of eating a
tereifa come and take effect upon the prohibition of eating forbid-
den fat. Consequently, one who eats forbidden fat from a tereifa is
liable to receive two sets of lashes. Rabbi Ami holds that just as the
prohibition of eating a tereifa takes effect in addition to the prohibi-
tion of eating forbidden fat, it also takes effect in addition to the
prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal.

‫ דְּ הו ַּּתר‬,‫ וְ ִא ָידךְ – ַא ֵח ֶלב הוּא דְּ ַחּיָ יב‬And the other Sage, Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba, holds that it is only the
prohibition of eating forbidden fat for which he is liable in addition
to being liable for the prohibition of eating a tereifa. The prohibition
of eating a tereifa takes effect in addition to the prohibition of eating
forbidden fat because with regard to the latter, there are permitted
circumstances that serve as exceptions

Perek VII
Daf 103 Amud b

– ‫ דְּ ָלא הו ַּּתר ִמ ְּכ ָללֹו‬,‫ ֲא ָבל ֵא ָבר‬.‫ ִמ ְּכ ָללֹו‬to its general prohibition, as the fat of an undomesticated animal is
.‫ ָלא‬permitted. But with regard to a limb from a living animal, where
there are no permitted circumstances to its general prohibition, the
prohibition of consuming a tereifa does not take effect.

‫ֵיה‬
ּ ‫ ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬,‫ימי ֲא ַמר‬ ִ ִּ‫ § ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬The Gemara continues its discussion of the prohibition against
ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי‬eating a limb from a living animal. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz
‫ ִח ְּלקֹו‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish inquired
.‫ ּ ָפטוּר‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ ַמהוּ? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
of Rabbi Yoĥanan: If one took from a living animal a limb that was
an olive-bulk and divided it into two pieces when it was outside his
mouth and ate each piece separately, what is the halakha?n Rabbi
Yoĥanan said to him: He is exempt.

notes
If one took a limb and divided it when it was outside his mouth, long as he ate them in close proximity to each other? Or perhaps,
what is the halakha – ‫ח ְּלקֹו ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ ַמה ּו‬:ִ Rashi explains the ques- since the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal is novel
tion as follows: Do the two pieces combine to total a full olive-bulk, in that one is liable for eating sinews and bones, perhaps one is
similar to other prohibitions, where one is considered to have liable only for eating an olive-bulk all at once.
eaten a full olive-bulk even if he ate the pieces in separate bites, as

 ‫גק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 103b 149

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
.‫ ַחּיָ יב‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים ַמאי? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Reish Lakish then asked Rabbi Yoĥanan: If he placed an olive-bulk
Inside, what is the halakha – ‫מ ִ ּב ְפנִים ַמאי‬:ִ If one takes of a limb from a living animal inside his mouth and then divided it
an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal, with its
meat, bones and sinews, and eats it, he is liable, even
and swallowed the two parts separately, what is the halakha?h Rabbi
though it is broken up in his mouth before he swal- Yoĥanan said to him: He is liable to receive lashes.
lows it. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion
of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot .‫ ִח ְּלקֹו ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ – ּ ָפטוּר‬,‫ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ֲא ַמר‬When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said an alter-
Ma’akhalot Assurot 5:4). ָ ‫ ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים – ַר ִ ּבי‬native version of this discussion. If one took from a living animal a
‫ וְ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬,‫ ַחּיָ יב‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬
limb that was an olive-bulk and divided it into two pieces when it
Even if one divided it outside he is liable – ‫ִח ְּלקֹו‬ .‫ ּ ָפטוּר‬:‫ָא ַמר‬
‫מ ַ ּבחוּץ נַ ִמי ַחּיָ יב‬:ִ In a case where one takes a limb
was outside his mouth, and he then ate each piece separately, he is
from a living animal and divides it, so that he eats exempt. If he divided the limb into two parts inside his mouth,
it in small amounts, if the total amount of flesh con- Rabbi Yoĥanan says that he is liable, and Reish Lakish says that
sumed equals an olive-bulk, he is liable. If it is not, he is exempt.
he is exempt. This ruling is in accordance with the
opinion of Rabbi Elazar (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hil- ‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר ַחּיָ יב – ֲה ֵרי נֶ ֱהנָ ה ְ ּגרֹונֹו‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan says he is liable because his throat derives plea-
khot Ma’akhalot Assurot 5:4).
‫ וְ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר ּ ָפטוּר – ֲא ִכ ָילה‬.‫ ְ ּב ַכּזַ יִ ת‬sure from an olive-bulk of a limb from a living animal. And Reish
That remains between the teeth – ‫ב ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבין ׁ ִש ּינַיִ ם‬:
ְּ Lakish says that he is exempt because in order to be liable we
!‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ֵל‬,‫ְ ּב ֵמ ָעיו ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬
One is liable for all prohibitions of eating by Torah require an act of eating that contains the requisite amount, i.e., an
law if he eats an olive-bulk, which is measured with olive-bulk, when it enters his stomach, and in this case there is not
a medium-sized olive. This measure is used whether a full olive-bulk that enters his stomach at one time.
the punishment is lashes, karet, or death at the hand of
Heaven. This olive-bulk does not include what remains ‫ ֵה ִיכי ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחת‬,‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan it is
stuck between one’s teeth. Nevertheless, any food that
remains on the palate does combine with whatever ‫יתא‬ ִ ְ‫ ִ ּבג‬:‫ ָל ּה דִּ ְמ ַחּיַ יב? ֲא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬clear how one can be liable for eating an olive-bulk of a limb from a
ָ ‫רֹומ‬
living animal. But according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, how
was swallowed to make an olive-bulk, since his throat .‫זְ ֵע ְיר ָתא‬
derived benefit from it (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot can you find a case where one will be liable for eating a limb from
Ma’akhalot Assurot 14:3). a living animal, since the food is generally broken up before he
swallows it? Rav Kahana said: One would be liable in a case where
background he eats a small bonebn that contains an olive-bulk of meat, bone and
Small bone – ‫יתא זְ ֵע ְיר ָתא‬ ִ ‫ג‬:ּ ְ This term refers to
ָ ‫רֹומ‬ sinew all together, and that he can swallow whole.
a bone above the femur, which, counted together
with the flesh and nerve located there, constitutes an – ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִח ְּלקֹו ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ָא ַמר‬As quoted above, Rabbi Yoĥanan and Reish Lakish agree that if one
olive-bulk. It is not normally chewed but swallowed ‫ ָלאו ִּכ ְמחו ַּּסר‬,‫ ְמחו ַּּסר ְק ִר ָיבה‬,‫ נַ ִמי ַחּיָ יב‬divides a limb from a living animal before placing it in his mouth,
whole (Rashi). he is not liable for eating it. The Gemara adds: But Rabbi Elazar
.‫ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה דָּ ֵמי‬
says: Even if one divided the limb outside his mouth he is liable.h
This is because the fact that the two pieces are lacking in proximity
to each other as they are placed in one’s mouth is not comparable
to lacking an action, i.e., it is not comparable to a case where he
ate only half an olive-bulk. Since he ate an entire olive-bulk, he
is liable.

– ‫ ַּכּזַ יִ ת ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו‬:‫ § ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬The Gemara cites another dispute between Rabbi Yoĥanan and
ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ חוּץ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ִש ּינַיִ ם‬Reish Lakish pertaining to the measure of an olive-bulk with regard
‫ ַאף‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬
to prohibitions involving eating. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:
.‫ִעם ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ִש ּינַיִ ם‬
The olive-bulk of which the Sages spoke with regard to prohibitions
involving eating is measured by the food one actually swallows,
aside from the food that remains stuck between the teeth. And
Rabbi Yoĥanan says that it includes even the food that remains
stuck between the teeth.

‫ ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבין ׁ ִש ּינַיִ ם – דְּ כו ֵּּלי‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ In explanation of this dispute, Rav Pappa says: With regard to food
.‫נִיכיִ ים‬
ַ ‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ֵ ּבין ַה ֲח‬,‫ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ that remains stuck between the teeth,h everyone agrees that it is
not included in measuring an olive-bulk that would render one
‫ ו ָּמר‬,‫ָמר ָס ַבר – ֲה ֵרי נֶ ֱהנָ ה ְ ּגרֹונֹו ְ ּב ַכּזַ יִ ת‬
liable to receive lashes. When they disagree it is with regard to food
.‫ָס ַבר – ֲא ִכ ָילה ְ ּב ֵמ ָעיו ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬ that remains on the palate, which one tastes but does not swallow.
One Sage, Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds that since his throat derives
pleasure from an olive-bulk, i.e., he tastes the full olive-bulk, he is
liable. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that in order to be liable,
we require an act of eating that contains the requisite amount, i.e.,
an olive-bulk, when it enters his stomach.

notes
ִ ‫ג‬:ּ ְ The later commentaries note that
A small bone – ‫רֹומ ָיתא זְ ֵע ְיר ָתא‬ derive liability for swallowing forbidden food items without chew-
Rav Kahana’s statement indicates that one who eats forbidden ing them from the specific halakha of eating a limb from a living
food is liable for swallowing even without chewing. In addition, animal. Since that is a unique halakha, as Rashi explains, it is pos-
it teaches that consuming food in this manner is not considered sible that this principle applies only to eating a limb from a living
unusual, as if it were, one would not be liable (Minĥat Ĥinnukh; animal, but that consumption in this manner of other forbidden
Noda BiYehuda; Dovev Meisharim). Similarly the early authorities food would not render one liable (Rabbi Akiva Eiger). Others dis-
explain that one who swallows forbidden fat without chewing is tinguish between a type of food that requires chewing and a type
liable (Tosefot Rid). of food that does not require chewing but is normally swallowed
By contrast, other later commentaries write that one cannot whole, such as the small bone referenced here (Yosef Da’at).

150 Ĥullin . perek VII . 103b . ‫ףד‬ ‫גק‬: ‫׳ז קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ָא ַכל ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ § ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara quotes another related ruling of Rabbi Yoĥanan: halakha
Ate half an olive-bulk and vomited it, and then
.‫ וְ ָחזַ ר וְ ָא ַכל ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ַא ֵחר – ַחּיָ יב‬,‫ וֶ ֱה ִקיאֹו‬Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: If one ate half an olive- ate, etc. – ‫א ַכל ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת וֶ ֱה ִקיאֹו וְ ָחזַ ר וְ ָא ַכל וכו׳‬:ָ If one eats
bulk of a forbidden food and vomited it, and then ateh another
.‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא? ֲה ֵרי נֶ ֱהנָ ה ְ ּגרֹונֹו ְ ּב ַכּזַ יִ ת‬ half an olive-bulk and vomits it, and then eats that
half an olive-bulk, he is liable. What is the reason? It is because same half-olive-bulk again, he is liable, because the
his throat derives pleasure from an olive-bulk of the forbidden punishment is based upon whether one’s palate derives
food, even though the full olive-bulk did not actually enter benefit from an olive-bulk of forbidden food (Rambam
his stomach. Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 14:3).

‫ ָא ַכל ֲחצִ י‬:‫ְ ּב ָעא ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי‬ Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: If one ate half background
‫ ַמהוּ? ַמאי ָקא‬,‫ וְ ָחזַ ר וַ ֲא ָכלֹו‬,‫זַ יִ ת וֶ ֱה ִקיאֹו‬ an olive-bulk of forbidden food and vomited it, and then ate it Wonder [mofet] of the generation – ‫מֹופת ַהדּ ֹור‬: ֵ This
again, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies: What is the title of honor describes the greatest person in that gen-
‫יכוּל ִאי ָלא ָהוֵ י‬ּ ‫יה? ִאי ָהוֵ י ִע‬ ּ ‫יב ֲעיָ א ֵל‬ ּ ָ ‫ִמ‬
dilemma he is raising? If it is about whether the half-olive-bulk eration (see Rabbeinu Gershom Meor HaGola; Rashi).
!‫יה ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִת‬,‫יכוּל‬ ּ ‫ִע‬ that he ate and vomited up is considered to have been digested, in This title is taken from the phrase used in the Second
which case it is no longer considered food, or whether it is not Temple era: “Hear now, O Joshua the High Priest, you
considered to have been digested, let him raise the dilemma with and your fellows that sit before you, for they are men
that are a sign [mofet]; for behold, I will bring forth My
regard to an entire olive-bulk. If one eats an entire olive-bulk and servant the Shoot” (Zechariah 3:8).
vomits it and then eats it again, if the food is considered not to have
been digested the first time, he is liable to be flogged twice.

‫ ִאי ָ ּב ַתר ְ ּגרֹונֹו ָאזְ ִלינַן ִאי ָ ּב ַתר ֵמ ָעיו‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, his dilemma must be about whether we follow the throat
ּ ‫ וְ ִת ְפ ׁשֹוט ֵל‬.‫ ָאזְ ִלינַן‬or whether we follow the stomach in measuring how much forbid-
!‫יה ִמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי‬
den food one has swallowed. That being the case, let him resolve
the dilemma from that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan
said, which indicates that we follow the throat.

‫ וַ ֲא ָתא ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יע ַקר ֵל‬ ֲ ‫יה ִא‬ ּ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ְ ּג ָמ ֵר‬ The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar knew the answer to his
‫ ָל ָּמה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ל‬ֵ ‫ר‬ ‫מ‬ ַ ‫א‬ָ ‫ק‬ָ ‫י‬‫כ‬ִ ‫ה‬
ָ ְ‫ו‬ , ‫יה‬
ּ ֵ ‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְל ַא ְד ּכו‬
‫ּר‬ question, but Rabbi Asi forgot the statement that he had learned
from Rabbi Yoĥanan, and Rabbi Elazar came to remind him of
‫ דְּ ִא ָּיכא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ימא ָמר ְ ּב ִד ֵיד‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬,‫ִלי ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ַא ֵחר‬
what he had known previously. And this is what Rabbi Elazar
‫ ׁ ָש ְמ ִעינַן ִמ ָּינ ּה – דְּ ָלא‬,‫ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬ was saying to him: Why do I need the case where he swallows
‫ וְ ׁ ָש ְמ ִעינַ ן ִמ ָּינ ּה – דַּ ֲה ֵרי נֶ ֱהנָ ה‬,‫יכוּל‬ ּ ‫ָהוֵ י ִע‬ another half an olive-bulk? Let the Master teach this ruling in a
!‫ְ ּגרֹונֹו ְ ּב ַכּזַ יִ ת‬ case where he swallows the same half-olive-bulk he had swallowed
previously and vomited, as two principles can be derived from the
ruling in that case: We can learn from it that the food was not
considered to have been digested the first time he swallowed it,
and we can learn from it that since his throat derives pleasure
from a full olive-bulk, he is liable.

‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה וְ ָלא ִמ ֵידי‬ ּ ‫יש ִּתיק וְ ָלא ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ְ ׁ ‫ִא‬ Rabbi Asi was silent and did not say anything. Rabbi Elazar said
‫יאין ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬ ִ ‫ימנִין ַס ִ ּג‬
ְ ִ‫ ָלא ז‬,‫מֹופת ַהדּ ֹור‬ֵ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ to him: Wonder of the generation,b did you not say this case
many times before Rabbi Yoĥanan, and he said to you: This
‫ ֲה ֵרי נֶ ֱהנָ ה ְ ּגרֹונֹו‬: ְ‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ָלך‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ַק ֵּמ‬
person is liable because his throat derives pleasure from a full
.‫ְ ּב ַכּזַ יִ ת‬ olive-bulk?
‫הדרן עלך גיד הנשה‬

 ‫גק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ז קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VII . 103b 151

This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Summary of
Perek VII

The main topic of this chapter was a single mitzva: The prohibition of eating the
sciatic nerve, with its definition and details. The Gemara’s conclusion was that this
mitzva applies at all times and in all places. It also applies equally to consecrated
animals and to non-consecrated animals, and to the sciatic nerve of both the right
and left thighs. The prohibition applies only with regard to animals, not to birds.
The Gemara defined precisely where in the leg the forbidden nerve is located. It also
ruled that in addition to removing the nerve itself, the surrounding fats must also
be removed. Even though there were different customs, the conclusion is that the
entire nerve must be removed, as well as all extensions of it, even though they may
not be technically forbidden.
The Gemara also discussed various membranes that must be removed from animals.
Some are removed because they contain forbidden fats and others because they
contain large amounts of blood. It also became common practice over the genera-
tions to remove other small sinews and membranes that are considered disgusting.
The only prohibition concerning the sciatic nerve is the prohibition of eating it.
Although the Sages said that the sciatic nerve is tough and generally considered
inedible, one who eats it is liable to receive lashes.
Apropos the discussion about the sciatic nerve, and particularly the case of a thigh
that is cooked with the sciatic nerve still inside, the Gemara discussed the principles
of nullification of forbidden food. The sciatic nerve is among the forbidden foods
that, when cooked with permitted food, render the entire mixture forbidden if they
impart taste to it. This can be discerned by tasting the mixture, but since the mixture
may be forbidden, it can be given to a gentile expert to taste. Nevertheless, since
there are some foods whose taste is difficult to discern in a mixture, in practice it is
customary to assume that if there is less than sixty times as much permitted food as
there is forbidden food, the mixture is forbidden.
It is permitted to give a gentile an animal leg with the forbidden sciatic nerve still
inside, as there is no concern that he will subsequently come to sell it to a Jew who
would eat it without removing the nerve. This applies even in a locale where it is
permitted for a Jew to purchase slaughtered meat from a gentile. The reason is that
since the thigh is whole, it is obvious that the nerve has not been removed and the
purchaser would know not to eat it.
This chapter included a discussion of whether a prohibition takes effect where
another prohibition already exists. Can another prohibition apply to a food that is
already prohibited, or does the second prohibition have no effect? As this is a general
topic with many applications, it is discussed in other tractates as well. In this chapter,
a distinction was drawn between different types of prohibitions. Although in most

153
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

cases a prohibition does not take effect where another already exists, some prohibi-
tions do take effect on food that is already forbidden if they add extra stringencies
or increase the degree of prohibition on the food.
These were the main concepts discussed in this chapter. As in all chapters of the
Talmud there were also many tangential discussions.

154
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

The choicest first fruits of your land you shall bring into
the house of the Lord your God. You shall not cook a
kid in its mother’s milk.
(Exodus 23:19)
Introduction to
The choicest first fruits of your land you shall bring into
the house of the Lord your God. You shall not cook a
kid in its mother’s milk.
Perek VIII
(Exodus 34:26)

You shall not eat of any animal carcass; you may give
it to the resident alien who is within your gates, that
he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you
are a sacred people to the Lord your God. You shall
not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.
(Deuteronomy 14:21)

The Torah proscribes cooking meat in milk on three separate occasions. In all three
instances, the prohibition is formulated in terms of cooking a kid in its mother’s
milk. The halakhic tradition passed down from generation to generation as a halakha
transmitted to Moses from Sinai is that these verses are all referring to a general
prohibition against cooking meat and milk together. The Torah’s repetition of the
injunction three times teaches that not only is the act of cooking the two substances
together prohibited, but also that if one did so, the cooked dish is then prohibited
for both consumption and benefit.
The wording of the prohibition gives rise to several questions with regard to the
scope of the prohibition. One can ask whether the Torah is referring to the meat
of all animals, including undomesticated animals and birds, and perhaps even fish,
or whether it is referring only to the meat of domesticated animals like kids, the
animal mentioned in the verse. It must also be determined whether only milk itself
is included in the prohibition or if derivative milk products are included as well.
A unique aspect of the prohibition against cooking meat in milk is that each ingre-
dient is permitted for consumption by itself; only when they are cooked together
are they prohibited. Consequently, even placing the two substances side by side is
considered problematic, as it could lead to transgression. This chapter discusses the
extent to which meat must be kept separate from milk in order to prevent people
from unwittingly violating the prohibition.
The chapter discusses other significant issues relating to this prohibition as well. What
is the definition of cooking in this context? What is the requisite ratio between the
two substances that renders them prohibited? In which cases are mixtures of meat
and milk considered forbidden? Another issue that requires clarification is whether
it is permissible to consume animal udders, which contain both meat and milk, and
what is the correct manner of preparing them. In addition, the chapter deals with
whether it is permissible and how to properly curdle milk, since it was typically
curdled by using congealed milk from a nursing animal’s stomach or even skin of the
stomach itself as a coagulant. These issues constitute the main topics of this chapter.

155
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VIII
Daf 103 Amud b

– ‫מתני׳ ָּכל ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָאסוּר ְל ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬

‫ וְ ָאסוּר ְל ַה ֲעלֹות‬.‫חוּץ ִמ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר דָּ גִ ים וַ ֲחגָ ִבים‬
mishna It is prohibited to cookn any meat of domes-
ticated and undomesticated animals and
background
Grasshoppers [ĥagavim] – ‫חגָ ִבים‬:ֲ Although in the
Bible ĥagavim refers to a particular species of grass-
birds in milk, except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers,bh hopper, in the language of the Sages it is used as
‫ ִעם ַה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֻש ְל ָחן – חוּץ ִמ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר דָּ גִ ים‬whose halakhic status is not that of meat. And likewise, the Sages
an umbrella term for a large group of grasshoppers
.‫ וַ ֲחגָ ִבים‬issued a decree that it is prohibited to place any meat together with with long hind legs, short antennae, and a body that
milk products, e.g., cheese, on one table.h The reason for this pro- is flattened on the sides. The narrow and hard upper
hibition is that one might come to eat them after they absorb sub- wings of these creatures cover its wider, softer lower
stances from each other. This prohibition applies to all types of meat, wings. These animals move primarily by means of
gentle hops and occasionally fly. As indicated by
except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers.
their name, grasshoppers live mainly among weeds,
notes from which they receive their sustenance. Some
grasshoppers are permitted for consumption, as it
It is prohibited to cook – ‫אסוּר ְל ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל‬:ָ There are three prohibitions (Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot, prohibition 186; Smag, prohibition 140;
states: “Yet these you may eat of all winged swarm-
concerning meat with milk: Cooking meat together with milk, eat- Sefer HaĤinnukh, positive mitzva 92), and one who cooks meat
ing things that go upon all fours, which have jointed
ing the meat or milk that was cooked with the other, and deriving together with milk is liable to receive lashes, just like one who
legs above their feet, with which to leap upon the
benefit from the meat or milk that was cooked with the other. transgresses any other regular prohibition (see 108b; Tosefta, Makkot
earth” (Leviticus 11:21). These include “the locust after
Cooking meat together with milk is counted as a Torah prohibition 4:7; Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:1).
its kinds, and the bald locust after its kinds, and
the cricket after its kinds, and the grasshopper after
halakha its kinds” (Leviticus 11:22), although the identity of
Except for the meat of fish and grasshoppers – ‫חוּץ ִמ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר דָּ גִ ים‬ And it is prohibited to place meat with cheese on one table – these creatures is uncertain (see also 59a, 65a).
‫וַ ֲחגָ ִבים‬: The prohibition of meat cooked in milk does not apply ‫וְ ָאסוּר ְל ַה ֲעלֹות ִעם ַה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֻש ְל ָחן‬: One may not place the meat
to the meat of fish and grasshoppers even by rabbinic law, and of animals on the same table upon which he is eating cheese, lest
therefore they may be eaten together with milk. This ruling is in he come to consume them together. This restriction also applies
accordance with the Rambam’s interpretation of the mishna, that to meat of birds, despite the fact that the prohibition against con-
when the mishna excludes the meat of fish and grasshoppers, it suming such meat with milk is by rabbinic law only, and the Sages
excludes them from the prohibition of eating them when cooked do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree
with milk. The mishna uses the term cooking due to the wording (Rambam). One may arrange the two dishes side by side on a table
of the verse (Exodus 23:19): “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s used for preparing them but on which one does not intend to
milk” (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:5, and eat them (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:20;
see Maggid Mishne there; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:3). Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 88:1).

Perek VIII
Daf 104 Amud a
notes
‫ ַהנּ ֵֹודר ִמן ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – מו ָּּתר ִ ּב ְב ַ ׂשר דָּ גִ ים‬And one who takes a vow that meat is prohibited to him is permit-
Anything about which an agent would inquire
.‫ וַ ֲחגָ ִבים‬ted to eat the meat of fish and grasshoppers. whether it is its type – ‫יה ׁ ָש ִל ַיח ַ ּבר‬ ְ ‫ָּכל ִמ ֵּילי דְּ ִמ‬
ּ ‫ימ ִליךְ ֲע ֵל‬

gemara
‫ינֵיה הוּא‬
ּ ‫מ‬:ִ Some of the early commentaries limit the
– ‫ ְּכ ַמאן‬,‫יתא‬ ַ ְּ‫גמ׳ ָהא עֹוף ָאסוּר ִמד‬
ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ Since the mishna does not distinguish application of this principle to those cases where
between the meat of animals and that of the one appointing the agent referred to a general
:‫ ָה ֲא ַמר‬,‫ דְּ ִאי ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬,‫דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬
birds, it may consequently be inferred that the meat of birds cooked term, similar to vegetables, as in the example in
.‫ ַחּיָ ה וְ עֹוף ֵאינֹו ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬in milk is prohibited by Torah law, just like the meat of animals. In the mishna.
accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is not in accor-
dance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as, if you say it is in accor-
dance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, didn’t he say that the
prohibition of the meat of undomesticated animals and birds
cooked in milk is not by Torah law?

‫ ַהנּ ֵֹודר ִמן ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – מו ָּּתר ִ ּב ְב ַ ׂשר‬:‫ימא ֵס ָיפא‬ָ ‫ֵא‬ The Gemara continues: But say the latter clause of the mishna: One
‫ ֲא ָת ָאן ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ָהא עֹוף – ָאסוּר‬.‫דָּ גִ ים וַ ֲחגָ ִבים‬ who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to himh is permitted to eat
ֵּ ‫ ָּכל ִמ‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יבא‬ the meat of fish and grasshoppers. It may consequently be inferred
‫יה‬
ּ ‫יך ֲע ֵל‬ ְ ‫ימ ִל‬ְ ‫ילי דְּ ִמ‬ ָ ‫ֲע ִק‬
that it is prohibited for him to eat birds. If so, here we arrive at the
.‫ינֵיה הוּא‬
ּ ‫ׁ ָש ִל ַיח – ַ ּבר ִמ‬ opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Anything about which an agent
sent to purchase a given item would inquire, being unsure whether
it qualifies as that type of item, is considered its type.n
halakha
One who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him – ‫ַהנּ ֵֹודר ִמן‬ it is permitted for him to eat the meat of fish and the meat of birds
‫ה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:ַ With regard to one who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, Hilkhot Nedarim 9:6, and see Kesef Mishne,
him, it is prohibited for him to eat the meat of birds but it is permit- Leĥem Mishne, and Radbaz there; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 217:8,
ted for him to eat the meat of grasshoppers. If the circumstances and in the comment of Rema).
of his vow indicate that he had only the meat of animals in mind,

 ‫גק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 103b 157

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
,‫ ַהנּ ֵֹודר ִמן ַהּיָ ָרק – מו ָּּתר ִ ּב ְדלו ִּעין‬:‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ As it is taught in a mishna (Nedarim 54a): One who takes a vow
Gourds – ‫דְּ לו ִּעין‬: The term gourds includes a large num- that vegetables are forbidden to himh is permitted to eat gourds,b
ber of plants that generally grow in warm regions, the :‫ ָא ְמר ּו לֹו ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬.‫אֹוסר‬
ֵ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬
as people do not typically consider gourds a type of vegetable, but
best known being zucchini, pumpkin, and watermelon. ,‫״קח ָלנ ּו יָ ָרק״‬ ַ ‫אֹומר ָא ָדם ִל ׁ ְשלוּחֹו‬ֵ ‫וַ ֲהל ֹא‬
The Ran cites two explanations for the fact that Rabbi Akiva deems it prohibited for him to eat gourds. The Rab-
!‫אתי ֶא ָּלא דְּ לו ִּעין״‬ ִ ָ‫אֹומר ״ל ֹא ָמצ‬ ֵ ‫וְ הוּא‬ bis said to Rabbi Akiva: But it is a common occurrence that a
gourds are not considered vegetables. One approach is
that the term vegetables in this context refers to leaves person says to his agent: Purchase vegetables for us, and the
or other edible parts of a plant, and not its fruit; gourds agent, after failing to find vegetables, returns and says: I found only
are fruits. Later commentaries discuss whether edible gourds. This indicates that gourds are not considered vegetables.
roots and bulbs are in the category of vegetables. A
second explanation is that vegetables are eaten raw, ‫אֹומר ״ל ֹא‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכלוּם‬,‫ ֵּכן ַהדָּ ָבר‬:‫ָא ַמר ָל ֶהן‬ Rabbi Akiva said to them: The matter is so, and that proves that
while gourds are eaten only cooked. There are certain my opinion is correct. Does the agent return and say: I found
difficulties with each of these explanations, and some ‫אתי ֶא ָּלא ִק ְטנִית״? ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשדְּ ל ּו ִעין‬ ִ ָ‫ָמצ‬
only legumes?b Rather, it is evident that gourds are included in
commentaries combine the two approaches into ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬.‫ וְ ֵאין ִק ְטנִית ִ ּב ְכ ַלל יָ ָרק‬,‫ִ ּב ְכ ַלל יָ ָרק‬
a single definition. The Rid explains that in common the category of vegetables, although they differ from other vege-
!‫ַר ָ ּבנַן וְ ֵס ָיפא ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ tables, and therefore, the agent explains that he found only gourds,
parlance, the term vegetables refers to both edible
leaves, whether eaten raw, e.g., lettuce, or cooked, e.g., and asks whether he should purchase them. But legumes are not
spinach, and to fruits of plants that grow in the ground included in the category of vegetables, and that is why an agent
and are eaten uncooked. Gourds are fruits that are eaten would not even ask about them. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva should
exclusively after cooking and therefore are not in that
also hold that one who takes a vow that meat is forbidden to him
category. In the Jerusalem Talmud, it is stated that this
applies only to the Egyptian gourd, which is not eaten
is prohibited from eating birds. And if so, the first clause of the
raw at all. However, even the Rabbis concede that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who
Greek gourd, which is softer and eaten raw, is included disagree with Rabbi Akiva, and the latter clause is in accordance
in the category of vegetables. with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
Legumes – ‫ק ְטנִית‬:ִ The legume, from the family Faba-
ceae, includes peas, beans, and chickpeas. The term
ּ ָ ‫ּנְסיב ָל ּה ַא ִּל‬
‫יבא‬ ֵ ‫ ו‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי ִהיא‬:‫יֹוסף‬
ֵ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬Rav Yosef said: That is not difficult. The entire mishna is in accor-
legumes is also used generally to refer to the small ,‫ ִ ּבנְ ָד ִרים – ְס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬,‫ דְּ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬dance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formu-
produce of many plants, such as lentils. lates the mishna according to the opinions of different tanna’im.
.‫ְ ּב ָב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב – ְס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬
In the latter clause, with regard to vows, he holds in accordance
with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whereas in the first clause, with
regard to meat cooked in milk, he holds in accordance with the
opinion of the Rabbis.

‫ וְ ָה ִכי‬,‫ ּכו ָּּל ּה ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ִהיא‬:‫ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ֲא ַמר‬ Rav Ashi said a different explanation: The entire mishna is in
‫ ֵמ ֶהן‬,‫ ָּכל ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָאסוּר ְל ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬:‫ָק ָא ַמר‬ accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as indicated by the
latter clause, concerning vows. And as for the first part of the
‫ חוּץ‬,‫סֹופ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּמ ֶהן ִמדִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫תֹורה‬ ָ ‫ִמדִּ ְב ֵרי‬
mishna, this is what it is saying: It is prohibited to cook any meat
‫ִמ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר דָּ גִ ים וַ ֲחגָ ִבים – ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ם ל ֹא ִמדִּ ְב ֵרי‬ cooked in milk, some types of meat by Torah law,h i.e., that of
.‫סֹופ ִרים‬
ְ ‫תֹורה וְ ל ֹא ִמדִּ ְב ֵרי‬ ָ domesticated animals, and some types of meat by rabbinic law,h
i.e., that of undomesticated animals and birds. This prohibition
applies to all types of meat except for the meat of fish and grass-
hoppers, which are not prohibited, neither by Torah law nor by
rabbinic law.

:‫יֹוסף‬
ֵ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬.]‫״וְ ָאסוּר ְל ַה ֲעלֹות״ [וכו׳‬ § The mishna teaches further: And it is prohibited to place any
,‫אֹוריְ ָיתא‬ ַ ְּ‫ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר עֹוף ְ ּב ָח ָלב – ד‬,‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ meat with cheese on one table. Rav Yosef said: Conclude from
this clause that eating the meat of birds cooked in milk is prohib-
‫דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן – ֲא ִכ ָילה גּ ו ָּפ ּה‬
ited by Torah law. As, if it enters your mind that the prohibition
!?‫ וַ ֲאנַן נִ גְ זֹר ַה ֲע ָל ָאה ַא ּט ּו ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫ְ ּגזֵ ָירה‬ against eating it applies merely by rabbinic law, this would be
because the consumption of the meat of birds cooked in milk is
itself a rabbinic decree, lest one come to eat the meat of an animal
in milk. And would we decree against placing birds together with
cheese on one table due to the possibility of consumption, which
is itself a decree? The Sages do not enact one decree to prevent the
violation of another decree.

halakha
One who takes a vow that vegetables are forbidden to him – domesticated animal in the milk of a non-kosher domesticated
‫הנּ ֵֹודר ִמן ַהּיָ ָרק‬:ַ One who takes a vow that vegetables are forbid- animal, and the meat of a non-kosher domesticated animal in the
den to him is permitted to eat gourds, as the halakha is not in milk of a kosher domesticated animal. It is permitted to derive
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to this benefit from these mixtures, and one who eats them does not
matter (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, Hilkhot Nedarim 9:10, and see Kesef violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. The halakha is
Mishne, Leĥem Mishne, and Radbaz there; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva as explained by
De’a 217:4). Rav Ashi (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:3;
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:2).
Some types of meat by Torah law – ‫תֹורה‬ ָ ‫מ ֶהן ִמדִּ ְב ֵרי‬:ֵ By Torah
law the prohibition of meat cooked in milk applies only to the And some types of meat by rabbinic law – ‫סֹופ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ו ֵּמ ֶהן ִמדִּ ְב ֵרי‬:
meat of a kosher domesticated animal cooked in the milk of It is permitted to cook the meat of undomesticated animals and
a kosher domesticated animal, as indicated by the verse: “You birds even in the milk of a kosher domesticated animal, and it is
shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19). Although also permitted to derive benefit from the mixture. By rabbinic law,
the Torah refers to a kid, this includes the offspring of a cow, a it is prohibited to eat the mixture (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
sheep, and a goat. It is permitted to cook the meat of a kosher Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:3).

158 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 104a . ‫ףד‬ ‫דק‬. ‫׳ח קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

– ‫ימ ָרא דְּ ָלא ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ִלגְ זֵ ָירה‬
ְ ‫ ו ְּמנָ א ֵּת‬The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that we do not issue
‫ ַח ַּלת חוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬one rabbinic decree to prevent violation of another rabbinic decree?
The source is as we learned in a mishna (Ĥalla 4:8): Ĥallab from
outside of Eretz Yisrael, which must be eaten by a priest,

background
Ĥalla – ‫ח ָּלה‬:ַ The Torah commands that in the production of twenty-fourth of his dough as ĥalla, and a commercial baker to
bread one must separate a portion of dough, which is given to give one forty-eighth.
the priests (Numbers 15:20). This portion is called ĥalla and is Nowadays, all Jews have the status of being ritually impure.
governed by all the halakhot pertaining to teruma, the produce Therefore, ĥalla is governed by halakhot similar to impure teruma
set aside for the priests. Ĥalla must be taken from all dough of and must be burned. Accordingly, these measures no longer
the five principal types of grain: Wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and apply. Only a small portion is separated from the dough and
rye, provided that the quantity of flour is at least a tenth of an burned, and the rest of the dough may then be used. A blessing
ephah in volume. If ĥalla has not been separated, the dough is recited for the separation of ĥalla. The halakhot of this mitzva,
has the status of tevel, untithed produce, and may not be eaten. which is one of the mitzvot performed particularly by women,
While the Torah does not specify a measure for ĥalla, the Sages are discussed comprehensively in tractate Ĥalla.
required an individual baking for personal use to give one

Perek VIII
Daf 104 Amud b
notes
ֶּ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ִעם ַהּזָ ר ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֻש ְל ָחן‬may be eaten with a non-priest present at the same table.h The
‫נִיתנֶ ת ְל ָכל‬
Ĥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael – ‫ח ַּלת חוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ‬:ַ
.‫ ּכ ֵֹהן ׁ ֶשּיִ ְרצֶ ה‬Sages did not issue a decree prohibiting this lest the non-priest The mitzva to separate ĥalla from dough does not apply
partake of the ĥalla, as the separation of ĥalla outside of Eretz Yisrael by Torah law outside of Eretz Yisrael, but the Sages obli-
is itself a rabbinic decree. This proves that the Sages do not issue gated one to separate ĥalla even from dough outside
one decree to prevent violation of another decree. And similarly, of Eretz Yisrael. The reason for this decree was to ensure
ĥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael may be given to any priest that that the Jewish people do not forget the concept and
one wishes, even an uneducated priest who would not guard its practice of the mitzva of ĥalla (Ramban on 136b; Ram-
state of ritual purity. This is in contrast to ĥalla from Eretz Yisrael, bam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 5:7).
The commentaries write that the Sages decreed that
which may be given only to priests who observe the halakhot of
ĥalla should be separated in all places, even in those
ritual purity. lands that are distant from Eretz Yisrael. One justifica-
tion for this is that ĥalla is similar to an obligation of the
‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ִאי ַא ׁ ְשמו ִּעינַן‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, your inference would be valid if body, which applies both within and outside of Eretz
‫ דְּ ִא ָּיכא ְל ִמיגְ זַ ר‬,‫ַח ַּלת חוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬ the mishna in tractate Ĥalla had taught us this with regard to ĥalla Yisrael, as opposed to an obligation that applies to pro-
from outside of Eretz Yisrael that had been brought into Eretz duce that grows from the earth. In addition, this mitzva
‫יתא וְ ָלא‬ ַ ְּ‫ִמ ׁ ּש ּום ַח ַּלת ָה ָא ֶרץ ד‬
ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
Yisrael. As in that case, there could be reason to decree against eat- applies to all people, even if they own no land of their
.‫יכא ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ָּ ‫ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן – ִא‬ ing it while a non-priest is at the same table, despite the fact that the own, unlike other mitzvot that apply only in Eretz Yisrael,
non-priest eating it is prohibited only by rabbinic law, due to the which depend on ownership of land (Tosafot and Tosefot
HaRosh on Kiddushin 36b).
concern that one might come to eat ĥalla from Eretz Yisrael, which
By contrast, some of the early commentaries main-
is prohibited to the non-priest by Torah law, at the same table as a tain that the mitzva of ĥalla applies outside of Eretz
non-priest; and yet we do not decree against this practice. If so, Yisrael only in places close to Eretz Yisrael, similar to the
there would be grounds to learn from this mishna that the Sages mitzvot of teruma and tithes (Sefer HaIttur; Maharam
do not issue one decree to prevent violation of another decree. Ĥalawa; Meiri; Ran; Ritva; Nimmukei Yosef ). With regard
to the practical halakha, most early commentaries agree
‫יכא ְל ִמיגְ זַ ר‬ָּ ‫ֶא ָּלא חוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ֵל‬ But the mishna actually teaches this halakha with regard to ĥalla that even nowadays one should separate ĥalla in all
from outside of Eretz Yisraeln that remains there. It therefore proves places (Encyclopedia Talmudit).
‫יה ְל ַא ּסו ֵּקי‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא – ִאי ׁ ָש ֵרית ֵל‬,‫הוּא‬
nothing about compound decrees, as it can be claimed that the
,‫ ָא ֵתי ְל ַא ּסו ֵּקי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וּגְ ִבינָ ה‬,‫עֹוף וּגְ ִבינָ ה‬
practice is permitted only because there is no reason to decree.
.‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫יכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב ד‬ַ ‫ו ֵּמ‬ Since by Torah law the obligation of ĥalla does not apply outside of
Eretz Yisrael, there is no chance that such behavior will lead to
transgression of Torah law. But here, if you permit one to place
the meat of birds and cheese on the same table, some might come
to place the meat of domesticated animals and cheese on a single
table and to eat this meat cooked in milk, thereby transgressing a
prohibition by Torah law.

halakha
May be eaten with a non-priest present at the same table – mixture (see Rema). The Rema cites a conflicting opinion, accord-
‫נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת ִעם ַהּזָ ר ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֻש ְל ָחן‬: Ĥalla from outside of Eretz Yisrael, which ing to which the mixture is prohibited unless there is one hundred
is permitted to a priest who does not have impurity from a semi- times as much non-sacred produce as ĥalla, if the two substances
nal emission, may be eaten by such a priest with a non-priest are of the same type, or sixty times as much, if they are of different
present at the same table. The reason is that if this ĥalla fell into types (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 5:12; Shulĥan Arukh,
non-sacred produce it does not render the mixture forbidden, Yoreh De’a 323:1).
even if there was as much ĥalla as non-sacred produce in the

 ‫דק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 104b 159

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
!‫ צֹונֵן ְ ּבצֹונֵן הוּא‬,‫ סֹוף סֹוף‬:‫ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬Rav Sheshet objects to the premise of Rav Yosef ’s inference: Even
Stewpot [ilpas] – ‫א ְיל ּ ָפס‬:ִ The ilpas was apparently
an earthenware vessel with a broad base, straight ֵ ‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ֲע ֶלה ְ ּב ִא ְיל ּ ָפס‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬if one were to posit that the meat of birds in milk is prohibited by
.‫רֹות ַח‬
sides, and a wide opening. The sides of an ilpas
Torah law, ultimately this is still a decree issued due to another
were thinner than those of a regular pot. It also dif- decree, as it is a case of cold food in another cold food, consump-
fered from a pot in that it came with a cover, which tion of which is itself prohibited by rabbinic law. Abaye said: It is
had a pointed end and was sometimes perforated. a rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a boiling
An ilpas was probably used to cook all types of stewpot,b which is a manner of cooking and therefore prohibited
foods, like a pot, but it was used particularly for by Torah law.
foods that required speedy preparation, or to warm
food that had already been cooked in a pot.
!‫ ו ְּכ ִלי ׁ ֵשנִי ֵאינֹו ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל‬,‫ סֹוף סֹוף ְּכ ִלי ׁ ֵשנִי הוּא‬The Gemara counters: Ultimately, even a stewpot is only a second-
.‫אשֹון‬ׁ ‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ֲע ֶלה ְ ּב ִא ְיל ּ ָפס ִר‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא‬ary vessel, i.e., not the vessel that was on the fire, and as a rule, a
secondary vessel does not cook. Rather, one must say that it is a
halakha
rabbinic decree, lest one place the meat with cheese in a stewpot
The meat of birds may be placed with cheese that is a primary vessel, i.e., that was on the fire. This is certainly
on one table – ‫עֹולה ִעם ַה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה ַעל ַה ׁ ּשו ְּל ָחן‬
ֶ ‫העֹוף‬:ָ
It is prohibited to place meat of birds with cheese
cooking meat in milk, and it is prohibited by Torah law.
on a table at which one is eating the cheese, lest
one come to eat them together. This is the halakha
despite the fact that poultry cooked in milk is pro-
ֶ ‫מתני׳ ָהעֹוף‬
,‫עֹולה ִעם ַה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה ַעל ַה ׁ ּשו ְּל ָחן‬
‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬,‫וְ ֵאינֹו נֶ ֱא ָכל‬
mishna The meat of birds may be placed with
cheese on one tableh but may not be eaten
hibited by rabbinic law. Later authorities note that together with it; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit
the same applies to the reverse case, i.e., one may :‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫עֹולה וְ ל ֹא נֶ ֱא ָכל‬ ֶ ‫ ל ֹא‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ Hillel say: It may neither be placed on one table nor be eaten with
not place cheese on a table at which one is eating ּ ּ
.‫ זֹו ִמ ּקו ֵּלי ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּמחו ְּמ ֵרי ֵבית ִה ֵלל‬cheese. Rabbi Yosei said: This is one of the disputes involving
the meat of birds or undomesticated animals. This leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.
ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Beit
Hillel. Nevertheless, it is customary to place bread
,‫אֹוכל ָע ָליו‬
ֵ ‫ ְ ּב ֵאיזֶ ה ׁשו ְּל ָחן ָא ְמר ּו – ְ ּב ׁשו ְּל ָחן ׁ ֶש‬The mishna elaborates: With regard to which table are these hal-
between those eating meat and those eating
cheese, and this is sufficient to render it permitted ֵ – ‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ׁשו ְּל ָחן ׁ ֶש ּס ֵֹודר ָע ָליו ֶאת ַה ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל‬akhot stated? It is with regard to a table upon which one eats. But
‫נֹותן‬
on a table upon which one prepares the cooked food,h one may
to eat these foods at the same table (Rambam .‫חֹוש ׁש‬
ֵ ׁ ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו‬,‫זֶ ה ְ ּבצַ ד זֶ ה‬
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:20 and place this meat alongside that cheese or vice versa, and need not
Haggahot Maimoniyyot there; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh be concerned that perhaps they will be mixed and one will come
De’a 88:1 and Shakh there). to eat them together.

gemara
On a table upon which one prepares the cooked
food – ‫ב ׁשו ְּל ָחן ׁ ֶש ּס ֵֹודר ָע ָליו ֶאת ַה ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל‬:
ּ ְ Although ,‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יֹוסי ַהיְ ינ ּו ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא! וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ ֵ ‫גמ׳ ַר ִ ּבי‬ The Gemara challenges: The opinion of
it is prohibited to place poultry with cheese on a Rabbi Yosei is identical to that of the first
:‫ דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא‬,ּ‫ֲא ִכ ָילה ּגו ָּפ ּה ִא ָּיכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬
table at which one is eating the cheese, one may tanna. And if you would say that there is a difference between
place them side by side on a table at which one is ‫ וַ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬,‫ְ ּב ַה ֲע ָל ָאה ָקא ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ them with regard to the permissibility of eating itself, as the first
merely arranging the food (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh ‫ ֲא ִכ ָילה גּ ו ָּפ ּה ִמ ּקו ֵּּלי ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬:‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ֵל‬ tanna says that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard
De’a 88:1).
.‫ו ֵּמחו ְּמ ֵרי ֵבית ִה ֵּלל‬ to placing meat of birds with cheese on one table, which indicates
Without washing hands and without wiping that with regard to eating they do not disagree, and Rabbi Yosei
the mouth – ‫בל ֹא נְ ִט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם ו ְּבל ֹא ִקינּ ו ַּח ַה ּ ֶפה‬:
ּ ְ If said in response to this that they also disagree with regard to the
one wishes to eat birds after cheese he may do permissibility of eating meat of birds in milk, and this is itself
so immediately and need not even wash his
hands or wipe his mouth, in accordance with the
one of the disputes involving leniencies of Beit Shammai and
opinion of Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba. stringencies of Beit Hillel, one can refute this claim.
Some authorities write that there is a custom to
be stringent and to wait in the case of eating ‫ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ָשה דְּ ָב ִרים ִמ ּקו ֵּּלי‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ The refutation is as follows: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi
meat after cheese (Rema, citing Maharam). The – ‫ וְ זֹו ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן‬,‫ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי ו ֵּמחו ְּמ ֵרי ֵבית ִה ֵּלל‬ Yosei says that six matters are included as the disputes involving
Rema adds that this is the proper custom in a case leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel, and
where the cheese is hard, which is assumed to
,‫עֹולה ִעם ַה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה ַעל ַה ׁ ּשו ְּל ָחן וְ ֵאינֹו נֶ ֱא ָכל‬
ֶ ‫עֹוף‬
this is one of them: The meat of birds is placed with cheese on
apply to cheese that was aged for six months or ‫עֹולה‬ ֶ ‫ ל ֹא‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬.‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ one table, but it may not be eaten together with it; this is the
more (Shakh). Therefore, one may not eat even !‫וְ ל ֹא נֶ ֱא ָכל‬ statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: It may neither
birds after consuming that cheese for the same
amount of time as one waits to eat cheese after
be placed on one table nor be eaten with cheese. Evidently, Rabbi
meat (see Zohar). Others are lenient with regard Yosei agrees that even according to Beit Shammai the meat of birds
to eating meat after cheese, and one need not may not be eaten with cheese.
object to those who follow this practice, but they
should wipe and rinse their mouths and wash their ‫ ַמאן ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא – ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ָהא ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ Rather, this is what the mishna teaches us: Who is the first
hands. Nevertheless, it is preferable to be stringent. ‫אֹומרֹו ֵמ ִביא ְ ּגאו ָּּלה‬ ְ ‫אֹומר דָּ ָבר ְ ּב ׁ ֵשם‬
ֵ ‫ ָּכל ָה‬,‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ tanna? It is Rabbi Yosei. The identification is important, since
The Maharshal disagrees with this stringent prac- whoever reports a statement in the name of the one who said it
tice, though the Shakh supports it (Rambam Sefer ‫ֹאמר ֶא ְס ֵּתר ַל ֶּמ ֶל ְך ְ ּב ׁ ֵשם‬
ֶ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״וַ ּת‬,‫עֹולם‬
ָ ‫ָל‬
brings redemption to the world. As it is stated with respect to
Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:27; Shulĥan .‫ָמ ְרדֳּ ָכי״‬ the incident of Bigthan and Teresh: “And Esther reported it to
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 89:2).
the king in the name of Mordecai” (Esther 2:22), and Mordecai
was later rewarded for saving the king’s life, paving the way for the
miraculous salvation.

‫ עֹוף וּגְ ִבינָ ה‬:‫ § ָּתנָ א ַאגְ ָרא ֲחמו ּּה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬The Gemara continues discussing the consumption of poultry
:‫ הוּא ָּתנֵי ָל ּה וְ הוּא ֲא ַמר ָל ּה‬.‫יקֹורן‬ ְ ‫ נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלין ַ ּב ַא ּ ִפ‬cooked in milk. The Sage Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba,
taught: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely
.‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם ו ְּבל ֹא ִקינּ ו ַּח ַה ּ ֶפה‬
ִ ‫ְ ּבל ֹא‬
[apikoren], i.e., there is no need to be strict in this matter. The
Gemara notes: He, Agra, teaches it and he says it, i.e., explains his
statement: The meat of birds and cheese may be eaten without
washing one’s hands and without wiping the mouthh between
the consumption of each.
160 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 104b . ‫ףד‬ ‫דק‬: ‫׳ח קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫יה דְּ ַרב ְמ ׁ ָש ְר ׁ ִשּיָ א ִא ְיק ַלע‬

ּ ‫ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ְ ּב ֵר‬ The Gemara relates: Rav Yitzĥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, hap-
,‫יה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה – ֲא ַכל‬ ּ ‫ ַאיְ ית ּו ֵל‬,‫ְל ֵבי ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ pened to come to the house of Rav Ashi. They brought him cheese,
and he ate it. Next they brought him meat, and he ate it without
‫ וְ ָלא ְמ ׁ ָשא‬,‫יה ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא ֲא ַכל‬ ּ ‫ַאיְ ית ּו ֵל‬
first washing his hands. The members of Rav Ashi’s household said
‫ וְ ָהא ָּתאנֵי ַאגְ ָרא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָא ְמ ִרי ֵל‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫יְ ֵד‬ to him: But didn’t Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, teach
‫ֲחמו ּּה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא עֹוף וּגְ ִבינָ ה נֶ ֱא ָכ ִלין‬ only that the meat of birds and cheese may be eaten freely? One
‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫ עֹוף וּגְ ִבינָ ה – ִאין‬,‫יקֹורן‬ ְ ‫ַ ּב ַא ּ ִפ‬ can infer that with regard to the meat of birds and cheese, yes, one
!‫וּגְ ִבינָ ה – ָלא‬ may eat them without washing one’s hands in between, but with
regard to the meat of domesticated animals and cheese, no, one
may not.

‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ילי – ְ ּב ֵל ְיליָ א‬ֵּ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ‬:ּ‫ ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬Rav Yitzĥak said to them: This statement of Agra applies only if
.‫ימ ָמא – ָהא ָחזֵ ינָ א‬ָ ‫ ִ ּב‬one eats them at night, as one cannot see whether some of the food
of the previous dish still remains on his hands, and he must therefore
wash them. But if one eats by day, I can see that no food remains on
his hands, and consequently there is no need to wash them.

.‫ ְמ ַק ֵ ּנ ַח‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬,‫ ַּתנְ יָ א‬It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: Between the consump-
ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬tion of meat and milk one must wipe out his mouth, and Beit Hillel
‫ ַמאי ְמ ַק ֵ ּנ ַח‬.‫ ֵמ ִד ַיח‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
say that he must rinse his mouth. The Gemara asks: What is the
?‫ו ַּמאי ֵמ ִד ַיח‬
meaning of the word: Wipe [mekane’aĥ], and what is the meaning
of the word: Rinse [mediaĥ]?

Perek VIII
Daf 105 Amud a
notes
‫אֹומ ִרים ְמ ַק ֵ ּנ ַח‬
ְ ‫ימא ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ָ ‫ִא ֵיל‬ If we say that Beit Shammai say that one wipes out his mouth with
solid food and does not need to rinsen his mouth with water, since Beit Shammai say that one wipes and does not need
‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬,‫וְ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ֵמ ִד ַיח‬ to rinse – ‫אֹומ ִרים ְמ ַק ֵ ּנ ַח וְ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ֵמ ִד ַיח‬
ְ ‫בית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬‎ּ ֵ : The early
they maintain that wiping is more effective than rinsing, and Beit
‫ ֶא ָּלא ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ֵמ ִד ַיח וְ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ְמ ַק ֵ ּנ ַח‬ commentaries disagree about whether wiping or rinsing is
Hillel say that he rinsesn his mouth in water and does not need to a more effective method of cleansing one’s mouth. Some
,‫ ֵאין ִקינּ ו ַּח ּ ֶפה ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַפת‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ wipe his mouth, as rinsing is more effective, one can respond: But write that wiping is preferable, and therefore Beit Sham-
!?‫ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכ ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ as for that which Rabbi Zeira said: Wiping of the mouth can be mai maintain that once one has already wiped there is
performed only with bread, in accordance with whose opinion is no further need for rinsing. Conversely, Beit Hillel rule that
it? It is apparently in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, cleansing thoroughly with wiping is unnecessary; rather,
it is enough merely to rinse one’s mouth (Rashi). Others
since Beit Hillel do not require wiping. Yet, it is unlikely that Rabbi
contend that rinsing is a more thorough procedure than
Zeira would rule in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai wiping. Accordingly, Beit Shammai maintain that wiping
rather than Beit Hillel. one’s mouth is sufficient, whereas Beit Hillel rule that only
rinsing is effective. Admittedly, according to this interpre-
‫ ְמ ַק ֵ ּנ ַח וְ ָלא‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ Rather, one must explain the dispute as follows: Beit Shammai tation the Gemara could have raised the same difficulty
‫ ַאף‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬,‫ָ ּב ֵעי ֵמ ִד ַיח‬ say that one wipes his mouth after eating meat and does not need here as it does afterward, that this case should have been
to rinse his mouth as well, and Beit Hillel say that in addition to listed alongside the other leniencies of Beit Shammai and
‫יה ִמ ּקו ֵּּלי ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ ּ ‫ֵמ ִד ַיח – ָהוֵ י ֵל‬ stringencies of Beit Hillel, but it did not do so, as in any case
wiping one must also rinse. This interpretation is difficult as well,
‫יה ַ ּג ֵ ּבי קו ֵּּלי‬
ּ ֵ‫ וְ ִל ְתנְי‬,‫ו ֵּמחו ְּמ ֵרי ֵבית ִה ֵּלל‬ since if so, this constitutes one of the disputes between them that the Gemara raises a difficulty from Rabbi Zeira’s statement
!‫ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי וְ חו ְּמ ֵרי ֵבית ִה ֵּלל‬ (Tosafot).
involve leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel,
and consequently, let the tanna of tractate Eduyyot teach it along- Wipes…rinses – ‫מ ַק ֵ ּנ ַח‬‎ְ …‫מ ִד ַיח‬‎ֵ : Most of the early commen-
side the other disputes listed there that involve leniencies of Beit taries maintain that both wiping and rinsing refer to one’s
Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel. mouth (Ritva; see Rashi and Tosafot). Others claim that
wiping refers to the mouth and rinsing applies to the hands
(Ra’ah). The Rosh Yosef contends that this is the Rambam’s
,‫ ְמ ַק ֵ ּנ ַח‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ Rather, one must interpret their statements as follows: Beit Sham-
opinion, and the Ĥatam Sofer claims that it is the opinion
:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬.‫וְ הוּא ַהדִּ ין ְל ֵמ ִד ַיח‬ mai say that one wipes his mouth after eating meat, and the same of Rabbeinu Tam in Sefer HaYashar.
is true of rinsing, i.e., one must rinse his mouth as well. And Beit
‫ ָמר ֲא ַמר‬.‫ וְ הוּא ַהדִּ ין ִל ְמ ַק ֵ ּנ ַח‬,‫ֵמ ִד ַיח‬
Hillel say that one rinses his mouth, and the same is true of wiping.
.‫ וְ ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬,‫ ו ָּמר ֲא ַמר ֲח ָדא‬,‫ֲח ָדא‬ And one Sage said one statement and one Sage said another
statement, and they do not disagree.

‫ ֵאין ִקינּ ו ַּח ַה ּ ֶפה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬,‫ § ּגו ָּפא‬After citing Rabbi Zeira’s statement tangentially, the Gemara
‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יטי‬ ֵּ ‫ וְ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי – ִ ּב ְד ִח‬.‫ ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַפת‬discusses the matter itself. Rabbi Zeira says: Wiping of the mouth
can be performed only with bread. The Gemara explains: And this
.‫ִ ּב ְד ַ ׂש ֲע ֵרי – ָלא‬
statement applies only to bread prepared from wheat flour. But
with regard to bread prepared from barley flour, one may not use
it for wiping, as barley bread crumbles in the mouth and does not
wipe thoroughly.
 ‫הק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 105a 161
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫ ָלא ֲא ָמ ָרן ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְק ִר ָירא‬,‫יטי נַ ִמי‬ ֵּ ‫ו ְּד ִח‬ The Gemara adds: And even in the case of bread prepared from
‫ וְ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי‬.‫ימא – ִמ ׁ ְש ַטר ׁ ְש ָט ִרי‬ ָ ‫ֲא ָבל ַ ּב ֲח ִמ‬ wheat flour, we said the halakha only with regard to cold bread, but
as for warm bread, it is ineffective for wiping even if made of wheat,
:‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬.‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ַא ּקו ׁ ָּשא – ָלא‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ַר ִּכ‬
as it softens and sticks to the palate, and it does not wipe the mouth
ֵּ ‫ְ ּב ָכל ִמ‬
‫ ְל ַבר ִמ ִּק ְמ ָחא ַּת ְמ ֵרי‬,‫ילי ָהוֵ י ִקינּ ו ַּח‬ properly. And furthermore, even if the bread is cold, this statement
.‫וְ יָ ְר ָקא‬ applies only with regard to soft bread, but one may not wipe with
hard bread, as it also does not clean effectively. The Gemara con-
cludes: And the halakha is that the use of all items constitutes
effective wiping,h except for flour, dates, and vegetables.

‫ ַּכ ָּמה יִ ׁ ְש ֶהה‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬

ָ ‫ֵיה ַרב ַא ִסי ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי‬ּ ‫ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬ § Rav Asi posed a dilemma to Rabbi Yoĥanan: How much time
,‫ ִאינִי‬.‫ וְ ל ֹא ְכלוּם‬:‫ֵ ּבין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִלגְ ִבינָ ה? ָא ַמר לֹו‬ should one wait between eating meat and eating cheese? Rabbi
Yoĥanan said to him: No time at all. The Gemara asks: Is that so?
‫ ָא ַכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָאסוּר‬:‫וְ ָהא ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬
But doesn’t Rav Ĥisda say: If one ate meat, it is prohibited for him
!‫ ְ ּג ִבינָ ה – מו ָּּתר ֶל ֱאכֹול ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫ֶל ֱאכֹול ְ ּג ִבינָ ה‬ to eat cheeseh immediately, but if he ate cheese it is permitted for
‫ ַּכ ָּמה יִ ׁ ְש ֶהה ֵ ּבין ְ ּג ִבינָ ה ְל ָב ָ ׂשר? ֲא ַמר‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ him to eat meath without delay? Rather, Rav Asi actually asked
.‫ וְ ל ֹא ְכלוּם‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan the following question: How much time should one
wait between eating cheese and eating meat? In response to this
question, Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: No time at all.

‫ ָא ַכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָאסוּר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬,‫גּ ו ָּפא‬ After tangentially citing a statement of Rav Ĥisda, the Gemara dis-
.‫ ְ ּג ִבינָ ה – מו ָּּתר ֶל ֱאכֹול ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬.‫ֶל ֱאכֹול ְ ּג ִבינָ ה‬ cusses the matter itself. Rav Ĥisda says: If one ate meat, it is pro-
hibited for him to eat cheese immediately, as the meat contains fatty
:‫יֹוסף ְל ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬
ֵ ‫יה ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
substances that stick to one’s mouth and preserve the flavor of meat.
?ּ‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַה ׁ ּ ִש ּינַיִ ם ַמהו‬ But if he ate cheese it is permitted for him to eat meat without delay.
Rav Aĥa bar Yosef said to Rav Ĥisda: In the case of meat that is
between the teeth, what is the halakha? Are these remnants con-
sidered meat to the extent that one may not eat cheese as long as
they are in his mouth?

.‫ֵיהם״‬
ֶ ‫עֹודנּ ּו ֵ ּבין ׁ ִש ּנ‬
ֶ ‫״ה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬
ַ ‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ָק ֵרי ֲע ֵל‬In response, Rav Ĥisda read about him the following verse: “While
the meat was yet between their teeth” (Numbers 11:33). This verse
indicates that even when the meat is between one’s teeth it is still
considered meat, and therefore one may not partake of cheese until
that meat has been removed.

‫ ֲח ָלא‬,‫ ְל ָהא ִמ ְּל ָתא‬,‫ ֲאנָ א‬:‫ֲא ַמר ָמר עו ְּק ָבא‬ Mar Ukva said: I am, with regard to this matter, like vinegar, son
‫ דְּ ִאילּ ּו ַא ָ ּבא – ִּכי ֲהוָ ה‬,‫ַ ּבר ַח ְמ ָרא ְלגַ ֵ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬ of wine, with respect to Father, i.e., my practice is inferior to that
of my father. As Father, if he were to eat meat at this time, would
‫ ָלא ֲהוָ ה ֲא ַכל ְ ּג ִבינָ ה‬,‫ָא ֵכיל ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא ָה ִאידָּ נָ א‬
not eat cheese until tomorrow at this time. But as for me, only at
‫ וְ ִאילּ ּו ֲאנָ א – ְ ּב ָהא‬.‫ַעד ְל ָמ ָחר ַעד ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬ this meal, during which I ate meat, do I not eat cheese; at a different
‫עֹוד ָתא‬ְ ‫ ִל ְס‬,‫עֹוד ָתא הוּא דְּ ָלא ָא ֵכ ְילנָ א‬ ְ ‫ְס‬ meal on the same day I will eat cheese.
.‫יתא – ָא ֵכ ְילנָ א‬ ָ ‫ַא ֲח ִר‬

halakha
The use of all items constitutes wiping – ‫ב ָכל ִמ ֵּילי ָהוֵ י ִקינּ ו ַּח‬‎ּ ְ : If one ate meat it is prohibited to eat cheese immediately – that one should not recite Grace after Meals solely in order to
One who has eaten cheese may eat meat immediately after- ‫א ַכל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָאסוּר ֶל ֱאכֹול ְ ּג ִבינָ ה‬:ָ One who ate meat, even of birds or be able to eat cheese ab initio, as this is not considered a valid
ward, provided that he first examines his hands to ensure that undomesticated animals, should not eat cheese immediately end of the meal (Gra), but people are not careful in this regard.
no cheese is stuck to them. If it is too dark to examine his afterward, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda. Rather, Many are particular to wait six hours after meat before eating
hands properly, he must wash them. He must wipe and rinse he should wait six hours, which is the time between meals, as cheese, which is the proper custom that has been accepted
his mouth, both when eating at night and when eating during stated by Mar Ukva (Rambam). Even in a case where one waited by the majority of the Jewish people (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
the day. Wiping is performed by chewing a piece of bread and this long, if he still has meat between his teeth he must remove Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:28; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 89:1).
using it to wipe out one’s mouth. But one may also wipe with that meat before partaking of cheese. Some commentaries
any food item he wishes, apart from flour, dates, and vegetables, write that if one found meat between his teeth after the waiting If he ate cheese it is permitted to eat meat – ‫ְ ּג ִבינָ ה מו ָּּתר ֶל ֱאכֹול‬
as these stick to the gums and do not wipe properly. Afterward, period, in addition to removing it he must rinse out his mouth ‫ב ָ ׂשר‬:ּ ָ One who ate cheese may eat meat immediately afterward,
he should rinse out his mouth with water or wine, although before eating cheese (Rema). Others maintain that there is no provided that he examines his hands to ensure that no cheese is
there is no need to be particular about the order of wiping need to wait six hours. Instead, once one has finished eating stuck to them. If it is at night, or if it is too dark to examine them
and rinsing (Maharam). The Haggahot Maimoniyyot states that meat and recited Grace after Meals he may perform wiping properly, he must wash his hands. Furthermore, even during the
after rinsing his hands and mouth, Rabbi Yitzĥak ben Avraham and rinsing and proceed to eat cheese. The Rema adds that day, one must wipe and rinse his mouth. This applies only with
would insert a finger into his mouth to examine carefully that the custom in his region was to wait one hour after eating regard to the meat of undomesticated and domesticated ani-
nothing was left inside, after which he would wipe with bread. meat and then to eat cheese. In this case, one must recite mals. If he wants to eat birds after cheese, he does not need to
By contrast, Rabbeinu Yitzĥak of Dampierre would soak bread Grace after Meals to indicate that this is a different meal; if wipe his mouth or wash his hands. The Rema writes that some
in water and eat it, and count this action as both wiping and one does not recite Grace after Meals, waiting an hour is not are particular to wait for some time even before eating meat of
rinsing, or he would eat an item that can be used for wiping sufficient. It makes no difference if he waited an hour and then birds after cheese (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
and would then drink water or wine for rinsing (Rambam Sefer recited Grace after Meals or first recited Grace after Meals and Assurot 9:26; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 89:2).
Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:26; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh then waited an hour. If he found meat between his teeth after
De’a 89:2). that hour, he must remove it all thoroughly. Some maintain

162 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 105a . ‫ףד‬ ‫הק‬. ‫׳ח קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ֲח ָלא ַ ּבר‬,‫ ְל ָהא ִמ ְּל ָתא‬,‫ ֲאנָ א‬:‫ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ Similarly, Shmuel said: I am, with regard to this other matter, like
vinegar, son of wine, with respect to Father. As Fatherp would I patrol it only once a day – ‫וַ ֲאנָ א ָלא ָסיֵ ְירנָ א ֶא ָּלא ֲח ָדא‬
‫ דְּ ִאילּ ּו ַא ָ ּבא – ֲהוָ ה ָסיֵ יר‬,‫ַח ְמ ָרא ְלגַ ֵ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬ ‫ימנָא‬
ְ ִ‫ז‬: The commentaries note that Shmuel’s behavior
patrol his property to examine it twice daily, but I patrol it only
‫ וַ ֲאנָ א ָלא ָסיֵ ְירנָ א‬,‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫יה ְּת ֵרי זִ ְמנֵי ְ ּב‬
ּ ‫נִ ְכ ֵס‬ was considered to be for the sake of Heaven, as one
once a day.n The Gemara notes: In this regard Shmuel conforms who takes care of his possessions honors God, Who
‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְל ַט ֲע ֵמ‬.‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫ֶא ָּלא ֲח ָדא ז‬ to his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: One who patrols his gave them to him. This is the reason the righteous
– ‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫יה ָּכל‬ ּ ‫ ַמאן דְּ ָסיֵ יר נִ ְכ ֵס‬:‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ property every day will find an asteirab coin. are careful about their money, as the Gemara stated
.‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכח ִא ְס ֵּת ָירא‬ on 91a (Ben Yehoyada). Some explain homiletically
that Shmuel is referring to one’s account of his deeds:
‫יֹומא‬
ָ ,‫יֹומא‬ ָ ְ‫יֹומא ו‬
ָ ‫יה ָּכל‬ ּ ‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י ֲהוָ ה ָסיֵ יר נִ ְכ ֵס‬ The Gemara relates that Abaye would patrol his property each Shmuel’s father would examine his ways twice each
‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יה דְּ ָד ֵרי ּ ַפ ְת ָכא דְּ או ֵּפי‬ּ ‫יס‬
ֵ ‫ַחד ּ ָפגַ ע ַ ּב ֲא ִר‬ and every day. One day he encountered his sharecropper carry- day, whereas Shmuel himself, who was on a less
ing a load of wood that the sharecropper intended to take for him- exalted level, would take stock of his actions only
‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ְל ֵבי ָמר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יכא? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ָהנֵי ְל ֵה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ once a day (Ĥafetz Ĥayyim; Shem Olam).
self. Abaye said to him: To where are you taking these logs of
.‫ ְּכ ָבר ְק ָדמוּךָ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ wood? The sharecropper said to him: To the Master’s house. Abaye,
who knew that the sharecropper had intended to take the wood for background

himself, said to him: The Sages already preempted you when they Asteira – ‫א ְס ֵּת ָירא‬:ִ This is the name of a Roman coin,
known in Greek as στατήρ, statēr. When made of
said that one should patrol his property regularly, and they thereby
gold, these coins were worth a sela, or four dinars. In
prevented you from stealing the wood. this case the reference is to the provincial asteira coin,
a copper coin that was of lesser value, worth one-
:‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫יה ָּכל‬ ּ ‫ַרב ַא ִסי ֲהוָ ה ָסיֵ יר נִ ְכ ֵס‬ The Gemara likewise relates that Rav Asi would patrol his property eighth of the larger Tyrian coins, i.e., half a dinar.
?‫יכא נִינְ ה ּו ָּכל ָהנֵי ִא ְס ִּת ִירי דְּ ָמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ָ ‫ֵה‬ every day. He said: Where are all these asteira coins mentioned
by Mar Shmuel? This patrol is not reaping me any benefit. One day halakha
,‫יה‬ּ ‫ע‬ ֵ ‫ר‬ ְ ‫א‬
ַ ‫ב‬ּ ְ ‫א‬ ‫ק‬ָ ‫ד‬ ְ ‫ב‬ִ ְּ‫ד‬ ‫א‬‫ֹור‬ָ ּ‫ינ‬ ִ‫צ‬ ‫א‬ ָ‫ז‬ ‫ח‬ֲ ‫ד‬ ‫ח‬ ַ ‫א‬ ‫יֹומ‬
ָ
he saw a water channel that overflowed, causing water to flood The first waters are a mitzva – ‫אשֹונִים ִמצְ וָ ה‬ׁ ‫מיִ ם ִר‬:ַ
.‫יה ְ ּבגַ ָּו ּה‬ ּ ‫אֹות ֵב‬
ְ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָּכ ְר ֵכ‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ֵ ‫יה ִלגְ ִל‬ ּ ‫ׁ ְש ַק ֵל‬ onto his land. He took off his cloak, wrapped it, and placed it It is a rabbinic obligation to wash one’s hands before
‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ְח ִּתינְ ה ּו‬.‫ינָשי ַס ְכרו ָּה‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ָאת ּו ֱא‬,‫ְר ָמא ָק ָלא‬ inside the pipe to block the flow of water. He then raised his voice, a meal and before the recitation of Shema and the
.‫יס ְּת ֵרי דְּ ָמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ְ ‫ְלכו ְּּלה ּו ִא‬ and people came and sealed the hole. He said: I have just found Amida prayer. This ritual is called a mitzva, as the verse
states: “According to the Torah that they shall teach
all the asteira coins mentioned by Mar Shmuel, as I would have
you” (Deuteronomy 17:11), which indicates that one
suffered a great loss had I not patrolled my fields. must obey the commands of the Sages (Rambam
Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:2).
‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר‬,‫ § ָא ַמר ַרב ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין‬Having mentioned the manner of washing hands during a meal, But final waters are an obligation – ‫חֹובה‬
ָ ‫וְ ַא ֲחרֹונִים‬:
ׁ ‫ ַמיִ ם ִר‬:‫ ָא ׁ ְשיָ ין‬the Gemara discusses another matter concerning washing hands.
– ‫ וְ ַא ֲחרֹונִים‬,‫אשֹונִים – ִמצְ וָ ה‬ Washing one’s hands for the final waters of a meal
Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzĥak bar Ashyan says: The first is an obligation. This is because the Sages required
.‫חֹובה‬ָ
waters, i.e., washing of the hands before eating bread, are a mitzvah that one use salt at every meal, and there is a certain
by rabbinic law, but the final waters, washing of the hands upon salt, called Sodomite salt, that blinds the eyes, as
conclusion of the meal and before reciting Grace after Meals, are an explained by Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ĥiyya (Ram-
bam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:2-3; Shulĥan
obligation,h a more stringent requirement.
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 181:1 and Taz there).

,‫חֹובה‬
ָ – ‫אשֹונִים וְ ַא ֲחרֹונִים‬ ׁ ‫ ַמיִ ם ִר‬:‫ית ֵיבי‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: The Middle waters are optional – ‫א ְמצָ ִעּיִ ים ְר ׁשוּת‬:ֶ Middle
waters are optional, i.e., one may wash his hands if
– ‫ ֶא ְמצָ ִעּיִ ים – ְר ׁשוּת! ִמצְ וָ ה ְלגַ ֵ ּבי ְר ׁשוּת‬first waters and the final waters are an obligation, whereas the he chooses. This applies only between one cooked
middle waters, between courses during the meal, are optional.h
.‫״חֹובה״ ָק ֵרי ָל ּה‬
ָ dish and another cooked dish, but between a cooked
Apparently, the first waters are also an obligation, not a mitzva. The dish and cheese, it is obligatory, in accordance with
Gemara responds: Although the first waters are in fact a mitzva, the the opinion of Rav Naĥman (Rambam Sefer Ahava,
tanna calls a mitzva an obligation when compared to an optional Hilkhot Berakhot 6:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 173:1
requirement. and Mishna Berura there).
For first waters one may wash either into a vessel
,‫חֹובה‬ ָ – ‫אשֹונִים וְ ַא ֲחרֹונִים‬ ׁ ‫ ַמיִ ם ִר‬:‫גּ ו ָּפא‬ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself. The full text of the baraita is or onto the ground – ‫נֹוט ִלין ֵ ּבין ִ ּב ְכ ִלי ֵ ּבין ַעל‬
ְ ‫אשֹונִים‬
ׁ ‫ִר‬
as follows: First waters and final waters are an obligation, whereas ‫ג ֵ ּבי ַק ְר ַקע‬:ּ ַ One may pour first waters either into a
‫נֹוט ִלין ֵ ּבין‬
ְ – ‫אשֹונִים‬ ׁ ‫ ִר‬,‫ֶא ְמצָ ִעּיִ ים – ְר ׁשוּת‬
middle waters are optional. For first waters, one may wash either vessel or onto the ground, as stated in the baraita
‫ ַא ֲחרֹונִים – ֵאין‬,‫ִ ּב ְכ ִלי ֵ ּבין ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַק ְר ַקע‬ (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:16).
by spilling the water into a vessel or onto the ground.h But for final
ְ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬.‫נֹוט ִלין ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְכ ִלי‬
‫נֹוט ִלין‬ ְ waters, one washes only by pouring the water into a vessel.h And For final waters one washes only into a vessel, etc. –
.‫ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַק ְר ַקע‬ some say a slightly different version of the baraita: For final waters, ‫נֹוט ִלין ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְכ ִלי וכו׳‬
ְ ‫א ֲחרֹונִים ֵאין‬:
ַ One may not pour
final waters onto the ground, but only into a vessel.
one may not wash by pouring the water onto the ground.
This is due to the evil spirit that rests upon them,
which makes it dangerous to walk over them (Mishna
Berura). If one does not have a vessel available, he
Personalities
should wash over slivers of wood and the like, in
accordance with the second version of the baraita
Shmuel’s father – ‫א ִבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬:ֲ Shmuel’s father was the amora Rabbi Beteira, and under Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Eretz Yisrael, to whom
(see Kesef Mishne and Beur HaGra, citing Rambam).
Abba bar Abba the Priest, of the first generation of amora’im. In the he asked many questions, both in person and via correspondence.
Some claim that in a place where people do not pass
Babylonian Talmud he is called after his famous son, as the name He also had a close relationship with the Sage Levi ben Sisi, who
by it is permitted to pour final waters on the ground
Abba was very common. In the Jerusalem Talmud he is referred to moved from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia. They studied together in the
(Magen Avraham). According to this opinion, it is
as Rabbi Ba bar Va. study hall of Neharde’a and traveled together, and they shared a
permitted to pour the water under the table; this is
Rabbi Abba bar Abba, a distinguished personality in many similar halakhic methodology. When Levi ben Sisi died, Rabbi Abba
the halakha even if the table is occasionally moved,
respects, was one of the greatest Sages in Babylonia and a leader bar Abba delivered a lengthy eulogy for him.
as it can be assumed that the water would have dried
of the Jewish community there. When Rav came to Babylonia, he Rabbi Abba bar Abba was a cotton merchant, and his com-
by then (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:16;
refused to accept leadership during Rabbi Abba bar Abba’s lifetime. mercial activities led him to many cities. A wealthy man and a land-
Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 181:2).
The Sages of Eretz Yisrael had great respect for Rabbi Abba bar Abba, owner, he was very active in charity and the performance of kind
and after he returned to Babylonia they would send him letters deeds, e.g., redeeming hostages. Although he was not appointed
with questions. Rabbi Abba bar Abba’s Torah statements appear to any official position, he was the most significant personage in
throughout both the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud. his city Neharde’a, where he was responsible for municipal matters.
Rabbi Abba bar Abba apparently studied under the Babylonian In addition to Shmuel he had another son, Rav Pineĥas, who was
Sages of the previous generation, including Rabbi Yehuda ben also a Torah scholar.

 ‫הק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 105a 163

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

.‫ינְסא‬
ָ ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו – ִק‬
ָּ ‫ ַמאי ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ִא‬The Gemara interjects: What is the difference between these two
versions? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between
them with regard to pouring the water on thin wood slivers on the
ground. According to the first version, which requires that the water
be poured into a vessel, one may not use such slivers for this purpose,
whereas according to the second version, which merely prohibits
pouring the water onto the ground, one may use wood slivers.

‫נֹוט ִלין ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ַח ִּמין ֵ ּבין‬

ְ – ‫אשֹונִים‬ ׁ ‫ַמיִ ם ִר‬ The baraita continues: With regard to first waters, one may wash
,‫נֹוט ִלין ֶא ָּלא ְ ּבצֹונֵן‬
ְ ‫ ַא ֲחרֹונִים – ֵאין‬,‫ְ ּבצֹונֵן‬ either with hot water or with cold water. But for final waters, one may
wash only with cold water, because hot water softens the hands and
‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ַח ִּמין ְמ ַפ ְע ּ ְפ ִעין ֶאת ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם‬
does not remove the dirt from them. The Gemara analyzes the state-
‫אשֹונִים‬ ׁ ‫״מיִ ם ִר‬ ַ .‫ַמ ֲע ִב ִירין ֶאת ַהּזו ֲּה ָמא‬ ment that for first waters one may wash either with hot water or with
‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬.‫נֹוט ִלין ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ַח ִּמין ֵ ּבין ְ ּבצֹונֵן״‬ ְ cold water: Rav Yitzĥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yannai says: They
‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי‬,‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר‬ taught this halakha only in a case where the hand does not
‫ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַהּיָ ד‬

Perek VIII
Daf 105 Amud b
language
‫סֹול ֶדת ָ ּב ֶהן – ֵאין‬
ֶ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַהּיָ ד‬,‫סֹול ֶדת ָ ּב ֶהן‬
ֶ recoil [soledet]l from the water’s heat. But if the hand recoils from it,
Recoil [soledet] – ‫סֹול ֶדת‬:
ֶ Rashi translates this word
.‫נֹוט ִלין ָ ּב ֶהן‬
ְ one may not wash with it.n
as recoil based upon his understanding of an
ambiguous phrase in the book of Job (6:10): “I would
tremble in terror [asalleda beĥila].” By contrast, the ‫ ַא ֲחרֹונִים ֵאין‬:‫יכא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ַא ֵּס ָיפא‬ ָּ ‫וְ ִא‬ And there are those who teach a version of this statement with regard
Radak interprets the verse in Job in light of its usage .‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ַח ִּמין – ל ֹא‬,‫נֹוט ִלין ֶא ָּלא ְ ּבצֹונֵן‬ ְ to the latter clause of the baraita: For final waters, one may wash
in the Gemara here as heated or boiling. Rabbeinu only with cold water,h but one may not wash with hot water. Rav
Ĥananel understands this phrase in accordance with
:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי‬,‫יֹוסף‬
ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר‬
Yitzĥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yannai says: They taught that one
the equivalent expression in the Jerusalem Talmud: ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫סֹול ֶדת ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ֶ ‫ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ַהּיָ ד‬ may not use hot water only in a case where the water is so hot that the
The hand can control [sholetet] it. If so, the phrase ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל‬.‫נֹוט ִלין‬
ְ – ‫סֹול ֶדת ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ֶ ‫ֵאין ַהּיָ ד‬
means the opposite of the other interpretations: As
hand recoils from it, but if the hand does not recoil from it, one may
long as the hand is capable of holding the water. ‫סֹול ֶדת‬ֶ ‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ַהּיָ ד‬,‫אשֹונִים‬ ׁ ‫דְּ ִר‬ wash with it. The Gemara comments: One can learn by inference from
.‫ָ ּב ֶהן – מו ָּּתר‬ this version of the statement that in the case of first waters, even if the
halakha
water is so hot that the hand recoils from it, it is permittedh to use it
For final waters one may wash only with cold
for washing.
water – ‫נֹוט ִלין ֶא ָּלא ְ ּבצֹונֵן‬
ְ ‫א ֲחרֹונִים ֵאין‬:ַ For final waters,
one may not wash with hot water that would burn ‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬.‫״א ְמצָ ִעּיִ ים ְר ׁשוּת״‬ ֶ § The baraita states that middle waters are optional. Rav Naĥman
the hands, as such water softens the hands and ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ֵ ּבין ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל ְל ַת ְב ׁ ִשיל‬says: They taught this only with regard to washing the hands between
causes them to absorb the remainders of food (Rashi), one cooked dish and another cooked dishn served at a meal. But
.‫חֹובה‬
ָ – ‫ֵ ּבין ַּת ְב ׁ ִשיל ִלגְ ִבינָ ה‬
and it does not cleanse the hands of dirt. One may between a cooked dish and cheese there is an obligation to wash
use lukewarm water for final waters. Some rule one’s hands.
that one may use only cold water for final waters
(Maharshal). Nevertheless, if one has only lukewarm notes
water available there is certainly no reason to be strin-
But if the hand recoils from it one may not wash with it – ‫ֲא ָבל ַהּיָ ד‬ another cooked dish, is referring to eating a dish cooked with
gent. The author of the Mishna Berura adds that he is
‫נֹוט ִלין ָ ּב ֶהן‬
ְ ‫סֹול ֶדת ָ ּב ֶהן ֵאין‬:
ֶ The reason is that this water is considered
meat and then eating a dish cooked with cheese. In this case, Rav
inclined to permit hot water that has cooled down
to have changed from its normal state, and it is therefore no longer Naĥman maintains that middle waters are optional since neither
(Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:16; Shulĥan
defined as regular water (Rashi). dish contains actual pieces of meat or cheese, but only their flavor
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 181:3).
due to having been cooked with either the meat or cheese. The
By inference that in the case of first waters, even Between one cooked dish and another cooked dish, etc. – ‫ ֵ ּבין‬clause: Between a cooked dish and cheese, is referring to eating
if the hand recoils from it, it is permitted – ‫ִמ ְּכ ָלל‬ ‫ת ְב ׁ ִשיל ְל ַת ְב ׁ ִשיל וכו׳‬:ַּ Some commentaries explain that the phrase: a dish cooked with meat and subsequently eating cheese. Since
‫סֹול ֶדת ָ ּב ֶהן מו ָּּתר‬
ֶ ‫אשֹונִים ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ַהּיָ ד‬
ׁ ‫דְּ ִר‬: One may use Between one cooked dish and another cooked dish, is referring one wishes to eat cheese, it is obligatory to wash his hands first
water heated by fire for first waters, even if it is so hot to two cooked dishes of the same type, i.e., both are either dishes (Rabbeinu Tam).
that one’s hand recoils from it, i.e., water that could cooked with meat in a pot or dishes cooked with cheese in a pot. The Rema reports that the custom is to be stringent in accor-
cause a baby’s stomach to be scalded (see Shabbat By contrast, the phrase: Between a cooked dish and cheese, means dance with the opinion of the Rashbam and not to eat cheese after
40b). The halakha is in accordance with the second after eating cheese and before eating a dish cooked with meat. In eating a dish cooked with meat. This formulation indicates that it
version of Rav Yitzĥak bar Yosef’s statement citing that case, middle waters are obligatory, just like any case of eating would be permitted to eat a dish cooked with cheese following a
Rabbi Yannai (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot meat after eating cheese, where one is obligated to wash one’s dish cooked with meat, but later authorities state that the common
6:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 160:6). hands. One may not eat cheese after eating a dish cooked with custom is to refrain from this (Rabbi Akiva Eiger). The Rema also
meat until the next meal, even if he washes his hands (Tosafot, states that the custom is to wash one’s hands between eating a
citing Rashbam). dish cooked with cheese and a dish cooked with meat (Shulĥan
Others explain that the phrase: Between one cooked dish and Arukh, Yoreh De’a 89:3 in the comment of Rema).

164 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 105b . ‫ףד‬ ‫הק‬: ‫׳ח קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה‬:‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬

ּ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּב ֵר‬ § The baraita further teaches that final waters are an obligation. background

Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ĥiyya, says: For what reason did the Sodomite salt – ‫דֹומית‬ ִ ‫מ ַלח ְס‬:ֶ This salt is prob-
‫דֹומית‬ ִ ‫חֹובה – ׁ ֶש ֶּמ ַלח ְס‬ָ ‫ָא ְמר ּו ַמיִ ם ַא ֲחרֹונִים‬ ably magnesium chloride, MgCl2, which is found in
Sages say that final waters are an obligation? It is because Sod-
:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַס ֵּמא ֶאת ָה ֵעינַיִ ם‬,‫יֵ ׁש‬ extremely high concentrates in the Dead Sea, which
omite saltb is sometimes present, a small amount of which blinds is consistent with the name Sodomite salt, as that
‫יה ַרב‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫כֹורא‬ָ ‫קֹור ָטא ְ ּב‬ ְ ‫ו ִּמ ׁ ְש ְּת ַכח ִּכי‬ the eyes. Since Sodomite salt could remain on one’s hands, one was the location of Sodom. Magnesium chloride
?‫ ָּכל ִמ ְל ָחא ַמאי‬:‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬ must wash them after eating. Abaye said: And this type of danger- can easily become intermingled with regular salt,
.‫ ָלא ִמ ָ ּב ֲעיָ א‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ous salt is present in the proportion of a pinch [korta]l in an entire which is extracted in great quantities along the
kor l of regular salt. Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If one shores of the Dead Sea. Since magnesium chloride
measured salt between meals, what is the halakha? Must he wash is poisonous, there is a danger that its introduction
into the eye by unwashed hands could lead to an
his hands afterward? He said to him: It is not necessary to say this;
eye infection.
he is certainly obligated to do so.

‫ ֵמ ֵר ׁיש ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א ַהאי דְּ ָלא ְמ ׁש ּו‬:‫ § ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Abaye said: At first I would say that this halakha that one may
‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ַמּיָ א ַ ּב ְת ָר ֵאי ַעל ַא ְר ָעא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם זו ֲּה ָמא‬not wash his hands with final waters over the ground is due to
messiness. But the Master, Rabba, said to me that it is because
.ּ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ׁ ָש ְריָ א רו ַּח ָר ָעה ֲע ַליְ יהו‬:‫ִלי ָמר‬
an evil spirit rests upon the water and passersby are liable to
be afflicted.

‫ ַהאי דְּ ָלא‬,‫ ֵמ ֵר ׁיש ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬:‫וַ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ And Abaye also said: At first I would say that the reason for this
‫ינִיש ָּכ ָסא‬
ׁ ‫תֹורא ִּכי נְ ֵקיט ִא‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ֵקיל ִמ ִידי ִמ ּ ְפ‬ statement of the Sages that one should not take anything from
the table when a person is holding a cup to drink, is lest a mishap
.‫ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ֵּתי – ׁ ֶש ָּמא יֶ ֱא ַרע דְּ ַבר ַק ְל ָק ָלה ַ ּב ְּסעו ָּדה‬
occur at the meal, i.e., the one holding the cup might have wanted Salt crystal formation at the Dead Sea
.‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָק ׁ ֵשי ְלרו ַּח צְ ָר ָדא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ִלי ָמר‬ the item that was taken, and since he is unable to speak he will
choke in his anger. But the Master subsequently said to me that it notes
is because it is bad for one’s health, causing a spirit of pain in half Bad for a spirit of pain in half his head – ‫דְּ ָק ׁ ֵשי ְלרו ַּח‬
his head,n i.e., a migraine. ‫צְ ָר ָדא‬: Commentaries offer numerous interpretations
of this phrase. These include that it causes one to
‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫וְ ָלא ֲא ָמ ָרן – ֶא ָּלא דְּ ׁ ָש ֵקיל וְ ָלא ַמ ֲה ַדר‬ And we said that this practice is prohibited only if one takes an become confused or feel faint, that it causes a head-
– ‫ וְ ָלא ֲא ָמ ָרן‬.‫ִמ ׁ ְש ַקל וְ ַא ֲהדו ֵּרי – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ item from the table and does not put it back. But as for taking and ache affecting half the head, i.e., a migraine (Rashash,
putting back, we have no problem with it. And likewise, we said Rashi, and Rashbam on Pesaĥim 111b), and that it
‫ ֲא ָבל ּתֹוךְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬,‫ֶא ָּלא חוּץ ְל ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַא ּמֹות‬ causes epilepsy (Rabbeinu Gershom). Nevertheless,
it is prohibited only if one takes the item beyond four cubits of the
‫ וְ ָלא ֲא ָמ ָרן – ֶא ָּלא ִמ ִידי‬.‫ַא ּמֹות – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ table. But if one leaves it within four cubits, we have no problem later commentaries conclude that whatever the ill-
‫יך‬
ְ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִמ ִידי דְּ ָלא צְ ִר‬,‫עֹוד ָתא‬ ְ ‫יך ִל ְס‬ְ ‫דִּ צְ ִר‬ ness, it is a product of the forces of impurity, which
with it. And furthermore, we said this halakha only with regard to are no longer in existence, and one need not be
.‫עֹוד ָתא – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ְ ‫ִל ְס‬ an item that is necessary for the meal. But in the case of an item concerned with this issue today (Ben Yehoyada).
that is not necessary for the meal, we have no problem with it.
halakha
‫יתא‬ ּ ‫ ָמר ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָק ֵפיד ֲא ִפ‬The Gemara relates that Mar bar Rav Ashi was particular not to
ָ ‫יל ּו ַא ֲא ִס‬
Because it is bad for poverty – ‫מ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָק ׁ ֵשי ַל ֲענִּיו ָּתא‬:ִ
.‫עֹוד ָתא‬
ְ ‫יכי ִל ְס‬ִ ‫ וּבו ְּכנָ א דְּ ַת ְב ִלי – ִמ ִידי דִּ צְ ִר‬remove any object from the table when someone was holding his Although it is permitted to eradicate crumbs that
cup in hand, even with regard to a mortar [asita]l and pestle are smaller than an olive-bulk it is improper to do so,
[bukhna]l for spices, like all items that are necessary for the meal. because this practice leads to poverty. Some say that
this applies only if one treads on them, but it is per-
‫נְשי‬
ִ ׁ ‫ ַהאי דְּ ָכ‬,‫ ֵמ ֵר ׁיש ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬:‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬And Abaye further said: At first I would say that this practice that mitted to throw them into water (Magen Avraham). If
:‫ ֲא ַמר ִלי ָמר‬.‫נַשוְ ָור ָאה – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְמנַ ִּקירו ָּתא‬ ְ ׁ people collect the crumbs of bread after a meal is due to cleanli- the crumbs are an olive-bulk or larger one should not
ness. But the Master subsequently said to me that it is because dispose of them, even by using methods other than
.‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָק ׁ ֵשי ַל ֲענִּיו ָּתא‬
leaving them is bad for, i.e., it can increase, a person’s vulnerability treading on them. Sha’arei Teshuva cites the Mahara
to poverty.h Galanti, who states in his introduction to the Zohar
that there is no prohibition if all the crumbs together
do not amount to an olive-bulk (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
Ĥayyim 180:4).

language
Pinch [korta] – ‫קֹור ָטא‬:
ְ A korta is a small piece or a crumb, similar to Mortar [asita] – ‫א ִס ָיתא‬:ֲ Probably of Aramaic origin. It refers to a
the Greek κεράτιον, keration. Apparently the measurement used mortar, especially one used for preparing beer from barley.
for the weight of diamonds, a carat, is from the same Greek source,
although these words might have a Semitic origin. Some sources Pestle [bukhna] – ‫בו ְּכנָ א‬:
ּ This word is of unclear origin, and
assert that the word koret is a slight variation of keretz, which means although some associate it with a similar Greek term, it does not
a slice or small piece. bear the same meaning. In any case, the basic meaning of the word
is a vessel, from which it came to refer to elongated vessels with
Kor – ‫כ ָֹורא‬:ּ The kor, the largest measurement of volume that round ends. The same word, spelled slightly differently, has the
appears in the sources, equals thirty se’a. Estimates of its size range identical meaning in Hebrew.
from 240 to 480 ℓ; the large difference in estimates is due to dis-
putes with regard to smaller halakhic measurements.

 ‫הק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 105b 165

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫יה ָ ׂש ָרא דַּ ֲענִּיו ָּתא‬ּ ‫ דַּ ֲהוָ ה ְמ ַהדַּ ר ֲע ֵל‬,‫ַההוּא ַ ּג ְב ָרא‬ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who was pursued
.‫יה – דְּ ָקא זָ ִהיר ַא ּנ ׁ ְַשוְ ָורא טו ָּבא‬ ּ ‫וְ ָלא ֲהוָ ה יְ ִכיל ֵל‬ by the ministering angel of poverty, but the angel was unable to
impoverish him, as he was exceptionally careful with regard to
‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא וַ דַּ אי‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יֹומא ַחד ְּכ ַרךְ ִל ְיפ ָּתא ַא ְּיַב ִלי‬ ָ
crumbs. One day that man broke his bread over grass, and some
‫ ָע ְק ִרינְ ה ּו‬,‫יתי ָמ ָרא‬ ֵ ְ‫ ַאי‬,‫ ָ ּב ַתר דְּ ָא ֵכיל‬.‫נְ ַפל ִ ּב ַידאי‬ crumbs fell among the blades of grass. The angel said: Now he will
,‫ וַ וי‬:‫יה דְּ ָק ָא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ ׁ ְש ַמ ֵע‬.‫ ׁ ָש ִדינְ ה ּו ְלנַ ֲה ָרא‬,‫ְליַ ְב ִלי‬ certainly fall into my hands, as he cannot collect all the crumbs.
!‫יה‬ ֵ ‫יה ַההוּא ַ ּג ְב ָרא ִמ ֵ ּב‬
ּ ‫ית‬ ּ ‫דְּ ַא ּ ְפ ֵק‬ After the man ate, he brought a hoe, uprooted the grass, and
threw it into the river. He subsequently heard the ministering
angel of poverty say: Woe is me, as that man has removed me
from my house, i.e., my position of comfort.

‫ ַהאי דְּ ָלא ׁ ָש ֵתי‬,‫ ֵמ ֵר ׁיש ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬:‫וַ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ And Abaye said: At first I would say that this practice that people
‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ִלי ָמר‬.‫או ְּפיָ א – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְמ ִאיסו ָּתא‬ do not drink the foam from the top of a beverage is followed
because it is repulsive. But the Master said to me that it is fol-
‫ ִמינְ ּ ַפח‬,‫יה – ָק ׁ ֶשה ְל ַכ ְר ָסם‬ ּ ‫יש ֵּת‬ְ ׁ ‫ ִמ‬.‫דְּ ָק ׁ ֵשי ְל ַכ ְר ָסם‬
lowed because it is bad for one’s vulnerability to catarrh. The
.‫ייה – ַק ׁ ְשיָא ַל ֲענִּיו ָּתא‬ּ ‫ ִמ ְד ֵח‬,‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫יה – ַק ׁ ְשיָא ְל ֵר‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ Gemara comments: Drinking it is bad for catarrh, while blowing
.‫יה ׁ ְשקו ִּעי‬
ּ ‫ע‬ֵ ‫ק‬ְ ‫ש‬ ַ ׁ ‫ל‬ְ ? ‫יה‬
ּ ּ ּ ‫ַמ‬
‫ת‬ֵ ְ‫נ‬‫ק‬ּ ַ ‫ת‬ַ ‫אי‬ off the foam from the drink is bad for head pains, and removing
it with one’s hand is bad for poverty. If so, what is its remedy?
How may one drink? He should sink the foam inside the beverage
and then drink it.

,‫יכ ָרא – ַמּיָ א‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ׁ ִש‬,‫יכ ָרא‬ ְ ‫ ְל ַכ ְר ָסם דְּ ַח ְמ ָרא – ׁ ִש‬The Gemara notes: The treatment for catarrh caused by the foam
ּ ‫ דְּ ַמּיָ א – ֵלית ֵל‬of wine is beer; the treatment for catarrh caused by the foam of
ֵ ׁ ‫ וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ֱא‬.‫יה ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא‬
:‫ינָשי‬
beer is water; and for catarrh caused by the foam of water there is
.‫ָ ּב ַתר ָענְיָא ָאזְ ָלא ֲענִּיו ָּתא‬
no remedy. And this is in accordance with the adage that people
say: Poverty follows the poor. Not only does a pauper have noth-
ing to drink other than water, but there also is no treatment for the
disease caused by his beverage.

‫ ַהאי דְּ ָלא‬,‫ ֵמ ֵר ׁיש ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬:‫וַ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ And Abaye said: At first I would say that the reason for this prac-
‫ישא דַּ ֲא ַסר ִ ּגינָ ָאה – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ָ ׁ ‫ָא ְכ ִלי יָ ְר ָקא ִמ ִּכ‬ tice that people do not eat vegetables from a bundle tied by the
gardener is because it has the appearance of gluttony, as he does
‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָק ׁ ֵשי‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ִלי ָמר‬.‫יחזֵ י ְּכ ַר ַע ְב ְתנו ָּתא‬
ֱ ‫דְּ ֶמ‬
not wait to untie the bundle to eat. But the Master said to me that
.‫ִל ְכ ׁ ָש ִפים‬ it is because it is bad for one’s vulnerability to witchcraft.

.‫ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א וְ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ָהו ּו ָק ָאזְ ֵלי ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּבא‬ The Gemara relates: Rav Ĥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna were
!ּ‫אֹות ַבן ַ ּב ֲה ַדיְ יכו‬ְ :‫רֹונִיתא‬ָ ‫ֲא ַמ ָרה ְלה ּו ַה ִהיא ַמ ְט‬ traveling on a boat. A certain matron said to them: Seat me
together with you on the boat, but they did not seat her alongside
.‫ ֲא ַמ ָרה ִמ ְּל ָתא – ֲא ַס ְר ָת ּה ְל ַא ְר ָ ּבא‬,‫אֹותבו ָּה‬ ְ ‫ָלא‬
them. She said something, an incantation, and thereby tied the
‫ ַמאי‬:ּ‫ ֲא ַמ ָרה ְלהו‬.‫יל ָתא – ׁ ָש ְריו ָּה‬ ְּ ‫ֲא ַמר ּו ִאינְ ה ּו ִמ‬ boat to its spot so that it could not move. They too said something
‫ וְ ָלא ְק ִטיל‬,‫ דְּ ָלא ְמ ַק ֵ ּנ ַח ְלכ ּו ְ ּב ַח ְס ּ ָפא‬,ּ‫יע ִביד ְלכו‬ ֲ ‫ִא‬ and thereby released it.n That matron said to them: What can I
‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ וְ ָלא ָא ֵכיל ְלכ ּו יָ ְר ָקא ִמ ִּכ‬,ּ‫ְלכ ּו ִּכ ָּינה ַא ָּמנַיְ יכו‬ do to you? Witchcraft has no power over you, as after attending to
.‫דַּ ֲא ַסר ִ ּגינָ ָאה‬ your bodily functions, you do not wipe yourselves with an earth-
enware shard, and you do not kill a louse that you find on your
garments, and you do not eat vegetables from a bundle tied by
the gardener.

‫ ַהאי דְּ ָלא ָא ְכ ִלי‬,‫ ֵמ ֵר ׁיש ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬:‫וַ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ And Abaye said: At first I would say as follows: The reason for this
‫ ֲא ַמר ִלי‬,‫יָ ְר ָקא דִּ נְ ַפל ַא ַּת ָּכא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ְמ ִאיסו ָּתא‬ practice that people do not eat vegetables that fell on the table is
because it is replusive. But the Master said to me that it is because
‫ ֵמ ֵר ׁיש‬:‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָק ׁ ֶשה ְל ֵר ַיח ַה ּ ֶפה‬:‫ָמר‬
it is bad for halitosis. And Abaye said: At first I would say that
– ‫ ַהאי דְּ ָלא יָ ְת ִבי ּתו ֵּתי ַמ ְרזֵ ָיבא‬,‫ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ the reason for this practice that people do not sit under a gutter
‫יחי‬ִ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ׁ ְש ִכ‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ִלי ָמר‬.‫ֹופ ִכים‬ ְ ‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁש‬ is because of the waste water that pours out of it. But the Master
.‫ַמּזִ ִיקין‬ said to me that it is because demons are commonly found there.

‫ ָ ּבע ּו‬.‫יתא דְּ ַח ְמ ָרא‬ ָ ‫ָהנְ ה ּו ׁ ְשקו ָּל ֵאי דְּ ָהו ּו דָּ ר ּו ָח ִב‬ The Gemara relates: There were certain porters who were carry-
‫ ֲאת ּו‬.‫ ּ ָפ ְק ָעה‬,‫אֹותבו ָּה ּתו ֵּתי ַמ ְרזֵ ָיבא‬ ְ ,‫ית ּפו ֵּחי‬ ְ ‫ְל ִא‬ ing a barrel of wine. When they wanted to rest, they placed it
under a gutter and the barrel burst. They came before Mar bar
.‫יה‬ּ ‫ ׁ ַש ְמ ֵּת‬,‫ ַא ּ ֵפיק ׁ ִש ּיפו ֵּרי‬,‫יה דְּ ָמר ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ְל ַק ֵּמ‬
Rav Ashi, who brought out horns and had them blown as he
?‫ ַא ַּמאי ַּת ֲע ֵביד ָה ִכי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ excommunicated the demon of that place. The demon came
?‫יה ְ ּבאוּנַ אי‬ ּ ‫אֹות ֵב‬
ְ ‫ ִּכי‬,‫יכי ַא ֲע ֵביד‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ before Mar bar Rav Ashi, and the Sage said to it: Why did you do
this? The demon said to him: How else should I act, when these
men place a barrel on my ear?

notes
They too said something and thereby released it – ‫ ֲא ַמר ּו ִאינְ ה ּו‬himself from a dangerous situation. Alternatively, Rav Ĥisda and
‫מ ְּיל ָתא ׁ ָש ְריו ָּה‬:ִ Like most prohibitions, the prohibition against engag- Rabba did not engage in witchcraft but pronounced one of the
ing in witchcraft does not apply when one does so in order to release sacred names of God (Rashi).

166 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 105b . ‫ףד‬ ‫הק‬: ‫׳ח קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫יחי ַר ִ ּבים‬ ִ ‫ ַא ְּת ְ ּבדו ְּכ ָּתא דִּ ׁ ְש ִכ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Mar bar Rav Ashi said to it: What are you doing in a place where
many people are found? You are the one who deviated from the Pitcher [ĥatzva] – ‫חצְ ָבא‬:ַ A ĥatzva is a large earthen-
!‫ זִ יל ׁ ַש ֵּלים‬,‫ַמאי ָ ּב ֵעית? ַא ְּת הוּא דְּ ׁ ָשנֵית‬ ware vessel with various functions. Sometimes it was
norm; go and pay them the value of the barrel of wine. The demon
,‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא נַ ִמי ִל ְיק ַ ּבע ִלי ָמר ז‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ used as a bucket for drawing water, while on other
said to him: Let the Master now set a time for me, so that I can occasions it was used as a storage container for liquids
,‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫ ִּכי ְמ ָטא ז‬.‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ִ‫יה ז‬ּ ‫ ְק ַבע ֵל‬.‫וְ ֶא ְפ ַרע‬ find the money, and I will pay. Mar bar Rav Ashi set a time for his or for soaking items inside it.
‫ ַא ַּמאי ָלא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יע ַּכב‬ ַ ‫ִא‬ payment. When that time arrived, the demon delayed in coming
‫ ָּכל ִמ ֵּילי דְּ צָ יֵ יר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָא ֵתית ִ ּבזְ ַמ ָּנךְ ? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ to pay. When the demon eventually came, Mar bar Rav Ashi said
‫וְ ָח ֵתים וְ ָכיֵ יל ו ָּמנֵי – ֵלית ָלן ְר ׁשו ָּתא ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ַקל‬ to it: Why did you not come at the time set for you? The demon
.‫ ַעד דְּ ַמ ׁ ְש ְּכ ִחינַן ִמ ִידי דְּ ֶה ְפ ֵק ָרא‬,‫ֵיה‬ּ ‫ִמ ּינ‬ said to him: With regard to any item that is tied up, or sealed, or
measured, or counted, we have no authority to take it. We are
unable to obtain money until we find an ownerless item. For this
reason, it took him a long time to find enough money to pay for
the barrel.

‫ ַהאי דִּ ׁ ְש ִדי‬,‫ ֵמ ֵר ׁיש ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬:‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬And Abaye said: At first I would say that this practice that people
.‫ ַמּיָ א ִמ ּפו ָּמא דְּ ַחצְ ָבא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם צִ ְיב ָתא‬pour out a little water from the mouth of a pitcher before drinking
b

from it is followed because of twigs it might contain. But the Master

.‫יכא ַמיִ ם ָה ָר ִעים‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ִלי ָמר‬
said to me that it is followed because there are foul waters in the
pitcher.

‫ ֲאזַ ל‬,‫ַההוּא ַ ּבר ׁ ִש ָידא דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵ ּבי ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ The Gemara relates: There was a certain son of a demon that was
,‫ ִּכי ֲא ָתא‬.‫יע ַּכב‬ ַ ‫ ִא‬,‫ַל ֲאתוּיֵ י ַמּיָ א ִמ ַּנ ֲה ָרא‬ in Rav Pappa’s house as a servant. It went to bring water from the
river, and it delayed in returning. When it came, the members of
:ּ‫יע ַּכ ְב ְּת? ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬ ַ ‫ ַא ַּמאי ִא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל‬
Rav Pappa’s household said to it: Why did you delay? It said to
,‫ ַאדְּ ָה ִכי‬.‫ַעד דְּ ָח ְל ִפי ַמיִ ם ָה ָר ִעים‬ them: I waited until the foul waters passed. In the meantime, Ceramic pitcher from the Second Temple period

Perek VIII
Daf 106 Amud a

,‫ ָחזַ נְ ה ּו דְּ ָקא ׁ ָשד ּו ַמּיָ א ִמ ּפו ָּמא דְּ ַחצָ ָבא‬the demon saw the members of Rav Pappa’s household pouring
ֲ ‫ ִאי ֲהוָ ה יָ ַד ְענָ א דִּ ְרגִ ִילית ּו ְל ֶמ‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬water from the mouth of the pitcher before drinking from it. The
‫יע ַבד‬
demon said to them: If I had known that you regularly do this, I
.‫יע ְּכ ִבי‬
ַ ‫ָה ִכי – ָלא ִא‬
would not have delayed. I would have brought the water straight
from the river, knowing you would pour out the foul waters.

– ‫אשֹונִים‬
ׁ ‫ ַמיִ ם ָה ִר‬:‫ימי ֲא ַמר‬ ִ ִּ‫ § ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Due to the
,‫ ֶה ֱא ִכיל ּו ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ֲחזִ יר‬failure to wash with the first waters, they ultimately fed a Jew pig
meat. This case involved a storekeeper who would sell different meat
to his Jewish and gentile customers. When a Jew who came to eat
with him neglected to wash before eating, the storekeeper assumed
he was a gentile and fed him pig meat.

.‫ ַא ֲחרֹונִים – הֹוצִ יא ּו ֶאת ָה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ִמ ַ ּב ְע ָל ּה‬And due to the failure to wash with final waters a woman was ulti-
mately divorced from her husband. In this incident, a host who had
stolen his guests’ money had lentils on his mustache from a previous
meal because he had not washed his hands and mouth after eating.
Realizing he had eaten lentils that day, his victims approached the
man’s wife and said that her husband had instructed them to tell her
to return their money. They then claimed that the man told them to
tell her that he had eaten lentils that day as proof that they were
telling the truth. They thereby fooled his wife into thinking he
wanted her to give their money back. Out of anger, the host divorced
his wife.
 ‫וק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 106a 167
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫אשֹונִים – ֶה ֱא ִכיל ּו‬ ׁ ‫ ִר‬:‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ֲא ַמר‬ When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said the statement slightly
One may wash [notlin] his hands with it – ‫נֹוט ִלין‬ ְ differently: Due to the failure to wash with first waters, they fed a
‫מ ֶהם ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬:ֵ Some explain that washing of the hands .‫ ַא ֲחרֹונִים – ָה ְרג ּו ֶאת ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש‬,‫ְ ּב ַ ׂשר נְ ֵב ָלה‬
Jew meat from an animal carcass, and the failure to wash with final
is called netila based on the verse: “And he bore ‫ ֲא ָתא ַרב‬: ְ‫ימנֵיך‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִס‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬
them [va’yenatlem], and carried them all the days waters killed a person, as in the second incident the host was so
.‫ ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין – ְק ַט ָל ּה‬,‫ימי – ַא ּ ְפ ָק ּה‬ ִ ִּ‫ד‬ angry with his wife that he killed her. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said:
of old” (Isaiah 63:9), where this verb means lifting.
Since the washing of the hands includes raising And your mnemonic to remember which Sage said which version
them afterward, as alluded to in the verse: “Lift up is: Rav Dimi came and divorced her from her husband, i.e., accord-
your hands to the Sanctuary” (Psalms 134:2), it was ing to his version she was divorced, and Ravin came and killed her,
referred to using this word (Rav Hai Gaon). Others
since in his version the husband killed his wife.
suggest that the term is derived from anatil, the
name of a vessel in the Temple that had the capacity
‫ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַמ ְתנֵי ֲח ָדא ֵמ ָהנֵי וַ ֲח ָדא ֵמ ָהנֵי‬Rabbi Abba would teach one of these versions involving first waters
of a quarter-log (Ritva; Torat HaBayit).
.‫ ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬and one of them with regard to final waters, and in both cases he
The hot springs of Tiberias – ‫ח ֵּמי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א‬:ַ With taught the more severe version, i.e., he specified the meat of a pig
regard to Ĥizkiyya’s opinion that one may not wash and that the husband killed his wife.
his hands in the hot springs of Tiberias, the com-
mentaries explain that it is because the water is so ‫נֹוט ִלים‬ְ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ ִחזְ ִקּיָה ָא ַמר‬.‫ ַח ֵּמי ָהאוּר‬,‫ִא ְית ַמר‬ A disagreement was stated with regard to water heated by fire:
bitter it is unfit to be drunk by a dog. Others add that
‫נֹוט ִלין ֵמ ֶהם‬
ְ :‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֵמ ֶהן ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ Ĥizkiyya says that one may not wash his hands with such water,
as this water was initially unsuitable for drinking due
and Rabbi Yoĥanan says that one may wash his hands with it.n
to its heat, it remains unfit for washing even after it ‫ ׁ ָש ַא ְל ִּתי ֶאת ַר ָ ּבן‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬
has cooled (Kesef Mishne on Rambam Sefer Ahava, Rabbi Yoĥanan said: I asked Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi
‫ וְ ָא ַמר‬,‫אֹוכל ְט ָהרֹות‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫יאל ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ Yehuda HaNasi, about this halakha, and he was one who would
Hilkhot Berakhot 6:9).
.‫עֹושין ֵּכן‬
ׂ ִ ‫דֹולי גָ ִליל‬ ֵ ‫ ָּכל ְ ּג‬:‫ִלי‬ eat only in a state of ritual purity and was therefore careful about
background washing his hands; and he said to me that all the great men of the
The hot springs of Tiberias – ‫ח ֵּמי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א‬:ַ The Tibe- Galilee would do so, i.e., wash their hands in heated water.
rias hot springs, near the Sea of Galilee, contain
geothermally heated groundwater at a constant ‫נֹוט ִלין ֵמ ֶהם‬ ְ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ָא ַמר‬,‫ַח ֵּמי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָ א‬ Likewise, with regard to the hot springs of Tiberias,nbh Ĥizkiyya
temperature of 60°C. In general, the temperature of ‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ֲא ָבל ַמ ְט ִ ּב ִילין ָ ּב ֶהם ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם‬,‫ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ says that one may not wash his hands with water from them before
rocks within the earth increases with depth. When eating, but if there are forty se’a, the requisite size of a ritual bath,
water percolates deeply enough into the crust, it
‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ּ ָפנָיו יָ ָדיו‬,‫טֹובל ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ֵ ‫ ָּכל גּ וּפֹו‬:‫ָא ַמר‬
then one may immerse the hands directly in them, and this is effec-
is heated as it comes into contact with hot rocks. .‫וְ ַרגְ ָליו‬ tive for the ritual of washing the hands before a meal. And Rabbi
Much of the earth’s internal heat is produced by the
Yoĥanan says that an impure person may immerse his entire body
decay of naturally radioactive elements, which is not
considered fire in the normal sense of the term. in such water to become pure, but one may still not use it for the
immersion of part of his body, such as his face, hands, and feet, as
this immersion is not considered equivalent to washing the hands.

‫ ּ ָפנָיו יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו‬,‫טֹובל ָ ּב ֶהם‬ ֵ ‫ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ָּכל גּ וּפֹו‬ The Gemara asks: Now that it has been said that one may immerse
– ‫קֹומן‬ ָ ‫ ִ ּב ְמ‬:‫ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן?! ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ his entire body in the hot springs of Tiberias, is it not all the more
so permitted for his face, hands, and feet? Rav Pappa said: When
‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ַקל ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו‬.‫דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דְּ ׁ ָש ֵרי‬
the water in the hot springs stands in place, everyone, both Ĥizkiyya
‫ ִּכי‬.‫ְ ּב ָמנָ א – דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דַּ ֲא ִסיר‬ and Rabbi Yoĥanan, agrees that it is permitted to immerse one’s
:‫ ָמר ְס ַבר‬,‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – דְּ ַפ ְס ִקינְ ה ּו ְ ּב ַבת ִ ּב ְיר ָתא‬ hands in it. Likewise, everyone agrees that to take from these
‫ ָלא‬:‫ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן ַ ּבת ִ ּב ְיר ָתא ַא ּט ּו ָמנָ א ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬ waters in a vessel and wash one’s hands from it is prohibited. They
.‫ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן‬ disagree when one draws the waters through a ditch. One Sage,
Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds that we decree against the use of ditch water
due to the concern that one might come to use water in a vessel, and
one Sage, Ĥizkiyya, holds that we do not decree against it.

,‫ ַמיִ ם ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ְסל ּו ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ִתּיַ ית ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:‫ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬ The Gemara comments: This dispute is like a dispute between
‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ַ ּב ַ ּק ְר ַקע – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ִרין‬,‫ְ ּב ֵכ ִלים – ּ ְפסו ִּלים‬ tanna’im, as it was taught: When water that has ceased to be fit for
drinking even by an animalh is in vessels, it is unfit for washing the
‫טֹובל‬ ֵ ,‫ ַאף ַ ּב ַ ּק ְר ַקע‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬
hands, but when it is in the ground it is fit for immersion, like a ritual
.‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ּ ָפנָיו יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו‬,‫ָ ּב ֶהן ָּכל גּ וּפֹו‬ bath. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even when the water is in the
ground, one may immerse his entire body in it, but he may not
immerse his face, hands, and feet.

halakha
The hot springs of Tiberias, etc. – ‫ח ֵּמי ִט ֶ ּב ְריָא וכו׳‬:ַ One may immerse others, such as Rabbeinu Yona, rule that one may do so (Rambam
his hands in the hot springs of Tiberias, as it is like any other spring, Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 160:7,
in which it is permitted to immerse even if it does not contain forty and Magen Avraham and Mishna Berura there).
se’a. One may not wash his hands with this water utilizing a vessel.
The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ĥizkiyya, as he was Water that has ceased to be fit for drinking by an animal – ‫ַמיִ ם‬
Rabbi Yoĥanan’s teacher. If one drew the water away from the spring ‫ש ִּנ ְפ ְסל ּו ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ִתּיַ ית ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:
ֶ ׁ Water that is too salty, foul, or bitter for a
through a ditch on the ground, which does not render it as drawn dog to drink is invalid for washing hands, despite the fact that it is
water and consequently unfit for a ritual bath; or if one drew it fit for use in a ritual bath, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
through a gutter, which is not considered a vessel, and then cut the Shimon ben Elazar. In a case where the water is dirtied by clay, if a
connection to the spring, one may immerse his hands in the water dog would drink from it then it is valid both for washing the hands
if there are the requisite forty se’a of a ritual bath. If the water in this and a ritual bath. If a dog would not drink it, it is invalid for both
ditch is connected to the hot spring, some commentaries maintain purposes (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:9; Shulĥan Arukh,
that one may not immerse his hands in it (Rashi; Rashba), while Oraĥ Ĥayyim 160:9).

168 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 106a . ‫ףד‬ ‫וק‬. ‫׳ח קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
ֵ ‫ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ָּכל גּ וּפֹו‬
‫ יָ ָדיו וְ ַרגְ ָליו‬,‫טֹובל ָ ּב ֶהן‬ As above, one might ask: Now that one may immerse his entire
body in the water, is it not all the more so the case that one may A basket of fruit – ‫כ ְל ָּכ ָלה דְּ ֵפ ֵירי‬:ַּ This refers to a woven
‫ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן? ֶא ָּלא ָלאו דְּ ַפ ְס ִקינְ ה ּו ְ ּב ַבת‬ basket that was ordinarily made from willow or palm
immerse his hands and feet in it? Rather, must it not be referring
‫ דְּ ָמר ְס ַבר – ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן‬:‫ ו ְּב ָהא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬,‫ִ ּב ְיר ָתא‬ branches but occasionally from other materials. The bas-
to a case when one draws the waters through a ditch? And if so, ket had a wide opening on top and raised sides, although
‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר – ָלא‬,‫ַ ּבת ִ ּב ְיר ָתא ַא ּט ּו ָמנָ א‬ they disagree about this: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, it was not especially deep. It was used for soft fruits, such
.‫ָ ּגזְ ִרינַן‬ holds that we decree against the use of ditch water due to concern as dates, grapes, and the like.
that one may come to use a vessel, and one Sage, the first tanna of
that baraita, holds that we do not decree against it.

‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק‬,‫ § ָא ַמר ַרב ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין‬Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzĥak bar Ashiyan says: The
‫ נְ ִט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם ְלחו ִּּלין ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬:‫ ַ ּבר ָא ׁ ִשיָ אן‬obligation of washing hands before eating non-sacred food is due
to an ancillary decree on account of teruma, the portion of produce
,‫ְס ַרךְ ְּתרו ָּמה‬
designated for the priest, which must be consumed in a state of ritual
purity. By rabbinic decree, one’s hands are considered impure with
second-degree ritual impurity, as they may have touched impure
items. Therefore, they render teruma impure. Consequently, priests
who partake of teruma are obligated to wash their hands first. The
Sages therefore decreed that all must wash their hands even before
eating non-sacred food, so that people not become accustomed to
eating without washing their hands, which would in turn lead the Roman fresco of a basket of figs
priests to partake of teruma without washing their hands.
halakha
‫״מצְ וָ ה״? ָא ַמר‬ ִ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫וְ עֹוד ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִמצְ וָ ה‬ And the obligation is further due to its being a mitzva. The Gemara One who washes his hands for fruit – ‫ֹוטל יָ ָדיו ְל ֵפירֹות‬
ֵ ּ‫הנ‬:ַ
‫ ָר ָבא‬.‫מֹוע דִּ ְב ֵרי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ ַ ‫ ִמצְ וָ ה ִל ׁ ְש‬:‫ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ asks: What mitzva does it involve? Abaye says: It is a mitzva to One does not wash his hands either before or after eat-
listen to and obey the statements of the Sages, who instituted this ing non-sacred fruit. Whoever does wash his hands in
‫מֹוע דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן‬
ַ ‫ ִמצְ וָ ה ִל ׁ ְש‬:‫ָא ַמר‬
washing of the hands. Rava says: It is a mitzva to listen to the this case is considered among the haughty of spirit. This
‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״וְ כֹל ֲא ׁ ֶשר יִ ַ ּגע ּבֹו ַהּזָ ב וְ יָ ָדיו‬, ְ‫ֲע ָרך‬ statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh, as it is written with regard applies only if he washes his hands as an obligation, but
‫ל ֹא ׁ ָש ַטף ַ ּב ָּמיִ ם״ – ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן‬ to a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav]: “And if he washes for purposes of cleanliness, e.g., if his hands
were dirty, there is no problem with it (Rema). The hal-
‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ָּכאן ָס ְמכ ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים ִל‬: ְ‫ֲע ָרך‬ whomever he that has the issue touches, without having rinsed akha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naĥman,
.‫ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬ his hands in water,” he contracts ritual impurity (Leviticus 15:11), as he is the later Sage, and in addition, the discussion in
and Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh says: From here the Sages based tractate Ĥagiga follows his ruling (Rambam Sefer Ahava,
washing of the hands upon a verse from the Torah. Hilkhot Berakhot 6:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 158:5).
One does not issue a zimmun on fruit – ‫ֵאין ְמזַ ְּמנִין ַעל‬
– ‫ ַמאי ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬:‫יה ָר ָבא ְל ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬
ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rava said to Rav Naĥman: From where is this inferred? How can ‫ה ּ ֵפירֹות‬:ַ The blessing after eating fruit should be recited
‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״וְ יָ ָדיו ל ֹא ׁ ָש ַטף ַ ּב ָּמיִ ם״ – ָהא‬ this verse, which concerns a zav, be interpreted as referring to wash- by each individual separately, as there is no zimmun on
ing the hands before a meal? Rava explains: As it is written: “With- fruit (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 213:1).
‫ׁ ָש ַטף ָטהֹור? ָהא ְט ִב ָילה ָ ּב ֵעי! ֶא ָּלא ָה ִכי‬
out having rinsed his hands in water.” Consequently, one could If two people ate it is a mitzva to separate – ‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ֶש ָא ְכל ּו‬
.‫ וְ ַא ֵחר ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ׁ ָש ַטף – ָט ֵמא‬:‫ָק ָא ַמר‬ infer that if he rinsed his hands the zav becomes ritually pure. But ‫יח ֵלק‬
ָ ‫מצְ וָ ה ֵל‬:ִ Two people who ate together should each
this cannot be correct, as verses elsewhere prove that a zav requires recite Grace after Meals independently. If one of them
the immersion of his entire body. Rather, this is what the verse is does not know how to recite Grace after Meals, the other
saying: And there is another type of person who, if he has not should recite it aloud and fulfill the obligation on his
rinsed his hands in water, is considered like one who is impure. The behalf. The listener must pay attention to every word
and have its meaning in mind, while the one reciting
verse thereby serves as the basis for washing the hands.
the blessings must intend to fulfill the obligation of the
listener (Rema). If the listener does not understand the
‫ ל ֹא‬:‫אֹוש ֲעיָא‬ ַ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: The Sages said that words, he does not fulfill his obligation through the reci-
‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם ְל ֵפירֹות ֶא ָּלא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ִ ‫ָא ְמר ּו‬ washing of the hands before eating fruit is mandatory only due to tation of the other (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot
cleanliness. The Gemara comments: They understood from this 5:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 193:1).
,‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫חֹובה הוּא דְּ ֵל‬ ָ :‫ ְסבוּר ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫נְ ִקּיוּת‬
statement that there is no true obligation to wash the hands before
‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ָר ָבא‬.‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ָהא ִמצְ וָ ה ִא‬ eating fruit, but there is a mitzva to do so. Rava said to them: This
‫ ו ְּפ ִליגָ א‬.‫חֹובה וְ ל ֹא ִמצְ וָ ה ֶא ָּלא ְר ׁשוּת‬ ָ practice is not an obligation nor a mitzva, but merely optional.
‫ֹוטל יָ ָדיו‬ֵ ּ‫ ַהנ‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬,‫דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ And the Gemara notes that Rava disagrees with Rav Naĥman in
.‫ְל ֵפירֹות – ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ִמ ַ ּג ֵּסי ָהרו ַּח‬ this regard, as Rav Naĥman said: One who washes his hands
before eating fruit is nothing other than one of the arrogant, i.e.,
it is actually prohibited to do so.

‫ימנָ א‬ ְ ‫ ֲהוָ ה ָק ֵא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה‬ Rabba bar bar Ĥana said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami and
‫ ַאיְ ית ּו‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי וְ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי‬ ּ ‫ַק ֵּמ‬ Rabbi Asi when attendants brought a basket of fruitb before them,
and they ate and did not wash their hands. And they did not give
‫ וְ ָא ְכל ּו וְ ָלא ְמ ׁש ּו‬,‫ְל ַק ַּמיְ יה ּו ַּכ ְל ָּכ ָלה דְּ ֵפ ֵירי‬
me anything to eat, to enable me to join the zimmun, the quorum
‫ ו ְּב ִריךְ ַחד ַחד‬,‫ וְ ָלא יָ ֲהב ּו ִלי ִמ ִידי‬,ּ‫יְ ַדיְ יהו‬ required for communal Grace after Meals, and they each recited a
,‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬:‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ְּת ָלת‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְלחו ֵּד‬ blessing after eating, separately. One may learn three halakhot
,‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם ְל ֵפירֹות‬ ִ ‫ֵאין‬ from this incident. Learn from it that there is no washing of the
,‫ ּו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫ֵאין ְמזַ ְּמנִין ַעל ַה ּ ֵפירֹות‬ hands before fruit.h And learn from it that one does not issue
.‫יח ֵלק‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ֶש ָא ְכל ּו – ִמצְ וָ ה ֵל‬ a zimmun on fruit,h i.e., the halakha that when three people eat
together, one leads the Grace after Meals does not apply when they
ate fruit. And finally, learn from it that if only two people ate, it is
a mitzva for them to separate,h i.e., each should recite the blessing
after eating for himself.
 ‫וק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 106a 169
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ֶש ָא ְכל ּו – ִמצְ וָ ה‬:‫ַּתנְ יָ א נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ The Gemara notes: This halakha is also taught in a baraita: If only
In washing of the hands for non-sacred food pour two individuals ate, it is a mitzva for them to separate. In what case
water until the joint of the fingers – ‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם ְלחו ִּּלין‬
ִ ‫ ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים – ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו‬.‫יח ֵלק‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬
is this statement said? It is said when they were both scribes, i.e.,
‫עד ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרק‬:ַ Washing of the hands must be performed on ‫סֹופר וְ ֶא ָחד‬
ֵ ‫ ֲא ָבל ֶא ָחד‬,‫סֹופ ִרים‬ ְ ‫נֵיהם‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ְש‬
the entire hand until the wrist. Some say that it need Torah scholars, who know how to recite Grace after Meals properly.
.‫סֹופר ְמ ָב ֵרךְ וּבוּר יֹוצֵ א‬
ֵ – ‫ּבוּר‬ But if one of them was a scribe and one was an ignoramus, the
be performed only up to the joints of the fingers to the
hand. It is proper to act in accordance with the opinion scribe recites Grace after Meals and the ignoramus fulfills his
of Shmuel on 106b (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Bera- obligation by listening to the scribe.
khot 6:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 161:4 and Mishna
Berura there). ,‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם ְלחו ִּּלין – ַעד ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרק‬
ִ :‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Sages taught in a baraita: In washing of the hands for con-
‫ ִל ְתרו ָּמה‬sumption of non-sacred food, one must pour the water on the area
that extends until the joint of the fingers.h In washing hands for
consumption of teruma,b

background
Teruma – ‫תרו ָּמה‬:ְּ Whenever the term teruma appears without One-fortieth for a generous gift, one-fiftieth for an average gift,
qualification it refers to the great teruma, the portion of the pro- and one-sixtieth for a miserly gift. One may not set aside the
duce designated for the priest after the first fruits have been other tithes before separating teruma. Teruma is sacred and
separated. The Torah (Deuteronomy 18:4; see Numbers 18:12) may be eaten only by a priest and his household while they
commands that “the first fruit of your grain, of your wine, and of are in a state of ritual purity (see Leviticus 22:9–15). Teruma that
your oil” be given to a priest, and the Sages extended the scope becomes impure may no longer be eaten and must be burned,
of this mitzva to include all produce. This mitzva applies only in but it remains the property of the priest, who may derive benefit
Eretz Yisrael. Although the Torah does not specify the amount of from its burning. Although today teruma is not given to priests,
teruma that must be separated, and one may theoretically fulfill as there is no definitive proof of priestly lineage, the obligation to
his obligation by separating even a single kernel of grain from separate teruma remains, and a small portion of the produce must
the entire crop, the Sages instituted a recommended measure: be separated before the produce may be eaten.

Perek VIII
Daf 106 Amud b
background
– ‫ ִקידּ ו ּׁש יָ ַדיִ ם וְ ַרגְ ַליִ ם ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬,‫ַעד ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרק‬ he must pour on the area extending until the joint.bh In sanctifying
Until the joint – ‫עד ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרק‬:ַ
‫ וְ ָכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשחֹוצֵ ץ ִ ּב ְט ִב ָילה‬,‫ַעד ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרק‬ the hands and feet in the Temple before the service, he must pour
the water until another joint, where the palm meets the wrist. And
,‫ילת יָ ַדיִ ם ְלח ו ִּּלין‬ ַ ‫ַ ּב גּ וּף – חֹוצֵ ץ ִ ּבנְ ִט‬
any item that is considered to interpose between one’s skin and
.‫ו ְּב ִקידּ ו ּׁש יָ ַדיִ ם וְ ַרגְ ַליִ ם ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬ the water with regard to immersion of the bodyh in a ritual bath,
disqualifying the immersion, likewise interposes with regard to
washing the hands for eating non-sacred food and with regard to
sanctification of the hands and feet in the Temple.h

– ‫ ַעד ָּכאן‬,‫ ַעד ָּכאן – ְלחו ִּּלין‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב‬ Rav said this halakha to his students while indicating with his hand
‫ ַעד ָּכאן – ֵ ּבין‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬.‫ִל ְתרו ָּמה‬ the joints to which the baraita is referring: One washes until here,
the second joint of the fingers, for non-sacred food,n and until
‫ וְ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬.‫ ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬,‫ְלחו ִּּלין ֵ ּבין ִל ְתרו ָּמה‬
there, the third joint, where the fingers join the palm, for teruma.
,‫ ַעד ָּכאן – ֵ ּבין ְלחו ִּּלין ֵ ּבין ִל ְתרו ָּמה‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ And Shmuel disagreed and said: One washes until here both for
.‫ְלקו ָּּלא‬ eating non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more strin-
Joints of the hand
gent location, the third joint where the fingers join the palm. And
Rav Sheshet said: Until here both for the consumption of non-
notes
sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more lenient location,
For non-sacred food – ‫לחו ִּּלין‬:ְ The dispute here the second joint.
between Rav and Shmuel is referring to the first waters,
the washing of the hands before a meal. With regard to
halakha
the final waters, the washing of the hands after a meal,
the halakha is that one is obligated to wash only until Until the joint – ‫עד ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרק‬:ַ Whoever partakes of teruma, even or washes them (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Sefer Mikvaot 11:2; Shulĥan
the second joint of the fingers (Rashba; Shulĥan Arukh, fruit that is teruma, must wash his hands, regardless of whether Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 161:1).
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 181:4). The later commentaries explain that his hands are ritually impure (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot
And with regard to sanctification of the hands and feet in the
since the entire purpose of this washing is to remove the Teruma 11:7).
Temple – ‫ו ְּב ִקידּ ו ּׁש יָ ַדיִ ם וְ ַרגְ ַליִ ם ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬: Any item that interposes
residue of food and the Sodomite salt it might contain, And any item that is considered to interpose with regard to with regard to ritual immersion likewise interposes with regard
one need wash only those areas of the hand where such immersion of the body, etc. – ‫וְ ָכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשחֹוצֵ ץ ִ ּב ְט ִב ָילה ַ ּב ּגוּף וכו׳‬: to the sanctification of the hands and feet (Rambam Sefer Avoda,
residue is generally found (Magen Avraham). Any item that interposes with regard to ritual immersion also Hilkhot Biat HaMikdash 5:16).
interposes with regard to the hands, whether one immerses them

170 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 106b . ‫ףד‬ ‫וק‬: ‫׳ח קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ימנָ א ַק ֵּמ‬ ְ ‫ ֲהוָ ה ָק ֵא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַ ּבר ֶה ְדיָ א‬ Bar Hedya said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami, and he said:
One washes until here both for non-sacred food and for teruma, A person may wash both of his hands in the morning
‫ ַעד ָּכאן – ֵ ּבין‬:‫ וַ ֲא ַמר‬,‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬ and stipulate with regard to them throughout the entire
indicating the more stringent location, the third joint. And do
‫ וְ ָלא‬.‫ ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬,‫ְלחו ִּּלין ֵ ּבין ִל ְתרו ָּמה‬ day – ‫יהן ָּכל ַהּיֹום ּכו ּּלֹו‬
ֶ ‫נֹוטל ָא ָדם ֶאת ׁ ְש ֵּתי יָ ָדיו ׁ ַש ֲח ִרית ו ַּמ ְתנֶ ה ֲע ֵל‬:
ֵ
not say that Rabbi Ami acted this way only because he is a priest One may wash his hands in the morning and stipulate with
,‫ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ כ ֵֹהן הוּא‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֵּת‬ and acted stringently to avoid confusing teruma and non-sacred regard to them that he may eat during the entire day on the
‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ישא ַ ּבר ְ ּב ֵר‬ָ ׁ ָ‫דְּ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי ְמי‬ food. This cannot be, as Rabbi Meyasha, son of the son of Rabbi basis of that washing. It is permitted to do so even when
:‫ וַ ֲא ַמר‬,‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י – הוּא ִליוַ אי‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ Yehoshua ben Levi, is a Levite, and yet he too said: Until here one is not in exigent circumstances, provided he does not
both for non-sacred food and for teruma, indicating the more lose focus from preventing them from getting dirty by
,‫ַעד ָּכאן – ֵ ּבין ְלחו ִּּלין ֵ ּבין ִל ְתרו ָּמה‬ touching filthy objects. Since the washing of the hands is a
.‫ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬ stringent location.
mitzva by rabbinic law, the halakha is lenient in this regard
(Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:17; Shulĥan Arukh,
‫נֹוטל ָא ָדם ֶאת ׁ ְש ֵּתי יָ ָדיו‬ ֵ :‫ § ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav says: A person may wash both of his hands in the morning Oraĥ Ĥayyim 164:1 and in the comment of Rema, and Mishna
.‫יהן ָּכל ַהּיֹום ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ ֶ ‫ ׁ ַש ֲח ִרית ו ַּמ ְתנֶ ה ֲע ֵל‬and stipulate with regard to them that he may eat on the basis of Berura there).
that washing throughout the entire day,h provided he guards his
‫ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַר ִ ּבי ָא ִבינָ א ִל ְבנֵי‬
hands from dirt and ritual impurity. It is likewise related that Rabbi
Avina said to the inhabitants of

Perek VIII
Daf 107 Amud a
halakha
‫ דְּ ָלא‬,‫ ְּכגֹון ַא ּתוּן‬:‫ּ ַפ ְק ָתא דַּ ֲע ָרבֹות‬ the valley of Aravot [pakta da’aravot],l where there was a shortage From a person’s force – ‫מ ּכ ַֹח ַ ּג ְב ָרא‬:ִ The water for the wash-
‫ ְמ ׁש ּו יְ ַדיְ יכ ּו ִמ ַ ּצ ְפ ָרא‬,‫יחי ְלכ ּו ַמּיָ א‬
ִ ‫ׁ ְש ִכ‬ of water: People such as you, for whom water is scarce, should ing of the hands must be poured by the direct action of a
wash your hands in the morning and stipulate with regard to person. Therefore, if one pours water into a channel from
‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫וְ ַא ְתנ ּו ֲע ַליְ יה ּו ְלכו ָּּלא‬
them for the entire day. Some say that Rabbi Avina maintains that where it flows and irrigates his field, he may not place his
‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬,‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ַהדְּ ָחק – ִאין‬:‫דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ in exigent circumstances, yes, one should act in this manner, but hands into the channel for the water to flow on them, as
.‫ ו ְּפ ִליגָ א דְּ ַרב‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת ַהדְּ ָחק – ָלא‬ when one is not in exigent circumstances, he should not do so. And the force of the one who originally poured the water has
stopped. If he places his hands close to the spot where the
‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַעת‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫וְ ִא‬ according to this explanation, Rabbi Avina disagrees with the opin- water is poured, the washing is effective, even if he does not
.‫ וְ ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ַרב‬,‫ַהדְּ ָחק נַ ִמי‬ ion of Rav, who permitted this practice to all. And some say that position them directly under the flow. This is because the
Rabbi Avina ruled that one may do so even when not in exigent water is considered to flow from the person’s action while it
circumstances, and Rabbi Avina’s opinion is identical to that of Rav. is near the source of the flow. If one immersed his hands in
this channel they are not considered purified as a result of
– ‫ ַהאי ָא ִר ָיתא דְּ ַד ָּל ֵאי‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ Rav Pappa said: With regard to this irrigation channel [arita immersing one’s hands in a ritual bath or spring (see 106a),
‫ דְּ ָלא ָאת ּו‬,‫נֹוט ִלין ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬
ְ ‫ֵאין‬ dedalla’ei], into which water is poured from a river using buckets, as the water is considered drawn and is therefore invalid for
and which then transports the water to the fields, one may not wash use as a ritual bath (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot
,‫ וְ ִאי ִמ ְיק ַרב ְלגַ ֵ ּבי דָּ וְ ָלא‬.‫ִמ ּכ ַֹח ַ ּג ְב ָרא‬ 6:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 159:7).
his hands in it. The reason is that this water does not come from a
ְ – ‫דְּ ָק ָאת ּו ִמ ּכ ַֹח ַ ּג ְב ָרא‬
‫נֹוט ִלין ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו‬ person’s force,h i.e., it is not poured on the hands by a direct act, as A vessel that is perforated to enable liquid to enter – ‫ְּכ ִלי‬
.‫ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ it moves by force of the current in the channel. But if one draws his ּ ַ ‫ש ּנ‬:
‫ִיקב ְ ּבכֹונֵס ַמ ׁ ְש ֶקה‬ ֶ ׁ A vessel with a hole large enough to
hands near the bucket itself, in such a manner that the water poured enable liquid to enter if it is placed upon a liquid is no longer
defined as a vessel. One may not use this vessel for washing
on his hands comes from a person’s force before it begins to flow of the hands, even if it contains a quarter-log from below
in the channel, then one may wash his hands with it. the hole (see Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:11
and Kesef Mishne there; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 159:1
‫ ֵמ ַילף‬,‫וְ ִאי ְ ּבזִ ַיע דָּ וְ ָלא ְ ּבכֹונֵס ַמ ׁ ְש ֶקה‬ And if the bucket in which the water is drawn from the river is and Taz there).
‫ וְ ָא ַמר‬.‫ַליְ ֵיפי – ו ַּמ ְט ִ ּביל ָ ּב ּה ֶאת ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ perforated with a hole large enough to enable liquid to enter the
vesseln when it is placed in the river, the presence of this hole con-
‫ִיקב ְ ּבכֹונֵס ַמ ׁ ְש ֶקה – ֵאין‬ ּ ַ ‫ ְּכ ִלי ׁ ֶש ּנ‬:‫ָר ָבא‬ notes
nects the water in the channel to the water in the river, as they touch Large enough to enable liquid to enter the vessel – ‫ְ ּבכֹונֵס‬
.‫נֹוט ִלין ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬
ְ through that hole. And therefore, one may immerse his hands in ‫מ ׁ ְש ֶקה‬:ַ Even if a vessel has a hole in it through which liquid
that channel as he would in the river itself. Yet the perforated bucket seeps out, if the hole is not large enough to allow water to
is invalid for the washing of the hands by pouring, since it is no come in, it is still classified as a vessel.
longer considered a vessel. As Rava says: With regard to a vessel
that is perforated with a hole large enough to enable liquid to
enter,h one may not wash his hands with it.

language
Valley of Aravot [pakta da’aravot] – ‫פ ְק ָתא דַּ ֲע ָרבֹות‬:ַ ּ The word sources of water. Although it was possible to earn money by
pakta is another form of bakta, meaning valley or plain. From selling water in these valleys, one was able to earn only a small
other sources, it is known that people worked and lived in such profit in the process.
places, despite the fact that they did not have ready access to

 ‫זק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 107a 171

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫יעית – ֵאין‬ ִ ‫ ְּכ ִלי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּבֹו ְר ִב‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ And Rava says: With regard to a vessel that does not have a
Quarter-log – ‫יעית‬ִ ‫ר ִב‬:ְ The quarter-log is used as the basis quarter-logb of water in it, one may not wash his hands with it.
for various liquid measurements. Its precise measure is a :‫ וְ ָה ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬,‫ ִאינִי‬.‫נֹוט ִלין ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬
ְ
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rava say: With regard
matter of dispute, with opinions ranging from 80 to 150 cc. ‫נֹוט ִלין‬
ְ ‫יעית – ֵאין‬ ִ ‫ְּכ ִלי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ֲחזִ יק ְר ִב‬
to a vessel that cannot contain a quarter-logh of water, one may
Nehar Pekod – ‫נְ ַהר ּ ְפקֹוד‬: Nehar Pekod, a city on the Tigris ‫ ָהא ַמ ֲחזִ יק – ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב‬.‫ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ not wash his hands with it. It may be consequently inferred that
River slightly northwest of Meḥoza, was a commercial center !‫יה‬ּ ‫דְּ ֵלית ֵ ּב‬ as long as the vessel can contain a quarter-log, one may use it even
known for its shrewd and aggressive businessmen. Nehar
Pekod was also one of the most ancient Jewish cities in if it does not currently have a quarter-log in it.
Babylonia, possibly dating back to the time of the exile of
Jeconiah during the First Temple period. Prior to the bar .‫ ָהא – ִל ְת ֵרי‬,‫ ָהא – ְל ַחד‬,‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this former statement,
Kokheva rebellion, Rabbi Akiva visited the city and Rabbi ,‫נֹוט ִלין ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם ְל ֶא ָחד‬
ְ ‫יעית‬ִ ‫ ֵמי ְר ִב‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬requiring a quarter-log of actual water, is referring to washing for
Ĥananya, son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, tried to one person, whereas that latter statement, requiring only that the
.‫וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִל ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬
use that opportunity to establish a rabbinic court in exile vessel have a capacity of a quarter-log, is referring to washing for
with the power to proclaim leap years. Even following the two people. If a vessel originally contained a quarter-log of water,
talmudic period, Nehar Pekod remained an important Torah then even if less than that amount remains after one person has
center, and some of the Sages who lived there became
washed his hands, a second individual may use the remainder,
heads of yeshivot and ge’onim.
which is considered fit based on the water’s original volume. As it
Huzal – ‫הוּצָ ל‬: Huzal was a small city in Babylonia, south of is taught in a baraita: With a quarter-log of water, one may wash
the city of Neharde’a. This was a very old settlement, and
the hands of one individual, and even those of two.
apparently the Jews that resided there belonged to the
exiled tribe of Binyamin. In Huzal there was a famous syna-
‫ ָק ְפ ִדית ּו‬:‫ימר‬ ָ ‫יה ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ְל ַא ֵמ‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rav Sheshet said to Ameimar: Are you particular about the
gogue that was described as a place where the Divine Spirit
ּ ‫ ַא ָּמנָ א? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬vessel used for washing hands, that it be wholly intact? Ameimar
n
rests. A few Sages are known to have lived in that city. ‫ ַא ֲחזו ָּתא? ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ִאין‬:‫יה‬
said to him: Yes. Rav Sheshet further inquired: Are you also
.‫ ִאין‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַא ׁ ּ ִשיעו ָּרא? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ ִאין‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ֵל‬
particular about the appearance of the water, that it be normal?
Ameimar again said to him: Yes. Rav Sheshet further asked: Are
you particular about the measure of water, that it be no less than
one quarter-log? Ameimar said to him: Yes.

‫ ַא ָּמנָ א‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ Some say that this is what Ameimar said to him: We are particu-
‫ ַא ׁ ּ ִשיעו ָּרא – ָלא‬,‫וְ ַא ֲחזו ָּתא – ָק ְפ ִדינַ ן‬ lar about the wholeness of the vessel and about the water’s
appearance,n but we are not particular about the water’s mea-
‫נֹוט ִלין ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬
ְ ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ ֵמי ְר ִב‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ָק ְפ ִדינַן‬
sure, as it is taught in a baraita: With a quarter-log of water one
.‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִל ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬,‫ְל ֶא ָחד‬ may wash the hands of one individual, and even those of two.
The baraita indicates that there is no need for a quarter-log for each
individual.

‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָק ָאת ּו‬,‫ וְ ָלא ִהיא‬The Gemara notes: And it is not so, i.e., one cannot derive from
.‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְשיָ ֵרי ָט ֳה ָרה‬the baraita that the measure of water is immaterial. It is different
there because there the water comes from the remainder of a
measure initially sufficient for purity. If there was not initially a
quarter-log, the water is unfit for even one person.
Location of Nehar Pekod and Huzal
‫נַט ָלא ַ ּבת‬ְ ‫ ַא ְת ֵקין ַרב יַ ֲעקֹב ִמ ְּנ ַהר ּ ְפקֹוד‬The Gemara relates: Rav Ya’akov from Nehar Pekodb prepared
‫ ַא ְת ֵקין ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ְ ּבהוּצָ ל ּכוּזָ א‬.‫יע ָתא‬ָ ‫ ְר ִב‬a glass vessel that could contain a quarter-log of water for
halakha washing his hands. Rav Ashi in Huzalb likewise prepared an
A vessel that cannot contain a quarter-log – ‫ְּכ ִלי ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ֲחזִ יק‬ .‫יע ָתא‬ָ ‫ַ ּבת ְר ִב‬
earthenware vessel that could contain a quarter-log.
‫יעית‬
ִ ‫ר ִב‬:ְ The vessel used for washing of the hands must have
the capacity of a quarter-log, in accordance with the opinion
of Rava (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:12; Shulĥan
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 159:1).

notes
Are you particular about the vessel that it be wholly intact – or be dirty from other dyes, soot, smoke, or certain other sub-
‫ק ְפ ִדית ּו ַא ָּמנָ א‬:ָ The ge’onim explain that the reason the Sages stances that affect the appearance of water when mixed with it.
required the washing of the hands to be performed with a But if the appearance of the water was changed by dust or mud,
vessel is that they modeled it after the ritual of the waters of the water is not invalidated for washing of the hands (Zevaĥim
purification of the red heifer and the sanctification of the hands 22a). The commentaries suggest that this is because water in
and feet for the Temple service. Just as a vessel must be used its natural place is often mingled with dust and mud (Shulĥan
for the waters of purification and the sanctification of the hands Arukh HaRav). Furthermore, if one leaves that water alone, the
and feet, the same applies to the washing of the hands (Ram- mud and dust will eventually settle to the bottom of the vessel
ban, citing Rav Aĥa of Shavĥa and Halakhot Gedolot). and the water will once again become clear. Consequently, this
change in appearance is merely temporary (Peri Megadim; see
We are particular about the vessel and about its appearance – also Mishna Berura).
‫וְ ַא ֲחזו ָּתא ָק ְפ ִדינַן‬: The water must not have the appearance of ink,

172 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 107a . ‫ףד‬ ‫זק‬. ‫׳ח קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
– ‫ ְמגו ַּפת ָח ִבית ׁ ֶש ִּת ְּקנָ ּה‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ And Rava says: If one prepared the stopper of a barrelb for use as
a vessel by hollowing it out until it contained a quarter-log, one may Cloth [mappa] – ‫מ ּ ָפה‬:ַ From the Latin mappa, referring to
:‫ ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬.‫נֹוט ִלין ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬
ְ a piece of cloth used for cleaning and covering objects or
wash his hands with it, even though it was not originally designated
ְ – ‫ְמגו ַּפת ָח ִבית ׁ ֶש ִּת ְּקנָ ּה‬
‫נֹוט ִלין ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה‬ as a standard or flag.
for this function. This ruling is also taught in a baraita: If one pre-
ְ – ‫ישה ׁ ֶש ִּת ְּקנָן‬
‫נֹוט ִלין‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵח ֶמת ו ְּכ ִפ‬.‫ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ pared the stopper of a barrel for this purpose, one may wash his
Personalities
‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי‬,‫ ַ ׂשק וְ קו ּ ָּפה‬.‫ֵמ ֶהם ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ hands with it. Likewise, with regard to a ĥemetb and a kefisha, types
Rabbi Tzadok – ‫ר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק‬:ַ The reference is apparently to
.‫נֹוט ִלין ֵמ ֶהם ַלּיָ ַדיִ ם‬
ְ ‫ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַק ְ ּב ִלים – ֵאין‬ of leather wineskins, that one prepared for this purpose, one may Rabbi Tzadok the priest, who in his later years, at the time
wash his hands with them, as they were initially designed to hold of the destruction of the Temple, was one of the greatest
liquids. But with regard to a sackb and a basket,b even if they can Sages of the Jewish people. It is said that he fasted fre-
contain water, one may not wash his hands with them, as no sack quently in prayer that the Temple not be destroyed, during
or basket is designed to hold water, and most cannot. the forty years prior to its destruction. The leader of that
generation, Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Zakkai, held Rabbi Tzadok
‫ ַמה ּו ֶל ֱאכֹול ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָפה? ִמי‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִא‬A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with in such high regard that he requested from the emperor
Vespasian to procure a special doctor to care for him, as he
ִ ׁ ְ‫ ָחי‬regard to eating with a cloth [mappa] on one’s hands, rather than
l
?‫ אֹו ָלא‬,‫ישינַן דִּ ְל ָמא נָ גַ ע‬ had become emaciated by his fasts. Several sources attest to
washing them to purify them? Are we concerned that perhaps he
Rabbi Tzadok’s expertise in engineering and mathematics.
will touch the food with his hands, or not? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, was one of the most
prominent Sages of the subsequent generation, and was
‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָּנ ְתנ ּו לֹו ְל ַר ִ ּבי צָ דֹוק‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a mishna (Sukka respected in the house of the Nasi. Rabbi Elazar often cites
,‫נֹוטלֹו ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָפה‬
ְ – ‫אֹוכל ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ְּכ ֵביצָ ה‬ ֶ 26b): And when they gave Rabbi Tzadokp on the festival of Sukkot customs of his father’s house and of the household of the
less than an egg-bulkb of food, he took the food in a cloth, and he Nasi.
‫ וְ ֵאין ְמ ָב ֵר ְך‬,‫אֹוכלֹו ח ּו ץ ַל ּסו ָּּכה‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬
ate it outside the sukka, as he held one is not obligated to eat food
‫ ָהא ְּכ ֵביצָ ה – ָ ּב ֵעי‬,‫ ַמאי ָלאו‬.‫ַא ֲח ָריו‬ of this amount in a sukka. And he did not recite a blessing after
!‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם‬
ִ eating it, since less than an egg-bulk does not satisfy the verse: “And
you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuter-
onomy 8:10). What, is it not to be inferred that consequently, if one
eats an egg-bulk, it requires washing of the hands, even if one uses
a cloth?

‫ דִּ ְל ָמא – ָהא ְּכ ֵביצָ ה ָ ּב ֵעי סו ָּּכה ו ָּב ֵעי‬The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one can conclude from that
.‫ ְ ּב ָר ָכה‬mishna only that consequently, if one eats an egg-bulk he needs to
do so in a sukka and needs to recite a blessing after eating; but he
can still use a cloth instead of washing his hands.

‫יה ְל ַרב‬
ּ ‫ דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַא ׁ ְש ְּכ ֵח‬,‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from an incident where
:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫ דְּ ָק ָא ֵכיל ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָפה‬Shmuel found Rav eating with a cloth rather than washing his
hands, and Shmuel said to him:

background
Stopper of a barrel – ‫מגו ַּפת ָח ִבית‬:ְ The stopper of a wine barrel Ĥemet – ‫ח ֶמת‬:ֵ The ĥemet was a leather vessel used for contain-
was generally made of earthenware and placed in the nar- ing liquids, i.e., a wineskin. The ĥemet, which was light enough
row mouth of the barrel. This stopper was effectively a vessel to be carried on one’s back, was generally made from the hide
in its own right. When wine was transported from one place of an animal’s legs. The animal was skinned carefully, after
to another or placed in storage for an extended period, mud which the holes of the legs were sewn up. A ĥemet served for
would be pasted around the stopper to seal the mouth of the the extended storage of liquids and for convenient drinking.
barrel entirely. In order to open the barrel they would break
Sack – ‫שק‬:ׂ ַ The sack mentioned in the Bible and by the Sages
the mud cover.
is generally coarse woven from goat hair. This term is used
whether the woven article is in the shape of a sack or some
other item. Since the hair of goats was usually black, sacks were
typically black as well.
Basket [kuppa] – ‫קו ּ ָּפה‬: A kuppa is a vessel that was generally
used for the storage of valuable items. It came in various shapes,
e.g., a small cupboard or a box, as well as a basket in which
objects can be safeguarded.
Egg-bulk – ‫ביצָ ה‬:ּ ֵ The egg-bulk, i.e., the volume of the average
egg of a chicken with its shell, is one of the most common
measurements in the Talmud and is used for rulings in various
areas of halakha. The egg-bulk is the basis for many measure-
ments, including the kav, se’a, ephah, and kor. Opinions as to
Sketch of an earthenware barrel the size of an egg-bulk range from 58 to 100 cc. Man carrying jug fashioned from a whole hide

 ‫זק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 107a 173

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VIII
Daf 107 Amud b
notes
.‫ דַּ ְע ִּתי ְק ָצ ָרה ָע ַלי‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ָע ְב ִדין ְּכ ֵדין? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Do we act in this manner? Rav said to Shmuel: I did wash my
Cut [belam] a slice of meat for Rav Hamnuna – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ַלם ֵל‬ hands, but as I am delicate I do not wish to hold food in my bare
‫או ְּמצָ א‬: The early commentaries explain that although
the Gemara states that Rav Huna bar Seĥora gave Rav
hands; therefore I covered them with a cloth.
Hamnuna a slice of meat, he actually gave him bread as
well. Otherwise, for the consumption of meat without ‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ִחינְ ה ּו ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬,‫ִּכי ָס ֵליק ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ The Gemara further relates: When Rabbi Zeira left Babylonia
bread, there would have been no obligation of washing :‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי דְּ ָק ָא ְכ ִלי ִ ּב ְב ָל ֵאי ֲח ָמתֹות‬ for Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi eating
the hands (Tosafot; Rashba). Some later commentaries bread while covering their hands with worn pieces of wineskins,
contend that the text should read balas, mixed, i.e., he
‫יטע ּו ִ ּב ְד ַרב‬ ְ ‫ותיְ יכ ּו ִל‬ ַ ָ‫ְּת ֵרי ַ ּג ְב ֵרי ַר ְב ְר ֵבי ְּכו‬
rather than washing them. Rabbi Zeira said to them: Could two
gave him a mixture of meat and bread (Ya’avetz; Gra). .‫ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל! ָהא ״דַּ ְע ִּתי ְק ָצ ָרה״ ָק ָא ַמר‬ great men such as yourselves err with regard to the incident of
Rav and Shmuel related above? After all, Rav said to Shmuel: I
halakha am using a cloth because I am delicate; he did wash his hands
A person may not place a slice of bread into the mouth beforehand.
of the attendant, etc. – ‫תֹוך ּ ִפיו ׁ ֶשל‬
ְ ‫ל ֹא יִ ֵּתן ָא ָדם ּ ְפרו ָּסה ְל‬
‫ש ָּמ ׁש וכו׳‬:
ַ ׁ It is prohibited to give a slice of bread to an
‫יה ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב ַּת ְח ִל ָיפא ַ ּבר‬ ּ ‫יט ֵת‬ ְ ‫ִא ׁ ְש ַּת ִמ‬ The Gemara notes: It escaped Rabbi Zeira’s mind that Rav
attendant at a meal, unless one knows that the attendant
has washed his hands. Later authorities explain that this ‫אֹוכ ֵלי‬
ְ ‫ ִה ִּתיר ּו ַמ ּ ָפה ְל‬:‫ימי ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ִ ‫ֲא ִב‬ Taĥlifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: The Sages permitted
the consumption of bread while the hands are wrapped with a
concern that the recipient might not have washed his ,‫אֹוכ ֵלי ְט ָהרֹות‬ְ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ִה ִּתיר ּו ַמ ּ ָפה ְל‬,‫ְתרו ָּמה‬
hands applies only to an attendant, as he is occupied, cloth rather than washed, specifically to priests who partake of
but no one else is suspected of neglecting the obligation.
.ּ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי וְ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ּכ ֲֹהנִים ָהוו‬ teruma, as they are careful not to touch the bread with their hands.
Some are stringent even with regard to others (Rambam But they did not permit the use of a cloth in this manner to non-
Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:19; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ priests, even those who are particular to eat non-sacred food in a
Ĥayyim 169:1 and Magen Avraham there).
state of ritual purity, as they do not maintain the same level of
And the attendant recites a blessing over each and diligence as priests. And since Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were
every cup – ‫וְ ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָּמ ׁש ְמ ָב ֵר ְך ַעל ָּכל ּכֹוס וָ כֹוס‬: Although an priests, it was permitted for them to eat with a cloth.
attendant standing before diners should not eat with
them, it is proper practice to place in his mouth some of
each dish so that he does not suffer from watching others
ְ‫ צָ ִריך‬,‫אֹוכל ֵמ ֲח ַמת ַמ ֲא ִכיל‬
ֵ :ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one eats by means of
eat. If he is given wine, he must recite a blessing over each ‫ דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א‬,‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם אֹו ל ֹא? ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ִ another feeding him, without himself touching the food, does he
and every cup he receives, as he does not know how many need to wash hands before eating or not? The Gemara suggests:
,‫יה דְּ ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א‬
ּ ‫חֹורה ֲהוָ ה ָק ֵאי ַק ֵּמ‬
ָ ‫ַ ּבר ְס‬
cups will be given to him (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Come and hear proof from the following incident where Rav
Berakhot 7:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 169:3). ‫ ִאי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יה או ְּמצָ א וְ ָא ֵכיל‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ַלם ֵל‬ Huna bar Seĥora was standing before Rav Hamnuna and serv-
. ְ‫ ָלא ָס ֵפינָ א ָלך‬,‫ָלאו דְּ ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א ַא ְּת‬ ing him. Rav Huna bar Seĥora cut a slice of meat for Rav Ham-
Where there is an important person, etc. – ‫יכא ָא ָדם‬ ָּ ‫דְּ ִא‬
‫ח ׁשוּב וכו׳‬:ָ If an attendant is serving at a meal at which nunan and placed it in his mouth, and he ate it. Rav Huna bar
an important person is present, so that the attendant is Seĥora said to Rav Hamnuna: Were you not Rav Hamnuna, I
confident he will receive all the food he requires, he does would not feed you in this fashion.
not recite a blessing over every slice of bread he is given.
If there is no important person present, then the attendant ?‫ ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ זָ ִהיר וְ ָלא נָ גַ ע‬,‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא‬The Gemara infers from this episode: What is the reason that it
must recite a blessing over each and every slice, as is the
case with regard to cups of wine (Rambam Sefer Ahava, .‫יק ָרא‬ ּ ‫ ו ָּמ ׁ ֵשי יְ ֵד‬,‫ דְּ זָ ִריז ָק ֵדים‬,‫ ָלא‬was permitted for Rav Hamnuna to eat in such a manner? Is it not
ּ ָ ‫יה ֵמ ִע‬
Hilkhot Berakhot 7:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 169:3).
because he was careful not to touch the food with his hands?
This indicates that someone may be fed even without washing his
hands. The Gemara rejects this: No, one can say that he was
vigilant and went ahead and washed his hands at the outset.

‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ֲא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from that which
,‫תֹוך ּ ִפיו ׁ ֶשל ׁ ַש ָּמ ׁש‬ ְ ‫יִ ֵּתן ָא ָדם ּ ְפרו ָּסה ְל‬ Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: A person may not place a slice
of bread into the mouth of the attendanth serving at a meal
ֵ ‫ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן‬
‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָּמ ׁש‬,‫יֹוד ַע ּבֹו ׁ ֶש ּנ ַָטל יָ ָדיו‬
unless he knows that he has washed his hands. And it was also
‫ וְ ֵאינֹו ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל‬,‫ְמ ָב ֵרךְ ַעל ָּכל ּכֹוס וָ כֹוס‬ stated that the attendant recites a blessing over each and every
ְ‫ ְמ ָב ֵרך‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ָּכל ּ ְפרו ָּסה ו ְּפרו ָּסה‬ cuph of wine presented to him at a meal. This is because he never
.‫ַעל ָּכל ּ ְפרו ָּסה ו ְּפרו ָּסה‬ knows if he will receive another cup, and he cannot intend that
his initial blessing apply to a cup he does not know he will receive.
But he does not recite a blessing over each and every slice of
bread given to him. And Rabbi Yoĥanan says that he must recite
a blessing over each and every slice he receives.

‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ָ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא דְּ ַרב וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬Rav Pappa said: Granted, the apparent contradiction between
,‫יכא ָא ָדם ָח ׁשוּב‬ ָּ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ִא‬,‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬the opinions of Rav and Rabbi Yoĥanan is not difficult; one can
resolve it by saying that this statement of Rav, that the attendant
.‫יכא ָא ָדם ָח ׁשוּב‬ ָּ ‫ָהא – דְּ ֵל‬
need not recite a blessing for every slice of bread, is referring to a
case where there is an important personh at the meal. Since the
attendant is confident that the important person will ensure the
attendant receives enough to eat, his initial blessing applies to each
slice he receives. And that statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan is referring
to a meal where there is no important person. Since the atten-
dant is not confident that he will receive another slice, he must
recite a new blessing whenever he does receive one.
174 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 107b . ‫ףד‬ ‫זק‬: ‫׳ח קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
ֵ ‫״א ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן‬
‫יֹוד ַע‬ ֶ ‫ ִמ ָּכל ָמקֹום ָהא ָק ָא ַמר‬In any case, Rav first says that one should not place a slice into the
Whether a cup is in the attendant’s hand, etc. – ‫ֵ ּבין‬
.‫ דִּ ְט ִריד‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ּנ ַָטל יָ ָדיו״! ׁ ָשאנֵי ׁ ַש ָּמ ׁש‬attendant’s mouth unless he knows that he has washed his hands. ‫ש ַה ּכֹוס ְ ּביָ דֹו וכו׳‬:
ֶ ׁ With regard to any food brought to
This indicates that one who is fed by another must wash his hands. the table that has an appetizing aroma, a portion of it
The Gemara responds: The case of an attendant is different, as he must be given to the attendant without delay. It is an
is occupied with his duties and may touch the food inadvertently. attribute of piety to give the attendant some of each
Therefore, he specifically may not eat without washing his hands. and every dish as soon as it is brought. Nevertheless,
one should not give him food while a cup is in his
‫ ֵ ּבין‬,‫ ל ֹא יִ ֵּתן ָא ָדם ּ ְפרו ָּסה ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָּמ ׁש‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ § The Sages taught in a baraita: A person who is a guest may hand or the host’s hand (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim
not give a slice of bread from the meal in front of him to the atten- 169:1).
‫ׁ ֶש ַה ּכֹוס ְ ּביָ דֹו ֵ ּבין ׁ ֶש ַה ּכֹוס ְ ּביָ דֹו ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל‬
dant serving, whether a cup is in the attendant’s handh or a cup is A woman may rinse one hand in water and give
.‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא יֶ ֱא ַרע דְּ ַבר ַק ְל ָק ָלה ַ ּב ְּסעו ָּדה‬,‫ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ bread to her minor son – ‫יחה ֶאת יָ ָד ּה ַא ַחת‬ ָ ‫ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ְמ ִד‬
in the host’s hand, lest a mishap occur at the meal. The host might
‫נָטל יָ ָדיו – ָאסוּר ִל ֵּיתן ּ ְפרו ָּסה‬ ַ ‫וְ ַה ׁ ּ ַש ָּמ ׁש ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬ become angry or distracted by the concern that there will not ‫נֹותנֶ ת ּ ַפת ִל ְבנָ ּה ָק ָטן‬
ֶ ְ‫ב ַּמיִ ם ו‬:
ּ ַ A woman may wash one
.‫ְלתֹוךְ ּ ִפיו‬ hand with water on Yom Kippur and give bread to
remain enough food for his guests, and the cup will fall from his
her child, in accordance with the opinion of Rabban
hand. If the cup is in the attendant’s hand, he might drop it while Shimon ben Gamliel (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot
accepting food from the guest. And with regard to an attendant Shevitat Asor 3:2).
who has not washed his hands, it is prohibited to place a slice of
One who eats by means of another feeding him
bread into his mouth. needs to wash his hands – ‫יך‬ ְ ‫אֹוכל ֵמ ֲח ַמת ַמ ֲא ִכיל צָ ִר‬
ֵ
‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם‬:
ִ One who is fed by another must wash his
‫יך נְ ִט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם‬
ְ ‫ צָ ִר‬,‫ ַמ ֲא ִכיל‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ § ִא‬A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does one who feeds hands before eating, despite the fact that he does
? ְ‫ אֹו ֵאינֹו צָ ִריך‬another need to wash his hands, since his hands are touching the not touch the food. The same applies to one who
food? Or perhaps he does not need to wash his hands, as he himself eats with a fork. The Rema writes that it is prohibited
is not eating. to feed someone who has not washed his hands, due
to the prohibition (Leviticus 19:14): “You shall not put
a stumbling block before the blind” (Rambam Sefer
ֶ ּ ׁ ‫ דְּ ָתנֵי דְּ ֵבי ְמ‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬
‫ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן‬,‫נַשה‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma
Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 6:18; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
‫יחה ֶאת יָ ָד ּה ַא ַחת‬ ָ ‫ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ְמ ִד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ from that which the school of Menashe taught that Rabban Shi- Ĥayyim 163:2).
mon ben Gamliel says: A woman may rinse one hand in water on
‫ ָא ְמר ּו ָע ָליו ַעל‬.‫נֹותנֶ ת ּ ַפת ִל ְבנָ ּה ָק ָטן‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ַ ּב ַּמיִ ם‬ A person may bind meat and cheese in one cloth –
Yom Kippur, so that she does not touch food before she has washed
,‫ׁ ַש ַּמאי ַהּזָ ֵקן ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָרצָ ה ְל ַה ֲא ִכיל ְ ּביָ דֹו ַא ַחת‬ her hands in the morning, and give bread to her minor son,h
‫צֹורר ָא ָדם ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וּגְ ִבינָ ה ְ ּב ִמ ְט ּ ַפ ַחת ַא ַחת‬:
ֵ One may eat meat
and cheese that have come into contact with each
.‫וְ גָ זְ ר ּו ָע ָליו ׁ ֶשּיַ ֲא ִכיל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵּתי יָ ָדיו‬ without concern about violating the prohibition against bathing other, but he must first rinse the place of the con-
on Yom Kippur. They said about Shammai the Elder that he did tact. This is required only if one of the food items was
not want to feed his children with even one hand on Yom Kippur, moist; if both foods were dry then it is not necessary
to avoid having to wash it. But due to concerns about the health even to rinse them. It is permitted to bind them in
and well-being of his children, they decreed that he must feed one cloth, and one need not be concerned that they
might come into contact with each other (Rambam
them with two hands, forcing him to wash both. Apparently one
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:17; Shulĥan
who feeds another must wash his hands, even though he himself is Arukh, Yoreh De’a 91:1 and Shakh there).
not eating.
Two unacquainted guests may eat on one table,
this one meat and that one cheese – ‫ׁ ְשנֵי ַא ְכ ְסנָ ִאין‬
.‫ ָה ָתם ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ִש ְיב ָתא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Abaye said: The reason for the washing there is not on account ‫אֹוכ ִלין ַעל ׁ ֻש ְל ָחן ֶא ָחד זֶ ה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ זֶ ה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה‬:
ְ Although it is
of the food specifically. Rather, it is due to an evil spirit named prohibited to place meat and cheese on the same
Shivta,b who contaminates hands that have not been washed in the table, this applies only if the two diners know each
morning. As long as one washes his hands in the morning, perhaps other, even if they are particular not to eat each other’s
he need not wash them again to feed another. food. By contrast, in the case of two unacquainted
guests it is permitted (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hil-
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ דַּ ֲאבו ּּה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַא ׁ ְש ְּכ ֵח‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the khot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:21; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
De’a 88:2).
‫ ַא ַּמאי ָקא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל דְּ ָקא ָ ּב ֵכי‬ dilemma from the following incident, as Shmuel’s father found the
young Shmuel crying, and said to him: Why are you crying?
:‫ ַא ַּמאי? דַּ ֲא ַמר ִלי‬.‫ָ ּב ֵכית? דְּ ָמ ְחיַ ין ַר ַ ּבאי‬ background
Shmuel replied: Because my teacher struck me. His father asked:
‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָקא ָס ֵפית ִל ְב ַר ִאי וְ ָלא ָמ ׁ ֵשית יְ ֵד‬ Why did he strike you? Shmuel responded: My teacher said to me: Shivta – ‫ש ְיב ָתא‬:
ִ ׁ Rashi states that Shivta is an evil
‫ הוּא ָא ֵכיל וַ ֲאנָ א‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָלא ָמ ׁ ֵשית? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ spirit that rests upon hands that were not washed in
You are feeding my son, but you did not wash your hands. His
the morning. In the Responsa of the Ge’onim, shivta is
!?‫ָמ ׁ ֵשינָ א‬ father asked: And why did you not wash your hands? Shmuel said described as an illness generally found among young
to him: Only he, the teacher’s son, is eating, and I must wash children. According to the latter explanation, it was
my hands? an infectious disease that could be transmitted by
handling food with unclean hands.
‫ימ ָחא‬ְ ‫ ִמ‬,‫יה דְּ ָלא ָ ּג ֵמיר‬
ּ ֵ‫יס ַּתי‬
ְ ‫ ָלא ִמ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Shmuel’s father said to him: Is it not enough that your teacher did
– ‫אֹוכל ֵמ ֲח ַמת ַמ ֲא ִכיל‬ ֵ :‫נַ ִמי ָמ ֵחי! וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬ not learn the halakha properly, that he even strikes you on account language
of his error? One who feeds another need not wash his hands if he Guests [akhsena’in] – ‫א ְכ ְסנָ ִאין‬:ַ From the Greek ξένος,
‫יך‬
ְ ‫ ַמ ֲא ִכיל – ֵאינֹו צָ ִר‬,‫יך נְ ִט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם‬ ְ ‫צָ ִר‬
himself is not eating. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is xenos, meaning a stranger. In the usage of the Sages
.‫נְט ַילת יָ ַדיִ ם‬
ִ that one who eats by means of another feeding him needs to wash as well, its basic meaning is a stranger or visitor, par-
his hands,h even though he does not touch the food. But one who ticularly a guest at an inn or hotel.
feeds another does not need to wash his hands.

‫צֹורר ָא ָדם ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וּגְ ִבינָ ה ְ ּב ִמ ְט ּ ַפ ַחת‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳‬

‫ ַר ָ ּבן‬.‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יְ ה ּו נֹוגְ ִעין זֶ ה ָ ּבזֶ ה‬,‫ַא ַחת‬
mishna A person may bind meat and cheese in one
cloth,h provided that they do not come
into contact with each other. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:
‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ַא ְכ ְסנָ ִאין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ Two unacquainted guests [akhsena’in]l may eat together on one
,‫אֹוכ ִלין ַעל ׁ ֻש ְל ָחן ֶא ָחד זֶ ה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ זֶ ה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה‬
ְ table, this one eating meat and that one eating cheese,h and they
.‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין‬
ְ ׁ ‫וְ ֵאין‬ need not be concerned lest they come to violate the prohibition of
eating meat and milk by partaking of the food of the other.
 ‫זק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 107b 175
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
Baitos – ‫ביְ יתֹוס‬:ּ ַ Baitos is the Greek name Βοηθός,
Boēthos, meaning helper or aide. It may be a transla-
‫גמ׳ וְ ִכי נֹוגֵ ַע זֶ ה ָ ּבזֶ ה ַמאי ָהוֵ י? צֹונֵ ן ְ ּבצֹונֵ ן‬
‫ ֲה ָד ָחה‬,‫ נְ ִהי דִּ ְק ִל ָיפה ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי‬:‫הוּא! ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬
gemara The mishna teaches that one may bind
meat and cheese together in one cloth,
tion of the Hebrew name Ezra.
provided that they do not come into contact with each other.
!‫ ִמי ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי‬The Gemara asks: And if they come into contact with each
other, what of it? It is a case of one cold food in contact with
background
another cold food, and they would not absorb substances from
Shirt [ĥaluk] – ‫חלוּק‬:ָ A ĥaluk is a garment worn
on the upper body whose upper half is divided
one another. Abaye said: Granted that cold foods do not require
[meĥulak] into two. The opening of the ĥaluk was the peeling of the place where they came into contact, as they do
tied together with lacing. not absorb substances from one another. Nevertheless, don’t they
require rinsing in water? The Sages therefore decreed against the
contact of even cold meat and cheese, lest one come to eat them
without rinsing them first.

‫אֹומר ׁ ְשנֵי ַא ְכ ְסנָ ִאין‬

ֵ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ַ״ר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ § The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:
,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ָחנָן ַ ּבר ַא ִמי‬.‫אֹוכ ִלין ַעל ׁשו ְּל ָחן״ וכו׳‬ ְ Two guests may eat together on one table, this one eating meat
and that one eating cheese. Rav Ĥanan bar Ami says that Shmuel
‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו – ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ִּכ ִירין‬:‫ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬
says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the guests do
.‫ ֲא ָבל ַמ ִּכ ִירין זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה – ָאסוּר‬,‫זֶ ה ֶאת זֶ ה‬ not know each other, as they will not eat of each other’s food. But
in a situation where they know each other, it is prohibited for
them to eat together at the same table.
Opening of a ĥaluk
:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬,‫ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ That opinion is also taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben
‫ זֶ ה ָ ּבא‬,‫ׁ ְשנֵי ַא ְכ ְסנָ ִאים ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָא ְרח ּו ְלפוּנְדָּ ק ֶא ָחד‬ Gamliel says: If two guests roomed in one inn, this one coming
from the north and that one coming from the south, this one
,‫יכתֹו‬ָ ‫ זֶ ה ָ ּבא ַ ּב ֲח ִת‬,‫ִמן ַה ָ ּצפֹון וְ זֶ ה ָ ּבא ִמן ַהדָּ רֹום‬
coming with his piece of meat and that one coming with his
‫אֹוכ ִלין ַעל ׁ ֻש ְל ָחן ֶא ָחד זֶ ה‬ ְ – ‫וְ זֶ ה ָ ּבא ִ ּבגְ ִבינָ תֹו‬ cheese, they may eat together on one table, this one eating meat
ְ ׁ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ זֶ ה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה‬
.‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין‬ and that one cheese, and they need not be concerned.

‫יסה ַא ַחת‬ ָ ‫ ְּת ִפ‬.‫יסה ַא ַחת‬ ָ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ָא ְסר ּו ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְת ִפ‬The baraita adds: And the Sages prohibited this practice only if
.‫יסה ַא ַחת‬ ָ ‫ ְּכ ֵעין ְּת ִפ‬:‫ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ? ֶא ָּלא‬they both eat from one parcel. The Gemara adds: Can it enter
your mind that the baraita is actually referring to a case where
they eat from one parcel? This is obviously prohibited. Rather, it
prohibits eating even in a manner as though they were eating from
one parcel, i.e., when the diners are somewhat acquainted with
each other, since neither would mind if the other ate from his food.

‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ַא ִחין‬:‫ימר ַ ּבר ׁ ֶש ֶל ְמיָא ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ § ֲא ַמר ֵל‬It was stated above that if two diners are acquainted with each
ָ ֵ‫יה ַרב י‬
?ּ‫ ַמהו‬,‫ ו ַּמ ְק ּ ִפ ִידין זֶ ה ַעל זֶ ה‬other they may not eat meat and cheese on the same table. Rav
Yeimar bar Shelemya said to Abaye: If these diners are two
brothers, but they are each particular not to let one another eat
of his food, what is the halakha? May they eat separate dishes of
meat and cheese at a single table?

‫ֹאמר ּו ָּכל ַה ְּס ִר ִיקין ֲאסו ִּרין ו ְּס ִר ֵיקי‬

ְ ‫ י‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Abaye said to him: Your question evokes that of Baitos ben Zunin.
.‫ ַ ּביְ יתֹוס מו ָּּת ִרין‬The Sages prohibited the baking of elaborately decorated Syrian
cakes for Passover, lest people tarry in their preparation and the
cakes become leavened. Baitos wished to prepare the cakes in a
way that would not lead to a violation of any prohibition, and yet
the Sages prohibited it, because people will say: All the decorated
Syrian cakes are forbidden, but the Syrian cakes of Baitos l
are permitted? Here too, to avoid confusion, we will not allow
exceptions to the rule.

:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי‬, ְ‫ ו ְּל ַט ֲע ִמיך‬Rav Yeimar responded: But according to your reasoning, one
‫ ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו ֶא ָּלא ָחלוּק ֶא ָחד – מו ָּּתר ְל ַכ ְ ּבסֹו‬may refute that which Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said:
Although the Sages prohibited laundering on the intermediate
:ּ‫ֹאמרו‬ְ ‫ י‬,‫מֹועד‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּבחוּלּ ֹו ׁ ֶשל‬
days of a Festival, one who has only one shirtbh is permitted to
launder it on the intermediate days of a Festival. Here too, one
can claim: People will say metaphorically:

halakha
One who has only one shirt – ‫מי ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו ֶא ָּלא ָחלוּק ֶא ָחד‬:ִ One who when he took it off he would have to tie his belt on his outer robe
has only one shirt may launder it in an ordinary manner during the rather than on a shirt. Since today people do not tie their belts on
intermediate days of a Festival, and he may even use different types their shirts, one should not be lenient. Nevertheless, in the case of
of soap and launder it in public. Nevertheless, he may launder only a linen shirt one need not be stringent. One may wash items such
one garment at a time. Some commentaries maintain that this hal- as children’s clothes or diapers, if they are soiled, in larger quantities
akha permitting laundering in this case applied only in the Talmudic (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Yom Tov 7:21; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
period, when it was clear that the individual had only one shirt, as Ĥayyim 534:1 and Mishna Berura there).

176 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 107b . ‫ףד‬ ‫זק‬: ‫׳ח קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VIII
Daf 108 Amud a

!‫ ו ְּס ִר ֵיקי ַ ּביְ יתֹוס מו ָּּת ִרין‬,‫ ָּכל ַה ְּס ִר ִיקין ֲאסו ִּרין‬All the Syrian cakes are prohibited, but the Syrian cakes of Baitos
‫ ֵאיזֹורֹו‬:‫ ָהא ֲא ַמר ָמר ַ ּבר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬,‫ ָה ָתם‬are permitted? The Gemara responds: With regard to the case there,
Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said: His belt is proof for him, as in those
.‫מֹוכ ַיח ָע ָליו‬
ִ
days people commonly had one belt, which was worn over the shirt.
If a person had more than one shirt, then whenever he laundered
one he would remove the belt and wear it over the second. If one
saw a shirt being washed with its belt, he would know that the owner
had only one shirt.

,‫יכה‬ָ ‫מתני׳ ִט ּ ַיפת ָח ָלב ׁ ֶש ָּנ ְפ ָלה ַעל ַה ֲח ִת‬

– ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫אֹות ּה ֲח ִת‬ ָ ‫נֹותן ַט ַעם ְ ּב‬ ֵ ‫ִאם יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ְ ּב‬
mishna In the case of a drop of milk that fell on a
piece of meat,n if the drop contains enough
milk to impart flavor to that piece of meat, i.e., the meat is less than
ֵ ‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ְ ּב‬,‫נִיער ֶאת ַה ְּק ֵד ָרה‬
‫נֹותן‬ ֵ .‫ ָאסוּר‬sixty times the size of the drop, the meat is forbidden. If one stirred
.‫אֹות ּה ְק ֵד ָרה – ָאסוּר‬ָ ‫ ַט ַעם ְ ּב‬the contents of the potn and the piece was submerged in the gravy
before it absorbed the milk, if the drop contains enough milk to
impart flavor to the contents of that entire pot, the contents of the
entire pot are forbidden.

– ‫ ַט ֲעמֹו וְ ל ֹא ַמ ָּמ ׁשֹו ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬:‫גמ׳ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬

,‫יתא‬ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫ד‬
gemara Abaye said: The principle that the flavor
of a forbidden food renders prohibited the
substance in which it is absorbed, and it is not necessary for there
to be actual forbidden substance, applies by Torah law in general,
and not just to the prohibition of meat cooked in milk.

‫ ִמ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב ַמאי‬,‫ דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬As, if it enters your mind that the principle applies to other prohib-
‫ ִאי ִחדּ ו ּׁש‬,‫ ַט ֲע ָמא ָלא ָ ּג ְמ ִרינַן – דְּ ִחדּ ו ּׁש הוּא‬ited foods by rabbinic law, one can claim: What is the reason that
we do not learn that it applies by Torah law from the analogous case
!‫נֹותן ַט ַעם נַ ִמי‬ֵ ‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ֵל‬,‫הוּא‬
of meat cooked in milk? It must be because the prohibition of
meat cooked in milk is a novelty that is not derived through logical
reasoning, as each substance is separately permitted, and they are
prohibited only when cooked together. No analogies can be drawn
to a novelty. But if the prohibition is a novelty, then even if there
is not enough milk to impart flavor, the meat and milk should also
be prohibited. Since the measure of the prohibition follows the
standard principles of mixtures, the prohibition itself is apparently
not a novelty. One may therefore draw an analogy to other mixtures,
inferring that this measure applies to them by Torah law as well.

notes
That fell on a piece of meat – ‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ש ָּנ ְפ ָלה ַעל ַה ֲח ִת‬:
ֶ ׁ The mishna does the milk spreads throughout the pot then it is nullified by all the
not specify the precise location of the piece of meat in the pot. meat, which is at least sixty times the size of the drop. If it does not
According to some commentaries, the entire piece is outside of spread throughout the pot then there is no reason to render the
the gravy (Tosafot). Therefore, only that piece is considered with other pieces forbidden, unless one stirred or covered the pot, which
regard to the nullification of the milk, as the milk affects the other is considered like a fresh act of cooking that renders all the pieces
pieces only if one stirs the contents of the pot or covers the pot. The prohibited (Derisha).
commentaries note that although food that does not contain gravy
or fats usually absorbs a forbidden substance only in its outer edge, If one stirred the pot – ‫נִיער ֶאת ַה ְּק ֵד ָרה‬:
ֵ The commentaries explain
the heat and vapors of the pot cause the drop to be absorbed by that this stirring is performed immediately, before the piece absorbs
the entire piece (Ran). the taste of the milk. Consequently, the drop of milk becomes
Other commentaries, including Rashi, maintain that the piece mixed with the entire contents of the pot (Rashi). Some infer from
of meat is partly inside and partly outside of the gravy. The later here that it takes a minimum time for a forbidden substance to
commentaries dispute whether according to Rashi the other pieces be absorbed, and therefore if one removed the substance within
also become forbidden in a case where one did not remove that that period the permitted item upon which it fell is not rendered
piece from the pot immediately. Some say that ultimately all the forbidden (Pitĥei Teshuva, citing Ĥamudei Daniel; see Radbaz). Oth-
pieces of meat in the pot are rendered forbidden, as the upper ers disagree and suggest that this minimum time is necessary with
part of the piece upon which the milk fell renders the lower part regard to the principle of: The piece itself becomes non-kosher
forbidden, and the lower part in turn renders all the other pieces meat in its own right, described in the Gemara, but the forbidden
forbidden. This is the halakha despite the fact that the gravy in the substance is nevertheless absorbed immediately within the piece
pot is not taken into account with regard to nullifying the drop of meat. Even if one removed the substance immediately, the item
of milk (Taz). Others claim that whichever way you look at it, the upon which it fell is still forbidden (Peri Megadim, Peri Toar).
other pieces of meat in the pot should be permitted: If the taste of

 ‫חק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 108a 177

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

.‫ דֶּ ֶרךְ ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּל ָא ְס ָרה ּת ָֹורה‬:‫יה ָר ָבא‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to Abaye: This is not a valid proof. The prohibition of
meat cooked in milk is in fact a novelty and differs from other pro-
hibited mixtures. Nevertheless, its measure is the imparting of flavor
only because the action the Torah prohibited is in the manner of
cooking, and cooking involves the imparting of flavor.

‫ ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתן ַט ַעם ַ ּב ֲח ִת ָיכה – ֲח ִת ָיכה‬:‫ § ָא ַמר ַרב‬The mishna teaches that if the piece of meat acquires the flavor
‫אֹוס ֶרת ָּכל ַה ֲח ִתיכֹות‬ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫נַע ֵ ׂשית נְ ֵב ָלה‬ ֲ ‫ ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬of milk, it is forbidden. Rav says: Once the milk imparts flavor to
the piece of meat, the piece itself becomes non-kosher meat in its
.‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵהן ִמינָ ּה‬,‫ּכו ָּּלן‬
own right. And therefore, if one did not immediately remove the
piece from the pot, it renders all the pieces of meat in the pot
forbidden, even if they are together more than sixty times the size
of that forbidden piece. This is because they are the same type as
the forbidden piece, and as a rule, a substance in contact with the
same type of substance cannot be nullified.

:‫יה דְּ ַרב ָמ ִרי ְל ָר ִבינָ א‬ּ ‫יה ָמר זו ְּט ָרא ְ ּב ֵר‬
ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: Now consider, in
‫יה – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ִמ ְּכ ֵדי ַרב ְּכ ַמאן ֲא ַמר ִל ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ֵת‬ accordance with whose opinion did Rav say his halakha? It is in
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a
‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬,‫ ִמין ְ ּב ִמינֹו ָלא ָ ּב ֵטיל‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה‬
type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. If so,
,‫ּ ְפ ִליגָ א ַאדְּ ָר ָבא‬ shall we say that Rav disagrees with Rava’s interpretation of Rabbi
Yehuda’s opinion?

‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא ִמין‬,‫ ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬As Rava said: Rabbi Yehuda holds with regard to any tripartite
,‫ ו ִּמינֹו וְ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר – ַס ֵּלק ֶאת ִמינֹו ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬mixture consisting of a forbidden type of food, a permitted food
of the same type, and another food item that is permitted, one
!‫וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמינֹו ַר ֶ ּבה ָע ָליו ו ְּמ ַב ְּטלֹו‬
disregards the permitted food that is its own type as though it were
not there, and if the permitted food that is not of its own type is
more than the forbidden food, the permitted food nullifies the
forbidden food. In the case Rav describes, although the other pieces
of meat are of the same type as the piece that has become forbidden,
the gravy in the pot is not of the same type, and it should nullify the
forbidden piece. Since Rav does not mention this principle, he
apparently disagrees with it.

,‫רֹוטב ַר ָּכה – ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬

ֶ ‫ ִאי דִּ נְ ַפל ְ ּב‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Ravina said to him: If the forbidden substance fell into thin gravy,
.‫רֹוטב ָע ָבה‬ֶ ‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – דִּ נְ ַפל ְ ּב‬Rav would concede that the gravy would indeed nullify the piece
of meat, since the two substances are of different types. But here
we are dealing with a case where it fell into thick gravy, which is
composed of meat residue. Since the gravy is of the same substance
as the meat, the forbidden piece is not nullified.

‫סֹוחטֹו‬
ֲ ‫ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬:‫ ִאי ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫ ּו ַמאי ָק ָס ַבר‬The Gemara returns to Rav’s statement that the piece of meat upon
‫נַע ֵ ׂשית נְ ֵב ָלה? ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ ‫ מו ָּּתר – ֲח ִת‬which the milk fell is considered a non-kosher item in its own right.
ֲ ‫יכה ַא ַּמאי‬
And what does Rav maintain in this regard? If he maintains that
.‫סֹוחטֹו ָאסוּר‬
ֲ ‫ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬:‫ָק ָס ַבר‬
an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance it
contains becomes permitted again after wringing, then it follows
that only the absorbed substance is truly forbidden. If so, why
should this piece of meat itself become non-kosher? Once it has
been mixed into the stew, the milk it has absorbed should be evenly
distributed throughout the pot and be nullified. Rather, Rav must
maintain that even an item that can be wrung to remove the
forbidden substance is forbidden.

:‫יֹוחנָן דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬

ָ ‫ ַרב וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ית ַמר‬
ְּ ‫דְּ ִא‬ The Gemara elaborates: As it was stated: Rav and Rabbi Ĥanina
‫ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫סֹוחטֹו – ָאסוּר‬ ֲ ‫ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬ and Rabbi Yoĥanan say that even an item that can be wrung to
remove the forbidden substance is forbidden, whereas Shmuel,
– ‫סֹוחטֹו‬ֲ ‫ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬:‫ַ ּבר ַר ִ ּבי וְ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬
and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Reish Lak-
.‫מו ָּּתר‬ ish say: An item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden
substance is permitted.

,‫סֹוחטֹו – ָאסוּר? וְ ָה ִא ְּית ַמר‬

ֲ ‫וְ ָס ַבר ַרב ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬ The Gemara asks: And does Rav really maintain that an item that
‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫יֹורה ׁ ֶשל ָח ָלב‬ ָ ְ‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַפל ְלתֹוך‬ can be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is forbidden? But
wasn’t it stated: If an olive-bulk of meat fell into a pot of milk so
‫ וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא‬.‫ וְ ָח ָלב – מו ָּּתר‬,‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָאסוּר‬:‫ַרב‬
large that the meat did not impart flavor to it, Rav says: The meat
,‫סֹוחטֹו ָאסוּר‬
ֲ ‫דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬ is forbidden, as it absorbed the taste of the milk, but the milk is
permitted, since it did not absorb the taste of the meat. But if it
enters your mind that according to Rav an item that can be wrung
is forbidden,
178 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 108a . ‫ףד‬ ‫חק‬. ‫׳ח קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VIII
Daf 108 Amud b
halakha
!‫ ָח ָלב ַא ַּמאי מו ָּּתר? ָח ָלב נְ ֵב ָלה הוּא‬why is the milk permitted? All the milk that the meat absorbed is
rendered non-kosher milk in and of itself. When it seeps back out of Where he first removed the meat – ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ַדם‬
ְּ ‫וְ ִס‬: If an olive-bulk of meat fell into a pot
‫ילקֹו‬
the meat, it cannot be nullified by the rest of the milk, which is the of milk, the contents are given to a gentile to
same substance, as Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda that taste. If he says that the milk has the flavor of
a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. meat, it is prohibited. If he says it does not, it is
Therefore, the whole pot of milk should be prohibited. permitted even if there is less than sixty times
the ratio of milk to meat. Either way, the piece
,‫סֹוחטֹו – ָאסוּר‬ ֲ ‫עֹולם ָק ָס ַבר ַרב ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara answers: Rav actually maintains that an item that can of meat is prohibited. This is the halakha only if
one removed the piece of meat from the pot
‫ ״ל ֹא ְת ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּג ִדי‬:‫ וְ ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם דַּ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬be wrung to remove the forbidden substance is prohibited, and
there, the pot of milk mentioned above is different, as the verse before it could expel the milk it absorbed, which
.‫ וְ ל ֹא ָח ָלב‬,‫ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״ – ְ ּג ִדי ָא ְס ָרה ּת ָֹורה‬ occurs before the pot cools from its boiling. But
states: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Deuteron-
if one was unable to remove the piece of meat
omy 14:21). The verse teaches that the Torah prohibits only the kid, before it could expel the milk, the contents of
i.e., the meat, that was cooked in milk, but not the milk that was the pot are forbidden even if a gentile says it
cooked in meat. The milk is not itself rendered non-kosher. does not have the flavor of meat, unless there
is sixty times more milk than meat. The Rema
‫וְ ָס ַבר ַרב ְ ּג ִדי ָא ְס ָרה ּת ָֹורה וְ ל ֹא ָח ָלב? וְ ָהא‬ The Gemara challenges: And does Rav really maintain that the Torah maintains that the accepted practice is not to
‫ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וַ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ָח ָלב ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָלן‬,‫ית ַמר‬
ְ ‫ִא‬ prohibits only the kid but not the milk cooked with it? But isn’t it rely on a gentile to taste the milk, but to require
stated: If half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk sixty times more milk than meat in all such cases
‫ וְ ֵאינֹו‬,‫לֹוקה ַעל ֲא ִכ ָילתֹו‬ ֶ :‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫זֶ ה ִעם זֶ ה‬ (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
were cooked together, Rav says: One is flogged for consuming the
‫ וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ְ ּג ִדי ָא ְס ָרה‬.‫לֹוקה ַעל ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּלֹו‬ ֶ combined olive-bulk, as he has eaten a whole olive-bulk of forbidden
Assurot 9:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 92:1, and
in the comment of Rema here and in 98:1).
‫לֹוקה? ֲחצִ י‬ ֶ ‫ ַא ֲא ִכ ָילה ַא ַּמאי‬,‫ּת ָֹורה וְ ל ֹא ָח ָלב‬ food. But he is not flogged for cooking the two half olive-bulks, as
!‫ׁ ִשיעוּר הוּא‬ he did not cook items of the minimum size. And if it should enter
your mind that Rav holds that the Torah prohibits only the kid but
not the milk, why is this individual flogged for consuming only half
an olive-bulk of meat? It is only half the prohibited measure.

‫ וְ ָה ָכא‬,‫ ָח ָלב נַ ִמי ָאסוּר‬:‫עֹולם ָק ָס ַבר ַרב‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, Rav actually maintains that milk cooked in meat is also
,‫רֹות ַחת‬
ַ ‫יֹורה‬ ָ ְ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַפל ְלתֹוך‬prohibited, and the reason Rav permits the pot of milk mentioned
above is that here we are dealing with a case where the olive-bulk of
.‫ ִמ ְפ ַלט ָלא ּ ָפ ַלט‬,‫דְּ ִמ ְב ַלע ָ ּב ַלע‬
meat fell into a boiling pot of milk. In such a case the meat absorbs
milk, but it does not expel it, and therefore the prohibited milk does
not mix with the rest.

.‫ סֹוף סֹוף ִּכי נָ יֵיח ֲה ַדר ּ ָפ ֵליט! ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ַדם וְ ִס ְּילקֹו‬The Gemara challenges: Ultimately, when the pot cools from boiling,
the meat then expels the prohibited milk. The Gemara answers: It is
referring to a case where he first removed the meath before the
pot cooled.

‫ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וַ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ָח ָלב ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָלן זֶ ה‬,‫ּגו ָּפא‬ The Gemara turns to the matter itself mentioned above: If half an
‫לֹוקה‬
ֶ ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו‬,‫לֹוקה ַעל ֲא ִכ ָילתֹו‬ ֶ :‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ִעם זֶ ה‬ olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk were cooked
together, Rav says: One is flogged for consuming the mixture, but
‫ ִאי ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין – ַא ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּל‬, ְ‫ ַמה ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָשך‬.‫ַעל ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּלֹו‬
he is not flogged for cooking it. The Gemara objects: Whichever
‫נַ ִמי ִל ְיל ֵקי! ִאי ָלא ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין – ַא ֲא ִכ ָילה נַ ִמי‬ way you look at it, this ruling is problematic. If these two halves of
!‫ָלא ִל ְיל ֵקי‬ olive-bulks combine to form the requisite measure, then let him be
flogged for cooking them as well. And if they do not combine, then
let him not be flogged for their consumption either.

ָ ‫ּיֹורה ְ ּג‬
.‫דֹולה‬ ָ ‫ ו ְּב ָבא ִמ‬,‫עֹולם ָלא ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפי‬
ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara answers: Actually, half an olive-bulk of meat and half
an olive-bulk of milk do not combine to form the requisite measure,
and when Rav says that one is flogged for consuming them, he is
referring to a case where they come from a large pot, in which a
sizable amount of meat and cheese had been cooked. The mixture is
now considered a single prohibited entity, such that half an olive-bulk
of the cheese and the meat can combine to constitute the requisite
measure to be held liable for consumption.

‫ וְ ֵכן ָּתנֵי ֵלוִ י‬.‫לֹוקה ַעל ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּלֹו‬

ֶ ‫ ַאף‬:‫וְ ֵלוִ י ָא ַמר‬ And Levi disagrees with Rav on this matter, and says: Half an olive-
‫לֹוקה‬ ֶ ְ‫ ָּכך‬,‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶשלּ ֶֹוקה ַעל ֲא ִכ ָילתֹו‬:‫נִיתין‬ִ ‫ְ ּב ַמ ְת‬ bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of milk can combine to form the
requisite measure, and therefore one is also flogged for cooking the
‫ ו ְּב ֵאי זֶ ה ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּל ָא ְמר ּו – ְ ּב ִב ׁ ּשוּל‬.‫ַעל ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּלֹו‬
mixture. And so Levi teaches in his collection of baraitot: Just as
.‫אֹוכ ִלין אֹותֹו ֵמ ֲח ַמת ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּלֹו‬
ְ ‫ׁ ֶש ֲא ֵח ִרים‬ one is flogged for consuming it, so too he is flogged for cooking it.
And for what degree of cooking did they say that one is liable to be
flogged? It is for a degree of cooking that produces food that others,
gentiles, would eat due to its cooking, i.e., cooking that renders it fit
for consumption.
 ‫חק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 108b 179
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫סֹוחטֹו ַעצְ מֹו ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬ ֲ ‫וְ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬ § The Gemara returns to the issue previously discussed: And the
If a drop of milk fell onto a piece of meat – ‫ִט ּ ַפת ָח ָלב‬ case of an item that can be wrung to remove an absorbed prohibited
‫ש ָּנ ְפ ָלה ַעל ַה ֲח ִת ָיכה‬:
ֶ ׁ If a drop of milk fell into a pot of meat,
‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫יכה‬ ָ ‫ִט ּ ַפת ָח ָלב ׁ ֶש ָּנ ְפ ָלה ַעל ַה ֲח ִת‬
substance is itself the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it
the piece of meat onto which the drop fell is given to a ‫ׁ ֶש ָּנ ְתנָ ה ַט ַעם ַ ּב ֲח ִת ָיכה – ַה ֲח ִת ָיכה ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬
gentile cook to taste. If it does not have the flavor of milk,
is taught in a baraita: If a drop of milk fell onto a piece of meat,h
‫אֹוס ֶרת ָּכל ַה ֲח ִתיכֹות ּכו ָּּלן‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫נַע ֵ ׂשת נְ ֵב ָלה‬ ֲ once it imparts flavor to the piece, the piece itself is rendered
it is all permitted, and if it does have the flavor of milk
then that piece of meat is prohibited. Some authorities .‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ֵהן ִמינָ ּה‬ non-kosher in its own right. And it therefore renders all the other
rule that one may not rely on the opinion of a gentile pieces of meat in the pot prohibited, even if they combine to more
cook, while others say that his claim is accepted only if than sixty times its size; this is because they are of the same type,
he speaks offhandedly, i.e., if he is not asked by Jews and a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified.
about the status of the meat (see Rema on Shulĥan
This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 98:1, and Shakh there). According to
the opinion that one cannot accept the opinion of the
gentile cook, it is permitted if there is sixty times more
‫רֹוטב‬
ֶ ‫ ַעד ׁ ֶש ִּת ֵּתן ַט ַעם ָ ּב‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬And the Rabbis say that even the original piece of meat is not
meat than milk in the piece; otherwise, the piece of ,‫ ו ַּב ִּק ָיפה ו ַּב ֲח ִתיכֹות‬prohibited unless there is enough milk to impart flavor even to the
meat is prohibited. gravy and to the spices and to the other pieces of meat in the pot,
With regard to the rest of the pot, if all the other since the milk is assumed to diffuse from the first piece until it is
substances, including other pieces of meat, vegetables, evenly distributed throughout the pot.
gravy, and spices total sixty times the size of the forbid-
den piece, then it alone remains prohibited, while the – ‫ נִ ְר ִאין דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬With regard to this dispute, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The state-
rest of the contents of the pot are permitted. This ruling
ֵ ‫ ְ ּב ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬ment of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in a case where one
– ‫ וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫נִיער וְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִּכ ָּסה‬
is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who maintains did not stir the contents of the pot and where he did not cover it,n
that if the milk imparts flavor to the piece of meat, that .‫ִיער וְ ִכ ָּסה‬
ֵ ‫ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ּנ‬
both of which would promote the diffusion of the milk throughout
piece is itself considered non-kosher and renders the
other pieces prohibited, as they are of the same type. the pot. And the statement of the Rabbis appears to be correct in
This ruling is also in accordance with the opinion of a case where one stirred the contents of the pot and covered it.
Rabbi Yoĥanan that even an item that can be wrung to
remove the forbidden substance is prohibited. ‫ימא ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫נִיער וְ ל ֹא ִּכ ָּסה״? ִא ֵיל‬
ֵ ‫ ַמאי ״ל ֹא‬The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the clause: Where one
These rulings apply only if one did not stir the con- ‫ ִמ ְב ַלע ָ ּב ַלע‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ִּכ ָּסה ְּכ ָלל‬,‫נִיער ְּכ ָלל‬
ֵ did not stir the pot and did not cover it? If we say that he did not
tents of the pot as soon as the milk fell in but rather stir the contents of the pot at all and did not cover it at all, in this
stirred it afterward, and he also did not cover the pot, in
!‫ִמ ְפ ַלט ָלא ּ ָפ ַלט‬
case the piece of meat onto which the milk fell absorbs the drop of
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi milk but does not expel it.n Therefore, even according to the opin-
Yehuda HaNasi rules in accordance with his opinion with
regard to this point. But if one stirred continuously the
ion of Rabbi Yehuda there is no reason to prohibit the other pieces
entire time, or covered the pot the entire time from the of meat.
moment the milk fell in, the entire contents of the pot
combine to nullify the milk. This ruling is in accordance ,‫נִיער – ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה ֶא ָּלא ַ ּב ּסֹוף‬ ֵ ‫ ל ֹא‬,‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא‬And if you say rather that he did not not stir the contents of the pot
with the opinion of the Rabbis, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ,‫ ַא ַּמאי‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ִּכ ָּסה – ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה ֶא ָּלא ַ ּב ּסֹוף‬at the beginning, immediately after the milk fell in, but stirred at
rules in accordance with their opinion with regard to the end, afterward, and likewise he did not cover the pot at the
!‫ָהא ָ ּב ַלע וְ ָהא ּ ָפ ַלט‬
this point. The Rema writes that even in a case where beginning but at the end, one must ask: Why are all the pieces in
one did not stir at all, and did not cover the pot at all, the pot prohibited? The same milk that the piece absorbs it subse-
if the contents of the pot are sixty times more than the quently expels, and once the milk diffuses throughout the pot it
amount of milk that fell in, only the piece on which the
milk fell is prohibited, while the rest of the contents
should be nullified.
of the pot remain permitted. If one stirred the pot or
covered it immediately, even if one did not stir or cover
.‫סֹוחטֹו – ָאסוּר‬
ֲ ‫ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬The Gemara responds: Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains
the pot again afterward, all the contents of the pot still that an item that can be wrung remains prohibited. Once the first
combine to nullify the milk. piece of meat absorbs the milk, it is considered non-kosher in its
If the milk fell into soup or onto several pieces of own right, and even after the milk itself is nullified, the flavor of
meat, and it is unknown onto which piece it fell, one stirs the forbidden meat renders the rest of the pieces prohibited. The
the entire contents of the pot until the milk is mixed with flavor of the meat cannot be nullified by the other meat in the pot,
all of it. If at this stage the taste of milk is not discernible since a substance in contact with the same type of substance is not
in the contents of the pot, the contents of the pot are all
permitted. If no gentile cook is available to taste the con-
nullified, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
tents, one estimates whether the contents of the pot are
sixty times greater than the milk. The Rema writes that
some authorities disagree and maintain that stirring the
pot is of no effect unless one stirs immediately after the
forbidden substance fell inside, and this is the accepted
practice (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
Assurot 9:8, 10; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 92:2).

notes
Where one did not stir and where he did not cover it – ‫ְ ּב ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬ Other commentaries hold that once the first piece of meat is
‫נִיער וְ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִּכ ָּסה‬:
ֵ The commentaries explain that covering is con- rendered non-kosher, its flavor must be capable of rendering the
sidered equivalent to stirring because it prevents the vapors other pieces prohibited unaided. They therefore explain that the
from leaving the pot, causing the flavor to spread throughout it statement here, that the piece absorbs milk but does not expel
(Responsa of the Rivash). it, applies only according to the opinion that an item that can be
wrung to remove the forbidden substance is permitted, i.e., that
Absorbs it but does not expel it – ‫מ ְב ַלע ָ ּב ַלע ִמ ְפ ַלט ָלא ּ ָפ ַלט‬:ִ The the meat alone is not considered a forbidden item that can render
meaning of this statement is unclear. Some early commentaries the other pieces prohibited, and that the flavor of the milk does
explain that the piece of meat that absorbed milk can render not diffuse if one does not stir the pot or cover it. The halakha is in
the other pieces prohibited only if the flavor of the milk reaches accordance with the opinion that even an item that can be wrung
them as well. Therefore, although the piece of meat is rendered is prohibited. Therefore, the piece of meat is itself considered a
non-kosher and its own flavor diffuses throughout the pot, since forbidden item, which imparts flavor and renders the other pieces
the flavor of the milk itself does not spread throughout the pot in of meat in the pot prohibited even without covering or stirring
this case, the other pieces are not prohibited (Ran, citing Tosafot). the pot (Ran; Ramban; Ra’avad).

180 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 108b . ‫ףד‬ ‫חק‬: ‫׳ח קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VIII
Daf 109 Amud a

‫נִיער ִמ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬

ֵ ‫ ִּכי‬:‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְס ַבר‬The Gemara objects: From Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s acceptance of Rabbi
.‫ וְ ַעד סֹוף וְ ִכ ָּסה ִמ ְּת ִח ָּלה וְ ַעד סֹוף – ָאסוּר‬Yehuda’s opinion only when one did not stir or cover the pot, one can
conclude by inference that Rabbi Yehuda himself maintains that even
?‫ ָהא ָלא ָ ּב ַלע ְּכ ָלל‬,‫ַא ַּמאי‬
when one stirred the contents of the pot continuously from beginning
to end, i.e., before and after the drop of milk was absorbed, or covered
the pot continuously from beginning to end, all the contents of the pot
are prohibited. But why should this be so? The first piece of meat did
not absorb any more milk than the others. Since the milk definitely
diffused evenly through the pot immediately, it should be nullified,
assuming that the pot’s contents amount to more than sixty times
the milk.

‫ וְ ל ֹא ִּכ ָּסה יָ ֶפה‬,‫נִיער יָ ֶפה יָ ֶפה‬

ֵ ‫ימא ״ל ֹא‬
ָ ‫ ֵא‬The Gemara responds: Say that Rabbi Yehuda is stringent because one
.‫ יָ ֶפה״‬might not have stirred thoroughly, or he might not have covered
the pot thoroughly, and therefore initially the milk might have been
absorbed only by the first piece, rendering it prohibited. Afterward, when
he does stir thoroughly, that piece of meat renders the other pieces
prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not share this concern.

,‫ִיער וְ ִכ ָּסה״‬ ֵ ‫ ״וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ֲח ָכ ִמים ְּכ ׁ ֶש ּנ‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ § The Gemara returns to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement: The Master
‫נִיער‬ ֵ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫״כ ָּסה״? ִא ֵיל‬ ִּ ‫״נִיער״ ו ַּמאי‬ ֵ ‫ַמאי‬ said above: And the statement of the Rabbis appears correct in a case
where one stirred the pot and covered it. The Gemara asks: What is the
‫ וְ ִכ ָּסה ַ ּב ּסֹוף וְ ל ֹא‬,‫נִיער ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה‬
ֵ ‫ַ ּב ּסֹוף וְ ל ֹא‬
meaning of the term: Stirred, and what is the meaning of the term:
‫ִּכ ָּסה ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה – ָה ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ״נִ ְר ִאין דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬ Covered? If we say that he stirred at the end, after the first piece
‫נִיער – ִמ ְּת ִח ָּלה וְ ַעד‬ ֵ ,‫יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּב ָהא״? ֶא ָּלא‬ absorbed the milk, and did not stir at the beginning, beforehand, and
.‫ וְ ִכ ָּסה – ִמ ְּת ִח ָּלה וְ ַעד סֹוף‬,‫סֹוף‬ likewise he covered at the end and did not cover at the beginning, one
may respond: Didn’t you already say on the previous amud that the
statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in this case? Rather,
it must be a case where he stirred continuously from beginning to end
or covered the pot continuously from beginning to end.

‫נִיער‬
ֵ ‫נִיער ַ ּב ּסֹוף וְ ל ֹא‬ ֵ :‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ָס ְב ִרי‬If so, one can conclude by inference from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s quali-
– ‫ ִּכ ָּסה ַ ּב ּסֹוף וְ ל ֹא ִּכ ָּסה ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה‬,‫ ַ ּב ְּת ִח ָּלה‬fied acceptance of the Rabbis’ opinion that the Rabbis themselves main-
tain that even when one stirred only at the end and did not stir at the
.‫מו ָּּתר‬
beginning, and similarly if he covered the pot only at the end and did
not cover at the beginning, all the contents of the pot are permitted.
Even the first piece is permitted, as they hold that the milk it absorbed
diffused out of it and throughout the pot.

.‫סֹוחטֹו – מו ָּּתר‬
ֲ ‫ ַא ְל ָמא ָק ָס ְב ִרי – ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬Evidently, the Rabbis maintain that an item that can be wrung to
remove the forbidden substance is permitted. This illustrates that
tanna’im dispute this issue, as according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi, an item that can be wrung to remove the forbidden
substance is prohibited.

‫ ִמ ַּמאי‬:‫יה ַרב ַא ָחא ִמדִּ ְיפ ִּתי ְל ָר ִבינָ א‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Aĥa of Difti said to Ravina: From where is it derived that Rabbi
‫ ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬,‫ דִּ ְל ָמא‬,‫סֹוחטֹו ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ ֲ ‫דִּ ְב ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬ Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to an item that can be
wrung? Perhaps even if an item can be wrung, everyone agrees that it
‫ וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ִמין‬.‫סֹוחטֹו – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ָאסוּר‬ ֲ ‫ְל‬
remains prohibited, and here they disagree with regard to whether a
‫יה‬ ּ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְל ַט ֲע ֵמ‬,‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ ַ ּ ‫ְ ּב ִמינֹו ָקא ִמ‬ type of food mixed with food of its own type can be nullified. And Rabbi
‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן ְל ַט ֲע ַמיְ יה ּו‬,‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ִמין ְ ּב ִמינֹו ָלא ָ ּב ֵטיל‬ Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said that a type
!‫דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ִמין ְ ּב ִמינֹו ָ ּב ֵטיל‬ of food mixed with food of its own type cannot be nullified. And like-
wise, the Rabbis conform to their standard line of reasoning, as they
said that a type of food mixed with food of its own type can be nullified.
This is why they maintain that all the meat in the pot is permitted.

‫ַהאי ַמאי? ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ Ravina responded: What is this reasoning? Granted, if you say that the
‫ְ ּב ִמין ְ ּב ִמינֹו ָה ָכא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְס ִב ָירא ְלה ּו‬ Rabbis here hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with
regard to the issue of a type of food mixed with food of its own type,
‫סֹוחטֹו ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ָק ָא ַמר‬ֲ ‫ו ְּב ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬
and they disagree with regard to an item that can be wrung, that is why
‫ַר ִ ּבי ״נִ ְר ִאין דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּב ָהא וְ ִד ְב ֵרי‬ Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears
.‫ֲח ָכ ִמים ְ ּב ָהא״‬ to be correct in this case, when one did not initially stir or cover the pot,
and the statement of the Rabbis appears to be correct in that case, when
one did initially stir or cover it, since the issue of when one stirred or
covered the pot is relevant to the dispute, as explained above.
 ‫טק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 109a 181
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫סֹוחטֹו דִּ ְב ֵרי‬ ֲ ‫ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל‬ But if you say: Everyone agrees that an item that can be wrung
The blood of the heart – ‫דַּ ם ַה ֵּלב‬: The heart acts as a is prohibited, and here they disagree only with regard to a type
pump, sending blood rich in oxygen through the arteries ,‫ וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ִמין ְ ּב ִמינֹו ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬,‫ַה ּכֹל ָאסוּר‬
of food mixed with food of its own type, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi
from the lungs and around the body, and returning blood ‫ַהאי ״נִ ְר ִאין דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה וְ ֵאין נִ ְר ִאין״‬
from the body to the lungs through the veins. The blood should not phrase his statement as a qualified acceptance of both
.‫ וְ ת ּו ָלא ִמ ִידי‬,‫יה‬ּ ‫ִמ ָ ּב ִעי ֵל‬ opinions, which seems arbitrary. Rather, he should have said this:
found inside the heart can consequently be termed blood
that enters from outside. At the same time, the heart itself I accept that a type of food is not nullified by a food of its own
requires a steady supply of blood, like any other limb. This type. Therefore, the statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct
blood is located in the heart’s system of blood vessels, the where one did not stir initially, as the flavor of the prohibited first
coronary circulation, which are in the muscles of the heart.
piece cannot be nullified; but it does not appear correct where
Such blood is called: Its blood.
one stirred immediately, since in that case, even the first piece is
not prohibited, and I do not share Rabbi Yehuda’s concern that
perhaps one did not stir thoroughly. And nothing more need
be said.

‫קֹורעֹו וּמֹוצִ יא ֶאת‬

– ‫ ַה ֵּלב‬.‫עֹובר ָע ָליו‬
ְ – ‫מתני׳ ַה ְּכ ָחל‬
ֵ ‫ ל ֹא ְק ָרעֹו – ֵאינֹו‬,‫ֲח ָלבֹו‬
mishna One who wants to eat the udder of a
slaughtered animal tears ith and removes
its milk, and only then is it permitted to cook it. If he did not tear
‫ ל ֹא ְק ָרעֹו – ֵאינֹו‬,‫קֹורעֹו וּמֹוצִ יא ֶאת דָּ מֹו‬
ְ the udderh before cooking it, he does not violate the prohibition
.‫עֹובר ָע ָליו‬
ֵ against cooking and eating meat and milk and does not receive
lashes for it, as the halakhic status of the milk in the udder is not
that of milk. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered
animal tears ith and removes its blood,bn and only then may he
cook and eat it. If he did not tear the hearth before cooking and
eating it, he does not violate the prohibition against consuming
blood and is not liable to receive karet for it.

halakha
One who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal If he did not tear the heart, etc. – ‫ל ֹא ְק ָרעֹו וכו׳‬: If one salted a
tears it, etc. – ‫קֹורעֹו וכו׳‬
ְ ‫ה ְּכ ָחל‬:ַ The udder of an animal that still heart without first tearing it, he should tear it after salting and
contains milk is prohibited by rabbinic law. But if one tears the it is then permitted, despite the fact that it was salted with the
udder and removed its milk, it is permitted to roast and eat it. If blood inside. This ruling is in accordance with the principle: As
one tears it lengthwise and widthwise and smears it against a it absorbs it so it emits it, i.e., the same process that causes the
wall until no trace of milk remains, one may cook it with meat. blood to be absorbed in the meat suffices to discharge it as well.
Nevertheless, the custom is not to cook it with meat. If one did The same halakha applies if one roasted the heart without first
cook it with meat, it is permitted after the fact if it had been tearing it: One tears it afterward and it is permitted. But if one
torn, if being stringent will result in a significant financial loss cooked it without first tearing it, it is prohibited unless there is
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:12; Shulĥan sixty times more of the other ingredients than the heart, as it is
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 90:1, and see the comment of Rema). not known how much blood was emitted from it into the dish.
Some authorities maintain that even if the volume of the
If he did not tear the udder, etc. – ‫ל ֹא ְק ָרעֹו וכו׳‬: If one did not
other ingredients is sixty times more than that of the heart, the
tear the udder it is prohibited to cook it, whether it was the
heart itself is prohibited, and one should scrape a layer of the
udder of a young animal that never nursed offspring or that
other contents of the pot around the heart (Rema). Yet others are
of an adult. If one did cook it by itself without tearing it, it is
stringent even with regard to salting and prohibit the rest of the
permitted to eat it, and is all the more so permitted if he roasted
meat that was salted with the heart, as they maintain that one
it. The Rema holds that it is forbidden if it was cooked without
does not apply the principle: As it absorbs it so it emits it, with
tearing (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:12;
regard to blood collected in the heart, as this blood is not emit-
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 90:1, and see the comment of Rema).
ted. The accepted practice is to be lenient in this regard. Some
ְ ‫ה ֵּלב‬:ַ
One who wants to eat the heart tears it, etc. – ‫קֹורעֹו וכו׳‬ maintain that one should scrape a layer from the spot where
Since blood collects in the heart at the time of slaughter, one the heart was touching the other meat, and it is proper to do so.
must tear the heart and remove that blood before salting the There is no difference between the flesh with the heart and the
heart. After removing the blood and salting the heart, one may heart itself, and it does not matter whether the heart is closed
cook it. Some commentaries rule that even after these proce- or open above. There is a custom to cut the sealed part of the
dures one should be stringent and roast the heart rather than heart and the sinews inside ab initio, but this is a mere stringency
cook it (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:6; and an overly cautious practice (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 72:1). Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 72:2).

notes
One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal which is called: Blood that enters it from outside. The tearing
ְ ‫ה ֵּלב‬:ַ It is
tears it and removes its blood – ‫קֹורעֹו וּמֹוצִ יא ֶאת דָּ מֹו‬ of the heart is designed to remove the second type, i.e., the
explained in tractate Karetot that the heart contains two types blood that collects in the chambers of the heart, which is not
of blood: The first type is blood that is absorbed in the flesh of expelled by salting (Meiri). Conversely, the first type, the blood
the heart itself. This blood is similar to blood in any other limb absorbed in the flesh of the heart, is removed only by salting,
and is called: The blood of the limbs, or: Its own blood. The not through tearing.
second type is blood that collects in the chambers of the heart,

182 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 109a . ‫ףד‬ ‫טק‬. ‫׳ח קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VIII
Daf 109 Amud b

ֵ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬

‫עֹובר‬
‫עֹובר‬
ֵ ‫״אינֹו‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָהא ֲאנַ ן ְּתנַ ן‬.‫ ּומו ָּּתר‬,‫ָע ָליו‬
gemara The mishna teaches that if one did not
tear the udder of a slaughtered animal
before cooking it he does not violate the biblical prohibition
‫ ָהא ִא ּיסו ָּרא‬,‫יע ַבר הוּא דְּ ָלא ֲע ַבר‬
ֲ ‫ ָע ָליו״ – ִמ‬against eating meat and milk. Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says:
!‫יכא‬
ָּ ‫ ִא‬He does not violate the prohibition, and it is altogether permit-
ted to eat the cooked product ab initio. The Gemara objects: But
didn’t we learn in the mishna: He does not violate the prohibi-
tion, i.e., he is not held liable after the fact. One can infer from
here as follows: He does not violate a prohibition by Torah law,
but there is nevertheless a prohibition ab initio by rabbinic law.

‫ וְ ַאיְ ֵידי דִּ ְב ָעא‬,‫ְ ּב ִדין הוּא דְּ ִא ּיסו ָּרא נַ ִמי ֵל ָּיכא‬ The Gemara explains: By right the mishna should have taught
‫קֹורעֹו וּמֹוצִ יא ֶאת‬ ְ ‫״ה ֵּלב‬ ַ ‫יפא‬ ָ ‫יתנָ א ֵס‬ ְ ‫ְל ִמ‬ that there is no prohibition here by rabbinic law either. But the
tanna of the mishna uses this language since he wants to teach
– ‫ ָה ָתם‬,‫עֹובר ָע ָליו״‬ ֵ ‫ ל ֹא ְק ָרעֹו ֵאינֹו‬,‫דָּ מֹו‬
in the latter clause: One who wants to eat the heart of a slaugh-
,‫יכא‬ָּ ‫ ָהא ִא ּיסו ָּרא ִא‬,‫יע ַבר הוּא דְּ ָלא ֲע ַבר‬ ֲ ‫ִמ‬ tered animal tears it and removes its blood, but if he did not
.‫עֹובר ָע ָליו״‬ ֵ ‫״אינֹו‬ ֵ ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ְּתנָ א נַ ִמי ֵר‬ tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate
the prohibition. There it is true that although he does not vio-
late a prohibition by Torah law there is a prohibition by rab-
binic law. To preserve linguistic symmetry, he teaches the first
clause in this manner as well, stating: He does not violate
the prohibition.

‫קֹורעֹו וּמֹוצִ יא‬ ְ – ‫ ַה ְּכ ָחל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita sup-
.‫עֹובר ָע ָליו‬ֵ ‫ ל ֹא ְק ָרעֹו – ֵאינֹו‬,‫ֶאת ֲח ָלבֹו‬ ports this opinion: One who wants to eat the udder of a slaugh-
tered animal tears it and removes its milk. If he did not tear the
– ‫ ל ֹא ְק ָרעֹו‬,‫קֹורעֹו וּמֹוצִ יא ֶאת דָּ מֹו‬ ְ – ‫ַה ֵּלב‬
udder before cooking it, he does not violate the prohibition
‫ ֵלב הוּא דְּ ָב ֵעי‬.‫ וּמו ָּּתר‬,‫קֹורעֹו ְל ַא ַחר ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּלֹו‬
ְ against cooking and eating meat and milk and does not receive
.‫יעה‬ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְּכ ָחל – ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ְק ִר‬,‫יעה‬ ָ ‫ְק ִר‬ lashes for it. One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered
animal tears it and removes its blood. If he did not tear the
heart before cooking and eating it, he tears it after its cooking,
and it is permitted. One can infer from the baraita that it is only
the heart that requires tearing after cooking if it was not torn
beforehand. But the udder does not require tearing after being
cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.

‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יעה‬ ּ ‫ ֵלב הוּא דְּ ַס ִ ּגי ֵל‬:‫ דִּ ְל ָמא‬The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one should infer the opposite,
ָ ‫יה ִ ּב ְק ִר‬
.‫יעה‬ ּ ‫ ְּכ ָחל – ָלא ַס ִ ּגי ֵל‬that tearing after cooking is sufficient only to render the heart
ָ ‫יה ִ ּב ְק ִר‬
permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking.
But tearing after cooking is not sufficient to render the udder
permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through
cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk.

‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫וְ ִא ָּיכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ And some say a different version of the above exchange, based
‫״אינֹו‬ֵ :‫יה‬
ּ ‫ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬.‫ וְ ָאסוּר‬,‫עֹובר ָע ָליו‬ ֵ on a different version of Rav’s statement: Rabbi Zeira says that
Rav says: If one does not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal
‫ ָהא‬,‫יע ַבר הוּא דְּ ָלא ֲע ַבר‬ ֲ ‫עֹובר ָע ָליו״ – ִמ‬ ֵ
before cooking it, he does not violate the Torah prohibition, but
.‫יכא‬ָּ ‫ִא ּיסו ָּרא ִא‬ it is prohibited to eat the cooked product by rabbinic law. The
Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports this opin-
ion, as it states: He does not violate the prohibition, indicating
that although he does not violate a Torah prohibition and is not
flogged, there is nevertheless a prohibition by rabbinic law.

‫ וְ ַאיְ ֵידי דִּ ְב ָעא‬,‫ְ ּב ִדין הוּא דְּ ִא ּיסו ָּרא נַ ִמי ֵל ָּיכא‬ The Gemara responds: By right the mishna should have taught
‫קֹורעֹו וּמֹוצִ יא ֶאת‬ ְ ‫״ה ֵּלב‬ ַ ‫יפא‬ ָ ‫יתנָ א ֵס‬ ְ ‫ְל ִמ‬ that there is not even a prohibition by rabbinic law. But the
tanna of the mishna uses this language since he wants to teach
– ‫ דְּ ָה ָתם‬,‫עֹובר ָע ָליו״‬ ֵ ‫ ל ֹא ְק ָרעֹו ֵאינֹו‬,‫דָּ מֹו‬
the latter clause: One who wants to eat the heart of a slaugh-
,‫יכא‬ָּ ‫ ָהא ִא ּיסו ָּרא ִא‬,‫יע ַבר הוּא דְּ ָלא ֲע ַבר‬ ֲ ‫ִמ‬ tered animal tears it and removes its blood, but if he did not
.‫עֹובר ָע ָליו״‬ ֵ ‫״אינֹו‬ ֵ ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ָּתנָ א נַ ִמי ֵר‬ tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he does not violate
the prohibition for it. There, it is true that although he does not
violate a Torah prohibition there is a prohibition by rabbinic
law. He therefore teaches in the first clause in this manner as
well, stating: He does not violate the prohibition for it.
 ‫טק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 109b 183
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫קֹורעֹו וּמֹוצִ יא ֶאת‬ ְ – ‫ ַה ְּכ ָחל‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: One
An udder that one cooked [shebishelo] in its milk – ‫ְּכ ָחל‬ who wants to eat the udder of a slaughtered animal tears it and
‫ש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְשלֹו ַ ּב ֲח ָלבֹו‬:
ֶ ׁ Although the Gemara here utilizes a term – ‫ ַה ֵּלב‬.‫עֹובר ָע ָליו‬ֵ ‫ ל ֹא ְק ָרעֹו – ֵאינֹו‬,‫ֲח ָלבֹו‬
removes its milk. If he did not tear the udder before cooking it, he
of cooking [bishul], Rashi explains that in reality this term ‫קֹורעֹו‬
ְ – ‫ ל ֹא ְק ָרעֹו‬,‫קֹורעֹו וּמֹוצִ יא ֶאת דָּ מֹו‬
ְ
means roasted throughout this passage when used with does not violate the prohibition for it. One who wants to eat the
‫ ֵלב הוּא דְּ ָב ֵעי‬.‫ ּומו ָּּתר‬,‫ְל ַא ַחר ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּלֹו‬ heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood. If he
regard to udders. Rashi notes that a term of cooking
[vayvashelu] is employed, where it means roasting, in a !‫יעה‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְּכ ָחל – ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ְק ִר‬,‫יעה‬
ָ ‫ְק ִר‬ did not tear the heart before cooking and eating it, he tears it after
verse in II Chronicles (35:13) with regard to roasting the its cooking, and it is permitted. One can infer from the baraita
Paschal offering. that it is only the heart that requires tearing after cooking if it was
not torn beforehand, but the udder does not require tearing after
halakha being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.
The stomach that one cooked with the milk it
contains – ‫ק ָבה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָל ּה ַ ּב ֲח ָל ָב ּה‬:ֵ Milk found in the ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫יעה‬
ָ ‫יה ִ ּב ְק ִר‬ּ ‫ ֵלב הוּא דְּ ַס ִ ּגי ֵל‬:‫ דִּ ְל ָמא‬The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps one should infer the opposite,
stomach of a lamb or calf is not considered milk with
.‫יעה‬ ָ ‫יה ִ ּב ְק ִר‬ּ ‫ ְּכ ָחל – ָלא ַס ֵ ּגי ֵל‬that tearing after cooking is sufficient only to render the heart
regard to the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Con- permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. But
sequently, one may cook meat together with the milk.
tearing it after cooking is not sufficient to render the udder permit-
Some authorities prohibit cooking meat with this milk,
and the Rema writes likewise that this is the accepted
ted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and
practice (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot tearing will not remove the absorbed milk. This concludes the
Assurot 9:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:9, and in the second version of the Gemara’s discussion.
comment of Rema).
‫ ְּכ ָחל ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְשלֹו‬:‫ישנָ א ַק ָּמא דְּ ַרב‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ ַּתנְיָא ְּכ ִל‬The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with
language – ‫ ֵק ָבה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָל ּה ַ ּב ֲח ָל ָב ּה‬,‫ ַ ּב ֲח ָלבֹו – מו ָּּתר‬the first version of Rav’s statement: An udder that one cooked,
i.e., roasted, in its milkn is permitted. By contrast, the stomach of
Lengthwise and widthwise [sheti va’erev] – ‫ש ִתי וָ ֵע ֶרב‬:
ְׁ ,‫ָאסוּר‬
This expression comes from the craft of weaving. The a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked, i.e., roasted, together with
basic threads woven into a cloth are the threads of the the milk it containsh is prohibited for consumption.
warp [sheti], placed lengthwise to the loom. The width-
wise threads of the woof [erev] are woven into them. Due ,‫ ו ָּמה ֶה ְפ ֵר ׁש ֵ ּבין זֶ ה ָלזֶ ה – זֶ ה ָּכנוּס ְ ּב ֵמ ָעיו‬The baraita explains: And what is the distinction between this
to the pattern of the threads of the warp and the woof, .‫ וְ זֶ ה ֵאין ָּכנוּס ְ ּב ֵמ ָעיו‬stomach and that udder? The milk this calf suckled was considered
their names are used here as synonyms for lengthwise milk the moment it left the mother’s teat, and it was merely col-
and widthwise. lected in the calf ’s innards. But that milk in the udder is not
defined as milk, since it was never collected in the animal’s innards
from outside but is found in the flesh. Consequently, this meat of
the udder is not prohibited if it is roasted with the milk it contains,
although one should still tear it by rabbinic law ab initio.

‫קֹורעֹו ׁ ְש ִתי‬
ְ :‫קֹורעֹו? ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ ְ ‫ֵּכיצַ ד‬ § The Gemara inquires: How must one tear an udder before
‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫כֹותל‬
ֶ ‫וָ ֵע ֶרב וְ ָטחֹו ְ ּב‬ cooking it? Rav Yehuda says: One tears it lengthwise and width-
wise [sheti va’erev]l and smears it against a wall to remove all the
‫ ַמאי ָקא‬.‫ ְק ַרע ִלי וַ ֲאנָ א ֵאיכוּל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְל ׁ ַש ָּמ ֵע‬
milk. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar said to his attendant: Tear
‫נִיתין ִהיא! ָהא ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬ ִ ‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן? ַמ ְת‬ an udder for me before you roast it, and I will eat it. The Gemara
.‫כֹותל‬ֶ ‫ דְּ ָלא ָ ּב ֵעינַן ׁ ְש ִתי וָ ֵע ֶרב וְ ָטחֹו ְ ּב‬:‫ָלן‬ asks: What is this episode teaching us? It is explicitly stated in the
mishna that one must do this. The Gemara answers: This story
teaches us that according to Rabbi Elazar we do not require
one to tear it lengthwise and widthwise and smear it against a
wall. Rather, it is enough simply to tear it once, either lengthwise
or widthwise.

‫ ָּכל‬,‫ ִמ ְּכ ִדי‬:‫יה יַ ְל ָּתא ְל ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ּ ‫ § ֲא ַמ ַרה ֵל‬Yaltap said to her husband Rav Naĥman: Now as a rule, for any
‫ ֲא ַסר ָלן‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ֲא ַסר ָלן ַר ֲח ָמנָא ׁ ְש ָרא ָלן ְּכוָ ֵות‬item that the Merciful One prohibited to us, He permitted to us
Loom showing the lengthwise threads of the warp a similar item. He prohibited to us the consumption of blood, yet
,‫טֹוהר‬
ַ ‫ נִדָּ ה – דַּ ם‬,‫דָּ ָמא – ׁ ְש ָרא ָלן ַּכ ְבדָּ א‬
and the widthwise threads of the woof He permitted to us the consumption of liver, which is filled with
blood and retains the taste of blood. Likewise, God prohibited
sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, but permitted
sexual intercourse with one’s wife while she discharges the blood
of purity. During a particular period after giving birth, even if she
experiences a flow of blood she is not rendered ritually impure and
remains permitted to her husband by Torah law.

Personalities
Yalta – ‫יַ ְל ָּתא‬: Yalta, Rav Naĥman’s wife, was from the family of the wealthy family. Her husband treated her with deference, and she
Exilarch and may have been the daughter of the Exilarch himself. herself demanded respect from various Sages. She would listen
Some say she was the daughter of Rabba bar Avuh, who was a and join in many of Rav Naĥman’s conversations and disputes
member of the family of the Exilarch. As can be inferred from with other Sages, and apparently had extensive knowledge of
several incidents recounted in the Talmud, Yalta was confident in Torah.
her opinions, partly due to her lineage from a distinguished and

184 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 109b . ‫ףד‬ ‫טק‬: ‫׳ח קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫מֹוחא‬
ָ – ‫ ֲחזִ יר‬,‫ ֵח ֶלב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – ֵח ֶלב ַחּיָ ה‬Furthermore, the Torah prohibits the consumption of the forbidden
Shibuta – ‫יבו ָּטא‬
ּ ‫ש‬:
ִ ׁ This is probably a reference to
,‫ישנָ א דְּ ַכוְ ָורא‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ׁ ִש‬fat of a domesticated animal, but permitted the fat of an undomes-
ָ ּ ׁ ‫ ִ ּגירו ָּתא – ִל‬,‫יבו ָּטא‬ the shabout, Barbus grypus, from the Cyprinidae
ticated animal, which has the same flavor. It is prohibited to eat family, a large freshwater carp from rivers in Iraq
pork, but one may eat the brain of a shibutab fish, which has a simi- and Iran. This edible fish, which to this day is called
lar taste. One may not eat giruta, a non-kosher fish, but one may eat by a similar name in Arabic, the ‫شابوط‬, shabbūt,
the tongue of a fish, which tastes similar. can grow to a length of almost 2 m.

– ‫ ֵא ׁ ֶשת ָאח‬,‫ ֵא ׁ ֶשת ִא ׁיש – ְ ּגרו ׁ ָּשה ְ ּב ַחּיֵ י ַב ְע ָל ּה‬Likewise, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with the wife of
ַ ‫ ָ ּב ֵעינַן ְל ֵמ‬,‫ גּ ֹויָ ה – יְ ַפת ּת ַֹאר‬,‫ ָיְב ָמה‬another man but permitted one to marry a divorced woman in her
‫יכל ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא‬
previous husband’s lifetime. The Torah prohibits sexual intercourse
!‫ְ ּב ַח ְל ָבא‬
with one’s brother’s wife, and yet it permits one to marry his yevama,
i.e., his brother’s widow when the brother dies childless. Finally, the
Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with a gentile woman but per- Drawing of a shabout
mitted one to marry a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war
(see Deuteronomy 21:10–14). Yalta concluded: The Torah prohibits
the consumption of meat cooked in milk; I wish to eat a dish that
tastes like meat cooked in milk.

.‫ זְ וִ יק ּו ָל ּה ָּכ ְח ִלי‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ְל ַט ָ ּב ֵחי‬Upon hearing this, Rav Naĥman said to his cooks: Roast udders
.‫״קֹורעֹו״? ַההוּא ִל ְק ֵד ָרה‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָה ֲאנַן ְּתנַן‬on a spit for her. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the
mishna that one must tear the udder first? Rav Naĥman did not tell
his cooks to tear the udders. The Gemara answers: That requirement
was stated only with regard to cooking in a pot, not roasting.

– ‫ ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬,‫״ש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְשלֹו״ – דִּ ֲיע ַבד – ִאין‬

ֶ ׁ ‫ וְ ָהא ָק ָתנֵי‬The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the baraita cited above: An
‫ וְ ַאיְ ֵידי דְּ ָקא‬,‫ ָלא! הוּא ַהדִּ ין דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה‬udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted? This indicates that
after the fact, yes, it is permitted, but one may not roast it ab initio
,‫יתנָ א ֵס ָיפא ֵק ָבה‬ ְ ‫ָ ּב ֵעי ְל ִמ‬
without tearing it. The Gemara answers: The same is true even of
roasting ab initio, i.e., it is permitted, and the tanna of the baraita
uses this language since he wants to teach in the latter clause:
A stomach

Perek VIII
Daf 110 Amud a

background
ֲ ִּ‫ דַּ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ד‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָל ּה ַ ּב ֲח ָל ָב ּה – ֲאסו ָּרה‬of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked together with the milk
‫יע ַבד‬
Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in –
ָ ׁ ‫ ְּתנָ א נַ ִמי ֵר‬,‫ נַ ִמי ָלא‬it contains is prohibited. There, even if one roasted it he may not
.‫ישא ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָל ּה‬ ‫רב ִ ּב ְק ָעה ָמצָ א וְ גָ ַדר ָ ּב ּה ָ ּג ֵדר‬:ַ When Rav returned from
eat it after the fact. To preserve symmetry, the tanna of the baraita Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia in order to teach Torah
taught in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: An udder and settle there, he found many ignorant people
that one cooked in its milk is permitted. in the various Jewish settlements who treated pro-
hibitions lightly. Therefore, he instituted additional
‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה ִלזְ ֵע ִירי‬
ּ ‫ִּכי ְס ֵליק ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַא ׁ ְש ְּכ ֵח‬ § The Gemara above cited a second version of Rav’s opinion, prohibitions as safeguards, to prevent them from
‫ייה‬
ּ ֵ‫נִיֵיה ְל ַרב ְּכ ָחל? ַא ֲחו‬
ּ ‫יכא ַּת ָּנא דְּ ַא ְת‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ according to which an udder that was roasted without being torn is violating the principal prohibitions. This situation
prohibited for consumption. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi was compared to an unguarded valley, which
‫ ֲאנִי ל ֹא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ימי‬ ִ ‫ְל ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר ֲאבו ִּד‬ one fences in to protect the land (see Rashi on
Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Ze’eiri
‫ וְ ַרב – ִ ּב ְק ָעה ָמצָ א‬,‫יקר‬ ּ ָ ‫נִיתי לֹו ְּכ ָחל ָּכל ִע‬ ִ ‫ׁ ָש‬ and said to him: Is there a tanna who taught Rav that an udder Eiruvin 6a).
.‫וְ גָ ַדר ָ ּב ּה ָ ּג ֵדר‬ roasted without first being torn is prohibited? Ze’eiri showed him
Rav Yitzĥak bar Avudimi. Rav Yitzĥak bar Avudimi said to Rabbi
Elazar: I did not teach Rav that an udder is prohibited at all; rather,
Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in.b Rav taught this
stringent ruling as an additional safeguard in Babylonia, where Jews
were not careful about the prohibition of meat cooked in milk.
 ‫יק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 110a 185
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ׁ ְש ָמ ָע ּה ְל ַה ִהיא‬,‫יק ַלע ְל ַט ְט ְלפ ּו ׁש‬ ְ ‫דְּ ַרב ִא‬ The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush,b he
Tatlefush – ‫ט ְט ְלפו ּׁש‬:ַ Although the precise location heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does
of Tatlefush is unknown, it was apparently in the ‫ ִר ְיב ָעא דְּ ִב ְ ׂש ָרא‬:‫ִא ְּית ָתא דְּ ָק ָא ְמ ָרה ַל ֲח ֶב ְיר ָּת ּה‬
it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently,
region of the city of Sura, perhaps near Kafri, Rav’s ‫ ָלא ְ ּג ִמ ִירי‬:‫ַּכ ָּמה ֲח ָל ָבא ָ ּב ֵעי ְל ַב ׁ ּשו ֵּלי? ֲא ַמר‬
birthplace. these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat
‫יע ַּכב וְ ָק ָא ַסר ְלה ּו‬ ַ ‫דְּ ָב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב ָאסוּר! ִא‬ cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and pro-
.‫ָּכ ְח ֵלי‬ hibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to
violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk.

:‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ַמ ְתנֵי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ַמ ְתנֵי ָה ִכי‬Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Yitzĥak bar Avudimi replied to Rabbi
‫ ו ִּמ ּ ִפ ְל ּפוּלֹו ׁ ֶשל‬,‫נִיתי לֹו‬
ִ ‫נִיקה ׁ ָש‬ ָ ‫ ֲאנָ א ְּכ ָחל ׁ ֶשל ֵמ‬Elazar in that manner described above. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei
bar Abba teaches that Rav Yitzĥak bar Avudimi said: I taught Rav
.‫יה ְּכ ָחל ְס ָתם‬ ּ ‫ַרב ִחּיָ יא ׁ ָשנָ ה ֵל‬
only that the udder of an animal nursing offspring is prohibited,
as its udder contains much milk. And due to the sharp mind of
Rav Ĥiyya, Rav’s teacher, he assumed that Rav too would under-
stand this without his saying so explicitly. Therefore, he taught this
halakha to Rav with regard to an unspecified udder. Rav mistak-
enly thought that the ruling applies to all animals.

,‫יֹוסף ִא ְיק ְלע ּו ְל ֵבי ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ִפי‬ ֵ ‫ָר ִבין וְ ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר‬ The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzĥak bar Yosef arrived
‫ ַרב יִ צְ ָחק‬.‫ַאיְ ית ּו ְל ַק ַּמיְ יה ּו ַּת ְב ׁ ִש ָילא דִּ ְכ ָחל‬ at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a
dish made of udder. Rav Yitzĥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did
:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ ָר ִבין – ָלא ֲא ַכל‬,‫יֹוסף – ֲא ַכל‬ ֵ ‫ַ ּבר‬
Possible vicinity of Tatlefush not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin,p why do you not eat? After
‫יתה ּו‬ ְ ‫ דְּ ִב‬,‫ ַא ַּמאי ָלא ֲא ַכל? ִמ ְּכ ֵדי‬,‫ָר ִבין ָּת ְכ ָלא‬ all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzĥak Nappaĥa,
Wine used for a libation to idolatry – ‫נֶס ְך‬
ֶ ‫יֵ ין‬: It
is prohibited to drink or derive benefit from wine ,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק נַ ּ ָפ ָחא ֲהוַ אי‬ ּ ‫דְּ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ִפי – ְ ּב ַר ֵּת‬ and Rabbi Yitzĥak Nappaĥa was a master of good deeds, who
used in rites of idolatry (see Deuteronomy 32:38). ‫ ִאי‬,‫יה דְּ עו ְּב ָדא ֲהוָ ה‬ ּ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק נַ ּ ָפ ָחא – ָמ ֵר‬ was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s
The Sages extended the scope of this prohibition to !‫ ָלא ֲהוָ ה ָע ְב ָדא‬,‫נָשא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ָלאו דִּ ׁ ְש ִמ ַיע ָל ּה ִמ ֵ ּבי‬ wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted,
include drinking any wine touched by gentiles, even she would not have made it.
wine that was not used or intended for idolatry.
‫יתא ָא ְכ ִלי‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּבפו ְּמ ְ ּב ִד‬,‫ְ ּבסו ָּרא ָלא ָא ְכ ִלי ָּכ ְח ִלי‬ The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even
Personalities
‫ דְּ הוּא ָר ִמי ַ ּבר דִּ יקו ֵּלי‬,‫ ָר ִמי ַ ּבר ַּת ְמ ֵרי‬.‫ָּכ ְח ִלי‬ torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami
Bereaved Ravin – ‫ר ִבין ָּת ְכ ָלא‬:ָ Ravin, also known as bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita,
Rabbi Avin, or Rabbi Bun in the Jerusalem Talmud,
‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫יק ַלע ְלסו ָּרא ְ ּב ַמ ֲע ֵלי‬ ְ ‫ ִא‬,‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ִמ ּפו ְּמ ְ ּב ִד‬
arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to
was called bereaved due to the deaths that coin- ‫ ַא ּ ְפ ִקינְ ה ּו ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ִל ְכ ָח ִלינְ ה ּו‬,‫ְד ִכ ּפו ֵּרי‬ eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and
cided with his birth, as his father died before he was .ּ‫ ֲא ַכ ִלינְ הו‬,ּ‫ נָ ְק ִטינְ הו‬,ּ‫ ֲאזַ ל ִאיהו‬.ּ‫ׁ ְש ֵדינְ הו‬
born and his mother passed away during childbirth
everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had
(see Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin 1:7). Elsewhere it slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and
is claimed that his father, after whom he is named, gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance
passed away on the day of his birth (Bereshit Rabba with his custom.
58). Alternatively, Rashi on Pesaĥim 70b explains that
he was called by this name because many of his ‫ ַא ַּמאי‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ּ ‫ַאיְ יתו ּּה ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ĥisda,
children died in his lifetime.
‫ ֵמ ַא ְת ָרא דְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַּת ֲע ֵביד ָה ִכי? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to
Rav Ĥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders,
‫״נֹותנִין ָע ָליו‬
ְ ְ‫ וְ ֵלית ָלך‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ דְּ ָא ֵכיל‬,‫ֲאנָ א‬
language and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ĥisda said to
Grape seeds [purtzenei] – ‫פו ְּרצְ נֵי‬:ּ This is the ancient ‫חו ְּמ ֵרי ַה ָּמקֹום ׁ ֶשּיָ צָ א ִמ ׁ ּ ָשם וְ חו ְּמ ֵרי ַה ָּמקֹום‬ him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose
Aramaic term for pits or the seeds of a plant. Purtz- ‫ ח ּו ץ ַל ְּתח ּום‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ׁ ֶש ָה ַל ְך ְל ׁ ָשם״? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also
enei is used as a general term for the leftover parts .ּ‫ֲא ַכ ְל ִּתינְ הו‬ the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have
of grapes after they have been squeezed into wine,
accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar
including their seeds (see Rashi here and on Avoda
Zara 34b). The same term is applied to all leftover Tamrei said to Rav Ĥisda: That principle applies only to one who
parts, because after much crushing and squashing it remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the
is hard to differentiate between the skins and seeds boundaries of Sura.
of grapes, as they are all merged together into a thick
mixture. When this waste matter dries it can be used ‫ וְ ִד ְל ָמא‬.‫ ְ ּבפו ְּרצְ נֵי‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫יתינְ הוּ? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ִ ִ‫ ו ַּב ֶּמה ְטו‬Rav Ĥisda further asked Rami bar Tamrei: And with what did you
for kindling, as Rami bar Tamrei does here. ‫ ְל ַא ַחר ׁ ְשנֵים ָע ָ ׂשר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ל‬ֵ ‫ר‬ ‫מ‬ַ ‫א‬
ֲ ?‫א‬ ָ‫י‬ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ה‬ָ ְ‫נֶסך‬ֶ ‫ ִמּיֵ ין‬roast the udders? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: I roasted them
with grape seeds [purtzenei]l I found in the vines there. Rav Ĥisda
.ּ‫ח ֶֹד ׁש ָהוו‬
halakha objected: But how could you roast the udders with grape seeds,
These were old seeds, after twelve months – ‫ְל ַא ַחר‬ as perhaps they were from wine used for a libation to idolatry,b
‫שנֵים ָע ָ ׂשר ח ֶֹד ׁש ָהו ּו‬:
ְ ׁ It is prohibited to derive benefit from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rami bar Tamrei
from grape seeds and skins belonging to gentiles, as said to him: These were old seeds that still lay there after twelve
well as from the sediments of their wines, for twelve
monthsh had passed since the grapes were used, and any prohibi-
months. After that time, they are permitted even
for consumption (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
tion had expired, as by that point they are assumed to have lost any
Ma’akhalot Assurot 11:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a prohibited liquid that previously remained inside (see Avoda
123:14). Zara 34a).
There was certainly despair of the owners – ‫יֵאו ּׁש‬
‫ יֵ או ּׁש ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ וְ ִד ְל ָמא דְּ גֵ זֶ ל ֲהוָ ה? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rav Ĥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from
‫ב ָע ִלים ֲהוָ ה‬:
ּ ְ One who transgressed and ate stolen
food after the owner had already despaired of recov- .‫ דְּ ָק ְדח ּו ְ ּבה ּו ִח ְיל ֵפי‬,‫ ֲהוָ ה‬stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohib-
ering it is exempt from repayment (Rambam Sefer ited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so,
Nezikin, Hilkhot Gezeila VaAveda 5:4). in this case there was certainly despair of the ownersh of recover-
ing them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners
had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up
all hope of retrieving them.
186 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 110a . ‫ףד‬ ‫יק‬. ‫׳ח קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫ילין‬ ִּ ‫יה דְּ ָלא ֲהוָ ה ַמ ַּנח ְּת ִפ‬
ּ ֵ‫ַחזְ י‬ Rav Ĥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries,
and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned One who has intestinal illness is exempt from the
‫ילין? ֲא ַמר‬ ִּ ‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא ָלא ַמ ַּנ ַחת ְּת ִפ‬ mitzva of phylacteries – ‫חֹולי ֵמ ַעיִ ין ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬:
ֵ One
phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering
,‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫חֹולי ֵמ ַעיִ ין הוּא‬ ֵ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ who is afflicted with an intestinal illness is exempt from
from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has the mitzva of phylacteries, even if he is not suffering
.‫חֹולי ֵמ ַעיִ ין – ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬
ֵ intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries,h any pain (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza
which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them VeSefer Torah 4:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 38:1, and
constantly to defecate. in the comment of Rema).

:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יה דְּ ָלא ֲהוָ ה ָקא ְר ֵמי חו ֵּטי‬
ּ ֵ‫ ַחזְ י‬Rav Ĥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the
ּ ‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא ֵלית ָל ְך חו ֵּטי? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What
:‫יה‬
is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes?
:‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ַט ִּלית ׁ ְשאו ָּלה ִהיא‬
Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav
Yehuda said:

Perek VIII
Daf 110 Amud b
halakha
‫ ָּכל ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים יֹום – ּ ְפטו ָּרה‬,‫ ַט ִּלית ׁ ְשאו ָּלה‬With regard to a borrowed robe, during all of the first thirty daysh
A borrowed robe during all thirty days, etc. – ‫ַט ִּלית‬
.‫ ִמן ַה ִ ּציצִ ית‬that one borrows it, one is exempt from performing the mitzva of ‫שאו ָּלה ָּכל ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים יֹום וכו׳‬:
ְ ׁ One who borrows a garment
ritual fringes with it. that does not have ritual fringes is exempt from placing
ritual fringes on it for the first thirty days. After thirty days
‫ ַאיְ יתו ּּה ְל ַההוּא ַ ּג ְב ָרא דְּ ָלא ֲהוָ ה‬,‫ ַאדְּ ָה ִכי‬Meanwhile, as Rav Ĥisda and Rami bar Tamrei were talking, the have passed he must attach ritual fringes to the gar-
.ּ‫ ְּכ ָפתוּהו‬,‫יה‬ּ ‫מֹוקר ֲאבו ּּה וְ ִא ֵּמ‬ַ attendants brought in a certain man to Rav Ĥisda’s court who ment by rabbinic law, as it appears to belong to him, and
would not honor his father and mother,h and they tied him to a he recites a blessing upon donning those ritual fringes
pillar in order to flog him. (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tzitzit 3:4; Shulĥan Arukh,
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 14:3 and Mishna Berura there).
‫ ָּכל ִמצְ וַ ת‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָ א‬,ּ‫ ׁ ְש ַבקוּהו‬:ּ‫ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬ Rami bar Tamrei said to them: Leave him alone,n as it is taught in
Who would not honor his father and mother, etc. –
‫ֲע ֵ ׂשה ׁ ֶש ַּמ ַּתן ְ ׂש ָכ ָר ּה ְ ּבצִ דָּ ּה – ֵאין ֵ ּבית‬ a baraita: With regard to any positive mitzva whose reward is ‫יה וכו׳‬
ּ ‫מֹוקר ֲאבו ּּה וְ ִא ֵּמ‬
ַ ‫דְּ ָלא ֲהוָ ה‬: One who verbally dispar-
stated alongside it in the Torah, the earthly court below is not ages his father or mother even by intimation is cursed
:‫יה‬ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יה‬ ָ ‫דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ְּל ַמ ָּטה מוּזְ ָה ִרין ָע ֶל‬
warned to enforce it through punishments such as flogging. And by God, and the court has the authority to administer to
‫ ִאי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָחזֵ ינָ א ָלךְ דַּ ֲח ִר ַיפת טו ָּבא! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ it is stated after the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother: him lashes for rebelliousness and to punish him as they
ְ‫ ַא ֲחוִ ינָ א ָלך‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ּ ‫ָהוֵ ית ְ ּב ַא ְת ֵר‬ “That your days may be long, and that it go well with you” (Deuter- see fit (Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Mamrim 5:15).
!‫חו ְּר ָפ ִאי‬ onomy 5:16). Rav Ĥisda said to Rami bar Tamrei: I see that you are
very sharp. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ĥisda: If you were in the notes
place where Rav Yehuda resides, I would be able to show you my Rami bar Tamrei said to them, leave him alone – ‫ֲא ַמר‬
sharpness of mind far better than here. ‫לה ּו ׁ ְש ַבקוּה ּו‬:ְ The commentaries write that if a court wants
to enforce the fulfillment of positive mitzvot, includ-
‫ ִּכי ָס ְל ַקת‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְל ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ § Pursuant to the discussion of different local customs, Abaye said ing those whose reward is stated alongside them in
the Torah, they have the right to do so, but they are not
‫ ַּכ ְבדָּ א ָמה ַא ּתוּן‬,ּ‫ְל ָה ָתם ְ ּב ַעי ִמ ּינַיְ יהו‬ to Rav Safra: When you ascend there, to Eretz Yisrael, ask the
obligated in this matter (Responsa of the Ramban 88,
Sages there: With regard to liver, how do you treat it? When Rav
,‫יה ְל ַרב זְ ִר ָיקא‬ ּ ‫ ַא ׁ ְש ְּכ ֵח‬,‫יה? ִּכי ְס ֵליק‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ citing Jerusalem Talmud, Bava Batra; comment of Rema
Safra ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rav Zerika and asked him on Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 97:16, and Beit Yosef
,‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי‬
ּ ‫ ֲאנָ א ׁ ָש ְל ִקי ֵל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ this question. Rav Zerika said to him: I cooked liver for Rabbi Ami there). The later commentaries note that according to
.‫וְ ָא ַכל‬ and he ate it. this explanation, it is difficult to understand why Rami
bar Tamrei instructed the court to leave the man alone,
‫יסר‬ַ ‫ ְל ֵמ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ְלגַ ֵ ּב‬When Rav Safra returned to Babylonia and came before Abaye and if the court has the right to flog him. Some explain that
ּ ָ ‫ נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה – ָלא ָקא ִמ‬reported what Rav Zerika had said, Abaye said to him: I do not
‫ ִּכי ָק ִמ ָ ּב ֲעיָ א‬,‫יב ֲעיָ א ִלי‬ the right of the court to enforce the fulfillment of positive
raise the dilemma as to whether liver renders itself prohibited mitzvot applies only to positive mitzvot that are fulfilled
.‫יסר ֲח ֵב ְיר ָּת ּה‬ַ ‫ִלי – ְל ֵמ‬ in a clear, specific way that can be enforced immediately.
if cooked alone. It is clear to me that the blood that diffuses out of
But positive mitzvot such as honoring one’s parents can-
the liver is not absorbed again while it cooks. When I raise the not necessarily be enforced immediately, as their fulfill-
dilemma, it is with regard to whether liver renders prohibited ment involves other factors (Sma on Ĥoshen Mishpat
another piece of meat cooked with it. Rav Zerika’s statement 97:16, and see Taz there).
therefore has no bearing on my question.
 ‫יק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 110b 187
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫יב ֲעיָ א‬ ּ ָ ‫יסר נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה דְּ ָלא ִמ‬ַ ‫ַמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ְל ֵמ‬ Rav Safra asked Abaye: What is different about the issue of the liver
Liver renders prohibited but is not prohibited itself – rendering itself prohibited, that you did not raise the dilemma
‫אֹוס ֶרת וְ ֵאינָ ּה נֶ ֱא ֶס ֶרת‬
ֶ ‫ה ָּכ ֵבד‬:ַ Due to the large amount of ‫יסר ֲח ֵב ְיר ָּת ּה‬
ַ ‫ ְל ֵמ‬,‫ ֵאינָ ּה נֶ ֱא ֶס ֶרת‬:‫ָלךְ – דִּ ְתנַן‬
with regard to this case? It is presumably because the answer is
blood present in liver, one should not cook it after salt- ‫אֹוס ֶרת‬
ֶ ‫ ַה ָּכ ֵבד‬:‫נַ ִמי ָלא ִּת ָ ּב ֵעי ָלךְ – דִּ ְתנַן‬
ing ab initio. Instead, one should tear it lengthwise obvious to you, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:11) that
‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ִהיא ּפ ֶֹול ֶטת וְ ֵאינָ ּה‬,‫וְ ֵאינָ ּה נֶ ֱא ֶס ֶרת‬ liver is not rendered prohibited by its own cooking. But if so, you
and widthwise, and position its tear downward. At this
point he should roast it until it is edible, and after that ‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ָה ָתם ְ ּב ַכ ְבדָּ א‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ּב ַֹול ַעת! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ should not raise the dilemma with regard to whether it renders
he may cook it. All this applies to a whole liver; if it is ,‫דְּ ִא ּיסו ָּרא‬ the other piece of meat prohibited either, as we learned in that
cut into pieces, these stages are unnecessary. When same mishna: Liver renders food cooked with it in the same pot
one cooks the liver after roasting, he should wash it
prohibited but is not prohibited itself,h because while it does
first, but if he cooked it without washing, it is permitted
(Rema). If the liver was not roasted, it is nevertheless
expel blood as it cooks, it does not absorb this blood again, since
permitted after the fact, provided the liver was cooked the blood diffuses only outward. Abaye said to Rav Safra: That
in a pot by itself. The pot is rendered non-kosher due to mishna does not answer my question, as perhaps there it is referring
the blood emitted by the liver. Some prohibit the liver specifically to forbidden liver, e.g., the liver of a non-kosher animal.
as well in this case, and the Rema states that according
to the accepted custom, a liver that was not roasted is
prohibited, even if it was salted before it was cooked
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:7;
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 73:1).

Perek VIII
Daf 111 Amud a
background
?‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דָּ ָמא ַמאי‬,‫ּנִיתא‬
ָ ‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁ ַש ְמנו‬And the other food is not forbidden due to the liver’s blood, but
The windpipe with all the parts attached to it – ‫ַקנְיָא‬
rather due to the fat of the liver it absorbed. But if permitted liver
‫יה‬
ּ ‫קֹופ‬
ֵ ‫ב‬: ּ ְ It is common to remove the windpipe of a
slaughtered animal with the lungs, heart, and liver
is cooked with another piece of meat, and the concern is only that
attached. This unit is referred to as a pluck, and one can the meat might be prohibited due to the meat absorbing excess
hold up the windpipe with those organs suspended blood from the liver, what is the halakha? Perhaps blood is absorbed
from it. It is not unusual to cook them together in tra- less easily than fat.
ditional dishes.
.‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי זְ ִר ָיקא‬ ּ ‫ִּכי ֲה ַדר ְס ֵליק ַא ׁ ְש ְּכ ֵח‬ When Rav Safra again ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi
‫ דַּ ֲאנָ א‬, ְ‫ ַהאי נַ ִמי ָלא ִּת ָ ּב ֵעי ָלך‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Zerika once more and asked him about liver cooked with another
piece of meat. Rabbi Zerika said to him: You need not ask this
‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי ִא ְיק ְל ַען ְל ֵבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ ּ ‫וְ יַ ַּנאי ְ ּב ֵר‬
question either, as I and Yannai, son of Rabbi Ami, arrived at
‫ ו ְּק ִריב ּו ָלן ַקנְיָא‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ּ ָפזִ י‬ּ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ the house of Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and they
.‫יה – וַ ֲא ַכ ְלנָ א‬ ּ ‫קֹופ‬
ֵ ‫ְ ּב‬ brought before us the windpipe of an animal with all the parts
attached to it,b i.e., the lungs, heart, and liver, all of which had been
cooked together, and we ate it. This proves that the blood emitted
from the liver does not render prohibited other pieces of meat
cooked with it.

‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִא ֵית‬,‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ Rav Ashi, and some say Rabbi Shmuel from Zerokinya, objects
‫ וְ ִד ְל ָמא ּ ִפי ָקנֶ ה חוּץ ַל ְּק ֵד ָרה‬:‫רֹוקינְיָא‬ ִ ְ‫ִמּז‬ to this conclusion: But perhaps in that incident the mouth of the
windpipe was positioned outside of the pot,n allowing the liver’s
‫יה‬ּ ‫יח ַלט ֲהוָ ה ָח ֵליט ֵל‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬,‫ֲהוָ ה? ִאי נַ ִמי‬
excess blood to run out of the pot rather than being absorbed by
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ דְּ ַרב הוּנָ א – ָח ְל ִטי ֵל‬,‫יק ָרא? ִּכי ָהא‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬ the other pieces of meat. Alternatively, perhaps they poured boil-
.‫רֹות ִחין‬
ְ ‫יה ְ ּב‬ ּ ‫ וְ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן – ָח ְל ִטי ֵל‬,‫ְ ּב ָח ָלא‬ ing liquid on the liver at the outset, before it was cooked with the
lung and heart, like that custom of Rav Huna, for whom they
Pluck
would pour boiling vinegar on liver, and that of Rav Naĥman, for
whom they would pour boiling water on liver.h This would cook
halakha
the excess blood into the liver and prevent it from diffusing into the
They would pour boiling water on liver – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָח ְל ִטי ֵל‬
‫רֹות ִחין‬
ְ ‫ב‬:ּ ְ If one pours vinegar or boiling water on a
other pieces. Abaye’s question remains unresolved.
liver, in accordance with the practices of Rav Huna
notes
and Rav Naĥman, respectively, and then perforates
and removes the blood from the liver, according to the But perhaps the mouth of the windpipe was positioned out- goes to the liver. In actuality, though, the large windpipe is a tube
strict halakha it is permitted to cook this liver, but the side of the pot – ‫וְ ִד ְל ָמא ּ ִפי ָקנֶ ה חוּץ ַל ְּק ֵד ָרה ֲהוָ ה‬: Rashi says this that allows for the passage of air, and it enters the lung, whereas
ge’onim prohibited cooking it. If one did cook liver in positioning enabled the arteries of the liver to carry the blood to the tubes that enter the heart and lung are blood vessels. Some
this manner, it is permitted after the fact (Rambam Sefer the windpipe and out of the pot. The Meiri adds that since the explain that Rashi agrees that blood from the liver would not
Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:7; Shulĥan Arukh, blood finds a direct way of exiting it does so and does not travel flow naturally to the mouth of the windpipe. But this is referring
Yoreh De’a 73:2 and Beur HaGra there). through the meat of the liver. The Rashba further adds that for this to a case where the tubes of the liver, heart, and lung, which are
reason, even the blood that was in the liver itself exits through positioned alongside one another, were perforated with a knife.
the windpipe out of the pot and not into the boiling water that This enables the flow of blood from the blood vessels of the heart
is in the pot. Rashi indicates that the large windpipe of the lung and the liver to continue through the windpipe and out of the pot.
splits into three secondary windpipes that carry the blood (see This process is necessary because the blood vessels of the heart
also Rashi on 45b and 49a). According to his explanation, one of and the liver are relatively short, whereas the longer windpipe
these leads to the lung, the second to the heart, while the third stretches out of the pot (Kehillot Ya’akov).

188 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 111a . ‫איק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ָח ָלא‬:‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא ְל ֵמ‬
ּ ‫ וְ ָס ַבר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ַק ֵּמ‬And with regard to the pouring of boiling vinegar on the liver,
Se’a – ‫ס ָאה‬:ְ A se’a, which consists of six kav, is a measure-
‫ ִאי ָח ָלא ֲא ִסיר – ִאיה ּו נַ ִמי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫ ֲא ִסיר‬Rav Pappa, when he was a student before Rava, thought to say ment of volume used in many areas of halakha. The
that the vinegar becomes prohibited for consumption in the
.‫יכי דְּ ָפ ֵליט ֲה ַדר ָ ּב ַלע‬
ִ ‫ ִּכי ֵה‬,‫ֲא ִסיר‬ size of a se’a ranges from 8.3 to 14.3 ℓ, according to the
process, since it absorbs blood from the liver. Rava said to Rav opinions of the various halakhic authorities. Therefore,
Pappa: If you claim that the vinegar is prohibited, then the liver three se’a is somewhere between 25 and 43 ℓ.
itself should also be prohibited, since just as the liver expels
blood and prohibits the vinegar, so too it then absorbs the blood halakha
back from the forbidden vinegar. Rather, one must say that no The spleen merely contains fat – ‫ַט ְח ָלא ׁשו ָּמנָ א ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬
blood is expelled from the liver during this process at all, which ‫הוּא‬: Although the spleen has a reddish appearance
is why the liver is permitted afterward. and appears to be full of blood, its halakhic status is like
that of other meat, and it is permitted for consumption
through salting alone (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ַאיְ ית ּו ֵל‬,‫ַרב ַ ּבר ׁ ַש ָ ּבא ִא ְיק ַלע ְל ֵבי ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ The Gemara relates that Rav bar Shabba visited the house of
Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 74:1).
‫ ַ ּבר ֵ ּבי‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ָא ְמר ּו ֵל‬,‫ַּכ ְבדָּ א ׁ ְש ִל ָיקא וְ ָלא ֲא ַכל‬ Rav Naĥman. They brought him cooked liver, but Rava bar
Shabba did not partake of it. The members of the household
‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ַרב דִּ ְלגָ יו ָלא ָא ֵכיל! ו ַּמנּ וּ? ַרב ַ ּבר ׁ ַש ָ ּבא‬
said to Rav Naĥman: There is a student of Torah inside who is
.‫ ָ ּגאמ ּו ְל ׁ ַש ָ ּבא‬:‫ְלה ּו ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ not eating. And who is he? Rav bar Shabba. Rav Naĥman said
to them: Feed Shabba against his will.

‫אֹוס ֶרת‬
ֶ ‫ ַה ָּכ ֵבד‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬ The Gemara notes: Abaye’s question above with regard to liver
.‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ּפ ֶֹול ֶטת וְ ֵאינָ ּה ּב ַֹול ַעת‬,‫וְ ֵאינָ ּה נֶ ֱא ֶס ֶרת‬ cooked with other meat is subject to a dispute between tanna’im,
as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The liver that was
‫רֹוקה‬
ָ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ֶ ּבן ְ ּב‬
ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּבנֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי‬
cooked with other pieces of meat prohibits them, but it itself is
– ‫ ׁ ְשלו ָּקה‬,‫אֹוס ֶרת וְ נֶ ֱא ֶס ֶרת‬ֶ – ‫ ְמתו ֶ ּּב ֶלת‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ not prohibited, because it expels blood as it cooks but does
.‫אֹוס ֶרת וְ נֶ ֱא ֶס ֶרת‬
ֶ not absorb it again. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoĥanan
ben Beroka, says: If the liver was spiced when cooking, it pro-
hibits the other meat and it becomes prohibited as well, as the
spices cause the liver to reabsorb the blood that was expelled.
Likewise, if the liver was stewed, i.e., heavily cooked, it renders
the other pieces prohibited and is itself prohibited.

‫ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א ִא ְק ַלע ְל ֵבי ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב‬ The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Rav Huna visited the house
‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יה ְּת ָלת ָסאוֵ י ְט ַחאי‬ ּ ‫יתי ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ֵ ְ‫ ַאי‬,‫נַ ְח ָמן‬ of Rabba bar Rav Naĥman and dined with him on Shabbat.
They brought before him three se’ab of fine bread that had been
:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ִמי ֲהוָ ה יָ ְד ִעית ּו דְּ ָא ֵתינָ א? ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל‬:ּ‫ְלהו‬
kneaded in oil and honey. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the
‫את ַל ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬
ָ ‫ִמי ֲע ִד ַיפ ְּת ָלן ִמ ָּינ ּה דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״וְ ָק ָר‬ members of Rabba bar Rav Naĥman’s household: Did you know
!?‫עֹנֶ ג״‬ that I was coming, that you prepared such superior food? They
said to him: Are you more distinguished than Shabbat, as it is
written with regard to Shabbat: “If you proclaim Shabbat a
delight, the sacred day of God honored” (Isaiah 58:13).

‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכח ַההוּא ַּכ ְבדָּ א דַּ ֲהוָ ה ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ַאדְּ ָה ִכי‬ Meanwhile, Rabba bar Rav Huna found among the dishes
‫ ַא ַּמאי‬:ּ‫ ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬.‫יעא דָּ ָמא‬ ָ ‫ִס ְמ ּפֹונָ א דִּ ְב ִל‬ before him a certain liver that contained an artery suffused
with blood. He said to the members of the household: Why do
?‫נַע ֵביד‬ֲ ‫יכי‬ ִ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָע ְב ִדית ּו ָה ִכי? ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל‬
you do this? Although the blood absorbed in the liver is permit-
.‫ ִק ְרע ּו ׁ ְש ִתי וָ ֵע ֶרב וְ ִח ּיתו ָּכא ְל ַת ַחת‬:ּ‫ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬ ted, that which is collected in the blood vessels is prohibited. The
members of the household said to him: Rather, what should
we do in order to prepare the liver? Rabba bar Rav Huna said to
them: First tear the liver lengthwise and widthwise, and posi-
tion the side with the tear downward, so that the blood will flow
out when you place it on the fire.

‫ ֲא ָבל ַט ְח ָלא – ׁשו ָּמנָ א‬,‫ילי – ַּכ ְבדָּ א‬ ֵּ ‫ וְ ָהנֵי ִמ‬The Gemara comments: And this statement applies only to liver,
ּ ‫ ִּכי ָהא דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָע ְב ִדי ֵל‬.‫ ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬due to the blood that collects in its blood vessels; but there is
‫יה‬
no need to tear the spleen in this manner, as it merely contains
.‫יֹומא דַּ ֲע ֵביד ִמ ְּל ָתא‬
ָ ‫ַּת ְב ׁ ִש ָילא דְּ ַט ְח ִלי ְ ּב‬
fat.h And this ruling accords with that which is reported about
Shmuel, that his attendants would prepare a dish of spleens for
him on the day that he performed the practice of bloodletting.

‫ דָּ ָמא‬,‫ילוֵ י ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ָּ ‫ ַּכ ְבדָּ א ִע‬:‫ § ִא ְּת ַמר‬It was stated: If liver and other meat are roasted on spits in an
,‫ ְּכ ָח ָלא ִע ָּילוֵ י ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא – ָאסוּר‬.‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ַרק ׁ ָש ֵריק‬oven such that the liver is positioned on top of the meat, the
meat is permitted even though blood from the liver flows onto
. ְ‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא – ָח ָלב ְסרו ֵּכי ִמ ְס ִריך‬
it. This is because the blood that flows from an item roasting
in the oven slides over meat located underneath it and is not
absorbed. But if an udder is positioned on top of the meat when
roasted in the oven, the meat is prohibited. What is the reason?
It is that the milk expelled by the roasting udder adheres to and
is absorbed by the meat.
 ‫איק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 111a 189
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ְּכ ָח ָלא‬:‫ימי ִמ ְּנ ַה ְרדְּ ָעא ַמ ְתנֵי ִא ּ ְפ ָכא‬ ִ ִּ‫ַרב ד‬ Rav Dimi from Neharde’a would teach the opposite: Whenever
Whether in the case of liver or in the case of an an udder is positioned on top of the meat, the meat is permitted.
udder, if it is underneath the meat, the meat is ‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא – ֲח ֵלב‬,‫ילוֵ י ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ָּ ‫ִע‬
What is the reason? The prohibition of meat cooked in milk of a
permitted, etc. – ‫ֵ ּבין ַּכ ְבדָּ א ֵ ּבין ְּכ ָח ָלא ּתו ֵּתי ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא‬ ,‫ ַּכ ְבדָּ א ִע ָּילוֵ י ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא – ָאסוּר‬,‫ׁ ְשחו ָּטה דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬
‫ש ֵרי וכו׳‬:
ָ ׁ It is prohibited to roast liver placed on a spit slaughtered animal applies by rabbinic law, and is treated less
.‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫דָּ ם ד‬ stringently. But if liver is positioned on top of the meat, the meat
with other meat ab initio, even if the liver is placed
underneath the meat. The Rema writes that if the is prohibited, as the prohibition of blood applies by Torah law, and
liver has already been salted, then it is permitted to one must be concerned that perhaps the meat will absorb blood
roast it with meat, even if the liver is placed on top from the liver.
of the meat, as its blood has been reduced to the
extent that it is considered like an ordinary piece of ,‫ ֵ ּבין ַּכ ְבדָּ א ֵ ּבין ְּכ ָח ָלא‬:‫ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬,‫ימר‬
ָ ‫ דְּ ַר ׁש ָמ ֵר‬Mareimar taught in public: The halakha is: Whether in the case of
meat placed on top of another. With regard to this
issue, the halakha of roasting an udder is the same – ‫יע ַבד‬ֲ ִּ‫ ד‬,‫ ִע ָּילוֵ י ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא‬.‫ ּתו ֵּתי ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬liver or in the case of an udder, if it is underneath the meat, the
meat is permitted,h but if it is on top of the meat, then after the
as that of roasting a liver (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, .‫ ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה – ָלא‬,‫ִאין‬
Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh fact, yes, the meat is permitted, but ab initio, no, one may not
De’a 73:4, 90:4). situate them in this manner.

,‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ִא ְיק ַלע ְל ֵבי ָר ִמי ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא ֲחמו ּּה‬The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi arrived at the house of his father-
‫יה דְּ ָר ִמי ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא דְּ ָקא‬ ּ ֵ‫ ַחזְ י‬in-law Rami bar Abba, and he saw that the son of Rami bar
ּ ‫יה ִל ְב ֵר‬
Abba was

Perek VIII
Daf 111 Amud b
halakha
‫ ַּכ ָּמה יָ ִהיר‬:‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ ׁ ַש ּ ִפיד ַּכ ְבדָּ א ִע ָּילוֵ י ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא‬skewering liver on top of meat for roasting. Rav Ashi said: How
The knife with which one slaughtered it absorbs
blood and it is prohibited to cut boiling food – ‫ַס ִּכין‬ ,‫יע ַבד‬ֲ ִּ‫ימר דַּ ֲאמוּר ַר ָ ּבנַן – ד‬ ַ ‫ ַהאי ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן! ֵא‬haughty is this Sage! Even if you say that the Sages stated that one
may eat meat roasted under liver after the fact, did they say that
ֵ ‫ש ׁ ּ ָש ַחט ָ ּב ּה ָאסוּר ַל ְח ּתֹוךְ ָ ּב ּה‬‎
‫רֹות ַח‬ ֶ ׁ : A knife that has been ?‫ְל ַכ ְּת ִח ָּלה ִמי ֲאמוּר‬
used for ritual slaughter is fit for use for another ritual one may roast them in this manner ab initio?
slaughter, even if it is bloodied. Nevertheless, one
may not cut boiling food with it. The Rambam writes ָּ ‫יכא ֵ ּבי דּ וּגִ י – ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא ִע‬
‫ילוֵ י ַּכ ְבדָּ א‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ִאי ִא‬The Gemara adds: And if there is a receptacle under the spit for
that if one did cut boiling food with it, that food is .‫ נַ ִמי ֲא ִסיר‬the drippings of fat, then even if the meat is on top of the liver it is
permitted after the fact (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hil- also prohibited to roast the meat, as the blood from the liver will
khot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:20, and see Maggid Mishne fall into the fat in the vessel, and one might come to eat the mixture.
there; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 10:2).
If one cut cold food with this knife some say the – ‫ ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א ִמדָּ ָמא דְּ ִב ְ ׂש ָרא? דָּ ָמא דְּ ִב ְ ׂש ָרא‬The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from roast-
piece he cut requires rinsing, etc. – ‫צֹונֵן ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬ .‫ דָּ ָמא דְּ ַכ ְבדָּ א – ָק ֵפי‬,‫ ׁ ְש ַכן‬ing a piece of meat by itself over such a vessel, which is permitted?
‫ב ֲעיָ א ֲה ָד ָחה וכו׳‬:ּ ָ With regard to a knife that has been Here too the blood of the meat drips into the fat in the vessel. The
used for ritual slaughter, one may cut cold food with Gemara answers: Blood of most meat sinks to the bottom of the
it after rinsing it first (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hil- vessel, while the fat floats on top. Since the fat can be separated from
khot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:20; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh the blood, it is permitted. By contrast, the blood of the liver floats
De’a 10:2).
above the fat and cannot be removed from it, and therefore the
entire mixture is prohibited.

‫ ַס ִּכין ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַחט‬:‫ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ § Rav Naĥman says that Shmuel says: The knife with which one
‫ צֹונֵן – ָא ְמ ִרי‬.‫רֹות ַח‬ֵ ‫ָ ּב ּה – ָאסוּר ַל ְח ּתֹוךְ ָ ּב ּה‬ slaughtered an animal absorbs blood due to its heat, and it is there-
fore prohibited to cut any boiling foodh with it, since that food will
‫ ָלא ָ ּב ֲעיָ א‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬,‫ ָ ּב ֲעיָ א ֲה ָד ָחה‬:‫ָל ּה‬
in turn absorb the blood from the knife. If one cut cold food with
.‫ֲה ָד ָחה‬ this knife, some say that the piece he cut requires rinsinghn before
one may eat it, and some say that it does not require rinsing.

notes
If one cut cold food with this knife some say that the piece he Others maintain that when the Gemara refers to rinsing, it is
cut requires rinsing – ‫צֹונֵן ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ָ ּב ֲעיָ א ֲה ָד ָחה‬: Rashi explains that referring to rinsing the knife rather than the food. Therefore, the
this passage is referring to a case where one did not rinse the knife. Gemara is saying that if one cuts a cold food with this knife, some
Therefore, if it was subsequently used to cut hot food, Shmuel rules maintain that one must rinse the knife first, while others contend
that the food is prohibited, whereas if the food was cold one opin- that rinsing is not necessary, and one need only wipe the knife a
ion requires rinsing, which Rashi interprets as referring to rinsing little. But if one wishes to use this knife to cut boiling food, it must
the food, and the other opinion permits it without rinsing. If one be purged or rendered white hot (Ramban). The reason is that
did rinse the knife, then since there is no requirement to purge the although the place of the slaughter is not that hot, since the knife
knife despite the heat of the place of the slaughter on the animal’s presses onto it the Sages ruled that rinsing is insufficient (Rashba).
neck, it may be used to cut even hot foods (Ran; Ba’al HaMaor).

190 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 111b . ‫איק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ְק ָע ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמ ַלח‬:‫ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ § The Gemara cites other statements of Shmuel. Rav Yehuda says halakha

that Shmuel says: With regard to a bowl in which meat was saltedh A bowl in which meat was salted – ‫ְק ָע ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמ ַלח‬
‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל‬.‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ָ ּב ּה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָאסוּר ֶל ֱאכֹול ָ ּב ּה‬ ‫ב ּה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:ּ ָ If one salted meat in a vessel that was not
to remove its blood before cooking, it is prohibited to eat any boil-
‫ ָמ ִל ַיח – ֲה ֵרי הוּא‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְל ַט ֲע ֵמ‬ perforated, one may not place boiling food into
ing food placed in it, as that food absorbs blood of the meat from that vessel, even if the vessel was rinsed. Some say
.‫ וְ ָכבו ּׁש – ֲה ֵרי הוּא ִּכ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬,‫רֹות ַח‬
ֵ ‫ְּכ‬ the bowl. And in this Shmuel conforms to his standard line of that one may not use that vessel even for cold food
reasoning, as Shmuel said: A salted food imparts its flavor like a without first rinsing it. If one did use that vessel
boiling food, and a food item marinated in vinegar, brine, or the without rinsing it, one should rinse the food placed
like absorbs flavor from the liquid or vessel as would a cooked food. in it (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
Assurot 6:21; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 69:16 and
‫ ָמ ִל ַיח – ֵאינֹו‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬ ָ ‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Shakh there).

:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬.‫ וְ ָכבו ּׁש – ֵאינֹו ִּכ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬,‫רֹות ַח‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan said: A salted food is not considered like a boiling
food, and a marinated food is not considered like a cooked food. language
‫ דְּ ַה ִהיא ּ ִפינְ ָּכא דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵ ּבי‬,‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ָהא דְּ ָר ִבין ֵל‬ Bowl [pinka] – ‫פינְ ָּכא‬:ִ ּ Possibly from the Greek
Abaye said: I can prove that this ruling that Ravin cited is not
‫ ִמ ְּכ ִדי‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא – ו ְּת ַב ֵר‬
ּ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי דִּ ְמ ַלח ֵ ּב‬ correct, as there was a certain bowl [pinka]l in Rabbi Ami’s house πίναξ, pinax, one of whose meanings is a large
‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא‬,‫יֹוחנָן ֲהוָ ה‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי ַּת ְל ִמיד דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ dish.
in which meat was salted, and Rabbi Ami broke it so that it
‫ֵיה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫יה ִמ ּינ‬
ּ ‫יעא ֵל‬ ָ ‫יה? ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ׁ ְש ִמ‬ ּ ‫ְּת ַב ֵר‬ would no longer be used. Now Rabbi Ami was a student of Rabbi
background
!‫רֹות ַח‬
ֵ ‫ ָמ ִל ַיח – ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ‬:‫יֹוחנָן דַּ ֲא ַמר‬ ָ Yoĥanan. What is the reason he broke that bowl? Is it not because
he heard that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: A salted food is considered like Kutaĥ – ‫כו ָּתח‬:ּ Kutaĥ was a dip for bread served
as an appetizer. It was made from whey, salt, and
a boiling food? Ravin’s citation was evidently in error. bread that had fermented to the point of moldi-
ness. This dip was so sharp that it could be eaten
‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ּ ‫יְ ֵתיב ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ֲאחו ּּה דְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ַק ֵּמ‬ Rav Kahana, the brother of Rav Yehuda, sat before Rav Huna, only by the Babylonians, who were accustomed
– ‫ ְק ָע ָרה ׁ ֶש ָּמ ַלח ָ ּב ּה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ וִ ֵיתיב וְ ָק ָא ַמר‬,‫הוּנָ א‬ and he sat and said: With regard to a bowl in which meat was to it. In the Mishna, it is referred to as Babylonian
salted, it is prohibited to eat any boiling food placed in it. And he kutaĥ.
– ‫ וּצְ נֹון ׁ ֶש ֲח ָתכֹו ְ ּב ַס ִּכין‬,‫רֹות ַח‬
ֵ ‫ָאסוּר ֶל ֱאכֹול ָ ּב ּה‬
added: With regard to a radish that one cut with a knife used for
.‫מו ָּּתר ְל ָא ְכלֹו ְ ּבכו ָּתח‬ cutting meat, it is permitted to eat it with kutaĥ,b a food that con-
tains milk, even though the sharpness of the radish causes it to
absorb the fat of the meat from the knife.

,‫ית ָרא ָ ּב ַלע‬

ֵּ ‫ ַהאי – ֶה‬:‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא? ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬The Gemara asks: What is the reason to distinguish between blood
.‫ וְ ַהאי – ִא ּיסו ָּרא ָ ּב ַלע‬absorbed in a bowl and fat absorbed by the radish? Abaye said: This
radish absorbed a permitted substance, as the fat on the knife is
permitted for consumption by itself, but that bowl in which meat
was salted absorbed a prohibited substance, i.e., blood.

!‫ ַמאי ָהוֵ י‬,‫ית ָרא‬ ֵּ ‫ ִּכי ָ ּב ַלע ֶה‬:‫יה ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rava said to Abaye: And if the radish absorbed a permitted sub-
‫יסו ָּרא‬ ּ ‫ית ָרא דְּ ָא ֵתי ִל ֵידי ִא‬ ֵּ ‫ ַהאי ֶה‬,‫סֹוף סֹוף‬ stance, what of it? Ultimately, if one desires to eat the radish with
kutaĥ, it is a permitted substance that leads to a prohibition, as he
:‫יס ּו ָרא ָק ָא ֵכיל! ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫הוּא‬
will eat a prohibited substance. Rather, Rava said: The distinction
‫ וְ ַהאי – ָלא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַהאי – ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ְל ִמ ְט ֲע ֵמ‬ is that with regard to this radish, it is possible for a Jew to taste it
.‫יה‬ּ ‫ְל ִמ ְט ֲע ֵמ‬ before eating it with milk to see if it has acquired the flavor of meat.
But with regard to that bowl, it is not possible for a Jew to taste its
contents to see whether they have absorbed blood.

‫יה ְק ֵפ ָילא‬ ּ ‫יט ֲע ֵמ‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִל‬:‫יה ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ְל ָר ָבא‬ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Pappa said to Rava: But let a gentile cook taste the contents
ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ ְק ֵד ָרה ׁ ֶש ִ ּב‬,‫ ִמי ָלא ְּתנַן‬,‫ַא ְר ָמ ָאה‬
– ‫ישל ָ ּב ּה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ of the bowl to see whether they have the taste of blood. Didn’t we
learn in the Tosefta (Terumot 8:12): With regard to a pot in which
.‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִאם ִ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל – ְ ּב‬,‫ל ֹא ַיְב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָ ּב ּה ָח ָלב‬
one cooked meat, one may not cook milk in it, and if he cooked
‫ וְ ִאם‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָ ּב ּה ְּתרו ָּמה – ל ֹא ַיְב ׁ ּ ֵשל ָ ּב ּה חו ִּּלין‬ milk in it, the meat absorbed in the pot renders the milk forbidden
ֵ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב‬
.‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ if it imparts flavor to the milk. Likewise, if one cooked teruma in
the pot, he may not cook non-sacred food in it, and if he cooked
non-sacred food in it, the non-sacred food is prohibited if there is
sufficient teruma absorbed in the pot to impart flavor to the non-
sacred food.

,‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְּתרו ָּמה – ָט ֵעים ָל ּה ּכ ֵֹהן‬:‫וְ ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן‬ And we said with regard to this baraita: Granted, one can know
‫ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב – ַמאן ָט ֵעים ָל ּה? וַ ֲא ַמר ָלן‬ whether the non-sacred food has acquired the flavor of teruma, as
a priest can taste it. But with regard to the prohibition of meat
!‫יה ְק ֵפ ָילא‬ ּ ‫יט ֲע ֵמ‬
ְ ‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי – ִל‬.‫יה ְק ֵפ ָילא‬ּ ‫יט ֲע ֵמ‬
ְ ‫ִל‬
cooked in milk, who can taste it? And you, Rava, said to us: Let a
.‫יכא ְק ֵפ ָילא‬ ָּ ‫ ִּכי ָק ָא ִמינָ א – דְּ ֵל‬,‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬ gentile cook taste it. So too here, with regard to the food in the bowl,
let a gentile cook taste it. Rava responded: Indeed, a gentile cook
can discover whether the food in the bowl has absorbed the taste of
blood. When I said my statement I was referring to a case where
there is no gentile cook available.

‫ ָאסוּר‬:‫ ַרב ָא ַמר‬,‫ דָּ גִ ים ׁ ֶש ָעל ּו ִ ּב ְק ָע ָרה‬,‫ית ַמר‬ ְ ‫ § ִא‬It was stated: If a fish was removed from the fire and placed, still
‫ מו ָּּתר ְל ָא ְכ ָלן‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬,‫ ְל ָא ְכ ָלן ְ ּבכו ָּתח‬hot, in a bowl in which meat had been eaten, Rav says: It is pro-
hibited to eat the fish with the milk dish kutaĥ, since the fish has
.‫ְ ּבכו ָּתח‬
absorbed meat from the bowl. And Shmuel says: It is permitted to
eat the fish with kutaĥ.
 ‫איק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 111b 191
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל‬,‫נֹותן ַט ַעם הוּא‬
ֵ – ‫ ַרב ָא ַמר ָאסוּר‬The Gemara explains: Rav says that it is prohibited to eat the fish
Imparted flavor derived from imparted flavor – ‫נֹותן‬ ֵ
‫נֹותן ַט ַעם הוּא‬
ֵ ‫ט ַעם ַ ּבר‬:ַ Some early commentaries explain ‫נֹותן ַט ַעם‬ ֵ – ‫ ָא ַמר מו ָּּתר‬with kutaĥ because this is a case of imparted flavor, i.e., from the
ֵ ‫נֹותן ַט ַעם ַ ּבר‬
meat to the fish. And Shmuel says that it is permitted because the
that Shmuel is lenient only in a case where both the .‫הוּא‬
first imparting of flavor, e.g., from the meat to the bowl, flavor is first imparted to the bowl, and only then from the bowl to
and the second, e.g., from the bowl to the fish, involve the fish. This is therefore a case of imparted flavor derived from
no prohibited substance or mixture. The flavor is then imparted flavor.n
so weak that even when mixed with milk it cannot
give rise to a newly forbidden product. Foods that are ‫ית ַמר ֶא ָּלא‬ ְ ‫ ָלאו ְ ּב ֵפיר ּו ׁש ִא‬,‫וְ ָהא דְּ ַרב‬ The Gemara notes: And this opinion of Rav was not stated explic-
already forbidden, such as non-kosher meat, render ‫ימי‬ִ ‫ דְּ ַרב ִא ְיק ַלע ְל ֵבי ַרב ׁ ִש‬.‫ִמ ְּכ ָל ָלא ִא ְית ַמר‬ itly; rather, it was stated by inference. As Rav arrived at the house
prohibited all foods to which they give flavor, even via of Rav Shimi bar Ĥiyya, the son of his son. He felt pain in his eyes,
other foods and vessels (Ran; Tosafot on Zevaĥim 96a). ‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲע ַבד ּו ֵל‬,‫ ָח ׁש ְ ּב ֵעינָיו‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ַ ּבר ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ְ ּב ֵר‬
and they prepared for him an ointment in an earthenware bowll
God forbid that the progeny of Abba bar Abba would ‫יה ִ ּב ׁ ּשו ָּלא‬
ּ ‫ ָ ּב ַתר ָה ִכי ְרמ ּו ֵל‬.‫ׁ ָשיְ ָיפא ִ ּבצְ ָעא‬ as a remedy. Later they placed a dish for him in that same bowl.
feed me something that I do not hold to be permit- :‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ׁ ָשיְ ָיפא‬ ּ ‫ ְט ֵעים ֵל‬,‫וה‬ ּ ‫ְ ּבגַ ָּו‬ Rav tasted in that dish the flavor of the ointment and said: It
ted – ‫יס ֵפי ִלי ִמ ֵידי וְ ָלא‬
ְ ‫יה דְּ ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא דְּ ִל‬
ּ ‫יה ְלזַ ְר ֵע‬
ּ ‫ַחס ֵל‬ ‫ ׁ ָשאנִי‬,‫יָ ֵהיב ַט ֲע ָמא ּכו ֵּּלי ַהאי! וְ ָלא ִהיא‬ imparts so much flavor! Those present inferred that according to
‫ס ִב ָירא ִלי‬:ְ The commentaries explain that when Shmuel
.‫ָה ָתם – דְּ נָ ֵפ ׁיש ְמ ָר ָר ּה ְט ֵפי‬ Rav, imparted flavor derived from imparted flavor is strong enough
claimed to Rabbi Elazar to have fed Rav this dish, he
was exaggerating somewhat, and meant that had he itself to impart flavor. The Gemara rejects this: But that is not so,
fed Rav the dish, Rav certainly would have eaten it. and one cannot reach any general conclusions from this story. It is
Alternatively, some commentaries suggest that when different there, as the ointment was very bitter.
Shmuel told Rabbi Elazar that he fed Rabbi Elazar’s
teacher the dish, he was referring not to Rav, which ,‫יה דְּ ָמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ּ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֲהוָ ה ָק ֵאים ַק ֵּמ‬ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar was standing before Mar
is the interpretation of Rashi, but to a different teacher ‫יה דָּ גִ ים ׁ ֶש ָעל ּו ִ ּב ְק ָע ָרה וְ ָקא‬ ּ ‫ַאיְ ית ּו ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ Shmuel, and they brought before Shmuel a fish that had been
(Ritva; Be’er Sheva). removed directly from the fire and placed into a bowl used previ-
The commentaries state that if two Sages disagree as ‫ ֲא ַמר‬.‫יה וְ ָלא ֲא ַכל‬ ּ ‫ יָ ֵהיב ֵל‬,‫ָא ֵכיל ְ ּבכו ָּתח‬
ously for meat, and he ate it together with kutaĥ. Shmuel gave
to whether a particular food item is permitted or forbid- ‫ וְ ַא ְּת ָלא‬,‫יה – וְ ָא ַכל‬ ּ ‫ ְל ַר ָ ּב ְך יְ ִה ֵיבי ֵל‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ֵל‬ Rabbi Elazar some of this dish, but Rabbi Elazar did not eat it, as
den, the one who permits it may serve it to the one who
‫ ֲה ַדר‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ּ ‫ָא ְכ ַלת? ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ he was a student of Rav, who prohibited such mixtures. Shmuel said
forbids it without notifying him of the questionable
halakhic status of the food. Nevertheless, it must be ‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ַחס ֵל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫יה ָמר ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ַמ ֲע ֵת‬ ּ ‫ֵ ּב‬ to him: To your teacher, Rav, I gave this dish and he ate from it,
self-evident to the recipient what type of food he is ‫יס ֵפי ִלי ִמ ֵידי‬ְ ‫יה דְּ ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא דְּ ִל‬ ּ ‫ְלזַ ְר ֵע‬ yet you will not eat? Later Rabbi Elazar came before Rav, and said
receiving. If the nature of the food cannot be discerned,
.‫וְ ָלא ְס ִב ָירא ִלי‬ to him: Did the Master retract this halakha? Do you permit this?
one may not feed it to another who is of the opinion Rav said to him: God forbid that the progeny of Abba bar Abba,
that it is forbidden without informing him, even with i.e., Shmuel, would feed me something that I do not hold to be
regard to food that is forbidden by rabbinic law, just as
Rav stated emphatically that Shmuel would not have
permitted.n Shmuel never fed me such a dish.
fed him an item that Rav himself believed was forbid-
den (Ritva on Sukka 26a).
‫ ַחד‬,‫ַרב הוּנָ א וְ ַרב ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִשי ָהו ּו יָ ְת ִבי‬ The Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi were
‫ וְ ַחד ְ ּב ַהאי‬,‫יסא דְּ ַמ ְב ָרא דְּ סו ָּרא‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ַהאי ִ ּג‬ sitting down to eat. One of them was sitting on this side of the ford
of the Sura River, and the other one was sitting on that side of the
language ‫יה דָּ גִ ים ׁ ֶש ָעל ּו‬
ּ ‫ ְל ָמר ַאיְ ית ּו ֵל‬.‫יסא דְּ ַמ ְב ָרא‬ ָ ‫ִ ּג‬
ford. They brought one Sage a fish that had been removed from
Earthenware bowl [tze’a] – ‫צְ ָעא‬: The tze’a, tze’i in plural, ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ְל ָמר ַאיְ ית ּו ֵל‬,‫ִ ּב ְק ָע ָרה וְ ָא ַכל ְ ּבכו ָּתח‬ the fire and placed into a bowl previously used for meat, and he ate
is an earthenware vessel that is similar to a plate or a
flat dish.
‫ְּת ֵאנִים וַ ֲענָ ִבים ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ְּסעו ָּדה וְ ָא ַכל וְ ָלא‬ it together with kutaĥ. They also brought the other Sage figs and
. ְ‫ְ ּב ִריך‬ grapes during the meal, and he ate them but did not recite a sepa-
rate blessing over them, even though these foods were usually
consumed following the main portion of the meal before reciting
Grace after Meals, and a separate blessing was made on them.

ְ‫ יַ ְת ָמא! ֲע ַבד ַר ָ ּבך‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ַח ְב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ָמר ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ One Sage said to his colleague: Orphan! Student without a
!‫ יַ ְת ָמא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ַח ְב ֵר‬
ּ ‫ָה ִכי?! ו ָּמר ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ teacher! Would your teacher do this, i.e., eat such fish with kutaĥ?
And the other Sage said to his colleague: Orphan! Would your
:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ַח ְב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ֲע ַבד ַר ָ ּב ְך ָה ִכי?! ָמר ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
teacher do this, i.e., eat these fruits during a meal without reciting
‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ו ָּמר ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫ֲאנָ א ִּכ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְס ִב ָירא ִלי‬ a blessing over them? One Sage said to his colleague: I hold in
‫ דְּ ָתנֵי‬.‫ ֲאנָ א ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ְס ִב ָירא ִלי‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ְל ַח ְב ֵר‬ accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who permits eating such
‫ וְ יַ יִ ן‬,‫ֹוט ֶרת ָּכל ִמינֵי ַמ ֲא ָכל‬ֶ ‫ ּ ַפת ּפ‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬ fish with kutaĥ. And the other Sage said to his colleague: I hold in
.‫ֹוטר ָּכל ִמינֵי ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬ accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ĥiyya, as Rabbi Ĥiyya
teaches: The blessing over the bread exempts all the other types
of foodh eaten during a meal, including those usually eaten sepa-
rately following bread, and likewise the blessing over wine exempts
all types of drinks.h

halakha
Bread exempts all the types of food – ‫ֹוט ֶרת ָּכל ִמינֵי ַמ ֲא ָכל‬
ֶ ‫פת ּפ‬:ַ ּ And wine exempts all types of drinks – ‫ֹוטר ָּכל ִמינֵי ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין‬
ֵ ‫וְ יַ יִ ן ּפ‬:
Foods that are eaten as integral parts of a meal, e.g., cooked dishes The blessing recited over wine exempts all other drinks from the
that are eaten together with bread, require no blessing at all, requirement to recite a blessing either before or after drinking
as they are exempted by the blessing over bread: Who brings them, provided they were before him when he recited the bless-
forth bread from the earth. Likewise, they do not require their ing before drinking (Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 174:2 and in the
own blessing after their consumption, as they are exempted by comment of Rema, and Taz there).
Grace after Meals. Fruits and the like, which are supplementary
to a meal, require a blessing before, but not after, eating them
(Rambam, Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Berakhot 4:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
Ĥayyim 177:1).

192 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 111b . ‫איק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

:‫ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬,‫ָא ַמר ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ Ĥizkiyya says in the name of Abaye: The halakha is: If a fish was
‫אֹוכ ָלן‬
ְ ‫דָּ גִ ים ׁ ֶש ָעל ּו ִ ּב ְק ָע ָרה – מו ָּּתר ְל‬ removed from the fire and placed into a bowl used for meat, it is
permitted to eat it together with kutaĥ.h But with regard to a radish
‫ צְ נֹון ׁ ֶש ֲח ָתכֹו ְ ּב ַס ִּכין ׁ ֶש ָח ַת ְך‬,‫ְ ּבכו ָּתח‬
that one cut with a knife with which he had cut meat,h it is pro-
.‫אֹוכלֹו ְ ּבכו ָּתח‬ ְ ‫ָ ּב ּה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָאסוּר ְל‬ hibited to eat that radish with kutaĥ, contrary to Rav Kahana’s
statement above.

,‫ וְ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי צְ נֹון‬The Gemara notes: And this statement applies only to a radish,

halakha
If a fish was removed and placed into a bowl used for meat, A radish that one cut with a knife with which he had cut
it is permitted to eat it with kutaĥ – ‫דָּ גִ ים ׁ ֶש ָעל ּו ִ ּב ְק ָע ָרה מו ָּּתר‬ meat – ‫צְ נֹון ׁ ֶש ֲח ָתכֹו ְ ּב ַס ִּכין ׁ ֶש ָח ַת ְך ָ ּב ּה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬: With regard to a radish
‫אֹוכ ָלן ְ ּבכו ָּתח‬
ְ ‫ל‬:ְ If a fish was cooked or roasted in a meat pot that one cut with a knife that had been used to cut meat within
that was washed thoroughly so that no fat adhered to it, one twenty-four hours, or that had not been cleaned, it is prohibited
may eat it with kutaĥ. The reason is that this is a case involving to eat it with milk. If he removes the thickness of a thumb’s width
imparted flavor of permitted food derived from imparted flavor or if he tastes the radish and it does not have the taste of meat,
of permitted food. According to the Rema, in this case one it is permitted after rinsing. Some say that the same is true even
should be stringent and not eat the fish with dairy, and the if it had not been used within twenty-four hours and had been
leniency given here applies only to fish placed in a meat bowl. cleaned. If one did not remove a thickness of a thumb’s width or
In a situation where the container was not washed thoroughly, taste the radish, and then cooked it in milk, if the rest of the food
if the fat on it is more than one-sixtieth of the volume of the fish, is sixty times the area touched by the knife, the radish is permit-
the fish may not be eaten with kutaĥ (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, ted; otherwise it is prohibited. This halakha is in accordance with
Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:23; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 95:1). the opinion of Ĥizkiyya, citing Abaye (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:24; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 96:1).

Perek VIII
Daf 112 Amud a
background
ּ ׁ ‫ ֲא ָבל ִק‬,‫יה ָ ּב ַלע‬
– ‫ישוּת‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ֲאגַ ב חו ְּר ֵפ‬as due to its sharpness it absorbsn the fat on the knife. But if one
Cucumber – ‫ישוּת‬ ּ ׁ ‫ק‬:ִ The cucumber, Cucumis chate, is a sum-
ּ ‫ ָ ּג ֵריר ְל ֵבי ּ ְפ ָס ֵק‬cut a cucumber with the same knife, it does not absorb the fat to
b
.‫יה וְ ָא ֵכיל‬ mer fruit of the Cucurbitaceae family, and is a species of
the same extent. One may therefore simply scrape the place of the gourd. It is called melafefon in modern Hebrew. The fruit is
cut to remove any fat residue, and then one may eath the cucumber up to 80 cm long, narrow, and it can be bent or twisted.
with kutaĥ.
Chard – ‫ס ְיל ָקא‬:ִ Chard, Beta vulgaris, is a common, garden-
– ‫ דְּ ִס ְיל ָקא‬,‫יפ ָּתא – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ְ ‫ ִק ְיל ֵחי דְּ ִל‬Likewise, turnip stalks cut with such a knife are permitted for variety vegetable from the Chenopodiaceae family.
Growing annually, its large, succulent leaves that grow
‫ וְ ִאי ּ ָפ ַתךְ ְ ּבה ּו דְּ ִל ְיפ ָּתא – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר‬.‫ ֲא ִס ִירי‬consumption with kutaĥ. But chard cut with such a knife is pro-
bh
from 15 to 20 cm in length are eaten cooked and have a
hibited for consumption with kutaĥ, as it absorbs flavor from the
.‫דָּ ִמי‬ similar taste to spinach. Each time a portion of its leaves
knife. And if one alternated between cutting chard and turnip are trimmed they grow back larger. Today, its leaves are
stalks it is permitted,h as the turnip stalks nullify the taste of the commonly used as bird feed.
meat in the knife.
notes
As due to its sharpness it absorbs – ‫יה ָ ּב ַלע‬ּ ‫דַּ ֲאגַ ב חו ְּר ֵפ‬: Rashi cuts a radish with that knife, the radish absorbs the actual fat on
explains that whereas the fish absorbs only meat flavor from the the knife. Rashi adds another difference between the two cases:
bowl, the knife has actual meat fat on it. This is because bowls The knife cuts via the exertion of pressure, which causes the
that contained congealed fat are generally cleaned thoroughly, radish to absorb to a greater extent than the absorption caused
which is not the case with regard to a knife. Therefore, when one by the contact between the bowl and the fish.

halakha
Cucumber, one may scrape the place of the cut and then one the chard in milk, the chard must be sixty times the size of the
ּ ‫ישוּת ָ ּג ֵריר ְל ֵבי ּ ְפ ָס ֵק‬
may eat – ‫יה וְ ָא ֵכיל‬ ּ ׁ ‫ק‬:ִ If one cut a cucumber portion of the knife blade that touched the chard; otherwise it
with a knife that had been used for cutting meat, it is permitted is prohibited (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot
to eat the cucumber with milk by simply scraping the place of 9:24; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 96:1).
the cut, which is less than the amount removed when one is
required to peel it (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot And if one alternated between cutting chard and turnip
Assurot 9:24; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 96:5 and Shakh there). stalks it is permitted, etc. – ‫וְ ִאי ּ ָפ ַת ְך ְ ּבה ּו דְּ ִל ְיפ ָּתא ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ִמי וכו׳‬:
If one cut a turnip with a knife that had been used for cutting
Chard – ‫ס ְיל ָקא‬:ִ If one cut chard with a knife that had been used meat, it is not even necessary to scrape the place of the cut.
to cut meat within twenty-four hours, or with a knife that had Rather, one merely rinses the turnip. Furthermore, if one cut a
not been cleaned, it is prohibited to eat the chard with milk, radish after the turnip, one may eat that radish after rinsing, like
unless one removes the thickness of a thumb’s width from the the turnip, as the taste of the turnip negates the flavor emitted
chard, or he tastes the chard and it does not have the flavor of by the knife. The Rema writes that even in that case, one may use
meat. In those cases, the chard is permitted after rinsing. Some it to cut a radish only once, unless he cuts the turnip between
say that the halakha is the same even if had not been used each and every slicing of radish (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
within twenty-four hours and had been cleaned. If one did not Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:24; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 96:1). Chard
remove the thickness of a thumb’s width or taste it, and cooked

 ‫ביק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 112a 193

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ַמה ּו ְל ַאנּ ו ֵּחי‬:‫ימי ֵמ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ּ ‫ § ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬Rav Dimi inquired of Rav Naĥman: What is the halakha with
ִ ִּ‫ֵיה ַרב ד‬
Kamka – ‫כ ְמ ָּכא‬:ַּ Apparently from the Middle Persian
kamak, meaning a type of gruel or soup. The Sages ּ ‫ ַּכדָּ א דְּ ִמ ְל ָחא ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַּכדָּ א דְּ ַכ ְמ ָּכא? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬regard to placing a jug of salt, used to salt meat, alongside a jug of
:‫יה‬
kamka,b i.e., kutaĥ,h a milk dish? Need one be concerned lest some
use it as another name for kutaĥ. ּ ‫ דְּ ַח ָּלא ַמאי? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ָאסוּר‬
.‫ ׁ ָש ֵרי‬:‫יה‬
of the kutaĥ fall on the salt without his knowledge and ultimately
Pashronya – ‫פ ׁ ְשרֹונְ יָ א‬:ַ ּ This is a Babylonian city contaminate his meat? Rav Naĥman said to him: It is prohibited
renowned for its Sages, especially Rava of Pashronya.
to place the two jugs next to each other. Rav Dimi further inquired:
This Rava is not the famous amora of the same name,
who was from Meĥoza, which was probably not far
What is the halakha with regard to a similar case involving a jug of
from Pashronya. Rava of Pashronya’s sons include vinegar used to season meat?h Need one be concerned lest the kutaĥ
Rav Hamnuna and Rav Ĥinnana, mentioned here. It fall into the vinegar? Rav Naĥman said to him: It is permitted to
is also known that Rav Ika would discuss matters of place these two jugs next to each other.
halakha with Rava of Pashronya.
!‫ ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָ א? ְל ִכי ֵּתיכוּל ֲע ָל ּה ּכ ָֹורא דְּ ִמ ְל ָחא‬Rav Dimi asked: And what is different about the vinegar? Rav
language ,‫ינֵיה‬
ּ ‫יה ִא ּיסו ָּרא ְ ּב ֵע‬ ּ ‫ית‬ֵ ‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא – ַהאי ִא‬Naĥman responded: When you have thought about it long enough
Cracks [pilei] – ‫פ ֵילי‬:ִ ּ Apparently from the Hebrew to eat a kor of salt, you will know the reason. The Gemara clarifies:
ּ ‫יה ִא ּיסו ָּרא ְ ּב ֵע‬
.‫ינֵיה‬ ּ ‫ית‬
ֵ ‫וְ ַהאי ֵל‬
word pilĥei. In Babylonian Aramaic, many guttural What is the reason then? In this case of the salt, the prohibited
letters are dropped, and the word took on this form. substance is substantive, as the traces of kutaĥ are discernible and
Its meaning is crevices or cracks. not nullified by the salt. But in that case of the vinegar, the prohib-
ited substance is not substantive, since the kutaĥ melts away in the
vinegar and will no longer impart flavor.

ּ ָ‫ ׁ ָש ְרי‬,‫ַההוּא ַ ּבר ּגֹוזְ ָלא דִּ נְ ַפל ְל ַכדָּ א דְּ ַכ ְמ ָּכא‬

‫יה‬ The Gemara relates: There was a certain young bird that fell into
:‫ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא ִמ ּ ַפ ׁ ְשרֹונְיָא‬ ּ ‫ַרב ִח ָּיננָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ a jug of kamka, i.e., kutaĥ. Rav Ĥinnana, son of Rava of the city of
Pashronya,b permitted the bird. Rava said about this: Who is wise
‫ ִאי ָלאו‬,‫יש ֵרי ִּכי ַהאי ַ ּגוְ ונָ א‬ ְ ׁ ‫ַמאן ַח ִּכים ְל ִמ‬
enough to discern reasons to permit the food in difficult cases like
:‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא ִמ ּ ַפ ׁ ְשרֹונְ יָ א! ָק ָס ַבר‬ ּ ‫ַרב ִח ָּיננָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬ this, if not Rav Ĥinnana, son of Rava of Pashronya? He maintains
‫ ָהנֵי‬,‫רֹות ַח‬
ֵ ‫ִּכי ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָמ ִל ַיח ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ‬ that when Shmuel said that a salted food imparts flavor like a boil-
‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ִמ ֵּילי – ֵה ָיכא דְּ ֵאינֹו נֶ ֱא ָכל ֵמ ֲח ַמת ִמ ְלחֹו‬ ing food, that statement applies only to a food so salty that it is not
.‫ַהאי ּכו ְּת ָחא – ֲה ֵרי נֶ ֱא ָכל ֵמ ֲח ַמת ִמ ְלחֹו‬ eaten due to its salt,h but this kutaĥ can still be eaten due to, i.e.,
despite, its salt. Therefore, it is as if both foods are cold and unsalted,
and they do not impart flavor to one another, provided one rinses
the area of contact.

‫ וְ ִאי‬.‫ ֲא ָבל צָ ִלי – ְ ּב ַעי ְק ִל ָיפה‬,‫ וְ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי – ַחי‬The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only if the bird is raw,
ּ ‫ ִאית ֵ ּב‬but if it is roasted, it requires peeling to remove the outer layer,
h
‫ וְ ִאי ְמ ַת ֵ ּבל‬,‫יה ָאסוּר‬ ּ ‫יה ּ ִפ ֵילי – ּכו ֵּּל‬
since roasting softens the meat and causes it to absorb more flavor.
.‫יה ָאסוּר‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ַת ְב ִלין – ּכו ֵּּל‬
And if it has cracks [pilei],l it is entirely forbidden, because the
milk is absorbed into the cracks. And if it has been flavored with
spices it is likewise entirely forbidden, because the spices soften
the meat and render it absorbent.

halakha
Placing a jug of salt used to salt meat alongside a jug of kamka – this status (Rema, citing Tosafot and Rosh). The Rema writes that in
‫ל ַאנּ ו ֵּחי ַּכדָּ א דְּ ִמ ְל ָחא ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַּכדָּ א דְּ ַכ ְמ ָּכא‬:ְ One should not place a vessel a situation of great need, e.g., if one would suffer a great loss and
that contains kutaĥ alongside a jug of salt, in accordance with the the food is required for a mitzva celebration, one may rely on the
opinion of Rav Naĥman. The Rema writes that this halakha applies lenient opinion.
only if the vessels are uncovered, due to the concern that some of Even if the meat was not salted on both sides but on one side
the kutaĥ might fall on the salt and one will later use that salt for a alone, if it is too salty to be eaten, then it has the same status as a
meat dish. This ruling is in accordance with the explanation of this boiling dish. If it is less salted than that, it is considered like a cold
passage given by the majority of the early commentaries, and is not dish, even if it was salted on both sides. According to some com-
in accordance with the interpretation of the Rambam, who says that mentaries, people today are not experts in this matter, and therefore
the concern is that the flavor of the kutaĥ is drawn by the container even a dish salted lightly in preparation for roasting should be
of salt. If one did place the two types of vessels alongside one treated as a boiling dish. The Rema states that it is proper to be strin-
another, they are permitted, and one need not be concerned that gent unless this would result in a great loss (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
some kutaĥ might have fallen on the salt (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:18; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 91:5).
Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:25; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 95:5).
And this statement applies only if the bird is raw but if it is
Of vinegar – ‫דְּ ַח ָּלא‬: It is permitted to place a vessel that contains roasted, etc. – ‫וְ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי ַחי ֲא ָבל צָ ִלי וכו׳‬: The difference in halakha
kutaĥ alongside a vessel in which there is vinegar (Rambam Sefer between meat that can be eaten despite its saltiness and a dish
Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:25; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh that is too salty to be eaten applies only to raw meat. By contrast,
De’a 95:5). if boiling hot, roasted meat fell into a salted dish, even if the salted
dish is fit to be eaten, it requires peeling. If it has cracks, or is flavored
That it is not eaten due to its salt, etc. – ‫יכא דְּ ֵאינֹו נֶ ֱא ָכל ֵמ ֲח ַמת‬
ָ ‫ ֵה‬with spices, and is a boiling hot roasted, baked, or cooked dish
‫מ ְלחֹו וכו׳‬:ִ Excessively salted raw meat has the halakhic status of a (Rema), it is entirely forbidden. The Rema notes that according to
boiling item, which will absorb substances from and impart sub- some authorities this is the halakha even if the meat is cold, and
stances to a food item with which it comes in contact. Meat has one should be stringent in this regard unless he would suffer a
this status when it is so salty that it cannot be eaten. Some com- great loss (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:19;
mentaries maintain that once the meat has been left salted for the Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 91:7).
amount of time it takes for salt to draw out blood, it no longer has

194 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 112a . ‫ביק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ִּכ ָּכר ׁ ֶש ָח ַת ְך‬:‫ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ Rav Naĥman said that Shmuel says: It is prohibited to eat a loaf
of bread upon which one cut unsalted roasted meat,h since the A loaf of bread upon which one cut roasted meat –
– ‫ילי‬ ֵּ ‫ וְ ָהנֵי ִמ‬.‫יה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָאסוּר ְל ָא ְכ ָל ּה‬ ָ ‫ָע ֶל‬ ‫יה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬
ָ ‫כ ָּכר ׁ ֶש ָח ַתךְ ָע ֶל‬:ִּ If roasted, unsalted meat was
blood expelled from the roasted meat is absorbed in the loaf. The
– ‫ וְ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי‬,‫יה‬ּ ‫ילי – דְּ ַא ְב ֵר‬ ֵּ ‫ וְ ָהנֵי ִמ‬,‫דְּ ַא ְס ִמיק‬ cut over a loaf of bread, even if the bread has a ruddy
Gemara adds: And this statement applies only if the meat is ruddy appearance, it is permitted if the meat was roasted to
.‫יש ָּתא – ֵלית ָלן ָ ּב ּה‬ ְ ׁ ‫ ֲא ָבל ְק ִל‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫דְּ ַא ְס ְמ ֵכ‬ from the blood it contains. And furthermore, this statement applies the extent that it was fit to be eaten by most people,
only if so much blood was absorbed in the loaf that it passed i.e., half-roasted. The juice that comes out of such
through from one side of the loaf to the other and was visible from meat is likewise permitted, even if it is not absorbed
both sides. And furthermore, this statement applies only if the by bread (Rema). This ruling is in accordance with
the opinion of Rava (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
liquid emitted by the roasted meat is viscous. But if it is runny, we
Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a
have no problem with it, i.e., the loaf is permitted. 76:5).

‫ ַרב הוּנָ א יָ ֵהיב‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ַכ ְל ֵ ּב‬ּ ‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ׁ ְש ִדי ֵל‬ The Gemara relates: Shmuel would throw to his dog such a loaf of Until all the ruddiness of the meat’s appearance
bread that he held was prohibited. Rav Huna would not eat the loaf has dissipated – ‫עד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְכ ֶלה ָּכל ַמ ְר ֵאה ַא ְדמו ִּמית ׁ ֶש ּבֹו‬:ַ
‫ ִאי ׁ ָש ֵרי – ְלכו ֵּּלי‬, ְ‫ ַמה ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָשך‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְל ׁ ַש ָּמ ֵע‬
ּ ‫ֵל‬ With regard to meat that is roasted without first
himself but would rather give it to his attendant. The Gemara
!‫ ִאי ָאסוּר – ְלכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָאסוּר‬,‫ָע ְל ָמא ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ being salted, one may not place a vessel under such
objects: Whichever way you look at it, Rav Huna’s behavior is meat to catch the fat that drips from it, unless it has
‫ ָר ָבא ָא ֵכיל‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ׁ ָשאנֵי ַרב הוּנָ א – דַּ ֲאנִינָ א דַּ ְע ֵּת‬ problematic: If the loaf is permitted, it is permitted for everyone, already roasted to the extent that it is fit to be eaten
.‫״ח ַמר ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬ ֲ ‫יה‬ּ ‫ וְ ָק ֵרי ֵל‬,‫יה‬ּ ‫ֵל‬ including Rav Huna himself. And if it is prohibited, then it is (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot
prohibited for everyone, and he should not give it to his attendant. 6:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 76:6).
The Gemara explains: In fact, the loaf is permitted for consumption,
and Rav Huna is different, as he is of delicate constitution and notes
did not want to eat the loaf himself. The Gemara further relates: As soon as its smoke rises – ‫ימ ָרתֹו‬ ְ ‫מ ׁ ּ ֶש ַּת ֲע ֶלה ִּת‬:ִ
Rava would eat a loaf of this type, and he would call the red liquid According to some commentaries, the smoke is
meat wine. referring to the steam rising from the roasting meat
after it has expelled all the blood (Rashi). Alterna-
‫ִיחין ְּכ ִלי‬
ִ ‫ ֵאין ַמ ּנ‬:‫ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ Rav Naĥman says that Shmuel says: One may not place a vessel tively, the Gemara is referring to smoke rising from
under roasting meat to catch the drippings of fat until all the rud- the coals upon which the meat is roasting. As long as
‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְכ ֶלה ָּכל ַמ ְר ֵאה ַא ְדמו ִּמית‬,‫ַּת ַחת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ the blood drips onto the coals, they do not produce
diness of the meat’s appearance has dissipated.h Beforehand,
‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ּ ‫ ְמנָ א יָ ְד ִעינַן? ָמר זו ְּט ָרא ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬.‫ׁ ֶש ּבֹו‬ smoke, but when all the blood has been expelled
though, one must be concerned that blood will fall with the drip- from the meat and it starts to emit its fats, their
ְ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ַּת ֲע ֶלה ִּת‬:‫ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ֲא ַמר‬
.‫ימ ָרתֹו‬ pings into the vessel, rendering the mixture and the vessel prohib- dripping assists the burning of the coals and causes
ited. The Gemara asks: How do we know when all the meat’s red- smoke to rise (Rashi, citing his teacher).
ness has disappeared? Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa:
As soon as its smoke rises,n one can be sure that all the blood has
been expelled from the meat.

,‫ ַּת ָּת ָאה ְמ ָטא‬,‫ וְ ִד ְל ָמא‬:‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ Rav Ashi objects to this: But perhaps the underside of the meat,
‫ ֵלית‬:‫ִע ָּיל ָאה ָלא ְמ ָטא? ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ which is closest to the coals, has been fully roasted, but its upper
part is still not roasted and still expels blood at this stage. Rather,
ּ ‫יה ַּת ַ ּקנְ ָּתא ֶא ָּלא – ִמ ׁ ְש ָדא ֵ ּב‬
‫יה ַּת ְר ֵּתי גִ ְל ֵלי‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬
Rav Ashi said: One who wishes to collect the drippings has no
,‫ִמ ְל ָחא‬ remedy except to place two lumps of salt in it, i.e., one in the
receptacle under the meat and one on top, in the meat itself.

Perek VIII
Daf 112 Amud b

.‫יה‬
ּ ֵ‫ ו ְּמ ׁ ַש ּ ְפי‬Doing this will allow the blood dripping from the meat to stick to
the salt on the sides of the vessel, while the fat will float to the top.
And when emptying the receptacle, he should tilt it gently to pour
the fat into another vessel without it mixing with the blood.

‫יה דְּ ַרב ִא ָיקא ְל ַרב‬ ּ ‫יה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Aĥa, son of Rav Ika, said to Rav Ashi: And did Shmuel really
‫ ו ִּמי ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬:‫ַא ׁ ִשי‬ say this, that once the meat’s ruddiness has dissipated it is permitted
to place a receptacle underneath it? But didn’t Shmuel say: It is
!‫יה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָאסוּר ְל ָא ְכ ָל ּה‬ ָ ‫ִּכ ָּכר ׁ ֶש ָח ַת ְך ָע ֶל‬
prohibited to eat a loaf of bread upon which one cut roasted meat?
.‫ דַּ ֲאגַ ב דּ ו ֲּח ָקא ְד ַס ִּכינָ א ּ ָפ ֵליט‬,‫ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם‬ Apparently he holds that meat contains blood even after it has fin-
ished roasting. Rav Ashi replied: Shmuel holds that the meat no
longer emits blood after its ruddiness has dissipated. And as for his
ruling with regard to a loaf of bread, it is different there, as due to
the pressure of the knife the meat expels more blood.
 ‫ביק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 112b 195
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ דָּ גִ ים וְ עֹופֹות ׁ ֶש ְּמ ָל ָחן זֶ ה ִעם‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ § Rav Naĥman says: If one salted fish and birds together, h
the
If one salted fish and birds together the fish are pro- fish are prohibitedn for consumption due to the blood they absorb
hibited – ‫דָּ גִ ים וְ עֹופֹות ׁ ֶש ְּמ ָל ָחן זֶ ה ִעם זֶ ה ֲאסו ִּרין‬: The early
‫יכי דָּ ִמי? ִאי ִ ּב ְכ ִלי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬ִ ‫ ֵה‬.‫זֶ ה – ֲאסו ִּרין‬
from the birds. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of
commentaries dispute the extent of this prohibition of !‫ְמנו ָ ּּקב – ֲא ִפילּ ּו עֹופֹות וְ עֹופֹות נַ ִמי ֲא ִס ִירי‬
the fish. Some say that the fish are entirely prohibited
this ruling? If they were placed in an unperforated vessel, in which
‫ִאי ִ ּב ְכ ִלי ְמנו ָ ּּקב – ֲא ִפילּ ּו דָּ גִ ים וְ עֹופֹות נַ ִמי‬ the blood emitted by the birds will pool, then even if one salted a
(Ramban), while others claim that one must remove a
thumb’s width of the part that came into contact with !‫ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ bird and another bird together they should be prohibited, as the
the birds, but the rest of the fish is permitted (Ra’ah). blood expelled from one bird will be absorbed by the other. And
Yet others are even more lenient and claim that one is if the case involves a perforated vessel, out of which the blood
merely required to peel off a layer from the fish (Rosh; can flow, then even if fish are salted with birds the fish should
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 70:1). If the scales of the fish
be permitted.
had not been removed when they were salted with
the birds, then the fish are entirely permitted.
‫ וְ ָדגִ ים ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָרפ ּו‬,‫עֹולם – ִ ּב ְכ ִלי ְמנו ָ ּּקב‬ ָ ‫ְל‬ The Gemara answers: Actually, the ruling is referring to a perfo-
The unclean, to prohibit their juice and their gravy rated vessel. And the fish are prohibited because their skin is soft,
and their spices – ‫יפה‬ ְ ְ‫ַה ְּט ֵמ ִאים ֶל ֱאסֹור צִ ָירן ו‬
ָ ‫רֹוט ָבן וְ ִק‬
,‫יטי‬ִ ‫ וְ עֹופֹות ְק ִמ‬,‫ְק ָר ַמיְ יה ּו ָק ְד ֵמי ו ָּפ ְל ֵטי‬
and therefore when they are salted they expel their blood first,
‫ש ָּל ֶהן‬:
ֶ ׁ This prohibition does not apply to the juice, ‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ָ ּב ְל ִעי‬,‫יטי עֹופֹות‬ ִ ‫ָ ּב ַתר דְּ נַיְ ִחי דָּ גִ ים ּ ְפ ִל‬
gravy, and spices of non-kosher fish, as they are not
whereas the skin of birds is hard. After the fish finish expelling
.‫ֵיה‬ ּ ‫ִמ ּינ‬ their blood, the birds continue to expel their blood, and then the
called “unclean” but “detestable” (Kehillot Ya’akov; see
Leviticus 11:12). Some of the early commentaries main- fish absorb blood from them. If one salts two birds together, they
tain that even the juices of an unslaughtered animal expel their blood simultaneously, and neither will absorb blood
carcass and a tereifa are prohibited by rabbinic law, not from outside while expelling its own.
Torah law (Mordekhai; Shita Mekubbetzet).
‫יה ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ׁ ְשחו ָּטה‬
ּ ‫ימ ַלח ֵל‬
ְ ‫ ַרב ָמ ִרי ַ ּבר ָר ֵחל ִא‬The Gemara relates: Meat of a slaughtered animal was salted for
ּ ‫ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬,‫ ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ְט ֵר ָפה‬Rav Mari bar Raĥel together with prohibited meat of an animal
p
,‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬
that had a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve
months [tereifa], in a perforated vessel, as meat is generally salted.
He came before Rava to ask whether the kosher meat was prohib-
ited, as perhaps it would not have absorbed flavor from the non-
kosher meat while itself expelling blood.

ְ ְ‫״ה ְּט ֵמ ִאים״ – ֶל ֱאסֹור צִ ָירן ו‬

‫רֹוט ָבן‬ ַ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to him: When the verse states, with regard to forbidden
.‫ וְ ִק ָיפה ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬foods: “These are the unclean to you” (Leviticus 11:31), the added
definite article serves to prohibit not only their flesh but also their
juice emitted by salting, and their gravy, and their spicesnh with
which they are cooked. Even while the kosher meat is emitting its
blood, it still absorbs the juices of the non-kosher meat, which are
absorbed more easily than blood.

halakha
If one salted fish and birds together – ‫דָּ גִ ים וְ עֹופֹות ׁ ֶש ְּמ ָל ָחן זֶ ה ִעם זֶ ה‬: outer layer from the kosher meat. The reason is that the kosher
It is prohibited to salt fish together with meat, including the meat meat absorbs juices from the tereifa meat. If the kosher meat was
of birds, as fish expel all their juices before the birds expel their salted and the meat of the tereifa unsalted, the kosher meat is
blood. If one did salt them together, the birds are permitted but the permitted after rinsing, whether it was on top or underneath the
outer layer of the fish must be removed. If the scales of the fish had meat of the tereifa. Some prohibit the kosher meat if the two pieces
not been removed when they were salted, the fish are permitted, of meat were in actual contact, and permit the kosher meat only
as the scales are considered like their outer layer. Some prohibit the if the pieces were not touching, but were close enough for their
fish entirely unless they were sixty times the size of the birds, and emissions to touch each other. In that case, the kosher meat is
this is the accepted halakha. Even according to this opinion, if they permitted even without rinsing. According to this opinion, even if
have scales they are permitted, as they do not expel immediately they were not touching, the kosher meat is prohibited if the meat
and therefore they do not absorb blood from the birds (Rambam of the tereifa was salted and the kosher meat unsalted (Rema). With
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh regard to the practical halakha, some are stringent in accordance
De’a 70:1 and in the comment of Rema, and Gra there). with the second opinion, and allow ruling leniently only if a great
loss were to result, whereas the Shulĥan Arukh rules leniently in
To prohibit their juice and their gravy and their spices – ‫ֶל ֱאסֹור‬ accordance with the first opinion (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hil-
‫רֹוט ָבן וְ ִק ָיפה ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬
ְ ְ‫צִ ָירן ו‬: If meat of a slaughtered animal was salted khot Ma’akhalot Assurot 15:34; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 70:3 and
with meat of a tereifa, or if salted meat of a tereifa and unsalted Shakh there).
kosher meat were touching each other, one must remove the

Personalities
Rav Mari son of the daughter of Shmuel – ‫יה ְ ּד ַבת ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬
ּ ‫רב ָמ ִרי ְ ּב ֵר‬:ַ born, Rav Mari is generally mentioned without a patronymic
This is a fourth-generation Babylonian amora, Rav Mari, the son of because his mother came from a very prestigious family. There
Raĥel, who was the daughter of the amora Shmuel. His unconven- are several instances in the Talmud where Sages are called by
tional appellation is explained by the history of Shmuel’s family. the names of their famous mothers who hail from distinguished
The daughters of the amora Shmuel were taken into captivity. families, even when their father’s identity would cast no aspersion
One of them, Raĥel, was captured by a gentile soldier, who later on their lineage. Rav Mari was apparently wealthy and engaged
converted and married her. He became known as Issur Giyora, Issur in commerce. He was also a significant Torah scholar and was
the Convert, and he served as a confidant of the prominent Jewish appointed to a lofty position in the court in Babylonia. Rav Mari
leaders of the generation in Babylonia. had three sons, all of whom were Torah scholars: Rav Aĥa Sava, Mar
Even though his father had already converted before he was Zutra, and Rava bar Rav Mari.

196 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 112b . ‫ביק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VIII
Daf 113 Amud a
notes
:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫יה ִמדִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ּ ‫ימא ֵל‬ָ ‫ וְ ֵל‬The Gemara objects: But let Rava say to him the same ruling by
But if they were both salted then the kosher fish
ֵ ‫ ָמ ִל ַיח – ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ‬instead citing the seemingly more relevant statement of Shmuel, as
‫ וְ ָכבו ּׁש – ֲה ֵרי‬,‫רֹות ַח‬ is prohibited – ‫נֵיהם ְמלו ִּחין ָאסוּר‬
ֶ ‫א ָבל ׁ ְש‬:
ֲ Some com-
Shmuel said: A salted food imparts its flavor like a boiling food, and
!‫הוּא ִּכ ְמבו ׁ ּ ָּשל‬ mentaries write that according to this suggestion of
a marinated food is as absorbent as a cooked food. Clearly, the kosher the Gemara, the kosher fish is entirely prohibited, as
meat absorbed flavor from the meat of the tereifa as it would have had it is considered like a boiling dish due to the abun-
they been cooked together. dance of salt. Therefore, just as cooking the two kinds
of fish together renders the kosher fish prohibited
– ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי‬:‫ ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬,‫ ִאי ִמדִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬The Gemara explains: Had Rava based his ruling only on Shmuel’s in its entirety, so too, salting the two kinds of fish
together renders the kosher fish entirely prohibited
ְ ְ‫ ֲא ָבל צִ ָירן ו‬,‫ דָּ ָמן‬statement, I would say in response: This statement applies only to
‫ ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫רֹוט ָבן – ָלא‬ (Ramban). Others maintain that one must remove only
the absorption of the blood of the meat, but kosher meat is not pro-
.‫ָלן‬ a thumb’s width of the portion that touched the other
hibited if it absorbs only the juices and gravy of the meat of the tereifa. fish (Ra’ah). A third explanation is that it requires only
Since in this case the meat is salted in a perforated vessel, the blood the removal of the outer layer (Ran).
from each piece runs out and is not absorbed by the other, and one
might think that the kosher meat remains permitted. Rava’s interpreta-
tion of the verse in Leviticus teaches us that the juices and gravy of
the meat of the tereifa must also be taken into account.

– ‫ דָּ ג ָטהֹור ׁ ֶש ְּמ ָלחֹו ִעם דָּ ג ָט ֵמא‬:‫ֵמ ִית ֵיבי‬ The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A kosher fish that
?‫נֵיהן ְמלו ִּחין‬
ֶ ‫ ַמאי ָלאו ׁ ֶש ָהי ּו ׁ ְש‬,‫מו ָּּתר‬ one salted together with a non-kosher fish is permitted. What, is it
not referring to a case where they were both salted and expel juices?
‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ָטהֹור ָמ ִל ַיח וְ ָט ֵמא‬,‫ָלא‬
This indicates that the kosher fish is not prohibited by the juices of the
.‫ָּת ֵפל‬ non-kosher fish, contrary to Rava’s statement. The Gemara responds:
No, this is referring to a case where the kosher fish was salted and the
non-kosher fish was unsalted. Since an unsalted fish does not emit
juices, the kosher fish does not absorb the flavor of the non-kosher fish.

‫יפא ֲא ָבל ִאם ָהיָ ה‬ ָ ‫וְ ָהא ִמדְּ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס‬ The Gemara challenges: But from the fact that the latter clause
‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ֵר‬,‫ָטהֹור ָמ ִל ַיח וְ ָט ֵמא ָּת ֵפל‬ teaches: But if the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher fish
was unsalted the kosher fish remains permitted, it may be inferred
‫נֵיהם ְמלו ִּחין ָע ְס ִקינַן! ּ ֵפרו ׁ ֵּשי ָקא‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש‬
that in the first clause we are dealing with a case where they are both
– ‫ ָטהֹור ׁ ֶש ְּמ ָלחֹו ִעם דָּ ג ָט ֵמא‬,‫ְמ ָפ ֵר ׁש‬ salted. The Gemara responds: The latter clause is explaining the
‫ ֵּכיצַ ד – ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ָטהֹור ָמ ִל ַיח וְ ָט ֵמא‬.‫מו ָּּתר‬ halakha of the first clause. The baraita should be read as follows: A
.‫ָּת ֵפל‬ kosher fish that one salted together with a non-kosher fish is permit-
ted. How so? This is the halakha if the kosher fish was salted and the
non-kosher fish was unsalted.

ְ‫ דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתך‬,‫ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬ The Gemara notes: So, too, it is reasonable that this is the meaning
‫נֵיהם‬ֶ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ׁ ְש‬,‫נֵיהם ְמלו ִּחים‬ ֶ ‫ישא ׁ ְש‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֵר‬ of the baraita, as if it enters your mind that the first clause is referring
to a case where both of them are salted, one can claim: Now that
‫ ָטהֹור ָמ ִל ַיח וְ ָט ֵמא ָּת ֵפל‬,‫ְמלו ִּחים – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬
the baraita has stated that even if both of them are salted the kosher
!‫יב ֲעיָ א‬
ּ ָ ‫ִמ‬ fish is permitted, is it necessary to state that the same applies in the
less problematic case where the kosher fish was salted and the non-
kosher fish was unsalted?

‫ ָּתנָ א ֵס ָיפא‬,‫ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָהא – ָלא ִא ְיריָ א‬ The Gemara rejects this: If it is due to that reason, there is no conclu-
‫ישא ָטהֹור‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ דְּ ָלא ֵּת‬,‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ְלגַ לּ וּיֵ י ֵר‬ sive argument. It is possible that the first clause of the baraita is indeed
referring to a case where both fish are salted, and the tanna of the
– ‫נֵיהם ְמלו ִּחין‬ֶ ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ְש‬,‫ָמ ִל ַיח וְ ָט ֵמא ָּת ֵפל‬
baraita nevertheless taught the latter clause to shed light on the
‫יפא ָטהֹור ָמ ִל ַיח וְ ָט ֵמא‬ ָ ‫ ָּתנָ א ֵס‬.‫ָאסוּר‬ first clause, so that you should not say: The first clause is referring
,‫נֵיהן ְמלו ִּחין‬ֶ ‫ישא ׁ ְש‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ֵר‬,‫ָּת ֵפל‬ only to a case where the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher
.‫וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָה ִכי ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ fish was unsalted, but if they were both salted, then the kosher fish
is prohibited.n To rule this out, he taught the latter clause, which
explicitly makes reference to a case where the kosher fish was salted
and the non-kosher fish unsalted, which by inference indicates that
the first clause is referring to a case where they are both salted, and
teaches that even so the kosher fish is permitted.

‫ ֲא ָבל ִאם ָהיָ ה‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ֵּס ָיפא דְּ ֵס ָיפא‬ The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear proof against Rava’s
‫ ָט ֵמא‬,‫ָט ֵמא ָמ ִל ַיח וְ ָטהֹור ָּת ֵפל – ָאסוּר‬ ruling from the latter clause of the latter clause, i.e., the third clause
of that baraita: But if the non-kosher fish was salted and the kosher
‫ ָהא‬,‫ָמ ִל ַיח וְ ָטהֹור ָּת ֵפל – הוּא דְּ ָאסוּר‬
fish was unsalted, the kosher fish is prohibited. One can infer from
!‫נֵיהן ְמלו ִּחין – ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ֶ ‫ׁ ְש‬ here that it is only if the non-kosher fish is salted and the kosher fish
is unsalted that the kosher fish is prohibited. But if they were both
salted, then the kosher fish is permitted, contrary to Rava’s ruling.
 ‫גיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 113a 197
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ישא ָטהֹור ָמ ִל ַיח וְ ָט ֵמא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ַאיְ ֵידי דְּ ָתנָ א ֵר‬The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the last section of the baraita uses
One must rinse and salt and then rinse again – ‫ֵמ ִד ַיח‬
‫ּמֹול ַח ו ֵּמ ִד ַיח‬
ֵ ‫ו‬‎: The purpose of the second rinsing, after the ‫ ָּתנָ א נַ ִמי ֵס ָיפא ָט ֵמא ָמ ִל ַיח וְ ָטהֹור‬,‫ ָּת ֵפל‬this language only since it teaches in the former clause, i.e., the
second clause: If the kosher fish was salted and the non-kosher
salting, is to remove the last traces of blood from the meat .‫ָּת ֵפל‬
(Ran). With regard to the reason for the rinsing before fish unsalted, etc. The baraita therefore taught the last clause as
salting, some say that it serves to expel actual blood that well using parallel language: If the non-kosher fish was salted and
remains on the meat after the slaughter. This is because the kosher fish unsalted, etc. But nothing can be derived from here
the salt expels only the moist blood that is inside the with regard to a case where both fish were salted.
meat, but is not effective with regard to removing dried
blood on the surface of the meat. Consequently, if the .)‫יש ָרא דְּ ַמ ַּנח נַ ְפקו ָּתא‬
ׂ ְ ‫ ִ ּב‬:‫ימן‬
ָ ‫(ס‬
ִ § The Gemara provides a mnemonic for remembering the three
meat is not rinsed before washing there is a concern halakhot stated by Shmuel below: The manner in which blood is
that after expelling its blood, it will reabsorb the blood
expelled from meat; salted meat that is placed on a vessel; an
on its surface, which has melted due to the salt (Ra’ah).
By contrast, according to those early commentaries
animal whose neck is broken before its soul departs.
who maintain that one must be careful not to leave the
salt in the meat until it has expelled all its blood and ‫ ֵאין ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר יֹוצֵ א ִמ ֵידי דָּ מֹו‬:‫ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ Shmuel says: Meat cannot be rid of its blood unless one salts it
juices, but one must remove the salt slightly before this ‫ ו ְּמ ִדיחֹו‬,‫מֹולחֹו יָ ֶפה יָ ֶפה‬ ְ ‫ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן‬ thoroughlyh and rinses it thoroughly in water. It was stated: Rav
stage, there is no concern that the blood on the surface Huna says: One must salt and rinse the meat in water. And it was
‫מֹול ַח‬
ֵ :‫ ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ַמר‬,‫ ִא ְּת ַמר‬.‫יָ ֶפה יָ ֶפה‬
of the meat will be absorbed inside the meat. Rather, the taught in a baraita: One must rinse the meat, and salt it, and then
purpose of the first rinsing is to soften the meat so that ‫ּמֹול ַח‬
ֵ ‫ ֵמ ִד ַיח ו‬:‫נִיתא ָּתנָ א‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ַמ ְת‬,‫ו ֵּמ ִד ַיח‬ rinse it again.n The Gemara adds: And these two rulings do not
the salt can remove its blood effectively (Ran). ‫יה ֵ ּבי‬ּ ‫ל‬ ֵ ‫ל‬ַ ‫ח‬
ֲ ַּ‫ד‬ – ‫א‬ ‫ה‬ָ ,‫י‬ ִ‫יג‬ ‫ל‬ִ ‫ וְ ָלא ּ ְפ‬.‫ו ֵּמ ִד ַיח‬ disagree. This ruling of Rav Huna is referring to a case where one
One does not presume that there is blood in the .‫יה ֵ ּבי ַט ָ ּב ָחא‬ ּ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ָלא ֲח ַל ֵל‬,‫ַט ָ ּב ָחא‬ already washed the meat in the slaughterhouse before salting,
intestines – ‫אין ַמ ֲחזִ ִיקין דָּ ם ִ ּב ְבנֵי ֵמ ַעיִ ים‬:
ֵ The primary pur- ‫יה ְ ּב ִמ ְיל ָחא‬ ּ ‫ימי ִמ ְּנ ַה ְרדְּ ָעא ְמ ַלח ֵל‬ ִ ִּ‫ַרב ד‬ whereas that baraita is referring to a case where one did not wash
pose of salting is to remove the blood from the meat the meat in the slaughterhouse. The Gemara relates: Rav Dimi of
that would be expelled during the cooking process. The .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ו ְּמנַ ּ ֵפיץ ֵל‬,‫נִיתא‬ָ ‫ְ ּג ָל ְל‬
Neharde’a would salt meat with coarsel salt and then shake the
intestines contain little blood and do not expel blood
during cooking. Consequently, this blood is considered
salt off the meat.h
like blood of the limbs that has not separated from the
limb, which is permitted (Ran). Any blood that does come
‫ ֵאין ַמ ֲחזִ ִיקין דָּ ם ִ ּב ְבנֵי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ְמ ׁ ָש ְר ׁ ִשּיָא‬Rav Mesharshiyya says: One does not presume that there is blood
‫ ִּת ְר ְ ּג ָמא – ַא ַּכ ְר ְּכ ׁ ָשא ּו ֵמ ֲעיָ יא‬,‫ ֵמ ַעיִ ים‬in the intestines, and therefore they are not prohibited if they
nh
out of the intestines as they are cooked is nullified due to
its small quantity (Peri Megadim). have not been salted. The Gemara comments: The Sages inter-
.‫וְ ַה ְד ָרא דְּ ַכנְ ָּתא‬
preted this statement as referring to the rectum, the intestines,
language and the spiral colon.b
Coarse [gelalnita] – ‫נִיתא‬ָ ‫ ְ ּג ָל ְל‬: Apparently from the word
galal, meaning a rock. If so, it is referring to coarse salt pro-
duced from chunks of salt mined from hills, as opposed
to soft salt from the sea.

background
Rectum, intestines, and spiral colon – ‫ַא ַּכ ְר ְּכ ׁ ָשא ו ֵּמ ֲעיָ יא‬
‫וְ ַה ְד ָרא דְּ ַכנְ ָּתא‬:

halakha
Meat cannot be rid of its blood unless one salts it thoroughly, flour, it is permitted to use it (Rema). Before placing the meat in
ְ ‫אין ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר יֹוצֵ א ִמ ֵידי דָּ מֹו ֶא ָּלא ִאם ֵּכן‬:ֵ Meat
etc. – ‫מֹולחֹו יָ ֶפה יָ ֶפה וכו׳‬ a vessel in which it will be rinsed, one should shake the salt off
remains prohibited due to its blood unless one salts it thoroughly it, or rinse it in water (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot
and rinses it thoroughly. One must also rinse the meat before Assurot 6:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 69:6).
Digestive system of a cow salting to soften it so that its blood will be expelled in the salt-
ing process (Ran). The Mordekhai cites this opinion as well, but One does not presume that there is blood in the intestines –
concludes that the purpose of the first rinsing is to remove the ‫אין ַמ ֲחזִ ִיקין דָּ ם ִ ּב ְבנֵי ֵמ ַעיִ ים‬:ֵ There is no presumption that there is
dirt adhering to the meat, as otherwise the salt will adhere to the blood in the intestines, e.g., the rumen, the abomasum, the small
dirt and will not remove the blood from the meat. If the butcher intestines, and the rectum, when their fat has already been
has already rinsed the meat there is no need to do so once again removed. Consequently, if one cooked them in a pot without first
in one’s home (Tur). As for the manner of rinsing the meat, the salting them they are permitted, unless their appearance is ruddy.
Rema writes that one should proceed as follows ab initio: He The Rema writes that these parts require salting in a perforated
should soak it for half an hour and rinse it well in the water in vessel and rinsing beforehand ab initio, like other meat. Some
which it was soaked. If he did not soak it but merely rinsed it disagree with regard to the rumen, claiming that there is a pre-
thoroughly, this is sufficient. Afterward he should wait a little sumption that it does contain blood, and it is therefore prohibited
for the water to drip off before he salts it, so that the salt does even after the fact if it is not salted. All agree that the reticulum is
not melt in the water and become incapable of drawing out the considered like all other meat in this regard. Likewise, the fat on
blood. Nevertheless, one should not wait until it is completely dry the intestines are considered like all other meat. Consequently,
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:10; Shulĥan when one salts the rectum and other parts of the intestines, one
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 69:1, and Darkhei Moshe, Shakh, and Gra there). does not salt their inner parts where the food passes through,
but the outer part upon which the fat adheres. If one salted the
Would salt meat with coarse salt and then shake the salt off rectum on the inner part rather than on its outer part it is as
the meat – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫יה ְ ּב ִמ ְיל ָחא ְ ּג ָל ְל‬
ּ ‫נִיתא ו ְּמנַ ּ ֵפיץ ֵל‬ ּ ‫מ ַלח ֵל‬:ְ One should not though it has not been salted at all. Therefore, if it is cooked in this
salt meat with salt that is fine as flour, nor with very coarse salt state it is non-kosher if there is fat on its outside. If the rectum has
that would fall off the meat, but rather with salt that is as thick yet to be cooked, one should salt it again on the outside in the
as coarse sand (Rambam). This ruling is in accordance with the proper manner, and then it is permitted (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
custom of Rav Dimi, which is recorded in order to teach the prac- Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:18; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 75:1, and
tical halakha (Maggid Mishne). If the only salt one has is as fine as in the comment of Rema).

198 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 113a . ‫גיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ִיחין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָמ ִל ַיח‬
ִ ‫ ֵאין ַמ ּנ‬:‫ ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬Shmuel says: One may place salted meat only on a perforated
Neck of an animal – ‫מ ְפ ַר ְק ָּת ּה ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:ִ
.‫ ֶא ָּלא ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ְּכ ִלי ְמנו ָ ּּקב‬vessel, so that the expelled blood can run out. But if the vessel
h

is not perforated then the blood will pool and be reabsorbed by

the meat.

‫ ְּת ֵרי‬,‫יה ַ ּג ְר ָמא ַ ּג ְר ָמא‬

ּ ‫ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ָמ ַלח ֵל‬ The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet would salt meat one bone, i.e.,
‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא ָלא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָפ ֵר ׁיש ֵמ ַהאי‬ one piece, at a time.h The Gemara asks: What is the reason that
he would not salt two together? Could it be because the blood
‫יסא‬ ָ ‫ ּ ָפ ֵר ׁיש ֵמ ַהאי ִ ּג‬,‫ ַחד נַ ִמי‬.‫ו ָּב ַלע ַהאי‬
leaves this piece and that piece absorbs it? If so, with regard to one
.‫ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א‬:‫יסא! ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ ‫ו ָּב ַלע ַהאי ִ ּג‬ piece as well, one could claim that the blood leaves this side of
the piece and that side absorbs it. Rather, there is no difference
between one piece and two pieces, and one may salt even several
pieces together.
Cow’s neck
‫ ַה ׁ ּש ֵֹובר‬:‫ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬ Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Ĥiyya: One who breaks the
‫קֹודם ׁ ֶש ֵּתצֵ א‬ ֶ ‫ִמ ְפ ַר ְק ָּת ּה ׁ ֶשל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ neck of an animalb after it is slaughtered but before its soul departs
thereby makes the meat heavy. The meat expels blood at the time
‫ וְ גֹוזֵ ל‬,‫נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה – ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה ַמ ְכ ִ ּביד ֶאת ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬
of slaughter, but if one breaks the animal’s neck, excess blood is
.‫ ו ַּמ ְב ִל ַיע דָּ ם ָ ּב ֵא ָב ִרים‬,‫ֶאת ַה ְ ּב ִרּיֹות‬ trapped inside and weighs down the meat. And by this action he
robs people, as he causes blood to be absorbed in the animal’s
limbs, and since he sells the meat by weight, people will pay extra
to acquire the same amount of edible meat.

‫יכי ָק ָא ַמר ַמ ְכ ִ ּביד ֶאת‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case
‫ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ גֹוזֵ ל ֶאת ַה ְ ּב ִרּיֹות ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַמ ְב ִל ַיע‬ is he speaking? Does Shmuel mean that there is only one problem
with this practice, namely, that it renders the meat heavy and robs
,‫יה – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר דָּ ֵמי‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ְל ִד ֵיד‬,‫דָּ ם ָ ּב ֵא ָב ִרים‬
people since he causes blood to be absorbed in the animal’s limbs?
.ּ‫יה נַ ִמי ָאסוּר? ֵּתיקו‬ ּ ‫אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא – ְל ִד ֵיד‬ If so, it may be inferred that if one wishes to keep the meat for
himself,h one may well do so, since he is robbing no one. Or per-
haps Shmuel is referring to two prohibitions, first, that the blood
trapped in the meat renders it prohibited for consumption, and
second, that of robbery. If so, then even if one wants to keep the
meat for himself, it is also prohibited. The Gemara concludes: The
dilemma shall stand unresolved.

‫מתני׳ ַה ַּמ ֲע ֶלה ֶאת ָהעֹוף ִעם ַה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה‬

ֵ ‫ַעל ַה ׁ ּ ֻש ְל ָחן ֵאינֹו‬
.‫עֹובר ְ ּבל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬
mishna One who places the meat of birds with
cheese on the table upon which he eats does
not thereby violate a Torah prohibition.

halakha
One may place salted meat only on a perforated vessel – ‫ֵאין‬ continues to expel its juices for a long time, during which it will
‫ִיחין ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָמ ִל ַיח ֶא ָּלא ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ְּכ ִלי ְמנו ָ ּּקב‬
ִ ‫מ ּנ‬:ַ One may salt meat only not absorb. Even if a large amount of juice accumulates between
upon a perforated vessel or on straw or twigs, or on an incline the pieces, the meat is permitted. This ruling applies to all cases
on which water would immediately flow down. One should take of salting meat together with other types of meat, including the
care that the holes of the perforated vessel are open ab initio, meat of an ox with that of kids and lambs or with the meat of
and therefore one should not place it on the ground, as in that birds, as they do not finish expelling all their juices before the
case it is considered like an unperforated vessel. Some maintain ox finishes expelling its blood. This ruling is in accordance with
that one should preferably put straw or twigs inside the vessel, as the conclusion of the Gemara, and not in accordance with the
otherwise the meat might block the holes, but one need not be opinion of Rav Sheshet. The Rema writes that it is customary to
concerned about this matter after the fact (Rema). If one did salt be stringent ab initio to turn over every piece of the animal that
meat in an unperforated vessel, it is prohibited to use that vessel has a receptacle, e.g., a whole side of an animal, so that the blood
for any boiling food. The Rema writes that if one nevertheless should flow out, but one need not be concerned about this mat-
used the vessel for a dry boiling food, one must peel the outer ter after the fact (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 70:1).
layer of the food. If one used the vessel for a boiling liquid, the
liquid is permitted only if there was sixty times more of it than For himself – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ל ִד ֵיד‬:ְ It is prohibited for one who breaks the neck
the size of the outer layer of the vessel. Some say that one may of an animal before its soul departs to eat its meat raw unless
not use this vessel even for cold food items without first rinsing he first salts it thoroughly. This ruling is in accordance with the
it, and if one did, he should rinse the food that was placed in it principle that the halakha is stringent with regard to any case
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:11; Shulĥan that involves a Torah prohibition that is left as an uncertainty by
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 69:16). the Gemara. If one salts the meat it is permitted even to cook it
in a pot. It is permitted to roast the meat without salting, but the
Would salt meat one bone at a time, etc. – ‫יה ַ ּג ְר ָמא‬ ּ ‫ ָמ ַלח ֵל‬custom is to cut it and salt it even if one wants to roast it (Rema;
‫ ַ ּג ְר ָמא וכו׳‬: One may salt numerous pieces of meat together, one on Ateret Zahav). The Baĥ maintains that this is not merely a custom;
top of the other. Although a lower piece of meat finishes expelling rather, the halakha is that one must salt the meat before roasting
its blood before an upper piece, one does not say that it will sub- it (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:9; Shulĥan
sequently absorb blood from the upper piece, as the lower piece Arukh, Yoreh De’a 67:3 and Shakh there).

 ‫גיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 113a 199

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

kosher animal – ‫הֹורה‬

halakha
The meat of a kosher animal in the milk of any
ָ ‫הֹורה ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט‬
ָ ‫ב ַ ׂשר ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט‬:ּ ְ
‫ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫עֹובר ְ ּבל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬
:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יתא! ֵא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ֵ – ‫אֹוכלֹו‬ְ ‫גמ׳ ָהא‬
ַ ְּ‫ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר עֹוף ְ ּב ָח ָלב ד‬:‫ִמ ָּינ ּה‬
gemara The Gemara suggests: Since the mishna
mentions only that placing meat of birds
The prohibition of meat cooked in milk applies only
and milk on one table does not violate a Torah prohibition, one may
‫ ַה ַּמ ֲע ֶלה ֶאת ָהעֹוף ִעם ַה ְ ּג ִבינָ ה ַעל ַה ׁ ּשו ְּל ָחן‬consequently infer that if one eats them together he does violate a
to the meat of a kosher animal cooked in the milk of
a kosher animal. The meat of a kosher animal cooked .‫ ֵאינֹו ָ ּבא ִל ֵידי ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬Torah prohibition. If so, learn from the mishna that meat of birds
in the milk of a non-kosher animal and the meat of in milk is prohibited by Torah law, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi
a non-kosher animal cooked in the milk of a kosher Akiva, who maintains that it applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara
animal are permitted with regard to cooking and responds: Say that the mishna should be understood as follows: One
with regard to deriving benefit, even by rabbinic law
who places bird meat with cheese on the table will not thereby
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot
9:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:3 and Shakh there).
come to violate a Torah prohibition, since eating the two together
is a rabbinic prohibition, as Rabbi Akiva maintains.
Cooking the meat of an undomesticated animal
or bird in milk is not prohibited by Torah law – ‫ַחּיָ ה‬
‫וְ עֹוף ֵאינָ ם ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬: It is permitted to cook the meat
of an undomesticated animal or a bird in milk and
‫הֹורה ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ָ ‫מתני׳ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט‬
‫ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר‬.‫הֹורה – ָאסוּר ְל ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל וְ ָאסוּר ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬ ָ ‫ְט‬
mishna It is prohibited to cook the meat of a kosher
animal in the milk of any kosher animal,h
to derive benefit from that dish. Its consumption is
not merely the milk of its mother, and deriving benefit from that
‫ ְ ּב ַ ׂשר‬,‫הֹורה ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט‬ mixture is prohibited. It is permitted to cook the meat of a kosher
prohibited by rabbinic law, in accordance with the
opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Some commentaries main- ‫הֹורה – מו ָּּתר‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט‬ animal in the milk of a non-kosher animal, or the meat of a non-
tain that the meat of an undomesticated animal or of :‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬.‫ְל ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל וּמו ָּּתר ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬ kosher animal in the milk of a kosher animal, and deriving benefit
a bird cooked in milk has the same status as the meat ‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״ל ֹא‬,‫ַחּיָ ה וְ עֹוף ֵאינָ ם ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬ from that mixture is permitted. Rabbi Akiva says: Cooking the
of a domesticated animal cooked in milk (Maharshal; meat of an undomesticated animal or bird in milk is not prohibited
Baĥ). The Shakh agrees with the opinion that it is ‫ ּ ְפ ָרט‬,‫ְת ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּג ִדי ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְפ ָע ִמים‬
by Torah law,h as it is stated: “You shall not cook a kid in its
prohibited by rabbinic law. As proof, he cites the .‫ְל ַחּיָ ה ו ְּלעֹוף ו ְּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה‬ mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21) three
statement of the Rambam in the Mishne Torah (Sefer
Shofetim, Hilkhot Mamrim 2:9) that if a court states times. The repetition of the word “kid” three times excludes an
that bird meat is included in the “kid” mentioned undomesticated animal, a bird, and a non-kosher animal.
by the Torah and it is therefore prohibited to cook
it in milk, that court has violated the prohibition: ְ ‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר ״ל ֹא ת‬:‫אֹומר‬
‫ֹאכל ּו‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬
ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says that it is stated: “You shall not eat of
Do not add to mitzvot (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hil- ‫ וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר ״ל ֹא ְת ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּג ִדי ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב‬,‫ָכל נְ ֵב ָלה״‬ any animal carcass” (Deuteronomy 14:21), and in the same verse it
khot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh is stated: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.” This
De’a 87:3). ‫ ֶאת ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם נְ ֵב ָלה – ָאסוּר‬,‫ִא ּמֹו״‬
indicates that meat of an animal that is subject to be prohibited due
,‫ עֹוף ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם נְ ֵב ָלה‬,‫ְל ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬ to the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered carcass is prohibited
‫יָ כֹול יְ ֵהא ָאסוּר ְל ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב ָח ָלב – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ for one to cook in milk. Consequently, with regard to meat of birds,
‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״ – יָ צָ א עֹוף ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו‬ ּ ַ :‫לֹומר‬
ַ which is subject to be prohibited due to the prohibition of eating
.‫ֲח ֵלב ֵאם‬ an unslaughtered carcass, one might have thought that it would be
prohibited to cook it in milk. Therefore, the verse states: “In its
mother’s milk,” excluding a bird, which has no mother’s milk.

‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫גמ׳ ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי? ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬

.‫ ״וַ ּיִ ׁ ְש ַלח יְ הו ָּדה ֶאת ְ ּג ִדי ָה ִעּזִ ים״‬:‫ְק ָרא‬
gemara The Gemara asks: From where are these
matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: The
verse states: “And Judah sent the kid of the goats” (Genesis 38:20).

Perek VIII
Daf 113 Amud b
halakha
‫ ָהא ָּכל ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״ ְ ּג ִדי״‬,‫ ָּכאן – ְ ּג ִדי ִעּזִ ים‬One may infer that here, since this verse specifies that it is referring
It means even a cow or a ewe – ‫יל ּו ּ ָפ ָרה וְ ָר ֵחל‬ ּ ‫ֲא ִפ‬
‫ב ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬:ּ ְ Although the Torah states: You shall not cook .‫ ְס ָתם – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ּ ָפ ָרה וְ ָר ֵחל ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬to a kid of the goats, consequently, anywhere the word “kid” is
a kid in its mother’s milk, the same applies to an
stated without specification, it means even a cow or a ewe.h
ox, lamb, or goat. Likewise, there is no difference Accordingly, the prohibition of meat cooked in milk applies to all
between the milk of that animal’s mother or any kosher domesticated animals.
other milk, as the verse is referring to the common
case (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot ‫ֵיה! ְּכ ִתיב ְק ָרא ַא ֲח ִרינָ א ״וְ ֵאת‬ ּ ‫וְ ֵל ַילף ִמ ּינ‬ The Gemara asks: But why not derive from that verse that in general,
Assurot 9:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:2). ‫ ָהא‬,‫ ָּכאן ְ ּג ָדיֵ י ָה ִעּזִ ים‬,‫עֹרֹת ְ ּג ָדיֵ י ָה ִעּזִ ים״‬ every instance of the word “kid” is referring to a goat, including the
prohibition of meat cooked in milk? The Gemara answers: This
‫ָּכל ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״ ְ ּג ִדי״ ְס ָתם – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ּ ָפ ָרה‬
cannot be, as another verse is written: “And the skins of the kids
.‫וְ ָר ֵחל ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬ of the goats” (Genesis 27:16). This indicates that only here they are
kids of the goats, but anywhere the word “kid” is stated without
specification, it means even a cow or a ewe.
200 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 113b . ‫גיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ֵיה! ָהו ּו ְלה ּו ׁ ְשנֵי ְכתו ִּבין ַה ָ ּב ִאין‬
ּ ‫ וְ ֵל ַילף ִמ ּינ‬The Gemara objects: But let us derive from this verse as well that
Two verses that come as one – ‫ׁ ְשנֵי ְכתו ִּבין ַה ָ ּב ִאים‬
‫ וְ ָכל ׁ ְשנֵי ְכתו ִּבים ַה ָ ּב ִאים ְּכ ֶא ָחד ֵאין‬,‫ ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬on the contrary, the word “kid” is always referring to a goat. The ‫כ ֶא ָחד‬:ְּ A halakha written in one context may serve
Gemara explains: These two examples are two verses that come as
.‫ְמ ַל ְּמ ִדין‬ as a general model for many other contexts, in the
one,b i.e., to teach the same matter, and as a rule, any two verses that absence of a restriction limiting the halakha to that
come as one do not teach their common element to other cases. context. This is the hermeneutical technique called
analogy [binyan av]. An exception to this is if the
‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫נִיחא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ֵאין ְמ ַל ְּמ ִדין‬ ָ ‫ ָה‬The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who same halakha appears in two different contexts.
?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬,‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְמ ַל ְּמ ִדין‬says this principle that two verses that come as one do not teach Since the Torah wrote it in the second context, it
their common element to other cases, but according to the one who is apparent that it cannot have been derived from
.‫״ה ִעּזִ ים״‬
ָ ‫״עּזִ ים״‬
ִ ‫ְּת ֵרי ִמיעו ֵּטי ְּכ ִת ִיבי‬ the first context by way of analogy. Therefore, it can-
says that two verses that come as one do teach their common ele-
ment to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Two not be derived by way of analogy to other contexts
either. If it is possible to explain why the analogy
exclusions are written, as both of the verses cited use the term “the could not have been applied specifically to the
goats.” The verses could have stated simply: Goats, but state “the second context, thereby necessitating the writing
goats,” with the definite article, teaching that it is only in these cases of the halakha there, the analogy can be applied
that the reference is specifically to a goat. to other contexts.

,‫״ג ִדי״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ֵח ֶלב‬ ּ ְ :‫ § ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬Shmuel says: Each of the Torah’s three mentions of the prohibi- notes
‫ ״ ְ ּג ִדי״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות‬,‫״ג ִדי״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ֵּמ ָתה‬ּ ְ tion of not cooking a kid in its mother’s milk serves to include a In its mother’s milk, not in the milk of a slaugh-
different case. The first mention of the word “kid” serves to include tered animal – ‫ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ׁ ְשחו ָּטה‬:
ּ ַ This
,‫ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬
liability for cooking in milk and eating forbidden fats,h beyond refers to milk found in the udder of a slaughtered
the liability for eating forbidden fat per se. The second mention of animal. The prohibition of meat cooked in milk does
the word “kid” likewise serves to include additional liability for apply to milk found in the stomach of a slaughtered
cooking in milk and eating the meat of a dead animal carcass.h Finally, animal, which it suckled from its mother before it
died.
the third mention of the word “kid” serves to include liability for
cooking in milk and eating an animal fetus.h

‫״ג ִדי״ – ְלהֹוצִ יא‬ּ ְ ,‫״ג ִדי״ – ְלהֹוצִ יא ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬ ּ ְ Each mention excludes a case as well: The first mention of the word
.‫ ״ ְ ּג ִדי״ – ְלהֹוצִ יא ֶאת ַה ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬,‫“ ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ִש ְליָ א‬kid” serves to exclude liability for cooking in milk and consuming
blood.h The second mention of the word “kid” serves to exclude
liability for cooking in milk and eating the placentah of an animal.
The third mention of the word “kid” serves to exclude liability for
cooking in milk and eating the meat of a non-kosher animal.

‫״ב ֲח ֵלב‬
ּ ַ ,‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״ – וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב זָ ָכר‬ ּ ַ Furthermore, the first instance of the phrase “in its mother’s milk”
ּ ַ ,‫ ִא ּמֹו״ – וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ׁ ְשחו ָּטה‬indicates that one is not liable for cooking meat in the milk of a male
– ‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״‬
animal,h in the rare case that a male might produce milk. The second
.‫וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ְט ֵמ ָאה‬
instance of the phrase “in its mother’s milk” indicates that one is
not liable for cooking meat in the milk of an already slaughtered
animal,nh since it is considered milk only if given while the animal is
alive. The third instance of the phrase “in its mother’s milk” indi-
cates that one is not liable for cooking meat in the milk of a non-
kosher animal.h

halakha
To include forbidden fats – ‫ל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ֵח ֶלב‬:ְ One who cooks that the prohibition of meat cooked in milk does not take effect in milk is exempt from lashes (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
forbidden fat in milk is flogged for violating the prohibition of in addition to the prohibition of an animal carcass, and this is Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:7).
meat cooked in milk for the act of cooking, but not for eating not a case of a more inclusive prohibition, nor an expanded pro-
that dish. The reason is that the prohibition of meat cooked hibition, nor do the prohibitions come into effect at the same Not in the milk of a male animal – ‫ל ֹא ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב זָ ָכר‬: One who
in milk does not take effect in addition to the prohibition of time (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:6). cooks meat in the milk of a male animal is exempt from lashes
forbidden fat. This is not a case of a more inclusive prohibition, (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:6; Shulĥan
To include an animal fetus – ‫ל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬:ְ One who cooks
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:6).
i.e., one that adds additional aspects to the prohibition for the
an animal fetus in milk and one who eats that dish are liable
same individual, nor an expanded prohibition, i.e., one that
for violating the prohibition of meat cooked in milk (Rambam Not in the milk of a slaughtered animal – ‫ל ֹא ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ׁ ְשחו ָּטה‬:
incorporates additional people into the list of those prohibited
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:7; Shulĥan Arukh, One who cooked meat in the milk of a dead animal, whether
to the original item, nor do the prohibitions come into effect
Yoreh De’a 87:7). it died of its own accord or was slaughtered, is exempt from
at the same time, which are the exceptions to the principle
that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibi- To exclude blood – ‫להֹוצִ יא ֶאת ַהדָּ ם‬:ְ One who cooks blood lashes (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:6;
tion already exists (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot in milk is exempt, and if he eats the dish he is not flogged for Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:6 and Shakh there).
Assurot 9:6). violating the prohibition of meat cooked in milk (Rambam
Not in the milk of a non-kosher animal – ‫ל ֹא ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ְט ֵמ ָאה‬:
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:6; Shulĥan Arukh,
To include the meat of a dead animal carcass – ‫ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת‬ It is permitted to cook the meat of a kosher animal in the milk
Yoreh De’a 87:6).
‫ה ֵּמ ָתה‬:ַ One who cooks the meat of a dead animal carcass in milk of a non-kosher animal, and to derive benefit from the dish
is flogged for violating the prohibition of meat cooked in milk To exclude the placenta – ‫להֹוצִ יא ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ִש ְליָא‬:ְ One who cooks (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:3; Shulĥan
for the act of cooking, but not for eating that dish. The reason is a placenta in milk as well as one who eats a placenta cooked Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:3).

 ‫גיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 113b 201

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
!‫ וַ ֲאנַן ׁ ִש ָּיתא דָּ ְר ׁ ִשינַן‬,‫ָהא ְּת ָל ָתא ״ ְ ּג ִדי״ ְּכ ִת ִיבי‬ The Gemara challenges: The word “kid” is written only three times,
An impure priest who partakes of impure teruma – and yet we expound it to teach six different halakhot. The Gemara
‫כ ֵֹהן ָט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ְּתרו ָּמה ְט ֵמ ָאה‬:ּ An impure priest who ‫ וְ ִא ּיסוּר‬,‫ ִא ּיסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר‬:‫ָק ָס ַבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬
responds: Shmuel maintains that a prohibition takes effect even
ate impure teruma is not flogged, although he has – ‫ דָּ ם נַ ִמי‬,‫ֵח ֶלב ו ֵּמ ָתה – ֵמ ַחד ְק ָרא נָ ְפ ִקי‬
violated a prohibition, as this teruma is not sacred where another prohibition already exists, and therefore the prohi-
‫ וְ ׁ ִש ְליָ א נַ ִמי – ּ ִפ ְיר ׁ ָשא ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬,‫ָלאו ְ ּג ִדי הוּא‬ bition of forbidden fat in milk and the prohibition of a dead animal
(Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 7:1).
,‫ ַחד – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬,‫ ּ ָפ ׁש ּו ְלה ּו ְּת ֵרי‬.‫הוּא‬ carcass in milk are both derived from one verse,n as both are appli-
.‫וְ ַחד – ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה‬ cations of the prohibition to an already prohibited item. The exclu-
sion of blood from the prohibition also does not require its own
verse, as blood is not considered a kid at all, and likewise there is
no need for a verse to exclude a placenta from the prohibition, as it
is merely a secretion of the animal, rather than a kind of meat.
Therefore, two mentions of “kid” are left; one serves to include a
fetus, and one serves to exclude a non-kosher animal.

‫וְ ָס ַבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ִא ּיסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר? וְ ָה ֲא ַמר‬ The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel really maintain that a prohibi-
‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְלכ ֵֹהן ָט ֵמא‬:‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ tion takes effect where another prohibition already exists? But
didn’t Shmuel say in the name of Rabbi Elazar: From where is it
– ‫יתה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ְּתרו ָּמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְ ּב ִמ‬
derived that an impure priest who partakes of impure teruma,h
‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״ו ֵּמת ּו בֹו ִּכי יְ ַח ְּל ֻלהוּ״ – ּ ְפ ָרט ְלזֹו‬ i.e., the portion of produce designated for the priest, is not punished
!‫עֹומ ֶדת‬ֶ ְ‫ׁ ֶש ְּמחו ֶּּל ֶלת ו‬ with death at the hand of Heaven as he would had the teruma been
ritually pure? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated, with regard
to the prohibition of an impure priest partaking of teruma: “And die
therein if they desecrate it” (Leviticus 22:9), to the exclusion of
this case of teruma that is impure, which was already desecrated
before the priest ate it. Here, it seems, since impure teruma is already
prohibited for consumption, the added prohibition of an impure
priest partaking of teruma does not take effect.

‫יסוּר ָחל ַעל‬ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא – ִא‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ִא‬ The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that in general Shmuel main-
‫יעט ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״ו ֵּמת ּו‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם – דְּ ִמ‬,‫ִא ּיסוּר‬ tains that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition
already exists, and it is different there, with regard to teruma, as the
‫ ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא ָק ָס ַבר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬.‫בֹו״‬
Merciful One expressly excludes impure teruma by the phrase “and
‫ וְ ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָכא דְּ ַר ֵ ּבי‬,‫ֵאין ִא ּיסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר‬ die therein if they desecrate it,” and in this case the teruma is already
ּ ְ ‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬
.‫״ג ִדי״‬ desecrated. And if you wish, say that in general Shmuel maintains
that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition
already exists, and here, the case of meat cooked in milk, is differ-
ent, as the Merciful One expressly includes the meat of an animal
carcass and forbidden fat by the repetition of the word “kid.”

.‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ַר ֵ ּב‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ָהא – דִּ ֵיד‬:‫ימא‬
ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬
ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬And if you wish, say that this statement of Shmuel with regard to
meat cooked in milk is his own opinion, as he maintains that a
prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists,
and that statement with regard to teruma is his teacher’s, i.e., Rabbi
Elazar’s, opinion, as he holds that a prohibition does not take effect
where another prohibition already exists.

:‫ֵיה ַרב ַא ַח ְדבֹוי ַ ּבר ַא ִמי ֵמ ַרב‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬ § Rav Aĥadvoi bar Ami raised a dilemma to Rav: If one cooks
‫ ַמהוּ? ֲא ַמר‬,‫נִיקה‬ ָ ‫ַה ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ְ ּג ִדי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ֵה‬ meat in milk of a goat that has not yet nursed, but that is about to
give birth and already has milk, what is the halakha? Rav said to
‫״ב ֲח ֵלב‬ּ ַ ‫ימר‬
ַ ‫ ִמדְּ ִאיצְ ְט ִר ָיכא ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ְל ֵמ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬
him: From the fact that it was necessary for Shmuel to say that the
‫ זָ ָכר הוּא – דְּ ָלא‬,‫ִא ּמֹו״ – וְ ל ֹא ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב זָ ָכר‬ phrase “in its mother’s milk” teaches: And not in the milk of a
‫ ֲא ָבל ַהאי ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָבא ִל ְכ ַלל‬,‫ָא ֵתי ִל ְכ ַלל ֵאם‬ male animal, one can infer that it is only the milk of a male that is
.‫ֵאם – ָאסוּר‬ excluded, as the male cannot attain the status of a mother. But in
this case, since the goat will attain the status of a mother, it is
prohibited to cook meat in its milk.

notes
The prohibition of forbidden fat and a dead animal are both the Gemara there, three verses are expounded, not two, as indicated
derived from one verse – ‫וְ ִא ּיסוּר ֵח ֶלב ו ֵּמ ָתה ֵמ ַחד ְק ָרא נָ ְפ ִקי‬: This claim here. Rashi therefore claims that no mention of the word “kid” is
is puzzling, since if Shmuel maintains as a principle that a prohibi- required to teach the actual prohibition of meat and milk, as the
tion takes effect even where another prohibition already exists, verse could simply have stated: You shall not cook in a mother’s
why is even one verse necessary to include these two prohibitions? milk. He further contends that the clause: Shmuel maintains that
Rashi initially suggests that the Gemara means that one of the men- a prohibition takes effect even where another prohibition already
tions of the word “kid” is required to teach the actual prohibition exists, should be omitted from the Gemara here, as that clause
of meat cooked in milk, and neither of the other prohibitions is indicates that Shmuel derives this principle from elsewhere. Rather,
included from the verse. But Rashi questions this interpretation, as Rashi explains that it is from this very mention of “kid” that Shmuel
the Gemara on 116a states that Rabbi Akiva agrees with Shmuel that derives that principle. Therefore, only one verse is needed for both
a prohibition takes effect even where another prohibition already prohibitions, since once the principle is accepted it applies equally
exists and therefore no verse is needed for the prohibitions of for- to the prohibition of forbidden fat and the prohibition of a dead
bidden fat and a dead animal. This is problematic, as according to animal (see also Tosafot).

202 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 113b . ‫גיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ַה ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ֵח ֶלב ְ ּב ָח ָלב – ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ִא ְּת ַמר‬ It was stated: With regard to one who cooks forbidden fat in milk,
.‫לֹוקה‬ ֶ ‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫ וְ ַחד ָא ַמר‬,‫לֹוקה‬ ֶ :‫ ַחד ָא ַמר‬,‫ַא ִסי‬ Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree as to the halakha. One says that
he is flogged for violating the prohibition of meat cooked in milk,
‫לֹוקה‬ ֶ ‫ דְּ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ ַ ּ ‫ימא ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬
and one says that he is not flogged. The Gemara suggests: Let us
‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫יסוּר‬ ּ ‫יסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא‬ ּ ‫ ִא‬:‫ָק ָס ַבר‬ say that they disagree about this: That the one who says he is
!‫ ֵאין ִא ּיסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר‬:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫לֹוקה‬ ֶ ‫ֵאינֹו‬ flogged maintains that a prohibition takes effect where another
prohibition already exists, and the one who says he is not flogged
maintains that a prohibition does not take effect where another
prohibition already exists.

,‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ֵאין ִא ּיסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר‬,‫ָלא‬ The Gemara responds: No; everyone agrees that a prohibition
,‫ַא ֲא ִכ ָילה – דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דְּ ָלא ָל ֵקי‬ does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, and
therefore everyone agrees that one is not flogged for eating the
‫לֹוקה – ַחד‬ ֶ ‫ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ַא ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּל‬
mixture. When they disagree, it is with regard to cooking. The one
‫לֹוקה – ְל ָה ִכי‬ֶ ‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ֵאינֹו‬.‫ִא ּיסו ָּרא הוּא‬ who says he is flogged holds that one who cooks violates only one
ּ ׁ ‫ַא ּ ְפ ָק ּה ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ִ ּב‬
,‫ישוּל‬ prohibition, that of cooking meat in milk, since it is permitted to
cook forbidden fat without eating it. Consequently, this is not a case
of a prohibition taking effect where another prohibition already
exists. And the one who says he is not flogged holds that it was for
this reason that the Merciful One expressed the prohibition of
eating meat cooked in milk in the Torah using the language of
cooking: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.”

Perek VIII
Daf 114 Amud a
notes
ּ ׁ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ַעל ֲא ִכ ָילה ָלא ָל ֵקי – ַא ִ ּב‬This link between cooking and eating indicates that since one is not
‫ישוּל נַ ִמי ָלא‬
One is not flogged for eating – ‫על ֲא ִכ ָילה ָלא ָל ֵקי‬:ַ
.‫ ָל ֵקי‬flogged for eating forbidden fat cooked in milk, as agreed upon
n
The intention is that one is not flogged for eating
above, one also is not flogged for cooking the two together. forbidden fat cooked in milk with regard to violat-
ing the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. But one
‫ישוּל – ּכו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא‬ ּ ׁ ‫ ַא ִ ּב‬:‫יכא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ָּ ‫וְ ִא‬ And some say the opposite: With regard to cooking, everyone is flogged for violating the prohibition of eating
‫ ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬.‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ַא ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫ּ ְפ ִליגִ י דְּ ָל ֵקי‬ agrees that one is flogged for this act, since the principle of a pro- forbidden fat.
hibition not taking effect where another prohibition already exists
.‫לֹוקה – דְּ ָהא ֵאין ִא ּיסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר‬ ֶ ‫ֵאינֹו‬
is not relevant. When they disagree, it is with regard to eating. The halakha
‫לֹוקה – ְל ָה ִכי ַא ּ ְפ ָק ּה ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ֶ ‫ו ַּמאן דְּ ָא ַמר‬ one who says he is not flogged applies the principle that a prohibi- One who cooks meat in whey – ‫ה ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב ֵמי ָח ָלב‬:ַ
– ‫ישוּל ָל ֵקי‬ ּ ׁ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ַא ִ ּב‬,‫ישוּל‬ ּ ׁ ‫ַל ֲא ִכ ָילה ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ִ ּב‬ tion does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, One who cooks meat in whey is exempt from lashes
.‫ַא ֲא ִכ ָילה נַ ִמי ָל ֵקי‬ and the fat was already prohibited for consumption in its own for violating the prohibition of meat cooked in milk
right before being cooked with milk. And the one who says he is (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot
flogged holds that it was for this reason that the Merciful One 9:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:6).
expressed the prohibition of eating meat cooked in milk using the Blood that one cooked in milk – ‫דָּ ם ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְשלֹו ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬:
language of cooking, to teach that since one is flogged for cooking One who cooks blood in milk is exempt from lashes
forbidden fat in milk, one also is flogged for eating the product. for violating the prohibition of meat cooked in milk
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot
‫ ָמר ָא ַמר ֲח ָדא ו ָּמר ָא ַמר‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬The Gemara suggests a third explanation of the dispute between 9:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:6).
.‫ וְ ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬,‫ ֲח ָדא‬Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: And if you wish, say that one Sage said The bones, the tendons, the horns, and the
one statement and one Sage said another statement, and they do hooves that one cooked in milk – ‫ָה ֲעצָ מֹות וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידים‬
not disagree, as they are referring to different cases. The Sage who ‫וְ ַה ַ ּק ְרנַיִ ם וְ ַה ְּט ָל ַפיִ ם ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָלן ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬: One who cooks skin,
said that one is flogged is referring to the transgression of cooking bones, tendons, or the soft roots of horns and
forbidden fat with milk, whereas the one who said one is not flogged hooves in milk is exempt from lashes. Likewise, one
who eats this dish is exempt from lashes (Ram-
is referring to the consumption of forbidden fat with milk. Everyone bam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:7;
agrees that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibi- Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:7).
tion already exists, and therefore one is flogged only for cooking
forbidden fat in milk, but not for eating the two together.

‫ דָּ ם‬,‫ ַה ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב ֵמי ָח ָלב – ּ ָפט ּור‬:‫יבי‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection from a Tosefta (8:3): One who
‫ ָה ֲעצָ מֹות וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידים‬.‫ ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְשלֹו ְ ּב ָח ָלב – ּ ָפטוּר‬cooks meat in whey, the liquid leftover after milk has been curdled,
h

is exempt from lashes, as whey is not defined as milk for purposes

.‫וְ ַה ַ ּק ְרנַיִ ם וְ ַה ְּט ָל ַפיִ ם ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָלן ְ ּב ָח ָלב – ּ ָפטוּר‬
of the prohibition. Likewise, for blood that one cooked in milk,h
he is exempt, as blood is not considered meat. Similarly, with regard
to the bones, the tendons, the horns, and the hooves that one
cooked in milk,h he is exempt.
 ‫דיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 114a 203
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

– ‫ֹותר וְ ַה ָּט ֵמא ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָלן ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬

ָ ּ‫ ַה ּ ִפגּ וּל וְ ַהנ‬The Tosefta continues: By contrast, with regard to prohibited piggulb
!‫ ַחּיָ יב‬meat, i.e., meat from an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to
sprinkle its blood or partake of its meat beyond its designated time,
and similarly prohibited notar,b meat from an offering whose period
for consumption has expired, and the prohibited impure meat of an
offering, that one cooked in milk, he is liable to be flogged for violat-
ing the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. This indicates that the
prohibition applies to items already prohibited for consumption,
contrary to the above opinion attributed to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.

.‫ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא ְס ַבר ִא ּיסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא ּיסוּר‬The Gemara answers: This tanna of the baraita maintains in general
that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already
exists, whereas Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi are of the opposite opinion.
It is conceivable that these Sages, who are amora’im, disagree with
that tanna, as the issue of whether a prohibition takes effect where
another prohibition already exists is a well-known dispute among the
tanna’im themselves.

‫יה‬ּ ‫ ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬.‫״ה ְמ ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב ֵמי ָח ָלב ּ ָפטוּר״‬ ַ § It was stated in the above baraita: One who cooks meat in whey
,‫ ֵמי ָח ָלב – ֲה ֵרי ֵהן ְּכ ָח ָלב‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫ְל ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ is exempt from lashes. The Gemara comments: This ruling supports
the opinion of Reish Lakish, as we learned in a mishna, with regard
:‫ ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬.‫ֹוחל ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֶמן‬ ַ ‫וְ ַה ּמ‬
to liquids that render food susceptible to ritual impurity (Makhshirin
‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ְל ַה ְכ ׁ ִשיר ֶאת ַהּזְ ָר ִעים‬ 6:5): The halakhic status of whey is like that of milk,h which is one
‫ישוּל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב – ֵמי ָח ָלב ֵאינֹו‬ ּ ׁ ‫ְל ִענְיַ ן ִ ּב‬ of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity, and the hal-
.‫ְּכ ָח ָלב‬ akhic status of olive secretion is like that of oil,h which also renders
food susceptible to impurity. With regard to this mishna, Reish Lak-
ish says: They taught this halakha only with regard to rendering
seeds, i.e., produce, susceptible to impurity. But with regard to
cooking meat in milk, the halakhic status of whey is not like that
of milk.

‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״ – ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב‬ ּ ַ :‫ § ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Sages taught in a baraita: From the phrase “in its mother’s
?‫ ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ּ ָפ ָרה וְ ָר ֵחל ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬,‫ ִא ּמֹו‬milk” I have derived only that the prohibition applies to the mother
goat’s milk. From where do I derive that it also applies to the milk
of a cow and a ewe?

‫ ו ָּמה ִא ּמֹו ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נֶ ֶא ְס ָרה‬:‫חֹומר‬ֶ ָ‫ ַקל ו‬,‫ָא ַמ ְר ָּת‬ You can say an a fortiori inference: Just as a kid’s mother, which is
.‫ִע ּמֹו ְ ּב ַה ְר ָ ּב ָעה – נֶ ֶא ְס ָרה ִע ּמֹו ְ ּב ִב ׁ ּשוּלֹו‬ not prohibited for mating with the kid, as they are of the same spe-
cies, is nevertheless prohibited for cooking with it, as stated in the
‫ּ ָפ ָרה וְ ָר ֵחל ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֶא ְסר ּו ִע ּמֹו ְ ּב ַה ְר ָ ּב ָעה – ֵאינֹו‬
verse, is it not right that a cow or a ewe, which are prohibited for
ַ ‫דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֶא ְסר ּו ִע ּמֹו ְ ּב ִב ׁ ּשוּלֹו! ַּת ְלמוּד‬
‫לֹומר‬ mating with it, as they are of different species, should be prohibited
.‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״‬ ַּ for cooking with it? Therefore, the verse states elsewhere: “In its
mother’s milk,” a second time, to include a cow and a ewe.

!‫יה‬
ּ ‫ וְ ָהא ָל ָּמה ִלי ְק ָרא? ָהא ָא ְתיָ א ֵל‬The Gemara challenges the conclusion of the baraita. But why do I
need a verse? It was just derived through the a fortiori inference.

background
Piggul – ‫פ ּגוּל‬:ִ ּ The halakha of piggul is based on the verse: “And if Slaughtering the offering, receiving the blood, carrying the blood,
any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be at all eaten and sprinkling the blood. Some early authorities hold that an offer-
on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed ing is piggul only when the individual expresses piggul intent aloud.
unto him that offers it; it shall be a detestable thing [piggul]; the
person who eats from it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18). The Leftover [notar] – ‫נֹותר‬:
ָ Any offering whose meat is eaten has a set
Sages interpreted the verse as referring to one who had the intent deadline in the Torah for its consumption. For a thanks offering and
during the performance of the sacrificial rites in the Temple to eat a sin offering, for example, the meat may be eaten until the morning
from the offering or offer it on the altar after its appointed time. That after its sacrifice, whereas a peace offering may be eaten for two
disqualifies the offering, and one who eats it is liable to excision days. After the deadline has passed, the leftover meat is called notar,
from the World-to-Come [karet]. In order for it to take effect, piggul and it may not be eaten nor may any benefit be derived from it. One
intention must take place during one of the four sacrificial rites: who eats notar is liable to receive karet.

halakha
The halakhic status of whey is like that of milk, etc. – ‫ֵמי ָח ָלב ֲה ֵרי‬ The halakhic status of olive secretion is like that of oil, etc. –
‫הן ְּכ ָח ָלב וכו׳‬:ֵ Whey of milk has the status of milk with regard to ‫ֹוחל ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְּכ ׁ ֶש ֶמן וכו׳‬
ַ ‫ה ּמ‬:ַ Olive secretion has the status of oil with
rendering food susceptible to impurity, as explained by Reish Lakish regard to rendering food susceptible to impurity, as explained by
(Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 10:4). Reish Lakish (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 10:13).

204 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 114a . ‫דיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּש ּום דְּ ִא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ Rav Ashi said: It is needed because one can say that the refutation of
‫יכא ָקא ַמיְ ִיתית‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬
ָ ‫ ֵמ ֵה‬.‫יק ָרא דְּ ִדינָ א ּ ִפ ְיר ָכא‬ the a fortiori inference is present from the outset, i.e., there is a diffi-
culty with the comparison: From where do you derive the inference?
‫ ַמה ְּל ִא ּמֹו – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן נֶ ֶא ְס ָרה ִע ּמֹו‬,‫ָל ּה – ֵמ ִא ּמֹו‬
It is derived from its mother goat, which the baraita presents as being
‫ֹאמר ְ ּב ָפ ָרה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נֶ ֶא ְס ָרה ִע ּמֹו‬ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬ treated more leniently than a cow or ewe since it may be mated with a
.‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״‬ ּ ַ ‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫יטה! ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬ kid. But there is a stringent aspect of the mother goat not shared by a
cow or ewe: What is unique about its mother? It is unique in that it is
prohibited for slaughter with it, since one may not slaughter an animal
and its mother on the same day (see Leviticus 22:28). Will you say the
same about a cow, which is not prohibited for slaughter with it?
Therefore, the verse states: “In its mother’s milk,” to include a cow and
a ewe.

‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״ – ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא‬ ּ ַ :‫ § ַּתנְ יָ א ִא ָיד ְך‬The above baraita accounts for two of the Torah’s three mentions of
ָ ‫ ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ֲאחֹותֹו ְ ּג‬,‫ ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו‬the phrase “in its mother’s milk.” The Gemara now addresses the third.
?‫דֹולה ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬
It is taught in another baraita: From one instance of the phrase “in its
mother’s milk” I have derived only that the prohibition applies to the
milk of its mother, if the mother is less than a year old and has not yet
entered the pen for the purpose of its owner’s separating the annual
animal tithe. From where do I derive that it also applies to the milk of
its older sister, i.e., one that is more than a year old that has already
entered the pen for the animal tithe in the previous year?

‫נְסה ִע ּמֹו‬ ָ ‫ ו ָּמה ִא ּמֹו ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְכ‬:‫חֹומר‬

ֶ ָ‫ ַקל ו‬,‫ָא ַמ ְר ָּת‬ You can say an a fortiori inference: Just as a kid’s mother, which enters
.‫ַלדִּ יר ְל ִה ְת ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר – נֶ ֶא ְס ָרה ִע ּמֹו ְ ּב ִב ׁ ּשוּל‬ the pen to be tithed with it,b is nevertheless prohibited for cooking
with it, is it not right that its sister, which does not enter the pen to
– ‫נְסה ִע ּמֹו ַלדִּ יר ְל ִה ְת ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר‬ ָ ‫ֲאחֹותֹו ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נִ ְכ‬
be tithed with it, should be prohibited for cooking with it? Therefore,
ַ ‫ֵאינֹו דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֶא ְס ָרה ִע ּמֹו ְ ּב ִב ׁ ּשוּל! ַּת ְלמוּד‬
‫לֹומר‬ the verse states elsewhere: “In its mother’s milk,” a third time, to
.‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״‬ ַּ include the older sister in the prohibition.

‫יה! ֲא ַמר ַרב‬ ּ ‫וְ ָהא ָל ָּמה ִלי ְק ָרא? ָהא ָא ְתיָ א ֵל‬ The Gemara asks: But why do I need a verse? It was just derived from
‫יק ָרא דְּ ִדינָ א‬ ּ ָ ‫ ֵמ ִע‬,‫ימר‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא‬:‫ַא ׁ ִשי‬
ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ the a fortiori inference. Rav Ashi said: It is needed because one can
say that the refutation of that a fortiori inference is present from the
,‫יתית ָל ּה – ֵמ ִא ּמֹו‬ ִ ְ‫יכא ָקא ַמי‬ ָ ‫ ֵמ ֵה‬,‫ּ ִפ ְיר ָכא‬
outset. From where do you derive the inference? It is derived from its
,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ַמה ְּל ִא ּמֹו – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן נֶ ֶא ְס ָרה ִע ּמֹו ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬ mother. But one may respond: What is unique about its mother? It is
‫דֹולה – ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נֶ ֶא ְס ָרה ִע ּמֹו‬ ָ ‫ֹאמר ַ ּב ֲאחֹותֹו ְ ּג‬ַ ‫ּת‬ unique in that it is prohibited for slaughter with it on the same day.
.‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״‬ ּ ַ ‫לֹומר‬ַ ‫יטה! ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬ Will you say the same halakhot apply to its older sister, which is not
prohibited for slaughter with it? Therefore, the verse states: “In its
mother’s milk,” including the older sister.

ָ ‫ ַא ׁ ְש ַּכ ַחן ֲאחֹותֹו ְ ּג‬The Gemara continues: We have found a source for the halakha that its
?‫ ֲאחֹותֹו ְק ַט ָּנה ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬,‫דֹולה‬
.‫ ָא ְתיָ א ִמ ֵ ּבינַ ּיָא‬older sister is included in the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. From
where is it derived that the same applies to its younger sister, one that
has not yet entered the pen for the tithe? The Gemara responds: It is
derived from between them, i.e., from the combination of the mother
and the older sister.

‫יתי ֵמ ִא ּמֹו – ַמה ְּל ִא ּמֹו ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬ ֵ ‫יתי? ֵּת‬ ֵ ‫ֵמ ֵהי ֵּת‬ The Gemara elaborates on the need for both cases in order to derive the
.‫דֹולה ּת ִֹוכ ַיח‬ָ ‫יטה! ֲאחֹותֹו ְ ּג‬ ָ ‫נֶ ֶא ְס ָרה ִע ּמֹו ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬ third: From which of the two cases should it be derived? If it should
be derived from its mother, one can claim: What is unique about its
‫נְסה ִע ּמֹו ַלדִּ יר‬ ָ ‫דֹולה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נִ ְכ‬ָ ‫ַמה ַּל ֲאחֹותֹו ְ ּג‬
mother? It is unique in that it is prohibited for slaughter with it on
.‫ְל ִה ְת ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר! ִא ּמֹו ּת ִֹוכ ַיח‬ the same day, unlike the younger sister. One may respond: Its older
sister can prove the point, since it is not prohibited for slaughter with
the kid, but it is still included in the prohibition of meat cooked in milk.
But this can be refuted as well: What is unique about its older sister?
It is unique in that it does not enter the pen to be tithed with it, unlike
the younger sister. One may respond that its mother can then prove
the point, as it can enter the pen to be tithed with the kid and is still
included in the prohibition.

background
Animal tithe – ‫מ ְע ַ ׂשר ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:ַ On three occasions each year, the owner that it was sacred. The consecrated calves, kids, and lambs are called
of a herd of kosher animals was required to gather into an enclosure animal tithes. If it was fit to be sacrificed, the animal tithe was brought
all the young born during the preceding period and to let them out to the Temple and sacrificed in a manner similar to that of a peace
one by one. These animals were passed “under the shepherd’s rod” offering: Its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its meat was eaten
(Leviticus 27:32), i.e., counted one by one, and every tenth animal by its owner. The details of the animal tithe are elucidated in tractate
that emerged from the pen was marked with red paint to indicate Bekhorot.

 ‫דיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 114a 205

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ וְ ל ֹא ְר ִאי זֶ ה‬,‫ ל ֹא ְר ִאי זֶ ה ִּכ ְר ִאי זֶ ה‬,‫וְ ָחזַ ר ַהדִּ ין‬ And consequently, the inference has reverted to its starting point:
,‫ ׁ ֶשהוּא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ ַה ַ ּצד ַה ׁ ּ ָשוֶ ה ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ֶהן‬.‫ִּכ ְר ִאי זֶ ה‬ The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the
aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case;b their com-
‫ ַאף ֲאנִי ָא ִביא ֲאחֹותֹו‬.‫וְ ָאסוּר ְל ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬
mon element is that both the mother and older sister are meat and
.‫ וְ ָאסוּר ְל ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬,‫ ׁ ֶשהוּא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫ְק ַט ָּנה‬ it is prohibited to cook them in milk. If so, I will also include
its younger sister in the prohibition, since it is also meat, and
therefore it is prohibited to cook it in milk.

!‫יתי ִמ ֵ ּבינַ ּיָא‬ ָ ‫ ֲאחֹותֹו ְ ּג‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara challenges: If so, the inclusion of its older sister in the
ֵ ‫ ֵּת‬,‫דֹולה נַ ִמי‬
prohibition can also be derived from between them, i.e., from the
combination of the kid’s mother and a cow. Although both a cow
and the mother possess unique stringencies not shared by the older
sister, i.e., the prohibition of mating and of slaughtering with the kid,
respectively, neither possesses both stringencies, and the halakha
with regard to the older sister can be derived from their common
element, i.e., that they are both meat and prohibited to cook in milk,
as stated above. If so, what need is there to derive this halakha from
the verse?

ּ ַ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ ִאין ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so; the halakha with regard
?‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״ ָל ָּמה ִלי‬
‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״ – ֵאין‬ּ ַ :‫יה ְל ִכ ְד ַתנְיָא‬ ּ ‫ ִמ ָ ּב ֵעי ֵל‬to the older sister is derived from the common denominator of the
mother and a cow. Rather, why do I need the verse’s additional
,‫ִלי ֶא ָּלא ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו‬
mention of the phrase “in its mother’s milk?” It is necessary for
that which is taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “In its
mother’s milk,” I have derived only the prohibition to cook the kid
in its mother’s milk;
background
The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and First, the midrash articulates the difference between the two hal-
the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case – akhot. Then it mentions the characteristic common to both. Any
‫ל ֹא ְר ִאי זֶ ה ִּכ ְר ִאי זֶ ה וְ ל ֹא ְר ִאי זֶ ה ִּכ ְר ִאי זֶ ה‬: This expression is used in other case with that common element will be subject to the same
halakhic midrash in formulating an analogy where a principle ruling.
is derived on the basis of two halakhot in two different verses.

Perek VIII
Daf 114 Amud b

‫ ַקל‬,‫ִהיא ַעצְ ָמ ּה ַ ּב ֲח ָל ָב ּה ִמ ּנַיִ ן? ָא ַמ ְר ָּת‬ from where is it derived that the meat of a mother animal may not
‫ ו ַּמה ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נֶ ֱא ַסר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ּ ְפ ִרי‬:‫חֹומר‬ֶ ָ‫ו‬ itself be cooked in its own milk? Say an a fortiori inference: Just
as with regard to an issue where the fruit is not prohibited with
.‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יטה – נֶ ֱא ַסר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬
the fruit, i.e., slaughter, as it is permitted to slaughter two offspring
‫ ֵאינֹו‬,‫ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַסר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ּ ְפ ִרי ְ ּב ִב ׁ ּשוּל‬ of one mother on one day, the fruit is nevertheless prohibited for
‫דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַסר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם ְ ּב ִב ׁ ּשוּל! ַּת ְלמוּד‬ slaughter with the mother, is it not right that with regard to an
.‫״ב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״‬
ּ ַ ‫לֹומר‬ַ issue where the fruit is prohibited with the fruit, i.e., cooking, as
it is prohibited to cook a mother’s offspring with its milk, the fruit,
i.e., the milk, should be prohibited for cooking with the mother?
Therefore, the verse states: “In its mother’s milk,” to prohibit the
cooking of the meat of the mother in its own milk.

‫ָהא ָל ָּמה ִלי ְק ָרא? ָהא ָא ְתיָ א ָל ּה! ֲא ַמר ַרב‬ The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse? It was just derived a
,‫ימר‬
ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא‬:‫ַא ַח ְדבֹוי ַ ּבר ַא ִּמי‬ fortiori. Rav Aĥadvoi bar Ami said: The verse is necessary because
one can say that the case of a horse born of both a stallion and mare
‫ ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר‬,‫יֹוכ ַיח‬
ִ ‫סוּס ֶ ּבן סו ְּסיָ א ֲא ִחי ּ ִפ ְרדָּ ה‬
but which is the brother of a mule, i.e., its mother also bore a mule
!‫ וּמו ָּּתר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם‬,‫ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ּ ְפ ִרי‬ after being impregnated by a donkey, proves this a fortiori inference
invalid. As here the fruit is prohibited with the fruit, but the fruit
is permitted with the mother. One may not mate a horse with a
mule, but one may mate a horse with its mother.
206 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 114b . ‫דיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫ ָה ָתם זֶ ַרע ָה ָאב הוּא דְּ ָקא ָ ּג ֵרים‬The Gemara rejects this: There it is the seed of the father that
effects the prohibition of mating the mule with the daughter horse.
The two may not be paired for reasons unrelated to their status as
offspring of one mother. This ruling therefore proves nothing about
the hypothesis that if two fruit cannot be paired, one can learn by a
fortiori inference that the fruit cannot be paired with the mother.

,‫יֹוכ ַיח‬
ִ ‫ דְּ ָהא ּ ֶפ ֶרד ֶ ּבן סו ְּסיָ א ֲא ִחי ּ ִפ ְרדָּ ה‬And this explanation must be true, as the case of a mule born of a
.‫ וְ ָאסוּר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ּמו ָּּתר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ּ ְפ ִרי‬donkey and a mare and which is the brother of a female mule
proves. As here one fruit is permitted with the other fruit, i.e., one
may mate the male and female mules since they are of the same
species, and yet the fruit is prohibited to be mated with the mother,
i.e., the mare. This case illustrates that the prohibition of crossbreed-
ing is contingent on paternity, and does not rest solely on the
relation between the mother and the fruit.

‫יכא‬ ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ָמר ְ ּב ֵר‬

ָּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא‬:‫יה דְּ ָר ִבינָ א‬ Rather, Mar, son of Ravina, said: The a fortiori inference is invalid
‫ ֶע ֶבד ֶ ּבן ׁ ִש ְפ ָחה ֲא ִחי ְמ ׁשו ְּח ֶר ֶרת‬,‫ימר‬ ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ because one can say that the case of a male Canaanite slave born
of a female slave and who is the brother of a female freed slave
‫ וּמו ָּּתר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ּ ְפ ִרי‬,‫יֹוכ ַיח‬
ִ
proves it invalid. As here the fruit is prohibited with the fruit, i.e.,
!‫ָה ֵאם‬ the slave may not engage in sexual intercourse with his freed sister,
and yet the fruit is permitted with his slave mother.n

‫ דְּ ָהא ֶע ֶבד‬,‫יחרוּר הוּא דְּ ָקא ָ ּג ֵרים‬ ְ ‫ ָה ָתם ֵ ּגט ׁ ִש‬The Gemara rejects this as well: There it is the bill of manumission
ִ ‫ ֶ ּבן ְמ ׁשו ְּח ֶר ֶרת ֲא ִחי ׁ ִש ְפ ָחה‬that effects the prohibition. The slave is prohibited to his sister only
‫ ׁ ֶש ּמו ָּּתר ּ ְפ ִרי‬,‫יֹוכ ַיח‬
because she has been freed, not because they are both fruit of one
.‫ וְ ָאסוּר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם‬,‫ִעם ּ ְפ ִרי‬
mother, as the case of a male slave, son of a female freed slave, and
the brother of a female slave proves. As here the fruit is permitted
with the fruit, i.e., he is permitted to his sister, since they are both
slaves, and yet the fruit is prohibited with his released mother,
as she is now considered a full-fledged Jew. Clearly the prohibition
is entirely contingent on the emancipation of one of the slaves,
irrespective of their relationship.

‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ַרב ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין‬ Rather, Rav Idi bar Avin said: The a fortiori inference is invalid
‫ ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם‬,ּ‫יֹוכיחו‬ ִ ‫ ִּכ ְל ֵאי זְ ָר ִעים‬,‫ימר‬
ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ because one can say that the case of diverse kinds of seeds proves
it invalid. As it is prohibited to sow fruit of one species with fruit
‫ וּמו ָּּתר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם! ְּכלוּם נֶ ֱא ַסר ּ ְפ ִרי‬,‫ּ ְפ ִרי‬
of another species, and yet it is permitted to sow all types of fruit
ֵּ ‫ דְּ ָהא ִח‬,‫ִעם ּ ְפ ִרי ֶא ָּלא ַעל יְ ֵדי ָה ֵאם‬
‫יטי וְ ַ ׂש ֲע ֵרי‬ with the mother, i.e., the ground, from which all fruit grows. The
.ּ‫ית ְסרו‬ְּ ‫ וְ ָלא ִמ‬,‫ְ ּב ַכדָּ א‬ Gemara rejects this as well: Isn’t fruit of one species with fruit of
another species prohibited only by means of the mother, i.e., the
ground? The prohibition of sowing diverse seeds applies only when
they are both sown in the ground, as wheat and barley can be
placed in a single jug and they are not prohibited.

,‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ Rather, Rav Ashi said: The a fortiori inference is invalid because
‫ֹאמר‬ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫ַמה ִּל ְפ ִרי ִעם ּ ְפ ִרי ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ׁ ְשנֵי גו ִּפים‬ one can say: What is unique about fruit with fruit, e.g., the kid and
its mother’s milk, which are prohibited for cooking together? They
‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָה ִכי‬,‫ִ ּב ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם ׁ ֶש ֵּכן גּ וּף ֶא ָחד‬
are unique in that they are two separate bodies that were never
.‫ִאיצְ ְט ִריךְ ְק ָרא‬ unified. Must you say the same prohibition of pairing applies to the
fruit with the mother, i.e., the mother’s meat and its milk, which
were once one body? Due to this reason, the extra verse stating:
“In its mother’s milk,” was necessary to include the meat and milk
of the same animal in the prohibition.

‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ָב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר‬:‫ § ָא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬Rav Ashi says: From where is it derived that meat cooked in
– ‫ֹוע ָבה״‬
ֵ ‫ֹאכל ָּכל ּת‬ ַ ‫ ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה? ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״ל ֹא ת‬milk is prohibited for consumption, even though the verse explic-
itly prohibits only cooking? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated
.‫ֹאכל״‬
ַ ‫״בל ּת‬ ַ ‫ ֲה ֵרי הוּא ְ ּב‬, ָ‫ָּכל ׁ ֶש ִּת ֲע ְב ִּתי ְלך‬
elsewhere: “You shall not eat any abominable thing” (Deuteron-
omy 14:3). This verse teaches that with regard to any practice that
I have made abominable, i.e., forbidden, to you, the product is
prohibited for consumption.

notes
The fruit is permitted with his slave mother – ‫וּמו ָּּתר ּ ְפ ִרי ִעם ָה ֵאם‬: apparently does not accept the notion that it is permitted for a slave
The straightforward interpretation of the Gemara appears to be to engage in intercourse with his mother. Rashi instead interprets
that it is permitted for a slave to engage in intercourse with his this statement to mean that it is permitted for a slave to engage in
own mother while she is a slave. This interpretation is in accor- intercourse with another female Canaanite slave, who has the same
dance with the Gemara in tractate Sanhedrin (58b). But Rashi here status as his mother.

 ‫דיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 114b 207

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

?‫ ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬,‫ילה‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ַ ּב ֲא ִכ‬ And I have derived only that meat cooked in milk is prohibited with
‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,ּ‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהו‬,ּ‫ִּכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבהו‬ regard to consumption; from where do I derive that it is also
prohibited with regard to benefit? It is derived in accordance with
‫ ״ל ֹא‬,‫ֹאכל״‬ ַ ‫ ָּכל ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״ל ֹא י‬:‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬
the statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi
‫ֹאכלוּ״ – ֶא ָחד ִא ּיסוּר ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ ְ ‫ ״ל ֹא ת‬,‫ֹאכל״‬ ַ ‫ת‬ Elazar says: Wherever it is stated, “He shall not eat,” or “you,” in
‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ְפרֹוט‬,‫וְ ֶא ָחד ִא ּיסוּר ֲהנָ ָאה ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬ the singular, “shall not eat,” or “you,” in the plural, “shall not eat,”h
‫ְלךָ ַה ָּכתוּב ְּכ ֶד ֶרךְ ׁ ֶש ּ ֵפ ֵרט ְלךָ ִ ּבנְ ֵב ָלה – ַל ֵ ּגר‬ both a prohibition against eating and a prohibition against deriv-
.‫ִ ּבנְ ִתינָ ה וְ ַלגּ ֹוי ִ ּב ְמ ִכ ָירה‬ ing benefit are indicated. This is so unless the verse specifies for
you that one may derive benefit, in the manner that it specified for
you with regard to an animal carcass, from which the verse explic-
itly permits one to derive benefit, as it states: “You may sell it to a
foreigner” (Deuteronomy 14:21). Accordingly, one may provide
such meat to a gentile resident alien in Eretz Yisrael by giving it to
him as a gift, and to any other gentile by sale.h

‫ֹאכל ּו ָכל נְ ֵב ָלה ַל ֵ ּגר ֲא ׁ ֶשר‬ ְ ‫ ״ל ֹא ת‬:‫דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “You shall not eat of
– ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָע ֶריךָ ִּת ְּתנֶ ָּנה וַ ֲא ָכ ָל ּה אֹו ָמכֹר ְלנָ ְכ ִרי״‬ any unslaughtered animal carcass; you may give it to the resident
alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it; or you may sell
‫ ַל ֵ ּגר‬,‫ וְ ַלגֹּוי ִ ּב ְמ ִכ ָירה‬,‫ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ַל ֵ ּגר ִ ּבנְ ִתינָ ה‬
it to a foreigner; for you are a sacred people to the Lord your God.”
…‫ר…ת ְּתנֶ ָּנה‬ִּ ‫״ל ֵ ּג‬ ַ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ִ ּב ְמ ִכ ָירה ִמ ּנַיִ ן? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ From this verse I have derived only that it is permitted to provide
.‫אֹו ָמכֹר״‬ such meat to a resident alien through giving and to a gentile
through selling. From where is it derived that it is permitted to
transfer an unslaughtered animal to a resident alien through selling
as well? The verse states: “You may give it to the stranger…or you
may sell it,” indicating that one has the option to do either of these.

…‫״ת ְּתנֶ ָּנה‬

ִּ ‫לֹומר‬ַ ‫ַלגּ ֹוי ִ ּבנְ ִתינָ ה ִמ ּנַיִ ן? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ The baraita continues: From where is it derived that it is permitted
– ‫ ֶא ָחד ֵ ּגר וְ ֶא ָחד גּ ֹוי‬,‫ נִ ְמצָ א‬.‫אֹו ָמכֹר ְלנָ ְכ ִרי״‬ to a gentile through giving as well? The verse states: “You may
give it…or you may sell it to a foreigner.” Consequently, one finds
.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ֵ ּבין ִ ּב ְמ ִכ ָירה ֵ ּבין ִ ּבנְ ִתינָ ה‬
that he may transfer an animal carcass to both a resident alien
– ‫ ַל ֵ ּגר‬,‫ דְּ ָב ִרים ִּכ ְכ ָת ָבן‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ and a gentile, both through selling or through giving. This is the
.‫ וְ ַלגּ ֹוי – ִ ּב ְמ ִכ ָירה‬,‫ִ ּבנְ ִתינָ ה‬ statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: These matters are
to be understood as they are written; one may transfer an unslaugh-
tered animal carcass to a resident alien only through giving, and
to a gentile only through selling.

ְ‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה? ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתך‬ The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi
‫ ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״ל ֹא‬,‫ִּכ ְד ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ Yehuda? The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yehuda holds that if it enters
your mind to understand the verse in accordance with that which
‫ֹאכל ּו ָכל נְ ֵב ָלה ַל ֵ ּגר ֲא ׁ ֶשר ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָע ֶריךָ ִּת ְּתנֶ ָּנה‬
ְ ‫ת‬
Rabbi Meir says, then let the Merciful One write: You shall not
:‫ ״אֹו״ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫וַ ֲא ָכ ָל ּה ו ָּמכֹר״‬ eat of any animal carcass, you may give it to the resident alien
,‫ ַל ֵ ּגר – ִ ּבנְ ִתינָ ה‬,‫ִל ְד ָב ִרים ִּכ ְכ ָת ָבן הוּא דַּ ֲא ָתא‬ who is within your gates that he may eat it and also you may sell
.‫וְ ַלגּ ֹוי ִ ּב ְמ ִכ ָירה‬ it to a foreigner. Why do I need the word “or” between these two
options? Learn from it that it comes to teach that the matters are
to be understood as they are written: To a resident alien through
giving alone, and to any other gentile through selling.

‫ ַהאי ״אֹו״ – ְל ַה ְקדִּ ים‬: ְ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ֲא ַמר ָלך‬ The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir explain the wording
– ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫נְ ִתינָ ה דְּ גֵ ר ִל ְמ ִכ ָירה דְּ גֹוי‬ of the verse? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could say to you that
this word “or” teaches one to prioritize to giving to a resident
ְ‫ְל ַה ְקדִּ ים נְ ִתינָ ה דְּ גֵ ר ִל ְמ ִכ ָירה דְּ גֹוי ָלא צְ ִריך‬
alien over selling to a gentile. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the
,‫ זֶ ה ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ְל ַה ֲחיֹותֹו‬:‫ ְס ָב ָרא הוּא‬,‫ְק ָרא‬ priority of giving to a resident alien over selling to a gentile does
.‫וְ זֶ ה ִאי ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ְל ַה ֲחיֹותֹו‬ not require a verse, as it is based on logical reasoning: You are
commanded by the Torah to sustain this resident alien, but you
are not commanded to sustain that gentile.

halakha
Wherever it is stated, he shall not eat, or you, singular, shall To a resident alien by giving it as a gift, and to any other gentile
not eat, or you, plural, shall not eat – ‫ֹאכל‬ ַ ‫ָּכל ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ל ֹא י‬ by sale – ‫ל ֵ ּגר ִ ּבנְ ִתינָ ה וְ ַלגּ ֹוי ִ ּב ְמ ִכ ָירה‬:ַ One may not give a gift, such as
‫ֹאכל ּו‬
ְ ‫ֹאכל ל ֹא ת‬
ַ ‫ל ֹא ת‬: Wherever the Torah states one of the expres- an animal carcass, to a gentile if it is undeserved. Rather, one may
sions: “He shall not eat”; “you,” in the singular, “shall not eat”; or only sell such items to him. But one may give an undeserved gift to
“you,” in the plural, “shall not eat,” it means that one may neither a resident alien (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Avoda Zara 10:4).
eat nor derive benefit from the prohibited item, unless the verse
explicitly permits deriving benefit (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
Ma’akhalot Assurot 8:15).

208 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 114b . ‫דיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫חֹור ׁש וְ ִכ ְל ֵאי זְ ָר ִעים אֹותֹו‬

ֵ ‫ ׁ ַש ָ ּבת‬:‫ימן‬ ִ § The Gemara provides a mnemonic device for the topics that
ָ ‫(ס‬
.)‫ וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו וְ ׁ ִשילּ ו ַּח ַה ֵ ּקן‬will be discussed: Shabbat; plows; and diverse kinds of seeds; a
mother and its offspring; and sending away of the mother bird
from the nest.

‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬Rav Ashi stated above that the product of any practice described
in the Torah as abominable is prohibited for consumption. The
Gemara asks: If that is so,

Perek VIII
Daf 115 Amud a
background
‫יע ְב ִּתי‬
ַ ‫״ת‬
ִּ ‫ דְּ ָהא‬,ּ‫ית ְסרו‬
ַּ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ׁ ַש ָ ּבת ִל‬then let the product of an action that desecrates Shabbat, e.g., food
Muzzles – ‫חֹוסם‬:
ֵ It is prohibited for one to employ an animal
!‫ ְלךָ ״ הוּא‬cooked on Shabbat, be prohibited for consumption, as desecration for any labor associated with food, e.g., threshing, while
of Shabbat is a practice of which God states: I have made it abomi- preventing it from eating the food during its work (Deu-
nable to you, in that it is prohibited to cook on Shabbat. How can teronomy 25:4). Violation of this prohibition is punishable
this food be prohibited only to the one who cooked it as a penalty by lashes.
by rabbinic law, but be permitted to others (see 15a)?

‫״כי ק ֶֹד ׁש ִהיא ָל ֶכם״ – ִהיא‬ ִּ :‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬The Gemara answers: A product of the desecration of Shabbat is an
ָ ‫ וְ ֵאין ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂש‬,‫ ק ֶֹד ׁש‬exception to the rule, as the verse states with regard to Shabbat:
.‫יה ק ֶֹד ׁש‬
“For it is sacred to you” (Exodus 31:14). One may infer: It, Shabbat
itself, is sacred, but the products of actions that desecrate it are not
sacred, i.e., not prohibited.

‫חֹוסם ּ ִפי ָפ ָרה‬

ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫חֹור ׁש ְ ּב ׁשֹור ו ַּב ֲחמֹור‬
ֵ The Gemara raises another difficulty: If one plows with an ox and
‫יע ְב ִּתי ְלךָ ״‬
ַ ‫״ת‬ ַּ ‫ וְ ָד ׁש ָ ּב ּה ִל‬with a donkey together, thereby violating the prohibition in Deu-
ִּ ‫ דְּ ָהא‬,ּ‫ית ְסרו‬
teronomy 22:10, or if one muzzlesb the mouth of a cow and
!‫הוּא‬
threshes with it, thereby violating the prohibition in Deuteronomy
25:4, the seeds or threshed grain should be prohibited for consump-
tion according to the above principle, as these are both practices I
have made abominable to you.

ָ ‫ ו ַּמה ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת דַּ ֲח ִמ ָירא – ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂש‬,‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא‬The Gemara responds: Now that it has been established that prod-
‫יה‬
?‫ ָהנֵי – ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬,‫ מו ָּּת ִרים‬ucts of desecration of Shabbat are permitted, one can derive the
following using an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to Shab-
bat, which is treated more stringently, the products of prohibited
actions are permitted; is it not all the more so with regard to these
prohibitions of plowing with an ox and a donkey and threshing
with a muzzled animal, which are treated less stringently, that the
products of prohibited actions should be permitted?

‫יע ְב ִּתי‬ַ ‫״ת‬

ִּ ‫ דְּ ָהא‬,ּ‫ית ְסרו‬ ַּ ‫ִּכ ְל ֵאי זְ ָר ִעים ִל‬ The Gemara challenges: Diverse kinds of seeds sown together
‫ְלךָ ״ הוּא! ִמדְּ גַ ֵּלי ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ִּכ ְל ֵאי‬ should be prohibited for consumption, as this is a matter whose
practice I have made abominable to you. The Gemara explains:
,‫״פן ִּת ְקדַּ ׁש״ – ּ ֶפן ּתו ַּקד ֵא ׁש‬ ֶ ּ :‫ַה ֶּכ ֶרם‬
One learns otherwise from the fact that the Merciful One revealed
.ּ‫ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ִכ ְל ֵאי זְ ָר ִעים ׁ ָשרו‬ with regard to diverse kinds in a vineyard: “You shall not sow
your vineyard with two kinds of seed; lest the growth of the seed
that you will sow be forfeited [pen tikdash]” (Deuteronomy 22:9).
The Sages read the phrase “be forfeited [pen tikdash]” as though it
states: Lest it be burned [pen tukad esh], indicating that diverse
kinds in a vineyard must be destroyed so that no benefit is derived
from them. Since this is stated specifically with regard to a vineyard,
one can conclude by inference that other diverse kinds of seeds
are permitted.
 ‫וטק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 115a 209
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ִּכ ְל ֵאי ֶכ ֶרם – ֲאסו ִּרין ֵ ּבין ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵא‬ The Gemara objects: But say instead that the uniqueness of diverse
,‫ ִּכ ְל ֵאי זְ ָר ִעים – ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה ֲא ִס ִירי‬,‫ֵ ּבין ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬ kinds in a vineyard is that they are prohibited both for consumption
and for benefit, whereas diverse kinds of seeds are prohibited for
‫ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה ׁ ָשרוּ! ִא ְיתקו ּׁש ְל ִכ ְל ֵאי ְ ּב ֵה ָמה דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬
consumption but are permitted for benefit. The Gemara responds:
‫״ב ֶה ְמ ְּתךָ ל ֹא ַת ְר ִ ּב ַיע ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם ָ ׂש ְדךָ ל ֹא‬ ְּ One cannot say that diverse kinds of seeds are prohibited for consump-
‫ ַמה ְ ּב ֶה ְמ ְּתךָ – ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה‬.‫ִתזְ ַרע ִּכ ְל ָאיִ ם״‬ tion, as they are juxtaposed in the Torah to diverse kinds of animals,
.‫ ַאף ָ ׂש ְדךָ – ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו מו ָּּתר‬,‫מו ֶּּת ֶרת‬ whose offspring are permitted. As it is written: “You shall not let your
cattle mate with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with
two kinds of seed” (Leviticus 19:19). The juxtaposition teaches that
just as with regard to your cattle, the animal that comes from diverse
species is permitted, so too, with regard to your field, that produce
that comes from diverse seeds is permitted.

‫ וְ ִכ ְל ֵאי ְ ּב ֵה ָמה גּ ו ַּפיְ יה ּו ְמנָ א ָלן? ִמדַּ ֲא ַסר‬The Gemara asks: And with regard to diverse kinds of animals them-
‫בֹוה – ִמ ְּכ ָלל דִּ ְל ֶה ְדיֹוט‬ ַּ ‫ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם ַל ָ ּג‬selves, from where do we derive that their offspring is permitted? The
Gemara answers: From the fact that the Merciful One prohibits the
.‫ׁ ָש ֵרי‬
offspring of diverse kinds of animals for sacrifice to the Most High
upon the altar (see 38b), learn by inference that they are permitted
to ordinary people for consumption.

‫ית ַסר! ִמדַּ ֲא ַסר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ ְ ‫ אֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו ִל‬The Gemara raises another difficulty: A mother and its offspring
.‫בֹוה – ִמ ְּכ ָלל דִּ ְל ֶה ְדיֹוט ׁ ָש ֵרי‬ ַּ ‫ ְמחו ַּּסר זְ ַמן ַל ָ ּג‬slaughtered on the same day should be prohibited for consumption,
as this too is a practice made abominable. The Gemara answers: From
the fact that the Merciful One prohibits an animal whose time has
not yet arrived, i.e., that is less than eight days old, as an offering to the
Most High (Leviticus 22:27), learn by inference that such animals are
permitted to ordinary people for consumption. The offspring of a
mother slaughtered that day is also considered an animal whose time
has not yet arrived, since the prohibition against slaughtering it is
limited to that day.

ְ ‫ ׁ ִשילּ ו ַּח ַה ֵ ּקן ִל‬The Gemara raises a final difficulty: If one violated the mitzva that
‫ית ַסר! ל ֹא ָא ְמ ָרה ּת ָֹורה ׁ ְש ַלח‬
.‫ ְל ַת ָ ּק ָלה‬mandates sending away the mother bird from the nest, as it is stated:
“You shall not take the mother with the young. You shall in any way let
the mother go” (Deuteronomy 22:6–7), and the court instructed him
to set the mother bird free, that mother bird should be prohibited to
all, as this practice is also abominable. The Gemara responds: The
Torah did not say: Send it away, if doing so could lead to a mishap. If
the bird were prohibited, the Torah would not have commanded one
to send it away, as others might eat it unwittingly.

– ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ָב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר‬:‫ָא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ § Reish Lakish says: From where is it derived that meat cooked in
‫ֹאכל ּו ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו נָ א ו ָּב ׁ ֵשל‬
ְ ‫״אל ּת‬ ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ milk is prohibited for consumption? The verse states with regard
to the Paschal offering: “You shall not eat it partially roasted, nor
‫ ַמה‬,‫״מ ֻב ׁ ּ ָשל״‬ ְ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַּת ְלמוּד‬.‫ְמ ֻב ׁ ּ ָשל״‬
boiled in any way” (Exodus 12:9). As there is no need for the verse
ָ‫ יֵ ׁש ְלך‬: ָ‫לֹומר ְלך‬ ַ – ‫״מ ֻב ׁ ּ ָשל״‬ ְ ‫לֹומר‬ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ to state: “Boiled in any way,” since it could simply have stated: “Boiled.”
‫ וְ ֵאי זֶ ה – זֶ ה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּל ַא ֵחר ׁ ֶשהוּא ָּכזֶ ה‬ What is the meaning when the verse states: “Boiled in any way?” It is
.‫ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬ included to tell you that there is another manner of cooking, the
product of which is prohibited like this one. And which cooking is
this? This is meat cooked in milk.

:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan said to Reish Lakish:

Perek VIII
Daf 115 Amud b

ֲ ‫ ״ל ֹא ּת‬:‫ ְּכעו ָּרה זֹו ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה ַר ִ ּבי‬Is that derivation that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught ugly, that you
‫ֹאכ ֶלנּ וּ״ – ְ ּב ָב ָ ׂשר‬
.‫ ְ ּב ָח ָלב ַה ָּכתוּב ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר‬derive a new one? The verse states with regard to an animal’s blood:
“You shall not eat it; you shall pour it upon the earth as water” (Deu-
teronomy 12:24), and the next verse adds: “You shall not eat it; that
it may go well with you, and with your children after you.” Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi teaches that the redundant second verse is not
referring to the prohibition of blood. Rather, the verse is speaking of
the prohibition of meat cooked in milk, teaching that it is prohibited
for consumption.
210 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 115b . ‫וטק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫אֹומר – ְ ּב ָב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב ַה ָּכתוּב ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר‬ ֵ ‫ַא ָּתה‬ Do you say that the verse is speaking of the prohibition of meat
cooked in milk? Or perhaps it is only referring to one of the other From the thirteen hermeneutical principles, one
‫יס ּו ִרין‬ּ ‫אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ֶא ָחד ִמ ָּכל ָה ִא‬ of which is a matter that is derived from its con-
prohibitions in the Torah? You say: Go out and learn from the
‫ צֵ א ו ְּל ַמד ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ֹׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה‬:‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ּת ָֹורה? ָא ַמ ְר ָּת‬ text – ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְשל ֹׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ִמדּ ֹות ׁ ֶש ַה ּת ָֹורה ְנִד ֶר ׁ ֶשת ָ ּב ֶהן דָּ ָבר ַה ָּל ֵמד‬
thirteen hermeneutical principles, one of which is: A matter that ‫מ ִענְיָנֹו‬:ֵ The principle: A matter that is derived from its
‫ דָּ ָבר ַה ָּל ֵמד‬,‫ִמדּ ֹות ׁ ֶש ַה ּת ָֹורה נִ ְד ֶר ׁ ֶשת ָ ּב ֶהן‬ is derived from its context.n To what are the adjacent verses refer- context, dictates that the meaning of an ambiguous
,‫ ַ ּב ֶּמה ַה ָּכתוּב ְמ ַד ֵ ּבר – ִ ּב ׁ ְשנֵי ִמינִין‬.‫ֵמ ִענְיָ נֹו‬ ring? They are referring to consecrated animals that were redeemed, verse in the Torah should be derived from the adja-
?‫ַאף ָּכאן – ִ ּב ׁ ְשנֵי ִמינִין‬ which are a combination of two types:n They are non-sacred in that cent passage. This principle is included in the seven
they may be eaten, but they are prohibited for shearing and work, hermeneutical principles listed by Hillel the Elder
(Introduction to Torat Kohanim; Tosefta Sanhedrin 7;
like consecrated animals. Here too, one may conclude that the verse
Avot deRabbi Natan 37), as well as Rabbi Yishmael’s
is referring to a prohibition that involves two types of food, i.e., the thirteen hermeneutical principles (Introduction to
prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Torat Kohanim; see 63a and Sanhedrin 87a).

– ‫ילי‬ ֵּ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ‬:‫ ִאי ֵמ ַה ִהיא – ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬Reish Lakish replied to Rabbi Yoĥanan: My exposition is still neces- To two types – ‫ב ׁ ְשנֵי ִמינִין‬:ּ ִ The early commentaries dis-
agree as to the meaning of this statement. Some say
.‫ ָק ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬,‫ ֲא ָבל ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה – ל ֹא‬,‫ ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה‬sary, since if the source for the prohibition of eating meat cooked in that consecrated animals that became disqualified
milk were from that verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi alone, I and were redeemed are considered a combination of
would say that this statement applies only to the prohibition of two types: In certain respects they are like non-sacred
eating meat cooked in milk, but not to that of deriving benefit from animals, as they are permitted for consumption to
it. The verse cited with regard to the Paschal offering teaches us that everyone, whereas in other aspects they are like con-
even deriving benefit is prohibited, just as it is prohibited to derive secrated animals, as it is prohibited to shear and work
benefit from a disqualified Paschal offering. them (Rashi). Others claim that the reference is to the
juxtaposition of redeemed consecrated animals to
,‫יה ֵמ ָה ָכא‬
ּ ‫יה? נָ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬ ּ ‫ ְמנָ א ֵל‬,‫ ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬,‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does the gazelle and the hart (see Deuteronomy 12:22; see
28a). Since the gazelle and the hart are two different
‫נֶא ַמר‬
ֱ ְ‫דֹוש ַא ָּתה ַלה׳״ ו‬ ׁ ‫״כי ַעם ָק‬ ִּ :‫נֶא ַמר ָּכאן‬ ֱ he derive that meat cooked in milk is prohibited for benefit? The
species, consecrated animals that were redeemed are
Gemara responds: He derives it from here, as it is stated here: “For
‫ ַמה‬.‫ ״וְ ל ֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה ָק ֵד ׁש ִ ּב ְבנֵי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל״‬:‫ְל ַה ָּלן‬ treated as a combination of two species with regard
you are a sacred [kadosh] people unto the Lord your God. You to various halakhot (Tosafot).
.‫ ַאף ָּכאן – ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬,‫ְּל ַה ָּלן – ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬ shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21). And
it is stated below: “Neither shall there be a sodomite [kadesh] of halakha
the sons of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:18). The similar expressions One to teach the prohibition against eating and
teach that just as below, the prohibition of sodomy is a prohibition one to teach the prohibition against deriving
that involves enjoyment, i.e., deriving benefit, not eating, so too benefit and one to teach the prohibition against
here, meat cooked in milk is prohibited with regard to deriving cooking – ‫ֶא ָחד ְל ִא ּיסוּר ֲא ִכ ָילה וְ ֶא ָחד ְל ִא ּיסוּר ֲהנָ ָאה וְ ֶא ָחד‬
benefit. ‫ל ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּל‬:ְ The Torah states three times: “You shall
not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19;
‫ֹאכל ּו ָכל‬ ְ ‫ ״ל ֹא ת‬:‫יעזֶ ר ָּתנָ א‬ ֶ ‫ דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬The school of Rabbi Eliezer taught: The verse states: “You shall Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). One verse serves
to teach the prohibition against cooking meat in milk,
,‫ נְ ֵב ָלה״ [וְ גו׳] ָא ְמ ָרה ּת ָֹורה – ְּכ ׁ ֶש ִּת ְמ ְּכ ֶר ָּנה‬not eat of any animal carcass; you may give it to the stranger who one verse serves to teach the prohibition against
is within your gates, that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a for-
.‫ל ֹא ְּת ַב ׁ ּ ְש ֶל ָּנה וְ ִת ְמ ְּכ ֶר ָּנה‬ eating meat cooked in milk, and one verse serves
eigner; for you are a sacred people to the Lord your God; you shall to teach the prohibition against deriving benefit
not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21). The from meat cooked in milk. The Torah formulates all
Torah stated the prohibition of meat cooked in milk after the hal- three prohibitions using the term “cook” in order to
akha of an animal carcass to teach that when you sell a carcass to a teach that by Torah law only meat and milk that are
gentile, you shall not cook it in milk and then sell it, i.e., meat cooked together are prohibited. By rabbinic law it is
prohibited to eat any combination of meat and milk
cooked in milk is prohibited for benefit and may not be sold.
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:1;
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 87:1).
‫ ״ל ֹא ְת ַב ׁ ּ ֵשל ְ ּג ִדי‬:‫דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ָּתנָ א‬ The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The Torah states three
‫ ֶא ָחד – ְל ִא ּיסוּר‬,‫ַ ּב ֲח ֵלב ִא ּמֹו״ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ּ ְפ ָע ִמים‬ times: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus
background
23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21). One verse serves to teach the
– ‫ וְ ֶא ָחד‬,‫ וְ ֶא ָחד – ְל ִא ּיסוּר ֲהנָ ָאה‬,‫ֲא ִכ ָילה‬ Orla – ‫ע ְר ָלה‬:ָ It is prohibited to eat or derive benefit
prohibition against eating meat cooked in milk, and one serves to
.‫ְל ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּב ׁ ּשוּל‬ teach the prohibition against deriving benefit from it, and one
from fruit that grows during the first three years after
a tree has been planted (see Leviticus 19:23). This pro-
serves to teach the prohibition against cookingh meat in milk. hibition applies only to the fruit but not to the other
parts of the tree. In addition, the prohibition does not
‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ָב ָ ׂשר‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫יסי ֶ ּבן יְ הו ָּדה‬ ִ ‫ ִא‬,‫ַּתנְיָא‬ It is taught in a baraita: Isi ben Yehuda says: From where is it apply to trees planted as a fence for property or as a
‫דֹוש‬
ׁ ‫״כי ַעם ָק‬ ִּ :‫ְ ּב ָח ָלב ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר – נֶ ֱא ַמר ָּכאן‬ derived that it is prohibited to eat meat cooked in milk? It is stated wind buffer rather than for their fruit.
here: “For you are a sacred people unto the Lord your God. You
‫נְשי ק ֶֹד ׁש ִּת ְהיוּן‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר ְל ַה ָּלן ״וְ ַא‬,‫ַא ָּתה״‬
shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21). And
‫ ַמה‬.‫ֹאכלוּ״‬ ֵ ‫ִלי ו ָּב ָ ׂשר ַ ּב ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה ְט ֵר ָפה ל ֹא ת‬ it is stated below: “And you shall be sacred men unto Me; there-
.‫ ַאף ָּכאן – ָאסוּר‬,‫ְּל ַה ָּלן – ָאסוּר‬ fore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of animals in the field
[tereifa]; you shall cast it to the dogs” (Exodus 22:30). Just as below
it is prohibited to eat a tereifa, so too here it is prohibited to eat
meat cooked in milk.

?‫ ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬,‫ילה‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ַ ּב ֲא ִכ‬ And from this I have derived only that it is prohibited for consump-
‫נֶע ְב ָדה‬ ּ‫ל‬
ֶ ‫ ו ָּמה ָע ְר ָלה ׁ ֶש ֹא‬,‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫ ַקל ו‬:‫ָא ַמ ְר ָּת‬ tion. From where do I derive that it is prohibited for benefit as well?
You can say it can be derived by an a fortiori inference: Just as with
‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬,‫ָ ּב ּה ֲע ֵב ָירה – ֲאסו ָּרה ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬
regard to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during
‫ׁ ֶש ּנ ֶֶע ְב ָדה ּבֹו ֲע ֵב ָירה – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר‬ the first three years after its planting [orla],b which is treated less
!‫ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬ stringently as no sin has been committed in the planting of the tree
and its production of fruit, it is prohibited for benefit, is it not right
that meat cooked in milk, with regard to which a sin has been
committed, should be prohibited for benefit?
 ‫וטק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 115b 211
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Personalities
ֶ ׁ ‫ ַמה ְּל ָע ְר ָלה – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ל ֹא ָה ָיְתה ָל ּה ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬The Gemara rejects this, as orla exhibits a unique stringency: What
.‫ֹושר‬
Rav Mordekhai – ‫רב ָמ ְרדְּ ַכי‬:ַ Rav Mordekhai was a is unique about orla? It is unique in that it never had a time when
Babylonian amora of the sixth and seventh genera-
tions, and a student of Rav Ashi. There was also an
it was fit. The same cannot be said about meat and milk, which
amora of this name who was a student of Rava, but were each permitted on their own before being cooked together.
he was presumably a different Sage. Although Rav
Mordekhai engaged in talmudic discussions with ,‫ֹושר‬ֶ ׁ ‫יֹוכ ַיח – ׁ ֶש ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬
ִ ‫ ָח ֵמץ ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח‬The Gemara suggests: Let leavened bread on Passover prove the
Rav Ashi, apparently Rav Ashi was not his primary ‫ ַמה ְּל ָח ֵמץ ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָענו ּׁש‬.‫ וְ ָאסוּר ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬point, as it had a time when it was fit, before Passover, and yet it
source of Torah knowledge. Rather, he possessed is prohibited for benefit. The Gemara rejects this inference as well:
many earlier traditions that he received from other
!‫ָּכ ֵרת‬
What is unique about consumption of leavened bread on Pass-
Sages. Rav Mordekhai would report these tradi- over? It is unique in that it is punishable by karet, unlike the
tions to Rav Ashi, sometimes in order to resolve
difficulties that Rav Ashi had with the traditions he
prohibition of meat cooked in milk.
had received, as is the case here. Rav Mordekhai
outlived Rav Ashi, and he served as a source for ‫ וְ ָאסוּר‬,‫יֹוכיח ּו – ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬
ִ ‫ ִּכ ְל ֵאי ַה ֶּכ ֶרם‬The Gemara comments: Let the prohibition of diverse kinds in a
clarifying the statements of Rav Ashi in the follow- .‫ ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬vineyard prove the point, as it is not punishable by karet, and yet
ing generation. it is prohibited to derive benefit from the product.

ֶ ָ‫יתי ּכו ָּּל ּה ְ ּב ַקל ו‬

‫חֹומר‬ ֵ ְ‫ָל ָּמה ִלי ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ָשוָ ה? ֵלי‬ The Gemara asks: Why do I need both Isi ben Yehuda’s verbal
– ‫נֶע ְב ָדה ָ ּב ּה ֲע ֵב ָירה‬ ֶ ‫ ו ָּמה ָע ְר ָלה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬,‫ֵמ ָע ְר ָלה‬ analogy to teach the prohibition of consumption and the a fortiori
inference to teach the prohibition of benefit? Let all of it, both the
‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬,‫ֲאסו ָּרה ֵ ּבין ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה ֵ ּבין ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬
prohibition of consumption and the prohibition against deriving
‫ׁ ֶש ּנ ֶֶע ְב ָדה ּבֹו ֲע ֵב ָירה – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ָאסוּר ֵ ּבין‬ benefit, be derived by an a fortiori inference from orla: Just as orla,
!‫ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה ֵ ּבין ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬ which is treated less stringently, as no sin has been committed in
the tree’s planting, is nevertheless prohibited both for consump-
tion and for benefit; is it not right that meat cooked in milk, with
regard to which a sin has been committed, should be prohibited
both for consumption and for benefit?

,‫חֹור ׁש ְ ּב ׁשֹור ו ַּב ֲחמֹור‬ ֵ :‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא‬The Gemara responds: That inference would be invalid because
‫ ׁ ֶש ּנ ֶֶע ְב ָדה ָ ּב ֶהם‬,‫יֹוכ ַיח‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬one could say: The cases of one who plows with an ox and with
ִ ‫חֹוסם ּ ִפי ָפ ָרה וְ ָד ׁש ָ ּב ּה‬
a donkey, and one who muzzles the mouth of a cow and threshes
!ּ‫ֲע ֵב ָירה – ו ׁ ְּשרו‬
with it prove it invalid. As in those cases, a sin has been commit-
ted through them, and yet benefit from the products of these
actions is permitted. One cannot refute a verbal analogy with
logical reasoning.

:‫ימא‬
ָ ‫ ֵל‬,ּ‫יֹוכיחו‬ ִ ‫ימר ִּכ ְל ֵאי ַה ֶּכ ֶרם‬ ַ ‫ ָל ָּמה ִלי ְל ֵמ‬The Gemara asks further: Why do I need to say, as was stated above,
ֲ ‫ וְ ִל‬,‫ ָע ְר ָלה ּת ִֹוכ ַיח‬that the case of diverse kinds in a vineyard proves that benefit
!‫ וְ ֵל ֵיתי ְ ּב ָמה ַה ַ ּצד‬,‫יה ַדר דִּ ינָ א‬
from meat and milk is prohibited? At that point, two other cases,
orla and leavened bread on Passover, had already been offered as
proof. Although they were rejected because they both possess a
unique stringency, each lacks the stringency possessed by the
other. Therefore, let us say that the case of orla proves that the
stringency for consumption of leavened bread on Passover, i.e., the
penalty of karet, is irrelevant, and vice versa. And let the inference
revert to its starting point, and let the halakha with regard to meat
cooked in milk be derived by analogy from the common element
of the two sources, i.e., the prohibition against both consumption
and benefit.

‫ נְ ֵב ָלה‬,‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬Rav Ashi said: Such a derivation cannot be suggested, because
.‫ ּת ִֹוכ ַיח – ׁ ֶש ֲאסו ָּרה ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה וּמו ֶּּת ֶרת ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬one can say that the case of an unslaughtered animal carcass
proves it invalid, as an animal carcass is prohibited for consump-
tion and yet it is permitted for benefit.

‫ ָה ִכי ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן‬,‫יה ַרב ָמ ְרדְּ ַכי ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rav Mordekhaip said to Rav Ashi: We say in the name of Reish
‫ ָּכל ָמה ַה ַ ּצד – ִמגּ וּפֹו‬:‫יה דְּ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ּ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬Lakish as follows: For any analogy derived from the common
element of two sources, one can refute the analogy only by invok-
.‫ ֵמ ָע ְל ָמא – ָלא ּ ָפ ְר ִכינַן‬,‫ּ ָפ ְר ִכינַן‬
ing conflicting details of the two sources themselves, e.g., here,
some stringency shared by orla and leavened bread, but not by meat
cooked in milk. One cannot refute the analogy from an external
case, as you do.

‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫יתי ְ ּב ָמה ַה ַ ּצד! ִמ ׁ ּש ּום דְּ ִא‬ ֵ ‫ ֵּת‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara asks: If so, then the question remains: Why not let the
‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ַ ּצד ַה ׁ ּ ָשוֶ ה ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ֶהן – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ִ ּגדּ ו ֵּלי‬: ְ‫ ְל ִמ ְיפ ַרך‬halakha be derived by analogy from the common element of orla
and leavened bread on Passover? The Gemara responds: Because
.‫ַק ְר ַקע‬
the analogy can be refuted as follows: What is unique about the
common element of orla and leavened bread? It is unique in that
they both involve produce that grows from the ground, whereas
meat and milk do not grow from the ground.
212 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 115b . ‫וטק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

: ְ‫יכא ְל ִמ ְיפ ַרך‬ ָּ ‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא נַ ִמי ִא‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara counters: If so, then even now that the Gemara has
!‫ ַמה ְּל ִכ ְל ֵאי ַה ֶּכ ֶרם ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ִ ּגדּ ו ֵּלי ַק ְר ַקע‬invoked diverse kinds in a vineyard to prove the point, the deriva-
tion can be refuted in the same manner: What is unique about the
prohibition of diverse kinds in a vineyard? It is unique in that it
involves produce that grows from the ground.

‫ ָה ִכי‬,‫יה ַרב ָמ ְרדְּ ַכי ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: We say in the name of Reish
‫ ָּכל ָמה‬:‫יה דְּ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ּ ‫ָא ְמ ִרינַן ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬ Lakish as follows: For any analogy derived from the common
element of two sources, one can refute the analogy by invoking any
‫ ל ֹא ִאם ָא ַמ ְר ָּת‬,ּ‫ַה ַ ּצד – ּ ָפ ְר ִכינַן ָּכל דְּ הו‬
factor shared by the two source cases but not by the target case. But
‫ ָּכל‬,‫חֹומר ּ ָפ ְר ִכינַן‬
ֶ ָ‫ֲח ָדא ֵמ ֲח ָדא – ַקל ו‬ this is insufficient to refute an analogy to a single source from a
.‫דְּ ה ּו ָלא ּ ָפ ְר ִכינַן‬ single source using the standard formulation: No, if you say the
halakha applies to the source case, which possesses a unique factor
X, must you say the same of the target case, which does not? One
can refute such analogies using this formulation only by way of an
a fortiori inference, i.e., if the unique factor X is a stringency. But
one cannot refute it by simply mentioning any unique factor, e.g.,
that diverse kinds in a vineyard grow from the ground.

‫ ַמה ְּלכו ְּּלה ּו ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬:ּ‫רֹוך ְלכו ְּּלהו‬

ְ ‫יפ‬ְ ‫ וְ ִל‬The Gemara counters: But one need not invoke the case of diverse
!‫ ִ ּגדּ ו ֵּלי ַק ְר ַקע‬kinds in a vineyard by itself, since it is invoked in addition to the
cases of orla and leavened bread. Consequently, this is effectively a
derivation from the common element of all three sources, not from
one single case to another. If so, let us refute the derivation from all
of them: What is unique about all of the cases? They are unique in
that they involve produce that grows from the ground.

,‫יה ַרב ָמ ְרדְּ ַכי ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: We say in the name of
:‫יה דְּ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ּ ‫ ָה ִכי ָא ְמ ִרינַן ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬Reish Lakish as follows:

Perek VIII
Daf 116 Amud a

,‫ ֲח ָדא ֵמ ֲח ָדא – קו ָּּלא וְ חו ְּמ ָרא ּ ָפ ְר ִכינַן‬As stated above, for any a fortiori inference of a single source from
– ‫ ֲח ָדא ִמ ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬.‫ ָּכל דְּ ה ּו – ָלא ּ ָפ ְר ִכינַן‬a single source, one can refute the derivation by invoking a unique
leniency in the supposedly stringent case and a stringency in the
.‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָּכל דְּ ה ּו ּ ָפ ְר ִכינַן‬
lenient one, but one cannot refute it by simply mentioning any
aspect unique to the first source. And for inferences of one source
from two other sources one can even refute the derivation by
mentioning any aspect unique to the first source.

‫ ִאי ֲה ַדר דִּ ינָ א וְ ָא ֵתי‬,‫ֲח ָדא ִמ ְּת ָלת‬ For inferences of one source from three other sources, as suggested
– ‫ וְ ִאי ָלא‬,ּ‫ְ ּב ָמה ַה ַ ּצד – ּ ָפ ְר ִכינַן ָּכל דְּ הו‬ here, only if the inference reverts to its starting point, as each
source possesses its own unique stringency, and the halakha is then
‫ ָּכל דְּ ה ּו – ָלא‬,‫קו ָּּלא וְ חו ְּמ ָרא ּ ָפ ְר ִכינַן‬
derived by analogy from the common element of all of them, can
.‫ּ ָפ ְר ִכינַן‬ one refute the inference by mentioning any factor unique to the
source cases. But if the inference does not revert, one can refute
the derivation only by invoking a leniency and a stringency, but
one cannot refute it by mentioning any unique factor. The sug-
gested inference does not revert, since the prohibition of diverse
kinds in a vineyard possesses no stringent element that the other
sources lack. Therefore, the fact that all the source cases involve
produce is immaterial, and the inference from diverse kinds in a
vineyard stands.

‫ ַמה ְּל ִכ ְל ֵאי ַה ֶּכ ֶרם – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ל ֹא‬: ְ‫וְ ִל ְפרֹוך‬ The Gemara suggests: But let one refute the inference as follows:
‫ֹושר! ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ָהיְ ָתה ָל ֶהן ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬ What is unique about diverse kinds in a vineyard? They are unique
in that they had no time that they were fit. The produce is forbid-
‫ ִּכ ְל ֵאי‬:‫אֹומ ֶרת‬
ֶ ‫ זֹאת‬,‫ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה‬
den as soon as it begins to grow, whereas meat and milk are prohib-
ּ ָ ‫ַה ֶּכ ֶרם ִע‬
‫ וְ ָהיְ ָתה ָל ֶהן ׁ ְש ַעת‬,‫יק ָרן נֶ ֱא ָסר‬ ited only when they are cooked together. Rav Adda bar Ahava said:
.‫קֹודם ַה ׁ ְש ָר ׁ ָשה‬
ֶ ‫ֹושר‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ַה ּכ‬ If this suggestion was not employed, that is to say that even the
roots of diverse kinds in a vineyard are prohibited, including the
seeds and saplings from which the hybrid plants grow. And they too
had a time when they were fit, before taking root. Consequently,
the premise of the question must be false.
 ‫זטק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 116a 213
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ַה ַּמ ֲע ִביר‬:‫ ְמ ִתיב ַרב ׁ ְש ַמ ְעיָ ה ַ ּבר זְ ֵע ָירא‬Rav Shemaya bar Zeira raises an objection to this conclusion from
Pot [atzitz] – ‫עצִ יץ‬:ָ The descriptions of the sources indicate
ִ ‫ ָעצִ יץ נָ קוּב ְ ּב ֶכ ֶרם – ִאם‬a mishna (Kilayim 7:8): If one transfers a perforated pot with
bl
that the reference is to a ceramic or wooden vessel, usu- ‫אתיִ ם‬
ַ ‫הֹוסיף ָמ‬
seeds in it into a vineyard, if the size of the plant growing in the pot
n
ally unfinished or not completely fired in a kiln. This type !‫הֹוסיף – ל ֹא‬ ִ ‫ ל ֹא‬,‫הֹוסיף – ִאין‬ ִ .‫ָאסוּר‬
of vessel was used for purposes that required a simple increases by one two-hundredth of its previous size, such that the
receptacle, not one with exacting craftsmanship. An atzitz permitted original plant is less than two hundred times the amount
was often used either for potted plants, as a chamber pot, of the prohibited growth and insufficient to nullify it, the produce
or for the storage of food items. Sometimes it was crafted is prohibited, due to the prohibition against planting diverse kinds
from the bottom of a broken jug. in a vineyard. One may infer: If it increases, yes, it is prohibited; but
if it does not increase, no, it is permitted. Apparently, only the
additional growth is prohibited, not the planted seeds or saplings.

‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫ ְּת ֵרי ְק ָר ֵאי ְּכ ִת ִיבי‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Abaye said: Two verses are written, i.e., two separate terms in one
.‫״הּזֶ ַרע״‬
ַ ‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫״פן ִּת ְקדַּ ׁש ַה ְמ ֵל ָאה״‬ ֶ ּ verse indicate two separate prohibitions: The verse states: “You shall
not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the growth of the
seed that you will sow be forfeited together with the increase of the
vineyard” (Deuteronomy 22:9). It is written: “Lest the growth be
forfeited,” indicating that it is prohibited only if it has grown, and it
is written: “Of the seed,” from which it can be inferred that it is
prohibited immediately when it is planted and takes root.

Mosaic from the mishnaic period depicting a vase filled with vine shoots ּ ָ ‫ ָהא ֵּכיצַ ד? זָ רו ַּע ֵמ ִע‬How can these texts be reconciled? Abaye explains: If it was planted
,‫יקרֹו – ְ ּב ַה ׁ ְש ָר ׁ ָשה‬
language
– ‫הֹוסיף‬ִ ‫ ל ֹא‬,‫הֹוסיף – ִאין‬ ִ ,‫ זָ רו ַּע ו ָּבא‬initially in the vineyard, it becomes prohibited immediately upon
taking root.h But in a case where it was planted elsewhere and
Pot [atzitz] – ‫עצִ יץ‬:ָ Similar to the Arabic ‫اصيص‬, ’aṣīṣ, which .‫ָלא‬
brought into the vineyard later, e.g., in a perforated pot, then one
bears the same meaning. It is likely that the form atzitz,
spelled with an ayin, was employed because these pots
must distinguish: If its size increases in the vineyard, yes, the growth
were typically used for plants and trees, or etzim, also is prohibited; if its size does not increase, no,h it is not prohibited.
spelled with an ayin.
,‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬,‫נִיתין דְּ ָלא ִּכי ַהאי ַּת ָּנא‬ ִ ‫ַמ ְת‬ The Gemara notes: The mishna, which states that meat cooked in
‫אֹומר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן יְ הו ָּדה‬ milk is prohibited for benefit, is not in accordance with the opinion
halakha
of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda
If it was planted initially in the vineyard it becomes ‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ְ ּב ָח ָלב ָאסוּר ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה‬:‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬
prohibited immediately upon taking root – ‫יקרֹו‬ ּ ָ ‫זָ רו ַּע ֵמ ִע‬
says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: It is prohibited to eat meat
‫דֹוש‬
ׁ ‫״כי ַעם ָק‬ ִּ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫וּמו ָּּתר ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬ cooked in milk but it is permitted to derive benefit from it, as it is
‫ב ַה ׁ ְש ָר ׁ ָשה‬:
ּ ְ If grain or plants are sown in a vineyard, it is
prohibited to derive benefit from them once they take ‫נְשי ק ֶֹד ׁש‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ וְ נֶ ֱא ַמר ְל ַה ָּלן ״וְ ַא‬,‫ַא ָּתה״‬ stated: “For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; you shall
root (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Kilayim 5:13; Shulĥan .‫ִּת ְהיוּן ִלי״‬ not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21). And the
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 296:9). verse states elsewhere: “And you shall be holy people to Me; there-
If its size increases, yes, it is prohibited, if its size does fore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by animals [tereifa] in the
not increase, no – ‫הֹוסיף ָלא‬
ִ ‫הֹוסיף ִאין ל ֹא‬:
ִ If one transferred field; you shall throw it to the dogs” (Exodus 22:30).
a perforated pot to a vineyard and left it there, and it grew
so that it increased by at least one two-hundredth of its ‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן – ָאסוּר ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה וּמו ָּּתר‬The use of the word “holy” in both verses indicates that just as there,
previous size, then it is prohibited to derive benefit from ‫ ַאף ָּכאן – ָאסוּר ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫ ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬with regard to a tereifa, it is prohibited to eat it but one is permitted
it due to the prohibition of diverse kinds in a vineyard to derive benefit from it, as one may give it to the dogs, so too here,
(Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Kilayim 5:23; Shulĥan Arukh, .‫וּמו ָּּתר ַ ּב ֲהנָ ָאה‬
with regard to meat cooked in milk, it is prohibited to eat it but one
Yoreh De’a 296:17).
is permitted to derive benefit from it.

ֵ ‫ § ַ״ר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬The mishna states: Rabbi Akiva says: Cooking the meat of an
,‫ ָהנֵי‬.‫אֹומר ַחּיָה וְ עֹוף״ וכו׳‬
!‫ ָהא ַא ּ ְפ ִקינְ ה ּו ִל ְכ ִד ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬undomesticated animal or a bird in milk is not prohibited by Torah
law, as it is stated: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk”
(Exodus 23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21), three times, excluding
an undomesticated animal, a bird, and a non-kosher animal. The
Gemara raises a difficulty: Other halakhot have already been derived
from these mentions of the word “kid,” in accordance with the
statement of Shmuel (see 113b).

notes
A perforated pot with seeds in it into a vineyard – ‫ָעצִ יץ נָ קוּב‬ pot, although there is no prohibition against sowing seeds in it
‫ב ֶכ ֶרם‬:
ּ ְ The mishna (Demai 5:10) teaches that the tanna’im dis- within a vineyard by Torah law, the Sages prohibited this practice.
agree with regard to the halakha of a perforated pot. According According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the same prohibition
to the Rabbis, if the hole in this pot is large enough for a small applies to a perforated and an unperforated pot: In both cases
root to penetrate, the roots of the plant placed inside it draw it is prohibited to sow produce or vegetables in a vineyard, but
nutrients from the earth through the holes, connecting the if one did, they are not rendered prohibited, as a pot does not
plant to the ground. Consequently, if one sowed produce or have the status of the ground. The halakha is in accordance
vegetables in such a perforated pot located in a vineyard, or in with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that is the assumption of
the four cubits that are classified as the vineyard’s work area, it the Gemara here as well in discussing the case of transferring
is prohibited to derive benefit from them as though they were a perforated pot.
sown directly in the soil of the vineyard. As for an unperforated

214 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 116a . ‫זטק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫יסוּר‬ ּ ‫יסוּר ָחל ַעל ִא‬ ּ ‫ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ִא‬ The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva maintains in general that a
prohibition takes effect even where another prohibition already Rabbi Akiva maintains that the prohibitions of an
‫ ׁ ָש ִליל – ְ ּג ִדי‬,‫יכי ְק ָרא‬ ִ ‫ֵח ֶלב ו ֵּמ ָתה – ָלא צְ ִר‬ undomesticated animal and a bird do not apply by
exists, and therefore forbidden fat and the meat of a dead animal,
‫ ּ ְפ ָרט ְל ַחּיָה‬,ּ‫ ִאּיַ ְיתר ּו ְלה ּו ּכו ְּּלהו‬,‫ְמ ַע ְּליָא הוּא‬ Torah law – ‫ר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְס ַבר ַחּיָה וְ עֹוף ֵאינָן ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬:ַ The
which are already prohibited, do not require a verse to teach that later commentaries explain that according to Rabbi
.‫וְ עֹוף וְ ִל ְב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה‬ the prohibition of meat and milk applies to them. Furthermore, Akiva the Sages decreed that it is prohibited to cook
there is no need to derive from a verse that a fetus is included, as the meat of an undomesticated animal in milk due to
it is a full-fledged kid. Consequently, all three mentions of the the similarity between that meat and the meat of a
word remain for him to expound that they serve to exclude an domesticated animal. Once they instituted that decree,
undomesticated animal and a bird and a non-kosher animal. they extended that decree to include the meat of birds,
despite the fact that there is no concern that one might
ֵ ‫ § ַר ִ ּבי‬The mishna further teaches that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:
confuse bird meat with that of a domesticated animal.
.‫ֹאכלוּ״‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬
ְ ‫ נֶ ֱא ַמר ״ל ֹא ת‬:‫אֹומר‬ Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the Sages did not apply
ִ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל‬
‫ילי ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֵ ‫יכא ֵ ּבין ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬It is stated: “You shall not eat of any animal carcass” (Deuteron- their decree to bird meat (Porat Yosef ).
omy 14:21), and in the same verse it is stated: “You shall not cook
?‫ֲע ִק ָיבא‬
a kid in its mother’s milk.” This indicates that the meat of an animal language
that is subject to be prohibited due to the prohibition of eating an
Bird hunter [rishba] – ‫יש ָ ּבא‬ְ ׁ ‫ר‬:ִ According to Rashi,
unslaughtered carcass is prohibited to cook in milk. Consequently, rishba is identical to the Aramaic nishba, which means a
one might have thought it is prohibited to cook in milk the meat net. If so, rishba or nishba means the man who spreads
of a bird, which is subject to this prohibition. Therefore, the verse the nets, i.e., a bird and animal hunter. Some explain
states: “In its mother’s milk,” to exclude a bird, which has no moth- that rishba is an acronym for reish beit abba, the head
er’s milk. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the of a paternal household. Accordingly, it is a term of
opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who excludes a bird from the honor for the most prominent member of a family
(Ge’onim; see Arukh).
prohibition of meat and milk due to the phrase “in its mother’s
milk,” and the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who comes to the same Peacock [tayvasa] – ‫טיוָ ָסא‬:ַ From the Greek ταώς, taos,
conclusion as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili based upon the phrase “You which refers to the bird known in modern Hebrew as
tavas. The Hebrew word is a cognate of the Aramaic
shall not cook a kid”?
tayvasa, which is a peacock.
:‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי ְס ַבר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו ַחּיָ ה‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬The Gemara explains: There is a difference between them with
‫ ַחּיָ ה‬:‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְס ַבר‬,‫יתא‬ ַ ְּ‫ ַחּיָ ה ד‬regard to an undomesticated animal. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili main-
ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
tains that the prohibition of cooking the meat of an undomesti-
.‫דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬
cated animal in milk applies by Torah law, as an undomesticated
animal has mother’s milk, but Rabbi Akiva maintains that the
prohibition of cooking the meat of an undomesticated animal in
milk applies only by rabbinic law, as it is excluded by the phrase:
“You shall not cook a kid.”

‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬

ָּ ‫ עֹוף ִא‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ִא‬ If you wish, say instead that there is a difference between them
– ‫ ַחּיָ ה וְ עֹוף ֵאינָן ִמן ַה ּת ָֹורה‬:‫ֲע ִק ָיבא ְס ַבר‬ with regard to the meat of a bird itself: Rabbi Akiva maintains
that the prohibitions of an undomesticated animal and a bird
:‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי ְס ַבר‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ָהא ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן ֲא ִס ִירי‬ Peacock displaying its plumage
do not apply by Torah law;n but it may be inferred from his
.‫עֹוף ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן נַ ִמי ָלא ֲא ִסיר‬ statement that they are prohibited by rabbinic law. And Rabbi
Yosei HaGelili maintains that a bird is not prohibited even by
rabbinic law.

‫יעזֶ ר ָהי ּו‬ֶ ‫ ִ ּב ְמקֹומֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬:‫ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ The Gemara notes: That distinction is also taught in a baraita: In
.‫ ַל ֲעשׂ ֹות ּ ֶפ ָח ִמין ַל ֲעשׂ ֹות ַ ּב ְרזֶ ל‬,‫ּכ ְֹור ִתין ֵעצִ ים‬ the locale of Rabbi Eliezer, where his ruling was followed, they
would cut down trees on Shabbat to prepare charcoal from them
ְ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי ָהי ּו‬
‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ֵ ‫ִ ּב ְמקֹומֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי‬
with which to light a fire to fashion iron tools with which to cir-
.‫ְ ּב ַ ׂשר עֹוף ְ ּב ָח ָלב‬ cumcise a child on Shabbat. In Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, not only
does the mitzva of circumcision override Shabbat, but also any
action required for the preparation of the tools necessary for the
circumcision likewise overrides Shabbat. The baraita adds: In
the locale of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili they would eat bird meat
cooked in milk. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains that the
prohibition of meat cooked in milk does not include birds.

‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ַאיְ ית ּו ְל ַק ֵּמ‬,‫יש ָ ּבא‬
ְ ׁ ‫יֹוסף ִר‬
ֵ ‫ֵלוִ י ִא ְיק ַלע ְל ֵבי‬ The Gemara relates: Levi happened to come to the house of Yosef
‫ וְ ָלא ֲא ַמר ְלה ּו וְ ָלא‬,‫ישא דְּ ַטיוָ ָסא ְ ּב ַח ְל ָבא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֵר‬ the bird hunter [rishba].l They served him the head of a peacock
[tayvasa]l in milk and he did not say anything to them. When
:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬.‫ִמ ִידי‬
Levi came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi
?ּ‫ַא ַּמאי ָלא ְּת ׁ ַש ְמ ִּתינְ הו‬ said to him: Why did you not excommunicate these people who
eat bird meat cooked in milk, contrary to the decree of the Sages?

‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵת ָירא‬

ּ ‫ ַא ְת ֵר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Levi said to him: It was in the locale of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira,
ֵ ‫ דְּ ַר ׁש ְלה ּו ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ וְ ָא ִמינָ א‬,‫ הוּא‬and I said: Perhaps he taught them that the halakha is in accor-
‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬
dance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said that
.‫דַּ ֲא ַמר יָ צָ א עֹוף ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו ֲח ֵלב ֵאם‬
the phrase “in its mother’s milk” serves to exclude a bird, which
does not have mother’s milk. If so, I could not prohibit it to them,
and I certainly could not excommunicate them for following
their ruling.
 ‫זטק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 116a 215
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
With regard to one who curdled milk by using the skin
of the stomach of a kosher animal – ‫ַה ַּמ ֲע ִמיד ְ ּבעֹור ׁ ֶשל‬
‫מתני׳ ֵק ַבת גּ ֹוי וְ ׁ ֶשל נְ ֵב ָלה – ֲה ֵרי‬
‫ ַה ַּמ ֲע ִמיד ְ ּבעֹור ׁ ֶשל ֵק ָבה‬.‫זֹו ֲאסו ָּרה‬
mishna The congealed milk in the stomach of the
animal of a gentile and of an unslaughtered
‫ק ָבה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬:ֵ The wording of the mishna indicates that this
animal carcass is prohibited. With regard to one who curdled milk
,‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬by using the skin of the stomach of a kosher animalnh as a coagulant
is not permitted ab initio, but only after the fact, if there
is insufficient skin to impart flavor to the milk. The later to make cheese, which may then have the taste of meat cooked
commentaries explain that one may not do so because in milk,
this is considered like the nullification of a prohibition ab
initio. They further note that if the skin of the stomach has
been salted and dried it is permitted to curdle milk with
it ab initio (comment of Rema on Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
De’a 87:10). The reason is that once the skin has dried it no
longer contains enough taste to prohibit the milk (Noda halakha
BiYehuda). Some authorities infer from the ruling of the With regard to one who curdled milk by using the skin of not rely on the taste of a gentile cook; rather, the meat is nullified
Noda BiYehuda that if the skin was soaked for a twenty-four the stomach of a kosher animal – ‫ה ַּמ ֲע ִמיד ְ ּבעֹור ׁ ֶשל ֵק ָבה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬:ַ by sixty times its volume of milk (Shakh). But if one curdles milk
hour period, it is permitted, which is not in accordance It is prohibited to curdle milk with the skin of the stomach of a with the skin of the stomach of an animal carcass or a tereifa,
with the opinion of the Peri Megadim (Iggerot Moshe; Pitĥei kosher animal. If one did curdle milk with the skin of the stom- since the coagulant itself is prohibited, the cheese is forbidden
Teshuva). There is no concern with regard to violating the ach of a kosher animal, the cheese should be given to a gentile no matter what the ratio is. It is due to this concern that the
prohibition of partaking of blood in these situations, as to taste: If it has the flavor of meat it is prohibited, and if not, it Sages prohibited the cheese of gentiles (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
there is no assumption that the skin of the stomach of a is permitted. The reason is that the mixture is prohibited only if Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:16 and Ra’avad there; Shulĥan Arukh,
kosher animal contains blood, as stated earlier with regard there is enough skin to impart flavor to the milk. The commen- Yoreh De’a 87:11, and in the comment of Rema).
to the intestines (Responsa of the Rambam 319). taries note that according to the opinion of the Rema one does

Perek VIII
Daf 116 Amud b

.‫נֹותן ַט ַעם – ֲה ֵרי זֹו ֲאסו ָּרה‬ ֵ ‫ִאם יֵ ׁש ְ ּב‬ if the measure of the skin is enough to impart flavor to the milk,
‫ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה ׁ ֶשּיָ נְ ָקה ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה – ֵק ָב ָת ּה‬ that cheese is prohibited. In the case of a kosher animal that suck-
led milk from a tereifa, the milk in its stomach is prohibited, as the
– ‫ ְט ֵר ָפה ׁ ֶשּיָ נְ ָקה ִמן ַה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬,‫ֲאסו ָּרה‬
milk is from the tereifa. If it was a tereifa that suckled milk from
.‫יה‬
ָ ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָּכנוּס ְ ּב ֵמ ֶע‬,‫ֵק ָב ָת ּה מו ֶּּת ֶרת‬ a kosher animal, the milk in its stomach is permitted, as the milk
is from the kosher animal. In both cases, the milk that an animal
suckles has the status of the animal from which it was suckled, and
not that of the animal which suckled, because the milk is collected
in its innards and is not an integral part of its body.

?‫גמ׳ ַא ּט ּו ֵק ַבת גּ ֹוי ָלאו נְ ֵב ָלה ִהיא‬

‫לֹוק ַח ְ ּג ִדי ִמן‬
ֵ ‫ ְ ּב‬,‫ ָה ָכא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬
gemara The mishna makes reference to the stomach
of the animal of a gentile and that of an
unslaughtered carcass. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the
ִ ׁ ְ‫ וְ ָחי‬,‫ ַהגּ ֹוי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן‬stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile is not itself a carcass?
‫ישינַ ן ׁ ֶש ָּמא יָ נַ ק ִמן‬
.‫ ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה‬Why does the tanna of the mishna differentiate between them? Rav
Huna said: The mishna here is not referring to an animal slaugh-
tered by a gentile. Rather, we are dealing with a Jew who purchases
a kid from a gentile and slaughters it himself. Therefore, the kid is
not prohibited as a carcass, but we are concerned that perhaps it
suckled from a tereifa animal, and it is therefore prohibited.

?‫ישינַ ן ׁ ֶש ָּמא יָ נַ ק ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ו ִּמי ָחי‬ The Gemara asks: And are we concerned that perhaps it suckled
‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫לֹוק ִחים ֵ ּביצִ ים ִמן ַהגּ ֹויִ ם‬
ְ :‫וְ ָה ְתנַן‬ from an animal that is a tereifa? But didn’t we learn in a baraita
(Tosefta 3:8): One may purchase eggs from gentiles, and we are
‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ל ֹא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם נְ ֵב ָלה וְ ל ֹא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬
ְׁ
not concerned that perhaps the eggs came from a carcass nor that
‫ישינַן ׁ ֶש ָּמא יָ נַ ק‬
ִ ׁ ְ‫ ָחי‬:‫ימא‬ָ ‫ְט ֵר ָפה! ֶא ָּלא ֵא‬ they came from a tereifa. The Gemara answers: Indeed, there is no
.‫ִמן ַה ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬ concern that the kid might have suckled from a tereifa. Rather, say
that we are concerned that perhaps it suckled from a non-kosher
animal, and therefore the milk in its stomach is prohibited.

‫ ו ַּמאי‬,‫ישינַן‬
ִ ׁ ְ‫ ו ַּמאי ׁ ְשנָא ְט ֵר ָפה – דְּ ָלא ָחי‬The Gemara asks: And what is different about a tereifa that we are
‫ישינַן? ְט ֵר ָפה – ָלא‬ ִ ׁ ְ‫ ׁ ְשנָ א ְט ֵמ ָאה – דְּ ָחי‬not concerned that perhaps the animal suckled from it, and what
is different about a non-kosher animal that we are concerned? The
.‫יחא‬ ָ ‫ ְט ֵמ ָאה – ׁ ְש ִכ‬,‫יחא‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִכ‬
Gemara answers: A tereifa animal is not common, whereas a non-
kosher animal is common, and it is therefore more likely that the
young animal suckled from one.
216 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 116b . ‫זטק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫יחא – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּג ֵ ּבי דִּ ָידן נֵיחו ּׁש! ֲאנַן‬ ָ ‫ִאי ׁ ְש ִכ‬ The Gemara raises a difficulty: If suckling from a non-kosher animal
‫ וְ ִכי ָחזֵ ינַן ְלה ּו ַמ ְפ ְר ׁ ִשינַן‬,ּ‫דְּ ַב ְד ִלינַן ִמ ּינַיְ יהו‬ is common, then let us be concerned even with regard to our own
animals. The Gemara responds: We Jews, who separate ourselves
‫ ִאינְ ה ּו דְּ ָלא‬.‫ְלה ּו – ָלא ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ְ ּבה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬
from non-kosher animals, when we see them we immediately dis-
‫ וְ ִכי ָחז ּו ְלה ּו ָלא ַמ ְפ ְר ׁ ֵשי‬,ּ‫ְ ּב ִד ִילי ִמ ּינַיְ יהו‬ tance our suckling animals from them. Therefore, the Sages did not
.‫ְלה ּו – ָ ּגזְ ר ּו ְ ּבה ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ issue a decree with regard to animals purchased from Jews. But as
for the gentiles, who do not separate themselves from non-kosher
animals, when they see them they do not distance their kosher
animals from them. Consequently, the Sages issued a decree with
regard to animals purchased from a gentile.

‫יטת‬
ַ ‫ ֵק ַבת ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫ ֲח ָדא ָק ָתנֵי‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ֲא ַמר‬And Shmuel said a different explanation of the mishna’s language:
.‫ גּ ֹוי נְ ֵב ָלה‬The tanna of the mishna is teaching only one halakha: The con-
gealed milk in the stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile
is like a carcass, and it is therefore prohibited.

:‫ו ִּמי ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָה ִכי? וְ ָה ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? Does he hold
‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ָא ְסר ּו ְ ּג ִבינַ ת ַהגּ ֹויִ ם – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬ that the milk in the stomach of an unslaughtered animal is prohib-
ited as if it were part of its body? But didn’t Shmuel say: For what
‫ ָהא‬,‫אֹות ּה ְ ּבעֹור ֵק ַבת נְ ֵב ָלה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ַּמ ֲע ִמ ִידין‬
reason did the Sages prohibit the cheese of gentiles? It is because
!‫ֵק ָבה גּ ו ָּפ ּה ׁ ָש ְריָ א‬ they curdle it with the skin of the stomach of a carcass. One may
infer consequently that congealed milk, or rennet, from the stom-
ach of a gentile’s animal is itself permitted and would not render
the cheese prohibited if used as a coagulant.

– ‫ ָּכאן‬,‫קֹודם ֲחזָ ָרה‬

ֶ – ‫ ָּכאן‬,‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. Elsewhere (Avoda Zara
.‫ ְל ַא ַחר ֲחזָ ָרה‬29b), Rabbi Yehoshua teaches two reasons for the prohibition on
gentile cheese. Initially, he held it to be prohibited because it is
curdled using rennet from the stomach of an animal carcass. He later
adopted the opinion that such rennet is permitted, and that the
cheese is prohibited because it is curdled using rennet from the
stomach of calves used for idol worship, which is prohibited. There-
fore, the mishna here, which states that the rennet in a carcass’s
stomach is itself prohibited, was taught before Rabbi Yehoshua’s
retraction, while Shmuel’s statement there, that the Sages prohib-
ited gentile cheese only because it is curdled with the skin of the
stomach of a carcass, was after Rabbi Yehoshua’s retraction.n

‫ וְ ָהא‬.]‫״כ ׁ ֵש ָרה ׁ ֶשּיָ נְ ָקה ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה״ [וכו׳‬ְּ § The mishna teaches: In the case of a kosher animal that suckled
‫״ק ַבת גּ ֹוי וְ ׁ ֶשל נְ ֵב ָלה – ֲה ֵרי‬
ֵ ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ָק ָתנֵי ֵר‬milk from a tereifa, the milk in its stomach is prohibited, whereas
if a tereifa suckled milk from a kosher animal, the milk in its stomach
!‫זֹו ֲאסו ָּרה״‬
is permitted. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t the first
clause of the mishna teach: The congealed milk in the stomach
of the animal of a gentile and of a carcass is prohibited? What
is the difference between the milk found in the stomach of a tereifa
in the second clause and the milk found in the stomach of an
unslaughtered carcass in the first clause?

‫אֹוכל‬
ֵ ‫ישא – נִ ְר ֶאה ְּכ‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬Rav Ĥisda said: In fact, milk found in the stomach of a carcass is
.‫יטה‬ ָ ‫יכא ׁ ְש ִח‬ ָּ ‫ ָה ָכא ִא‬,‫ נְ ֵבלֹות‬not itself prohibited. The first clause of the mishna prohibits it only
because one who partakes of it looks like one who eats carcasses,
which is repulsive. By contrast, here, with regard to a tereifa, the
consumption of milk found in its stomach is less repulsive, as here
there is at least slaughter of the animal.

notes
Here it is before Rabbi Yehoshua’s retraction, there it is after That cannot be the actual reason, as only a minority of calves are
Rabbi Yehoshua’s retraction – ‫קֹודם ֲחזָ ָרה ָּכאן ְל ַא ַחר ֲחזָ ָרה‬
ֶ ‫כאן‬:ָּ used for idol worship, and it is known that Rabbi Yehoshua is not
Tosafot (on Avoda Zara 34b) state that although Rabbi Yehoshua concerned for a minority. The Gemara later on in Avoda Zara (35a)
stated in his second explanation that gentile cheese is prohibited explains that Rabbi Yehoshua did not want to reveal the actual
because it is curdled with rennet from calves used for idol wor- reason for this decree to Rabbi Yishmael, as it had been instituted
ship, he did not truly hold this to be the reason. Rather, he said only a short time before and needed to be guarded from public
this merely to refute a difficulty posed to him by Rabbi Yishmael. scrutiny until it was well established.

 ‫זטק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 116b 217

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ וְ ָלאו ָּכל דְּ ֵכן הוּא? ו ַּמה‬:‫יה ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rava said to Rav Ĥisda: But is it not possible to claim a fortiori
One may not curdle milk with the skin of the stomach that milk found in the stomach of a tereifa should be prohibited?
of a carcass – ‫אין ַמ ֲע ִמ ִידין ְ ּבעֹור ֵק ַבת נְ ֵב ָלה‬:ֵ If one curdles ,‫יה ֵק ָב ָת ּה‬ּ ‫ דְּ ִאי ׁ ָש ֵרית ֵל‬,‫יסה‬ ָ ‫ְּנ ֵב ָלה דִּ ְמ ִא‬
Just as with regard to a carcass, which is so repulsive that even
milk with the skin of the stomach of a carcass, a tereifa, ‫ ְט ֵר ָפה‬.‫יכל ִמ ָּינ ּה – ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָלא‬ ַ ‫ָלא ָא ֵתי ְל ֵמ‬
or a non-kosher animal, the milk is prohibited regardless if you permit the milk in its stomach people will not come to
‫יכל ִמ ָּינ ּה – ל ֹא‬
ַ ‫ דְּ ִאי ׁ ָש ֵרית ָא ֵתי ְל ֵמ‬,‫ׁ ְשחו ָּטה‬ partake of the meat, you nevertheless said the milk is not permit-
of the ratio of milk to meat. This is because in a case
where the coagulant is itself prohibited, it is not nulli- !‫ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬ ted for consumption, is it not all the more so with regard to a
fied even by one part in a thousand (Rema). This applies tereifa that has been slaughtered, which is not as repulsive, such
only if the forbidden substance was the sole coagulant. that if you permit the milk in its stomach people might come to
But if the milk was curdled jointly by both prohibited
partake of it?
and permitted substances, it is permitted if the entire
mixture contains sixty times more permitted substances
than prohibited ones (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק‬Rather, Rav Yitzĥak said that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: This ques-
‫ ָלא‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
Ma’akhalot Assurot 4:19, 9:16; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a ‫ ָּכאן – ְל ַא ַחר‬,‫קֹודם ֲחזָ ָרה‬ ֶ – ‫ ָּכאן‬,‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬tion is not difficult. The first clause of the mishna here, which
87:11, and in the comment of Rema). teaches that the milk in the stomach of a carcass is prohibited,
.‫קֹומ ּה‬
ָ ‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ְשנָ ה ל ֹא זָ זָ ה ִמ ְּמ‬,‫ֲחזָ ָרה‬
One may curdle milk with rennet from the stomach
was taught before Rabbi Yehoshua’s retraction cited above,
of a carcass and with rennet from the stomach of whereas the latter clause there, that milk from the stomach of a
an animal slaughtered by a gentile – ‫ַמ ֲע ִמ ִידין ְ ּב ֵק ַבת‬ tereifa is permitted, was taught after Rabbi Yehoshua’s retraction.
‫יטת ּגֹוי‬
ַ ‫נְ ֵב ָלה ו ְּב ֵק ַבת ׁ ְש ִח‬: It is permitted to curdle milk with A mishna can sometimes preserve an older ruling and then imme-
rennet from the stomach of an animal slaughtered by diately teach a contradictory later ruling, because a mishna does
a gentile (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot not move from its place. Since the first clause of the mishna was
Assurot 4:19).
already canonized, it was not removed, despite Rabbi Yehoshua’s
With rennet from the stomach of a kosher animal change of opinion.
that suckled from a tereifa, etc. – ‫ְ ּב ֵק ַבת ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה ׁ ֶשּיָ נְ ָקה ִמן‬
‫ה ְּט ֵר ָפה וכו׳‬:ַ With regard to a kosher animal that suckled
from a tereifa, the milk found in its stomach is permitted,
:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ § Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: One
and all the more so in the case of a tereifa that suckled ‫ וְ ֵאין ַמ ֲע ִמ ִידין‬,‫ַמ ֲע ִמ ִידין ְ ּב ֵק ַבת נְ ֵבלֹות‬ may curdle milk with rennet extracted from the stomach of
carcasses, but one may not curdle milk with rennet from the
from a kosher animal. This is because milk collected in a ‫ ָא ַמר ְל ָפנָיו ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫יטת גּ ֹוי‬ַ ‫ְ ּב ֵק ַבת ׁ ְש ִח‬
stomach is merely secretion. Some prohibit liquid, uncon- stomach of animals slaughtered by a gentile. Rabbi Shimon bar
gealed milk found in the stomach of a kosher animal that
:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ְּכ ַמאן – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬:‫ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ Abba said before Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba: In accordance with
suckled from a tereifa, and the Rema writes that such is !‫בֹודה זָ ָרה‬ ָ ‫ְס ַתם ַמ ֲח ׁ ֶש ֶבת גּ ֹוי – ַל ֲע‬ whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion
the custom. But unless established otherwise there is of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: A gentile’s presumed intention
no concern that a kosher animal might have suckled
during slaughter is for idol worship. Therefore, the prohibition
from a tereifa or a non-kosher animal. Some authorities
prohibited curdling milk with rennet collected from a
against deriving benefit from an animal slaughtered in idol wor-
tereifa that suckled from a kosher animal ab initio, due ship applies to it, and this prohibition includes the contents of
to the appearance of prohibition, as people might think its stomach that are not actually part of its body. By contrast, a
he is eating a tereifa, and this is the accepted practice. carcass is prohibited only for consumption, and the prohibition
Nevertheless, if one did curdle cheese with rennet from does not extend to the contents of its stomach.
a tereifa, or if such rennet was mixed with rennet from
kosher animals, it is permitted after the fact (see Rambam
?‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ַמאן‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Shimon bar Abba: Rather,
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 9:15; Shulĥan
in accordance with whose opinion could this ruling be? Of
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 81:6).
course it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק‬ The Gemara relates: When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzĥak came
‫ ַמ ֲע ִמ ִידין ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ֵק ַבת נְ ֵב ָלה ֵ ּבין‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said:
One may curdle milk both with rennet from the stomach of a
‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָלחו ּׁש ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יטת ּגֹוי‬
ַ ‫ְ ּב ֵק ַבת ׁ ְש ִח‬
carcass and with rennet from the stomach of an animal slaugh-
.‫יעזֶ ר‬
ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ tered by a gentile, as there is no need to be concerned for the
statement of Rabbi Eliezer. According to this account, Rabbi
Yoĥanan does not maintain that a gentile’s presumed intention is
for idol worship.

,‫ ֵאין ַמ ֲע ִמ ִידין ְ ּבעֹור ֵק ַבת נְ ֵב ָלה‬:‫וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬ The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: One may not curdle
‫יטת‬ַ ‫ֲא ָבל ַמ ֲע ִמ ִידין ְ ּב ֵק ַבת נְ ֵב ָלה ו ְּב ֵק ַבת ׁ ְש ִח‬ milk with the skin of the stomach of a carcass,h but one may
curdle milk with rennet from the stomach of a carcass and with
‫ וְ ָכל‬,‫ ו ְּב ֵק ַבת ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה ׁ ֶשּיָ נְ ָקה ִמן ַה ְּט ֵר ָפה‬,‫גּ ֹוי‬
rennet from the stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile,h
‫ ַמאי‬.‫ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְ ּב ֵק ַבת ְט ֵר ָפה ׁ ֶשּיָ נְ ָקה ִמן ַה ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ and with rennet from the stomach of a kosher animal that suck-
‫ ּ ִפ ְיר ׁ ָשא ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬,‫ַט ֲע ָמא – ָח ָלב ַה ְמכו ּּנָס ָ ּב ּה‬ led from a tereifa,h and all the more so with rennet from the
.‫הוּא‬ stomach of a tereifa animal that suckled from a kosher animal.
What is the reason for these lenient rulings? The milk collected
in a stomach is merely secretion and is not considered food that
can be prohibited.

‫חֹומר ְ ּב ָדם‬ ֶ ‫מתני׳‬

ֶ ָ‫ ו‬,‫חֹומר ְ ּב ֵח ֶלב ִמ ְ ּב ָדם‬
‫חֹומר ְ ּב ֵח ֶלב – ׁ ֶש ַה ֵח ֶלב‬
ֶ .‫ִמ ְ ּב ֵח ֶלב‬
mishna Although animal fats and blood are similar
in that they are both prohibited by Torah
law and punishable by karet, there are elements more stringent
in the prohibition of fat than in that of blood, and likewise there
are elements more stringent in the prohibition of blood than
in that of fat. The elements more stringent in the prohibition
of fat are the following: The first is that with regard to fat of
an offering,
218 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 116b . ‫זטק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VIII
Daf 117 Amud a
halakha
,‫ וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ִפיגּ וּל‬,‫מֹוע ִלין ּבֹו‬
ֲ one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated
Due to piggul, notar, and partaking of it while impure –
.‫ ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ֵאין ֵּכן ְ ּב ָדם‬,‫ וְ ָט ֵמא‬,‫נֹותר‬ ָ ְ‫ ו‬property. And second, one is liable for eating it due to violation of ָ ְ‫מ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ִפיגּ וּל ו‬:ִ One who eats an olive-bulk of the
‫נֹותר וְ ָט ֵמא‬
the prohibition of piggul, if it was from an offering that was slaugh- blood of an offering that had been rendered piggul is not
tered with the intent to sprinkle its blood or partake of it beyond its liable for the consumption of piggul. Likewise, one who
designated time, and due to the prohibition of notar, if it was from an eats an olive-bulk of the blood of an offering while he
offering whose period for consumption has expired. And third, if one is in a state of ritual impurity or of the blood of a notar
is ritually impure, he is liable due to the prohibition of partaking of it offering is not liable for eating an offering while impure
while impure.h This is not so with regard to blood,h as one is not or for eating notar (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei
HaMukdashin 18:7, 17, 24).
liable in these cases for violating the prohibitions of piggul, notar,
and partaking of offerings while impure, but rather is liable only for This is not so with regard to blood – ‫מה ׁ ּ ֶש ֵאין ֵּכן ְ ּב ָדם‬:ַ
violating the prohibition of consuming blood. One is not liable for misuse of consecrated property
when deriving benefit from blood of a slaughtered offer-
‫נֹוהג ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמה‬
ֵ ‫חֹומר ַ ּבדָּ ם – ׁ ֶש ַהדָּ ם‬
ֶ ָ‫ו‬ And the more stringent element in the prohibition of blood is that ing, either before or after atonement, until the remainder
the prohibition of blood applies to domesticated animals, undomes- of the blood flows to the Kidron River, in accordance
,‫הֹורים‬
ִ ‫ ֵ ּבין ְט ֵמ ִאים ו ֵּבין ְט‬,‫וְ ַחּיָ ה וְ עֹוף‬ with a mishna in tractate Me’ila. Once that blood has
ticated animals, and birds, both kosher and non-kosher, but the
ָ ‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמה ְט‬
‫הֹורה‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֵח ֶלב ֵאינֹו‬ reached the Kidron River, one is liable by rabbinic law
prohibition of forbidden fat applies only to a kosher domesticated for its misuse (Ra’avad). In Temple times, gardeners paid
.‫ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ animal. for this water for use as fertilizer and thereby redeemed

gemara
the remainder of blood from its sanctity (see Yoma 58b),
:‫גמ׳ ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי? ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי‬ According to the mishna, one who consumes and the proceeds of the sale belonged to the Temple
forbidden fat of an offering is liable for misuse (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Me’ila 2:11).
‫״כ ֲא ׁ ֶשר יו ָּרם ִמ ׁ ּשֹור זֶ ַבח‬ ַּ ‫דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬
of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: From where are these
‫״שֹור זֶ ַבח‬ ּ ׁ ‫ וְ ִכי ָמה ָל ַמ ְדנ ּו ִמ‬.‫ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָל ִמים״‬matters derived? Rabbi Yannai said: They are derived from a verse,
?‫ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָל ִמים״ ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬as the verse states that the sacrificial portions of a bull brought for an
unwitting sin of the anointed priest must be burned upon the altar:
“As it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering” (Leviticus 4:10).
But what, then, do we learn from the bull of the peace offering?
Everything that is specified with regard to a peace offering is stated
with regard to this bull as well (see Leviticus 4:8–9).

‫ ַמ ִּק ׁיש‬,‫ֲה ֵרי זֶ ה ָ ּבא ְל ַל ֵּמד וְ נִ ְמצָ א ָל ֵמד‬ Rather, this phrase initially comes to teach a halakha about the bull
,‫״שֹור זֶ ַבח ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָל ִמים״ ְל ַפר ּכ ֵֹהן ָמ ׁ ִש ַיח‬
ׁ brought as an offering for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, but
it turns out that it actually derives a halakha from that case, as the
‫ ַאף‬,‫ַמה ּ ַפר ּכ ֵֹהן ָמ ׁ ִש ַיח – ׁיֵש ּבֹו ְמ ִע ָילה‬
verse juxtaposes the bull of the peace offering to the bull of the
.‫ׁשֹור זֶ ַבח ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָל ִמים – יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ְמ ִע ָילה‬ anointed priest. It teaches that just as the bull of the anointed priest,
as an offering of the most sacred order, is subject to the prohibition
on misuse of consecrated property, as offerings of the most sacred
order are called “the sacred items of the Lord” (see Leviticus 5:15), so
too the sacrificial portions of the bull of the peace offering, including
its forbidden fat, are subject to misuse of consecrated property, even
though it is an offering of lesser sanctity and is considered the property
of the owner before slaughter.

‫ ְּכעו ָּרה זֹו ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָשנָ ה‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Ĥanina said to Rabbi Yannai: Is that derivation that Rabbi
‫״כל ֵח ֶלב ַלה׳״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֵאימו ֵּרי‬ ָּ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬Yehuda HaNasi taught unattractive, that you derive a new one? He
taught that when the Torah states with regard to peace offerings, which
!‫ֳק ָד ׁ ִשים ַק ִּלים ִל ְמ ִע ָילה‬
are of lesser sanctity: “All the fat is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 3:16), it
serves to include the sacrificial portionsl of offerings of lesser sanc-
tity in the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, even
though the prohibition is stated explicitly only with regard to offerings
of the most sacred order.

language
Portions [eimurim] – ‫אימו ִּרים‬:
ֵ There are various explanations master [mar] (Arukh). If so, eimurim refers to the most important
with regard to the source of this word, which refers to those parts of an offering, or the master portions that are sacrificed
portions of an offering burned and consumed upon the altar. upon the altar. Yet others relate it to the term he’emarta, as in the
Based on the Gemara in Sukka (55b), its root is alef, mem, reish, verse: “You have avouched [he’emarta] the Lord this day to be
which means: Say. According to this, the word is used to indicate Your God” (Deuteronomy 26:17; Mishne LaMelekh). According to
that these are the portions of which it is said that they must many linguists, the word eimurim comes from the Greek μήρα,
be sacrificed upon the altar (Tosefot Yom Tov on Pesaĥim 5:10). mēra, or μηρία, mēpia, meaning thigh bones, both of which
Following this interpretation, some claim that the term should refer to the portions of an offering that are burned along with
be pronounced amurim. Alternatively, it is based on the word their fatty parts.

 ‫זיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 117a 219

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ דְּ ִאי ְּכ ָתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬, ְ‫ ִאיצְ ְט ִריך‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ Abaye said: Rabbi Yannai’s derivation was necessary, as, if the Merci-
Sheep tail [alya] – ‫א ְליָה‬:ַ The alya is the long, thick, ful One had written only the verse “All the fat is the Lord’s,” I would
fatty tail of the breed of sheep that was common ‫יֹות ֶרת‬
ֶ ,‫ ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א ֵח ֶלב – ִאין‬,‫״ח ֶלב״‬ ֵ
say that the fat of offerings of lesser sanctity, yes, they are included
in Eretz Yisrael and the surrounding areas during ‫״כ ֲא ׁ ֶשר‬
ַּ ‫ ְּכ ָתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ְכ ָליֹות – ָלא‬
the Temple era. in the prohibition, but the diaphragm and the two kidneys of such
.‫יו ָּרם״‬ offerings are not, even though they are also burned upon the altar.
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “As it is taken off from the bull of
the peace offering,” to teach that even these portions are subject to the
prohibition of misuse.

‫ ֲהוָ ה‬,‫״כ ֲא ׁ ֶשר יו ָּרם״‬

ַּ ‫ וְ ִאי ְּכ ָתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only the phrase: “As
,‫יתא ְ ּב ׁשֹור – ָלא‬ ָ ‫ ָא ִמינָ א ֵח ֶלב ַא ְליָ ה דְּ ֵל‬it is taken off from the bull,” I would say that the prohibition applies
only to those portions that are found in a bull, and that the fat of a sheep
.‫״כל ֵח ֶלב״‬ ָּ ‫ְּכ ָתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬
tail,b which is not found in a bull, is not included. Therefore, the
Merciful One writes: “All the fat is the Lord’s,” to teach that the pro-
Fat-tailed sheep
hibition of misuse applies to all portions of offerings of lesser sanctity,
including a sheep tail, which is referred to as fat in Leviticus 3:9.
notes
‫ ִאי ַא ְליָ ה‬:‫יה ַרב ָמ ִרי ְל ַרב זְ ִביד‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid: If a sheep tail is called “fat,” it should be
It should be prohibited for consumption – ‫ִּת ַּית ַסר‬ prohibited for consumption,n like forbidden fat. Rav Zevid said to
‫ב ֲא ִכ ָילה‬:ּ ַ The Karaites accepted this conclusion and
‫ית ַסר ַ ּב ֲא ִכ ָילה! ֲא ַמר‬ ַּ ‫ ִּת‬,‫״ח ֶלב״‬ ֵ ‫ִא ְיק ָר ֵאי‬
Rav Mari: With regard to your claim, the verse states: “You shall eat
deemed the tail prohibited as forbidden fat. The ‫״כל ֵח ֶלב ׁשֹור וְ ֶכ ֶ ׂשב‬ ָּ ‫ ָע ֶליךָ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬
Ibn Ezra discusses this issue at length in his com-
no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat” (Leviticus 7:23). This teaches that the
.‫וָ ֵעז״ – דָּ ָבר ַה ׁ ּ ָשוֶ ה ְ ּב ׁשֹור וְ ֶכ ֶ ׂשב וָ ֵעז‬ Torah designates as forbidden fat only an item that is found equally
mentary on Leviticus 7:20, as does the Ramban (on
Leviticus 3:9). in an ox, and a sheep, and a goat. Since the ox and goat do not have
a tail that consists of a large amount of fat, the sheep’s fatty tail is
not prohibited.

,‫״ח ְל ּבֹו ָה ַא ְליָה״ – ִא ְיק ָר ֵאי‬

ֶ :‫ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ֲא ַמר‬ Rav Ashi said a different explanation: It is called “the fat tail,” but it
‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬.‫״ח ֶלב״ ְס ָת ָמא ָלא ִא ְיק ָר ֵאי‬ ֵ is not called simply: Fat, without specification. The Gemara objects:
If that is so that the addition of a modifier indicates that the tail is not
‫ ְמ ַח ַּו ְור ָּתא ִּכ ְד ַרב‬,‫ל ֹא יִ ְמ ֲעל ּו ָ ּב ּה! ֶא ָּלא‬
truly fat, then one who derives benefit from the tail should not be liable
.‫זְ ִביד‬ for misuse of consecrated property either. Rather, it is clear that the
correct answer is as stated by Rav Zevid.

‫ ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי? ֲא ַמר‬.‫״מה ׁ ּ ֶש ֵאין ֵּכן ַ ּבדָּ ם״‬ ַ § The mishna teaches: This is not so with regard to blood, as one
.‫״ל ֶכם״ – ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶכם יְ ֵהא‬ ָ :‫ דְּ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬,‫עו ָּּלא‬ who derives benefit from blood is not liable for misuse of consecrated
property. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?
‫״ל ַכ ּ ֵפר״ – ְל ַכ ּ ָפ ָרה‬
ְ :‫יִש ָמ ֵעאל ְּתנָ א‬
ְ ׁ ‫דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי‬
Ulla said: The verse states with regard to blood: “For the life of the
.‫נְ ַת ִּתיו וְ ל ֹא ִל ְמ ִע ָילה‬ flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make
atonement for your souls” (Leviticus 17:11). The term “to you” indicates
that it shall be yours, rather than consecrated property, and is therefore
not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The
school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different derivation. By using the
term “to make atonement,” the verse teaches that God is saying: I gave
it to achieve atonement, but not to be subject to the prohibition
against misuse of consecrated property.

‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא ״הוּא״ – הוּא‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ And Rabbi Yoĥanan says that this halakha is derived from the latter
‫ ַמה ְּל ַא ַחר‬,‫ִל ְפנֵי ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ִּכ ְל ַא ַחר ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה‬ part of the verse, which states: “For it is the blood that makes atone-
ment for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). The term “it is” teaches that the
‫ ַאף ִל ְפנֵי ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ֵאין‬,‫ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ֵאין ּבֹו ְמ ִע ָילה‬
status of the blood remains as it is, i.e., it is before atonement as it is
.‫ּבֹו ְמ ִע ָילה‬ after atonement. As the Gemara will state, there is a principle that once
the mitzva involving a consecrated item has been performed, the item
is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated prop-
erty. Accordingly, the term “it is” teaches that just as after atonement,
i.e., after the blood has been sprinkled upon the altar, it is not subject
to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, as the mitzva
has already been performed, so too, before atonement, i.e., before
the blood has been sprinkled upon the altar, it is not subject to the
prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.

‫ ״הוּא״ – ְל ַא ַחר ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה ְּכ ִל ְפנֵי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵא‬ The Gemara objects: But if the term “it is” teaches that the status of the
,‫ ַמה ִּל ְפנֵי ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ְמ ִע ָילה‬,‫ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה‬ blood remains the same before and after atonement, one can say just
the opposite: It is after atonement as it is before atonement. Just as
ָ‫ַאף ְל ַא ַחר ַּכ ּ ָפ ָרה יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ְמ ִע ָילה! ֵאין ְלך‬
before atonement the blood is subject to the prohibition of misuse
.‫ּמֹוע ִלין ּבֹו‬
ֲ ‫דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ּנ ֲַע ָ ׂשה ִמצְ וָ תֹו ו‬ of consecrated property, so too, after atonement it is subject to the
prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara responds:
This cannot be the case, since as a rule, there is no item whose mitzva
has been performed and is still subject to the prohibition of misusing
of consecrated property.
220 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 117a . ‫זיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫נַע ָ ׂשה ִמצְ וָ תֹו‬ ֲ ְּ‫ וְ ָלא? וַ ֲה ֵרי ְּתרו ַּמת ַהדֶּ ׁ ֶשן ד‬The Gemara asks: And is there no such case? But there is the mitzva
Teaches that they require interment – ‫ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ְּטעוּנִין‬
ֲ ‫ ו‬of the daily removal of the ashes of offerings burned on the altar,
b
!‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״וְ ָ ׂשמֹו ֵאצֶ ל ַה ִּמ ֵ ּזְב ַח״‬,‫ּמֹוע ִלין ּבֹו‬ ‫גנִיזָ ה‬:ּ ְ The worn-out garments of the High Priest must
the mitzva of which has been performed, and yet one who derives be buried. The same applies to the white garments
benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it is in which he serves on Yom Kippur. It is prohibited to
written: “And he shall take up the ashes of what the fire has con- derive any benefit from them, in accordance with the
sumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them opinion of the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot
beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3). The ashes must be left there, where Kelei HaMikdash 8:5).
they are absorbed into the ground, and one who removes and
derives benefit from them violates the prohibition against misuse of
consecrated property, even though their mitzva has been performed.
This contradicts the principle posited above.

‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ֲהוַ אי ְּתרו ַּמת ַהדֶּ ׁ ֶשן ו ִּבגְ ֵדי ְכהו ָּּנה‬The Gemara answers: The principle does not apply in that case,
‫ וְ ָכל ׁ ְשנֵי ְּכתו ִּבין‬,‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ְּכתו ִּבין ַה ָ ּב ִאין ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬because the mitzva of the removal of the ashes and the matter of
the four white priestly vestmentsb worn by the High Priest on Yom
.‫ַה ָ ּב ִאין ְּכ ֶא ָחד ֵאין ְמ ַל ְּמ ִדין‬
Kippur, which may not be used again, are both specified as excep-
tions to the halakha that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated
property does not apply after their mitzva has been performed.
Consequently, they are two verses that come as one, i.e., they share
a unique halakha not found elsewhere. And as a rule, any two verses
that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to
other cases. The principle therefore remains in place.

– ‫ִיחם ׁ ָשם״‬ ָ ‫ ״וְ ִה ּנ‬:‫נִיחא ְל ַר ָ ּבנַ ן דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ָ ‫ָה‬ The Gemara raises a further difficulty: This works out well accord-
ָ ּ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ד‬.‫ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ְּטעוּנִין ְ ּגנִיזָ ה‬
‫ֹוסא‬ ing to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the verse: “And he
shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went
‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יִ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּמ ׁש ָ ּב ֶהן ְליֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬:‫דַּ ֲא ַמר‬
into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23),
?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬,‫ַא ֵחר‬ teaches that these four white garments worn by the High Priest on
Yom Kippur are not fit for further use, and they require interment.h
But according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who said that the
verse teaches only that the High Priest may not use the vestments
on Yom Kippur in a different year, but they are fit for an ordinary
priest and do not require interment, what is there to say? If the
priestly vestments are not an exception to the halakha that there is
no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property after the perfor-
mance of a mitzva, the removal of the ashes remains as the only
exception. Why, then, does it not serve as a paradigm for other
instances in the Torah?

‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ֲהוַ אי ְּתרו ַּמת ַהדֶּ ׁ ֶשן וְ ֶעגְ ָלה‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara responds: Rather, it is because the cases of the removal
‫ וְ ָכל‬,‫ ֲערו ָּפה ׁ ְשנֵי ְּכתו ִּבים ַה ָ ּב ִאין ְּכ ֶא ָחד‬of the ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken to atone for an
unsolved murder (Deuteronomy 21:1–9) are two verses that come
.‫ׁ ְשנֵי ְּכתו ִּבים ַה ָ ּב ִאין ְּכ ֶא ָחד ֵאין ְמ ַל ְּמ ִדין‬
as one, as it is also prohibited to derive benefit from the heifer after
its mitzva is performed. And any two verses that come as one do
not teach their common element to apply to other cases.

‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫נִיחא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ֵאין ְמ ַל ְּמ ִדין‬ ָ ‫ ָה‬The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who
?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ְמ ַל ְּמ ִדין ַמאי ִא‬says that two verses that come as one do not teach their common
element to apply to other cases, but according to the one who
‫ְּת ֵרי‬
says that two verses that come as one do teach their common ele-
ment to apply to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara
answers: Two
background
Removal of the ashes – ‫תרו ַּמת ַהדֶּ ׁ ֶשן‬:ְּ There is a positive mitzva to Priestly vestments – ‫בגְ ֵדי ְכהו ָּּנה‬:ּ ִ An ordinary priest serves in four
remove some of the ashes from the altar each morning and bring vestments: Tunic, trousers, mitre, and belt. These garments are
them to the floor of the courtyard. The verse states: “And he shall made of white linen, except the belt, which is made of linen and
take up the ashes to which the fire has reduced the burnt offering wool, and their thread is sixfold. The High Priest wears the four
on the altar, and place them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:3). This garments of a common priest plus four additional garments: Robe,
was the first of the daily rites performed in the Temple. In addition, ephod, breastplate, and frontplate.
from time to time, when the ashes accumulated, they would be
removed from the Temple to a designated place outside Jerusalem
called the Place of the Ashes. The fact that the ashes were placed
in a designated location indicates that they retained some mea-
sure of sanctity, and were therefore subject to misuse (Rabbeinu
Gershom on Me’ila 11b). Rashi explains that the purpose of storing
the ashes away was to prevent people from deriving benefit from
them. According to this interpretation as well, it follows that there
exists a prohibition against the misuse of consecrated property
with regard to them. Eight vestments of the High Priest

 ‫זיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ח קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek VIII . 117a 221

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek VIII
Daf 117 Amud b
halakha
‫ ָה ָתם‬,‫ ָה ָכא ְּכ ִתיב ״וְ ָ ׂשמֹו״‬,‫ ִמיעו ֵּטי ְּכ ִת ִיבי‬exclusions are written in these two cases, which indicate that this
Any item that has permitting factors, either with
regard to a person or with regard to the altar, one .‫״ה ֲערו ָּפה״‬ ָ ‫ ְּכ ִתיב‬halakha applies to them alone. Here, with regard to the removal of
is liable for eating it due to piggul – ‫ָּכל ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ַמ ִּת ִירין‬
ashes, it is written: “And he shall put it” (Leviticus 6:3), indicating
‫זְב ַח ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ִפגּ וּל‬
ּ ֵ ‫בין ָל ָא ָדם ו ֵּבין ַל ִּמ‬:ּ ֵ One is liable that this halakha applies to “it,” and nothing else. There, with regard
to receive karet for rendering an offering piggul only for to the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: “Whose neck was
partaking of items that were rendered permitted either broken” (Deuteronomy 21:6). This superfluous description teaches
for human consumption or for the altar. If one ate from that the halakha that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated prop-
the permitting factor itself, he is not liable to receive erty is in effect even after the performance of a mitzva applies solely
karet but is flogged, like one who eats other conse-
to this case and should not be extended to others.
crated items that were disqualified but that do not have
piggul status. Consequently, one who partakes of blood
?‫ ו ְּת ָל ָתא ְק ָר ֵאי ָל ָּמה ִלי ְ ּב ָדם‬The Gemara returns to the three phrases from Leviticus 17:11 cited
is not liable for eating piggul, as the presentation of the
blood on the altar permits the sacrificial portions to be
above as teaching that the blood of offerings is not subject to the
burned upon the altar (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot prohibition of misuse of consecrated property: And why do I need
Pesulei HaMukdashin 18:7). all three verses stated with regard to blood?

,‫ וְ ַחד ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ִמ ְּמ ִע ָילה‬,‫ ַחד ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ִמנּ ָֹותר‬The Gemara answers: One term serves to exclude blood from
.‫ וְ ַחד ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ִמ ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬the prohibition of notar. If one consumed the blood of such an
offering, he is not liable for consuming notar as one who consumed
the flesh would be. Rather, he is liable for violating only the prohibi-
tion against consuming blood. And one term serves to exclude
blood from the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property,
and one other term serves to exclude it from the prohibition of
consumption of offerings in a state of ritual impurity. If one con-
sumed this blood in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable only for
consuming blood, but not for consuming consecrated food while
ritually impure.

‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫ ֲא ָבל ִמ ּ ִפ ּגוּל ָלא צְ ִריךְ ְק ָרא‬But no verse is required to exclude this blood from the halakha of
‫ לֹו ַמ ִּת ִירין ֵ ּבין ָל ָא ָדם ו ֵּבין ַל ִּמזְ ֵ ּב ַח – ַחּיָ ִיבין‬piggul, an offering sacrificed with intention to consume it beyond
its designated time, consumption of which is punishable by karet,
.‫יה ַמ ִּתיר הוּא‬ ּ ‫ וְ ָדם גּ ו ֵּפ‬,‫ָע ָליו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ּ ִפגּ וּל‬
as this exception is already derived from another source. As we
learned in a mishna (Zevaĥim 43a): Concerning any item that has
permitting factors, either with regard to consumption by a person
or with regard to burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it
due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.h But the permitting
factor itself is not subject to piggul, and the blood of an offering
is itself a permitting factor, as consumption of the offering by a
person or by the altar is only permitted after the blood has been
sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, the blood is not subject to the
prohibition of piggul.
‫הדרן עלך כל הבשר‬

222 Ĥullin . perek VIII . 117b . ‫זיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ח‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Summary of
Perek VII

This chapter primarily delineated the details of the prohibition of meat cooked in
milk. These halakhot were discussed both with regard to the definition of the prohibi-
tion itself as well as with regard to practical guidelines.
It is accepted that the phrase: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus
23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21), is a general prohibition that includes the meat
of both large and small animals, and that the milk need not be that of the animal’s
mother. The Gemara concludes, though, that by Torah law, only the meat and milk of
domesticated animals are prohibited, but not the meat and milk of undomesticated
animals or birds. Nevertheless, since the meat of undomesticated animals, and even
that of birds, is generally considered meat, it is prohibited by rabbinic law to cook
them in milk, as is the case with the meat of domesticated animals. The flesh of other
animals, such as fish and grasshoppers, is not classified as meat, and it is permitted
to cook them in milk ab initio.
The Sages taught that the prohibition of meat cooked in milk includes three separate
prohibitions: One may not cook meat in milk, one may not eat meat and milk cooked
together, and one may not derive benefit from such a dish.
Since it is permitted to eat both meat and milk when they are separate from one
another, the Sages were concerned that people might treat the prohibition lightly, and
they enacted several decrees to distance people from sin. These include the prohibi-
tion against placing cooked dishes of meat and milk together on the table upon which
one eats unless there is a clear separation between them. Additionally, one must wait
a period of time between eating meat and consuming milk. The Gemara does not
specify the length of this period, and to this day there are disparate customs with
regard to the amount of time one must wait between eating meat and milk.
The prohibition against mixing meat and milk does not apply by Torah law to the
udders of animals and the milk they contain. Nevertheless, in practice one must
remove the milk inside the udder before consuming the meat. The chapter also
examined the similarly complicated case of curdling milk to make cheese using skin
or rennet from an animal’s stomach. Although the skin is considered meat, rennet is
considered a mere secretion and cannot itself render the cheese prohibited as would
prohibited food.
With regard to the scope of the prohibition of meat cooked in milk, the Gemara
established that although the two are each permitted when separate, after they
have been cooked together the mixture becomes prohibited in its own right, to the
extent that if it is mixed into other dishes it renders them prohibited as well. In the
terminology of the Gemara, the mixture is itself considered non-kosher meat. This
led to a discussion of cases where a small quantity of milk was cooked with a piece of
meat: Can that piece render an entire pot of meat prohibited due to the milk cooked
223
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

with it? A similar inquiry was raised with regard to other items rendered prohibited
by foreign substances.
These are the main topics of the chapter. Numerous other matters were also examined
concerning local customs, desirable habits, and table manners, all of which are related,
to a greater or lesser extent, to the central halakhot addressed in the chapter.

224
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Introduction to
Perek IX

This chapter discusses issues related to the ritual impurity of dead animals. Ostensibly,
it would have been more fitting for the chapter to be situated in one of the tractates
of Seder Teharot, which discuss impurity, and not here in Seder Kodashim, which
discusses sacrificial offerings. Nevertheless, this chapter is located in tractate Ĥullin
due to its thematic connection to issues discussed in the tractate: Slaughter, flaying
an animal’s hide, severing an animal’s limbs, and other themes that have implications
with regard to impurity.
When discussing the impurity of animals, it is necessary to define which parts of an
animal are susceptible to impurity. The animal’s flesh is clearly susceptible to impurity,
but what is the halakha with regard to its hide and bones? Can the hide or bones
assume the status of flesh, e.g., if flesh is attached to them, or if they are soft enough?
In addition, it is necessary to determine the halakha with regard to marrow and eggs,
edible substances that are completely covered. Is a completely sealed food item sus-
ceptible to impurity, or must there be a perforation for impurity to be transmitted?
These and many other questions concerning impurity are discussed in this chapter.

225
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek IX
Daf 117 Amud b

‫רֹוטב וְ ַה ִּק ָיפה וְ ָה ֲא ַלל‬ ֶ ‫מתני׳ ָהעֹור וְ ָה‬

‫וְ ָה ֲעצָ מֹות וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידין וְ ַה ַ ּק ְרנַיִ ם וְ ַה ְּט ָל ַפיִ ם‬
mishna All foods that became ritually impure through
contact with a source of impurity transmit
notes
And the tendons – ‫וְ ַה ִ ּג ִידין‬: The tendons, like the other
parts of the animal mentioned in the mishna, join together
impurity to other food and liquids only if the impure foods measure with the flesh to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to
an egg-bulk. In that regard, the Sages ruled that even if a piece of transmit impurity of food, but they do not join together
meat itself is less than an egg-bulk, the attached hide, even if it is not to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to
fit for consumption, joins together with the meat to constitute an transmit impurity of a carcass. Rashi explains that the rea-
egg-bulk. And the same is true of the congealed gravy attached to son for the latter principle is that it is written: “Its carcass
the meat, although it is not eaten; and likewise the spices added to [benivlatah]” (Leviticus 11:39), indicating that this impurity
applies only to one who touches its carcass, but not its hide,
flavor the meat, although they are not eaten; and the meat residue
its bones, or its tendons. The later commentaries ques-
attached to the hide after flaying; and the bones; and the tendons;n tion this explanation of the mishna’s ruling with regard to
and the lower section of the horns, which remains attached to the tendons, based on Rashi’s comment in tractate Pesaĥim
flesh when the rest of the horn is removed; and the upper section (22a) that the tendons are considered part of the carcass.
of the hooves, which remains attached to the flesh when the rest of If tendons are considered part of the carcass, they should
the hoof is removed. not be excluded from transmitting impurity of a carcass
by the term “its carcass.” The Rashash explains that despite
‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
ָ ‫ ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ַאת‬All these items join together with the meat to constitute the requi- the fact that tendons are included in the term carcass, the
extra letter heh at the end of the term benivlatah excludes
.‫ ל ֹא טו ְּמ ַאת נְ ֵבלֹות‬site egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. Although if any of
h
tendons from transmitting impurity of a carcass.
them was an egg-bulk they would not impart impurity of food, when
attached to the meat they complete the measure. But they do not One who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile
join together to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬
and the animal is still twitching – ‫ֹוחט ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ְלגֹוי‬
impart the impurity of animal carcasses.h ‫ו ְּמ ַפ ְר ֶּכ ֶסת‬: Rashi states that there are four specific condi-
tions with regard to this halakha: The slaughter must be
performed by a Jew, it must be a kosher slaughter, it must
‫ֹוחט ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ְלגֹוי‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬,‫ַּכּיֹוצֵ א ּבֹו‬ Similarly, there is another item that imparts impurity of food but
be a non-kosher animal that is being slaughtered, and
,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
ָ ‫ו ְּמ ַפ ְר ֶּכ ֶסת – ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה טו ְּמ ַאת‬ not impurity of animal carcasses: In the case of one who slaughters
the animal must be slaughtered for the sake of a gentile.
a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the animal is still twitch-
‫ ַעד ׁ ֶש ָּתמוּת‬,‫ֲא ָבל ל ֹא טו ְּמ ַאת נְ ֵבלֹות‬ Rashi explains the need for these conditions as follows:
ingnh and comes into contact with a source of impurity, the animal Ritual slaughter permits consumption of a kosher animal
‫יבה ְל ַט ֵּמא‬ּ ָ ‫ ִר‬.‫ֹאש ּה‬ ָ ׁ ‫אֹו ַעד ׁ ֶשּיַ ִּתיז ֶאת ר‬ becomes impure with impurity of food and imparts impurity of for a Jew immediately, even if it is still twitching. Therefore,
‫יבה ְל ַט ֵּמא‬ ּ ָ ‫אֹוכ ִלין ִמ ַּמה ׁ ּ ֶש ִר‬
ָ ‫טו ְּמ ַאת‬ food to other food, but does not impart impurity of animal car- although consumption of the animal is forbidden in this
.‫טו ְּמ ַאת נְ ֵבלֹות‬ casses until it dies, or until one severs its head.h The mishna sum- case, the intention of the one slaughtering the animal
marizes: The Torah included certain items to impart impurity of deems the animal as food during the time while the animal
is still twitching, for the purpose of the halakha of transmit-
food beyond those which it included to impart impurity of ting the impurity of food. By contrast, an animal that is
animal carcasses. slaughtered improperly is fit for consumption by a gentile
only when it stops twitching and is fully dead. Therefore, if
,‫ ָה ֲא ַלל ַה ְמכו ָּּנס‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the meat residue attached to the slaughter was invalid, either because it was performed
‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ּבֹו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד – ַחּיָ יב‬the hide after flaying that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of by a gentile or the animal was killed via a method other
it in one place it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who than ritual slaughter, the animal is not deemed as food
.‫ָע ָליו‬
contracts impurity from it and then eats consecrated foods or enters during the time of twitching. In addition, if the non-kosher
the Temple is liable to receive karet.b By collecting it in one place, animal was slaughtered for the sake of a Jew it cannot be
the person indicates that he considers it as meat. considered food because it is unfit for consumption by a
Jew. As for the reason that the mishna specifically discusses
a non-kosher animal as opposed to a kosher animal, Rashi
explains that once this halakha has been established with
regard to a non-kosher animal, it certainly is applicable to
a kosher animal as well.

background
Karet – ‫כרת‬:ֵָּ Karet is a divine punishment for serious
halakha transgressions. The precise nature of this punishment is a
All these items join together with the meat to impart the impurity when they are attached to an olive-bulk of the meat. matter of dispute among the commentaries. The various
impurity of food – ‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ָ ‫מצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ַאת‬:ִ The hide But they do not join together to constitute the measure of an interpretations include premature or sudden death, bar-
attached to the meat; the gravy; the spices; the meat residue olive-bulk required to transmit the impurity of animal carcasses renness and the death of the sinner’s children, and excision
attached to the hide after flaying, some of which he intended to (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:7). of the soul from the World-to-Come. Karet applies only
eat and some of which he did not, some of which was severed to one who intentionally commits a transgression. If one
with a knife and some by an animal; the bones attached to the transgresses a prohibition that is punishable by karet in the
One who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and
meat; the tendons; the lower sections of the horns, the hooves, presence of witnesses, he is subject either to the penalty of
ֵ ‫ה ׁ ּש‬:ַ
the animal is still twitching – ‫ֹוחט ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ְלגֹוי ו ְּמ ַפ ְר ֶּכ ֶסת‬
the wings, the feathers, the beak, and the talons adjacent to the lashes or execution by an earthly court, depending upon
If one slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the
flesh are all susceptible to impurity, transmit impurity, and join the prohibition. One who inadvertently transgresses one
animal is still twitching and comes into contact with a source
together with the meat to constitute the requisite measure of an of the prohibitions punishable by karet must bring a sin
of impurity, the animal becomes impure with impurity of food
egg-bulk or one half of a half-loaf of bread to transmit impurity offering as atonement. Thirty-six transgressions punish-
(Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 3:4, 2:6).
of food (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 4:4). able by karet are listed in tractate Karetot. All of these are
violations of prohibitions, with two exceptions: Neglecting
But they do not join together to impart the impurity of ani- But does not impart impurity of animal carcasses until it dies, to sacrifice the Paschal offering and failure to ensure that
mal carcasses – ‫א ָבל ל ֹא טו ְּמ ַאת נְ ֵבלֹות‬:ֲ With regard to an animal or until one severs its head – ‫ֲא ָבל ל ֹא טו ְּמ ַאת נְ ֵבלֹות ַעד ׁ ֶש ָּתמוּת אֹו‬ one is circumcised.
carcass, the hide, the meat residue attached to the hide after ‫ֹאש ּה‬
ָ ׁ ‫עד ׁ ֶשּיַ ִּתיז ֶאת ר‬:ַ If one slaughters a non-kosher animal for a
flaying, the bones, the tendons, the lower section of the horns gentile and the animal is still twitching and comes into contact
that remains attached to the flesh when the rest of the horn is with a source of impurity, the animal does not impart impurity
removed, and the hooves, including the section that remains of a carcass until it stops twitching and dies, or until one severs
attached to the flesh after the hoof is removed, all transmit its head (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 2:1).

 ‫זיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 117b 227

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
Wheat…and barley in its shell – ‫עֹורה‬ ָ ‫ִח ָּטה… ּו ְ ׂש‬
‫ב ְק ִל ּ ָיפ ָת ּה‬:ּ ִ Grain seeds are composed of two coverings:
ְ ‫ ׁש‬:‫ דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫גמ׳ ְּתנֵינָ א ְל ָהא‬
– ‫ֹומ ִרים‬
‫ֹומ ִרים ְלטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ְ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ׁש‬,‫ְלטו ְּמ ָאה ַק ָּלה‬
gemara The mishna teaches that the attached hide
joins together with the meat to constitute
An outer shell or husk that covers the kernel while it is
the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food even though
.‫ ֲחמו ָּרה‬it is not fit for consumption. This is because the hide acts as a protec-
on the stalk, and an inner shell that falls off when the
grain is ground. The outer shell serves as protection, but tive cover for the meat. But it does not join to constitute the measure
the inner shell is considered part of the food (Rashi). of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses.
The Gemara notes: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages
taught explicitly in a baraita: An appendage that serves as protec-
tion joins together with food with regard to a light level of impurity,
such as the impurity of food, which can be transmitted only to food
but not to people or vessels. But protection attached to food does
not join together with food with regard to a severe level of impurity,
such as the impurity of an animal carcass, which can be transmitted
even to people and vessels.

‫נָלן? דְּ ָתנָ א‬ ַ ‫ֹומ ִרים ְלטו ְּמ ָאה ַק ָּלה ְמ‬ ְ ‫ׁש‬ The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that protection joins
Wheat kernels and husk – ‫״על ָּכל זֶ ַרע זֵ רו ַּע״‬ ַ :‫דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ together with food with regard to a light level of impurity? The
Gemara answers that it is derived from a verse, as the school of
‫ ִח ָּטה‬,‫יעה‬ ָ ‫יאין ִלזְ ִר‬ ִ ִ‫ְּכ ֶד ֶרךְ ׁ ֶש ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם מֹוצ‬
Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the halakhot of imparting
‫ וַ ֲע ָד ׁ ִשים‬,‫עֹורה ִ ּב ְק ִל ּ ָיפ ָת ּה‬
ָ ‫ּש‬ׂ ְ ‫ ו‬,‫ִ ּב ְק ִל ּ ָיפ ָת ּה‬ impurity of food, the verse states: “And if anything falls from their
.‫ִ ּב ְק ִל ּ ָיפ ָתן‬ carcass upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water is
put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for
you” (Leviticus 11:37–38). The phrase “upon any sowing seed” indi-
cates that the entire seed is susceptible to impurity when it is in a
state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for
sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell,b
and lentils in their shells. This demonstrates that shells and other
components that protect the food are considered part of the food
with regard to a light level of impurity.

?‫ֹומ ִרים ְלטו ְּמ ָאה ֲחמו ָּרה ְמ ַנָלן‬ ְ ‫ וְ ל ֹא ׁש‬The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that protection does
ּ ְ :‫ דְּ ָתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬not join together with the food with regard to a severe level of
‫״בנִ ְב ָל ָת ּה״ – וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבעֹור ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬
impurity? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a
.‫ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬
baraita: With regard to the impurity of a carcass, the verse states:
“And if any animal of which you may eat dies, one who touches its
carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). This
indicates that only one who touches the flesh of the carcass becomes
impure, but one who touches the hide of the carcass upon which
there is not an olive-bulk of flesh does not become impure.

Perek IX
Daf 118 Amud a

‫חֹוריו ל ֹא יְ ֵהא‬
ָ ‫ יָ כֹול ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֵמ ֲא‬One might have thought that only one who touches the flesh of
ַ ‫ ָט ֵמא? ַּת ְלמוּד‬the carcass becomes impure, but one who touches the external
.‫לֹומר ״יִ ְט ָמא״‬
side of the hide of the carcass that is aligned with the flesh, but does
not touch the flesh itself, does not become impure. Therefore, the
verse states: “One who touches its carcass shall be impure until
the evening” (Leviticus 11:39). It is derived from the term “shall
be impure” that even one who touches the hide in this manner
becomes impure.

:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְּכ ִדי‬,‫ַמאי ָק ָא ַמר? ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? The first clause of the
– ‫״בנִ ְב ָל ָת ּה״‬ּ ְ ,‫יח ְּס ָרא וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬ ַ ‫ַח ּסו ֵּרי ִמ‬ baraita teaches that the hide does not impart impurity of a carcass
while the latter clause teaches that one who touches the hide does
‫וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבעֹור ׁ ֶש ֵאין ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ עֹור‬
become impure with the impurity of a carcass. Rava said, and some
.‫ַמ ׁ ְש ִלימֹו ְל ַכּזַ יִ ת‬ say it unattributed: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is
teaching: The term “its carcass” teaches that one who touches the
flesh of a carcass becomes impure but one who touches the hide of
a carcass upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh does not
become impure. And even if the volume of the hide together with
the flesh adds up to an olive-bulk, the hide does not join together
with the flesh to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to
impart impurity of an animal carcass.
228 Ĥullin . perek IX . 118a . ‫חיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫יָ כֹול ׁ ֶש ֲאנִי מֹוצִ יא ַאף עֹור ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָע ָליו‬ One might have thought that I remove from the category of impu-
rity of a carcass even a hide upon which there is an olive-bulk of Handle – ‫יָ ד‬: The term handle refers to any part of a person,
,‫חֹוריו‬
ָ ‫ ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֵמ ֲא‬,‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ animal, vessel or food that facilitates usage of the item to
flesh with regard to one who touches the external side of the hide
‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה יָ ד‬,‫יָ כֹול ל ֹא יְ ֵהא ָט ֵמא‬ which it is attached. Therefore, even a carcass can have a
of the carcass that is aligned with the flesh but does not touch the handle that is susceptible to impurity, such as its bones,
?‫נַ ִמי ָלא ָע ֵביד‬ flesh itself. One might have thought that he does not become horns and hooves. Likewise, one who touches the handle
impure in such a case, and that the hide in this case does not even of a carcass is susceptible to impurity as if he touched the
constitute a handlen of the flesh, which would render one who animal itself (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot
touches it impure as though he touched the flesh itself. HaTumot 1:7, 6:13).

.‫לֹומר ״יִ ְט ָמא״‬

ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬Therefore, the verse states: “Shall be impure,”h from which it is
derived that even though an appendage that serves as protection
for the flesh does not join together with the flesh to constitute the
measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal
carcasses, it is considered a handle of the flesh, which does impart
impurity. Therefore, if there is an olive-bulk of flesh attached to the
hide, one who touches the outside of the hide becomes impure,
even if he did not touch the flesh.

ֵ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא יָ ד וְ ל ֹא ׁש‬:‫§ ְּתנַ ן ָה ָתם‬The Gemara discusses the transmission of impurity of food with
– ‫ֹומר‬
.‫ ָט ֵמא ו ְּמ ַט ֵּמא וְ ֵאינֹו ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬regard to accessories that serve as a handle and that provide protec-
tion. We learned in a mishna there (Okatzin 1:1): With regard to
any appendage that serves as a handle, i.e., a part that one holds
while eating the food, but does not provide protection,h the
attached food becomes impure if the handle comes into contact
with a source of impurity, and the handle transmits impurity from
the attached food to other foods that come into contact with the
handle. But the handle does not join together with the food to
constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

‫ וְ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו יָ ד – ָט ֵמא‬,‫ֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ׁש‬With regard to any appendage that provides protection, even if it
ֵ ‫ ל ֹא יָ ד וְ ל ֹא ׁש‬.‫ ו ְּמ ַט ֵּמא ו ִּמצְ ָט ֵרף‬does not serve as a handle, the attached food becomes impure if
– ‫ֹומר‬
the protection comes into contact with an impure item, and the
.‫ל ֹא ָט ֵמא וְ ל ֹא ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬
protection imparts impurity, and it also joins together with the
food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. With
regard to an appendage that does not serve as a handle nor as
protection, the attached food does not become impure if the
appendage comes into contact with a source of impurity, nor does
the appendage impart impurity. In addition, it does not join
together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart
impurity.

‫יָ דֹות ֵה ָיכא ְּכ ִת ִיבי? דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״וְ ִכי יֻ ַּתן ַמיִ ם‬ The Gemara asks: Where is this halakha that handles are suscep-
‫ַעל זֶ ַרע וְ נָ ַפל ִמ ִּנ ְב ָל ָתם ָע ָליו ָט ֵמא הוּא‬ tible to and impart impurity written? The Gemara answers: As it
is written with regard to the impurity of food: “But if water is put
‫ ְל ַר ּבֹות‬,‫״ל ֶכם״ – ְל ָכל ׁ ֶש ְ ּבצָ ְר ֵכ ֶיכם‬ָ .‫ָל ֶכם״‬
on the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for
.‫ֶאת ַהּיָ דֹות‬ you” (Leviticus 11:38). It is derived from the term “for you” that
any part needed for your use of the food is susceptible to impurity
and imparts impurity, including the handles that facilitate the
consumption of the food.

halakha
Therefore the verse states: Shall be impure – ‫לֹומר יִ ְט ָמא‬
ַ ‫ת ְלמוּד‬:ַּ into contact with a source of impurity. In addition, the handle
With regard to the hide of a carcass that is attached to an olive- transmits impurity from the attached food to other foods that
bulk of flesh, a fiber attached to the hide or hair on the outside of come into contact with the handle, but the handle does not
the hide is susceptible to impurity because the hide, along with join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure
its hair, is considered an appendage that protects the flesh. This to impart impurity. With regard to any appendage that provides
halakha applies only if the flesh was detached from the carcass protection but does not serve as a handle, the attached food
by an animal, but if it was detached by a knife, then if the flesh becomes impure if the protection comes into contact with a
is shallow, it is insignificant (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar source of impurity. Moreover, the protection imparts impurity,
Avot HaTumot 1:11). and it also joins together with the food to constitute the requisite
measure to impart impurity. An appendage that does not serve
Any appendage that serves as a handle but does not provide as a handle nor as protection is not susceptible to impurity, nor
protection, etc. – ‫ֹומר וכו׳‬
ֵ ‫כל ׁ ֶשהוּא יָ ד וְ ל ֹא ׁש‬:ָּ With regard to any does it impart impurity, and it does not join together with the
appendage that serves as a handle but does not provide protec- food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity
tion, the attached food becomes impure if the handle comes (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 5:2, 5).

 ‫חיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 118a 229

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב ״וְ ִכי יָ מוּת ִמן ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ֲא ׁ ֶשר ִהיא‬And furthermore it is written with regard to the impurity of a car-
‫ ְל ַר ּבֹות‬,‫יכם‬ ָ ,‫ ָל ֶכם״‬cass: “And if any animal which is for you to consume dies, one who
ֶ ‫״ל ֶכם״ – ְל ָכל ׁ ֶש ְ ּבצָ ְר ֵכ‬
touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus
.‫ יָ ד ְל ַה ְכנִיס ו ְּלהֹוצִ יא‬,‫ֶאת ַהּיָ דֹות‬
11:39). The term “for you” indicates that any part needed for your
use of the carcass imparts impurity, including the handles. One who
touches the handle of an item that is impure with impurity of a car-
cass becomes impure as though he touched the carcass itself. These
two verses teach that a handle transmits impurity both with regard
to importing impurity into the attached food and with regard to
exporting impurity from the attached food.

‫ ַקל‬,‫ֹומר ְל ַה ְכנִיס ו ְּלהֹוצִ יא ָלא צְ ִריךְ ְק ָרא‬ ֵ ‫ ׁש‬A verse is not needed to derive that protection both imports and
ֶ ָ‫ ו‬exports impurity. This halakha is inferred a fortiori from the hal-
– ‫ ו ַּמה ּיָ ד ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה ְמגִ ָּינה‬:‫ ִמּיָ ד ָא ֵתי‬,‫חֹומר‬
akha of a handle: If a handle, which is treated more leniently than
!‫ֹומר – ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬ ֵ ‫ ׁש‬,‫יאה‬ ָ ִ‫נֶסת וּמֹוצ‬ֶ ‫ַמ ְכ‬
protection because it does not protect the food, nevertheless both
imports and exports impurity, then with regard to protection,
which is treated more stringently than a handle because it protects
the food, should it not all the more so import and export impurity?n

:‫ֹומר דִּ ְכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָל ָּמה ִלי – ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬

ֵ ‫ ׁש‬Since this is so, why do I need the verse that the Merciful One
.‫ ְל ָצ ֵרף‬writes from which it is derived that protection is considered part of
the food with regard to ritual impurity, i.e., the verses: “Upon any
sowing seed that is sown…It is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:37–38)?
Conclude from these verses that protection not only imparts impu-
rity, but even joins together with the food to constitute the requisite
measure to impart impurity.

– ‫ֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ׁש‬,‫ יָ ד – ְל ַה ְכנִיס וְ ל ֹא ְלהֹוצִ יא‬:‫ימא‬
ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara challenges: But say that these verses should be inter-
ֵ ‫ וְ ׁש‬,‫ ֲא ָבל יָ ד ְלהֹוצִ יא‬,‫ ְל ַה ְכנִיס ו ְּלהֹוצִ יא‬preted differently: A handle, which is treated more leniently than
‫ֹומר‬
protection, is considered part of the food such that it imports but
!‫ְל ָצ ֵרף – ל ֹא‬
does not export impurity. Protection, which is treated more strin-
gently than a handle, is considered like food to import and export
impurity. But it is not derived that a handle exports impurity nor
that protection joins together with the food to constitute the
requisite measure to impart impurity.

,‫ יָ ד ְל ַה ְכנִיס וְ ל ֹא ְלהֹוצִ יא ָלא ָמצֵ ית ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬The Gemara explains: You cannot say that a handle is considered
!?‫יב ֲעיָ א‬ ּ ָ ‫ ַא ּפו ֵּקי ִמ‬,‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא ַעּיו ֵּלי ְמ ַעּיְ ָילא‬part of the food such that it imports but does not export impurity
for the following reason: Now that the handle is considered part of
the food with regard to importing impurity into the food, is it neces-
sary to state that it exports impurity?n If a handle can cause ritually
pure food attached to it to become impure, certainly it can transmit
the impurity of impure food attached to it to other foods. Conse-
quently, since a handle both imports and exports impurity, it is
inferred a fortiori that protection also imports and exports impurity.
It is therefore derived from the verse concerning appendages that
serve as protection that protection joins together with the food to
constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

– ‫ֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ׁש‬,‫ יָ ד – ְלהֹוצִ יא וְ ל ֹא ְל ַה ְכנִיס‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara challenges: But say instead that a handle, which is
ֵ ‫ ֲא ָבל יָ ד ְל ַה ְכנִיס וְ ׁש‬,‫ ְלהֹוצִ יא ו ְּל ַה ְכנִיס‬treated more leniently than protection, is considered part of the food
‫ֹומר‬
such that it exports but does not import impurity. Protection,
!‫ְל ָצ ֵרף – ָלא‬
which is treated more stringently than a handle, both exports and
imports impurity. But it is not derived that a handle imports impu-
rity nor that protection joins together with the food to constitute
the requisite measure to impart impurity.

notes
Protection, should it not all the more so import and export The early commentaries explain that if a handle imports impurity
impurity – ‫ֹומר ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬
ֵ ‫ש‬:ׁ Protection serves a more important from an external source into the object to which it is attached, this
role than that of a handle, as without protection the object would indicates that the status of the object follows that of its handle. If
be destroyed. A handle facilitates using the object but is not that is so, then it is logical that the status of the handle also follows
essential to the existence of the object. Therefore, if a handle is that of the object, and the handle exports impurity from that object
considered a necessary component of the object, then all the and imparts the impurity to an external object that it touches
more so protection is considered a necessary component of the (Ran). The later commentaries disagree with this explanation and
object (Yosef Da’at). understand that exporting impurity does not mean that impurity is
exported from one object to another object via the handle. Rather,
Now that the handle is importing impurity, is it necessary to it means that the handle itself becomes impure if the object to
state that it exports impurity – ‫יב ֲעיָ א‬ ּ ָ ‫ה ׁ ְש ָּתא ַעּיו ֵּלי ְמ ַעּיְ ָילא ַא ּפו ֵּקי ִמ‬:ָ which it is attached is impure (Torat Ĥayyim).

230 Ĥullin . perek IX . 118a . ‫חיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

.‫״תנּ וּר וְ ִכ ַיריִ ם יֻ ָּתץ״ וגו׳‬

ַּ ‫ יָ ד יְ ֵת ָירא ְּכ ִתיב‬The Gemara explains: There is an additional derivation with regard
to a handle, as it is written with regard to the impurity of vessels:
“And everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall
be impure; whether an oven, or a range for pots, it shall be
broken in pieces; they are impure, and shall be impure for you”
(Leviticus 11:35).

‫ ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת‬,‫יכם‬
ֶ ‫״ל ֶכם״ – ְל ָכל ׁ ֶש ְ ּבצָ ְר ֵכ‬ ָ It is derived from the term “for you” that any part needed for your
.‫ ַהּיָ דֹות‬use of a vessel has the impurity status of the vessel itself, including
the handles. Therefore, if the vessel comes into contact with a
source of impurity, the handle is considered part of the vessel and
is also rendered impure. Consequently, there are two derivations
with regard to a handle: One teaches that a handle imports impurity
into the object to which it is attached, and the other teaches that a
handle exports impurity from the object. It is derived through a
fortiori inference from the halakha of a handle that protection both
imports and exports impurity, and therefore the verse that states
“Upon any sowing seed” teaches that protection joins together with
the food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

?‫יתר‬
ַּ ַ‫ ִהי ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו ִמּי‬The Gemara asks: With regard to these three verses that are inter-
preted as referring to handles, one of which discusses the impurity
of food, one of which discusses the impurity of vessels, and one of
which discusses the impurity of carcasses, which of them is super-
fluous such that one can derive from it that a handle does not
merely export impurity from the food but imports impurity to the
food as well? All of these verses are necessary to teach that a handle
exports impurity.

,ּ‫ וְ ֵלית ּו ָהנָ ךְ ִמ ּינַיְ יהו‬,‫ ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִ ּבזְ ָר ִעים‬The Gemara elaborates on the question: Let the Merciful One
!‫ ַמה ִּלזְ ָר ִעים ׁ ֶש ֵּכן טו ְּמ ָא ָתן ְמרו ָ ּּבה‬write that a handle exports impurity with regard to the impurity
of seeds, i.e., food, and let those matters, i.e., that it exports the
impurity of vessels and animal carcasses, be derived from it. But
one cannot infer from the impurity of food that a handle exports
the impurity of vessels, as what is notable about seeds? It is notable
in that they have a greater susceptibility to impurity. Food is
susceptible to even second-degree impurity, whereas vessels are
susceptible to only first-degree impurity. Likewise, one cannot
derive from the impurity of food that a handle exports the impurity
of an animal carcass because the impurity of food applies to more
items, as is taught in the mishna that some items are susceptible to
the impurity of food but not to the impurity of animal carcasses.

– ‫ֵיה‬
ּ ‫יתי ָהנָ ךְ ִמ ּינ‬ֵ ‫ וְ ֵל‬,‫ ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ְ ּב ַתנּ וּר‬Let the Merciful One write that a handle exports impurity with
!‫ ַמה ְּל ַתנּ וּר ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְמ ַט ֵּמא ֵמ ֲאוִ ירֹו‬regard to the impurity of an oven, i.e., vessels, and let those matters,
i.e., that it exports the impurity of food and the impurity of an
animal carcass, be derived from it. But this inference is also not
valid, as what is notable about the impurity of an oven? It is notable
in that a vessel transmits impurity to foods not only through
contact but also through its airspace, whereas those other types
of impurity do not share this element of stringency.

– ‫יתי ָהנָ ךְ ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵל‬,‫ ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִ ּבנְ ֵב ָלה‬Let the Merciful One write that a handle exports impurity with
‫ ו ְּמ ַט ְּמ ָאה‬,‫ ַמה ִּלנְ ֵב ָלה ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה ָא ָדם‬regard to the impurity of an animal carcass, and let those matters,
i.e., that it exports the impurity of food and of vessels, be derived
!‫ וְ טו ְּמ ָאה יֹוצְ ָאה ִמגּ ו ָּפ ּה‬,‫ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬
from it. But this inference is also not valid, as what is notable
about the impurity of a carcass? It is notable in that a carcass
transmits impurity to a person, and transmits impurity to one
carrying the carcass even if he is not touching it, and its impurity
emanates from its body and does not originate from an external
source. Those other types of impurity do not share these elements
of stringency.

.‫ ֵּת ֵיתי ֲח ָדא ִמ ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬,‫ ֲח ָדא ֵמ ֲח ָדא ָלא ָא ְתיָא‬The Gemara answers: The halakha of one of these three types of
ritual impurity cannot be derived from the halakha of any one
of the others. Yet, one of the verses is still superfluous because
one can derive the halakha of one of these three types from the
other two.
 ‫חיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 118a 231
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫יתי‬
ֵ ‫יתי? ָלא ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִ ּבזְ ָר ִעים וְ ֵת‬ֵ ‫ֵהי ֵּת‬ The Gemara asks: Which can one derive from the other two? Let
Produce that is not rendered susceptible is the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity with
equivalent to an oven whose construction is not ‫ֵמ ָהנָ ְך – ַמה ְּל ָהנָ ְך ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ִמ ַּט ְּמ ִאין ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא‬
regard to the impurity of seeds, i.e., food, and derive this halakha
complete – ‫ּ ֵפירֹות ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא הו ְּכ ׁ ְשר ּו ְּכ ַתנּ וּר ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא נִ גְ ְמ ָרה‬ ‫ֹאמר ִ ּבזְ ָר ִעים ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמ ַּט ְּמ ִאין ֶא ָּלא‬
ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫ְ ּב ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬
‫אכ ּתֹו דָּ ֵמי‬
ְ ‫מ ַל‬:ְ Produce is rendered susceptible to from those two other cases, the impurity of carcasses and of vessels.
!‫ְ ּב ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬ But this inference is not valid, as what is notable about those cases?
impurity only after coming into contact with one of
seven liquids. Although this is a Torah edict, the com- They are notable in that they become ritually impure without first
mentaries provide a reason for it: Laws of the Torah being rendered susceptible to impurity by coming into contact
are applicable to objects only after their construction with liquid. Shall you say the same halakha with regard to seeds,
is complete. So too, produce becomes susceptible
which do not share this element of stringency, as food can become
to impurity only after the dirt is washed off with
liquid and the produce is rendered edible food. For
impure only after first being rendered susceptible to impurity by
the same reason, the owner of the produce must coming into contact with liquid?
want the liquid to come into contact with the pro-
duce, because only in this way is contact with liquid ‫ ּ ֵפירֹות ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬:‫יְהֹוש ַע‬
ֻ ׁ ‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This element of leniency
considered an act that transforms the produce into ְ ‫ ְּכ ַתנּ וּר ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נִ גְ ְמ ָרה ְמ ַל‬,ּ‫ הו ְּכ ׁ ְשרו‬is not unique to the impurity of food. Produce that is not rendered
.‫אכ ּתֹו דָּ ֵמי‬
food. Alternatively, the Ramban explains that residue susceptible to impurity by coming into contact with liquid is
of creeping animals and other sources of impurity equivalent to an oven whose construction is not complete.n An
sticks to wet produce but not to dry produce, and oven whose construction is incomplete is also not susceptible
therefore the Torah is concerned with produce that
to impurity.
is wet. Moreover, even after the produce dries it is
still susceptible to impurity, because the Torah did
not render its laws subject to circumstance (see
‫ ַמה ְּל ָהנָ ךְ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ִמ ַּט ְּמ ִאין ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא ּ ָפ ֵריךְ ָה ִכי‬Rather, refute this derivation in the following manner: What is
Rashi, Rashbam, Ramban, and Sefer HaĤinnukh on ‫ֹאמר ִ ּבזְ ָר ִעים ׁ ֶש ֵאין ִמ ַּט ְּמ ִאין ֶא ָּלא‬ ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫יעה‬ ָ ִ‫ ִ ּבנְ ג‬notable about those cases of impurity of carcasses and vessels?
Leviticus 11:38). They are notable in that they become impure even without
!‫יעה‬ ָ ִ‫ִ ּבנְ ג‬
contact.n An oven becomes impure if a creeping animal is within
What is notable about those? They are notable
in that they become impure even without con-
its airspace, and the impurity of an animal carcass originates from
ָ ִ‫מה ְּל ָהנָ ךְ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ִמ ַּט ְּמ ִאין ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּבנְ ג‬:ַ The
tact, etc. – ‫יעה וכו׳‬ its own body without contact with an external source. Shall you
Gemara here is contrasting the cases discussed in the state the same halakha with regard to seeds, which become
verses and not the halakhot of impurity. The halakha impure only through contact?
is that foods can also become impure in a manner
other than contact, e.g., through being carried or ‫ ָלא ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ְ ּב ַתנּ וּר וְ ֵת ֵיתי ֵמ ָהנָ ךְ – ַמה‬Let the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity
being in a tent together with a source of impurity.
ֶ ‫ ְּל ָהנָ ךְ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬with regard to the impurity of an oven, i.e., vessels, and derive this
!‫אֹוכל‬
But the verse with regard to seeds is discussing a halakha from those cases, the impurity of food and carcasses. But
case of food becoming impure through contact,
whereas the verses discussing carcasses and vessels
this derivation is not valid, as what is notable about those cases of
include cases of becoming impure without contact. the impurity of food and carcasses? They are notable in that they
Since the distinction between these impurities is are food. Therefore, their halakhot cannot necessarily be applied
based on a reading of the verses and not on hal- to an oven and other vessels that are not food.
akhot, Rashi points out that any manner of objection
is sufficient in this discussion to reject a proposed ‫ ָלא ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִ ּבנְ ֵב ָלה וְ ֵת ֵיתי ֵמ ָהנָ ךְ – ִאין‬Let the Merciful One not write that a handle exports impurity
derivation. Alternatively, other commentaries read ‫ ֶא ָּלא יָ ד דִּ נְ ֵב ָלה ָל ָּמה ִלי? ִאם ֵאינֹו‬.‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬with regard to a carcass and derive this halakha from those cases
the Gemara differently: What is notable about those of the impurity of food and vessels. The Gemara responds: Yes, it
cases of impurity of carcasses and vessels? They ,‫ ְּתנֵ ה ּו ִענְיָ ן ְליָ ד דְּ ָע ְל ָמא‬,‫ִענְיָ ן ְליַ ד נְ ֵב ָלה‬
is indeed so. Rather, since one can derive in such a manner that a
are notable in that they both impart impurity even
without contact. Shall you state the same halakha
handle attached to a carcass imparts impurity, why do I need the
with regard to seeds, which impart impurity only verse to state the halakha of a handle with regard to the impurity
through contact? According to this reading there is of a carcass? If it is not needed for the matter of a handle with
a fundamental difference between these halakhot regard to the impurity of a carcass, apply it to the matter of a
of impurity, because food imparts impurity only handle in general with regard to food, and derive from it that a
through contact, which is not the case for a carcass handle imports impurity to the food.
and a vessel (Rashash).
.‫ֹומר – ְל ָצ ֵרף‬
ֵ ‫ ׁש‬,‫ יָ ד – ְלהֹוצִ יא‬,‫ יָ ד – ְל ַה ְכנִיס‬Therefore, in summary, one can derive that a handle imports impu-
rity and that a handle exports impurity, and one can infer that
protection imports and exports impurity a fortiori from the halakha
of a handle. It is therefore derived from the verse concerning pro-
tection that protection joins together with the food to constitute
the requisite measure to impart impurity.

‫ דְּ ִאי ָלא ְּכ ַתב‬,‫וְ ַא ַּכ ִּתי יָ ד דִּ נְ ֵב ָלה ִאצְ ְט ִריך‬ The Gemara challenges: But it is still necessary for the verse to
‫ דַּ ּיֹו ַל ָ ּבא ִמן ַהדִּ ין‬:‫ַר ֲח ָמנָא ִ ּבנְ ֵב ָלה ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָא‬ state the halakha that a handle exports impurity with regard to
the impurity of a carcass; as, if the Merciful One had not written
‫ ָמה ָהנָ ךְ ל ֹא ְמ ַט ֵּמא ָא ָדם ַאף‬,‫ִל ְהיֹות ַּכ ִּנדּ ֹון‬
the halakha of a handle with regard to impurity of a carcass, I
!‫נְ ֵב ָלה ל ֹא ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה ָא ָדם‬ would say: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from
an a fortiori inference to be like its source. In this case, a halakha
with regard to the impurity of carcasses which is inferred a fortiori
from the cases of impurity of food and impurity of vessels is no
more stringent than the source from which it is derived. Just as
handles in these cases of impurity of food and vessels do not
transmit impurity to a person, so too the handle of a carcass
does not transmit impurity to a person. Therefore, the verse
from which it is derived that a handle exports the impurity of
a carcass is necessary, and cannot be applied to the matter of
importing impurity.
232 Ĥullin . perek IX . 118a . ‫חיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ׁש‬,‫יך‬ְ ‫ יָ ד דִּ נְ ֵב ָלה ִמיצְ ַרך צְ ִר‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ The Gemara answers: Rather, it is necessary for the verse to state
‫ ְל ַמאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬, ְ‫דִּ נְ ֵב ָלה הוּא דְּ ָלא צְ ִריך‬ the halakha of a handle with regard to the impurity of a carcass, but
it is not necessary for the verse to state the halakha of protection
:‫יה ַר ֲח ָמנָא? ִאי ְל ִאיצְ ְטרו ֵּפי – ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬
ּ ‫ְּכ ָת ֵב‬
with regard to the impurity of a carcass. With regard to what hal-
‫חֹומר ִמּיָ ד‬ ֶ ָ‫ ו ְּלהֹוצִ יא – ַקל ו‬,‫ל ֹא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬ akha does the Merciful One write that verse? If it is teaching that
,‫ָא ֵתי‬ protection joins together with the carcass to constitute the requisite
measure to impart impurity, you said that protection does not join
together with the carcass to constitute the requisite measure to
impart impurity. And if it is teaching that protection exports the
impurity of a carcass, it is not necessary to teach that, because that
halakha is inferred a fortiori from the halakha of a handle.

– ‫ֹומר דִּ נְ ֵב ָלה‬ ֵ ‫ ִאם ֵאין ִענְ יָ ן ְל ׁש‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ Rather, if it is not needed for the matter of protection of a carcass,
‫ וְ ִאם ֵאינֹו ִענְ יָ ן‬,‫ְּתנֵ ה ּו ִענְ יָ ן ְליָ ד דִּ נְ ֵב ָלה‬ apply it to the matter of the handle of a carcass. And if it is not
needed for the matter of a handle of a carcass, apply it to the matter
– ‫ יָ ד‬,‫ְליָ ד דִּ נְ ֵב ָלה – ְּתנֵ ה ּו ִענְיָ ן ְליָ ד דְּ ָע ְל ָמא‬
of a handle in general, and derive from it that a handle imports
.‫ֹומר – ְל ָצ ֵרף‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ׁש‬,‫ יָ ד – ְל ַה ְכנִיס‬,‫ְלהֹוצִ יא‬ impurity. Therefore, in summary, one can derive that a handle
exports impurity and that a handle imports impurity, and one
can derive from the verse concerning protection with regard to the
impurity of food that protection joins together with the food to
constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

Perek IX
Daf 118 Amud b

– ‫ֹומר דִּ נְ ֵב ָלה‬

ֵ ‫ ִאם ֵאינֹו ִענְיָ ן ְל ׁש‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬The Gemara asks: Why is it assumed that if the verse is not needed
‫ֹומר ְל ַה ְכנִיס‬ ֵ ‫ ְּתנֵ ה ּו ִענְיָ ן ְל ׁש‬for the matter of protection of a carcass, it should be applied to the
ֵ ‫ ׁש‬,‫ֹומר דְּ ָע ְל ָמא‬
matter of a handle in general? Say that if the verse is not needed for
!‫ ֲא ָבל יָ ד ְל ַה ְכנִיס – ָלא‬,‫ֹומר ְל ָצ ֵרף‬ ֵ ‫וְ ׁש‬
the matter of protection of a carcass, apply it to the matter of
protection in general with regard to food. Although it is already
written: “Upon any sowing seed” (Leviticus 11:37), two verses are
necessary to teach the halakha of protection with regard to food:
One verse to teach that protection imports impurity and one to
teach that protection joins together with the food to constitute the
requisite measure to impart impurity. But there is no source from
which to derive that a handle imports impurity.

‫נָסה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ֵמ ִע‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara answers: The halakha that a handle imports impurity is
ָ ‫יק ָרא ִּכי ְּכ ִת ָיבא יָ ד – ַא ַה ְכ‬
.‫ ְּכ ִת ָיבא‬not derived from the superfluous verse written with regard to the
impurity of a carcass. Rather, it is necessary to return to the explana-
tion that was initially proposed, i.e., that it is written with regard to
the impurity of food: “It is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38), from
which it is derived that any part needed for your use of the food
imparts impurity, including handles. It was asked with regard to this
derivation: Say that this verse teaches that a handle exports impurity
but not that it imports impurity. The Gemara suggests: That question
is not difficult. From the outset, when the halakha of a handle is
written: “But if water is put upon the seed, and any of their carcass
falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38), it is written in the
context of importing impurity. Therefore, it is inferred a fortiori that
a handle exports impurity from the halakha that it imports impurity,
and it is derived a fortiori from the halakhot of a handle that protec-
tion both imports and exports impurity. It is also derived that protec-
tion joins together with the food to constitute the requisite measure
to impart impurity from that which is written: “On any sowing seed.”

.‫יה‬ ֵ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁש‬The Gemara asks: But if that is so, why do I need the verse to teach
ּ ‫ֹומר דִּ נְ ֵב ָלה ָל ָּמה ִלי? ְלגו ֵּפ‬
the halakha of protection with regard to a carcass, as it is written:
“Shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:39)? The Gemara answers: It is neces-
sary for the matter itself, to teach that the halakha of protection is
applicable to the impurity of a carcass.
 ‫חיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 118b 233
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
.‫ ל ֹא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬:‫ו ְּל ַמאי? ִאי ְל ִאצְ ָטרו ֵּפי – ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬ The Gemara asks: And with regard to what halakha is this taught?
The protrusion [pitma] of a pomegranate – ‫יט ָמא‬ ְ ‫ַה ּ ִפ‬ If it teaches that protection joins together with the carcass to con-
‫של ִר ּמֹון‬:
ֶ ׁ According to one opinion the pitma is the ‫חֹומר ִמּיָ ד‬
ֶ ָ‫ִאי ְל ַה ְכנִיס ו ְּלהֹוצִ יא – ַקל ו‬
ְּ ‫ָא ְתיָ א! ִמ‬ stitute the requisite measure to impart impurity, you said in the
calyx, also known as the crown. Some commentaries ‫חֹומר ְט ַרח‬ ֶ ָ‫יל ָתא דְּ ָא ְתיָ א ְ ּב ַקל ו‬
explain that the pitma is referring to the flower above mishna that protection does not join together with the carcass to
.‫ו ְּכ ַתב ָל ּה ְק ָרא‬ constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. If it teaches
the fruit, similar to the flower that grows on the top of
an apple (Rashi on Berakhot 36b). Others explain that that protection imports and exports the impurity of a carcass, it
the pitma is referring to the protuberance underneath is not necessary for the verse to teach this halakha because it is
the stamen (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna). inferred a fortiori from the halakhot of a handle. The Gemara
answers: Sometimes there is a matter that could be inferred a
fortiori, and the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes
it explicitly.

,‫ימא ָלךְ – ְל ַה ְכנִיס‬ָ ‫ֹומר דְּ ָע ְל ָמא ֵא‬

ֵ ‫ ׁש‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara objects: If so, one may ask: With regard to protection
ֶ ָ‫ ו ִּמ ְּל ָתא דְּ ָא ֵתי ְ ּב ַקל ו‬in general, i.e., with regard to food, it was established that the verse
‫חֹומר ְט ַרח ו ְּכ ַתב ָל ּה‬
is not necessary to teach that it imports and exports impurity, and
!‫ְק ָרא‬
therefore the verse teaches that protection joins together with the
food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. I will
say to you instead that the verse teaches that protection imports
impurity, and the reason that the verse teaches this halakha even
though it could be inferred a fortiori is because sometimes there is
a matter that could be inferred a fortiori and the verse neverthe-
less takes the trouble and writes it explicitly.

.‫ דָּ ְר ׁ ִשינַן‬,‫יכא ְל ִמ ְיד ַר ׁש‬

ָּ ‫יכא דְּ ִא‬
ָ ‫ ֵה‬The Gemara answers: Where it is possible to interpret the verse in
a manner that a novelty is derived, we interpret it in such a manner
and do not maintain that the verse teaches that which could be
inferred a fortiori.
Cross section of the top of a pomegranate ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫ֹומר דִּ נְ ֵב ָלה‬
ֵ ‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ׁש‬:‫ ַרב ֲח ִב ָיבא ֲא ַמר‬The Gemara returns to the previous proposal to derive that a handle
.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה יָ ד ָקא ָע ֵביד – ַאּיָ ד ׁ ָש ֵדינַן ֵל‬imports impurity from the verse concerning protection of a carcass
based on the reasoning that if the verse is not needed for the matter
of protection of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of a
handle in general. Previously, the Gemara challenged this deriva-
tion: If the verse is not needed for the matter of protection for the
impurity of a carcass, it should be applied to the matter of protec-
tion in general. Rav Ĥaviva said in response: The halakha of pro-
tection of a carcass is different because it imports and exports
impurity but does not join together with the carcass to constitute
the requisite measure to impart impurity. Since the protection
serves as a handle in that it only imports and exports impurity, we
apply its novelty to the halakhot of a handle and not to the halakhot
of protection.

‫ ָהא‬,‫§ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ַ ּבר יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬Previously it was derived that protection joins together with the
‫ וְ ַה ּנֵץ‬,‫יט ָמא ׁ ֶשל ִר ּמֹון – ִמצְ ָט ֶר ֶפת‬ ְ ‫ ַה ּ ִפ‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬food to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity from
that which is written: “On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus
.‫ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו – ֵאין ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬
11:37), indicating that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity
when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the
field for sowing, e.g., wheat and barley in their shells. Rav Yehuda
bar Yishmael objects to this from that which we learned in a
mishna (Okatzin 2:3): The protrusion of a pomegranaten joins
together with the pomegranate to constitute the measure of an
egg-bulk that is required to impart impurity, because it provides
protection for the fruit. But its flower does not join togetherh with
the pomegranate in that regard because it does not provide protec-
tion for the fruit; rather, it provides protection for the protection
of the fruit.

halakha
The protrusion of a pomegranate joins together but its flower required to impart impurity. But its flower does not join together
does not join together – ‫יט ָמא ׁ ֶשל ִר ּמֹון ִמצְ ָט ֶר ֶפת וְ ַה ּנֵץ ׁ ֶש ּלֹו ֵאין‬
ְ ‫ַה ּ ִפ‬ with the pomegranate in that calculation (Rambam Sefer Tahara,
‫מצְ ָט ֵרף‬:ִ The protrusion of a pomegranate joins together with the Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 5:21).
pomegranate to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk that is

234 Ĥullin . perek IX . 118b . ‫חיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
,‫״על ָּכל זֶ ַרע זֵ ר ּו ַע״‬
ַ ‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי? ְק ֵרי ָּכאן‬Rav Yehuda bar Yishmael asks: And why does the protrusion join
Rendering susceptible to impurity – ‫ה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬:ֶ In order
ָּ ‫ וְ ֵל‬together with the pomegranate to constitute an egg-bulk? Read here
!‫יכא‬ for agricultural produce to become capable of con-
that the verse states: “On any sowing seed,” indicating that the entire tracting ritual impurity, it must be detached from
seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is the earth and then come into contact with water
typically taken out to the field for sowing. But pomegranates are not or certain other liquids. The owner of the produce
typically taken out to the field for sowing with their protrusions, since must approve of the fact that the produce became
they are usually planted in the field as seedlings. wet. If the owner was not pleased, the produce still
cannot contract ritual impurity. The Talmud contains
ָ ‫רֹוטב וְ ַה ִּק‬
‫יפה‬ ֶ ‫ ָהעֹור וְ ָה‬:‫ ָהא דִּ ְתנַ ן‬,ּ‫ וְ תו‬And furthermore, one can object to this derivation from that which numerous discussions about specific instances in
which there is uncertainty as to whether or not these
ָ ‫ וכו׳ – ִמצְ ָט ֵרף ְל ַט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ַאת‬we learned in the mishna: The hide and the congealed gravy attached
,‫אֹוכ ִלים‬ conditions have been fulfilled.
to the meat, and the spices, and the meat residue, and the bones, and
!‫ְמ ַנָלן‬
the tendons, and the lower section of the horns, and the section of
the hooves, all join together with the meat to constitute the requisite halakha

egg-bulk to impart impurity of food. From where do we derive that There is a handle with regard to impurity and
with regard to rendering the food susceptible to
these protections, although they are not sown together with the food,
impurity – ‫יֵ ׁש יָ ד ְלטו ְּמ ָאה ו ְּל ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬: Just as a handle
join together with the food to constitute the requisite measure to can become impure and imports and exports impu-
impart impurity? rity with regard to the attached food, so too a handle
renders the attached food susceptible to impurity
‫״על ָּכל זֶ ַרע‬ ַ :‫ ְּת ָל ָתא ְק ָר ֵאי ְּכ ִת ִיבי‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ Rather, three terms with the root zayin, reish, ayin are written in the even if only the handle came into contact with liq-
,‫ֹומר דִּ זְ ָר ִעים‬
ֵ ‫ ַחד – ְל ׁש‬,‫זֵ רו ַּע ֲא ׁ ֶשר יִ ּזָ ֵר ַע״‬ verse with regard to protection: “On any sowing [zerua] seed [zera] uid. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of
that is sown [yizzare’a].” One term is written to teach the halakha of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat
‫ֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ִא ָידךְ – ְל ׁש‬,‫ֹומר דְּ ִא ָילנֹות‬ ֵ ‫וְ ַחד – ְל ׁש‬ Okhalin 5:3).
protection with regard to seeds,n and one is written to teach the
.‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ו ֵּביצִ ים וְ ָדגִ ים‬ halakha of protection with regard to trees, and the other term is
written to teach the halakha of protection with regard to meat, and
eggs, and fish. Accordingly, this halakha is not limited to protection
that is sown together with the food.

‫ יֵ ׁש יָ ד‬:‫§ ָא ַמר ַרב ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר ַרב‬It is written: “And if anything falls from their carcass upon any sow-
.‫ ְלטו ְּמ ָאה וְ ֵאין יָ ד ְל ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬ing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water is put upon the seed, and
any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:37–38).
Previously, the Gemara derived from this verse that an appendage
that serves as a handle both imports impurity to and exports impurity
from the food. In addition, the simple understanding teaches that
food can become impure only after first being rendered susceptible
to impurity by coming into contact with liquid. With regard to these
two halakhot, Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav says: There is sig-
nificance to a handle with regard to importing and exporting impu-
rity, i.e., a handle imports impurity to and exports impurity from to
the attached food, but there is no significance to a handle with
regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity.bn
Rather, the food itself must come into contact with liquid directly.

.‫ ׁיֵש יָ ד ְלטו ְּמ ָאה ו ְּל ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬

ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yoĥanan says: There is significance to a handle with
regard to importing impurity to and exporting impurity from the
attached food, and with regard to rendering the attached food sus-
ceptible to impurityh even if only the handle came into contact
with liquid.

,‫ימא – ְס ָב ָרא‬
ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬
ּ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י? ִא‬The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do Rav and Rabbi Yoĥanan
.‫ימא ְק ָרא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬disagree? If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to a logical
argument. If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to the
interpretation of a verse.

notes
One term to teach the halakha of protection with regard to But there is no significance to a handle with regard to rendering
seeds, etc. – ‫ֹומר דִּ זְ ָר ִעים וכו׳‬
ֵ ‫חד ְל ׁש‬:ַ The verses teach these three the attached food susceptible to impurity – ‫וְ ֵאין יָ ד ְל ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬: The
types of protections in order of increasing novelty. The first verse early commentaries explain that Rav and Rabbi Yoĥanan disagree
teaches that since the protective shell of a seed is planted with only with regard to whether liquid that comes into contact with
the seed, it also joins together with the seed that it protects to a handle renders the attached food susceptible to impurity. But if
constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. The second liquid comes into contact with an appendage serving as protec-
verse teaches a greater novelty: Even protection of produce that tion, they both agree that it renders the attached food susceptible
is not normally planted with the produce joins together with the to impurity. This is because the halakha that liquid renders food
produce to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. susceptible to impurity is derived from that which is written: “But if
The third verse teaches an even greater novelty: This halakha is water is put on the seed,” and the term seed is interpreted in that
applicable not only to protection of produce, which can be planted verse to include any protection with which it is sown (Ramban;
together with the produce, but even to protection of a food that is Rashba; Ran; Tosefot HaRosh).
not planted at all, such as the hide of an animal, the scales of fish,
and the shell of an egg.

 ‫חיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 118b 235

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ִמ ְק ָרא‬:‫ימא ְק ָרא – ָמר ְס ַבר‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that they disagree with regard
Rendering food susceptible to impurity is the initial
stage of impurity – ‫ה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ְּת ִח ַּלת טו ְּמ ָאה הוּא‬:ֶ The later .‫ וְ ל ֹא ִל ְפנֵי ָפנָיו‬,‫ נִ ְד ָר ׁש ְל ָפנָיו‬to the interpretation of a verse. One Sage, Rav, holds that a verse
commentaries question this principle, as it appears
is interpreted homiletically based on juxtaposition to the term
contrary to that which was previously taught: Produce immediately preceding it and not based on juxtaposition to the
that is not rendered susceptible to impurity by coming term before the one preceding it. In this case, the verse states: “For
into contact with liquid is considered equivalent to an you,” indicating inclusion of a handle with regard to the matter of
oven whose construction is not complete. They answer imparting impurity, which is stated in the preceding phrase: “It is
as follows: Since some produce needs to be washed impure,” but not with regard to the matter of rendering the attached
with liquid in order to be edible, the Torah decreed that
food susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid which is
contact with liquid is considered the completion of the
produce with regard to it becoming edible. Although
stated before the preceding phrase: “If water is put.”
this is not true with regard to all produce, the Torah nev-
ertheless applies this halakha to all produce because .‫ ִמ ְק ָרא ְנִד ָר ׁש ְל ָפנָיו וְ ִל ְפנֵי ָפנָיו‬:‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬And one Sage, Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds that a verse is interpreted
the Merciful One does not distinguish between different homiletically based on juxtaposition to the term immediately pre-
cases. Therefore, it is possible to view rendering food ceding it, as well as to the term before the one preceding it. There-
susceptible to impurity as the beginning of the process fore, he maintains that a handle can also render the attached food
of becoming impure (Beit Yishai). susceptible to impurity.
Rav says: There is no handle for less than an olive-bulk,
and there is no protection for less than a bean-bulk – ‫ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬:‫ימא ְס ָב ָרא – ָמר ְס ַבר‬
ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬If you wish, say that they disagree with regard to a logical argument.
‫ֹומר ְל ָפחֹות ִמ ְּכפֹול‬
ֵ ‫א ַמר ַרב ֵאין יָ ד ְל ָפחֹות ִמ ַּכּזַ יִ ת וְ ֵאין ׁש‬:
ָ The ‫ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬:‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬.‫ ְּת ִח ַּלת טו ְּמ ָאה הוּא‬One Sage, Rabbi Yoĥanan, holds that rendering food susceptible
early commentaries explain the reason for Rav’s opinion to impurity is the initial stage of the process of imparting impurityn
.‫ָלאו ְּת ִח ַּלת טו ְּמ ָאה הוּא‬
that a handle attached to less than an olive-bulk of food to it. Therefore, just as a handle imparts impurity, it can also render
is not considered a handle with regard to imparting the food susceptible to impurity. And one Sage, Rav, holds that
impurity, while protection attached to less than a bean- rendering food susceptible to impurity is not the initial stage of
bulk of food is not considered protection with regard
the process of imparting impurity.
to imparting impurity. According to Rashi, Rav applies
these two measures because they are considered signifi-
cant amounts. According to the Ramban, Rav holds that
‫ ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש יָ ד‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ָ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ות‬ ֵ ָ‫ַּתנְיָא ְּכו‬ It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
an olive-bulk is the minimum measure with regard to a ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬.‫ ָּכךְ ׁיֵש יָ ד ְל ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬,‫ְלטו ְּמ ָאה‬ Yoĥanan: Just as there is significance to a handle with regard to
handle because this is the measure that imparts impurity imparting impurity to food, so too there is significance to a handle
‫ ָּכ ְך‬,ּ‫ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה ֶא ָּלא ִל ְכ ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּת ְל ׁשו‬
with regard to a carcass and a corpse. With regard to pro- with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity.
tection, a bean-bulk is the minimum measure because .ּ‫ֵאין ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ֶא ָּלא ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּת ְל ׁשו‬ And just as produce is susceptible to contracting impurity only
the halakha of protection is derived from the verse: “On when it is detached from the soil,h so too produce cannot be ren-
any sowing seed,” and the largest type of seed is a bean. dered susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid until it
And Rabbi Yoĥanan says: There is a handle for less is detached from the soil.h
than an olive-bulk, and there is protection for less
than a bean-bulk – ‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר יֵ ׁש יָ ד ְל ָפחֹות ִמ ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
ָ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫ ֵאין יָ ד ְל ָפחֹות ִמ ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫§ ָא ַמר ַרב‬The Gemara cites another disagreement between Rav and Rabbi
‫ֹומר ְל ָפחֹות ִמ ְּכפֹול‬
ֵ ‫וְ ׁיֵש ׁש‬: According to the Ramban, Rabbi
ֵ ‫ ׁש‬Yoĥanan. Rav says: There is no halakha of a handle with regard to
.‫ֹומר ְל ָפחֹות ִמ ְּכפֹול‬
Yoĥanan referred to the measures of an olive-bulk and imparting impurity for a handle that is attached to less than an
bean-bulk only in response to Rav, but he himself holds
olive-bulk of food. And there is no halakha of protection with
that there is no minimum measure with regard to a han-
dle or protection. By contrast, according to Rashi, Rabbi
regard to imparting impurity for protection that is attached to less
Yoĥanan concedes that a handle that is attached to less than a bean-bulkn of food. In addition, the protection does not join
than a bean-bulk of food is not considered a handle together with the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk
with regard to imparting impurity because a measure of required to impart the impurity of food.
food smaller than a bean-bulk is not significant enough
to have a handle. ,‫ יֵ ׁש יָ ד ְל ָפחֹות ִמ ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר‬
ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yoĥanan says: There is a halakha of a handle with
.‫ֹומר ְל ָפחֹות ִמ ְּכפֹול‬ ֵ ‫ וְ יֵ ׁש ׁש‬regard to imparting impurity for a handle that is attached to less
than an olive-bulk of food. And there is a halakha of protection
with regard to imparting impurity for protection that is attached to
less than a bean-bulknh of food. In addition, it joins together with
the food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart
the impurity of food.

halakha
And just as produce is susceptible to contracting impurity This must be the case, because it is known that all produce comes
only when it is detached from the soil – ‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֵשם ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין‬into contact with liquid while attached to the soil (Rambam Sefer
‫טו ְּמ ָאה ֶא ָּלא ִל ְכ ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּת ְל ׁש ּו‬: Produce that grows from the soil is not Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 12:1).
susceptible to impurity until it is detached. As long as the produce
There is a handle for less than an olive-bulk, and there is pro-
is attached to the soil via any root that is capable of sustaining
tection for less than a bean-bulk – ‫ֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֵ ׁש יָ ד ְל ָפחֹות ִמ ַּכּזַ יִ ת וְ יֵ ׁש ׁש‬
the life of the produce, that produce is not susceptible to impurity
‫ל ָפחֹות ִמ ְּכפֹול‬:ְ A handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk
(Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 2:1).
of food is considered a handle with regard to imparting impurity.
Produce cannot be rendered susceptible to impurity until it is Likewise, protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of
detached from the soil – ‫אין ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ֶא ָּלא ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ָּת ְל ׁש ּו‬:ֵ Pro- food is considered protection with regard to imparting impurity,
duce does not become susceptible to impurity through contact in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer
with one of the seven liquids until it is detached from the soil. Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 5:3).

236 Ĥullin . perek IX . 118b . ‫חיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫יהן ׁ ְשנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי‬ ֶ ‫ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ֲעצָ מֹות וַ ֲע ֵל‬:‫ית ֵיבי‬ִ ‫ ֵמ‬The Gemara raises an objection to the opinions of both Rav and
Two bones that have two halves of an olive-bulk upon
,‫יהן ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ַל ַ ּביִ ת‬ ֶ ‫אש‬ֵ ׁ ‫יתים וְ ִה ְכנִיס ָר‬ ִ ֵ‫ ז‬Rabbi Yoĥanan from that which is taught in a Tosefta (Oholot 4:8): them, etc. – ‫יהן ׁ ְשנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי זֵ ִיתים וכו׳‬
ֶ ‫ש ֵּתי ֲעצָ מֹות וַ ֲע ֵל‬:
ְ ׁ With
In a case of two bones that have two halves of an olive-bulk of
.‫יהן – ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָט ֵמא‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת ַמ ֲא ִהיל ֲע ֵל‬ regard to two bones that have on them two halves of
flesh of a dead person upon them,h i.e., half an olive-bulk of flesh is an olive-bulk of flesh of a dead person, if one placed the
attached to one end of each bone, and one placed the ends of both ends of both bones inside a house, the house becomes
bones that are not directly attached to the flesh inside a house in impure. This halakha does not apply if a person actively
such a manner that the house overlies those ends of the bones but attached the pieces of flesh to the bones (Rambam Sefer
not the ends of the bones attached to the flesh, it is considered as Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 4:9).
though the house is overlying the flesh itself, and the house
is impure.

:‫אֹומר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬

ֵ ‫קֹוסא‬ָ ְ‫ יְהו ָּדה ֶ ּבן נ‬Yehuda ben Nekosap says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: How can
ָ ‫ ֵה‬two bones join together to constitute an olive-bulk if the flesh
?‫יאךְ ׁ ְשנֵי ֲעצָ מֹות ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַכּזַ יִ ת‬
attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk?

Personalities
Yehuda ben Nekosa – ‫קֹוסא‬
ָ ְ‫יְהו ָּדה ֶ ּבן נ‬: Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa, who it seems were his primary teachers. The statements of Rabbi
sometimes referred to without his title, lived in the generation Yehuda ben Nekosa are taught in both the Jerusalem Talmud and
of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and, like many Sages of his generation, the Babylonian Talmud. The midrash relates that he debated the
studied under his tutelage. He also transmitted statements in heretics of his day and was victorious in his disputes with them.
the name of other Sages who lived in the previous generation,

Perek IX
Daf 119 Amud a

– ‫אֹוקים ָל ּה? ִאי ְ ּביָ ד‬

ִ ‫ ַהאי ְ ּב ַמאי‬,‫ וְ ַרב‬The Gemara explains the objection: And according to Rav, who
,‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ֵר‬holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food
or protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food is not
considered a handle or protection with regard to imparting impurity,
in what manner does he interpret this baraita? If the baraita is
discussing the case of a bone without marrow, and therefore the
bone constitutes merely a handle for the flesh, which measures less
than an olive-bulk, then the first clause of the baraita is difficult,
because it indicates that a handle that is attached to less than an
olive-bulk of food is considered a handle with regard to imparting
impurity.

!‫ֹומר – ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ֵס ָיפא‬

ֵ ‫ ִאי ְ ּב ׁש‬If the baraita is discussing the case of a bone containing marrow, and
therefore the bone constitutes protection for food measuring less
than an olive-bulk, then the last clause of the baraita is difficult
because Yehuda ben Nekosa apparently holds that protection that
is attached to less than an olive-bulk of food is not considered pro-
tection with regard to imparting impurity, contrary to the opinion
of Rav, who holds that it is protection unless it is attached to less
than a bean-bulk of food.

‫ימא‬
ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬
ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬,‫ֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ימא ְ ּב ׁש‬
ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬
ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rav interprets the baraita
.‫ ְ ּביָ ד‬as discussing the case of a bone that constitutes protection. If you
wish, say instead that Rav interprets the baraita as discussing the
case of a bone that constitutes a handle.

– ‫ וְ הוּא דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ימא ְ ּביָ ד‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬The Gemara explains its answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is
‫ימא‬
ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ָ ְ‫ ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן נ‬discussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle, and Rav
ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬.‫קֹוסא‬
stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda
.‫ וְ הוּא דַּ ֲא ַמר – ְּכ ַת ָּנא ַק ָּמא‬,‫ֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ְ ּב ׁש‬
ben Nekosa, who maintains that the house does not become impure
because he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-
bulk of flesh does not impart impurity. And If you wish, say that the
baraita is discussing the case of a bone that constitutes protection,
and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the
first tanna, who maintains that the house is impure because he holds
that protection attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts
impurity if the flesh measures at least a bean-bulk.
 ‫טיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 119a 237
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
– ‫ וְ הוּא דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ ּכו ָּּל ּה ְ ּביָ ד‬:‫יֹוחנָן ֲא ַמר‬
ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yoĥanan could have said that the entire baraita is dis-
Femur – ‫קו ִּלית‬:
.‫ ְּכ ַת ָּנא ַק ָּמא‬cussing the case of a bone that constitutes a handle, and Rabbi
Yoĥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the
first tanna, who maintains that the house becomes impure because
he holds that a handle that is attached to less than an olive-bulk of
food imparts impurity. But he did not state his opinion in accor-
dance with the opinion of Yehuda ben Nekosa, who maintains that
the house does not become impure.

‫ קו ִּלית ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ Come and hear another objection to the opinions of Rav and Rabbi
.‫יה ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – גּ ֶֹור ֶרת ּכו ָּּל ּה ְלטו ְּמ ָאה‬
ָ ‫ָע ֶל‬ Yoĥanan from the Tosefta (Okatzin 2:5): Rabbi Yehuda says: With
regard to a femurb that has an olive-bulk of flesh upon it, the flesh
‫יה ֶא ָּלא‬ ָ ‫יל ּו ֵאין ָע ֶל‬ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֲא ֵח ִרים‬
draws the entire femur into ritual impurity if any part of the femur
.‫ְּכפֹול – ּג ֶֹור ֶרת ּכו ָּּל ּה ְלטו ְּמ ָאה‬ comes into contact with a dead creeping animal. The Sage referred
to as Aĥerim says: Even if there is only a bean-bulk of flesh upon
the femur,h it draws the entire femur into impurity.

‫מֹוקים ָל ּה? ִאי ְ ּביָ ד – ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ִ ‫ ַהאי ְ ּב ַמאי‬,‫ וְ ַרב‬The Gemara asks: In what manner does Rav interpret this baraita?
!‫ישא‬ ֵ ‫ ִאי ְ ּב ׁש‬,‫ ֵס ָיפא‬If the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes merely
ָ ׁ ‫ֹומר – ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ֵר‬
a handle for the flesh, then the latter clause of the baraita is difficult,
because Aĥerim apparently maintains that a handle that is attached
to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity, contrary to the
opinion of Rav. If the baraita is discussing the case of a femur that
Hind legs of a cow constitutes protection, then the first clause of the baraita is diffi-
cult, because Rabbi Yehuda apparently holds that protection that is
notes attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity,
And Rabbi Yoĥanan said that the entire baraita is contrary to the opinion of Rav.
ֵ ‫יֹוחנָן ֲא ַמר ּכו ָּּל ּה ְ ּב ׁש‬
referring to protection – ‫ֹומר‬ ָ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬:
Later commentaries explain that Rabbi Yoĥanan ‫ימא ְ ּביָ ד – וְ הוּא דַּ ֲא ַמר ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the baraita is discussing
could have interpreted the baraita as referring to
.‫ֹומר – ַּכ ֲא ֵח ִרים‬ ֵ ‫ימא ְ ּב ׁש‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫ יְהו ָּדה‬the case of a femur that constitutes a handle, and Rav stated his
ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬
either the case of protection or the case of a handle opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who
because Rabbi Yoĥanan holds that there is no mini-
maintains that a handle attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh
mum measure with regard to either. Rabbi Yoĥanan
chose to interpret the baraita as referring to a case of does not impart impurity. And if you wish, say instead that the
protection and not a handle based on the precision baraita is discussing the case of a femur that constitutes protection,
of the language of the baraita, as the Gemara points and Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion intro-
out later (Yosef Da’at). duced with the words: Aĥerim says, according to which even protec-
tion attached to less than an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.

ֵ ‫ ּכו ָּּל ּה ְ ּב ׁש‬:‫יֹוחנָן ֲא ַמר‬

– ‫ וְ הוּא דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ֹומר‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yoĥanan could have said that the entire baraita is refer-
.‫ ַּכ ֲא ֵח ִרים‬ring to case of a femur that constitutes protection, and Rabbi
n

Yoĥanan stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion referred

to as: Aĥerim says, according to which even protection that is
attached to a bean-bulk of flesh imparts impurity.

!‫ ֲא ֵח ִרים? ָהא ְּכפֹול ָקא ָא ְמ ִרי‬The Gemara asks: How is Rabbi Yoĥanan’s opinion consistent with
the opinion referred to as: Aĥerim says? Don’t they say that protec-
tion that is attached to a bean-bulk of flesh imparts impurity, and
Rabbi Yoĥanan holds that even protection that is attached to less
than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity?

‫ ָק ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ ַאיְ ֵידי דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא ׁ ִשיעו ָּרא‬The Gemara answers: Aĥerim agrees that even protection that is
.‫ ִאינְ ה ּו נַ ִמי ׁ ִשיעו ָּרא‬attached to less than a bean-bulk imparts impurity. Nevertheless,
since the first tanna states the specific measure of an olive-bulk,
Aĥerim also states the specific measure of a bean-bulk even though
he maintains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a
bean-bulk as well.

‫ֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ דַּ יְ ָקא נַ ִמי דִּ ְב ׁש‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava said: The language of the baraita is also precise, indicating
.‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי קו ִּלית‬,‫ ָע ְס ִקינַן‬that we are dealing with protection and not a handle, as it teaches
the case of a femur, which contains marrow, and therefore the bone
provides protection for the food inside. If the baraita were discussing
a handle, it would have taught this halakha with regard to any other
bone that is attached to flesh and not specifically a femur. Conclude
from it that the baraita is discussing the halakha of protection.

halakha
Even if there is only a bean-bulk of flesh upon the femur, etc. – in accordance with the opinion of Aĥerim (Rambam Sefer Tahara,
‫יה ֶא ָּלא ְּכפֹול וכו׳‬
ָ ‫א ִפ ּיל ּו ֵאין ָע ֶל‬:ֲ If a femur is attached to even a bean- Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 5:16).
bulk of flesh, the flesh causes the entire femur to become impure,

238 Ĥullin . perek IX . 119a . ‫טיק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ זֶ ה ּו ׁ ִשיעוּר‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ָא ַמר‬,‫§ ִא ְית ַמר‬The baraita cited above teaches that Aĥerim says: Even if there halakha

is only a bean-bulk of flesh attached to the femur it causes the entire Where it is typical for people to take it out, etc. – ‫ְּכ ֶד ֶר ְך‬
.‫ ֵאין זֶ ה ׁ ִשיעוּר‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫יאין וכו׳‬
ִ ִ‫ש ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם מֹוצ‬:
ֶ ׁ From where is it derived that an
femur to become impure. A dispute was stated with regard to this appendage that constitutes protection for food becomes
opinion. Rabbi Ĥanina says: When Aĥerim stated the measure of impure together with the food? The verse states: “On any
a bean-bulk, this is a specific measure, and Aĥerim holds that the sowing seed,” indicating that the entire seed is susceptible
halakha of protection applies to an appendage only if a bean-bulk to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typi-
of food is attached to it. And Rabbi Yoĥanan says: This is not a cal for people to take it out to the field for sowing. This
specific measure. Aĥerim holds that the halakha of protection includes wheat in its shell, barley in its shell, and lentils
in their shells. It is derived from here that shells and other
applies even if it is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food.
appendages that protect the food are considered part of
the food with regard to the halakhot of impurity (Ram-
‫״כפֹול״! ַאיְ ֵידי‬
ְּ ‫ ֵאין זֶ ה ׁ ִשיעוּר? וְ ָהא ָק ָתנֵי‬The Gemara asks: How is it possible for Rabbi Yoĥanan to hold bam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 5:4).
‫ ָק ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא ׁ ִשיע ּו ָרא‬that this is not a specific measure? But doesn’t the baraita explic-
itly teach the measure of a bean-bulk? The Gemara answers:
.‫ִאינְ ה ּו נַ ִמי ׁ ִשיעו ָּרא‬
Indeed, Aĥerim holds that protection that is attached to even less
than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity. But since the first
tanna states the specific measure of an olive-bulk, Aĥerim also
states the specific measure of a bean-bulk even though he main-
tains his opinion with regard to a measure of less than a bean-bulk
as well.

‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה ְמ ַט ֵהר‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof against the opinion
‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬,‫ ו ְּמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ִק ְטנִית‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ּפֹול‬of Rav from that which is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 1:5): Rabbi
Elazar ben Azarya deems a pod containing beans that came in
!‫ישן‬ָ ׁ ‫ׁ ֶשרוצֶ ה ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ִמ‬
contact with a dead creeping animal ritually pure. Since beans are
large and do not require the protection of the pod, the pod is not
considered protection for the beans and therefore does not impart
impurity. But he deems a pod containing smaller legumes that
came in contact with a dead creeping animal ritually impure if
even only one grain is attached to the pod, because one desires
the use of the pod when handling the legumes so that he will not
damage them, and it is therefore considered protection, which
imparts impurity. Apparently, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds that
even protection that is attached to less than a bean-bulk of food
imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Ĥanina and Rav.

,‫ ְ ּבקו ְּל ָחא‬:‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬

ּ ‫ ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬The Gemara rejects this proof: The explanation of that mishna is
,‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם יָ ד‬in accordance with that which Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, said in the
context of a different discussion: That mishna is discussing a case
where a dead creeping animal came into contact with the stalk to
which the pod is attached, but not with the pod itself. And there-
fore the halakha in the mishna is not with regard to the matter of
protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle, as
the stalk serves as a handle for the pod and its attached grain.

‫ ְ ּבקו ְּל ָחא ּו ִמ ׁ ּש ּום יָ ד ּו ַמאי‬:‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬Here, too, with regard to this proof one can respond that the
.‫ישן‬ ָ ׁ ‫ישן״ – ְ ּב ַת ׁ ְש ִמ‬ ּ ְ mishna is discussing a case where a dead creeping animal came in
ָ ׁ ‫״ב ַמ ׁ ְש ִמ‬
contact with the stalk and therefore the halakha in the mishna is
with regard to the matter of a handle. Since the mishna is referring
to a stalk, and the stalk has many pods on it, it serves as a handle
to more than an olive-bulk of food, and is consistent with the
opinions of Rabbi Ĥanina and Rav. And what does Rabbi Elazar
ben Azarya mean when he says that in the case of legumes, the
stalk is impure because one desires the use of the stalk when
handling [bemashmishan] the legumes? He is referring to using
[betashmishan], i.e., carrying, the legumes with the stalk.

‫״על‬ ַ :‫ דְּ ָתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ Come and hear proof from that which the school of Rabbi Yish-
‫ָּכל זֶ ַרע זֵ רו ַּע ֲא ׁ ֶשר יִ ּזָ ֵר ַע״ – ְּכ ֶד ֶר ְך ׁ ֶש ְ ּבנֵי‬ mael taught: With regard to the impurity of food the verse states:
“On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating
‫עֹורה‬ ָ ‫ּש‬ ׂ ְ ‫ ו‬,‫יאין – ִח ָּטה ִ ּב ְק ִל ּ ָיפ ָת ּה‬ ִ ִ‫ָא ָדם מֹוצ‬
that the entire seed is susceptible to impurity when it is in a state
!‫ וַ ֲע ָד ׁ ִשים ִ ּב ְק ִל ּ ָיפ ָתן‬,‫ִ ּב ְק ִל ּ ָיפ ָת ּה‬ where it is typical for people to take it outh to the field for sowing:
This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils
in their shells. It is derived from here that shells and other append-
ages that protect the food are considered part of the food. Since
wheat, barley, and lentil grains are smaller than a bean-bulk, this
statement indicates that even protection that is attached to less
than a bean-bulk of food imparts impurity, contrary to the opinion
of Rabbi Ĥanina and Rav.
 ‫טיק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 119a 239
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

.‫ ִ ּב ְריָ ה ׁ ָשאנֵי‬The Gemara rejects this proof: A grain is a distinct entity, and there-
fore its status is different. The halakha of protection is applicable
to a distinct entity even if it measures less than a bean-bulk.

ַ ׁ ‫ָ ּב ֵעי ַרב‬
:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ §Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma:

Perek IX
Daf 119 Amud b
halakha
?ּ‫ֹומ ִרין ַמה ּו ׁ ֶשּיִ צְ ָט ְרפו‬
ְ ‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ׁש‬As the Gemara stated, protection joins together with the food to
Protection on top of another protection – ‫ֹומר ַעל ַ ּגב‬ֵ ‫ׁש‬
constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. What is the
‫ֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ש‬:ׁ The halakha of protection with regard to transmit-
ting impurity does not apply to a protection that is on top halakha with regard to two protections joining together with the
of another protection. Only the inner protection closest food to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk required to impart
to the food is considered protection with regard to impu- impurity?
rity (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 5:10).
‫ימא ְ ּבזֶ ה ַעל ַ ּגב זֶ ה – ו ִּמי‬
ָ ‫ ִא ֵיל‬,‫יכי דָּ ֵמי‬ִ ‫ ֵה‬The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the dilemma? If
Three peels surrounding an onion – ‫של ֹׁש ְק ִל ּיפֹות ַ ּב ָ ּבצָ ל‬:
ָׁ
There are three peels surrounding an onion. The inner ֵ ‫ֹומר ַעל ַ ּגב ׁש‬
?‫ֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יכא ׁש‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬we say that it is referring to a case where a food item has two layers
peel, whether whole or punctured, joins together with of protection, and this outer protection is on top of that inner
the onion to constitute the requisite measure to transmit protection, is the halakha of protection applicable with regard to
the impurity of food. The middle peel joins together with protection that is on top of another protection?h
the onion when it is whole, but not when it is punc-
tured. The outer peel in all cases does not join together ‫ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ְק ִל ּיפֹות‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫וְ ָה ְתנַן‬ But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Okatzin 2:4) that Rabbi Yehuda
with the onion and remains ritually pure. This ruling is – ‫ ֵ ּבין ׁ ְש ֵל ָמה ֵ ּבין ְקדו ָּרה‬,‫נִימית‬
ִ ‫ ּ ְפ‬,‫ַ ּב ָ ּבצָ ל‬ says: There are three peels surrounding an onion.h The inner peel
in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the is considered like the food itself, and therefore, whether whole or
mishna in Okatzin. Although the Rabbis disagree with ,‫ ׁ ְש ֵל ָמה – ִמצְ ָט ֶר ֶפת‬,‫ ֶא ְמצָ ִעית‬.‫ִמצְ ָט ֶר ֶפת‬
punctured, it joins together with the onion to constitute the req-
Rabbi Yehuda, the Rambam rules in accordance with ְ‫ ִחיצֹונָ ה – ֵ ּבין ָּכך‬.‫ְקדו ָּרה – ֵאין ִמצְ ָט ֶר ֶפת‬ uisite measure to impart the impurity of food. With regard to the
Rabbi Yehuda because the Gemara cites and explains
!‫הֹורה‬
ָ ‫ו ֵּבין ָּכךְ ְט‬ middle peel, when it is whole it provides protection and therefore
his opinion. Alternatively, it is possible that there is no
dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis in the joins together with the onion, but when it is punctured it does
mishna, and that Rabbi Yehuda is explaining the inten- not provide protection and therefore does not join togethern
tion of the Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat with the onion. The outer peel does not join together with the
Okhalin 5:11 and Kesef Mishne there). onion at all, and both in this case, when it is whole, and in that
Protection of food that one divided – ‫אֹוכל‬ ֶ ‫ֹומר‬ֵ ‫ׁש‬ case, when it is punctured, it remains ritually pure. Evidently, the
‫ש ִח ְּלקֹו‬:
ֶ ׁ Protection that is divided does not join together halakha of protection is not applied to a protection that surrounds
with the food to constitute the requisite measure to another protection.
transmit impurity (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat
Okhalin 5:3). ‫אֹוכל ׁ ֶש ִח ְּל קֹו‬
ֶ ‫ֹומר‬
ֵ ‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א ׁש‬
ַׁ ‫ ַרב‬The Gemara explains the dilemma: Rav Oshaya does not raise the
.‫יה‬ ּ ָ ‫ ָק ִמ‬dilemma with regard to a food item that has two layers of protection.
ּ ‫יב ֲעיָ א ֵל‬
Rather, he raises the dilemma with regard to protection of food
that one dividedh such that the food is whole but the protection is
divided into separate sections.

‫ וְ ַהאי ָלא ָמגֵ ין‬,‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ַהאי ָלא ָמגֵ ין ַא ַהאי‬The dilemma is as follows: Since this section of the protection is
.‫ ַא ַהאי – ל ֹא ִמצְ ָט ֶר ֶפת‬protecting this part of the food but does not provide protection
for that other part of the food, and that other section of the protec-
tion is protecting another part of the food but does not provide
protection for this part of the food, must one conclude that the two
protections do not join together to constitute the requisite measure
for the impurity of food?

‫ וְ ַהאי‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ַהאי ָמגֵ ין ַאדִּ ֵיד‬,‫ אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא‬Or perhaps, should one reason that since this section of the protec-
?‫יה – ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין‬ ּ ‫ ָמגֵ ין ַאדִּ ֵיד‬tion provides protection for its part of the food, and that section
of the protection provides protection for its part of the food, and
the two parts of the food are joined together, therefore the entire
entity is considered unified and the two sections of the protection
join together to constitute the requisite measure?

notes
The middle peel, when it is whole it joins together, but when it provide any protection once it is punctured or cut, but rather
is punctured it does not join together – ‫ֶא ְמצָ ִעית ׁ ְש ֵל ָמה ִמצְ ָט ֶר ֶפת‬ shrivels and falls off. By contrast, the peels and outer layers of
‫קדו ָּרה ֵאין ִמצְ ָט ֶר ֶפת‬:ְ The later commentaries point out that the other species of produce continue to provide protection even if
mishna specifically chose to teach this halakha with regard to they are cut or punctured (Ĥazon Ish).
an onion because an onion is unique in that its peel does not

240 Ĥullin . perek IX . 119b . ‫טיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה ְמ ַט ֵהר ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which is
Stem – ‫ש ְד ַרה‬:
ִׁ
‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשרֹוצֶ ה‬,‫ ו ְּמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ׁ ֶשל ִק ְטנִית‬,‫ ּפֹול‬taught in a mishna cited previously (Okatzin 1:5): Rabbi Elazar ben
Azarya deems a pod containing beans that came in contact with a
.‫ישן‬ָ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ִמ‬
dead creeping animal ritually pure. But he deems a pod containing
legumes that came in contact with a dead creeping animal impure
because one desires the use of the pod when handling the legumes
so that he will not damage them. Since the requisite volume for a
food item to be susceptible to impurity is an egg-bulk, and the
volume of one pod and its legumes is less than an egg-bulk, this
statement must be discussing multiple pods joined together. Evi-
dently, protection of food that is divided into separate sections joins
together to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

,‫ ְ ּבקו ְּל ָחא‬:‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, said in rejection of this resolution: That
.‫ישן‬
ָ ׁ ‫ישן״ – ְ ּב ַת ׁ ְש ִמ‬ ּ ְ ‫ ו ַּמאי‬,‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם יָ ד‬mishna is discussing a case where a creeping animal touched the
ָ ׁ ‫״ב ַמ ׁ ְש ִמ‬
stalk to which the pods are attached but not the pods themselves.
And the halakha in that mishna is not referring to the matter of
protection; rather, it is with regard to the matter of a handle, as the
stalk serves as a handle for the pod and its attached grain. And what
does Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya mean when he says that in the case
of legumes, the stalk is impure because one desires the use of the
stalk when handling [bemashmishan] the legumes? He is referring
to using [betashmishan], i.e., carrying, the legumes with the stalk. Grain-bearing part of a stem of wheat

‫״על ָּכל‬
ַ :‫ דְּ ָתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ Come and hear a resolution from that which the school of Rabbi notes
‫(א ׁ ֶשר יִ ּזָ ֵר ַע״) – ְּכ ֶד ֶרךְ ׁ ֶש ְ ּבנֵי ָא ָדם‬ ֲ ‫זֶ ַרע זֵ רו ַּע‬ Yishmael taught: With regard to the impurity of food the verse With regard to wheat grown in the time of Shimon
states: “On any sowing seed that is sown” (Leviticus 11:37), indicat- ben Shataĥ – ‫ב ִח ֵּטי דְּ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ׁ ָש ָטח‬:ּ ְ The Gemara here
ָ ‫ּש‬
‫עֹורה‬ ׂ ְ ‫ ו‬,‫ ִח ָּטה ִ ּב ְק ִל ּ ָיפ ָת ּה‬,‫יעה‬ ָ ‫יאין ִלזְ ִר‬ ִ ִ‫מֹוצ‬
ing that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in is referring to that which is related elsewhere (Ta’anit
.‫ וַ ֲע ָד ׁ ִשים ִ ּב ְק ִל ּ ָיפ ָתן‬,‫ִ ּב ְק ִל ּ ָיפ ָת ּה‬ a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for 23a): As we found in the days of Shimon ben Shataĥ
sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, that rain invariably fell for them on Wednesday eves
and lentils in their shells. It is derived from here that shells and and on Shabbat eves, until wheat grew as big as
kidneys, and barley as big as olive pits, and lentils as
other appendages that protect the food join together with the food golden dinars. And they bundled up some of these
to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. Since the crops as an example for future generations, to convey
measure of one grain and its shell is less than an egg-bulk, this state- to them how much damage sin causes, as it is stated:
ment must be discussing multiple grains and their shells joined “The Lord our God, Who gives rain, the former rain
together. Evidently, protection of food that is divided into separate and the latter rain, in its season that keeps for us
sections joins together to impart impurity. the appointed weeks of the harvest. Your iniquities
have turned away these things, and your sins have
,‫ ְ ּבקו ְּל ָחא‬:‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא‬
ּ ‫ ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמר ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬The Gemara rejects this resolution: One can explain this statement withheld the good from you” (Jeremiah 5:24–25).

.‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם יָ ד‬in accordance with that which Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, said with
regard to the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya that was cited Personalities
previously: The mishna is discussing a case where a creeping animal Shimon ben Shataĥ – ‫ש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ׁ ָש ָטח‬:
ִ ׁ Shimon ben
came in contact with the stalk to which the pods are attached but Shataĥ served as the Nasi of the Sanhedrin during the
rule of King Alexander Yannai. He was a distinguished
not the pods themselves. And therefore, the halakha in the mishna
leader and a central force in the preservation of the
is not referring to the matter of protection; rather, it is with regard Oral Torah, who insisted on enforcing every aspect
to the matter of a handle. of Torah law and tradition. He enacted a number of
decrees that eradicated sorcery; he strengthened
ֵ ‫ ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁש‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ְד ָרה‬:‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬Here too, the statement of the school of Rabbi Yishmael is not
.‫ֹומר‬ the marriage contract; he even summoned the king
referring to independent grains of wheat and barley, but rather to to court and demanded that he respect the court
the stemb to which the grains are attached, and it is with regard to like a common citizen. In fact, his conflicts with King
the status of all the shells of the grains on one stem as protection. Yannai even forced him on occasion to go into hid-
All of the grains surrounding the stem protect each other, since if ing in order to avoid the wrath of the king, but he
never yielded to fear or a desire for honor. His sister
one shell with its grain falls it causes all of the other shells and their was Queen Salome, the wife of King Yannai. Queen
grains to fall as well. Therefore, this case is not similar to Rav Osha- Salome ruled after the death of Yannai, a period of
ya’s dilemma, where each protection protects only part of the food. rule upon which Shimon ben Shataĥ had a signifi-
cant influence, and a time generally acknowledged
‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫יכי ְל ַת ְּתיָ ָתא‬ִ ‫יליָ ָתא צְ ִר‬ִּ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ִע‬The Gemara asks: Granted, the grains located higher on the stem as one of prosperity for the Jews. Shimon ben Shataĥ
ִ ‫ ַּת ְּתיָ ָתא ַמאי צְ ִר‬need the grains located lower on the stem to remain in place in
ִּ ‫יכי ְל ִע‬
.‫יליָ ָתא? ְ ּב ַחד דָּ ָרא‬ worked as a tanner.
order to not fall. But for what purpose do the grains located lower
on the stem need the grains located higher on the stem? The
Gemara answers: The case is one where the grains are all positioned
tightly around the stem in one row in such a manner that if even
one located higher up on the stem were to fall, the remaining grains
would fall too.

‫אֹוכ ִלין ְ ּב ַחד דָּ ָרא? ְ ּב ִח ֵּטי‬

ָ ‫יכא ְּכ ֵביצָ ה‬ ָּ ‫ ִמי ִא‬The Gemara asks: Is there a volume of an egg-bulk of food in one
.‫ דְּ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ׁ ָש ָטח‬row of grain? The Gemara answers: Yes, this baraita is stated with
regard to large grains of wheat, such as those grown in the time of
Shimon ben Shataĥ.np
 ‫טיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 119b 241
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

– ‫ ֲח ָדא ִח ָּטה נַ ִמי‬,‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ֵתית ְל ָה ִכי‬The Gemara points out: Now that you have arrived at this conclu-
.‫ ְ ּב ִח ֵּטי דְּ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ׁ ָש ָטח‬sion, it is not necessary to interpret the baraita as referring to many
grains tightly packed around the stem. It is even possible to explain
that the baraita is discussing the case of one grain of wheat, such as
the large grains of wheat grown in the time of Shimon ben Shataĥ.

‫יהן ׁ ְשנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי‬ ֶ ‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ֲעצָ מֹות וַ ֲע ֵל‬,‫§ גּ ו ָּפא‬The Gemara proceeds to discuss the Tosefta itself that was cited
ֵ ׁ ‫ וְ ִה ְכנִיס ָר‬,‫ זֵ ִיתים‬earlier (118b): In a case of two bones upon which there are two
‫ וְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬,‫אש ֶיהן ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ַל ַ ּביִ ת‬
halves of an olive-bulk of flesh of a corpse, i.e., half an olive-bulk of
.‫יהן – ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָט ֵמא‬ֶ ‫ַמ ֲא ִהיל ֲע ֵל‬
flesh is attached to one end of each bone, and one placed the ends
of both bones that are not directly attached to the flesh inside the
house in such a manner that the house overlies those ends of the
bones but not the ends of the bones attached to the flesh, it is con-
sidered as though the house is overlying the flesh itself and the
house is impure.

:‫אֹומר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬ֵ ‫קֹוסא‬ ָ ְ‫ יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן נ‬Yehuda ben Nekosa says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: How can
ָ ‫ ֵה‬two bones join together to constitute an olive-bulk if the flesh
?‫יאךְ ׁ ְשנֵי ֲעצָ מֹות ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַכּזַ יִ ת‬
attached to each bone is less than the measure of an olive-bulk? It
may be inferred from here that according to all, if the end of a bone
that is attached to an olive-bulk of flesh is outside the house, and
the other end that is not directly attached to any flesh is inside
the house, the house becomes impure with the ritual impurity of
a corpse.

‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ֶעצֶ ם דְּ ָהוֵ י‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬With regard to this matter Reish Lakish said: The Sages taught this
ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫נִימא – ָלא ָהוְ יָ א יָ ד‬
‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ יָ ד‬halakha only with regard to a bone, as it constitutes a handle vis-
à-vis the flesh, but if one hair of a corpse is attached to an olive-bulk
ָ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬:‫ֲא ַמר‬
.‫נִימא נַ ִמי ָהוְ יָ א יָ ד‬
of flesh at one end, and the other end of the hair is inside a house, it
does not render the house impure, because the hair does not con-
stitute a handle vis-à-vis the flesh. And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Even
a hair constitutes a handle vis-à-vis the flesh, and therefore the
house is rendered impure.

‫ עֹור ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬:‫יֹוחנָן ְל ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ּ ‫ית ֵיב‬ ִ ‫ֵא‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish
‫ ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ַ ּב ִ ּציב ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו‬,‫ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ from the mishna taught later (124a): In the case of the hide of an
unslaughtered animal carcass upon which there is an olive-bulk
‫ ַמאי ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬.‫ו ַּב ּ ְ ׂש ָע ָרה ׁ ֶש ְּכנֶ גְ דּ ֹו – ָט ֵמא‬
of flesh, one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the
?‫יָ ד‬ flesh, or touches a hair that is on the side of the hide opposite the
flesh, is ritually impure with the impurity of an unslaughtered
carcass, even though he did not touch an olive-bulk of the flesh.
What is the reason that one who touches the strand of flesh or the
hair becomes impure? Is it not because they constitute a handle
for the flesh, contrary to the opinion of Reish Lakish with regard to
a hair?

‫ֹומר ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬

ֵ ‫יכא ׁש‬ ֵ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁש‬,‫ ָלא‬The Gemara answers: No, the ruling of that mishna is not because
ָּ ‫ ו ִּמי ִא‬,‫ֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ׁש‬the hair serves as a handle for the flesh. Rather, it is because the
‫ֹומר? ִח ְלחו ֵּלי ְמ ַח ְל ֵחל‬
hair serves as protection for the flesh. The Gemara asks: But
the hide protects the flesh, and the hair is on top of the hide; is the
halakha of protection applicable with regard to protection that is
on top of another protection? The Gemara answers: The hair pen-
etrates through the hide and touches the flesh, thereby providing
protection directly for the flesh.

‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬:‫ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov objects to this answer: If that is so, that there
‫יכי ָּכ ְת ִבינַ ן? ָהא ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן ְּכ ִת ָיבה‬
ִ ‫ילין ֵה‬ ִּ ‫ ְּת ִפ‬are perforations in the hide through which the hairs penetrate, how
can we write phylacteries? Don’t we require phylacteries to be
!‫יכא‬ָּ ‫ וְ ֵל‬,‫ַּת ָּמה‬
written with a perfect writing,h with no perforations in the letters?
And that is not possible if there are perforations in the hide.

halakha
We require phylacteries to be written with a perfect writing, into two sections. But if the hole is small enough that the ink
etc. – ‫ב ֵעינַן ְּכ ִת ָיבה ַּת ָּמה וכו׳‬:
ּ ָ Parchment used for the writing of passes over it and the letter does not appear to be divided, the
phylacteries must be perfect and devoid of holes that would cause parchment is fit (Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza
a break in the ink such that the letter would appear to be divided VeSefer Torah 1:20; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 32:13).

242 Ĥullin . perek IX . 119b . ‫טיק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
‫ ָּכל‬:‫יה ָהא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ְ ּב ַמ ַע ְר ָבא‬
ּ ‫יט ֵת‬ְ ‫ ִא ׁ ְש ְּת ִמ‬The Gemara answers: Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov overlooked that halakha
Awn [melai] – ‫מ ַלאי‬:ְ Awns are hair-like appendages
.‫עֹובר ָע ָליו – ֵאינֹו נֶ ֶקב‬ ֵ ‫ נֶ ֶקב ׁ ֶש ַהדְּ יֹו‬which they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any perforation over protruding from the kernels on a stalk of grain. The
which the ink passes and which it covers is not considered a word melai is spelled here with an alef, but is spelled
perforation that invalidates the writing. elsewhere with an ayin. Some opinions maintain that
the singular form of the word is mela, and the term
ּ ‫ ּכו ֵּּל‬:‫ימא‬
‫ ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם יָ ד‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬And if you wish, say instead a different answer to Rabbi Yoĥanan’s melai that appears here is plural, an opinion consistent
,‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעא ִ ּב ְמ ַלאי ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַה ְמ ָל ִאים‬objection to Reish Lakish: The entire mishna teaches that one who with the Gemara’s explanation of the mishna.
touches either a strand of flesh or a hair becomes impure because
these appendages serve the flesh as a handle and not as protection. halakha
Nevertheless, that statement does not contradict the opinion of An awn that is on top of a stalk – ‫מ ַלאי ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ׁ ּ ִש ֳ ּב ִלים‬:ְ The
Reish Lakish that a hair does not constitute a handle for the flesh, awns that are on top of a stalk can become impure
because one can explain this mishna as Rabbi Ela stated with regard and impart impurity, but they do not join together
to a different mishna: It is stated with regard to the case of an awn with the food to constitute the requisite measure to
impart impurity (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat
among many awns.
Okhalin 5:20).
.‫ִימין‬
ִ ‫נִימא ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַה ּנ‬
ָ ‫ ְ ּב‬:‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬So too, the mishna taught later is stated with regard to the case of
a hair among many hairs and not the case of a single hair. Therefore,
the hair constitutes a handle for the flesh because one can hold the
hair and lift the flesh without the hair becoming detached.

‫ ְמ ַלאי‬:‫יכא ִא ְּת ַמר דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעא? ַא ָהא‬ ָ ‫וְ ֵה‬ And where was the opinion of Rabbi Ela stated? It was stated with
ַּ ‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ׁ ּ ִש ֳ ּב ִלים – ִמ‬
‫יט ְּמ ִאין ו ְּמ ַט ְּמ ִאין וְ ֵאינָ ן‬ regard to that which is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 1:3): An awn
[melai]l that is on top of a stalkh constitutes a handle for the stalk.
‫ ְמ ַלאי ְל ַמאי ֲחזִ י? ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין‬
Therefore, it can become impure and impart impurity, but it does
.‫ֶא ְל ַעאי – ִ ּב ְמ ַלאי ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַה ְמ ָל ִאים‬ not join together with the grains to constitute the requisite measure
to impart impurity. It was asked: For what function is an awn fit
such that it is considered to be a handle for the stalk? Rabbi Ilai, i.e.,
Rabbi Ela, said: That mishna is stated with regard to the case of an
awn among many awns and not the case of a single awn. Therefore,
the awns constitute a handle for the stalk because one can hold the
awns and lift the stalk without the awns becoming detached from
it.

ָ ּ ׁ ‫ ִל‬Some say another version of this dispute between Rabbi Yoĥanan

.‫ישנָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬
and Reish Lakish and the ensuing discussion with regard to the
status of hairs vis-à-vis the flesh: Rabbi Yoĥanan and Reish Lakish
agree that a single hair does not constitute a handle vis-à-vis the
flesh connected to it, but they disagree with regard to several hairs.
Rabbi Yoĥanan raises an objection to Reish Lakish’s opinion that
hair is not considered a handle from the mishna taught later, which
states that one who touches a hair emerging from the hide of an
animal carcass opposite the flesh is impure, indicating that hair
constitutes a handle.

ֵ ‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא דְּ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ׁש‬Reish Lakish answers that one who touches the hair is impure not
‫ דְּ ִאי‬,‫ֹומר‬
ָ ,‫ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם יָ ד‬because it is considered a handle, but rather because it is considered
‫נִימא ַא ַחת ְל ַמאי‬
protection for the flesh. The Gemara adds: So too it is reasonable
?‫ֲחזִ י‬
to explain that the person is impure because hair is considered
protection and not because it is considered a handle, as, if it enters
your mind that it is because hair is considered a handle, for what
function is one hair fit such that it is considered a handle?

,‫ ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעא ִ ּב ְמ ַלאי ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַה ְמ ָל ִאין‬The Gemara responds: One can explain that that mishna considers
.‫ִימין‬ ָ ‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי – ְ ּב‬hair to constitute a handle, as Rabbi Ela stated in explanation of a
ִ ‫נִימא ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַה ּנ‬
different mishna: It is stated with regard to the case of an awn
among many awns. Here too, that mishna is stated with regard to
the case of a hair among many hairs and not the case of a single hair.

:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬.‫וְ ֵה ָיכא ִא ְית ַמר דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי? ַא ָהא‬ And where was the opinion of Rabbi Ela stated? It was stated with
ַּ ‫ַה ְמ ַלאי ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ׁ ּ ִש ֳ ּב ִלים – ִמ‬
‫יט ְּמ ִאין ו ְּמ ַט ְּמ ִאין‬ regard to that which we learned in a mishna: An awn that is on
top of a stalk can become impure and impart impurity, but it does
‫ ְמ ַלאי ְל ַמאי ֲחזִ י? ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫וְ ֵאין ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין‬
not join together with the grains to constitute the requisite measure
.‫ ִ ּב ְמ ַלאי ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַה ְמ ָל ִאים‬:‫ֶא ְל ַעאי‬ to impart impurity. It was asked: For what function is an awn fit
such that it is considered to be a handle for the stalk? Rabbi Ilai
said: That mishna is stated with regard to the case of an awn among
many awns.

‫יכא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה‬

ָּ ‫ וְ ִא‬And there are those who teach another version of this dispute
between Rabbi Yoĥanan and Reish Lakish,
 ‫טיק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 119b 243
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek IX
Daf 120 Amud a

ָ ‫רֹוטב וְ ַה ִּק‬
‫יפה וכו׳‬ ֶ ‫ ָהעֹור וְ ָה‬:‫נִיתין‬
ִ ‫ ַא ַּמ ְת‬maintaining that the dispute is with regard to that which is
ָ ‫ ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין ְל ַט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ַאת‬taught in the mishna: The attached hide, and the congealed
.‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
gravy attached to the meat, and the spices, and the meat residue,
and the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves
all join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-
bulk to impart the impurity of food.

‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ֶעצֶ ם דְּ ָהוֵ י‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬Reish Lakish said: The Sages taught that only a bone and the
‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ֹומר‬
ֵ ‫נִימא ָלא ָהוְ יָ א ׁש‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ׁש‬other items mentioned in the mishna join together with the
meat to constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity
.‫ֹומר‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬:‫יֹוחנָן ֲא ַמר‬
ֵ ‫נִימא נַ ִמי ָהוְ יָ א ׁש‬ ָ
because they constitute protection for the meat. But a hair
does not join together with the meat to constitute the requisite
measure to impart impurity because it is not protection for
the meat. And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Even a hair is protection
for the meat and therefore joins together with the meat to
constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity.

‫ ו ִּמי ִא ָּיכא‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫יה ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoĥanan: But the hide protects
.‫ֹומר? ִח ְלחו ֵּלי ְמ ַח ְל ֵחל‬ ֵ ‫ ׁש‬the flesh, and the hair is on top of the hide. Is the halakha of
ֵ ‫ֹומר ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ׁש‬
protection applicable with regard to protection that is on top
of another protection? Rabbi Yoĥanan answered: The hair
penetrates through the hide and touches the flesh, thereby
providing protection directly for the flesh.

‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה ְּת ִפ ִּילין‬:‫ ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ַרב ַא ָחא‬Rav Aĥa objects to this answer: If that is so, that there are
,‫יכי ָּכ ְת ִבינַ ן? ָהא ָ ּב ֵעינַ ן ְּכ ִת ָיבה ַּת ָּמה‬ִ ‫ ֵה‬perforations in the hide through which the hairs penetrate, how
can we write phylacteries? Don’t we require phylacteries to be
!‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫וְ ֵל‬
written with a perfect writing with no perforations in the let-
ters? And that is not possible if there are perforations in the hide.

‫ ָּכל‬:‫יה ָהא דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ְ ּב ַמ ְע ְר ָבא‬

ּ ‫יט ֵת‬
ְ ‫יש ְּת ִמ‬ְ ׁ ‫ ִא‬The Gemara answers: That halakha which they say in the
.‫עֹובר ָע ָליו – ֵאינֹו נֶ ֶקב‬ ֵ ‫ נֶ ֶקב ׁ ֶש ַהדְּ יֹו‬West, Eretz Yisrael, escaped Rav Aĥa: Any perforation over
which the ink passes and which it covers is not considered a
perforation that invalidates the writing.

‫ עֹור ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש‬:‫יֹוחנָן ְל ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ּ ‫ֵא ִית ֵיב‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish
‫ ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ַ ּב ִ ּציב ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו‬,‫ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ Lakish opinion from the mishna taught later (124a): In the case
of the hide of an animal carcass upon which there is an olive-
‫ ַמאי ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬.‫ו ַּב ּ ְ ׂש ָע ָרה ׁ ֶש ְּכנֶ גְ דּ ֹו – ָט ֵמא‬
bulk of flesh, one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from
.‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם יָ ד‬,‫ֹומר? ָלא‬ ֵ ‫ׁש‬ the flesh or touches a hair that is on the side of the hide oppo-
site the flesh is ritually impure, even though he did not touch
an olive-bulk of the flesh. What is the reason that one who
touches the strand of flesh or the hair becomes impure? Is it not
because they constitute protection for the flesh? The Gemara
answers: No, it is because the hair constitutes a handle for
the flesh.

‫נִימא ַא ַחת ְל ַמאי ַחזְ יָ א? ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ The Gemara asks: For what function is one hair fit such that it
:‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬,‫ ִ ּב ְמ ַלאי ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַה ְמ ָל ִאין‬:‫ ֶא ְיל ָעא‬constitutes a handle? The Gemara answers: One can explain that
mishna as Rabbi Ela said in explanation of a different mishna:
.‫ִימין‬ ִ ‫נִימא ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַה ּנ‬
ָ ‫ְ ּב‬
It is stated with regard to the case of an awn among many awns.
Here too, the mishna is stated with regard to the case of a hair
among many hairs and not the case of a single hair. The hair
serves as a handle for the flesh because one can hold the hair
and lift the flesh without the hair becoming detached.

:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫וְ ֵה ָיכא ִא ְית ַמר דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְיל ָעא? ַא ָהא‬ And where was the opinion of Rabbi Ela stated? It was stated
‫יט ְּמ ִאין‬ַּ ‫ַה ְמ ַלאי ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ׁ ּ ִש ֳ ּב ִלין – ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ו ִּמ‬ with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: An awn that
is on top of a stalk can become impure and impart impurity,
‫ ְמ ַלאי ְל ַמאי ַחזְ יָ א? ֲא ַמר‬.‫וְ ֵאין ִמצְ ָט ְר ִפין‬
but it does not join together with the grains to constitute the
.‫ ִ ּב ְמ ַלאי ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַה ְמ ָל ִאין‬:‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְיל ָעא‬ requisite measure to impart impurity. It was asked: For what
function is an awn fit such that it is considered to be a handle
for the stalk? Rabbi Ela said: The mishna is stated with regard
to the case of an awn among many awns.
244 Ĥullin . perek IX . 120a . ‫ףד‬ ‫כק‬. ‫׳ט קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

.‫ ׁשו ָּמנָ א‬:‫רֹוטב? ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬

ֶ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫רֹוטב״‬
ֶ ‫״וְ ָה‬ §The mishna teaches: The gravy [rotev] joins together with the meat background

to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food, but Large date-bulk [kakotevet] – ‫כ ּכ ֶֹות ֶבת‬:ַּ The term
kotevet refers to a date that is in the beginning stage
an egg-bulk of gravy itself is not susceptible to impurity. The Gemara
of the drying process. The term kakotevet is used to
asks: To what is the term rotev referring? Rava said: The term rotev refer to the volume of a large date, which is larger
is referring to the fat that floats on top of a soup of cooked meat. than an olive-bulk but smaller than an egg-bulk.
Halakhic opinions as to the exact volume of a kote-
‫ הוּא ַעצְ מֹו יִ ְט ָמא טו ְּמ ַאת‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Abaye said to Rava: That fat itself is eaten and is therefore susceptible vet range between 40 and 50 cc.
.‫ ֵח ֶלב דִּ ְק ִר ׁיש‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין! ֶא ָּלא‬
ָ to impurity of food. Rather, the term rotev is referring to fat that
oozed out of the meat and congealed. That fat is not eaten, but it does halakha
join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to Brine on a vegetable combines to constitute a
impart the impurity of food. large date-bulk with regard to eating on Yom
Kippur – ‫ֹות ֶבת ְ ּביֹום‬ ֶ ‫צִ יר ׁ ֶש ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי יָ ָרק ִמצְ ָט ֵרף ְל ַכ ּכ‬
‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ ַמאי ִא ְיריָ א ְק ִר ׁיש ִּכי ָלא ְק ִר ׁיש נַ ִמי‬The Gemara asks: Why is the mishna referring specifically to con- ‫ה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬:ַ Brine on a vegetable combines with the
vegetable to constitute a large date-bulk with
‫ צִ יר ׁ ֶש ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי יָ ָרק ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬:‫ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬gealed fat? Even in a case where the fat did not congeal it joins regard to rendering one liable for violating the
together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart
!‫ֹות ֶבת ְ ּביֹום ַה ִּכ ּפו ִּרים‬
ֶ ‫ְל ַכ ּכ‬ prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur. Since
the impurity of food, as Reish Lakish said: Brine on a vegetable, the brine improves the food it is considered
even though it is a liquid, combines with the vegetable to constitute to be part of the food (Rambam Sefer Zemanim,
a large date-bulk [kakotevet]b with regard to rendering one liable for Hilkhot Shevitat Asor 2:7; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ
violating the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur.h Similarly, Ĥayyim 612:2).
liquid fat should combine with the meat to constitute the requisite notes
volume to impart the impurity of food. And this swallowing of a liquid is not eating – ‫וְ ָהא‬
‫לאו ֲא ִכ ָילה ִהיא‬:ָ The early commentaries find this
‫ ָה ָתם ִמ ׁ ּשוּם יִ ּתו ֵּבי דַּ ְע ָּתא הוּא – ְ ּב ָכל דְּ ה ּו‬The Gemara answers: Liquids and solids do not join together to con- question difficult, as it is derived in the Gemara
(Shevuot 23a) that drinking is included in eating
.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ִמּיַ ְּת ָבא דַּ ְע ֵּת‬stitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. The from the following verse, which refers to the drink-
reason for the halakha there, with regard to Yom Kippur, is because
ing of wine as eating: “And you shall eat before the
one is liable even for the consumption of a liquid that is not character- Lord your God, in the place where he shall choose
ized as food if the mind of the one who consumes it is settled. This is to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of your
because with regard to the fast of Yom Kippur the Torah is concerned grain, of your wine, and of your oil” (Deuteronomy
with a person’s affliction, as the verse states: “You shall afflict your 14:23). Tosafot suggest that there is a distinction
souls” (Leviticus 23:27). Therefore, one is liable on Yom Kippur for between drinking a substance whose natural state
any eating that settles his mind. is liquid and drinking a solid substance that has
been melted: Only the former manner of drinking
is considered eating, but not the latter.
– ‫ ִאי ְק ִר ׁיש‬,‫ ָה ָכא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ִאיצְ ָטרו ֵּפי הוּא‬But that is not the case here with regard to impurity. For two sub-
.‫ ִאי ָלא ְק ִר ׁיש – ָלא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬,‫ ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬stances to join together to impart impurity, a combination between
substances that have a common requisite measure for imparting impu-
rity is necessary. Liquid and solid foods do not have the same requisite
measure. Therefore, if the fat is congealed, it joins together with the
meat. If it is not congealed, it does not join together with the meat.

.‫ ּ ִפ ְיר ָמא‬:‫ ַמאי ִק ָיפה? ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬.‫״וְ ַה ִּק ָיפה״‬ §The mishna teaches: The spices [kifa] join together with the meat
to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food, but
an egg-bulk of kifa itself is not susceptible to impurity. The Gemara
asks: To what is the term kifa referring? Rabba said: The term kifa
is referring to a congealed hash of cooked meat that settled to the
bottom of the pot.

‫ הוּא ַעצְ מֹו יִ ְט ָמא טו ְּמ ַאת‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Abaye said to Rabba: That hash itself is eaten and is therefore suscep-
.‫ ַּת ְב ִלין‬:‫אֹוכ ִלין! ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬
ָ tible to the impurity of food. Rather, Rav Pappa said: The term kifa
is referring to spices, which are not eaten themselves but do join
together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart
the impurity of food.

‫ אֹו‬,‫ ִה ְק ּ ָפה ֶאת ַהדָּ ם וַ ֲא ָכלֹו‬:‫§ ְּתנַ ן ָה ָתם‬Since the mishna mentions kifa, which, according to Rabba, is refer-
.‫ ׁ ֶש ִה ְמ ָחה ֶאת ַה ֵח ֶלב וּגְ ָמעֹו – ַחּיָ יב‬ring to a congealed substance, the Gemara discusses the halakha of
one who congealed a forbidden substance and consumed it. We
learned in a baraita there: One who caused blood to coagulate and
ate it or melted forbidden fat and swallowed it is liable.

‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ִה ְק ּ ָפה ֶאת ַהדָּ ם וַ ֲא ָכלֹו – ֵּכיוָ ן‬ The Gemara objects: Granted, one who caused blood to coagulate
‫ ִה ְמ ָחה‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ַא ְח ׁשו ֵּבי ַא ְח ׁ ְש ֵב‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫דְּ ַא ְק ּ ֵפ‬ and ate it is liable. Although blood is not normally eaten in such a
manner, since he caused the blood to coagulate, he ascribed the
‫ וְ ָהא‬,‫יה‬ּ ‫ ֲא ִכ ָילה ְּכ ִת ָיבא ֵ ּב‬,‫ֶאת ַה ֵח ֶלב וּגְ ָמעֹו‬
significance of food to it, and the Torah prohibits the eating of blood,
!‫ָלאו ֲא ִכ ָילה ִהיא‬ as it is written: “You shall eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17).
But why is one who melted forbidden fat and swallowed it liable?
Eating, and not drinking, is stated in the Torah with regard to the
prohibition against the consumption of forbidden fat, as it is written:
“You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep or goat” (Leviticus 7:23), and this
swallowing of a liquid is not eating.n
 ‫כק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 120a 245
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
– ‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא ״נֶ ֶפ ׁש״‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬Reish Lakish said: One is liable even for drinking the melted
If one dissolved it in water and swallowed it, etc. – ‫ִה ְמ ָחה ּו‬
‫וּגְ ָמעֹו וכו׳‬: In a case where one consumed an olive-bulk ֶ ‫ ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ׁ ּש‬forbidden fat of an animal. The verse states: “For all who eat the
.‫ֹותה‬
of leavened bread on Passover, from the evening of the
fat of the animal that one could offer from it a fire offering to the
fifteenth of Nisan until the end of the twenty-first day of Lord, the soul that eats it shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus
the month, the halakha is as follows: If he consumed it 7:25). The term “soul” is interpreted homiletically to include in the
intentionally, he is liable to receive karet; if he consumed it prohibition one who drinks the fat.
unintentionally, he is liable to bring a sin offering. The same
halakha applies to one who took leavened bread, dissolved ‫ ִה ְמ ָחה ּו‬:‫ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָח ֵמץ ְּכ ַהאי ַ ּגוְ נָ א‬ The Gemara comments: A novelty of this kind is also taught in a
it in water, and swallowed this mixture on Passover (Ram- baraita with regard to the prohibition against eating leavened
bam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz UMatza 1:1). ,‫ ִאם ָח ֵמץ הוּא – ָענ ּו ׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬,‫וּגְ ָמעֹו‬
bread on Passover: If one took bread, dissolved it in water, and
‫ִאם ַמ ָ ּצה ִהיא – ֵאין ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א ָ ּב ּה יְ ֵדי‬
If one dissolved it in water and swallowed it…if it is swallowed this mixtureh on Passover, the halakha is as follows: If
matza, etc. – ‫אם ַמ ָ ּצה ִהיא וכו׳‬...‫עֹו‬
ִ ‫ה ְמ ָחה ּו וּגְ ָמ‬:ִ One who takes .‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח‬ ָ it is leavened bread, he is punished with karet; if it is matza,h
matza, dissolves it in water, and swallows the mixture does
then a person does not fulfill his obligation to eat matza on
not fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover (Shulĥan
Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 461:4).
Passover with this food.
One who liquefied the carcass…in the sun and drank it ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ִאם ַמ ָ ּצה ִהיא ֵאין ָא ָדם יֹוצֵ א‬ The Gemara objects: Granted, if it is matza, a person does not
is pure – ‫ב ַח ָּמה ָטהֹור‬...ּ
ּ ַ ‫ה ְמ ָחהו‬:ִ If one liquefied a kosher bird
‫״ל ֶחם עֹנִי״ ֲא ַמר‬ ֶ ‫חֹובתֹו ְ ּב ֶפ ַסח‬
ָ ‫ָ ּב ּה יְ ֵדי‬ fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover with this food, as
in the sun and drank it, he is pure because it became rotten
the Merciful One states with regard to the prohibition against
(Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 3:10). ,‫״ל ֶחם עֹנִי״ הוּא‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַהאי ָלאו‬,‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬
eating leavened bread on Passover: “You shall eat no leavened bread
‫ ֲא ִכ ָילה‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ִאם ָח ֵמץ הוּא ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬ with it; seven days you shall eat unleavened bread with it, even the
background
!‫יה‬
ּ ‫ְּכ ִת ָיבא ֵ ּב‬ bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3), indicating that one must
Carcass of a kosher bird – ‫נִ ְב ַלת עֹוף ָטהֹור‬: The carcass of
a kosher bird has a unique halakhic status, to which the eat the bread of affliction, but this bread dissolved in water is not
Gemara here is referring. Although it is ritually impure considered the bread of affliction. But if the bread is leavened
because it was not slaughtered properly, it does not impart bread, why is he punished with karet? Eating is written with
impurity by being touched or carried, as the carcass of any regard to the prohibition against leavened bread, and in this case
other animal would, but only by being eaten. When a piece he did not eat it but rather drank it.
of the carcass enters a person’s esophagus, he contracts
ritual impurity, rendering impure not only his body but also
the clothes he is wearing at the time.
– ‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא ״נֶ ֶפ ׁש״‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬Reish Lakish said: One is liable even for drinking leavened bread.
ֶ ‫ ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ׁ ּש‬The verse states: “For all who eat leavened bread from the first day
.‫ֹותה‬
until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel” (Exodus
12:15). The term “soul” is interpreted homiletically to include in
the prohibition one who drinks leavened bread.

‫ וְ ַתנְיָא נַ ִמי ַ ּג ֵ ּבי נִ ְב ַלת עֹוף ָטהֹור ְּכ ַהאי‬The Gemara comments: A novelty of this kind is also taught in
– ‫ ַ ּב ַח ָּמה‬,‫ ִה ְמ ָחה ּו ָ ּבאוּר – ָט ֵמא‬:‫ ַ ּגוְ נָ א‬the Tosefta (Zavim 5:9) with regard to one who eats the unslaugh-
tered carcass of a kosher bird:b One who liquefied the carcass of
!‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ִכ ָילה ְּכ ִתיב ֵ ּב‬,‫ וְ ָהוֵ ינַן ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ָטהֹור‬
an unslaughtered kosher bird in fire and drank the substance is
impure. But one who liquefied it in the sun and drank it is pure.h
And we discussed it: Eating and not drinking is stated with
regard to the impurity of a carcass, as it is written: “And every soul
that eats an unslaughtered carcass or that which is mauled by an
animal, whether he is native or stranger, he shall wash his garments,
bathe in water, and shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus
17:15). Why, then, does one who drinks a kosher bird carcass
become impure?

– ‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא ״נֶ ֶפ ׁש״‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬Reish Lakish said: He becomes impure because the verse states:
‫ ִאי ָה ִכי ַ ּב ַח ָּמה‬.‫ֹותה‬ ֶ ‫“ ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ׁ ּש‬And every soul.” The term “soul” is interpreted homiletically to
include one who drinks. The Gemara objects: If so, one who
.‫יסרו ֵּחי ִמ ְס ַרח‬
ְ ‫נַ ִמי! ַ ּב ַח ָּמה ִא‬
drinks a carcass that is melted in the sun should also become
impure. The Gemara explains: A carcass takes a long time to melt
in the sun. Therefore, the liquid becomes rotten and unfit for
consumption.

‫ דְּ ִאי ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ֵח ֶלב – ָח ֵמץ‬,‫יכי‬ ִ ‫וּצְ ִר‬ The Gemara cited three instances in which Reish Lakish inter-
‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ל ֹא ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ׁ ְש ַעת‬,‫ֵיה‬
ּ ‫ָלא ָא ֵתי ִמ ּינ‬ preted the term “soul” as including one who drinks. The Gemara
explains: All three mentions of the term “soul” are necessary. As,
‫ֵיה – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬
ּ ‫ נְ ֵב ָלה ָלא ָא ֵתי ִמ ּינ‬.‫ֹושר‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ַה ּכ‬
if the Merciful One had written the term “soul” only with regard
.‫ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬ to forbidden fat, liability for drinking liquefied leavened bread
could not have been derived from it, since the prohibition against
the consumption of forbidden fat has an element of stringency that
does not apply to leavened bread in that the forbidden fat had no
period of fitness for consumption. Leavened bread, on the other
hand, may be consumed before Passover. Likewise, impurity con-
tracted by drinking a liquefied carcass could not be derived from
the halakha of forbidden fat because the consumption of forbidden
fat is punishable by karet, which is not the case with regard to the
consumption of a carcass.
246 Ĥullin . perek IX . 120a . ‫ףד‬ ‫כק‬. ‫׳ט קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫ֵיה‬
ּ ‫ וְ ִאי ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָח ֵמץ – ֵח ֶלב ָלא ָא ֵתי ִמ ּינ‬And if the Merciful One had written the term “soul” only with
ּ ‫ וּנְ ֵב ָלה ָלא ָא ְתיָ א ִמ ּינ‬.‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ל ֹא הו ַּּתר ִמ ְּכ ָללֹו‬regard to leavened bread, liability for drinking melted forbidden
,‫ֵיה‬
fat could not be derived from it, as there are no circumstances in
.‫ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬
which the general prohibition against eating leavened bread was
permitted. The consumption of forbidden fat, on the other hand,
is permitted with regard to the fat of an undomesticated animal.
And similarly, impurity contracted by drinking a liquefied carcass
could not be derived from the halakha of leavened bread, because
the halakha of leavened bread has an element of stringency that does
not apply to a carcass in that its consumption is punishable by karet.

‫ וְ ִאי ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִ ּבנְ ֵב ָלה – ָהנָ ְך ָלא ָא ְתיָ א‬And if the Merciful One had written the term “soul” only with
.‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה‬,‫ ִמ ָּינ ּה‬regard to a carcass, those prohibitions against drinking melted
fat and liquefied leavened bread could not be derived from it,
because a carcass has an element of stringency that does not apply
to those prohibitions in that it transmits impurity to one who eats
it. Therefore, all three mentions of the term “soul” are necessary.

!‫יתי ֲח ָדא ִמ ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬ֵ ‫ ֵּת‬,‫ ֲח ָדא ֵמ ֲח ָדא ָלא ָא ְתיָ א‬The Gemara objects: It is true that one halakha cannot be derived
‫יתי‬
ֵ ‫יתי? ָלא ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִ ּבנְ ֵב ָלה וְ ֵת‬ ֵ ‫ ֵהי ֵּת‬from either one of the others, as detailed above. Nevertheless, one
can derive the halakha of one of them from the other two. The
!‫ֵמ ָהנָ ךְ – ַמה ְּל ָהנָ ךְ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ָענו ּׁש ָּכ ֵרת‬
Gemara responds: This is not possible, as which halakha can one
derive from the others? Let the Merciful One not write this hal-
akha with regard to a liquefied carcass and derive it from these
other prohibitions against eating forbidden fat and leavened bread.
One can refute this derivation: What is notable about these other
prohibitions? They are notable in that one who transgresses them
is punished with karet, contrary to one who eats a carcass.

‫יתי ֵמ ָהנָ ךְ – ַמה‬ ֵ ‫ ָלא ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ְ ּב ָח ֵמץ וְ ֵת‬The Gemara suggests: Let the Merciful One not write this halakha
!‫ֹושר‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ ְּל ָהנָ ךְ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ל ֹא ָהיְ ָתה ָל ֶהן ׁ ְש ַעת ַה ּכ‬with regard to dissolved leavened bread and derive it from these
halakhot of forbidden fat and a carcass. The Gemara refutes the
derivation: What is notable about these halakhot? They are notable
in that they had no period of fitness for consumption, as opposed
to leavened bread, which was fit for consumption before Passover.

‫יתי ֵמ ָהנָ ךְ – ַמה‬

ֵ ‫ ָלא ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ְ ּב ֵח ֶלב וְ ֵת‬The Gemara suggests: Let the Merciful One not write this halakha
ַ ‫ ּת‬,‫ ְּל ָהנָ ְך ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ל ֹא הו ַּּתר ִמ ְּכ ָל ָלן‬with regard to forbidden fat and derive it from these halakhot
‫ֹאמר ְ ּב ֵח ֶלב‬
of consuming leavened bread and a carcass. The Gemara refutes
!‫ׁ ֶשהו ַּּתר ִמ ְּכ ָללֹו‬
the derivation: What is notable about these halakhot? They are
notable in that there are no circumstances in which their general
prohibition was permitted. Shall you say the same with regard
to forbidden fat, whose general prohibition was permitted in
certain circumstances? Therefore, all three mentions of the term
“soul” are necessary.

‫בֹוה – נְ ֵב ָלה‬ ַּ ‫ימא ֵח ֶלב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ַל ָ ּג‬ ָ ‫ ו ַּמאי נִיהוּ? ִא ֵיל‬The Gemara asks: And what is the case in which forbidden fat is
!‫בֹוה‬ ַּ ‫ נַ ִמי ִא ׁ ְש ְּת ַראי ְמ ִל ַיקת עֹוף ַל ָג‬permitted? If we say that it is the fat of a domesticated animal that
ּ
is permitted to be sacrificed in the Temple to the Most High, a bird
carcass is also permitted to be sacrificed in the Temple. Although
pinching the nape of the neck of a bird renders it an unslaughtered
carcass and forbidden for consumption, bird offerings are sacrificed
to the Most High in such a manner.

,‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ֵח ֶלב ַחּיָ ה ְל ֶה ְדיֹוט – נְ ֵב ָלה נַ ִמי ִא ׁ ְש ְּת ַראי‬And if the reference is rather to the forbidden fat of an undomes-
!‫ ְמ ִל ָיקה דְּ ַח ַּטאת ָהעֹוף ַל ּכ ֲֹהנִים‬ticated animal, which is permitted to an ordinary person, one may
respond that a carcass is also permitted for a person’s consumption
in a certain case, as the pinching of the nape of the neck of a bird
sin offering renders it fit for consumption of the priests.

‫ ו ְּד ָקא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָל ְך‬,‫עֹולם ֵח ֶלב ַחּיָ ה ְל ֶה ְדיֹוט‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara answers: Actually, the reference is to the forbidden fat
.ּ‫בֹוה ָקא זָ כו‬ ַּ ‫ ּכ ֲֹהנִים – ּכ ֲֹהנִים ִמ ׁ ֻש ְל ַחן ָג‬of an undomesticated animal, which is permitted to an ordinary
ּ ּ
person. And that which is difficult for you with regard to the fact
that the priests eat the carcass of a bird which is brought as a sin
offering is not difficult, as the priests receive their portion from
the table of the Most High. Since this carcass is permitted as an
offering to God, it is permitted to the priests as well. Therefore, this
does not qualify as a case of an unslaughtered carcass permitted to
ordinary people.
 ‫כק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 120a 247
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫״ה ְּט ֵמ ִאים״ – ֶל ֱאסֹור‬ ַ :‫§ וְ ָהא דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬The Gemara challenges: But that which is taught in the following
?‫ ָל ָּמה ִלי‬,‫יפה ׁ ֶש ָּל ֶהן‬ ְ ְ‫ צִ ָירן ו‬baraita is difficult. The Torah states with regard to the prohibition
ָ ‫רֹוט ָבן וְ ִק‬
against eating creeping animals: “These are they that are impure
!‫ִליגְ ַמר ֵמ ָהנֵי‬
[hatteme’im] to you among all the creeping animals” (Leviticus
11:31). The Sages interpret the letter heh in the term “hatteme’im” to
forbid their juice that oozes from their carcasses, and their gravy
that is produced when they are cooked, and sediments of their
flesh that congeal at the bottom of the dish when cooked. The
Gemara explains the challenge: Why do I need a verse to teach this
halakha? Let this halakha be learned from these halakhot of melted
forbidden fat, a liquefied bird carcass, and dissolved leavened bread.

‫ ֲהוָ ה‬,‫ דְּ ִאי ָלא ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫יכי‬ ִ ‫צְ ִר‬ The Gemara answers: It is necessary for this halakha to be written,
,‫ דַּ ּיֹו ַל ָ ּבא ִמן ַהדִּ ין ִל ְהיֹות ַּכ ּנִדּ ֹון‬:‫ָא ִמינָ א‬ as if the Merciful One had not written this halakha with regard
to creeping animals and instead the halakha was derived from the
‫ ַאף ָה ָכא‬,‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ ָּ ‫ָמה ָה ָתם ַעד דְּ ִא‬
other halakhot, I would say: It is sufficient for the conclusion that
.‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
ָּ ‫נַ ִמי ַעד דְּ ִא‬ emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. Accord-
ingly, just as there, one who consumes melted forbidden fat, a lique-
fied carcass, or dissolved leavened bread is not liable until he con-
sumes an olive-bulk, so too here, with regard to consuming the
juice, gravy, and sediments of creeping animals, one is not liable
until he consumes an olive-bulk. Therefore, a separate verse is
necessary to teach that one is liable even for consuming a lentil-bulk
of the juice, gravy, or sediments of a creeping animal, just as one is
liable for consuming this measure of the creeping animal itself.

Perek IX
Daf 120 Amud b

ְ‫ וְ ֵלית ּו ָהנָ ך‬,‫יכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָרצִ ים‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִל‬The Gemara objects: Let the Merciful One write the prohibition
!ּ‫ וְ ִליגְ ְמר ּו ִמ ּינַיְ יהו‬against consuming the juice, gravy, and sediments of creeping
animals and let these halakhot of consuming liquefied forbidden
fat, dissolved leavened bread, and a melted carcass of a bird come
and be learned from it.n The Torah does not need to state those
halakhot explicitly.

– ‫ ַמה ִּל ׁ ְש ָרצִ ים‬: ְ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא ָּיכא ְל ִמ ְיפ ַרך‬The Gemara explains: It is not possible to derive those halakhot in
.ּ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן טו ְּמ ָא ָתן ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשהו‬such a manner because that derivation can be refuted: What is
notable about creeping animals? They are notable in that their
impurity is imparted in any amount.n Those other halakhot, on the
other hand, do not apply to less than an olive-bulk.

notes
And let these come and be learned from it – ‫וְ ֵלית ּו ָהנָ ךְ וְ ִליגְ ְמר ּו‬ Their impurity is imparted in any amount – ‫טו ְּמ ָא ָתן ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ּ ֶשה ּו‬:
‫מ ּינַיְ יה ּו‬:ִ The phrase: And let these, indicates that the Gemara The term: Any amount, here refers to a lentil-bulk, the small-
is suggesting that one derive all three prohibitions previously est of all Torah measures. The Gemara derives this measure as
mentioned from the case of creeping animals: Consumption of follows (Nazir 52a): The verse states with regard to creeping
liquefied forbidden fat, a melted carcass of a bird, and dissolved animals: “Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be
leavened bread. Some early commentaries explain that the impure” (Leviticus 11:31). One might have thought this halakha
Gemara is actually suggesting that one derive only the prohibi- applies only to complete creatures. Therefore, the verse states:
tion against consuming a melted carcass of a bird from the “And upon whatever any of them, when they are dead, fall, it
case of a creeping animal. The other two prohibitions cannot shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:32), which indicates that part of
be derived from a creeping animal because this derivation can these creatures also imparts impurity. The Gemara reconciles
be refuted in a manner previously discussed: The prohibition the two verses by explaining that one does not become ritually
against consuming creeping animals is notable in that there are impure unless he touches at least part of them that is equal in
no circumstances in which it was relaxed, while the consump- measure to all of them, i.e., a large part. The Sages calculated
tion of forbidden fats is permitted in certain cases. Similarly, the this as being the volume of a lentil-bulk, as the skink, one of the
prohibition against consuming creeping animals is notable in eight impure animals, is the size of a lentil-bulk at the beginning
that there was no time in which they were fit for consumption, of its life cycle.
while leavened bread was fit for consumption before Passover
(Rashba).

248 Ĥullin . perek IX . 120b . ‫ףד‬ ‫כק‬: ‫׳ט קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ַה ֶּט ֶבל וְ ֶה ָח ָד ׁש וְ ַה ֶה ְקדֵּ ׁש‬:‫§ וְ ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא‬The Gemara continues to examine the source for the status of background
Sabbatical Year – ‫יעית‬ ִ ‫ש ִב‬:
ְ ׁ A Sabbatical cycle lasts seven
‫ ּכו ָּּלן – ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין‬,‫יעית וְ ַה ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם‬ ִ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ְש ִב‬liquids with regard to various halakhot based on that which is years. The seventh year is known as the Sabbatical Year, or
taught in a baraita: With regard to untithed produce; and the new
?‫ ְמ ַנָלן‬,‫מֹותן‬ָ ‫ַהּיֹוצְ ִאין ֵמ ֶהן ְּכ‬ the year of abandonment or release [shemitta]. The Sabbati-
crop of grain of the year, which is forbidden until after the omer cal Year is based on Torah law (see Leviticus 25:1–7 and Deu-
offering is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan (see Leviticus 23:14); teronomy 15:1–6), but most authorities maintain that the
and consecrated produce; and the produce of the Sabbatical Yearb conditions for the applicability of the biblical mitzva have
after the designated time when it must be removed from one’s lapsed, and its present-day observance is based on rabbinic
house; and diverse kinds, i.e., the produce of a vineyard in which decree. During the Sabbatical Year all agricultural land in
grains were sown; with regard to all of them, it is prohibited to Eretz Yisrael must be left to lie fallow. It is prohibited to work
the land, except for what is necessary to keep existing crops
consume liquid that emerges from them just as it is prohibited to alive. All produce that does grow is ownerless and must be
consume them themselves.h The Gemara asks: From where do we left unguarded in the fields for ready access to any creature,
derive this halakha? including wild animals and birds. As long as produce can
still be found in the fields it may be eaten, although it may
‫ ַמה ְּל ָהנָ ךְ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬, ְ‫ ִליגְ ַמר ֵמ ָהנָ ך‬:‫ימא‬
ָ ‫ וְ ִכי ֵּת‬And if you would say: Let those prohibitions be learned from not be bought and sold in the normal manner or used for
.ּ‫ ִא ּיסוּר ַה ָ ּבא ֵמ ֵא ָליו ָהוו‬these prohibitions of consuming the liquid that seeps from creep- purposes other than food. Following that time, one must
ing animals, liquefied fat, dissolved leavened bread, and liquefied remove the produce of the Sabbatical Year from his house.
bird carcasses, one can respond that this derivation can be refuted. It is prohibited by rabbinic decree to consume produce that
What is notable about these prohibitions? They are notable in that grew from seeds during the Sabbatical Year, even if it grew
by itself. According to some authorities, this prohibition
each of them is a prohibition that develops on its own without applies by Torah law.
any human intervention, as opposed to the prohibitions in the
baraita, which do not necessarily share this element of stringency. First fruits – ‫יכו ִּרים‬
ּ ‫ב‬:
ּ ִ The first fruits of the new harvest
were given to the priests (Deuteronomy 26:1–11). When
‫יכא‬
ָ ‫ ֵה‬,‫יכא דְּ ִא ּיסוּר ָ ּבא ֵמ ֵא ָליו‬ ָ ‫ ֵּתינַ ח ֵה‬Therefore, it works out well to derive the prohibition against con- the Temple stood, a farmer would select the first fruits of
the seven types of produce with which Eretz Yisrael is spe-
?‫ ְמ ַנָלן‬,‫ דְּ ָלאו ִא ּיסוּר ַה ָ ּבא ֵמ ֵא ָליו‬suming liquids that emerged from a solid where the prohibition cially favored: Wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates,
is one that develops on its own, such as untithed produce, the new olives, and dates (Deuteronomy 8:8). By rabbinic decree, at
crop, Sabbatical Year produce and diverse kinds. But with regard to least one-sixtieth of the harvest must be brought as first
consecrated produce, where the prohibition does not develop on fruits. The farmer would bring these fruits to the Temple
its own but rather only after a person consecrates the produce, in a basket, place them before the altar, and recite a prayer
from where do we derive that it is prohibited to consume the liquid of appreciation to God (Deuteronomy 26:3–10). Afterward,
that emerges from the produce just as it is prohibited to consume the fruit was given to the priests and eaten under the
same provisions that govern teruma. The first fruits were
the produce itself?
brought to the Temple between the festivals of Shavuot
and Sukkot. If they were not brought within this period, an
‫ ו ִּב ּכ ּו ִרים גּ ו ַּפיְ יה ּו‬.‫ ָ ּג ְמ ִרינַ ן ִמ ִ ּב ּכ ּו ִרים‬The Gemara answers: We learn this halakha from the case of first
extension was granted until Hanukkah. An entire tractate of
?‫ ְמ ַנָלן‬fruits. Consumption of first fruits is a prohibition that does not
b
the Mishna, Bikkurim, discusses the halakhot and practices
develop on its own, because the owner must set aside the first fruits. governing this mitzva.
And consumption of the liquid that emerges from first fruits is
prohibited like consumption of the fruit itself. The Gemara asks: halakha
And from where do we derive this halakha with regard to first It is prohibited to consume liquid that emerges from
fruits themselves? them just as it is prohibited to consume them them-
selves – ‫מֹותן‬
ָ ‫מ ׁ ְש ִקין ַהּיֹוצְ ִאין ֵמ ֶהן ְּכ‬:ַ With regard to untithed
,‫״פ ִרי״ – ּ ְפ ִרי ַא ָּתה ֵמ ִביא‬
ְ ּ :‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ ‫ דְּ ָתנֵי ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara answers that first fruits can be brought as wine, as produce, the new crop, consecrated produce, produce that
‫ ֵה ִביא ֲענָ ִבים‬.‫ וְ ִאי ַא ָּתה ֵמ ִביא ַמ ׁ ְש ֶקה‬Rabbi Yosei teaches: The verse states with regard to first fruits: comes from orla, produce of the Sabbatical Year, and the
“You shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you produce of diverse kinds, it is prohibited to consume liquid
.‫״ת ִביא״‬ָּ :‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן? ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫ו ְּד ָר ָכן‬ that emerges from them just as it is prohibited to consume
shall bring in from your land” (Deuteronomy 26:2). Since the verse
mentions fruit, this indicates that you must bring actual fruit, and the produce itself. Nevertheless, one receives lashes only for
the consumption of wine and oil of orla and the wine of
you may not bring the first fruits in the form of beverages.h But if
diverse kinds. This ruling is in accordance with the baraita
one brought grapes and he had already pressed them into wine,n here and the mishna in tractate Terumot (Rambam Sefer
from where is it derived that he has fulfilled his obligation? The Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 10:22).
verse states: “You shall bring in from your land.” This superfluous
You must bring fruit and you may not bring beverages –
term serves to teach that if one brings wine for the mitzva of first ‫פ ִרי ַא ָּתה ֵמ ִביא וְ ִאי ַא ָּתה ֵמ ִביא ַמ ׁ ְש ֶקה‬:ְ ּ One may not bring first
fruits, he has fulfilled his obligation. fruits in the form of beverages except for olives and grapes.
If one brought first fruits in the form of beverages they are
‫ ַמה ְּל ִב ּכו ִּרים – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬:‫יפ ַר ְך‬ ְ ‫יכא ְל ִמ‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬But this derivation from the case of first fruits can be refuted: not accepted, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei
!‫ ְטעוּנִין ְק ִרּיָ יה וְ ַה ָּנ ָחה‬What is notable about first fruits? They are notable in that they (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 2:4).
require reciting the passage which begins: “My father was a wan-
dering Aramean” (Deuteronomy 26:5), and placing the fruits in
the Temple, whereas no such requirements exists with regard to
consecrated produce.

notes
One brought grapes and he had already pressed them into that that case is a subject of dispute among tanna’im. Rabbi
wine – ‫ה ִביא ֲענָ ִבים ו ְּד ָר ָכן‬:ֵ The early commentaries disagree with Yehoshua holds that one may bring first fruits of wine and oil,
regard to the interpretation of this case in the baraita. According but the Rabbis hold that one must bring the whole fruit. The
to Tosafot, the case is where one designated grapes or olives as baraita is discussing a case where one brought the first fruits
first fruits when they were whole, after which one may extract in the form of fruit and then later crushed the grapes or olives
wine or oil from them and bring it to the Temple. By contrast, in the Temple courtyard. In such a case, the wine or oil retains
Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna (tractate Ĥalla) explains the status of first fruits, and a non-priest may not consume it.

 ‫כק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 120b 249

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
.‫ ְ ּג ַמר ִמ ְּתרו ָּמה‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, one can derive the prohibition against consuming the liquid
Infer from it and again from it – ‫דּ ֹון ִמ ָּינ ּה ו ִּמ ָּינ ּה‬: that emerges from consecrated produce from the prohibition against
A halakha derived via the exegetical method of a
verbal analogy, i.e., a tradition that two cases are
consuming liquid that emerges from teruma, i.e., the portion of
connected as indicated by similar words, is consid- produce designated for the priest.
ered a Torah edict. Although there is a principle that
verbal analogies apply beyond the specific detail .‫ית ַק ׁש ְל ִב ּכו ִּרים‬ְ ‫ ו ְּתרו ָּמה גּ ו ָּפ ּה ְמ ַנָלן? דְּ ִא‬The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive this halakha with
under discussion, there is a dispute with regard .‫ ״ו ְּתרו ַּמת יָ ֶדךָ ״ – ֵאלּ ּו ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ָמר‬regard to teruma itself? the Gemara answers: It is derived from the
to the extent of the details derived by verbal anal- fact that teruma is compared to first fruits, as it is written: “You may
ogy. According to the method of: Infer from it and not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of
derive the details from it, all the details of the source your oil, or the firstborn of your cattle and of your flocks, or any of your
halakha are applied to the other case. By contrast, vows that you will vow, or your pledges, nor the offering of your hand”
according to the method of: Infer from it but inter-
pret the halakha according to its own place, the
(Deuteronomy 12:17), and the Master said with regard to the phrase
verbal analogy applies only to the particular detail “nor the offering [teruma] of your hand” that these are the first fruits.
to which it refers. Since the verse uses the term “teruma” with regard to first fruits, the
halakha of teruma is compared to the halakha of first fruits: Just as
liquid that emerges from first fruits is forbidden like the fruit itself,
so too liquid that emerges from teruma is forbidden like the produce
itself. Consequently, the prohibition against consuming the liquid that
emerges from consecrated produce can be derived from teruma.

‫יתה‬ ָ ‫ ַמה ִּל ְתרו ָּמה – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ֶל‬The Gemara refutes this derivation from teruma: What is notable
ָ ‫יה ִמ‬
ֶ ְ‫ ו‬about teruma? It is notable in that a non-priest is liable to receive the
!‫חֹומ ׁש‬
punishment of death at the hand of Heaven for consuming teruma,
and he must restore the value of the produce he ate, adding one-fifth
of its value as a fine. This element of stringency does not exist with
regard to one who consumes consecrated produce.

‫ ַמה‬.‫ ֶא ָּלא ְ ּג ַמר ִמ ַּת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ִמ ְּתרו ָּמה ו ִּב ּכו ִּרים‬Rather, one can learn the prohibition against consuming the liquid
‫יהם‬ֶ ‫ ִּל ְתרו ָּמה ו ִּב ּכו ִּרים – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ַחּיָ ִיבין ֲע ֵל‬that emerges from consecrated produce from both teruma and first
fruits. The Gemara refutes this derivation: What is notable about
!‫חֹומ ׁש‬ֶ ְ‫יתה ו‬ ָ ‫ִמ‬
teruma and first fruits? They are notable in that a non-priest is liable
to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven for consum-
ing teruma or first fruits, and he must restore the value of the produce
he ate, adding one-fifth of its value as a fine. This is not true with regard
to one who consumes consecrated produce.

‫ אֹו‬,‫ ָא ְתיָ א ִמ ְּתר ּו ָמה וְ ַחד ֵמ ָהנָ ְך‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, the prohibition against consuming the liquid that emerges
. ְ‫ ִמ ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים וְ ַחד ֵמ ָהנָ ך‬from consecrated produce is derived from teruma and one of these
prohibitions, i.e., a liquefied carcass of a bird or dissolved leavened
bread; or it can be derived from first fruits and one of these
prohibitions.

‫ דְּ ַב ׁש ְּת ָמ ִרים וְ יֵ ין ַּת ּפו ִּחים‬:‫וְ ָהא דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ §The Gemara elaborates on the comparison between teruma and first
‫יתוָ ונִּיֹות ו ׁ ְּש ָאר ִמינֵי ֵפירֹות ׁ ֶשל‬ְ ‫חֹומץ ִס‬ ֶ ְ‫ו‬ fruits with regard to the halakha that the status of liquid that emerges
from produce is like that of the produce itself, and it explains that
,‫חֹומ ׁש‬
ֶ ְ‫יעזֶ ר ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ֶק ֶרן ו‬ ֶ ‫ְּתרו ָּמה ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬
which we learned in a mishna (Terumot 11:2): If a non-priest ate date
.‫ֹוטר‬
ֵ ‫הֹוש ַע ּפ‬ֻ ׁ ְ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ honey, or apple wine, or vinegar made from grapes of autumnh that
grow stunted at the end of the season and are unfit for wine production,
or any of the other types of juice made from fruits of teruma, Rabbi
Eliezer deems him obligated to repay the principal and an additional
fifth, like the penalty for one who ate the teruma produce itself. And
Rabbi Yehoshua deems him exempt from payment.

‫ ו ְּבדוּן ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י? ְ ּבדוּן ִמ ָּינ ּה ו ִּמ ָּינ ּה‬The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Eliezer
ֵ ְ‫ ו‬and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree? They disagree with regard to the
.‫אֹוקי ְ ּב ַא ְת ָר ּה ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬
principles governing the process of deriving one halakha from another
halakha. One maintains the exegetical principle: Infer from it, and
again from it,b i.e., when one case is derived from another all the
details of the source case are applied to the other case; and one main-
tains the principle: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according
to its own place, i.e., one derives only the basic principle of the source
case, whereas all other aspects of the source case are not applied to the
case at hand.

halakha
Date honey or apple wine or vinegar from grapes of autumn – If he consumed it unintentionally he is not obligated to pay, but if
‫חֹומץ ִס ְיתוָ ונִּיֹות‬
ֶ ְ‫דְּ ַב ׁש ְּת ָמ ִרים וְ יֵ ין ַּת ּפו ִּחים ו‬: With regard to a non-priest he consumed it intentionally he receives lashes for rebelliousness
who drank honey from dates, wine from apples, or any other type (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 11:2).
of beverage made from produce of teruma, the halakha is as follows:

250 Ĥullin . perek IX . 120b . ‫ףד‬ ‫כק‬: ‫׳ט קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ַמה‬,‫ דּ וּן ִמ ָּינ ּה ו ִּמ ָּינ ּה‬:‫יעזֶ ר ָס ַבר‬

ֶ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ As Rabbi Eliezer holds: Infer from it, and again from it. Just as
‫ ַאף‬,‫מֹותן‬
ָ ‫ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים – ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַהּיֹוצֵ א ֵמ ֶהן ְּכ‬ with regard to first fruits, the status of the liquid that emerges from
them is like that of the produce itself, so too with regard to teruma,
.‫מֹותן‬
ָ ‫ְּתרו ָּמה נַ ִמי – ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַהּיֹוצֵ א ֵמ ֶהן ְּכ‬
the status of the liquid that emerges from it is like that of the pro-
‫ ַאף‬,‫ ַמה ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ְש ָאר ִמינִין‬,‫ו ִּמ ָּינ ּה‬ duce itself. And again infer from it: Just as the halakha of first fruits
.‫ְּתרו ָּמה נַ ִמי – ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו ׁ ְש ָאר ִמינִין‬ includes not only olives and grapes but even other types of produce
from the seven species for which Eretz Yisrael is praised, and the
status of liquid that emerges from that produce is like that of the
produce itself, so too with regard to teruma, although oil and wine
are the only liquids from which one is obligated to separate teruma,
even liquid that emerges from other types of produce designated
as teruma besides olives and grapes has the same status as the
produce itself.

– ‫ ַמה ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים‬,‫ דּ וּן ִמ ָּינ ּה‬:‫הֹוש ַע ָס ַבר‬

ֻ ׁ ְ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬ And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Infer from it that just as with regard
– ‫ ַאף ְּתרו ָּמה‬,‫מֹותן‬ ָ ‫ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַהּיֹוצְ ִאין ֵמ ֶהן ְּכ‬ to first fruits the status of the liquid that emerges from them is like
that of the produce itself, so too with regard to teruma, the status of
,‫אֹוקי ְ ּב ַא ְת ָר ּה‬
ֵ ְ‫ ו‬.‫מֹותן‬
ָ ‫ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין ַהּיֹוצְ ִאין ֵמ ֶהן ְּכ‬
the liquid that emerges from it is like that of the produce itself. But
‫ירֹוש‬
ׁ ‫ַמה ַּמ ׁ ְש ִקין דְּ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ִ ּב ְתר ּו ָמה ִּת‬ interpret the halakha according to its own place: Just as in the case
‫ ַאף ַמ ׁ ְש ִקין‬.‫ ִמ ִידי ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ָלא‬,‫וְ יִ צְ ָהר – ִאין‬ of liquids that are consecrated as teruma, with regard to wine and
,‫ירֹוש וְ יִ צְ ָהר – ִאין‬
ׁ ‫ ִּת‬,‫מֹותן‬ ָ ‫ַהּיֹוצְ ִאין ֵמ ֶהן ְּכ‬ oil, yes, they are included, but other types are not included, so too
.‫ִמ ִידי ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ָלא‬ in the case of liquid that emerges from teruma, as with regard to
wine and oil, yes, they are like the produce itself, but any other
type of liquid that emerges from teruma is not like the produce
itself. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua deems exempt a non-priest who
consumed any of the beverages mentioned in the mishna.

‫יאין ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים ַמ ׁ ְש ֶקה ֶא ָּלא‬

ִ ‫ ֵאין ְמ ִב‬:‫ וְ ָהא דִּ ְתנַן‬The Gemara cites that which we learned in a mishna (Terumot 11:3):
?‫יתים ו ִּמן ָה ֲענָ ִבים ַמ ּנִי‬ ִ ֵ‫ ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ַהּז‬One may bring beverages made from first fruits to the Temple only
in the case of that which emerges from the olives, i.e., oil, or from
the grapes, i.e., wine. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose
opinion is that mishna?

‫אֹוקי‬
ֵ ְ‫ דּ וּן ִמ ָּינ ּה ו‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫הֹוש ַע ִהיא‬ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ַר ִ ּבי י‬The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
.‫ וּגְ ַמר ְלה ּו ְל ִב ּכו ִּרים ִמ ְּתרו ָּמה‬,‫ ְ ּב ַא ְת ָר ּה‬Yehoshua, who says: Infer from it but interpret the halakha accord-
ing to its own place. He derives the halakha of liquid that emerges
from teruma from first fruits only with regard to wine and oil, and in
the opposite direction, he derives the halakha of liquid that emerges
from first fruits from teruma. Therefore, even with regard to first
fruits the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that
of the produce itself only with regard to wine and oil. But according
to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the halakha of liquid
that emerges from teruma is derived from first fruits even with regard
to other types of produce besides grapes and olives, contrary to the
statement of that mishna, one may bring beverages extracted from
other first fruits besides wine and oil to the Temple.

‫סֹופגִ ין ֶאת ָה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬

ְ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫ וְ ָהא דִּ ְתנַן‬The Gemara cites that which we learned in the same mishna (Teru-
‫יתים ּו ִמן‬ ִ ֵ‫ ֶא ָּלא ַעל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ַהּז‬,‫ ָע ְר ָלה‬mot 11:3): One incurs the forty lashes due to drinking the juice
squeezed from orla, i.e., the fruit of a tree during the first three years
?‫ָה ֲענָ ִבים ַמ ּנִי‬
after its planting, only for that which emerges from the olives or
from the grapes.h The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose
opinion is that mishna?

‫אֹוקי‬
ֵ ְ‫ דּ וּן ִמ ָּינ ּה ו‬:‫ דְּ ָא ַמר‬,‫הֹוש ַע ִהיא‬ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ַר ִ ּבי י‬The Gemara answers: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
‫ וּגְ ַמר ְלה ּו ְל ִב ּכו ִּרים ִמ ְּתרו ָּמה‬,‫ ְ ּב ַא ְת ָר ּה‬Yehoshua, who says: Infer from it but interpret the halakha accord-
ing to its own place, and he derives the halakha of liquid that
emerges from first fruits from teruma. Therefore, even with regard
to first fruits, the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is
like that of the produce itself only with regard to wine and oil.

halakha
One incurs the forty lashes due to orla only for that which forty lashes due to drinking the liquid squeezed from orla fruits
emerges from the olives or from the grapes – ‫סֹופגִ ין ֶאת‬ ְ ‫ֵאין‬ only in the cases of oil and wine. This ruling is in accordance with
ִ ֵ‫ה ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָע ְר ָלה ֶא ָּלא ַעל ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמן ַהּז‬:ָ It is pro-
‫יתים ו ִּמן ָה ֲענָ ִבים‬ the mishna in tractate Terumot (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
hibited to consume liquid that is extracted from orla, just as it is Ma’akhalot Assurot 10:22).
prohibited to consume the fruit itself. Nevertheless, one incurs

 ‫כק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 120b 251

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek IX
Daf 121 Amud a
background
.‫״פ ִרי״ ִמ ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים‬
ְ ּ ‫״פ ִרי״‬
ְ ּ ,‫ וַ ֲה ַדר ַמיְ ֵיתי ָל ּה ְל ָע ְר ָלה‬And then he derives the halakha of liquid that emerges from orla
Nuchal ligament [marteka] – ‫מ ְר ְט ָקא‬:ַ The term from first fruits via a verbal analogy between one instance of the
marteka refers to the nuchal ligament, a strong
band of tissue that aids in holding the head erect.
word fruit and another instance of the word fruit.n With regard to
Alternatively, the Arukh cites a version of the text orla the verse states: “And you shall count the fruit thereof as forbid-
with the word mardeka. He explains that the term den” (Leviticus 19:23), and with regard to first fruits the verse states:
is referring to dead flesh, similar to the Middle “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground” (Deu-
Persian word murdag, meaning death. teronomy 26:2). Therefore, just as with regard to first fruits the
status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that of the
produce only with regard to grapes and olives, so too with regard to
orla one receives lashes only for drinking the liquid of grapes and
olives, but not for drinking the liquid of other types of produce.

,‫ ַמ ְר ְט ָקא‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬
ָ ‫״א ַלל״? ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֲ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫§ ״וְ ָה ֲא ַלל״‬The mishna teaches that the alal joins together with the flesh to
.‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ׁ ֶש ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין‬:‫ וְ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר‬constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food,
despite not being considered food itself. The Gemara asks: To what
is the term alal referring? Rabbi Yoĥanan says: It is referring to the
nuchal ligament [marteka].bn And Reish Lakish says: It is refer-
ring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife
Bovine nuchal ligament has flayed the flesh.

‫ ״וְ או ָּלם ַא ֶּתם ט ְֹפ ֵלי ׁ ָש ֶקר ר ְֹפ ֵאי ֱא ִלל‬:‫ית ֵיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ The Gemara raises an objection to the explanation of Reish Lakish
‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ַמ ְר ְט ָקא – ַהיְ ינ ּו‬,‫ֻּכ ְּל ֶכם״‬ from that which is written: “But you are plasterers of lies, you are
all physicians of no value [elil]” ( Job 13:4). The term “no value
‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫דְּ ָלאו ַ ּבר ְרפו ָּאה הוּא‬
[elil]” stems from the same linguistic root as the word alal. Granted,
!‫ ַ ּבר ְרפו ָּאה הוּא‬,‫ׁ ֶש ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין‬ according to the one who says that the word alal is referring to the
nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Yoĥanan, that is why Job accused his
companions of giving advice without merit by making an analogy
to a physician who attempts to heal the nuchal ligament, which
cannot be healed. But according to the one who says that the word
alal is referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after
the knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, flesh that is hanging
from the hide is able to be healed.

‫ ִּכי‬,‫ ָ ּב ֱא ִלל דִּ ְק ָרא – דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬The Gemara answers: With regard to the term elil in the verse,
ִ ‫ ּ ְפ ִליגִ י – ָ ּב ֲא ַלל דְּ ַמ ְת‬everyone agrees that it is referring to the nuchal ligament. When
.‫נִיתין‬
Rabbi Yoĥanan and Reish Lakish disagree, it is with regard to the
definition of the term alal employed by the Sages in the mishna.

,‫ ָה ֲא ַלל ַה ְמכו ּּנָס‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in the mishna:
‫ וַ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ַּכּזַ יִ ת ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד – ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו‬Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the alal that was collected, if
there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts the impurity of
.‫ וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ְּכנָסֹו‬:‫ַרב הוּנָ א‬
animal carcasses. Therefore, one who eats it or touches it and then
eats consecrated food or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet
for it. And Rav Huna said: This halakha is applicable only when a
halakhically competent person collected the alal in one place, but
not if the alal was collected by a child or without human interven-
tion. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he
considers it to be food.

notes
And then he derives the halakha of orla from first fruits via a The nuchal ligament [marteka] – ‫מ ְר ְט ָקא‬:ַ The early commentaries
verbal analogy between fruit and fruit – ‫וַ ֲה ַדר ַמיְ ֵיתי ָל ּה ְל ָע ְר ָלה ּ ְפ ִרי‬ disagree about the definition of the word marteka. Rashi holds that
‫פ ִרי ִמ ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים‬:ְ ּ According to Rabbi Yehoshua, just as with regard to first it is referring to a thick, white, hard, and inedible tendon in the neck.
fruits the status of liquid that emerges from the produce is like that Tosafot question Rashi’s explanation based on the Gemara (Zevaĥim
of the produce, the same is true with regard to teruma. Yet, he limits 35a) that states that the marteka exists in birds even though the ten-
the application of this halakha to the liquid of grapes and olives. dons in the necks of birds are not thick and hard. Another explanation,
Rabbi Yehoshua then derives this limitation from teruma back to the suggested by Rabbeinu Ĥananel, is that the word marteka is referring
halakhot of first fruits. to dead flesh that is hard and inedible in an animal.

252 Ĥullin . perek IX . 121a . ‫אכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
– ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַמאן דְּ ָא ַמר ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ׁ ֶש ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין‬ Granted, according to the one who says that the word alal is
referring to the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the If it is a case where one intends to eat this meat, it
‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן‬,‫יחּיַ יב‬ ַ ‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת ִמ‬ ָּ ‫ַהיְ ינ ּו דְּ ִכי ִא‬ can become impure even by itself – ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִאי דְּ ָח ׁ ֵשיב ֲע ֵל‬
knife has flayed the flesh, i.e., Reish Lakish, that is why Rabbi
?‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת ַמאי ָהוֵ י‬ ָּ ‫דְּ ָא ַמרר ַמ ְר ְט ָקא – ִּכי ִא‬ ַּ ‫יה ִמ‬
‫יט ֵּמא‬ ּ ‫א ִפ‬:
ּ ‫יל ּו ְ ּב ַאנְ ּ ֵפי נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ ֲ If one intends to eat the
Yehuda says that one is rendered liable when there is an olive- meat residue, then it is susceptible to the impurity
!‫ֵעץ ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬ bulk of alal collected in one place, because the person who col- of food. If one does not intend to eat it, then it is like
lected it considers it to be food. But according to the one who says wood and is not susceptible to impurity (Rambam
that the word alal is referring to the nuchal ligament, i.e., Rabbi Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 3:3).
Yoĥanan, even in a case when there is an olive-bulk of alal col- One intends to eat part of the meat residue – ‫ִמ ְקצָ תֹו‬
lected in one place, what of it? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ח‬:ִ The meat residue is susceptible to impurity,
‫ישב ָע ָליו‬
for consumption. imparts impurity, and joins together with the meat to
constitute the measure of an egg-bulk or the mea-
‫ ִּכי ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬,‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ּ ָ ‫ַא ִּל‬ The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, sure of half a peras. This is the halakha even if one
considered part of it to be food and part of it not to
‫ ַמ ְר ְט ָקא‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר‬ ּ ָ ‫ַא ִּל‬
ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫יבא דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan and Reish Lakish do not disagree; they agree that
be food, or if part was severed by an animal and part
the term alal is referring to the meat residue attached to the hide
‫ דַּ וְ ָקא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ וְ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר‬,‫נַ ִמי ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬ was severed by a knife. This ruling is in accordance
after the knife has flayed the flesh. When they disagree, it is with with the statements of Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha,
.‫ ֲא ָבל ַמ ְר ְט ָקא ָלא ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬,‫ׁ ֶש ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין‬ regard to the definition of the word alal according to the opinion who do not disagree but rather state different cases
of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yoĥanan says: The Rabbis maintain that the (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 4:4 and
nuchal ligament also joins together with the meat to constitute the Kesef Mishne there).
requisite measure of an egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. The beak and the talons of a bird – ‫ה ַח ְרטֹום וְ ַה ִ ּצ ּ ָפ ְרנַיִ ם‬:ַ
And Reish Lakish says: The Rabbis maintain that specifically the In order for the soft tissue sections of the talons and
meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife has flayed the beak that are subsumed within the flesh to
the meat joins together with the flesh, but the nuchal ligament become susceptible to impurity, one must consider
them as food and they must be rendered susceptible
does not join together.
to impurity through contact with liquid (Rambam
Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 3:3).
‫יכי דָּ ֵמי? ִאי‬ ִ ‫ַהאי ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ׁ ֶש ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין ֵה‬ What are the circumstances of that which is taught in the mishna,
‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה – ֲא ִפ‬
ּ ‫יל ּו ְ ּב ַאנְ ּ ֵפי נַ ְפ ׁ ֵש‬ ּ ‫דְּ ָח ׁ ֵשיב ֲע ֵל‬ that the meat residue that is attached to the hide after the knife
background
flayed the flesh joins together with the meat to constitute the mea-
ּ ‫יה – ַ ּב ּטו ֵּל‬
‫יה‬ ּ ‫יט ֵּמא! וְ ִאי דְּ ָלא ָח ׁ ֵשיב ֲע ֵל‬ ַּ ‫ִמ‬ Lower and upper mandible – ‫ח ְרטֹום ַּת ְח ּתֹון וְ ֶע ְליֹון‬:ַ
sure of an egg-bulk required to impart the impurity of food? If it is
!‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָ ּב ְט ֵל‬ a case where one intends to eat this meat residue, then it can
become impure not only by joining together with the meat, but
even by itself, like any other food.h And if it is a case where one
does not intend to eat this meat residue, why should it be suscep-
tible to impurity at all? One has completely nullified its status
as food.

‫ ִמ ְקצָ תֹו‬:‫ ַחד ֲא ַמר‬.‫ישא‬

ָ ׁ ָ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ָא ִבין וְ ַר ִ ּבי ְמי‬Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Meyasha answered this dilemma. One said:
ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ ִח‬It is a case where one intends to eat part of the meat residue, but
h
,‫ישב ָע ָליו‬
it is uncertain which part. Therefore, the meat residue is not sus-
ceptible to impurity by itself because it is not entirely considered
to be food, but the part that he intends to eat joins together with
the meat to constitute the measure of an egg-bulk.
Underside of a chick’s upper mandible
‫ ִמ ְקצָ תֹו ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַחּיָ ה ו ִּמ ְקצָ תֹו‬:‫ וְ ַחד ֲא ַמר‬And one said: It is a case where one does not intend to eat any part
.‫ ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין‬of the meat residue. Rather, an animal severed part of the meat
residue attached to the hide, and therefore that part of the meat
residue retains its status as food. And the knife severed part of the
meat residue, and one therefore nullified its status as food with
regard to that part. Since it is uncertain which part was severed
by a knife and which part by an animal, the meat residue itself is
not susceptible to impurity, but the part that was severed by an
animal joins together with the meat to constitute the measure of an
egg-bulk.

ַּ ‫ ַה ַח ְרטֹום וְ ַה ִ ּצ ּ ָפ ְרנַיִ ם – ִמ‬:‫§ ְּתנַן ָה ָתם‬The mishna stated that the horns join together with the flesh to
‫יט ְּמ ִאין‬
‫ ַח ְרטֹום – ֵעץ ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬.‫ ו ְּמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ו ִּמצְ ָט ְר ִפין‬constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food.
The Gemara comments that we learned in a mishna elsewhere
!‫הוּא‬
(Teharot 1:2): The beak and the talons of a birdh that come into
contact with a creeping animal can become impure, and transmit
impurity to food, and join together with the attached flesh to
constitute the requisite measure to impart impurity. The Gemara
asks: Why does a beak join together with the flesh to impart
impurity? It is merely wood, i.e., it is unfit for consumption.

‫ ַּת ְח ּתֹון‬.‫ ְ ּב ַח ְרטֹום ַּת ְח ּתֹון‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬Rabbi Elazar says: The mishna is stated with regard to the lower
‫ ַּת ְח ּתֹון‬:‫ נַ ִמי ֵעץ ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא! ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬half of the beak, i.e., the lower mandible. The Gemara objects: The
b

lower mandible is also merely wood. Rav Pappa says: The mishna
.‫ׁ ֶשל ֶע ְליֹון‬
is discussing the lower section of the upper mandible and is refer-
ring to the membrane inside the mouth that is attached to the beak.
 ‫אכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 121a 253
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ְמקֹום‬:‫ ״צִ ּ ָפ ְרנַיִ ם״ – ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬Similarly, with regard to the talons mentioned in that mishna,
The carcass of a kosher bird, etc. – ‫נִ ְב ַלת עֹוף ָטהֹור וכו׳‬: The
impurity of the carcass of a kosher bird is different than .‫ ַה ּמו ְּב ָל ִעים ַ ּב ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬Rabbi Elazar says: That mishna is not discussing the talons them-
that of other animal carcasses. Other animal carcasses
selves, but rather the place at the base of the talon that is subsumed
impart impurity through contact, while the carcass of a within the flesh.
kosher bird imparts impurity only to one who consumes
it, when the meat enters his throat. ‫ ְ ּב ָמקֹום‬:‫״ק ְרנַיִ ם״ – ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ַ Similarly, with regard to the horns mentioned in the mishna, Rav
ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש‬Pappa says: The mishna is not discussing the hard substance of the
.‫חֹות ִכין וְ יֹוצֵ א ֵמ ֶהן דָּ ם‬
horn, but rather is referring to the place at the base of the horns
where one severs the horns and blood flows from them.

ֵ ‫״כּיֹוצֵ א ּבֹו ַה ׁ ּש‬

.‫ֹוחט ְ ּב ֵה ָמה״‬ ַּ §The mishna teaches: Similarly, in the case of one who slaughters
a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the animal is still twitching
and comes into contact with a source of impurity, it imparts impu-
rity of food, but does not impart impurity of an animal carcass.

‫ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַ ּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬:‫ ׁשֹונִין‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי‬Rabbi Asi says: Some Sages teach that when a Jew slaughters a
ָ ‫ וְ גֹוי ַ ּב ְּט‬non-kosher animal or a gentile slaughters a kosher animal, in
h
‫יכין ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה וְ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬ִ ‫הֹורה – צְ ִר‬
order for it to be susceptible to impurity of food, it is necessary that
.‫ַמיִ ם ִמ ָּמקֹום ַא ֵחר‬
the intention of the one performing the slaughter be that the
flesh be designated as food while it is still twitching. And further-
more, in order for the animal to be rendered susceptible to impu-
rity, it requires contact with water or another liquid that renders
food susceptible to impurity that comes from another place. The
blood of this slaughter is not considered a liquid that renders food
susceptible to impurity because it flowed from a valid slaughter.

‫ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ָל ָּמה ִלי? סֹופֹו ִל ַּט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ָאה‬The Gemara asks: Why do I need the animal to come in contact with
‫ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ּסֹופֹו ִל ַּט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ָאה‬,‫ ֲחמו ָּרה‬liquid in order for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food?
The flesh of the animal will eventually become impure with a more
.‫ֲחמו ָּרה ָלא ָ ּב ֵעי ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬
severe level of impurity when it dies, i.e., impurity of an animal
carcass. And any food that will eventually become impure with a
more severe level of impurity does not require contact with liquid
to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.

‫ ״וְ ִכי יֻ ַּתן ַמיִ ם‬:‫דְּ ָתנֵי דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ The Gemara now explains the source of this principle. As the school
‫סֹופן ִל ַּט ֵּמא‬
ָ ‫ַעל זֶ ַרע״ ַמה ּזְ ָר ִעים ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: With regard to rendering food suscep-
tible to impurity through contact with liquid, the verse states: “But
‫ ַאף ָּכל‬,‫יכין ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬ִ ‫טו ְּמ ָאה ֲחמו ָּרה צְ ִר‬
if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is
ְ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין סֹופֹו ִל ַּט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ָאה ֲחמו ָּרה צָ ִריך‬ impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38). Just as seeds, which will never
.‫ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬ contract a more severe level of impurity, because no form of severe
impurity applies to foods other than meat, require contact with
liquid to render them susceptible to their less severe level of impu-
rity, so too any food that will never contract a more severe level of
impurity requires contact with liquid to be rendered susceptible
to impurity of food. By contrast, any food that will become impure
with a more severe level of impurity does not require contact with
liquid to be rendered susceptible to impurity of food.

‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ָא ְמר ּו‬:‫יֹוסי‬ֵ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ וְ ַתנְיָא‬And similarly, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: For
‫ נִ ְב ַלת עֹוף ָטהֹור צְ ִר ָיכה ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה וְ ֵאינָ ּה‬what reason did the Sages say that in order for the carcass of a
kosher birdn to become susceptible to impurity it requires that the
‫יכה ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬
ָ ‫צְ ִר‬
intention of the one performing the slaughter be to designate the
animal as food, but it is not required for the bird to be rendered
susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid? The reason
is because

halakha
A Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal or a gentile slaughters because it will eventually become impure with a more severe
a kosher animal – ‫הֹורה‬ָ ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַ ּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה וְ גֹוי ַ ּב ְּט‬: If a Jew slaugh- impurity. Similarly, if a gentile slaughtered a kosher animal for
tered a non-kosher animal for a gentile, the animal is susceptible a Jew, the animal is susceptible to impurity of food while it is
to the impurity of food while it is still twitching. The animal is still twitching. There is no need for the meat to be rendered
considered as food because the Jew slaughtered it for the sake susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid (Rambam
of the gentile’s consumption. There is no need for the animal to Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 3:4, and see 2:6).
be rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with liquid

254 Ĥullin . perek IX . 121a . ‫אכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek IX
Daf 121 Amud b

!‫ ׁ ֶש ּס ָֹופ ּה ִל ַּט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ָאה ֲחמו ָּרה‬eventually the carcass of the bird will impart a more severe impu-
rity when it is in the throat of the person who consumes it. There-
fore, it is not necessary for the carcass of a kosher bird to come in
contact with liquid in order for it to be susceptible to impurity.

‫גֹור ָר ּה‬
ְ ‫הֹואיל וְ יָ כֹול ְל‬ ִ :‫ ָא ַמר ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה‬Ĥizkiyya says in response: The reason for the opinion of the Sages
.‫ ו ְּל ַה ֲע ִמ ָיד ּה ַעל ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬stated by Rabbi Asi is since the slaughterer is able to chop the
animal into small pieces and thereby establish the volume of every
piece of the animal as less than an olive-bulk.n In such a scenario,
the animal would not be susceptible to impurity. Therefore, it is not
certain that the animal will eventually become impure with a more
severe impurity.

‫ ו ִּמי‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ְל ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬

ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And did Ĥizkiyya actually say
‫ ׁ ָש ַחט‬,‫ית ַמר‬ ְ ‫ֲא ַמר ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ָה ִכי? וְ ָהא ִא‬ such a statement? But wasn’t it stated: If one slaughtered a non-
kosher animal in a valid manner by cutting the two simanim, i.e., the
‫ָ ּב ּה ׁ ְשנַיִ ם אֹו רֹוב ׁ ְשנַיִ ם וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין ִהיא‬
windpipe and the gullet, or the majority of the two simanim, and
,‫ ֵאינָ ּה ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬:‫ ִחזְ ִקּיָה ָא ַמר‬.‫ְמ ַפ ְר ֶּכ ֶסת‬ the animal is still twitching, Ĥizkiyya says: There is no prohibition
.‫ יֶ ׁ ְשנָ ּה ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬ against eating the limbs from such a twitching animal. Therefore, a
gentile, who is prohibited from consuming a limb from a living
animal, may consume this animal. Rabbi Yoĥanan says: There is a
prohibition against eating the limbsn of such an animal.

‫ ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ָא ַמר ֵאינָ ּה ְל ֵא ָב ִרים – ֵמ ָתה‬The Gemara explains the opinions: Ĥizkiyya says that there is no
ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ִהיא‬prohibition against eating the limbs of such an animal, as since it
– ‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר יֶ ׁ ְשנָ ּה ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬
was slaughtered in a valid manner it is considered dead. Rabbi
!‫ָלאו ֵמ ָתה ִהיא‬
Yoĥanan says that there is a prohibition against eating the limbs of
such an animal, as since it is twitching it is not yet dead. Therefore,
since Ĥizkiyya maintains that a twitching animal is considered dead,
it should have the impurity of a carcass, contrary to the opinion of
the Sages cited by Rabbi Asi, as well as the mishna.

‫ וְ ִל ְכ ַלל‬,‫ יָ צְ ָתה ִמ ְּכ ַלל ַחּיָ ה‬:‫יה‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya in response: Ĥizkiyya maintains
.‫ ֵמ ָתה ל ֹא ָ ּבאת‬that such an animal has left the category of a living animal, but has
not entered the category of a dead animal. Therefore, it is not
prohibited for a gentile to consume such an animal, but the animal
does not have the impurity of a carcass.

‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ָ ּב ּה ׁ ְשנַיִ ם אֹו רֹוב ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬,‫גּ ו ָּפא‬ §The Gemara discusses the matter itself of the dispute between
:‫ ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ָא ַמר‬.‫וַ ֲע ַדיִ ין ִהיא ְמ ַפ ְר ֶּכ ֶסת‬ Ĥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoĥanan: If one slaughtered a non-kosher
animal by cutting the two simanim, or the majority of the two
‫ יֶ ׁ ְשנָ ּה‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬
ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ֵאינָ ּה ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬
simanim, and the animal is still twitching, Ĥizkiyya says: There is
‫ נְ קֹוט ְל ָהא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬.‫ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬ no prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Yoĥanan says: There
‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬ַ ׁ ‫ דְּ ָתנֵי ַרב‬,‫יֹוחנָ ן ְ ּביָ ָד ְך‬
ָ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ is a prohibition against eating its limbs. Rabbi Elazar said: Take
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫ות‬
ֵ ָ‫ְּכו‬ that opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan in your hand and accept it, as Rav
Oshaya teaches a baraita in accordance with his opinion.

notes
And establish the volume as less than an olive-bulk – Ĥizkiya says: There is no prohibition against eating the limbs;
‫ו ְּל ַה ֲע ִמ ָיד ּה ַעל ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬: Tosafot raise the following question: Rabbi Yoĥanan says: There is a prohibition against eating
The halakha states that small pieces of flesh of a carcass join the limbs – ‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר יֶ ׁ ְשנָ ּה ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬
ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫חזְ ִקּיָ ה ָא ַמר ֵאינָ ּה ְל ֵא ָב ִרים‬:ִ
together to constitute the requisite measure to impart the impu- Some later commentaries maintain that Rabbi Yoĥanan and
rity of carcasses. If so, even when one cuts up the flesh of the Ĥizkiyya disagree only with regard to the case of a twitching
animal into small pieces each measuring less than an olive-bulk, animal after a valid slaughter, either in the case of a non-kosher
the pieces join together. Therefore, the animal will still ultimately animal slaughtered by a Jew or a kosher animal slaughtered by
impart the more severe impurity of carcasses. Tosafot answer a gentile. But everyone agrees that a twitching animal following
that pieces of flesh of a carcass join together to impart the an invalid slaughter is subject to the prohibition of a limb from
impurity of carcasses in a case where that impurity already took a living animal (Rabbi Akiva Eiger; Rashash). By contrast, others
effect before the pieces were cut. In a case where the pieces maintain that Rabbi Yoĥanan and Ĥizkiyya disagree with regard
were cut before the impurity took effect, then the pieces of to any twitching animal, including one twitching after an invalid
flesh do not join together to impart the impurity of carcasses. slaughter. According to this understanding, Rabbi Yoĥanan and
Ĥizkiyya’s dispute relates to whether a twitching animal is con-
sidered dead or alive (Ĥazon Ish).

 ‫אכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 121b 255

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַחט‬:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬

ַ ׁ ‫דְּ ָתנֵי ַרב‬ As Rav Oshaya teaches (Tosefta, Oholot 2:1): In the case of a Jew
‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ָ ּב ּה ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬,‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה ְלגֹוי‬ who slaughtered a non-kosher animal for the consumption of
a gentile, if he slaughtered it by cutting two simanim or the major-
‫אֹו רֹוב ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ו ְּמ ַפ ְר ֶּכ ֶסת – ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה‬
ity of two simanim, and the animal is still twitching,h the animal
‫ ֲא ָבל ל ֹא טו ְּמ ַאת‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ָ ‫טו ְּמ ַאת‬ imparts impurity of food; but so long as it is twitching it does not
.‫נְ ֵבלֹות‬ impart the impurity of animal carcasses.

,‫פֹור ׁש ִמן ַה ַחי‬ ֵ ‫ֵא ֶבר ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה – ְּכ‬ A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like
‫ו ָּב ָ ׂשר ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה – ְּכ ָב ָ ׂשר ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש‬ a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts
the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitch-
‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ַא ַחר‬,‫ וְ ָאסוּר ִל ְבנֵי נ ַֹח‬,‫ִמן ַה ַחי‬
ing animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living
.‫ׁ ֶש ֵּתצֵ א נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה‬ animal, and as such it does not impart impurity. And it is prohib-
ited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh that sepa-
rates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition applies even
after its soul departs. This ruling of Rav Oshaya is in accordance
with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan.

‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ָ ּב ּה ֶא ָחד אֹו רֹוב ֶא ָחד – ֵאינָ ּה‬The Gemara cites the continuation of the Tosefta: In the case where
ָ ‫ ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה טו ְּמ ַאת‬a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile’s consumption,
‫ נְ ָח ָר ּה – ֵאין‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
if he slaughtered it by cutting only one siman or the majority of
.‫ָ ּב ּה טו ְּמ ָאה ׁ ֶשל ְּכלוּם‬
one siman,h and the animal is still twitching, the animal does not
impart the impurity of food because the slaughter was invalid.
Similarly, if he did not perform a valid slaughter but rather stabbed
the animal, the animal has no impurity whatsoever while it is
still twitching.

ָ ‫ וְ גֹוי ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַחט ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט‬And similarly, in the case of a gentile who slaughtered a kosher
‫הֹורה ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬
ָ ‫ ו ְּמ ַפ ְר ֶּכ ֶסת – ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה טו ְּמ ַאת‬animal for the consumption of a Jew, and the animal is still
,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
twitching,h the animal imparts the impurity of food because it is
.‫ֲא ָבל ל ֹא טו ְּמ ַאת נְ ֵב ָלה‬
considered to be food, but so long as it is twitching it does not
impart the impurity of an animal carcass.

,‫פֹור ׁש ִמן ַה ַחי‬ֵ ‫ֵא ֶבר ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה – ְּכ‬ A limb that separates from this twitching animal is considered like
.‫פֹור ׁש ִמן ַה ַחי‬
ֵ ‫ו ָּב ָ ׂשר ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ִמ ֶּמ ָּנה – ְּכ‬ a limb that separates from a living animal, and as such it imparts
the impurity of a carcass. And flesh that separates from this twitch-
‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ַא ַחר ׁ ֶש ֵּתצֵ א‬,‫וְ ָאסוּר ִל ְבנֵי נ ַֹח‬
ing animal is considered like flesh that separates from a living
.‫נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה‬ animal, and as such it does not impart the impurity of food. And it
is prohibited for the descendants of Noah to consume the flesh
that separates from this twitching animal, and this prohibition
applies even after its soul departs.

‫ ׁ ָש ַחט ָ ּב ּה ֶא ָחד אֹו רֹוב ֶא ָחד – ֵאינָ ּה‬If the gentile slaughtered the kosher animal by cutting only one
ָ ‫ ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה טו ְּמ ַאת‬siman or the majority of one siman, and the animal is still twitching,
‫ נְ ָח ָר ּה – ֵאין‬.‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
the animal does not impart impurity of food because the slaugh‑
.‫ָ ּב ּה טו ְּמ ָאה ׁ ֶשל ְּכלוּם‬
ter was not valid. Similarly, if he stabbed the animal rather than
slaughtering it properly, it has no impurity whatsoever.

halakha
A Jew who slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile… there is no impurity with regard to the animal (Rambam Sefer
and the animal is still twitching – ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַחט ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה‬ Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 3:4, and see Ra’avad and Kesef
‫ו ְּמ ַפ ְר ֶּכ ֶסת‬...‫לגֹוי‬:ְ If a Jew slaughtered a non-kosher animal for Mishne there).
a gentile’s consumption in a valid manner by cutting two
simanim or the majority of two simanim, and the animal is still A gentile who slaughtered a kosher animal for the con-
twitching, the animal is susceptible to the impurity of food sumption of a Jew, and the animal is still twitching –
(Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 3:4, and see 2:6). ‫יִש ָר ֵאל ו ְּמ ַפ ְר ֶּכ ֶסת‬ ָ ‫גֹּוי ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַחט ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט‬: If a gentile slaughtered
ׂ ְ ‫הֹורה ְל‬
a kosher animal for a Jew’s consumption in a valid manner by
If he slaughtered it by cutting only one siman or the major- cutting two simanim or the majority of two simanim, and the
ity of one siman, etc. – ‫ש ַחט ָ ּב ּה ֶא ָחד אֹו רֹוב ֶא ָחד וכו׳‬:
ָ ׁ If a Jew animal is still twitching, the animal is susceptible to impurity
slaughtered a non-kosher animal for a gentile’s consumption of food. If the gentile slaughtered the kosher animal by cutting
by cutting only one siman or the majority of one siman, and only one siman or the majority of one siman, or if he stabbed
the animal is still twitching, the animal is not susceptible to the the animal, and the animal is still twitching, the animal is not
impurity of food because the slaughter was invalid. Similarly, if susceptible to impurity of food (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
he did not slaughter the animal but rather stabbed the animal, Tumat Okhalin 3:4).

256 Ĥullin . perek IX . 121b . ‫אכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫אֹות ּה ְט ֵר ָפה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ׁ ָש ַחט גּ ֹוי ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬If a gentile partially slaughtered a kosher animal in a place that
ָ ‫עֹושה‬
And then wait until the animal’s soul departs and
.‫ ו ָּבא יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וּגְ ָמ ָר ּה – ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬does not render the animal a tereifa, i.e., unfit for consumption then eat it – ‫אֹוכלֹו‬
ְ ְ‫ו ַּמ ְמ ִּתין ָל ּה ַעד ׁ ֶש ֵּתצֵ א נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה ו‬: Even
due to a mortal wound, e.g., he cut half of the windpipe, and then after the slaughter is performed, it is prohibited to
a Jew came and completed the slaughter,h the animal is fit for consume the flesh until the animal’s soul departs, as
consumption. it is stated (Leviticus 19:26): “You shall not eat with
the blood” (see Sanhedrin 63a).
‫אֹות ּה‬
ָ ‫עֹושה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ֵ ּבין ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש‬,‫ ׁ ָש ַחט יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬But if a Jew slaughtered the animal, either in a place that renders
,‫אֹות ּה ְט ֵר ָפה‬
ָ ‫עֹושה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ְט ֵר ָפה ו ֵּבין ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬the animal a tereifa, e.g., he cut the majority of the windpipe, or in
a place that does not render the animal a tereifa, e.g., he only par-
ָ ‫ו ָּבא גּ ֹוי וְ גָ ַמר – ׁ ְש ִח‬
.‫יטתֹו ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬
tially cut the windpipe, and then a gentile came and completed
the slaughter, his slaughter is not valid.

– ‫קֹודם ׁ ֶש ֵּתצֵ א נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה‬

ֶ ‫ֹאכל ִמ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ ַ ‫ָהרֹוצֶ ה ׁ ֶשּי‬ The baraita continues: One who wishes to eat from the meat of a
‫ּמֹולחֹו‬
ְ ‫ ו‬,‫יט ָת ּה‬ ָ ‫חֹות ְך ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִמ ֵ ּבית ׁ ְש ִח‬
ֵ slaughtered animal before its soul departsh may cut an olive-bulk
of meat from the area of its slaughter, the neck, and salt it very
‫ ו ַּמ ְמ ִּתין ָל ּה ַעד‬,‫יָ ֶפה יָ ֶפה ו ַּמדִּ יחֹו יָ ֶפה יָ ֶפה‬
well, i.e., more than is normally required, and rinse it very well in
ׂ ְ ‫ ֶא ָחד ּגֹוי וְ ֶא ָחד‬.‫אֹוכלֹו‬
‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬ ְ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֵּתצֵ א נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה‬ water to remove the salt and blood, and then wait until the animal’s
.‫מו ָּּת ִרין ּבֹו‬ soul departs, and then eat it.n Both a gentile and a Jew are permit-
ted to eat it because the prohibition against eating a limb from a
living animal is not applicable in such a case.

‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬,‫יה ְל ַרב ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין‬ ּ ‫ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ The Gemara notes: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Idi bar
:‫ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין ֲא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר ָא ׁ ְשיָ ין‬ Avin, as Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzĥak bar Ashyan said:
One who wants to be healthy should cut an olive-bulk of meat
‫חֹות ְך ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִמ ֵ ּבית‬
ֵ – ‫ָהרֹוצֶ ה ׁ ֶשּיַ ְב ִריא‬
from the area of the slaughter, and salt it very well and rinse it
,‫ּמֹולחֹו יָ ֶפה יָ ֶפה ו ַּמדִּ יחֹו יָ ֶפה יָ ֶפה‬ ְ ‫ ו‬,‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ׁ ְש ִח‬ very well, and then wait until the animal’s soul departs, and then
‫ ֶא ָחד ּגֹוי וְ ֶא ָחד‬,‫ו ַּמ ְמ ִּתין ָל ּה ַעד ׁ ֶש ֵּתצֵ א נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה‬ both a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it.
.‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל מו ָּּת ִרים ּבֹו‬

?ּ‫ ַמהו‬,‫ דָּ ַרס ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ ׁ ָש ָהה ָ ּב ּה‬:‫ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ §It was previously taught in the baraita that if a Jew slaughtered a
non-kosher animal for a gentile’s consumption, or a gentile slaugh-
tered a kosher animal for a Jew’s consumption, that animal imparts
impurity of food when it is twitching after the slaughter. With regard
to that halakha, Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: What is the hal-
akha in such a case if one interrupted the slaughter or pressed on
the knife during the slaughter? Do these acts, which normally invali-
date slaughter, also invalidate this slaughter, or does the slaughter
in this case not have to fulfill all of the halakhic requirements of valid
slaughter in order to render the slaughtered animal as food with
regard to imparting the impurity of food?

,‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יה ַההוּא ָס ָבא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ A certain elder resolved this dilemma and said to him: Rabbi
.‫הֹורה‬
ָ ‫יטה ִּכ ְב ֵה ָמה ְט‬ ָ ‫יכה ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ׁ ְש ִח‬ ָ ‫צְ ִר‬ Yoĥanan said as follows: This case requires a valid slaughter in
every detail, just like a Jew slaughtering a kosher animal. The
:‫ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ְל ַמאי? ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬
Gemara clarifies: To what requirement does valid slaughter just like
.‫ְ ּב ִד ַיקת ַס ִּכין‬ a kosher animal refer? Rav Shmuel bar Yitzĥak said: It is referring
to the requirement of examining the knife before the slaughter.

‫ ַמה ּו ׁ ֶש ַּת ִ ּציל‬:‫ֵיה ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ֵמ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬

ּ ‫ ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet: If a non-kosher animal slaughtered
ָ ‫ ַעל ַה ְ ּבלו ִּעין ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬by a Jew is twitching under the same roof as a corpse, and the animal
?‫תֹוכ ּה‬
swallowed items before being slaughtered, what is the halakha with
regard to those swallowed items that are inside the animal? Is the
animal considered to be living and therefore it should save these
items that are swallowed inside it from the impurity transmitted
by the corpse to all items under the same roof? Or is the animal
considered to be dead and therefore the items become impure?

halakha
If a gentile slaughtered in a place that does not render the of the windpipe, the animal is not fit for consumption (Rambam
animal a tereifa, and a Jew came and completed the slaughter – Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 4:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 2:10).
‫יִש ָר ֵאל וּגְ ָמ ָר ּה‬
ׂ ְ ‫אֹות ּה ְט ֵר ָפה ו ָּבא‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ש ַחט גּ ֹוי ְ ּב ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬:
ָ ‫עֹושה‬ ָ ׁ If a gentile One who wishes to eat from a slaughtered animal before its
slaughtered a kosher animal in a place that does not render the ani- soul departs – ‫קֹודם ׁ ֶש ֵּתצֵ א נַ ְפ ׁ ָש ּה‬
ֶ ‫ֹאכל ִמ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬
ַ ‫הרֹוצֶ ה ׁ ֶשּי‬:ָ If one cuts
mal a tereifa, e.g., he cut half of the windpipe, and then a Jew came an olive-bulk of meat from the area of the slaughter of the animal
and completed the slaughter, the animal is fit for consumption and salts it very well and rinses it very well in water to remove the
because a Jew performed the slaughter. If a Jew began the slaughter salt and blood, and then waits until the animal’s soul departs, both
by cutting half of the windpipe and then a gentile completes the a gentile and a Jew are permitted to eat it (Rambam Sefer Kedusha,
slaughter, or if a gentile began the slaughter by cutting the majority Hilkhot Sheĥita 1:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 27:1).

 ‫אכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 121b 257

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
ָ ‫ ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה טו ְּמ ַאת‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rav Sheshet said to Rabbi Zeira: Since it is established that such
‫ ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ו ַּמ ֶ ּצ ֶלת? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬an animal is considered to be dead and imparts impurity of food,
is it possible that it saves those items inside it from impurity? Cer-
?‫ וְ ל ֹא ַּת ִ ּציל‬,‫טו ְּמ ַאת נְ ֵבלֹות‬
tainly it does not. Rabbi Zeira said to him in response: It is also
established that such an animal does not impart impurity of car-
casses and is considered to be a living animal in that regard. How
is it possible that the animal does not save those items inside it
from impurity?

‫ ֵאינָ ּה ַמ ֶ ּצ ֶלת ַעל ַה ְ ּבלו ִּעים‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ Abaye resolved the dilemma and said: It is proper to treat this case
‫תֹוכ ּה – דְּ ָהא ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה טו ְּמ ַאת‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬ stringently. Therefore, such an animal does not save the items that
are swallowed inside ithn because it imparts impurity of food.
‫רֹוב ָע ּה ַחּיָ יב – דְּ ָהא ֵאינָ ּה‬
ְ ‫ וְ ָה‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ָ
But one who engages in bestiality with such an animal is liableh
.‫ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה טו ְּמ ַאת נְ ֵב ָלה‬ because the animal does not impart impurity of a carcass and is
considered to be living in that regard.

‫ ָא ַמר‬.]‫אֹומר ָה ֲא ָלל״ [וכו׳‬ֵ ‫§ ַ״ר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה‬The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the
.‫ וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ְּכנָסֹו‬:‫ ַרב הוּנָ א‬meat residue attached to the hide after flaying that was collected, if
there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts impurity of an
animal carcass, and one who contracts impurity from it and eats
consecrated foods or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet for
it. Rav Huna says in explanation: This halakha is applicable only
when a halakhically competent person collected the meat residue
in one place,h but not if the meat residue was collected by a child
or without human intervention. By collecting it in one place, the
person indicates that he considers it to be food.

‫יתים‬ ִ ֵ‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי ז‬:‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬And Rav Huna says: In a case of two pieces of flesh of an animal
.‫ ׁ ֶשּיֶ ׁ ְשנָן ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָהעֹור – ָהעֹור ְמ ַב ְּט ָלן‬carcass, each measuring half an olive-bulk, that are attached to the
hide,h the hide nullifies them, as the hide does not impart the
impurity of a carcass. Consequently, these pieces do not impart
impurity either.

halakha
Does not save the items that are swallowed inside it – ‫ֵאינָ ּה‬ This halakha is applicable only when he collected the meat
‫תֹוכ ּה‬
ָ ‫מ ֶ ּצ ֶלת ַעל ַה ְ ּבלו ִּעים ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬:ַ If one performed a valid slaughter residue in one place – ‫וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ְּכנָסֹו‬: Disparate pieces of meat res-
by cutting the majority of one siman for a bird or the majority idue attached to the hide do not join together to constitute the
of two simanim for an animal, and the animal is still twitching measure of an olive-bulk unless one collected them together.
under the same roof as a corpse, the animal does not save In that case, the meat residue joins together to constitute the
items swallowed prior to its slaughter from impurity imparted measure of an olive-bulk and imparts impurity (Rambam Sefer
in a tent, as it is considered to be dead (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:8, and see Ra’avad and
Hilkhot Tumat Met 20:3). Kesef Mishne there).
One who engages in bestiality with such an animal is liable – Two pieces, each half an olive-bulk, that are attached to the
‫רֹוב ָע ּה ַחּיָ יב‬
ְ ‫ה‬:ָ One who engages in bestiality with an animal that hide – ‫שנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי זֵ ִיתים ׁ ֶשּיֶ ׁ ְשנָן ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ָהעֹור‬:
ְ ׁ If two pieces of flesh
was slaughtered in a valid manner and is still twitching is liable of an animal carcass, each measuring half an olive-bulk, are
until the animal stops twitching or its head is severed (Rambam attached to the hide, the hide nullifies both of these pieces of
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Issurei Bia 1:12). flesh. Therefore, they do not impart impurity of carcasses either
by contact or by carrying, as any carcass that does not impart
impurity by contact also does not impart impurity by carrying
(Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:12).

notes
Does not save the items that are swallowed inside it – ‫ֵאינָ ּה‬ Abaye is stating that the twitching animal is considered living,
‫תֹוכ ּה‬
ָ ‫מ ֶ ּצ ֶלת ַעל ַה ְ ּבלו ִּעים ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬:ַ The early commentaries disagree and therefore the perpetrator of bestiality is liable. But since the
with regard to the meaning of Abaye’s statement. Rashi explains animal is considered food it does not save those items inside it
that the dilemma is fundamentally unresolved, and Abaye is from becoming impure. Some early commentaries explain that
saying that such a case of a twitching animal is a case of uncer- according to Rashi, Abaye does not hold that a twitching animal
tainty. The halakha is therefore decided stringently in all cases, is fundamentally a case of uncertainty. Rather, Abaye holds that
and with regard to the transmission of impurity, the animal is a twitching animal is considered living, and therefore one who
considered dead and the impurity is imparted to the objects commits bestiality with such an animal is liable. Nevertheless,
inside the animal. By contrast, with regard to bestiality, the the status of a twitching animal is uncertain with regard to
animal is considered alive and the perpetrator is liable. Others imparting impurity because the animal imparts impurity of
question this explanation, because if the case of a twitching food but not impurity of carcasses. Therefore, Abaye states that
animal is fundamentally one of uncertainty, the perpetrator of with regard to the transmission of impurity a twitching animal
bestiality should not be liable but instead exempt due to the is an uncertain case, and, as such, it is treated stringently (see
uncertainty. Tosafot therefore suggest another explanation: Tosefot HaRosh and Kehillot Ya’akov).

258 Ĥullin . perek IX . 121b . ‫אכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek IX
Daf 122 Amud a

ּ ָ ‫ ַא ִּל‬The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the statement

?‫יבא דְּ ַמאן‬
of Rav Huna? It is taught in the mishna (124a) that in a case where
the hide of an unslaughtered carcass was attached to two half olive-
bulks of flesh, Rabbi Yishmael says that the hide imparts the impurity
of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by means of
contact with the flesh, because one touches them separately whereas
one carries them together. Rabbi Akiva says: One contracts impurity
neither by means of contact with the hide nor by means of carrying it.

‫יִש ָמ ֵעאל – ָה ֲא ַמר ל ֹא ְמ ַב ֵּטל‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִאי ַא ִּל‬If one maintains that Rav Huna’s statement is in accordance with the
ְ ׁ ‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
,‫יטא‬ ָ ‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא – ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬ ּ ָ ‫ עֹור! וְ ִאי ַא ִּל‬opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, didn’t Rabbi Yishmael say that the hide
does not nullify the attached flesh and therefore the one who carries
!‫ָה ֲא ַמר ְמ ַב ֵּטל עֹור‬
it becomes impure with the impurity of a carcass? And if one main-
tains that Rav Huna’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Akiva, then it is obvious, as didn’t Rabbi Akiva say that the
hide nullifies the flesh and therefore one who carries it does not
become impure?

‫ וְ ִכי ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ּ ָ ‫עֹולם ַא ִּל‬

ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara answers: Actually, the statement of Rav Huna is in accor-
‫ יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ל ֹא ְמ ַב ֵּטל עֹור – ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי ׁ ֶש ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו‬dance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. And when Rabbi Yish-
mael said that the hide does not nullify the flesh, that statement
.‫ ֲא ָבל ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין – ָ ּב ֵטיל‬,‫ַחּיָ ה‬
applies to a case where an animal severed the hide. But in a case
where a person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide nullifies the
attached flesh.

,‫ ָה ֲא ַלל ַה ְמכו ּּנָס‬:‫אֹומר‬

ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation to this explanation
.‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ַּכּזַ יִ ת ְ ּב ָמקֹום ֶא ָחד – ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו‬of the statement of Rav Huna from that which is taught in the mishna:
Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the meat residue attached to the
.‫ וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ְּכנָסֹו‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬
hide after flaying that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in
one place it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who
contracts impurity from it and eats consecrated foods or enters the
Temple is liable to receive karet for it. And Rav Huna says in explana-
tion of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda: This halakha is applicable only
when a halakhically competent person collected the meat residue in
one place, but not if the meat residue was collected by a child or
without human intervention.

‫ ִא י ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬Since Rav Huna interprets the statement of Rabbi Yehuda as referring
‫ יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל נַ ִמי ָלא ָ ּב ֵטיל – ַרב הוּנָ א דַּ ֲא ַמר‬to a case where a halakhically competent person collected the pieces
of flesh, the mishna must be discussing a case where such a person
.‫ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬
flayed the hide with a knife in multiple places and then collected the
pieces of flesh attached to the hide. Evidently, the hide does not nullify
the flesh because if the hide did nullify the flesh, that flesh would not
impart the impurity of a carcass even if it were later collected. There-
fore, the Gemara challenges: Granted, if you say that according to
Rabbi Yishmael, even in a case where a person used a knife to flay
the hide, the hide does not nullify the flesh, accordingly, Rav Huna
said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yish-
mael that a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the flesh, and there-
fore the flesh imparts the impurity of a carcass if a person collected
the pieces.

‫ ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין ְל ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬But if you say that according to Rabbi Yishmael, in a case where a
?‫ ָ ּב ֵטיל – ַרב הוּנָ א דַּ ֲא ַמר ְּכ ַמאן‬person used a knife to flay the hide, the hide nullifies the flesh and
therefore the flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass even if a
halakhically competent person collected the pieces, then in accor-
dance with whose opinion did Rav Huna say that the hide does not
nullify the flesh and that the pieces of flesh that one collected impart
the impurity of a carcass?

ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara responds: Rather, it is necessary to explain the opinion

‫עֹולם ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין ְל ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ָלא‬
.‫ וְ ַרב הוּנָ א דַּ ֲא ַמר ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬,‫ ָ ּב ֵטיל‬of Rabbi Yishmael differently. Actually, according to Rabbi Yishmael
even a hide flayed by a knife does not nullify the attached flesh. And
Rav Huna said his statement that the hide nullifies attached pieces of
flesh in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.
 ‫בכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 122a 259
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ִּכי ָק ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יטא! ַמה ּו דְּ ֵת‬
ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that the hide nullifies the flesh
These are the entities whose skin has the same halakhic
status as their flesh – ‫יהן ִּכ ְב ָ ׂש ָרן‬
ֶ ‫עֹורֹות‬
ֵ ‫אלּ ּו ׁ ֶש‬:ֵ These are the ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ֲע ִק ָיבא – ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין‬according to Rabbi Akiva? Rav Huna’s statement is unnecessary. The
Gemara answers: Rav Huna’s statement is necessary lest you say:
entities whose skin has the same halakhic status as their ,‫ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַחּיָ ה – ָלא ָ ּב ֵטיל‬
flesh: The skin of a dead person, the skin of a domesticated When Rabbi Akiva said that the hide nullifies the attached pieces of
pig, the skin of the hump of a young camel that is still soft flesh, that statement applies only to a case where a person used a
due to the fact that it did not yet carry a burden and has knife to flay the animal. But if an animal severed the hide, the hide
not yet reached the appropriate age to carry a burden, the does not nullify the flesh.
skin of the womb, and the skin of an animal fetus in the
womb of a slaughtered animal, the skin beneath the tail of
‫ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us that the reason for the opinion of
a ewe; and the skin of the gecko, the desert monitor, the
‫ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ּ ְפ ַלט‬,‫ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָהעֹור ְמ ַב ְּט ָלן‬ Rabbi Akiva is because the hide nullifies the flesh, and there is no
lizard, and the skink. The halakhic status of all of these soft
difference whether an animal severed the hide, and there is no dif-
skins is like that of the flesh with regard to the prohibition ‫ ִּכ ְד ָק ָתנֵי‬.‫ וְ ָלא ׁ ְשנָ א ּ ְפ ַלט ַס ִּכין‬,‫ַחּיָ ה‬
against consumption and the transmission of impurity ference whether a person used a knife to flay the hide. This statement
(Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:9 and
‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְמ ַט ֵהר‬:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ֵס‬ of Rav Huna is therefore in accordance with that which the latter
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 4:21). .‫ָ ּבעֹור – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָהעֹור ְמ ַב ְּט ָלן‬ clause of that mishna teaches: For what reason does Rabbi Akiva
deem one ritually pure in a case where he moved both half olive-bulks
with the hide? It is because the hide separates between them and
notes nullifies them.
The skin of the gecko [anaka] – ‫עֹור ָה ֲאנָ ָקה‬: Rashi explains
that the term anaka is referring to a hedgehog and that
this animal has hair as sharp as needles. The reference
to the skin of the anaka is referring to these sharp hairs,
:‫יהן ִּכ ְב ָ ׂש ָרן‬ ֶ ‫עֹורֹות‬
ֵ ‫מתני׳ ֵא ּל ּו ׁ ֶש‬
‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ וְ עֹור ֲחזִ יר ׁ ֶשל יִ ׁ ּשוּב‬,‫עֹור ָה ָא ָדם‬
mishna These are the entities whose skin has the same
halakhic status as their flesh:h The skin of a
dead person, which imparts impurity like his flesh; and the skin of a
which people tie around the udders of cows to prevent .‫ ַאף עֹור ֲחזִ יר ַה ָ ּבר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ יְ הו ָּדה‬domesticated pig, which is soft and eaten by gentiles, and imparts
animals from drinking the milk (see Rashi on Shabbat 54b
and on Bava Batra 4a). the impurity of an animal carcass like its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda says:
Even the skin of a wild boar has the same status.

‫ וְ עֹור‬,‫וְ עֹור ֲחט ֶֹרת ׁ ֶשל ָ ּג ָמל ָה ַר ָּכה‬ And the halakhic status of the skin of all of the following animals is
,‫ וְ עֹור ַה ּ ְפ ָרסֹות‬, ְ‫ֹאש ׁ ֶשל ֵעגֶ ל ָה ַרך‬ ׁ ‫ָהר‬ also like that of their flesh: The skin of the hump of a young camel
that did not yet toughen; and the skin of the head of a young calf;
‫ וְ עֹור‬,‫ וְ עֹור ַה ׁ ּ ָש ִליל‬,‫ֹושת‬ ֶ ׁ ‫וְ עֹור ֵ ּבית ַה ּב‬
and the hide of the hooves; and the skin of the womb; and the skin
‫ וְ עֹור ָה ֲאנָ ָקה וְ ַה ּכ ַֹח‬,‫ׁ ֶשל ַּת ַחת ָה ַא ְליָה‬ of an animal fetus in the womb of a slaughtered animal; and the skin
:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫חֹומט‬ ֶ ‫וְ ַה ְּל ָט ָאה וְ ַה‬ beneath the tail of a ewe; and the skin of the gecko [anaka],nb and
.‫ַה ְּל ָט ָאה ַּכחו ְּלדָּ ה‬ the desert monitor [ko’aĥ],b and the lizard [leta’a],b and the skink
[ĥomet],b four of the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impu-
rity after death. Rabbi Yehuda says: The halakhic status of the skin of
the lizard is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not like that of
its flesh.

background
Anaka – ‫אנָ ָקה‬:ֲ There are many different opinions with regard to Ko’aĥ – ‫ ּכ ַֹח‬: Some identify this animal as the agama. This iden-
the identity of the anaka. The statement of the mishna that their tification is difficult, as the agama’s skin is tough and rough.
skin has the same status as their flesh indicates that the skin is The identifying factors would seem to indicate that a ko’aĥ is
soft. Accordingly, it would seem that the anaka is most likely a a large, flesh-eating lizard from the Varanus family, likely the
type of reptile, as reptiles have soft skin. The name anaka seems desert monitor (Varanus griseus). The desert monitor is one of
to indicate that the animal is a type of gecko, a member of the largest types of lizards, measuring 1.5 m long and weighing
the Gekkonidae family, that makes chirping or clicking sounds up to 3 kg. It eats snakes, lizards and small mammals.
similar to the sighing or sobbing [anaĥa] of a sick person. The
Gekkonidae are a family of lizards ranging in size from small to
medium that live in hot climates and eat insects. Many species
developed special finger pads that enable them to walk along
vertical surfaces and even suspend themselves upside down. Small-spotted lizard
Other identifications of the anaka include the leech and the
hedgehog. Ĥomet – ‫חֹומט‬: ֶ The ĥomet is a skink, a reptile similar in appear-
ance to a lizard. Its legs are short and often vestigial. Skinks usu-
ally live in the sand, and their skin adheres tightly to their body.

Desert monitor

Leta’a – ‫ל ָט ָאה‬:ְ The leta’a is almost certainly from the Lacertidae

family of lizards, a group comprising a number of physically
similar species. Fully grown lizards in this family reach up to
25 cm. Their limbs develop to allow them to run quickly. Their
skin is rather loose and tends to wrinkle, although not all spe-
cies in this family share this characteristic; some have skin that
Mediterranean house gecko adheres tightly to their body. Bridled skink

260 Ĥullin . perek IX . 122a . ‫בכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
– ‫בֹודה‬ ָ ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ִה ֵּילךְ ָ ּב ֶהן ְּכ ֵדי ֲע‬,‫ וְ כו ָּּלן ׁ ֶש ִע ְ ּב ָדן‬And with regard to all of these skins, in a case where one tanned
Eight creeping animals – ‫שמֹונָ ה ׁ ְש ָרצִ ים‬:
ְ ׁ There are eight
‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן נו ִּרי‬
ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ חוּץ ֵמעֹור ָה ָא ָדם‬,‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫ ְט‬them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them for the creeping animals that impart impurity when they die,
period of time required for tanning, they are no longer classified
.‫ ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה ׁ ְש ָרצִ ים יֵ ׁש ָל ֶהן עֹורֹות‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ as it is written: “And these are they which are impure
as flesh and are ritually pure, except for the skin of a person, for you among the creeping animals that creep upon
which maintains the status of flesh. Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri says: the earth: The weasel [ĥoled], and the mouse [akhbar],
All eight creeping animalsn enumerated in the Torah have skins and the great lizard [tzav] after its kinds, and the gecko
whose halakhic status is not that of flesh. [anaka], and the desert monitor [ko’aĥ], and the lizard
[leta’a], and the skink [ĥomet], and the chameleon [tin-

‫ דְּ ַבר ּת ָֹורה עֹור ָא ָדם‬:‫גמ׳ ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬

‫ ו ַּמה ַּט ַעם ָא ְמר ּו ָט ֵמא – ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא‬,‫ָטהֹור‬
gemara The first clause of the mishna teaches that
the skin of a dead person imparts impurity
shamet]” (Leviticus 11:29–30). The Sages relate that even
Moses had difficulty identifying these eight creeping
animals. The Maharsha explains that it is difficult to
like his flesh. With regard to this, Ulla says: The skin of a dead identify these creeping animals because there are many
.‫יחין‬ ִ ‫ יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ָא ָדם עֹורֹות ָא ִביו וְ ִא ּמֹו ׁ ְש ִט‬person is pure by Torah law; and what is the reason that the Sages
species that are very similar in appearance to them. Ibn
said that it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person fashion Ezra therefore states that one can identify these creep-
mats from the skins of his deceased father and mother.n ing animals only by way of tradition.
Lest a person fashion mats from the skins of his
ּ ְ ‫ וְ כו ָּּלן ׁ ֶש ִע‬,‫יכא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ַא ֵּס ָיפא‬
‫יב ָדן‬ ָּ ‫וְ ִא‬ And there are those who teach this statement of Ulla with regard deceased father and mother – ‫ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ָא ָדם עֹורֹות‬
‫ חוּץ‬,‫הֹורין‬ ִ ‫בֹודה – ְט‬ ָ ‫אֹו ׁ ֶש ִה ֵּילךְ ָ ּב ֶהן ְּכ ֵדי ֲע‬ to the latter clause of the mishna: And with regard to all of these ‫יחין‬
ִ ‫א ִביו וְ ִא ּמֹו ׁ ְש ִט‬:
ָ Rashi explains that such mats were
skins, in a case where one tanned them or spread them on the used as upholstery for beds and expensive chairs. Else-
‫ דְּ ַבר ּת ָֹורה עֹור‬:‫ ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬.‫ֵמעֹור ָא ָדם‬ where, the Gemara says (Nidda 55a): Lest a person fash-
ground and trod upon them for the period of time required for
‫ ו ַּמה ַּט ַעם ָא ְמר ּו‬,‫ָא ָדם ׁ ֶש ִע ְ ּבדֹו – ָטהֹור‬ tanning, they are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure, ion mats for a donkey from the skins of his deceased
‫ָט ֵמא – ְ ּגזֵ ָירה ׁ ֶש ָּמא יַ ֲע ֶ ׂשה ָא ָדם עֹורֹות‬ father and mother, indicating that the skins were used
except for the skin of a person, which maintains the status of flesh. in a degrading manner. Some early commentaries
.‫יחין‬ִ ‫ָא ִביו וְ ִא ּמֹו ׁ ְש ִט‬ With regard to that clause, Ulla says: The skin of a dead person explain that the intention of this practice was to honor
that one tanned is pure by Torah law; and what is the reason that one’s parents by keeping their memory alive. There are
the Sages said that it is impure? It is a rabbinic decree lest a person two prohibitions involved in such a practice: Not bury-
fashion mats from the skins of his deceased father and mother. ing the dead body and degrading the deceased (Ritva;
Ramban). Alternatively, some commentaries explain
,‫ישא – ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ַא ֵּס ָיפא‬
ָ ׁ ‫ ַמאן דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ַא ֵר‬The Gemara comments: The one who teaches the statement of Ulla that this practice was connected to sorcery, and that
the use of skins of a close relative provided for a more
– ‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֲא ָבל ַא ֵר‬,‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ ּו ַמאן דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ַא ֵּס‬that the skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law with regard to the powerful sorcery (Responsa of the Radbaz). With regard
first clause of the mishna, which discusses a softer hide that is not
.‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫טו ְּמ ָאה ד‬ to this rabbinic decree, commentaries ask the following
tanned, all the more so would teach it with regard to the latter question: Since it is prohibited to derive benefit from a
clause of the mishna. But the one who teaches this statement with corpse, why is a rabbinic decree necessary to prohibit
regard to the latter clause of the mishna holds that only the tanned this practice? One possible answer is that people treat
skin of a corpse is pure by Torah law, but does not teach it with issues of impurity more stringently than other prohibi-
regard to the first clause of the mishna because he holds that the tions (see Nidda 55a and Tosafot there). Another expla-
nation is that the skin is not included along with the
impurity of the skin of a corpse that is not tanned is by Torah law.n flesh in the prohibition against deriving benefit from a
corpse (Tosafot on Nidda 55a). Alternatively, fashioning
ַ ּ ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָק ִמ‬.]‫§ ״וְ עֹור ֲחזִ יר״ [וכו׳‬The mishna teaches that according to the first tanna, the skin of
‫יפ ְלגִ י? ָמר‬ mats from the skin of a corpse is not a normal method
:‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬,‫יך‬ ְ ‫ ַהאי ָא ׁ ְשוָ ן וְ ַהאי ַר ִּכ‬:‫ ְס ַבר‬a domesticated pig imparts impurity of an animal carcass like its of deriving benefit from it (Mei Nidda).
flesh, indicates that the skin of a wild boar does not impart impurity
. ְ‫ַהאי נַ ִמי ַר ִּכיך‬ But with regard to the first clause he holds that the
of a carcass. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and holds that even the skin impurity is by Torah law – ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא‬
ַ ְּ‫ישא טו ְּמ ָאה ד‬
ָ ׁ ‫א ָבל ַא ֵר‬:ֲ
of a wild boar has the same status as its flesh. The Gemara asks: The Rambam and the later authorities rule that the skin
With regard to what do the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? of a corpse imparts impurity by Torah law, but once the
The Gemara answers: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that this skin skin begins the tanning process it is pure by Torah law
of a wild boar is tough and therefore its status is not that of flesh, (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 3:11). Based on
this ruling, Iggerot Moshe rules that the flesh of a corpse
but that skin of a domesticated pig is soft and therefore its status
that one nullified is also pure by Torah law. Therefore, it
is that of flesh. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that this skin is permitted for a priest to receive a skin or flesh trans-
of a wild boar is also soft and therefore its status is that of flesh. plant from a corpse, and there is no prohibition against
contact with the impurity imparted by a corpse.
‫ וְ ַכ ָּמה ָ ּג ָמל‬.‫§ ״עֹור ֲחט ֶֹרת ׁ ֶשל ָ ּג ָמל ָה ַר ָּכה״‬The mishna teaches that the skin of the hump of a young camel
ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ָה ַר ָּכה? ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬that did not yet toughen imparts impurity of a carcass like its flesh.
‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן‬
The Gemara asks: And for how long is a camel considered young
.‫ ָּכל זְ ַמן ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָט ֲענָ ה‬:‫ֵלוִ י‬
and the status of the skin considered like that of the flesh? Ulla says
that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: As long as the camel has not
carried a burden.

‫ ִה ִ ּג ַיע זְ ַמ ָּנ ּה ִל ְטעֹון וְ ל ֹא‬:‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard
‫ ל ֹא ִה ִ ּג ַיע זְ ַמ ָּנ ּה‬:‫ ַמהוּ? ָ ּב ֵעי ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬,‫ ָט ֲענָ ה‬to the skin of a camel whose time, i.e., age, to carry a burden has
arrived, but it has not yet carried one? Abaye raises a dilemma:
.ּ‫ ַמהוּ? ֵּתיקו‬,‫ִל ְטעֹון וְ ָט ֲענָ ה‬
What is the halakha with regard to the skin of a camel whose
time to carry a burden has not arrived, but it has nevertheless
carried one? The Gemara answers: These dilemmas shall stand
unresolved.

‫ ַּכ ָּמה ָ ּג ָמל‬:‫יה‬

ּ ‫יב ְעיָ א ֵל‬ ּ ָ ‫יְ ִתיב ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש וְ ָק ִמ‬ Reish Lakish sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel
,‫יה ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ַ ּבר ַא ָ ּבא‬ ּ ‫ָה ַר ָּכה? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ considered young? Rabbi Yishmael bar Abba said to him: This is
what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as the camel has not
‫ ָּכל זְ ַמן ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬
ֻ ׁ ְ‫ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬
carried a burden. In response to his answer, Reish Lakish honored
.‫ ִּתיב ְל ִק ְב ִלי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ָט ֲענָ ה‬ him and said to him: Sit opposite me.
 ‫בכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 122a 261
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ַּכ ָּמה ָ ּג ָמל‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫יב ְעיָ א ֵל‬ּ ָ ‫יְ ִתיב ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא וְ ָק ִמ‬ Rabbi Zeira sat and raised a dilemma: For how long is a camel
Ravin bar Ĥinnana repeated his answer – ‫ֲהוָ ה ָק ָתנֵי‬ considered young? Ravin bar Ĥinnana said to him: This is what
‫ל ּה‬:ָ The Ya’avetz explains that Ravin bar Ĥinnana saw ‫ ָה ִכי‬,‫יה ָר ִבין ַ ּבר ִח ָּיננָ א‬ ּ ‫ָה ַר ָּכה? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
Ulla said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As long as the camel
that Rabbi Zeira did not afford him the same honor for ֻ ׁ ְ‫ֲא ַמר עו ָּּלא ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬
‫ ָּכל‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬
his answer as Reish Lakish afforded Rabbi Yishmael bar has not carried a burden. Ravin bar Ĥinnana then repeated his
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ ֲהוָ ה ָק ָתנֵי ָל ּה‬.‫זְ ַמן ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָט ֲענָ ה‬
:‫יה‬ answern to Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Do you have only
Abba. Therefore, Ravin bar Ĥanina assumed that Rabbi
Zeira had not heard him and repeated his answer. .‫ֲח ָדא ָהוְ יָ א ָלךְ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬ one halakha to say, and that is why you are repeating it?

‫יפי ַא ְר ָעא דְּ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬

ִ ‫ ָּתא ָחזֵ י ַמה ֵ ּבין ְּת ִק‬The Gemara points out: Come and see what the difference is
.‫ ַל ֲח ִס ִידי דְּ ָב ֶבל‬between the harsh scholars of Eretz Yisrael, such as Reish Lakish,
and the saintly ones of Babylonia, such as Rabbi Zeira. Although
Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was the one who
honored the Sage who resolved his dilemma, whereas Rabbi Zeira
responded sharply to the one who taught him this halakha.

‫ וְ ַכ ָּמה ֵעגֶ ל ָה ַרךְ ? עו ָּּלא‬.‫ֹאש״ וכו׳‬

ׁ ‫״וְ עֹור ָהר‬ §The mishna teaches: And the skin of the head of a young calf has
‫ ָּכל זְ ַמן‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר‬
ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ֶ ּבן ׁ ְשנָ תֹו‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ the same halakhic status as the flesh with regard to impurity. The
Gemara asks: And for how long is a calf considered young? Ulla
,‫יכי ָק ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬:ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ ִא‬.‫ׁ ֶשּיֹונֵ ק‬
says: It is considered young in its first year of age. Rabbi Yoĥanan
,‫ וְ הוּא ׁ ֶשּיֹונֵ ק‬,‫ֶ ּבן ׁ ְשנָ תֹו‬ says: For as long as the calf is suckling. A dilemma was raised
before the Sages: With regard to what case is Ulla speaking? Is he
referring to a calf that is in its first year of age and is still suckling,

Perek IX
Daf 122 Amud b

.‫ ָּכל זְ ַמן ׁ ֶשּיֹונֵ ק‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬

ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬and Rabbi Yoĥanan disagreed with Ulla and said to him: A calf is
considered young as long as it is suckling, even after its first year
of age? According to this explanation, Ulla considers a calf to be
young only when it is both in its first year and suckling, and Rabbi
Yoĥanan considers a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is
beyond its first year.

‫ ֵ ּבין יֹונֵ ק‬,‫ עו ָּּלא ֶ ּבן ׁ ְשנָ תֹו ָק ָא ַמר‬:‫ אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא‬Or perhaps, does Ulla say that a calf is considered young if it is in
‫ ֶ ּבן‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫ ו ֵּבין ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו יֹונֵ ק‬its first year of age, whether it is suckling or whether it is no longer
suckling, and Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: The calf must be in
?‫ׁ ְשנָ תֹו – וְ הוּא ׁ ֶשּיֹונֵ ק‬
its first year of age and it must also be suckling in order to be
considered young?

.‫ ָּכל זְ ַמן ׁ ֶשּיֹונֵ ק‬,‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬

ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma: Rabbi Yoĥanan says:
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ָ ‫ ״וְ הוּא ׁ ֶשּיֹונֵ ק״ ִמ‬,‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִאם ִא‬The calf is considered young the entire time that it is suckling. And
if it is so that Rabbi Yoĥanan requires a calf to be both in its first
.‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬
year and suckling to be considered young, Rabbi Yoĥanan should
have said: And provided the calf is suckling, indicating an addi-
tional condition. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yoĥanan considers
a calf that is suckling to be young even if it is beyond its first year,
and that Ulla considers only a calf that is both in its first year and
suckling to be young.

‫ עֹור‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ָ ‫ֵיה ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫§ ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬The Gemara continues to discuss the skin of the head of a young
‫ֹאש ׁ ֶשל ֵעגֶ ל ָה ַרךְ ַמה ּו ׁ ֶשּיְ ַט ֵּמא? ֲא ַמר‬ ׁ ‫ ָהר‬calf. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yoĥanan: What is the halakha
with regard to whether the skin of the head of a young calf that
.‫ ֵאינֹו ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ֵל‬
is still fit to be eaten imparts impurity? Is the status of the skin
like that of flesh or not? Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: It does not
impart impurity.

‫יהן‬
ֶ ‫עֹורֹות‬
ֵ ‫״אלּ ּו ׁ ֶש‬
ֵ ‫ ִל ַּימ ְד ָּתנ ּו ַר ֵ ּבינ ּו‬:‫ֲא ַמר ֵל ּיה‬ Reish Lakish said to him: But didn’t you teach us, our teacher, that
‫ֹאש ׁ ֶשל ֵעגֶ ל ָה ַרךְ ״! ֲא ַמר‬ ׁ ‫ וְ עֹור ָהר‬,‫ִּכ ְב ָ ׂש ָרן‬ it says in the mishna: These are the entities whose skin has the same
halakhic status as their flesh, and the skin of the head of a young
‫ ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון יָ ִחיד ֲאנִי ׁשֹונֶ ה‬,‫נִיטנִי‬ ֵ ‫ ַאל ַּת ְק‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬
calf is included among them? Rabbi Yoĥanan said to Reish Lakish:
.‫אֹות ּה‬
ָ Do not provoke me by asking such a question. I teach that mishna
in the singular, i.e., that mishna is in accordance with an individual
opinion and is contrary to the majority opinion. Therefore, the
halakha is not in accordance with it.
262 Ĥullin . perek IX . 122b . ‫בכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫עֹולה ְל ַה ְק ִטיר ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
ָ ‫ֹוחט ֶאת ָה‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ As it is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offeringn
with the intention to burn an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the Aveilum – ‫א ֵבלוּם‬: ֲ Aveilum was a town in Eretz Yis-
‫ חוּץ ִל ְמקֹומֹו – ּ ָפסוּל‬,‫ֵמעֹור ׁ ֶש ַּת ַחת ָה ַא ְליָה‬ rael, which is sometimes referred to as Avalin, Aveilin,
tail outside its designated area, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard,
‫ חוּץ ִלזְ ַמנּ ֹו – ּ ִפיגּ וּל וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין‬,‫וְ ֵאין ּבֹו ָּכ ֵרת‬ Avulin and Ha’uvlin. The Arab village Avlin derives its
renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one name from this ancient Jewish settlement. Aveilum
.‫ָע ָליו ָּכ ֵרת‬ who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it beyond its was an important town due to its location along the
designated time, i.e., not on that day, then it is rendered piggul, and trade route from Egypt to Damascus and Babylon, and
one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. Since this particular a military fortress was built in the town to protect the
area of the skin is soft, its status is therefore like that of flesh. This is trade route. The town was the home of the tanna’im
Rabbi Elazar ben Yehuda and Rabbi Yosef ben Pereida.
the opinion of the Rabbis.
Nowadays, the town is home to the ruins of a syna-
gogue from the talmudic period with Aramaic writing
‫אֹומר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬
ֵ ‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן יְהו ָּדה ִא ׁיש ֲא ֵבלוּם‬ Elazar ben Yehuda of Aveilumb says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, on the lintel.
‫ וְ ֵכן ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי יַ ֲעקֹב‬ and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikomb says in the
name of Rabbi Shimon: This halakha applies both to the hide of
:‫אֹומר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬
ֵ ‫יכֹום‬ ּ ‫ִא ׁיש ְּכ ַפר ִע‬
the hooves, and the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin
‫ֹאש ׁ ֶשל‬ ׁ ‫ וְ ֶא ָחד עֹור ָהר‬,‫ֶא ָחד עֹור ּ ְפ ָרסֹות‬ beneath the tail, and all of the entities that the Sages listed with
,‫ וְ ֶא ָחד עֹור ׁ ֶשל ַּת ַחת ָה ַא ְליָ ה‬,‫ֵעגֶ ל ָה ַר ְך‬ regard to ritual impurity that the halakhic status of their skin is
‫יהן‬
ֶ ‫עֹורֹות‬
ֵ ‫וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ָּמנ ּו ֲח ָכ ִמים ַ ּג ֵ ּבי טו ְּמ ָאה ׁ ֶש‬ like that of their flesh, including the skin of the womb.n
,‫ֹושת‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ ְל ָה ִביא עֹור ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבית ַה ּב‬,‫ִּכ ְב ָ ׂש ָרן‬

‫ חוּץ‬,‫ חוּץ ִל ְמקֹומֹו – ּ ָפסוּל וְ ֵאין ּבֹו ָּכ ֵרת‬Therefore, one who sacrifices a burnt offering with the intention to
.‫ ִלזְ ַמנּ ֹו – ּ ִפיגּ וּל וְ ַחּיָ ִיבין ָע ָליו ָּכ ֵרת‬burn an olive-bulk of any of these skins outside its designated area
renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one
who partakes of the offering. If he intended to burn it beyond its
designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to
receive karet for eating it. Therefore, the mishna is in accordance
with the individual opinion of Elazar ben Yehuda, who holds that Location of Aveilum and Kefar Akko
all of the skins listed in the mishna have the status of flesh, and not Kefar Ikom – ‫יכֹום‬ּ ‫כ ַפר ִע‬:ְּ This village is identified with
in accordance with the Rabbis’ opinion that only the skin beneath the settlement named Kefar Akko, which was located
the tail has the status of flesh. between Sakhni and Yodefet (see map). Despite the
geographic distance between Kfar Akko and the city of
?‫״בית ַה ּ ְפ ָרסֹות״‬ ּ ֵ ‫ ַמאי‬.‫§ ״וְ עֹור ֵ ּבית ַה ּ ְפ ָרסֹות״‬The mishna teaches: And the hide of the hoovesb has the status Akko, it was nevertheless considered to be within the
same region, as few Jews inhabited the Galilee at that
‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬.‫ ֵ ּבית ַה ּ ְפ ָרסֹות ַמ ָּמ ׁש‬:‫ ַרב ָא ַמר‬of flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Gemara asks: To time. Josephus mentions that this village was one of
what is the term hooves referring? Rav says: It is literally referring
.‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ ְרכו ָּבה ַה ִּנ ְמ ֶּכ ֶרת ִעם ָהר‬:‫ָא ַמר‬ the fortified areas of the lower Galilee during the great
to the hooves. Rabbi Ĥanina says: It is referring to the skin of the rebellion of 67 BCE. In addition, the Gemara (Ta’anit 21a)
section of the knee at the top of the lower bone, which is sold with mentions that Kefar Akko was like a small city in that
the head. This skin of the knee, and of the lower bone attached to it would send out five hundred infantrymen, which is
it, has the status of flesh. perhaps a reference to the number of individuals that
were drafted into the army from there. Based on this,
it is conjectured that the general population at that
ַ :‫ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬.‫§ ״וְ עֹור ָה ֲאנָ ָקה״‬The mishna teaches: And the halakhic status of the skin of the
– ‫״ה ְּט ֵמ ִאים״‬ time would have numbered around 2,500 people.
.‫יהן ִּכ ְב ָ ׂש ָרן‬ֶ ‫עֹורֹות‬
ֵ ‫ ְל ַר ּבֹות‬gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink, four of
the eight creeping animals that impart ritual impurity after death, is Hide of the hooves – ‫עֹור ֵ ּבית ַה ּ ְפ ָרסֹות‬:
like that of their flesh with regard to imparting impurity. The Sages
taught in a baraita: It is written: “And these are they which are
impure for you among the creeping animals that creep upon the
earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds.
And the gecko, and the desert monitor, and the lizard, and the skink,
and the chameleon. These are they which are impure for you
among all that swarm; whosoever touches them, when they are dead,
shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:29–32). The term
“they which are” in the expression “they which are impure” seems
superfluous, and serves to include the skins of these animals as
having the same halakhic status as their flesh.

.‫״א ֶּלה״‬ ַ ‫ יָ כֹול ֲא ִפילּ ּו ּכו ָּּלן – ַּת ְלמוּד‬One might have thought that this halakha applies even to all of the
ֵ ‫לֹומר‬
creeping animals listed in the verses. Therefore, the verse states:
“These,” indicating that this halakha applies only to these animals
mentioned in the mishna, i.e., the gecko, the desert monitor, the
lizard, and the skink.

notes
One who slaughters a burnt offering – ‫עֹולה‬ ֵ ‫ה ׁ ּש‬:ַ One
ָ ‫ֹוחט ֶאת ָה‬ of the animal that is fit to be burned on the altar. The skin, which Hide of the hooves according to (1) Rav, and (2) Rabbi Ĥanina
who performs a sacrificial rite with the intention to burn the offer- is distributed to the priests and is not sacrificed on the altar, does
ing on the altar after its designated time thereby renders the offer- not render the offering piggul and does not invalidate the offering
ing piggul, and one who partakes of that offering is liable to receive unless it is soft and considered like flesh.
karet. One who performs a sacrificial rite with the intention to burn
the offering outside the Temple courtyard invalidates the offering, Including the skin of the womb – ‫ֹושת‬ ֶ ׁ ‫ל ָה ִביא עֹור ׁ ֶשל ֵ ּבית ַה ּב‬:ְ The
but one who eats of that offering is not liable to receive karet. Both skin of the womb is mentioned separately because it is not relevant
of these intentions invalidate the offering only with regard to a part to all offerings, but only to those brought from female animals.

 ‫בכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 122b 263

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
:‫״א ֶּלה״ ַא ּכו ְּּלה ּו ְּכ ִת ִיבי! ָא ַמר ַרב‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ָהא‬The Gemara asks: But isn’t the term “these” written with regard
Rav has the status of a tanna – ‫רב ַּת ָּנא הוּא‬:ַ Some com-
mentaries interpret this to mean that Rav is as eminent as ְ to all eight of the creeping animals listed in the verse? Rav says:
.‫״ל ִמינֵ הוּ״ ִה ְפ ִסיק ָה ִענְיָ ן‬
one of the tanna’im. Consequently, he can even disagree
After mentioning the weasel, the mouse, and the great lizard the
with the statement of a baraita. It is likely that the state- verse states: “After its kinds.” Therefore, the verse interrupted the
ment means that Rav was actually considered a tanna, previous matter and taught that the status of the skin is like that of
as there is a tradition attributed to Rav Hai Gaon that the flesh only with regard to the creeping animals mentioned in the
three baraitot in the Gemara include statements of Rav, latter part of the verse.
referring to him as Rabbi Abba. In practical terms, this
statement indicates that one cannot raise an objection ‫נְש ֶמת! ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ֶ ׁ ‫יח ׁשֹוב נַ ִמי ִּת‬
ְ ‫ וְ ִל‬The Gemara objects: But since the chameleon is listed in the latter
to Rav’s opinion from any tannaitic source, as he is cited
as a tanna in baraitot. It is well known that the Sages
ֶ ׁ ‫ וְ ָתנֵי ִּת‬,‫ ַרב ַּת ָּנא הוּא‬:‫ ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬part of the verse, let the chameleon also be counted among the
.‫נְש ֶמת‬
animals whose skin has the status of flesh. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzĥak
employed this answer only as a last resort. In any case, Rav
is also considered an amora, because Shmuel and Rabbi
said: Rav, who interprets the verse in this manner, has the status of
Yoĥanan, who are not tanna’im, have disputes with him a tanna,b and unlike the mishna, he teaches that the skin of the
in various cases, and the halakha is occasionally decided chameleon has the status of flesh.
in accordance with their opinions.
!‫נְש ֶמת‬
ֶ ׁ ‫ וְ ָהא ַּת ָּנא דִּ ָידן ָלא ָּתנֵי ִּת‬The Gemara asks: But the tanna of our mishna does not teach this
Mil – ‫מיל‬:ִ This is a talmudic unit of distance related to, but
halakha with regard to the chameleon. According to his opinion,
not identical to, the Roman mile, from which it received its
name. One mil is equivalent to two thousand cubits. This
why doesn’t the skin of the chameleon have the status of flesh?
is equivalent to 960 m according to Rav Ĥayyim Na’e, and
1,150 m according to the Ĥazon Ish. Four mil is therefore ‫ ַּת ָּנא‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ִא ִידי‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ְ ּב ֵר‬Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The tanna of our mishna holds
equal to between 3.8 and 4.6 km. ‫ דְּ ָאזֵ יל ָ ּב ַתר‬,‫ דִּ ָידן ְס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that the halakhic
status of the skin of the lizard, even though it is mentioned in the
,‫יש ָּתא‬ְ ׁ ‫ִ ּג‬
latter part of the verse, is like that of the skin of the weasel and is not
like that of its flesh. Rabbi Yehuda does not derive that the status of
the skin is like that of flesh from the verse that states: “They which
are impure.” Rather, he follows the texture of the skin of each creep-
ing animal when deciding whether the status of its skin is like that
of its flesh.

.‫יש ָּתא דְּ ַה ְּל ָט ָאה ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬

ְ ׁ ִ‫ ו ְּבג‬The first tanna of the mishna and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the tex-
ture of the skin of the gecko, the desert monitor, and the skink is
soft and therefore the status of their skin is like that of their flesh;
and they disagree with regard to the texture of the skin of the
lizard. Rabbi Yehuda classifies its skin as tough, and the first tanna
of the mishna classifies its skin as soft.

,‫יל ְך – ִאין‬ ֵּ ‫ ִה‬.]‫יב ָדן״ [וכו׳‬ ּ ְ ‫״וְ כו ָּּלן ׁ ֶש ִע‬ §The mishna teaches: And all of these skins, in a case where one
:‫ וְ ָהא ָּתנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬.‫יל ְך – ָלא‬ ֵּ ‫ָלא ִה‬ tanned them or spread them on the ground and trod upon them,
are no longer classified as flesh and are ritually pure. The Gemara
ָ ‫אֹוזֶ ן ֲחמֹור ׁ ֶש ְּט ָל ָא ּה ְלקו ּ ָּפתֹו – ְט‬
.‫הֹורה‬
objects: The mishna indicates that if one trod upon them they are
! ְ‫ְט ָל ָא ּה – ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָלא ִה ֵּילך‬ no longer classified as flesh, but if one did not tread upon them they
do not cease being classified as flesh. But doesn’t Rabbi Ĥiyya
teach: The ear of a donkey that one sewed into his basket is pureh
and is no longer classified as flesh. Just as the ear is no longer classi-
fied as flesh once it is sewed into a basket, so too skin that is spread
on the ground, even if one did not tread upon it, should no longer
be classified as flesh.

ֵּ ‫ ָלא ִה‬,‫יל ְך – ִאין‬

– ‫יל ְך‬ ֵּ ‫ ִה‬.‫ ְט ָל ָא ּה‬,‫ ָלא‬The Gemara explains: No, this is not difficult. Sewing the ear is an
.‫ ָלא‬action that nullifies the ear’s classification as flesh. But spreading
skin on the ground is not an action that nullifies the skin’s classifica-
tion as flesh unless one trod upon the skin. Therefore, if one trod
upon the skin it is no longer classified as flesh, but if one did not
tread upon it, it does not cease being classified as flesh.

‫ ַּכ ָּמה ְּכ ֵדי ִע ּבוּד? ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ָא ַמר‬The mishna states that the skin must be trodden upon for the period
.‫ ַא ְר ַ ּב ַעת ִמ ִילין‬:‫ ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי‬required for tanning. The Gemara clarifies: How long is the period
required for tanning? Rav Huna says that Rabbi Yannai says: The
time which it takes one to walk four mil.bh

halakha
The ear of a donkey that one sewed into his basket is pure – How long is the period required for tanning…four mil – ‫ַּכ ָּמה‬
ָ ‫אֹוזֶ ן ֲחמֹור ׁ ֶש ְּט ָל ָא ּה ְלקו ּ ָּפתֹו ְט‬: The ear of a donkey carcass that
‫הֹורה‬ ‫א ְר ַ ּב ַעת ִמ ִילין‬...
ַ ‫כ ֵדי ִע ּב ּוד‬:ְּ If one tanned or trod on the skin of an
one sewed into a basket is pure and is no longer classified as animal carcass that has the same halakhic status as its flesh for
flesh (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:9). the period required for tanning, the skin is pure and is no longer
classified as flesh. How long is the period required for tanning?
It is the time that it takes one to walk four mil (Rambam Sefer
Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:9).

264 Ĥullin . perek IX . 122b . ‫בכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

:‫§ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבה ּו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר‬Since the period of time it takes to walk four mil was mentioned, halakha
With regard to a kneader…four mil – ‫א ְר ַ ּב ַעת ִמ ִילין‬...‫ל‬
ַ ‫לגַ ָ ּב‬:ְ
,‫ ְלגַ ָ ּבל‬the Gemara lists halakhot that employ this period of time. Rabbi One should not knead dough while in a state of impurity,
Abbahu says in the name of Reish Lakish: With regard to a profes-
but rather strive to purify himself and his kneading vessels
sional kneader who is careful to maintain the ritual purity of the in order to separate pure ĥalla. If the ritual bath is farther
dough that he kneads for others, he must walk up to four mil in order than four mil, he may knead his dough in a state of impurity
to purify the vessel he is using by immersing it in a ritual bath. He and separate impure ĥalla (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot
is not required to walk farther than this unless the person hiring him Bikkurim 8:11).
pays for him to do so. And with regard to prayer…Four mil ahead of him –
ַ ‫וְ ִל ְת ִפ ָּל‬: One must wash one’s hands before
‫א ְר ַ ּב ַעת ִמ ִילין‬...‫ה‬
ַ ‫ וְ ִלנְ ִט‬,‫ וְ ִל ְת ִפ ָּלה‬And similarly, with regard to prayer, one who is traveling may not
‫ילת יָ ַדיִ ם – ַא ְר ַ ּב ַעת‬ praying. If he is traveling and does not have water, he
.‫ ִמ ִילין‬pray where he is if there is a synagogue within four mil ahead of him, must walk up to a parasang, which is the equivalent of
but rather must continue traveling in order to pray in the synagogue. four mil, in the direction of his journey to find water, in
And similarly, with regard to washing one’s hands before eating, accordance with the Rambam’s interpretation of the ruling
one who is traveling may not eat without washing his hands if there of Rabbi Abbahu. He is required to search for water only
up to one mil in the opposite direction of his journey. If
is water within four mil h ahead of him.h
he is worried that he will miss the time for prayer, he may
rub his hands on stones, dirt, or any substance that cleans.
:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬With regard to this statement of Reish Lakish, Rav Naĥman bar
The Mishna Berura explains that according to the opinion
Yitzĥak said: of the Rambam one must wash or clean one’s hands before
prayer, and failure to do so invalidates one’s prayer. The Beur
Halakha rules that after the fact, if one did not clean one’s
hands before praying, one does not need to pray again
(Rambam Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefilla 4:1–2; Shulĥan Arukh,
Oraĥ Ĥayyim 92:4).

Perek IX
Daf 123 Amud a

background
‫ וַ ֲח ָדא‬,‫ וְ ַא ְר ָ ּב ֵעי ֲא ַמר ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ ַאיְב ּו ֲא ַמ ָר ּה‬It was Aivu who said this statement in the name of Reish Lakish
Legion – ‫ליגְ יֹון‬:ִ A legion was the largest unit in the Roman
.‫בֹודה‬ָ ‫ ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו ֲע‬and not Rabbi Abbahu, and he said four halakhot, not three, with army, numbering around ten thousand men.
regard to the measure of four mil, and the fourth one of them is the
halakha mentioned in the mishna: Skins that one spread on the
language
ground and trod upon for the period required for tanning, i.e., the
Scalp [karkefal] – ‫ק ְר ְק ָפל‬:ַ Although the precise root of the
amount of time it takes to walk four mil, are no longer classified as
word karkefal is unclear, the word is related to the Greek
flesh and are ritually pure. κεφαλή, kefalē, meaning head, and refers to the scalp.
‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו‬:‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א‬
ֵ ‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ĥanina, says: With regard to prayer and
washing one’s hands, the Sages taught that one must travel four mil Personalities
‫ ֲא ָבל ְל ַא ֲח ָריו – ֲא ִפ ּו ִמיל‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ָפנָיו‬
ּ‫יל‬
to find a synagogue or water only if the synagogue or the water is Rabbi Yishmael – ‫ר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬:ַ Rabbi Yishmael ben Eli-
‫ ַרב ַא ָחא ַ ּבר יַ ֲעקֹב‬.‫ֶא ָחד ֵאינֹו חֹוזֵ ר‬ sha served as High Priest during the first generation of
ahead of him, in the direction that he is traveling. But if it is behind
,‫ ִמיל הוּא – דְּ ֵאינֹו חֹוזֵ ר‬,‫ ו ִּמ ָּינ ּה‬:‫ֲא ַמר‬ him, he need not return even one mil. Rav Aĥa bar Yaakov said:
tanna’im, during the final days of the Second Temple. Tradi-
tion relates that he knew the ineffable name of God and
.‫ָהא ּ ָפחֹות ִמ ִּמיל – חֹוזֵ ר‬ From this statement one may infer that it is specifically a mil that obtained great mystical insights. He and his colleague
one need not return; but one must return for a synagogue or water Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder were killed together
that is at a distance of less than one mil. by the Romans as two of the ten martyrs whose execution
by the Romans is described in liturgy. The Sages relate
‫עֹובר ִמ ָּמקֹום ְל ָמקֹום‬ ֵ ‫ ִליגְ יֹון ָה‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ §The mishna states that the skin of a human corpse is impure like that he was one of the seven most beautiful people in
its flesh. The Sages taught in the Tosefta (8:16): In the case of a the world, and that when he was brought to be killed, the
‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְלךָ ָּכל‬,‫וְ נִ ְכנַס ַל ַ ּביִ ת – ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָט ֵמא‬ daughter of the Caesar desired his beauty. She asked her
legionb traveling for warfare from place to place, and one member
.‫ִליגְ יֹון וְ ִליגְ יֹון ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו ַּכ ָּמה ַק ְר ְק ָפ ִלין‬ father to flay the skin of his face while he was still alive. It
of the legion enters a house, the house is impure, as there is no is related that his facial skin was embalmed in persimmon
‫וְ ַאל ִּת ְת ַמ ּה – ׁ ֶש ֲה ֵרי ַק ְר ְק ָפלֹו ׁ ֶשל ַר ִ ּבי‬ legion that does not have several scalps that its soldiers carry oil and was worn as a mask on a Roman holiday that was
.‫ֹאש ְמ ָל ִכים‬ ׁ ‫יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל מו ָּּנח ְ ּבר‬ around for witchcraft. And you should not be surprised that they celebrated once every seventy years.
do so, as the scalp [karkefal]l of Rabbi Yishmaelp was placed on
the heads of kings. notes

,‫מתני׳ ַה ַּמ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ו ַּב ַחּיָ ה‬

,‫ ַ ּבדַּ ָ ּקה ו ַּב ַ ּג ָּסה‬,‫הֹורה ו ַּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬
ָ ‫ַ ּב ְּט‬
mishna The halakhic status of the hide of an animal
after it was flayed is no longer like its flesh in
Ritually pure or ritually impure – ‫הֹורה ו ַּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬
ָ ‫ב ְּט‬:
commentaries disagree with regard to the interpretation
ּ ַ The

of the mishna. Rashi explains that the term: Pure, is describ-

terms of becoming impure and imparting impurity. Nevertheless, ing a kosher animal slaughtered in a valid manner, where
in the case of one who flays either a domesticated animal or an the one flaying the animal is impure. The term: Impure, is
undomesticated animal; a ritually pure animal that was slaugh- describing a kosher animal that died in a manner other
tered properly and afterward came in contact with impurity, e.g., than slaughter, where the one flaying the carcass is pure.
By contrast, the Rambam explains that the term: Pure,
the one flaying it is impure, or a ritually impuren unslaughtered
is describing a kosher animal, and the term: Impure, is
carcass; a small animal, e.g., sheep, or a large animal, e.g., cattle; describing a non-kosher animal such as a donkey (Ram-
and even after flaying the animal’s hide is still partially attached bam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:10).
to the flesh, the hide’s halakhic status remains that of flesh in
some circumstances.
 ‫גכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 123a 265
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
,‫ ְל ׁ ָש ִט ַיח – ְּכ ֵדי ֲא ִחיזָ ה‬These circumstances are: If he is flaying the animal for the purpose
For using as a carpet…and for crafting a leather jug – of using the hide as a carpet, a tablecloth, or to drape over a couch,
‫ו ְּל ֵח ֶמת‬...‫ל ׁ ָש ִט ַיח‬:ְ If one is flaying a domesticated animal or
an undomesticated animal, a pure animal or an impure
in which case he would cut the hide along the length of the animal
animal, a large animal or a small animal, for the purpose from head to tail and then remove the hide from both sides, its
of using the hide as a carpet, its halakhic status remains halakhic status remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure
that of flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping of grasping the hide, i.e., two handbreadths.
the hide, i.e., two handbreadths. If he is flaying the animal
for the purpose of crafting a leather jug, its halakhic status .‫ ו ְּל ֵח ֶמת – ַעד ׁ ֶשּיַ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ֶאת ֶה ָחזֶ ה‬And if he is flaying the animal for the purpose of crafting a leather
remains that of flesh until he removes the hide covering jug,h in which case he cuts a circle near the animal’s neck and
the animal’s entire breast (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot removes the hide in a downward movement, its halakhic status
She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:10). remains that of flesh until he flays the animal’s entire breast.
One who begins flaying from the legs – ‫ה ַּמ ְר ִ ּגיל‬:ַ If one
begins flaying the hide of a carcass from the legs, the hide ‫יט ֵמא‬ ָּ ‫ ִל‬,‫ַה ַּמ ְר ִ ּגיל – ּכוּלּ ֹו ִח ּבוּר ְלטו ְּמ ָאה‬ In the case of one who seeks to fashion a jug and begins flaying
is considered connected to the flesh until he removes the ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן‬
ָ ‫ עֹור ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ַ ּצ ָּואר – ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ו ְּל ַט ֵּמא‬ from the legs,hb until he removes the animal’s hide in its entirety,
animal’s hide in its entirety. Until then, its halakhic status the entire hide is considered as having a connection with the flesh
remains that of flesh with regard to becoming impure and :‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ ֵאינֹו ִח ּבוּר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫נו ִּרי‬
and its halakhic status remains that of flesh with regard to impurity,
imparting impurity (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar .‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיַ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ֶאת ּכוּלּ ֹו‬,‫ִח ּבוּר‬ i.e., with regard to becoming impure and with regard to imparting
Avot HaTumot 1:10).
impurity. If one removed the entire hide except for the hide over
If one removed the entire hide except for the hide over the neck,h Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri says: It is not considered to
the neck – ‫עֹור ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ַ ּצ ָּואר‬: If one removed the entire hide have a connection to the flesh, and the Rabbis say: It is considered
except for the hide over the neck, it is considered to have
a connection to the flesh until he removes the animal’s
to have a connection to the flesh until he removes the animal’s
hide in its entirety (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar hide in its entirety, including the neck.

gemara
Avot HaTumot 1:10).
?‫גמ׳ ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילךְ ַמאי‬ The mishna teaches: If one flays an animal
for the purpose of making a carpet out of it,
the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has
flayed the measure of grasping the hide. The Gemara asks: From
that point forward, i.e., when one has flayed more than the measure
of grasping of the hide, what is the status of the hide?

:‫ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ָא ַמר‬.‫ ָטהֹור ַה ּמו ְּפ ׁ ָשט‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav says: The entire section of the hide that has been flayed is pure
.‫ ֶט ַפח ַה ָּסמוּךְ ַל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָט ֵמא‬because it no longer serves the flesh as a handle. But the hide that
is still attached to the flesh serves the flesh as protection, and there-
fore it transmits impurity to the flesh and from the flesh, and joins
together with the flesh to constitute the requisite measure to impart
the impurity of food. Rabbi Asi says: One handbreadthb of the
flayed hide that is next to the flesh is susceptible to impurity.
Since the one who flays the hide holds this handbreadth of the hide
while flaying, this section of the hide serves the flesh as a handle.

‫ ִמ ָּכאן‬,‫ ַה ַּמ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ַּכ ׁ ּ ִשיעוּר ַהּזֶ ה‬:‫ית ֵיבי‬

ִ ‫ֵמ‬ The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Asi from
‫ ַמאי‬.‫וְ ֵא ָיל ְך – ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ַ ּב ּמו ְּפ ׁ ָשט ָטהֹור‬ a baraita: In the case of one who flays an unslaughtered animal
carcass, once he has cut the hide along the length of the animal from
,‫ָלאו ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַ ּב ֶּט ַפח ַה ָּסמוּךְ ַל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר? ָלא‬
head to tail and then removed this measure of the hide from both
.‫ְל ַבר ִמ ֶּט ַפח ַה ָּסמוּךְ ַל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ sides, then from that point forward, a person who touches the
flayed hide is pure, because the flayed hide does not impart impu-
rity of a carcass. What, is it not discussing even the handbreadth
of hide next to the flesh, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Asi? The
Gemara answers: No, there is no proof from this baraita, as it may
be discussing the flayed hide except for the handbreadth next to
the flesh.

.‫ ָ ּבעֹור ׁ ֶש ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָט ֵמא‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ Come and hear a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Asi from a
‫ ָהא ַ ּב ֶּט ַפח‬,‫עֹור ׁ ֶש ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָט ֵמא‬ baraita: Once an animal carcass has been flayed more than the
measure of grasping the hide, if one touches the hide opposite the
‫ ָּכל ֶט ַפח‬,‫ַה ָּסמוּךְ ַל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָטהֹור! ַּת ָּנא‬
flesh before that hide was flayed he is impure. This statement indi-
‫ַה ָּסמו ְּך ַל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ״עֹור ׁ ֶש ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר״‬ cates that the attached hide opposite the flesh is impure, but one
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫ָק ֵרי ֵל‬ handbreadth of the flayed hide that is next to the flesh is pure,
contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Asi. The Gemara answers: There
is no proof from this baraita. The tanna who taught this baraita was
referring to the entire handbreadth of flayed hide next to the flesh
by calling it the hide opposite the flesh.

background
Flaying from the legs – ‫מ ְר ִ ּגיל‬:ַ One flaying an animal would Handbreadth – ‫ט ַפח‬:ֶ This measure represents the width of a
usually make an incision along the length of the belly of the clenched fist. One handbreadth is equal to four fingerbreadths,
animal, from the throat to the tail. In order to fashion a jug, one which is equivalent to five times the width of the middle finger, or
must flay the animal without making such an incision. Therefore, six times the width of the little finger. According to the measure-
one flays the animal starting from the legs and moving upward. ments of Rabbi Ĥayyim Na’e, a handbreadth is 8 cm. According to
the measurements of the Ĥazon Ish, it is 9.6 cm.

266 Ĥullin . perek IX . 123a . ‫גכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫ ַה ַּמ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ו ַּב ַחּיָ ה‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ Come and hear a refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Asi from a
baraita (Tosefta 8:18): In the case of one who flays a domesticated A ritually impure garment that one began to tear – ‫ַט ִּלית‬
,‫ ַ ּבדַּ ָ ּקה ו ַּב ַ ּג ָּסה‬,‫הֹורה ו ַּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬ָ ‫ַ ּב ְּט‬ ‫קֹור ָע ּה‬
ְ ‫ש ִה ְת ִחיל ָ ּב ּה ְל‬:
ֶ ׁ Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura has an alter-
animal or an undomesticated animal, a ritually pure animal or a
‫ וְ ֶט ַפח ַה ָּסמו ְּך‬,‫ְל ׁ ָש ִט ַיח – ְּכ ֵדי ֲא ִחיזָ ה‬ nate version of the text of the Gemara here: A garment
ritually impure unslaughtered carcass, a small animal or a large that one began to tear, once the majority of the garment
!‫ַל ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָטהֹור‬ animal, if he is flaying the animal for the purpose of using the hide is torn, the two sections are not considered as having a
as a carpet, the halakhic status of the hide remains that of flesh until connection, and the garment is pure. According to this
he has flayed the measure of grasping it, and one who touches one version, which omits the term: No longer, from the text,
handbreadth of the flayed hide next to the flesh remains pure, the mishna is not discussing an impure garment that
is rendered pure after being torn. Rather, the mishna is
contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Asi.
discussing a case where one section of a torn garment
became impure. Since the majority of the garment is torn
.‫אשֹון‬
ׁ ‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְ ּב ֶט ַפח ִר‬The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with the first hand-
and there is no connection between the pieces, the other
breadth of hide that is flayed in addition to the measure of grasping. section remains pure.
In a case where only one handbreadth of hide has been flayed in
addition to the measure of grasping, it is more comfortable for the
one flaying the hide to grasp the edge of the hide rather than the
handbreadth of hide that is nearest to the flesh. Furthermore, the
most comfortable way to continue flaying is to do so with a knife
without grasping the flayed hide at all. Therefore, Rabbi Asi con-
cedes that the hide in this case does not serve the flesh as a handle
and consequently does not impart impurity. But afterward, when
one has already flayed more than three handbreadths of hide, one
holds the handbreadth of hide next to the flesh while continuing to
flay the animal, and since it serves the flesh as a handle it imparts
impurity.

ְּ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה‬:‫§ ָּתנָ א‬The mishna teaches that the hide’s halakhic status remains that of
‫ וְ ָהא‬.‫״כ ֵדי ֲא ִחיזָ ה״ – ֶט ַפח‬
!‫ ַּתנְיָא ְט ָפ ַחיִ ים‬flesh until he has flayed the measure of grasping the hide. It was
taught in a baraita: How much is the measure of grasping? It is
one handbreadth. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in another
baraita: The measure of grasping is two handbreadths?

:‫ ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬.‫ ֶט ַפח ָּכפוּל‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Abaye says: The first baraita is referring to one who grasps a double
.‫״כ ֵדי ֲא ִחיזָ ה״ – ֶט ַפח ָּכפוּל‬ ְּ ‫ ַּכ ָּמה‬handbreadth by folding the first two handbreadths together and
grasping them. This explanation of Abaye is also taught in the
Tosefta (8:18): How much is the measure of grasping? It is a double
handbreadth.

ְ ‫ ַט ִּלית ׁ ֶש ִה ְת ִחיל ָ ּב ּה ְל‬:‫§ ְּתנַן ָה ָתם‬The Gemara discusses a matter similar to the previous discussion
,‫קֹור ָע ּה‬
,‫ ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְק ַרע רו ָ ּּב ּה – ׁשוּב ֵאינֹו ִח ּבוּר‬of a partially flayed hide. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Kelim
28:8): A ritually impure garment that tears is rendered pure because
.‫הֹורה‬
ָ ‫ו ְּט‬
it is no longer considered a useable garment. In the case of a ritually
impure garment that one began to tear,nh once the majority of the
garment is torn, the two sections are no longer considered as hav-
ing a connection, and since it is no longer considered a useable
garment, it is pure.

‫ ל ֹא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ֲאבו ּּה‬Rav Naĥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The Sages taught this
,‫ ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַט ִּלית ְטבו ַּלת יֹום‬halakha only with regard to an impure garment that was already
immersed in a ritual bath that day, but one must wait until nightfall
for the purification process to be completed in order to wear the
garment while eating ritually pure food. In such a case, tearing the
majority of the garment renders it pure, and the Sages did not apply
the requirement that the entire garment be torn.

halakha
A ritually impure garment that one began to tear – ‫ַט ִּלית‬ of cloth fit to wrap around one’s head as a scarf remains untorn,
‫קֹור ָע ּה‬
ְ ‫ש ִה ְת ִחיל ָ ּב ּה ְל‬:
ֶ ׁ If one immersed a garment that is impure because he is continuing to tear the garment. This halakha
with impurity imparted by treading in a ritual bath, and he then applies only with regard to a garment that he immersed in a
began tearing the garment before nightfall, the entire garment ritual bath, since by immersing the garment he has shown that
is rendered pure once he has torn the majority of the garment. he does not care about it and will not hesitate to tear the entire
The garment is rendered pure in such a case even if a measure garment (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 23:11).

 ‫גכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 123a 267

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ָלא ָחיֵ יס‬,‫דְּ ִמי ּגֹו דְּ ָלא ַחס ֲע ָל ּה וְ ַא ְט ְ ּב ָל ּה‬ This is because the reason for this rabbinic decree is lest one tear
‫ ֲא ָבל ַט ִּלית ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬.‫ֲע ָל ּה וְ ָק ַרע ָל ּה רו ָ ּּב ּה‬ only half of it out of concern for the damage to the garment. And
since in this case, the owner of the garment showed that he was not
‫ ְ ּגזֵ ָרה דִּ ְל ָמא ָלא ָא ֵתי‬,‫ְטבו ַּלת יֹום – ָלא‬
concerned about damage to the garment by immersing it in a ritual
.‫ְל ִמ ְיק ְר ָע ּה רו ָ ּּב ּה‬ bath, an act which damages the garment, so too he is presumably
not concerned about the garment with regard to tearing it, and he
will certainly tear the majority of it. But a garment that was not
immersed that day is not rendered pure by tearing the majority of
the garment due to a rabbinic decree lest one come to not tear the
majority of the garment but only half of it.

– ‫ ֲח ָדא‬,‫ ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְּת ׁשוּבֹות ַ ּבדָּ ָבר‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬Rabba said: There are two refutations of this statement. One is
,‫עֹולה‬
ָ ‫יֹומא‬ ָ ‫ֹאמר ּו ְט ִב ָילה ַ ּבת‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא י‬that the decree should apply even to a garment that was immersed
that day, lest people who see one eating ritually pure food while
,‫וְ עֹוד‬
wearing such a garment say that immersion of a garment on the
same day is sufficient for the garment to be worn while eating ritu-
ally pure food, and there is no need to wait until nightfall. And
furthermore, if a garment that was not immersed that day is ren-
dered pure only by tearing the entire garment and not by tearing
merely a majority of the garment, due to a decree lest one tear less
than a majority of the garment,

Perek IX
Daf 123 Amud b

,‫עֹולת ָהעֹוף ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ ַ so too, with regard to a bird burnt offering according to the opin-
‫יל ָמא ָלא ָא ֵתי ְל ֶמ ֱע ַבד רֹוב‬ ְ ִּ‫ִליגְ זַ ר ד‬ ion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,n who holds that one is
required to pinch merely a majority of two simanim in the nape of
!‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם‬
the neck in order to prepare it for sacrifice, let him decree against
pinching the majority of two simanim lest one come to not perform
the pinching on the majority of two simanim, but rather on merely
half of them.

‫ דְּ ָקא ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ְ ּגזֵ ָירה‬:‫יֹוסף‬

ֵ ‫יה ַרב‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rav Yosef responded to Rabba’s two refutations and said to him:
– ‫עֹולה‬ָ ‫יֹומא‬ ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָּמא י‬With regard to that which you said, that a rabbinic decree is neces-
ָ ‫ֹאמר ּו ְט ִב ָילה ַ ּבת‬
sary even with regard to a garment that was immersed that day lest
.‫יה‬
ָ ‫מֹוכ ַיח ָע ֶל‬
ִ ‫ִק ְר ָע ּה‬
onlookers say that immersion of a garment on that same day is
sufficient, there is no reason for such a concern. This is because its
tear proves that the garment is pure due to the tear, and not because
one is allowed to wear an immersed garment while eating pure food
before sunset.

notes
A bird burnt offering according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi blood on the altar, so too here, with regard to the bird burnt
Shimon – ‫עֹולת ָהעֹוף ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬:
ַ The opinion of Rabbi offering, he holds the head and the body and sprinkles the blood
Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is explained in detail in the Gemara on the altar. The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Elazar,
earlier in the tractate (21b): With regard to a sliding-scale offering, son of Rabbi Shimon, is saying: Just as there, with regard to the
in which a poor person who cannot afford an animal sin offer- bird sin offering, when the head is attached to the body, the
ing brings two doves or two pigeons, one as a sin offering and priest sprinkles the blood on the altar, so too here, with regard
one as a burnt offering, it is written: “And he shall prepare the to the bird burnt offering, when the head is attached to the body,
second as a burnt offering, according to the ordinance” (Leviticus the priest sprinkles the blood on the altar. This is what is cited
5:10). Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: “According to the in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that one cuts
ordinance” means according to the ordinance that is written with a majority of two simanim in a burnt offering and not the two
regard to a bird sin offering. Just as there, after the pinching, the simanim in their entirety.
priest holds the head and the body of the bird and sprinkles the

268 Ĥullin . perek IX . 123b . ‫גכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫עֹולת ָהעֹוף ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬
ַ ,‫ ו ְּד ָקא ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬And with regard to that which you said, that with regard to a bird
The priests, who are vigilant – ‫כ ֲֹהנִים זְ ִריזִ ים ֵהן‬:ּ The
.‫ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִליגְ זַ ר – ּכ ֲֹהנִים זְ ִריזִ ים ֵהן‬burnt offering according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of priests are experts in halakha and vigilant in perform-
Rabbi Shimon, let him decree against pinching the majority of ing mitzvot with precision and care. With regard to the
the simanim lest one fail to pinch the majority, in fact there is no priests, the verse states: “They shall teach Yaakov Your
reason for such a concern. Rav Yosef explains: The reason there is ordinances” (Deuteronomy 33:10), indicating that the
no concern is that pinching is performed by the priests, who are priests understand, and have reverence for, the laws of
vigilantn with regard to mitzvot. the Torah (see Rashi on Shabbat 114b). The later com-
mentaries ask why Rabba did not base his question on
,‫ ַה ַּמ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמ ה ו ַּב ַח ּיָ ה‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation to Rabba bar the slaughter of a non-sacred animal. That slaughter is
not performed by a priest and is nevertheless valid if
ָ ‫ ַ ּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה ו ַּב ְּט‬Avuh’s explanation of the mishna in tractate Kelim from the mishna
– ‫ ְל ׁ ָש ִט ַיח‬,‫ ַ ּבדַּ ָ ּקה ו ַּב ַ ּג ָּסה‬,‫הֹורה‬ one cut the majority of two simanim. The commen-
here: In the case of one who flays a domesticated animal or an
,‫ְּכ ֵדי ֲא ִחיזָ ה‬ taries answer that Rabba bar Avuh’s explanation that
undomesticated animal, a ritually impure animal or a ritually the Sages’ decree against allowing one to complete
pure animal, a small animal or a large animal, if he is flaying the the majority of such actions lest he complete only a
animal for the purpose of using the hide as a carpet, the halakhic minority applies only in a case where there is reason to
status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed the be concerned that one will not complete the majority.
measure of grasping the hide. With regard to tearing a garment, since one cares for
his garment, there is a reason to be concerned that
‫ ַא ַּמאי? ִליגְ זַ ר‬,‫ ָהא יָ ֵתר ִמ ְּכ ֵדי ֲא ִחיזָ ה – ָטהֹור‬The Gemara infers: But after one has flayed more than a measure one will tear only a minority of the garment. But in
a case of slaughtering a non-sacred animal, where
,‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ָלא ָא ֵתי ְל ֶמ ֱע ַבד ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ֵדי ֲא ִחיזָ ה‬of grasping the hide, the hide is pure. Why is this so? Let the Sages there is no loss if one cuts the majority of the simanim,
decree that even a hide that was flayed more than the measure of
!‫יה‬
ּ ‫ וְ ָקא ְמ ַט ֲה ִרינַן ֵל‬,‫וְ ָקא נָ גַ ע ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה‬ such a decree is unnecessary because there is no rea-
grasping is susceptible to impurity lest one who intends to flay son to be concerned that one will not completely cut
more than a measure of grasping come to complete only a mea- the majority. With regard to pinching the nape of the
sure of grasping, and he is thereby touching a source of impurity, neck of a sacrificial bird, there is a concern that one
and we might mistakenly deem him pure. will pinch less than the majority because he wants to
avoid transgressing the prohibition against completely
‫ ָה ָכא‬,‫יתא – ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫ ִאי ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה ד‬The Gemara answers: If the mishna were discussing impurity by severing the head of the bird (Maharam).

.‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬Torah law, indeed the Sages would issue such a decree. But here A tereifa that one slaughtered imparts impurity
we are dealing with impurity by rabbinic law, and therefore the if it is a sacrificial animal – ‫ְט ֵר ָפה ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָט ּה ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה‬
Sages did not issue such a decree. ‫במו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬:
ּ ְ The early commentaries offer different
explanations with regard to this statement. Rashi and
‫ ָטהֹור ִ ּב ְט ֵמ ָאה טו ְּמ ָאה‬,‫הֹורה‬ ָ ‫ ֵּתינַ ח ָט ֵמא ִ ּב ְט‬The Gemara objects: According to this answer, the case in the the Ba’al HaMaor explain that a sacrificial animal that
is found to be a tereifa imparts impurity, even if it was
.‫יתא ִהיא! ִ ּב ְט ֵר ָפה‬ ַ ְּ‫ ד‬mishna of an impure person who flays a pure animal works out
ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ slaughtered in a valid manner. The Rambam explains
well. That could be referring to a case of impurity by rabbinic law. that any animal that is found to be a tereifa imparts
But in every case of a pure person who flays an impure animal, i.e., impurity to sacrificial animals but not to teruma or
an unslaughtered animal carcass, the impurity of the animal is by non-sacred items (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar
Torah law. Therefore, in such a case the Sages should have issued Avot HaTumot 2:8).
a decree. The Gemara explains: The case taught in the mishna of
a person who flays an impure animal is referring to a pure animal halakha
that was properly slaughtered, but after the slaughter the animal One who flays creeping animals – ‫ה ַּמ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָרצִ ים‬:ַ
was found to have a wound that would have caused it to die within If one flays the hide of creeping animals, the hide is
twelve months, thereby rendering it a tereifa. Such an animal considered to have a connection with the flesh. Con-
imparts impurity by rabbinic law. sequently, its halakhic status remains that of flesh, and
it imparts impurity of a creeping animal until he flays
the animal’s hide in its entirety (Rambam Sefer Tahara,
‫ ְּכ ַד ֲאבו ּּה‬,‫ ְט ֵר ָפה ַ ּבת ַט ּמ ּויֵ י ִהיא? ִאין‬The Gemara asks: Is a pure animal that is found to be a tereifa
Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:10).
‫ ְט ֵר ָפה‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ֲאבו ּּה דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫ דִּ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬capable of imparting impurity? The Gemara answers: Yes, in
accordance with the opinion of Shmuel’s father, as Shmuel’s
.‫ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָט ּה ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה ְ ּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬
father said: A tereifa that one slaughtered imparts impurity by
rabbinic law if it is a sacrificial animal.n Accordingly, the mishna
is referring to the case of a sacrificial animal that was found to be
a tereifa.

‫ֹוס ַּתאי ֶ ּבן יְ הו ָּדה ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְ ּ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ד‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation of Rabba bar
,‫ ַה ַּמ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ָרצִ ים – ִח ּבוּר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬Avuh’s explanation of the mishna in tractate Kelim from a baraita
(Tosefta 8:19): Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says in the name of
.‫ַעד ׁ ֶשּיַ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ֶאת ּכוּלּ ֹו‬
Rabbi Shimon: With regard to one who flays creeping animals,h
its hide is considered to have a connection with the flesh, and it
imparts impurity of a creeping animal until he flays the animal in
its entirety.

!‫ ָהא ְ ּבגָ ָמל – ֵאינֹו ִח ּבוּר‬The Gemara infers: This halakha applies only with regard to creep-
ing animals, but with regard to a camel or other non-kosher ani-
mals, when the hide is flayed more than a measure of grasping it is
not considered to have a connection with the flesh and is pure,
even though when the measure of grasping is flayed it is impure.
Apparently, there is no rabbinic decree that even a hide that was
flayed more than the measure of grasping imparts impurity lest
one who intends to flay more than a measure of grasping come to
flay only a measure of grasping, contrary to the opinion of Rabba
bar Avuh.
 ‫גכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 123b 269
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ ָהא ְ ּבגָ ָמל ֵאינֹו ִח ּבוּר‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ָלא ֵּת‬The Gemara rejects this proof: Do not say that this statement indicates
Hide that is impure with impurity imparted by
treading, etc. – ‫עֹור ְט ֵמא ִמ ְד ָרס וכו׳‬: If the owner of a ,‫ ָ ּבעֹור ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ַ ּצ ָּואר ֵאינֹו ִח ּבוּר‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬that with regard to a camel, when the hide is flayed more than a
measure of grasping it is not considered to have a connection with the
hide that is impure with impurity imparted by tread- .‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן נו ִּרי ִהיא‬
ָ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ing intended to cut it to make straps and sandals, the flesh. Rather, say that this statement indicates that only with regard to
hide does not become pure until he decreases the a creeping animal is the hide considered to have a connection with the
size of each piece of the hide to a measure of less flesh until one flays the animal in its entirety. But with regard to a
than five handbreadths. This halakha is in accor- camel carcass and other non-kosher animals, in a case where one seeks
dance with the mishna in tractate Kelim (Rambam to fashion a jug and begins flaying from the legs, if he removed the
Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 24:8).
entire hide except for the hide over the neck, it is not considered to
have a connection to the flesh, and this statement is in accordance
background
with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri stated in the mishna.
Ritual impurity imparted by treading – ‫טו ְּמ ַאת‬
‫מ ְד ָרס‬:ִ A utensil contracts ritual impurity imparted ‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬ §The Gemara returns to discuss, and limit the scope of, the previously
by treading when either a zav, a zava, a woman after cited mishna (Kelim 28:8): In the case of a ritually impure garment that
childbirth, or a menstruating woman sits or treads ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ׁ ִשּיֵ יר ָ ּב ּה ְּכ ֵדי‬:‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ
one began to tear, once the majority of the garment is torn, the two
upon it. This is a stringent form of impurity, as the – ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ִשּיֵ יר ָ ּב ּה ְּכ ֵדי ַמ ְע ּפ ֶֹורת‬,‫ַמ ְע ּפ ֶֹורת‬
utensil becomes a primary source of impurity, like sections are no longer considered to have a connection, and the gar-
.‫ִח ּבוּר‬ ment is pure. Rav Huna says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of
the impure person who sat or trod upon it, and ren-
ders impure people or vessels that come into con- Rabbi Yosei: The mishna taught that an impure garment, most of
tact with it. Not all objects are equally susceptible to which has been torn, is no longer impure only when one did not leave
all forms of ritual impurity. In order to contract this untorn a part of the garment that is the measure of a scarf. But if he
impurity, the vessel must be designated primarily left an untorn piece that is the measure of a scarf, it is considered to
for treading, sitting, or lying upon, like a chair or a
bed. If that is not its primary designation, it does not
have a connection, and the garment remains ritually impure.
become a primary source of ritual impurity through
impurity imparted by treading, but it assumes first-
,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ַט ִּלית‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬Reish Lakish said: The mishna taught only with regard to an impure
degree impurity. ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ֲא ָבל עֹור – ָח ֵלים‬garment, most of which has been torn, that it is no longer impure, but
‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬:‫יֹוחנָן ֲא ַמר‬
an impure hide that was torn in such a manner remains impure because
Sandal – ‫סנְדָּ ל‬:ַ .‫עֹור נַ ִמי ָלא ָח ֵלים‬
it is repairable. And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Even a hide that was torn
in such a manner is no longer impure because it is not repairable.

‫ עֹור ְט ֵמא‬:‫יֹוחנָן ְל ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬

ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ֵא ִית ֵיב‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish
,‫ישב ָע ָליו ִל ְרצוּעֹות וְ ַסנְ דָּ ִלים‬ ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ ִח‬,‫ִמ ְד ָרס‬ from a mishna (Kelim 26:9): In the case of a hide that is impure with
impurity imparted by treading,hb if the owner intended with regard
‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֵּכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתן ּבֹו ִאיזְ ֵמל – ָטהֹור‬
to the hide to make it into straps and sandals,b when he applies a
‫יטנּ ּו‬
ֶ ‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיַ ְמ ִע‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫יְ הו ָּדה‬ scalpel [izmel]l to the hide, the hide becomes pure; this is the state-
‫יהא‬ ָ ‫יה ִמ‬ ּ ‫ ִּכי ַמ ְמ ִעיט ֵל‬,‫ֵמ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה ְט ָפ ִחים‬ ment of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: The hide does not
Ancient Roman leather sandal !‫ימא ָח ֵלים‬ָ ‫ ַא ַּמאי? ֵל‬,‫ָטהֹור‬ become pure until he reduces the size of the hide to a measure of
less than five handbreadths. In any event, when he reduces the hide
language to a measure of less than five handbreadths, everyone agrees that it
Scalpel [izmel] – ‫איזְ ֵמל‬:ִ From the Greek σμίλη, smilē, becomes pure. Why is this so? Let us say according the opinion of
meaning a knife for cutting and carving, a surgeon’s Reish Lakish that the hide should not become pure, as it is repairable.
knife, or a knife for pruning branches.
‫יה‬
ּ ‫יכא דְּ ָקא ָצ ֵרי ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ִּכי ָק ָא ְמ ִרי דְּ ָח ֵלים – ֵה‬Reish Lakish responded to Rabbi Yoĥanan: When I said that a torn
‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן – ִ ּב ְמ ַק ֵ ּצ ַע‬.‫ ְל ֶה ְדיָ א‬hide is repairable, I was referring to a case where one cut the hide in
a straight line.n By contrast, here we are dealing with a case where
.‫יבֹותיו‬
ָ ‫ו ָּבא לֹו דֶּ ֶרךְ ְס ִב‬
one cut the hide in a circular manner. In such a case, the hide is
not repairable.

‫ ַה ַּמ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:‫ְמ ִתיב ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬ Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish
,‫ ַ ּבדַּ ָ ּקה ו ַּב ַ ּג ָּסה‬,‫הֹורה ו ַּב ְּט ֵמ ָאה‬
ָ ‫ ַ ּב ְּט‬,‫ו ַּב ַחּיָ ה‬ from the mishna: In the case of one who flays either a domesticated
animal or an undomesticated animal, a ritually pure animal or a
‫ ָהא יָ ֵתר ִמ ְּכ ֵדי‬.‫ְל ׁ ָש ִט ַיח – ְּכ ֵדי ֲא ִחיזָ ה‬
ritually impure animal, a small animal or a large animal, if he is flaying
!‫ימא ָח ֵלים‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַא ַּמאי? ֵל‬.‫ֲא ִחיזָ ה – ָטהֹור‬ the animal for the purpose of using the hide as a carpet, the halakhic
‫עֹושה‬
ׂ ֶ ‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫אשֹון ִר‬ ׁ ‫ ִר‬:‫ַּת ְר ְ ּג ָמ ּה ַר ִ ּבי ָא ִבין‬ status of the hide remains that of flesh until he has flayed the measure
.‫נִיפוּל‬ּ of grasping. Rabbi Yirmeya infers: But once one has flayed more
than the measure of grasping, the hide is pure. But according to
Reish Lakish, why is this so? Let us say that the hide is repairable,
i.e., it can be sewn back on. Rabbi Avin interpreted the mishna and
explained that one piece after one piece, i.e., each piece that is flayed
is rendered fallen and disconnected from the flesh, as it will never be
reattached to the flesh, unlike the case of a torn hide, which may be
sewn back together.

notes
When I said that a torn hide is repairable, I was referring to a commentaries have a version of the text that states: There, in that
case where one cut the hide in a straight line – ‫ִּכי ָק ָא ְמ ִרי דְּ ָח ֵלים‬ case, one cut the hide in a straight line. According to this version
‫יה ְל ֶה ְדיָא‬
ּ ‫ה ָיכא דְּ ָקא ָצ ֵרי ֵל‬:ֵ According to this version of the text, which of the text, Reish Lakish is stating the opposite: A hide cut in a
is the version of Rashi, Reish Lakish states that there is a differ- circular manner is repairable, but that cut in a straight line is not
ence between a hide cut in a straight line, which is repairable, and (Responsa of the Rosh).
one cut in a circular manner, which is not repairable. Other early

270 Ĥullin . perek IX . 123b . ‫גכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ עֹור ׁ ֶש ַעל ַה ַ ּצ ָּואר‬:‫יֹוסף‬
ֵ ‫ ְמ ִתיב ַרב‬Rav Yosef raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from
another ruling in the mishna: With regard to the hide over the neck, Oven – ‫תנּ וּר‬:ַּ
?‫ ַא ַּמאי‬,‫אֹומר ֵאינֹו ִח ּבוּר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן נו ִּרי‬
ָ
Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri says: It is not considered to have a con-
!‫ָהא ָח ֵלים וְ ָק ֵאי‬
nection to the flesh, as the hide is merely loosely connected to the
neck itself, and it is pure. According to Reish Lakish, why is this so?
Doesn’t the hide exist in its repaired state, i.e., isn’t it still connected
to the neck itself? If an impure hide that was torn and can be repaired
remains impure, this should certainly be the halakha with regard to
hide that was never moved from its initial state.

‫ימא ֵס ָיפא וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬

ָ ‫ ֵא‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Instead of objecting to the opinion of Reish
.‫ ִח ּבוּר‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ Lakish due to the statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Nuri, say the latter
clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say: The hide covering the
neck is considered to have a connection to the flesh, a statement that Clay oven from late antiquity
supports the opinion of Reish Lakish according to your reasoning.
halakha
ֵ ‫ ְ ּב ׁש‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Rather, Abaye said: The dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi
‫ֹומר ֶה ָעשׂ וּי ִל ָּנ ֵתק‬
With regard to an oven that has become impure, how
ֵ ‫ ָמר ְס ַבר ָהוֵ י ׁש‬,‫ ֵמ ֵא ָליו ָקא ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬Yoĥanan is irrelevant to the dispute in the mishna between Rabbi
,‫ֹומר‬ does one purify it – ‫תנּ וּר ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ָמא ֵּכיצַ ד ְמ ַט ֲה ִרין אֹותֹו‬:ַּ With
Yoĥanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. In the mishna, they disagree
.‫ֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ו ָּמר ְס ַבר ָלא ָהוֵ י ׁש‬ regard to an oven that has become impure, how does
with regard to whether an appendage, such as the hide of the neck, one purify it? One divides the oven into three pieces and
that protects the flesh but is prone to become detached by itself is scrapes off the layer of plaster that constitutes the foun-
considered to be protection. One Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that it dation of the oven until all of the clay is resting directly
is considered to be protection, and one Sage, Rabbi Yoĥanan ben on the ground, in accordance with the first tanna in the
Nuri, holds that it is not considered to be protection. mishna in tractate Kelim (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
Kelim 16:2).
‫ ַּתנּ וּר ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ָמא ֵּכיצַ ד‬:‫ ְמ ִתיב ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish
ְ – ‫ ְמ ַט ֲה ִרין אֹותֹו‬from a mishna (Kelim 5:7): With regard to an oven that has become
b
‫גֹורר‬
ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫חֹולקֹו ִל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬
impure, how does one purify it? One divides the oven into three
h
.‫ֶאת ַה ְּט ִפ ָילה‬
parts and scrapes off the layer of plaster that surrounds the oven

Perek IX
Daf 124 Amud a

:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬.‫ַעד ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬ until the oven itself merely rests on the groundn and is not held in
,‫יך ל ֹא ִלגְ רֹור ֶאת ַה ְּט ִפ ָילה‬ ְ ‫ֵאינֹו צָ ִר‬ place by plaster. Breaking the oven in such a manner renders the oven
pure because it is no longer considered a vessel. Rabbi Meir says: It
‫ ֶא ָּלא ְמ ַמ ֲעטֹו‬,‫וְ ל ֹא ַעד ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬
is unnecessary to scrape off the layer of plaster, and it is certainly
.‫ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ְט ָפ ִחים‬ not necessary to remove it until the oven rests on the ground. Rather,
one makes cuts in the oven itself, reducing its size from within the
layer of plaster, i.e., without removing the layer of plaster, until the
unbroken part is less than four handbreadths.

,‫יהא ָטהֹור‬ ָ ‫ ִּכי ְמ ַמ ֵעט ָל ּה ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ִמ‬Rabbi Meir holds that although breaking off a minority of the struc-
!‫ימא ָהא ָח ֵלים וְ ָק ֵאי‬ ָ ‫ ַא ַּמאי? ֵל‬ture of the oven is insufficient, in any event when one reduces the
size of the oven to less than four handbreadths in height the oven is
rendered pure. Why is this so, according to the opinion of Reish
Lakish? Let us say that this oven exists in a repairable state, as the
plaster holds it together, and according to Reish Lakish it should
therefore be considered connected and remain impure.

notes
Until the oven itself rests on the ground – ‫ּיְהא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬
ֵ ‫עד ׁ ֶש‬:ַ This oven itself, until the ground. Rabbi Meir, as the repetitiveness of
mishna is discussing a portable oven that has walls but no base his statement indicates, disagrees with regard to both of these
and looks like a large, upside down pot. When one wishes to set matters and maintains that one need neither remove the layer
up such an oven, one must first place a layer of stones on the of plaster nor split the oven all the way to the ground (Rabbi
ground as a base and then place the oven on top. He then must Shimshon of Saens; Rosh). Rashi explains that the Rabbis are
add a layer of plaster [tefeila] in order to stabilize and insulate referring only to the layer of plaster, which must be removed all
the oven’s base. The reason this layer of plaster is called tefeila, the way to the ground. According to this interpretation, Rabbi
meaning secondary, is because it is an external addition to the Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to only one issue: The
body of the oven. One who wishes to purify such an oven must need to remove the layer of plaster. Accordingly, Rashi explains
remove the layer of plaster and the stone base such that the the repetition in Rabbi Meir’s response to the Rabbis as follows:
body of the oven rests directly on the ground (Arukh). Other Not only does one not need to remove the layer of plaster to the
commentaries do not mention a stone base at all. Rather, some degree that the oven rests on the ground, one does not need to
of these commentaries explain that according to the Rabbis, remove a layer of plaster at all.
one must both remove the layer of plaster, as well as split the

 ‫דכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 124a 271

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ּג ֵֹורר ֶאת‬,‫ימא ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵא‬:‫יה ָר ָבא‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Instead of objecting to the opinion of
!‫ ַה ְּט ִפ ָילה ַעד ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬Reish Lakish from the statement of Rabbi Meir, state a proof for his
opinion from the statement of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi
Meir and hold that the oven becomes pure only if one scrapes off
the layer of plaster until the oven rests on the ground. Apparently,
the Rabbis hold that the oven is rendered pure only if it is com-
pletely and irreparably broken, which supports the opinion of Reish
Lakish according to your reasoning.

‫ ַּתנּ ּור‬:‫ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ Rather, Rava said: Not only is there no proof against the opinion
‫ ֵּכיצַ ד ְמ ַט ֲה ִרין אֹותֹו? דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל‬,‫ׁ ֶש ּנ ְִט ָמא‬ of Reish Lakish from this mishna, as the statement of the Rabbis
supports his opinion, but Rabbi Meir may even accept the opinion
‫ ַעד‬,‫גֹורר ֶאת ַה ְּט ִפ ָילה‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫חֹולקֹו ִל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬
ְ
of Reish Lakish; as this is what the mishna is saying: How does
.‫ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬ one purify an oven that became impure? Everyone, even Rabbi
Meir, agrees that one divides it into three parts and scrapes off the
layer of plaster until the oven rests on the ground.

,‫וְ ָהרֹוצֶ ה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא יָ בֹא ַּתנּ וּרֹו ִל ֵידי טו ְּמ ָאה‬ And anyone who wishes that his oven not become susceptible to
,‫חֹולקֹו ִל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬
ְ – ‫עֹושה‬ ֶׂ ‫ֵּכיצַ ד הוּא‬ impurity, how does he act? The Rabbis hold that he goes through
the same process as is necessary in order to purify an impure oven:
.‫גֹורר ֶאת ַה ְּט ִפ ָילה ַעד ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬ ֵ ְ‫ו‬
From the outset, he divides the oven into three parts and scrapes
‫יך ל ֹא ִלגְ רֹור‬ ְ ‫ ֵאינֹו צָ ִר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ off the layer of plaster until the oven rests on the ground. Rabbi
‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ֶאת ַה ְּט ִפ ָילה וְ ל ֹא ַעד ׁ ֶש ֵּיְהא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬ Meir says: With regard to an oven that has not yet become impure,
.‫ְמ ַמ ֲעטֹו ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ְט ָפ ִחים‬ it is unnecessary to scrape off the layer of plaster, and it is certainly
not necessary to remove it until the oven rests on the ground.
Rather, one reduces the size of the oven from within the layer of
plaster until the unbroken part is less than four handbreadths
in height.

,‫חֹולקֹו ִל ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה‬

ְ :‫ֲא ַמר ָמר‬ §The Gemara discusses the mishna in tractate Kelim cited above.
The Master said: An impure oven is rendered pure when one
divides it into three parts, such that no one part contains the major-
ity of the oven. But one cannot purify the oven by dividing it into
two parts because one of the parts would contain the majority of
the oven.

‫ ַּתנּ וּר ְּת ִח ָּלתֹו ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה ו ׁ ְּשיָ ָריו‬:ּ‫ ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬The Gemara raises a contradiction to this mishna from another
.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה‬mishna (Kelim 5:1): A clay oven in its original state, once it is fin-
ished being built, is susceptible to ritual impurity if it is four hand-
breadths tall. And with regard to an oven that became impure and
was subsequently broken, if its remains include a piece four hand-
breadths tall, that piece remains impure. This is the statement of
Rabbi Meir.

– ‫ ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬

ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬And the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement said? It is said
.‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ָק ָטן – ְּת ִח ָּלתֹו ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫ ְ ּבגָ דֹול‬in the case of a large oven, but in the case of a small oven, in its
h h

original state, any size is sufficient for it to be susceptible to impu-

ְ ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּת ָ ּג ֵמר ְמ ַל‬
.‫ ׁ ְשיָ ָריו – ְ ּברו ּּבֹו‬,‫אכ ּתֹו‬
rity. Once its construction is completed, if the oven became
impure and was subsequently broken, its remains are still impure
in a case where they contain the majority of the oven.

halakha
In the case of a large oven, etc. – ‫בגָ דֹול וכו׳‬:ּ ְ The remains of a But in the case of a small oven, etc. – ‫א ָבל ְ ּב ָק ָטן וכו׳‬:ֲ With regard
large oven measuring four handbreadths are considered sig- to a small oven, any remaining piece that contains the majority
nificant. How so? A broken piece measuring four handbreadths of the oven is considered significant. How so? A remaining piece
is susceptible to impurity, but a piece smaller than that is not that contains the majority of the oven is susceptible to impurity,
susceptible to impurity. Similarly, if an oven became impure, and but a piece smaller than this size is not susceptible to impurity.
one broke it into pieces that are smaller than four handbreadths, Similarly, if one broke an impure oven into pieces that are smaller
it is rendered pure. But if any remaining piece measures four than the majority of the oven, it is rendered pure, but any remain-
handbreadths, those pieces remain impure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, ing piece that contains the majority of the oven remains impure
Hilkhot Kelim 16:1). (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 16:1).

272 Ĥullin . perek IX . 124a . ‫דכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
:‫ וְ ַכ ָּמה ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא? ָא ְמ ִרי דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי‬The Gemara explains: And how small is the size defined by the mishna
ְ ‫ג‬:ּ ִ Apparently from the Greek
Shard [gistera] – ‫יס ְט ָרא‬
.‫עֹושים ַּתנּ ו ִּרים ְ ּבנֹות ֶט ַפח‬ׂ ִ ‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬,‫ ֶט ַפח‬as any size? The school of Rabbi Yannai says: One handbreadth, as γάστρα, gastra, referring to the lower part of a vessel
people make toy ovens one handbreadth tall. bulging out like a paunch. The Sages use this word
to refer to a broken shard of a clay vessel, such as a
‫יכא‬
ָּ ‫ ָהא ֵל‬,‫יכא ׁ ְשיָ ָריו ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬
ָּ ‫ ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ִא‬The Gemara infers: The Rabbis in that mishna hold that with regard to handle. The word came to refer to any shard, or the
!‫ ׁ ְשיָ ָריו ַא ְר ַ ּבע – ָטהֹור‬a large impure oven that breaks, any remaining piece that measures four breaking of an item into two pieces.
handbreadths remains impure. Evidently, the reason that the oven
remains impure is because there are pieces of its remains that measure
four handbreadths, but if there are no remains of the oven measuring
four handbreadths, even if a piece contains the majority of the oven,
the oven is rendered pure. This opinion is not consistent with the
opinion of the Rabbis in the previously cited mishna.

– ‫ ָה ָכא‬,‫יה ִמצְ ָלק‬

ּ ‫ ָה ָתם – דְּ צַ ְל ֵק‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬The Sages said in response: There, with regard to the opinion of the
.‫יס ְט ָרא‬ ּ ֵּ‫ דְּ ַע ְבד‬Rabbis that if there are no remains measuring four handbreadths then
ְ ‫יה ִ ּג‬
the oven is pure, that mishna is discussing a case where one cut the
oven horizontally such that the pieces do not stand one on top of the
other in a stable manner. Here, with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis
that an impure oven is rendered pure only when no one piece consti-
tutes the majority of the oven, the mishna is discussing a case where
one rendered the oven a shard [gistera]l by cutting it in half vertically,
in which case a piece that contains the majority of the oven can stand
on its own.

‫ רו ּּבֹו דְּ ֶט ַפח‬,‫ ׁ ְשיָ ָריו ְ ּברו ּּבֹו‬:‫§ ֲא ַמר ָמר‬The Gemara discusses the previously cited mishna in tractate Kelim.
?‫ ְל ַמאי ָהוֵ י‬The Master said: In the case of a small oven, in its original state, any
size is sufficient for it to be susceptible to impurity. And once its con-
struction is completed, if the oven became impure and was subse-
quently broken, its remains are still impure if they contain the major-
ity of the oven. The Gemara asks: Rabbi Yannai explained that the
phrase: Any size, is referring to a measure of one handbreadth. For
what purpose is a piece of an oven the size of the majority of one
handbreadth usable? Since such a small piece is not functional; why
should it remain impure?

‫ וְ ָה ָא ְמ ִרי‬.‫ ׁ ְשיָ ֵרי ָ ּגדֹול ְ ּברו ּּבֹו‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Abaye said: The statement of the mishna: Its remains are still impure
‫ ָהא – ְ ּב ַתנּ ו ָּרא‬,‫ ַר ָ ּבנַן ַא ְר ָ ּב ָעה! ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָא‬if they contain the majority of the oven, is not discussing a small oven,
but rather is teaching that the remains of a large oven remain impure
.‫ ָהא – ְ ּב ַתנּ ו ָּרא ַ ּבר ׁ ִש ְב ָעה‬,‫ַ ּבר ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה‬
if they contain the majority of the oven. The Gemara asks: But didn’t
the Rabbis say in the mishna that any remaining piece of a large oven
measuring four handbreadths remains impure? The Gemara answers:
That is not difficult. That statement of the Rabbis that the remains of
a large oven remain impure if they contain the majority of the oven is
referring to an oven measuring nine handbreadths. That statement of
the Rabbis that any remaining piece of a large oven measuring four
handbreadths remains impure is referring to an oven measuring seven
handbreadths.

‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ישנָ א ַא ֲח ִרינָ א ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫§ ִל‬The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna in tractate Kelim (28:8)
ֵ ‫ הוּנָ א ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬previously mentioned in the Gemara (123a–b): In the case of a ritually
:‫יֹוסי‬
impure garment that one begins to tear, once the majority of the gar-
.‫וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ִשּיֵ יר ָ ּב ּה ְּכ ֵדי ַמ ְע ּפ ֶֹורת‬
ment is torn, the two sections are no longer considered to have a con-
nection, and the garment is pure. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi
Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei, that even if the majority of the garment is
torn, if a part of the garment the measure of a scarf is left intact, the
garment remains impure. Some say another version of Rav Huna’s
statement: Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, son of
Rabbi Yosei: If the majority of the garment is torn, the garment is
rendered pure even if one left an untorn piece the measure of a scarf.

,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ַט ִּלית‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬With regard to that statement of Rav Huna, Reish Lakish said: The
ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ֲא ָבל עֹור – ָח ׁ ֵשיב‬Sages taught that the garment is pure even if one left an untorn piece
:‫יֹוחנָ ן ֲא ַמר‬
the measure of a scarf only with regard to a torn garment. But with
.‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו עֹור נַ ִמי ָלא ָח ׁ ֵשיב‬
regard to a hide, if the majority was torn and a piece the measure of a
scarf remains, the piece is considered significant and the hide remains
impure. And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Even with regard to a torn hide, if
a piece the size of a scarf remains it is not considered significant and
the hide is therefore rendered pure.
 ‫דכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 124a 273
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ עֹור ְט ֵמא‬:‫יֹוחנָן ְל ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ֵא ִית ֵיב‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish
‫ישב ָע ָליו ִל ְרצו ָּעה וְ ַסנְדָּ ִלין – ֵּכיוָ ן‬ ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ ִח‬,‫ִמ ְד ָרס‬ from that which is taught in the mishna (Kelim 26:9): With regard
to a hide that is impure with impurity imparted by treading, if the
.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ ָטהֹור‬,‫ׁ ֶש ָּנ ַתן ּבֹו ִאיזְ ֵמל‬
owner intended with regard to the hide to fashion it into straps
‫יטנּ ּו ֵמ ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬
ֶ ‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשּיַ ְמ ִע‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ ‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬ and sandals, then when he applies a scalpel to the hide, the hide
.‫ְט ָפ ִחים‬ becomes pure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the
Rabbis say: The hide does not become pure until he reduces the
hide to a measure of less than five handbreadths.

‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ַא ַּמאי? ֵל‬,‫יהא ָטהֹור‬ ָ ‫ ִּכי ְמ ַמ ֵעט ִמ‬In any event, when one reduces the hide to a measure of less than
‫ ָח ׁ ֵשיב! ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – דְּ ָקא ָ ּב ֵעי‬five handbreadths, everyone agrees that it becomes pure. Why is this
so? Let us say that the hide is considered significant and therefore
.‫מֹושב זָ ב‬
ַ ׁ ‫יה ְל‬
ּ ‫ֵל‬
remains impure. Reish Lakish answered: Here, we are dealing with
a case where one needs the cut hide for a seat that he wishes to
designate for a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge
[zav]. Since a piece of hide measuring less than five handbreadths
cannot be used for a seat, it is not considered significant in such
a case.

‫ ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע‬,‫מתני׳ עֹור ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָע ָליו ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬

– ‫ ו ַּב ּ ְ ׂש ָע ָרה ׁ ֶש ְּכנֶ גְ דּ ֹו‬,ּ‫ַ ּב ִ ּציב ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬
mishna In the case of a hide of an unslaughtered
carcass upon which there is an olive-bulk of
flesh, one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the fleshh
.‫ ָט ֵמא‬or a hair that is on the side of the hide opposite the flesh is ritually
impure. Although he did not touch an olive-bulk of the flesh, he is
rendered impure with the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass. The
reason is that the strand of flesh has the same status as the flesh itself,
and the hair is considered protection to the flesh, which also has the
same status as the flesh with regard to one who touches it.

‫יתים – ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ ִ ֵ‫ָהי ּו ָע ָליו ִּכ ׁ ְשנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי ז‬ If upon the hide there were two half olive-bulks,h the hide imparts
.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬,‫ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע‬ the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying,
because one moves them together, but not by means of contact
.‫ ל ֹא ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬
with the flesh, because one touches them separately; this is the
‫יתים‬ ִ ֵ‫ּמֹודה ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ִ ּב ׁ ְשנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי ז‬ ֶ ‫ו‬ statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The hide does not
,‫יטן ׁ ֶשהוּא ָט ֵמא‬ ָ ‫יסם וֶ ֱה ִס‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ְּת ָח ָבן ְ ּב ֵק‬ impart impurity, neither by means of contact nor by means of
‫ו ִּמ ּ ְפנֵי ָמה ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְמ ַט ֵהר ָ ּבעֹור – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬ carrying. And Rabbi Akiva concedes in the case of two half olive-
.‫ׁ ֶש ָהעֹור ְמ ַב ְּט ָלן‬ bulks where one skewered them with a wood chip and moved
themh that he is impure. And for what reason does Rabbi Akiva
deem one ritually pure in a case where he moved both half olive-
bulks with the hide, as in that case, too, he moved them together? It
is because the hide separates between them and nullifies them.

ָ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫גמ׳ ֲא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬

‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
– ‫ ֲא ָבל ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַחּיָ ה‬
gemara The mishna teaches that in the case of a hide
of an unslaughtered carcass upon which
there is an olive-bulk of flesh, the flesh is not nullified by the hide,
.‫ ָ ּב ֵטיל‬and therefore one who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the
flesh is ritually impure. With regard to this section of the mishna,
Ulla said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The Sages taught this halakha
only in a case where an animal severed the piece of flesh, e.g., a dog
bite. But if a person used a knife to sever the flesh, the flesh is nul-
lified by the hide because the person nullified the flesh via his action.

halakha
One who touches a strand of flesh emerging from the flesh, carrying, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva (Rambam
etc. – ‫הנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ַ ּב ִ ּציב ַהּיֹוצֵ א ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו וכו׳‬:ַ In the case of a hide of an Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:12).
unslaughtered carcass upon which there is an olive-bulk of flesh,
Two half olive-bulks where one skewered them with a wood
if one touches a strand emerging from the hide, or touches a hair
chip and moved them – ‫יטן‬ ָ ‫יסם וֶ ֱה ִס‬
ָ ‫יתים ׁ ֶש ְּת ָח ָבן ְ ּב ֵק‬
ִ ֵ‫שנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי ז‬:
ְׁ
that is on the side of the hide opposite the flesh, he is ritually
One who moves two half olive-bulks that are skewered with a
impure. The reason is that both the hair and the hide serve the
wood chip is impure because he carried an olive-bulk of impu-
flesh as protection. This halakha applies only in a case where an
rity. By contrast, one who touches them is pure because a man-
animal severed the flesh, but if a person severed the flesh with
made connection between two pieces of flesh is not considered
a knife, the flesh is nullified by the hide (Rambam Sefer Tahara,
a connection. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of
Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:11 and Kesef Mishne there).
Rabbi Akiva. Furthermore, one becomes impure in such a case
only when the two pieces were touching and he moved them
If upon the hide there were two half olive-bulks – ‫ָהי ּו ָע ָליו ִּכ ׁ ְשנֵי‬ as though they were one piece, but if the two pieces were not
‫יתים‬ִ ֵ‫חצָ ֵאי ז‬:ֲ If there were two half olive-bulks of the flesh of an touching, one who moves them remains pure, in accordance
animal carcass upon the hide, the hide nullifies them and they do with the explanation of Rav Pappa (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
not impart impurity, neither by means of contact nor by means of She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:12).

274 Ĥullin . perek IX . 124a . ‫דכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Personalities
ָ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ְלעו ָּּלא‬
‫יֹוחנָן‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Naĥman said to Ulla: Did Rabbi Yoĥanan say this halakha
even with regard to a large piece of flesh the size of a tarta, i.e., a Rav Naĥman – ‫רב נַ ְח ָמן‬:ַ The Gemara is referring to Rav
ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ‬.‫ ִאין‬:‫יה‬
‫יל ּו‬ ּ ‫יל ּו ְּכ ַת ְר ָטא? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ּ ‫ֲא ִפ‬ Naĥman bar Yaakov, one of the great amora’im of the
quarter of a kav? Ulla said to him: Yes. Rav Naĥman was surprised
!‫ ָה ֱאל ִֹהים‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ ִאין‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְּכנַ ְפיָ א? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ second and third generation of scholars in Babylon.
and asked: And did he say it even with regard to a piece of flesh the Rav Naĥman was the preeminent disciple of Rabba
‫יתנָ א‬ְ ֵ‫ ָלא צָ י‬,‫יה‬ּ ‫יֹוחנָן ִמ ּפו ֵּמ‬
ָ ‫ִאם ֲא ַמר ִלי ַר ִ ּבי‬ size of a sifter? Ulla said to him: Yes. Rav Naĥman swore and said bar Avuh, who was a member of the family of the
!‫יה‬
ּ ‫ֵל‬ to him: By God! Even if Rabbi Yoĥanan had said this statement Exilarch, i.e., the Nasi. Some commentaries say that
to me directly from his mouth, I would not have listened to him. Rabba bar Avuh was himself the Exilarch. Rav Naĥman
married Rabba bar Avuh’s daughter, Yalta. Since Rav
‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫יה ֵל‬ ּ ‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א ַא ׁ ְש ְּכ ֵח‬
ַ ׁ ‫ִּכי ָס ֵליק ַרב‬ When Rav Oshaya ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he Naĥman was present for the legal proceedings that
found Rabbi Ami, and he said this halakha before him: This is were held in the house of the Exilarch, Rav Huna said
‫ ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ַק ֵּמ‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמ ָר ּה ִל ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ֵת‬,‫ַא ִּמי‬ that the halakha is decided in accordance with his
what Ulla said and this is what Rav Naĥman responded to him.
:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ּ ‫עו ָּּלא וְ ָה ִכי ַא ֲה ַדר ֵל‬ opinion because he was an expert judge.
Rav Oshaya said to Rabbi Ami: And just because Rav Naĥmanp
,‫יאה הוּא‬ ָ ‫נְש‬
ׂ ִ ‫נֵיה דְּ ֵבי‬ ּ ‫ו ִּמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ֲח ָת‬ is the son-in-law of the family of the Nasi, can he demean the
?‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ּ ‫ְמזַ ְלזֵ ל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ֵת‬ halakhic statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan?

:‫יה דְּ יָ ֵתיב וְ ָק ָא ַמר ָל ּה ַא ֵּס ָיפא‬ ּ ‫זִ ְמנִין ַא ׁ ְש ְּכ ֵח‬ Another time Rav Oshaya found Rabbi Ami sitting and saying this
‫יתים – ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאים‬ ִ ֵ‫ָהי ּו ָע ָליו ׁ ְשנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי ז‬ halakha with regard to the latter clause of the mishna: If upon the
hide there were two half olive-bulks, the hide imparts the impu-
.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬,‫ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע‬
rity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying but not by
.‫ ל ֹא ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ means of contact with the flesh, because he touches them sepa-
rately and moves them together; this is the statement of Rabbi
Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: It imparts impurity neither by means
of contact nor by means of carrying.

,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַחּיָ ה‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬

ָ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬With regard to this section of the mishna, Rabbi Yoĥanan said: The
.‫ ֲא ָבל ּ ְפ ָל ָטתֹו ַס ִּכין – ָ ּב ֵטיל‬Sages taught Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion that the hide imparts the
impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of carrying only in
a case where an animal severed the half olive-bulks of flesh from
the animal. But if a person used a knife to sever the half olive-bulks
of flesh, the flesh is nullified. If Rav Naĥman had heard that the
statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan was stated with regard to a case of half
olive-bulks of flesh, he would not have been surprised that this
halakha also applies to pieces of flesh that amount together to the
size of a tarta or a sifter.

:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ָמר ַא ֵּס ָיפא ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Oshaya said to Rabbi Ami: Does the Master teach this halakha
?ּ‫נִיה ַליְ כו‬
ֲ ‫ישא ֲא ַמ ָר ּה‬ ָ ׁ ‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא עו ָּּלא ַא ֵר‬,‫ִאין‬ with regard to the latter clause of the mishna but not with regard
to the first section of the mishna that discusses the case of a com-
‫ ָה ֱאל ִֹהים! ִאי ֲא ַמר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ ִאין‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
plete olive-bulk of flesh? Rabbi Ami said to him: Yes. But did Ulla
!‫יה‬ ּ ‫הֹוש ַע ִ ּבן נוּן ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬
ּ ‫ ָלא צָ יֵ ְיתנָ א ֵל‬,‫יה‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ִלי י‬ say to you this halakhic statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan in Babylonia
with regard to the first clause of the mishna? Rav Oshaya said to
him: Yes. Rabbi Ami said to him: If so, Rav Naĥman was justified
in his surprise at the halakha of Rabbi Yoĥanan. By God, even if
Joshua, son of Nun, had said this halakha to me in his name, i.e.,
from his own mouth, I would not have listened to him.n

.‫ישא‬
ָ ׁ ‫חֹותי ֲא ַמרו ָּה ַא ֵר‬ ֵ ָ‫ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין וְ ָכל נ‬When Ravin and all those descending from Eretz Yisrael came to
‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א! ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬Babylonia, they stated this halakha of Rabbi Yoĥanan with regard
to the first clause of the mishna. The Gemara objects: But the mat-
ter is difficult. If an olive-bulk of flesh is nullified by being severed
with a knife, the same should be true for larger measurements, such
as a tarta, which is unreasonable, as people would not usually dis-
regard such a large amount. The Gemara resolves this difficulty in
accordance with that which Rav Pappa said with regard to a
different matter:

notes
If Joshua son of Nun had said this halakha to me in his name, not an act of degradation but rather an exaggeration employed
I would not have listened to him – ‫יה ָלא‬ ּ ‫יְהֹוש ַע ִ ּבן נוּן ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ֵמ‬
ֻ ׁ ‫ִאי ֲא ַמר ִלי‬ to convey a point. These later authorities conclude that one who
‫יה‬
ּ ‫צָ יֵ ְיתנָא ֵל‬: The commentaries question why Rabbi Ami mentioned made such a statement should nevertheless at least fast for two
Joshua and not Moses. Some note that the early commentaries non-consecutive days (Yam shel Shlomo).
(Orĥot Ĥayyim) rule that if one says to another: I would not listen to Others explain this line of the Gemara according to the state-
you even if you were Moses, the speaker is liable to receive lashes ment of the Rambam: Prophecy plays no role in the halakhic pro-
for his act of degradation to Moses, the greatest prophet who cess. Therefore, Rabbi Ami is stating that even if Joshua decided the
ever lived. Therefore, Rabbi Ami mentions Joshua and not Moses matter via prophecy, he would not heed his words. This principle
(Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’a 242). Some later commentaries disagree is true only with regard to prophets other than Moses, because
with this ruling and hold that one who mentions Moses in such a the prophecy of Moses constitutes the Torah itself (Yosef Da’at;
manner is not liable to receive lashes because such a statement is Megadim Ĥadashim on tractate Berakhot).

 ‫דכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 124a 275

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek IX
Daf 124 Amud b
notes
.‫ ִ ּב ְמרוּדָּ ד‬:‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬,‫ ִ ּב ְמרוּדָּ ד‬The reference is to a thin layer of flesh attached to the hide. Here,
Here, too, Rabbi Yoĥanan is referring to a thin too, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Yoĥanan’s statement is refer-
layer – ‫ה ָכא נַ ִמי ִ ּב ְמרוּדָּ ד‬:ָ Rashi explains that the Gemara
is referring to a thin layer of flesh spread out over a
ring to a thin layern of flesh attached to the hide. When a person
large area of the hide. Although a measure greater severs such a piece of flesh along with the hide, even if the total
than an olive-bulk is present, no one wishes to exert volume of the flesh is an olive-bulk, or even a much larger measure,
themselves to extract such a piece of flesh from the it is insignificant and is nullified by the hide.
hide, and therefore such a thin piece of flesh is nullified.
This is only true if a human flayed the hide, but if an .‫״הי ּו ָע ָליו״‬
ָ §The mishna teaches: If upon the hide there were two half olive-
animal severed a hide attached to such a thin layer bulks, the hide imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by
of flesh measuring more than an olive-bulk, it is not means of carrying but not by means of contact with the flesh; this
nullified because the person did not actively nullify it.
is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.
If one touches an impure item and again touches
another impure item – ‫ יֵ ׁש נֹוגֵ ַע וְ חֹוזֵ ר וְ נֹוגֵ ַע‬: Rashi ‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַא ֲח ָריו‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַ ּבר ּ ַפדָּ א‬Bar Padda says: The Sages taught that Rabbi Yishmael holds that
explains bar Padda’s distinction between one who .‫ ִמ ְּל ָפנָיו – יֵ ׁש נֹוגֵ ַע וְ חֹוזֵ ר וְ נֹוגֵ ַע‬that hide does not impart impurity by means of contact only with
touches the outside of the hide and one who touches regard to one who touched the hide on the outside. But if one
the flesh inside the hide: The one who touches the directly touched the pieces of flesh inside the hide, even though he
outside of the hide does not touch the flesh directly,
and since no one piece of flesh measures an olive-bulk,
did not touch any one piece measuring an olive-bulk, he is impure.
the hide is not considered to be a handle or protection This is because there is a principle that if one touches an impure
for the flesh. Rashi points out: It was taught earlier item measuring less than an olive-bulk and again touches another
(118b) that an appendage providing protection for the impure itemn measuring less than an olive-bulk, he becomes impure,
measure of a bean-bulk is considered protection with as the two instances of contact join together to constitute contact
regard to imparting impurity; if so, the hide should with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.
be considered protection for a piece of flesh measur-
ing less than an olive-bulk. Rashi answers that bar .‫ ֵאין נֹוגֵ ַע וְ חֹוזֵ ר וְ נֹוגֵ ַע‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ And Rabbi Yoĥanan says: There is no such principle that if one
Padda is explaining the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael
‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ְל ַט ְע ֵמ‬
ָ ‫וְ ָאזְ ָדא ַר ִ ּבי‬ touches an impure item and again touches another impure item
in accordance with the opinion that an appendage
that the two instances of contact join together to constitute contact
providing protection for a measure of less than an ‫ֹוסא ֶ ּבן ָה ְר ִּכינָס‬ָ ּ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל וְ ַר ִ ּבי ד‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ
olive-bulk is not considered protection with regard to with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yoĥanan
.‫ָא ְמר ּו דָּ ָבר ֶא ָחד‬ follows his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Rabbi
imparting impurity.
Yishmael and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said the same thing, i.e.,
halakha maintained the same principle.
Any part of a corpse that imparts impurity in a tent
that was divided into two pieces, etc. – ‫ַה ְּמ ַט ְּמ ִאין‬ ‫ֹוסא‬
ָ ּ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ד‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל – ָהא דַּ ֲא ַמ ַרן‬ The statement of Rabbi Yishmael is that which we said: Two
‫בא ֶֹהל ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ְח ְלק ּו וכו׳‬:ּ ְ If any part of a corpse that imparts ‫ ָּכל ַה ְּמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ְ ּבא ֶֹהל‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַ ן‬,‫ֶ ּבן ָה ְר ִּכינָ ס‬ instances of contact do not join together to constitute contact with
impurity in a tent is divided into two pieces, each mea- the requisite measure of impurity. The statement of Rabbi Dosa ben
‫ֹוסא‬
ָ ּ‫נִיסן ְלתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת – ַר ִ ּבי ד‬
ָ ‫ וְ ִה ְכ‬,ּ‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ְח ְלקו‬
suring less than an olive-bulk, but together constitut- Harkinas is that which we learned in a mishna (Oholot 3:1): With
ing an olive-bulk, and one placed both pieces inside .‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאים‬,‫ֶ ּבן ָה ְר ִּכינָס ְמ ַט ֵהר‬ regard to any part of a corpse that imparts impurity in a tent, i.e.,
the house, the two pieces of the corpse join together that imparts impurity to any other item that is under the same roof,
to constitute an olive-bulk, and therefore everything
if that body part was divided into two pieces,h each measuring less
inside the house is impure. This ruling is in accordance
with the opinion of the Rabbis in the mishna in tractate than an olive-bulk, but together they constitute an olive-bulk, and
Oholot, which also appears in tractate Eduyyot (Ram- one placed both pieces inside the house, Rabbi Dosa ben Harki-
bam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 4:8). nas rules that the two pieces do not join together to constitute the
requisite measure of an olive-bulk. Therefore, he deems everything
inside the house pure. And the Rabbis rule that the two pieces of
the corpse join together to constitute an olive-bulk, and therefore
they deem everything inside the house impure.

‫ ֵאין‬:‫ֹוסא ֶ ּבן ָה ְר ִּכינָס ָה ָתם‬ָ ּ‫ ָלאו ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ד‬Didn’t Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas say in that mishna there that
‫ ֵאין נֹוגֵ ַע‬:‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬,‫ ַמ ֲא ִהיל וְ חֹוזֵ ר ו ַּמ ֲא ִהיל‬there is no such principle that a tent overlies an impure item and
again overlies another impure item such that the two instances join
.‫וְ חֹוזֵ ר וְ נֹוגֵ ַע‬
together to constitute the requisite measure for impurity imparted
in a tent? Here, too, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas would agree with
Rabbi Yishmael that there is no such principle that if one touches
an impure item and again touches another impure item that the
two instances join together to constitute contact with the requisite
measure of an olive-bulk.

,‫ֹוסא ֶ ּבן ָה ְר ִּכינָס ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ ָ ּ‫ ו ִּמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי ד‬The Gemara objects to the statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan: Since the
‫יבא‬
ָ ‫ וְ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬.‫יבא‬ ָ ‫ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן – ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬opinion of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas is in accordance with the
opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, so too, the opinion of the Rabbis who
!‫ְטהו ֵּרי ָקא ְמ ַט ֵהר‬
disagree with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas must be in accordance with
the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael.
But doesn’t Rabbi Akiva rule more leniently than Rabbi Yishmael,
as he deems one pure in both cases of contact and carrying, whereas
the Rabbis rule more stringently than Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and
deem everything in the house impure?
276 Ĥullin . perek IX . 124b . ‫דכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ַעד ָּכאן ָלא ָקא ְמ ַט ֵהר ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ֶא ָּלא‬ The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva deems one who touches or carries
,‫ ִּכ ְד ָק ָתנֵי ֵס ָיפא‬.‫ָ ּבעֹור ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ the pieces of flesh pure only because they are nullified by the hide.
But in general he holds that items join together to impart impurity,
‫יתים‬ ִ ֵ‫יבא ִ ּב ׁ ְשנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי ז‬ ָ ‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬ ֶ ‫ּו‬
as the latter clause of the mishna teaches: And Rabbi Akiva con-
‫ ו ִּמ ּ ְפנֵי‬,‫יטן ׁ ֶשהוּא ָט ֵמא‬ ָ ‫יסם וֶ ֱה ִס‬
ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ְּת ָח ָבן ְ ּב ֵק‬ cedes in the case of two half olive-bulks where one skewered them
‫ָמה ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְמ ַט ֵהר ָ ּבעֹור – ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶש ָהעֹור‬ with a wood chip and moved them that he is impure. And for what
.‫ְמ ַב ְּט ָלן‬ reason does Rabbi Akiva deem one ritually pure in a case where he
moved both half olive-bulks with the hide? It is because the hide
separates between them and nullifies them.

– ‫״בנִ ְב ָל ָתם״‬
ּ ְ :‫ ְמ ִתיב ַרב עו ְּק ָבא ַ ּבר ָח ָמא‬Rav Ukva bar Ĥama raises an objection to the statement of bar
.‫יתים‬ ִ ֵ‫ וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבעֹור ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָע ָליו ׁ ְשנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי ז‬Padda that Rabbi Yishmael maintains that two instances of contact
with two pieces measuring less than an olive-bulk join together to
constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-bulk. His
objection is based on that which is taught in a baraita: It is written:
“And by these you shall become impure; whoever touches their car-
cass shall be impure until evening. And whoever carries the carcass
of them shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening” (Leviticus
11:24–25). It is derived from the term “their carcass” that one who
touches the carcass itself becomes impure, but one who touches
a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of flesh does not
become impure.

...‫ֹושא‬ ַ ‫יָ כֹול ַאף ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא? ַּת ְלמוּד‬

ׂ ֵ ּ‫ ״וְ ַהנ‬:‫לֹומר‬ One might have thought that a hide that has upon it two half olive-
‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬.‫יִ ְט ָמא״ – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬ bulks of flesh does not impart impurity even by means of carrying.
Therefore, the continuation of the verse states: “And whoever carries
‫ ֶאת ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל‬,‫ֹושא״‬ ׂ ֵ ּ‫וְ ַהנ‬...‫״הנּ ֹוגֵ ַע‬ ֵ
ַ :‫אֹומר‬
the carcass of them shall wash his clothes and be impure until eve-
– ‫ ל ֹא ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ָ ּגע‬,‫ַמ ָ ּגע – ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬ ning,” from which it is derived that one who carries a carcass, even by
.‫ל ֹא ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬ means of the hide, becomes impure; this is the statement of Rabbi
Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The verse juxtaposes “whoever touches”
with “and whoever carries,” indicating that that which enters the
category of impurity via contact, enters the category of impurity via
carrying; that which does not enter the category of impurity via
contact, does not enter the category of impurity via carrying.

!‫ ֲה ֵרי ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ָ ּגע ִמ ְּל ָפנָיו‬,‫יתא‬

ָ ‫ וְ ִאם ִא‬Based on this baraita, one can object to the statement of bar Padda:
And if it is so that Rabbi Yishmael maintains that two instances of
contact with two pieces of flesh measuring less than an olive-bulk join
together to constitute contact with the requisite measure of an olive-
bulk, then the case of a hide that has upon it two half olive-bulks of
flesh also enters the category of impurity transmitted by means of
contact when one directly touches the flesh inside the hide. Therefore,
why does Rabbi Akiva disagree with Rabbi Yishmael by stating that
in this case there is no transmission of impurity by means of carrying
because there is no transmission of impurity by means of contact?

‫ ֶאת ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל‬:‫ ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬,‫ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava said that this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: That which enters
‫ ל ֹא ָ ּבא‬,‫ ַמ ָ ּגע ְ ּב ָכל צַ ד – ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬the category of impurity via contact in every manner, even by
touching the hide on the outside, enters the category of impurity via
.‫ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ָ ּגע ְ ּב ָכל צַ ד – ל ֹא ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬
carrying; that which does not enter the category of impurity via
contact in every manner, does not enter the category of impurity
via carrying.

‫ֵיה ַרב ָאוְ יָ א ָס ָבא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב‬ ּ ‫§ ְ ּב ָעא ִמ ּינ‬The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
‫ ַמה ּו‬,‫ קו ִּלית ְסתו ָּמה ְל ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬:‫ הוּנָ א‬Rav Avya the Elder asked Rabba bar Rav Huna: The mishna below
p

teaches that with regard to a sealed thigh bone of an unslaughtered

?‫ׁ ֶש ְּת ַט ֵּמא‬
carcass and of a creeping animal, where the bone is intact to the extent
that there is no access to the marrow, which contains marrow inside
but no flesh outside, one who touches it remains ritually pure because
it does not enter the category of impurity via contact. According to
the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, what is the halakha as to whether it
imparts impurity via carrying?

Personalities
Rabba bar Rav Huna – ‫ר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב הוּנָ א‬:ַ A third-generation Babylo- Rav Huna was a disciple-colleague of Rav Ĥisda, and a colleague of
nian amora, Rabba bar Rav Huna studied under Rav and transmitted Rav Naĥman and Rabba, as well as a judge in the city of Sura after
several statements in his name. He was a preeminent disciple of the death of his father. His son Abba was the amora Rava, whose
his father, Rav Huna, and there are several instances in the Talmud statements are cited throughout the Talmud.
where Rav Huna offers him practical halakhic guidance. Rabba bar

 ‫דכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 124b 277

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ֶאת ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא‬ ּ ‫ִאית ֵל‬ Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael maintains the principle: That which enters
Let me lean against the stout trunks – ‫ֲאנִי ַהּיֹום ַס ְּמכוּנִי‬ the category of impurity via contact, enters the category of impurity
‫ב ֲא ׁ ִש ׁישֹות‬:ּ ָ The incident in the Gemara took place during ‫ ל ֹא‬,‫ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ָ ּגע – ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬
via carrying; that which does not enter the category of impurity via
the Shabbat of a pilgrimage Festival, and Rabba bar Rav ,‫ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ָ ּגע – ל ֹא ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬
Huna was exhausted from his public speaking engage- contact, does not enter the category of impurity via carrying. And
‫וְ ָה ָכא ַהיְ ינ ּו ַט ֲע ָמא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ָבא‬ therefore, here, in the baraita cited above, this is the reason that
ments (Rashi).
.‫ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ָ ּגע ִמ ְּל ָפנָיו‬ Rabbi Yishmael taught that one who carries a hide that has upon it
Rav Pappa says: The mishna is discussing a case where
a thin layer was attached to the hide – ‫ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ two half olive-bulks of flesh becomes impure even though it does
‫ב ְמרוּדָּ ד‬:
ּ ִ Rashi explains the answer of Rav Pappa: The not enter the category of impurity via contact if one touched the
mishna is discussing a case where there are two half outside of the hide: It is because it enters the category of impurity
olive-bulks of flesh connected by a thin strip of flesh. via contact if one directly touched the flesh inside the hide. Therefore,
Since the two pieces of flesh are connected in this manner, a sealed thigh bone, which does not enter the category of impurity
there is an olive-bulk of flesh being carried all at once, and via contact in any manner, does not enter the category of impurity via
therefore the flesh imparts impurity by carrying. The early
commentaries question why the two half olive-bulks of
carrying either.
flesh that are connected by a thin strip of flesh are con-
sidered one piece with regard to imparting impurity via
?‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֵלית ֵל‬:‫ אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא‬Or perhaps Rabbi Yishmael does not maintain this principle, and he
carrying and not via contact. They answer that Rav Pappa would maintain that one who carries a hide that has upon it two half
holds that with regard to imparting impurity via contact, olive-bulks of flesh becomes impure even if it were not the case that
two pieces are considered to have a connection only if it enters the category of impurity via contact if one directly touched
they remain connected when one of the sections is lifted. the flesh inside the hide. And therefore, Rabbi Yishmael holds that a
If one lifts one piece and the other is not lifted along with sealed thigh bone imparts impurity via carrying even though it does
it, then they are not considered to have a connection. This not enter the category of impurity via contact in any manner.
is true only with regard to impurity imparted via contact,
but with regard to impurity imparted via carrying, it is
!‫ עו ְּר ָבא ּ ְפ ַרח‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬In an effort to evade the question, Rabba bar Rav Huna distracted Rav
sufficient for an olive-bulk of flesh to be present all at
Avya the Elder and said to him: Look, a raven flies in the sky.
once (Tosafot).
‫ וְ ָלאו ַהיְ ינ ּו ַרב‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ָר ָבא ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, said to his father: But isn’t this
‫יתא דִּ ְמ ׁ ַש ַ ּבח ָלן‬
ָ ‫ָאוְ יָ א ָס ָבא ִמ ּפו ְּמ ְ ּב ִד‬ Rav Avya the Elder of Pumbedita, whom the Master would praise
to us, saying that he is a great man? If so, why did you treat him in
‫ דְּ גַ ְב ָרא ַר ָ ּבה הוּא? ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָמר ְ ּבגַ ֵּו‬
that manner and evade his question? Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him:
,‫״ס ְּמכוּנִי ָ ּב ֲא ׁ ִש ׁישֹות״‬ַ ‫ ֲאנִי ַהּיֹום‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ Today I am in a state best described by the verse: “Let me lean against
.‫ו ְּב ָעא ִמ ַּינאי ִמ ְּיל ָתא דְּ ָב ֵעי ַט ֲע ָמא‬ the stout trunks;n let me couch among the apple trees” (Song of
Songs 2:5), meaning: I am tired, and he asked me about a matter that
requires reasoning and careful examination, and therefore I could
not provide an immediate answer.

‫ ׁ ְשנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי זֵ ִיתים ׁ ֶש ְּת ָח ָבן‬:‫§ ָא ַמר עו ָּּלא‬Ulla says: With regard to two half olive-bulks that one skewered
‫יך ּו ֵמ ִביא ָּכל‬ ְ ‫מֹול‬
ִ ‫יל ּו‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬,‫יסם‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ֵק‬with a wood chip, even if one moves them back and forth the entire
day, he does not contract impurity via carrying, and he is pure.
.‫ַהּיֹום ּכוּלּ ֹו – ָטהֹור‬

‫נִשא״ וְ ָק ֵרינַן‬
ׂ ָ ְ‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא – ְּכ ִתיב ״ו‬The Gemara explains: What is the reason? With regard to impurity
ׂ ָ ּ ְּ‫נֹושא – וְ הוּא ד‬
‫נִישא‬ ׂ ֵ ‫ ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬,‫״נֹושא״‬
ֵׂ transmitted by carrying it is written: “And one who carries [vahan-
nosei] its carcass shall wash his clothes and be impure until evening”
.‫ְ ּב ַבת ַא ַחת‬
(Leviticus 11:40). The words “and who carries” in the term “and one
who carries” is written vav, nun, sin, alef, which can be read venisa,
meaning: Is carried; but according to the traditional vocalization we
read the word as nosei, meaning: Carries. From here it is derived that
with regard to impurity transmitted by carrying we require that one
carry [nosei] the requisite measure of impurity of a carcass, i.e., an
olive-bulk, and that that olive-bulk be capable of being carried
[nissa] all at once, without the assistance of a utensil. This require-
ment is not met with regard to two half olive-bulks that one skewered
with a wood chip, which are carried only with the assistance of a
utensil.

‫יתים‬ ִ ֵ‫ ָהי ּו ָע ָליו ׁ ְשנֵי ֲחצָ ֵאי ז‬:‫ְּתנַ ן‬ The Gemara objects to Ulla’s statement: We learned in the mishna
‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע‬ that if upon the hide there were two half olive-bulks, the hide
imparts the impurity of an unslaughtered carcass by means of car-
ׂ ָ ּ ‫ ַא ַּמאי? וְ ָהא ָלאו‬.‫יִש ָמ ֵעאל‬
‫נִישא‬ ְ ׁ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬
rying but not by means of contact with the flesh; this is the state-
!‫הוּא‬ ment of Rabbi Yishmael. Why does it impart impurity by means of
carrying? This case does not fulfill the requirement that an olive-bulk
of impure flesh be capable of being carried all at once without the
assistance of a utensil, as the hide is needed to carry them.

.‫ ִ ּב ְמרוּדָּ ד‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬Rav Pappa says: The mishna is discussing a case where a thin layer of
flesh was attached to the hide.n Despite the fact that there is not one
piece of flesh the size of an olive-bulk, the two half olive-bulks are
connected by a strip of thin flesh which enables the two pieces to be
carried at once without the assistance of the hide. Therefore, the pieces
impart impurity by means of carrying but not by means of contact.
278 Ĥullin . perek IX . 124b . ‫דכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫יבא ִ ּב ׁ ְשנֵי‬
ָ ‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬ ֶ :‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a refutation to the opinion
‫יטן‬ָ ‫יסם וֶ ֱה ִס‬ָ ‫יתים ׁ ֶש ְּת ָח ָבן ְ ּב ֵק‬ ִ ֵ‫ֲחצָ ֵאי ז‬ of Ulla from that which is stated in the mishna: Rabbi Akiva
concedes in the case of two half olive-bulks where one skewered
‫נִישא‬ׂ ָ ּ ‫ ַא ַּמאי? וְ ָהא ָלאו‬,‫ׁ ֶשהוּא ָט ֵמא‬
them with a wood chip and moved them that he is impure.
.‫הוּא! ָה ִכי נַ ִמי ִ ּב ְמרוּדָּ ד‬ Why? This case does not fulfill the requirement that an olive-
bulk of impure flesh be capable of being carried all at once
without the assistance of a utensil. The Gemara rejects this refuta-
tion: Here too, with regard to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, the
mishna is discussing a case of a thin layer of flesh connecting the
two pieces.

‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ֶא ָחד ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע וְ ֶא ָחד ַה ֵּמ ִסיט‬:‫ ְּכ ַת ָּנ ֵאי‬The Gemara suggests: The opinion of Ulla is like one side of a
‫נֹושא‬ ׂ ֵ ‫ ַא ּט ּו‬.‫ֹושא‬ׂ ֵ ּ‫ ַאף ַהנ‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ֱא ִל‬dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard
to two pieces of flesh, neither of which measures an olive-bulk,
?‫ָלאו ֵמ ִסיט הוּא‬
both one who touches and one who moves the pieces is impure.
Rabbi Eliezer says: Even one who carries the pieces is impure.
The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of Rabbi
Eliezer? Is that to say that carrying is not the same as moving?

‫ ֶא ָחד ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ָה ִכי ָק ָא ַמר‬ Rather, isn’t this what the baraita is saying: Both one who
‫ וַ ֲא ָתא ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫נִישא‬ ׂ ָ ּ ‫וְ ֶא ָחד ַה ֵּמ ִסיט ְ ּב ָלא‬ touches and one who moves pieces of flesh is impure even if an
olive-bulk of flesh is not capable of being carried without the
‫ ו ַּמאי‬,‫נִישא‬ ׂ ָ ּ ְּ‫ וְ הוּא ד‬:‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יעזֶ ר ְל ֵמ‬
ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬
assistance of a utensil? And Rabbi Eliezer comes to say: One
ׂ ָ ּ ְּ‫ וְ הוּא ד‬:‫ימא‬
.‫נִישא‬ ָ ‫״אף״? ֵא‬ ַ becomes impure only if an olive-bulk of flesh is capable of being
carried without the assistance of a utensil. The Gemara asks: But
if the intention of Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is to qualify the state-
ment of the Rabbis, what is the meaning of the word even? Rather,
say the statement of Rabbi Eliezer differently: One is impure only
if an olive-bulk of flesh is capable of being carried without the
assistance of a utensil.

‫מתני׳ קו ִּלית ַה ֵּמת‬

mishna With regard to the thigh bone of a human
corpse,

Perek IX
Daf 125 Amud a
halakha
‫ ֵ ּבין‬,‫ ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ָ ּב ֶהן‬,‫ וְ קו ִּלית ַה ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬and the thigh bone of a sacrificial animalh that was rendered unfit
The thigh bone of a sacrificial animal – ‫קו ִּלית ַה ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬:
.‫ ְסתו ִּמים ֵ ּבין נְ קו ִּבים – ָט ֵמא‬as piggul, i.e., an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to If one touches the thigh bone of a sacrificial animal that was
consume it after its designated time, or notar, i.e., part of an offer- disqualified as piggul or notar, which render those who touch
ing left over after the time allotted for its consumption, whether them impure by rabbinic decree, he is ritually impure, even if
these thigh bones were sealed and there was no access to the the bone was sealed and there was no access to the marrow
marrow, or whether they were perforated and there was access (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 8:4).
to the marrow, one who touches them is ritually impure.n The
reason is that a piece of bone of a corpse the size of a barley grain
imparts impurity, and the bone of a sacrificial animal that was
disqualified in this manner imparts impurity by rabbinic decree
via contact.

notes
And the thigh bone of a sacrificial animal…one who not contain marrow because the bone itself imparts impurity,
touches them is ritually impure – ...‫וְ קו ִּלית ַה ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ָ ּב ֶהן‬ as it is written: “And whoever in the open field touches one who
‫ט ֵמא‬:ָ Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura explains that the mishna is not was slain with a sword, or one who died of himself, or a bone of
referring exclusively to the thigh bone, but rather to any bone a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:16).
containing marrow. In addition, he explains that there is a dis- By contrast, it is by rabbinic decree that bones of offerings that
tinction between the bone of a corpse and that of a sacrificial contained notar and piggul render hands impure, and therefore
offering. The bone of a corpse imparts impurity even if it does they impart impurity only if they contain marrow or flesh.

 ‫הכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 125a 279

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ָ ּב ֶהם‬,‫קו ִּלית נְ ֵב ָלה וְ קו ִּלית ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ‬ With regard to the thigh bone of an unslaughtered carcass and the
– ‫ נְ קו ִּבים ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫הֹורים‬ ִ ‫ְסתו ִּמים – ְט‬ thigh bone of a creeping animal,n one who touches them when
they are sealed remains ritually pure. If one of these thigh bones
‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ַאף ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא – ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע‬
was perforated at all, it imparts impurity via contact, as in that
‫ ֶאת ׁ ֶש ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל‬,‫וְ ַהנּ ֵ ֹׂשא״‬...‫״הנּ ֹגֵ ַע‬ ַ ‫לֹומר‬
ַ case contact with the bone is tantamount to contact with the mar-
‫ ל ֹא ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל‬,‫ַמ ָ ּגע – ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬ row. From where is it derived that even with regard to impurity
.‫ַמ ָ ּגע – ל ֹא ָ ּבא ִל ְכ ַלל ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬ transmitted via carryingn there is a distinction between sealed and
perforated thigh bones? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states:
“One who touches the carcass thereof shall be impure until the
evening; and one who carries the carcass thereof shall be impure
until the evening” (Leviticus 11:39–40), indicating: That which
enters the category of impurity via contact, enters the category
of impurity via carrying; that which does not enter the category
of impurity via contact, does not enter the category of impurity
via carrying.

.‫ ֲא ָבל ַמ ֲא ִהיל – ָלא‬,‫גמ׳ נֹוגֵ ַע – ִאין‬

gemara The mishna teaches that one who touches
the thigh bone of a human corpse is ritually
impure, whether or not it was sealed. The Gemara infers that with
regard to one who touches the bone, yes, he is impure, but one
who overlies the thigh bone is not impure, as it does not transmit
impurity to that which is above it or under the same roof.

‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ְ ּבא ֶֹהל‬

ָּ ‫ ֵה ִיכי דָּ ֵמי? ִאי דְּ ִא‬The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there is an olive-
.‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬ ַ ‫ נַ ִמי ִל‬bulk of flesh attached to the bone then it should transmit impurity
ָּ ‫יט ֵּמא! דְּ ֵל‬
in a tent, i.e., to that which is under the same roof, as well. The
Gemara answers: The mishna is discussing a case where there is not
an olive-bulk of flesh attached to the bone.

‫מֹוח ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים – טו ְּמ ָאה‬ַ ‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ ָּ ‫ וְ ִאי דְּ ִא‬The Gemara objects: But if there is an olive-bulk of marrow inside
ָ ְ‫ ּב ַֹוק ַעת ו‬the bone, the impurity breaks through the bone, so to speak, and
h
‫יט ֵּמא! דְּ ֵל ָּיכא‬
ַ ‫ ְ ּבא ֶֹהל נַ ִמי ִל‬,‫עֹולה‬
ascends beyond it. Therefore, it should transmit impurity in a tent
.‫מֹוח ִ ּב ְפנִים‬
ַ ‫ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
as well. The Gemara explains: The mishna is discussing a case where
there is not an olive-bulk of marrow inside the bone.

halakha
But if there is an olive-bulk of marrow inside the bone – ‫וְ ִאי‬ clay vessel via its airspace. It also imparts impurity to a person
‫מֹוח ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬
ַ ‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
ָּ ‫דְּ ִא‬: The halakhic status of marrow is like that via carrying and thereby imparts impurity to garments, similar to
of flesh. Therefore, an olive-bulk of marrow from an animal carcass the riding seat of a zav (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot
imparts impurity to a person and vessels via contact and to a HaTumot 1:1, 4).

notes
The thigh bone of an unslaughtered carcass and the thigh bone contact with the flesh directly. In the case of a sealed thigh bone,
of a creeping animal – ‫קו ִּלית נְ ֵב ָלה וְ קו ִּלית ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ‬: The bones of an where it is impossible to come in contact with the marrow directly,
animal carcass and a creeping animal, unlike the bones of a human the bone does not impart impurity by carrying or contact.
corpse, do not impart impurity unless they are attached to flesh or
contain marrow. Therefore, one who touched the sealed bone of From where is it derived that even with regard to impurity
a carcass or a creeping animal remains pure. Rashi questions why transmitted via carrying – ‫מ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ַאף ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬:ִ The commentaries
the bone is not considered as protection that imparts impurity, as it point out that this question in the mishna is referring to a carcass,
provides protection for the marrow. Rashi answers that an append- which imparts impurity via carrying, but not to a creeping ani-
age that provides protection is considered protection with regard mal, which does not impart impurity via carrying (Rabbi Ovadya
to imparting impurity only in a case where it is possible to come in Bartenura).

280 Ĥullin . perek IX . 125a . ‫הכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
,‫מֹוח ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים ַמ ֲע ֶלה ֲארו ָּכה ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬
ַ ‫וְ ִאי‬ The Gemara objects: But if the mishna maintains that marrow inside
the bone of a living person heals the flesh outside the bone,h then Marrow inside the bone heals the flesh outside the
ַ ‫ ְ ּבא ֶֹהל נַ ִמי ְל‬,‫ֵא ֶבר ְמ ַע ְּליָ א ִהיא‬
!‫יט ֵּמא‬ bone – ‫מֹוח ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים ַמ ֲע ֶלה ֲארו ָּכה ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬:
ַ Marrow inside
since the marrow could replenish itself and catalyze the growth of
‫ זֹאת‬:‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬
ּ ‫ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה ְ ּב ֵר‬ the bone heals the flesh outside the bone. Therefore,
flesh on the bone it is a proper limb. Therefore, as is the case with a thigh bone containing enough marrow to heal the
‫מֹוח ִ ּב ְפנִים ֵאינֹו ַמ ֲע ֶלה ֲארו ָּכה‬ ַ ,‫אֹומ ֶרת‬
ֶ any piece of a proper limb, even one less than the size of an olive-bulk, flesh is considered a limb of a corpse and imparts
.‫ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬ it should transmit impurity in a tent as well. Rav Yehuda, son of impurity via contact, carrying, and via impurity in a
Rabbi Ĥiyya, says: That is to say that the mishna maintains that tent. Similarly, such a thigh bone of an animal carcass
marrow inside the bone does not heal the flesh outside the bone. imparts impurity via contact and carrying, and such a
thigh bone of a creeping animal imparts impurity via
contact. This ruling is in accordance with the opin-
,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬,‫ימ ָּתא – דְּ ֵל ָּיכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
ְ ‫אֹוק‬
ִ ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי‬The Gemara asks: To what case did you interpret the mishna to be ion of Rabbi Yoĥanan (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
?‫ ְ ּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשים ַא ַּמאי ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬referring? It is a case where there is not an olive-bulk of marrow. If Tumat Met 2:5 and Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 2:11,
so, in the case of a sacrificial animal, why does the thigh bone impart 4:9).
impurity? The Sages issued a decree that the bones of a sacrificial
animal that are attached to flesh or contain marrow that became piggul
or notar render those who touch them impure, as they serve as han-
dles or protection for the flesh or marrow. By contrast, in this case
there can be no piggul or notar because there is less than an olive-bulk
of flesh or marrow.

ְּ ‫ קו ִּלית נְ ֵב ָלה וְ קו ִּלית ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ ִּכי‬,ּ‫ וְ תו‬And furthermore, if the mishna is discussing a case where there is
‫נִיקב ּו‬
?ּ‫ ַא ַּמאי ְמ ַט ְּמאו‬not an olive-bulk of marrow, why do the thigh bone of an unslaugh-
tered carcass and the thigh bone of a creeping animal impart
impurity in a case when they were perforated?

,‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
ָּ ‫ישא – דְּ ֵל‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬,‫ ָהא ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. The first clause of the
‫ ו ַּמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬,‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ָּ ‫ ֵס ָיפא – דְּ ִא‬mishna, which discusses the thigh bone of a corpse, is referring to a
.‫ילי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ ֵּ ‫ ָלן? ִמ ֵּילי ִמ‬case where there is not an olive-bulk of marrow. The latter clause
of the mishna, which discusses the thigh bones of a sacrificial animal,
an unslaughtered carcass, and a creeping animal, is referring to a case
where there is an olive-bulk of marrow. And accordingly, what is the
tanna of the mishna teaching us? He is teaching us several distinct
matters separately, as follows.

‫מֹוח ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים‬
ַ ְּ‫ישא ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן – ד‬ ָ ׁ ‫ֵר‬ In the first clause he is teaching us that the marrow inside the bone
‫ מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬.‫ֵאינֹו ַמ ֲע ֶלה ֲארו ָּכה ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬ does not heal the flesh outside the bone. With regard to the thigh
bone of sacrificial animals, what is he teaching us? He is teaching us
‫נֹותר ִמ ְּיל ָתא‬
ָ ‫ַמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן? ׁ ִש ּימו ּׁש‬
that a bone that serves as a handle or protection for flesh or marrow
‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ָמ ִרי ַ ּבר ֲאבו ּּה‬.‫ִהיא‬ that became notar is significant and imparts impurity, as Mari bar
– ‫נֹותר‬ ָ ‫ימ ׁש ּו‬ְּ ‫ ַעצְ מֹות ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש‬:‫יִ צְ ָחק‬ Avuh said that Rabbi Yitzĥak said: Bones of sacrificial animals that
‫נַע ָ ׂשה ָ ּב ִסיס‬
ֲ ְ‫הֹואיל ו‬ ִ ,‫ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ֶאת ַהּיָ ַדיִ ם‬ served as a handle for notar, meaning that they have leftover meat on
.‫ַלדָּ ָבר ָה ָאסוּר‬ them or inside them after the allotted time for its consumption, trans-
mit impurity to the hands of those who handle them, just as the
leftover sacrificial meat itself transmits impurity to the hands. Since
the bones have become a base for an intrinsically forbidden object,
they are treated in the same manner as the forbidden object itself.

ָּ ‫ נְ ֵב ָלה ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ִא‬Next, the tanna of the mishna teaches that with regard to the thigh
ְּ ,‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬
– ‫נִיק ָבה‬
.‫נִיק ָבה – ָלא‬ ְּ ‫ ל ֹא‬,‫ ִאין‬bone of an unslaughtered carcass, even if there is an olive-bulk of
marrow inside, if it was perforated it does impart impurity, but if it
was not perforated, it does not impart impurity.

‫מֹוח ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים ַמ ֲע ֶלה‬

ַ ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ֲא ַמר‬Abaye said: Actually, the tanna of the mishna maintains that marrow
– ‫ וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן‬,‫ ֲארו ָּכה ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬inside the bone heals the flesh outside the bone. And with regard to
the consequent assertion: If so, the thigh bone should impart impu-
,‫ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ָפ ּה‬
rity in a tent as well, the explanation is that here we are dealing with
a case where one scraped the bone. Therefore, the flesh and the
marrow can no longer heal, and the bone is not considered a proper
limb that imparts impurity in a tent.

‫ קו ִּלית‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬.‫ וְ ִכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬And this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar,
– ‫ ְל ָר ְח ָ ּב ּה‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ָפ ּה ְל ָא ְר ָּכ ּה – ְט ֵמ ָאה‬as Rabbi Elazar said: A thigh bone that one scraped lengthwise is
impure like a limb. Even if it is not attached to flesh or marrow, a bone
.‫ דִּ ְיק ָלא‬: ְ‫ימנֵיך‬ ָ ‫ וְ ִס‬,‫הֹורה‬ ָ ‫ְט‬
scraped in such a manner still has the ability to heal. But if one scraped
it widthwise it will not heal and is therefore pure. And your mne-
monic to remember which can heal and which cannot is a palm tree,
because if one sawed a strip off of a palm tree lengthwise it can heal,
but if one did so widthwise, i.e., one sawed a strip off of the circumfer-
ence of the tree, the flow of sap is disrupted and the tree cannot heal.
 ‫הכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 125a 281
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ּמֹוח‬
ַ ‫ ו‬,‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ָּ ‫עֹולם דְּ ִא‬
ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫יֹוחנָן ֲא ַמר‬
ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Actually, the mishna is discussing a case
Here we are dealing with a case where there is an
olive-bulk of marrow that is rattling – ‫ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי‬ ‫ ו ַּמאי ״נֹוגֵ ַע״‬,‫ ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים ַמ ֲע ֶלה ֲארו ָּכה ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬where there is an olive-bulk of marrow in the bone. And the tanna
of the mishna also holds that marrow inside the bone heals the flesh
‫מֹוח ַה ִּמ ְת ַק ׁ ְש ֵק ׁש‬
ַ ‫ע ְס ִקינַן ְּכגֹון דְּ ִא ָּיכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬:ָ Commentaries .‫דְּ ָק ָתנֵי – ַמ ֲא ִהיל‬
ask why Rabbi Yoĥanan did not accept the explana- outside the bone. And as for the consequent assertion: If so, the
tion of Abaye that the mishna is discussing a case bone should transmit impurity in a tent, in fact the bone does impart
where one scraped the bone. They answer that per- impurity in a tent. And to what is the mishna referring when it
haps Rabbi Yoĥanan disagrees with Abaye and holds teaches that one who touches the bone is ritually impure? It is also
that even after one scraped the bone, the bone is still referring to one who overlies the bone.
able to be healed by the flesh and marrow. By con-
trast, when the marrow inside the bone is detached ,‫מֹוח ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים ַמ ֲע ֶלה ֲארו ָּכה ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִאי‬The Gemara asks: But if the marrow inside the bone heals the flesh
and rattling around, it is clear that the bone cannot
be healed by the flesh and marrow (Tosafot). ‫ קו ִּלית נְ ֵב ָלה וְ קו ִּלית ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ ִּכי ל ֹא נִ ְּקב ּו‬outside the bone, why does the mishna teach that the thigh bone
of a carcass and the thigh bone of a creeping animal are pure when
?‫הֹורים‬
ִ ‫ַא ַּמאי ְט‬
they were not perforated?
halakha
ָ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִ ּבנְיָ ִמין ַ ּבר ִ ּגידֵּ ל‬
:‫יֹוחנָן‬ Rabbi Binyamin bar Giddel said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Here
One who touches half an olive-bulk and overlies we are dealing with a case where there is an olive-bulk of marrow
half an olive-bulk, etc. – ‫ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ְ ּב ַכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ו ַּמ ֲא ִהיל ַעל‬
‫יכא ַּכּזַ יִ ת‬ָּ ‫ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן – ְּכגֹון דְּ ִא‬
that has become detached and is rattlingn inside the bone. With
‫חצִ י זַ יִ ת וכו׳‬:ֲ If one touches with one hand half an ‫ ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ֵמת – ט ּו ְמ ָאה‬,‫מֹוח ַה ִּמ ְת ַק ׁ ְש ֵק ׁש‬ ַ
olive-bulk of a corpse while his other hand overlies
regard to impurity imparted by a corpse, the impurity breaks
,‫ נְ ֵב ָלה ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ִמ ְת ַק ׁ ְש ֵק ׁש הוּא‬,‫עֹולה‬
ָ ְ‫ּב ַֹוק ַעת ו‬ through the bone and ascends, and it therefore transmits impurity
half an olive-bulk, or while half an olive-bulk of a
flesh from a corpse overlies him, remains pure. The .‫נִיק ָבה – ָלא‬ ְּ ‫ ל ֹא‬,‫נִיק ָבה – ִאין‬ ְּ in a tent. But with regard to the impurity of a carcass, since the
reason is that impurity via contact does not join marrow is loose and rattling, it will not heal. Therefore, if the bone
together with impurity imparted in a tent to con- was perforated and it is possible to touch the marrow, the bone does
stitute the requisite measure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, impart impurity. But if the bone was not perforated it does not
Hilkhot Tumat Met 4:14).
impart impurity.
Any impure items that are of one concept…of two
concepts – ‫מ ׁ ּ ְשנֵי ׁ ֵשמֹות‬...‫ד‬
ִ ‫כל ׁ ֶשהוּא ִמ ׁ ּ ֵשם ֶא ָח‬:ָּ Impurity ,‫יֹוסי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין‬
ֵ ‫ימא ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ית‬
ֵ ‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָא ִבין וְ ִא‬ According to Rabbi Yoĥanan, overlying is referred to as touching in
transmitted via contact, via carrying, and imparted ‫ ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ְ ּב ַכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת‬:‫ַאף ֲאנַ ן נַ ִמי ָּתנֵינָ א‬ the mishna. Rabbi Avin said, and some say it was Rabbi Yosei bar
in a tent are three separate concepts or categories Avin who said: We learn in a mishna as well (Oholot 3:1): In the case
of impurity. Any impure items lacking the requisite ‫ אֹו ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ַמ ֲא ִהיל‬,‫ו ַּמ ֲא ִהיל ַעל ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת‬
of one who touches with one hand half an olive-bulk of a corpse
volume to have impure status on their own that are .‫ָע ָליו – ָט ֵמא‬ and simultaneously his other hand overlies half an olive-bulkh or
of one concept join together and are impure; if they
are of two concepts, they do not join together and half an olive-bulk of flesh from a corpse overlies him, he is impure.
remain pure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat
Met 4:14). ‫ ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַחד ׁ ְש ָמא הוּא – ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬Granted, if you say that impurity via contact and impurity transmit-
.‫ ָה ִכי ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬ted in a tent or to one overlying a part of the corpse are one concept,
it is due to that reason that the half olive-bulk of impurity that he
touched and the half olive-bulk of impurity that he overlaid join
together to constitute the requisite measure of an olive-bulk.

?‫ ִמי ִמצְ ָט ֵרף‬,ּ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ְּת ֵרי ׁ ְש ֵמי נִינְ הו‬But if you say that they are two concepts, how can they join
– ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא ִמ ׁ ּ ֵשם ֶא ָחד‬,‫ זֶ ה ַה ְּכ ָלל‬:‫ וְ ָה ְתנַן‬together? But didn’t we learn in that mishna (Oholot 3:1): This is
the principle: Any impure items lacking the requisite volume to
!‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ְשנֵי ׁ ֵשמֹות – ָטהֹור‬,‫ִמצְ ָט ֵרף וְ ָט ֵמא‬
have impure status on their own that are of one concept join
together and are impure; if they are of two concepts,h they do not
join together and remain pure? Apparently, touching and overlying
a corpse create the same type of impurity, and therefore overlying is
referred to as touching in the mishna here.

:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ ַחד ׁ ְש ָמא הוּא? ֵא‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ַמאי‬The Gemara challenges: Rather, what is the alternative? Is it one
ָ ‫ימא ֵס‬
‫ ֲא ָבל‬concept that comprises both touching and overlying? Say the latter
clause of the mishna in tractate Oholot: But

Perek IX
Daf 125 Amud b
halakha
‫ וְ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר ַמ ֲא ִהיל ָע ָליו‬,‫ ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ְ ּב ַכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת‬in the case of one who touches half an olive-bulk of flesh from a
One who touches half an olive-bulk of flesh and
another item overlies him and half an olive-bulk – .‫ וְ ַעל ַּכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת – ָטהֹור‬corpse and simultaneously another item overlies both him and half
‫הנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ְ ּב ַכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת וְ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר ַמ ֲא ִהיל ָע ָליו וְ ַעל ַּכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת‬:ַ If
an olive-bulkh of flesh from a corpse, he remains pure.n
one touches or carries half an olive-bulk of flesh from
a corpse and simultaneously another item overlies
notes
him and half an olive-bulk of flesh from a corpse, he
remains pure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat One who touches half an olive-bulk and another item overlies him and half an olive-bulk of the flesh of a corpse, he remains pure
Met 4:14). him and half an olive-bulk, he remains pure – ‫ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ְ ּב ַכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת‬ despite the fact that imparting impurity via contact is not present
‫וְ ָד ָבר ַא ֵחר ַמ ֲא ִהיל ָע ָליו וְ ַעל ַּכ ֲחצִ י זַ יִ ת ָטהֹור‬: The mishna (Oholot 3:1) in this case. The reason is that although both half olive-bulks impart
teaches an additional case: If a person overlies half an olive-bulk impurity in a tent, they are two different categories of imparting
of the flesh of a corpse and simultaneously another item overlies impurity in a tent.

282 Ĥullin . perek IX . 125b . ‫הכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ַא ַּמאי ָטהֹור? ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ וְ ִאי ַחד ׁ ְש ָמא הוּא‬But if impurity via contact and via a tent are considered one concept,
Impurity is pressed – ‫בטו ְּמ ָאה ְרצוּצָ ה‬:
ּ ְ As the Gemara
!‫ישא‬ָ ׁ ‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ֵר‬why does he remain pure? Rather, based on the latter clause of the explains, a case where impurity is pressed is where the
mishna, the first clause of the mishna is difficult, because it indicates source of impurity is present in a space measuring less
that these two categories of impurity are considered one concept and than a cubic handbreadth. Any space this small is not
join together to constitute the requisite measure for impurity. considered a cavity sufficient to impart impurity in a
tent. Instead, the impurity ascends and descends with-
‫ ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאה ְרצוּצָ ה ֵ ּבין ׁ ְשנֵי‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬Rabbi Zeira said: In the first clause of the mishna we are dealing out limits. It does not impart impurity to the sides (see
ֶ ‫ וְ ֵאין ֵ ּב‬,‫ ִמגְ דָּ ִלים ָע ְס ִקינַן‬with a case where the source of impurity is pressed between two
n
,‫ינֵיהן ּפ ֵֹות ַח ֶט ַפח‬ Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 7:5).
wooden chests and there is no opening of one handbreadth in
n
.‫יעה ִהיא‬ ָ ִ‫דְּ כו ָּּל ּה נְ ג‬ Between two wooden chests – ‫בין ׁ ְשנֵי ִמגְ דָּ ִלים‬:
ּ ֵ Rashi
between the chests. When the hand of a person overlies the chests, explains that the Gemara is discussing a case where two
the impurity of the pressed item rises beyond the chests and it trans- wooden chests are standing opposite each other less
mits impurity to the person. Therefore, his interaction with all the than one handbreadth apart and the source of impurity
sources of impurity is considered as though he is touching them is resting on the ground in between them. Since the
simultaneously. Consequently, there is no proof in the mishna for impurity is resting on a surface area measuring less than
one square handbreadth, even though the height of the
the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan that imparting impurity via contact
cavity is greater than one handbreadth, the impurity is
and via a tent are considered the same concept. considered to be pressed and ascends upward without
limits, filling the entire airspace between the chests as
‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ ‫ ו ַּמאן ַּת ָּנא דְּ ָק ֵרי ְלא ֶֹהל ״נֹוגֵ ַע״ – ַר ִ ּבי‬Therefore, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who refers to impu- if it is touching everything above it. Alternatively, the
‫ ְמל ֹא ַּת ְרוָ וד‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ ִהיא‬rity imparted in a tent as one who touches [noge’a]? The Gemara Rambam explains that the Gemara is discussing a case
answers: It is Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Oholot where the two chests are placed on top of another, and
,‫ָר ָקב – ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע ו ְּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא ו ְּבא ֶֹהל‬
4:1): Rabbi Yosei says: A full ladle [tarvad]b of dust from a corpse the source of impurity is in between them resting in a
imparts impurity like the corpse itself in three ways: By contact space measuring less than one cubic handbreadth. A
[bemagga], and by carrying, and in a tent.h person who is above the chests is as if he is touching
the source of impurity because pressed impurity breaks
‫ ָהא – ָקא ָט ֵעין‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא ו ְּבא ֶֹהל‬ Granted, the dust of a corpse imparts impurity via carrying and in through and ascends (Rambam’s Commentary on the
Mishna, tractate Oholot).
ּ ‫ וְ ָהא – ָקא ַמ ֲא ִהיל ַא ּכו ֵּּל‬,‫יה‬
.‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה ְלכו ֵּּל‬
ּ ‫ֵל‬ a tent; this one who carries it carries the entire amount of dust and
that one who overlies the dust overlies all of it. But with regard
‫יה! ֶא ָּלא‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ָלא נָ גַ ע ְ ּבכו ֵּּל‬,‫ֶא ָּלא נֹוגֵ ַע‬ background
to one who touches it, one does not touch all of the dust, and it
.‫ ַמאי ״נֹוגֵ ַע״ – ַמ ֲא ִהיל‬:‫ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬ should therefore be impossible for one to become impure via contact. Ladle [tarvad] – ‫ת ְרוָ וד‬:ַּ This word appears also in Syriac
and Aramaic. The origin of the term is unknown. A tarvad
Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from this baraita: To what is the
is shaped like a large spoon and was used to ladle liquid
term noge’a referring? It is referring to one who overlies the dust. from a pot. Since there is no definite size for this instru-
ment, the Gemara in tractate Nazir (50b) discusses the
!‫ וְ ָהא ָק ָתנֵי ַמ ֲא ִהיל‬,‫ וְ ָהא ָק ָתנֵי ״נֹוגֵ ַע״‬The Gemara asks: How is it possible to explain the baraita in such a exact halakhic size indicated by this term.
ָ ִ‫ ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמ ֶּט ַפח – א ֶֹהל נְ ג‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬manner? But doesn’t Rabbi Yosei teach the case of one who touches
,‫יעה‬
separately, and doesn’t he teach the case of one who overlies sepa-
.‫ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ִמ ֶּט ַפח – א ֶֹהל ְ ּג ֵר ָידא‬
rately? Therefore, the term noge’a cannot be referring to overlying.
Abaye said: That is not difficult because there are two types of over-
lying. With regard to a tent that overlies impurity at a height of below
one handbreadth, that tent is referred to as touching. But a tent that
overlies impurity at a height of above one handbreadth is referred
to as merely a tent.

‫יל ּו ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ִמ ֶּט ַפח נַ ִמי‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬:‫ ָר ָבא ֲא ַמר‬Rava said: According to Rabbi Yosei, even a tent that overlies impu-
‫יכי דָּ ֵמי א ֶֹהל‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵה‬.‫יעה הוּא‬ ָ ִ‫ א ֶֹהל נְ ג‬rity at a height above one handbreadth is referred to as touching.
And what are the circumstances of a tent that is referred to as
.‫ְ ּג ֵר ָידא – ְ ּב ַה ְמ ׁ ָש ָכה‬
merely a tent and not as touching? The term tent is referring to the
case of a structure that overlies both a person and a source of impu-
rity, thereby spreading the impurity from its source to the person.

‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ְמנָ א ָא ִמינָ א ָל ּה? דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ Rava said: From where do I say my opinion? It is as we learned in
– ‫ ֲח ִב ֵילי ִמ ָּטה ו ְּס ִריגֵ י ַחלּ ֹונֹות‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ a baraita (Tosefta, Oholot 9:4) that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to
bundles that serve as a bed and grilles taken from windows, if one
‫חֹוצְ צִ ין ֵ ּבין ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָל ֲע ִלּיָ יה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְל ַה ְכנִיס‬
placed them between the ground floor and the upper floor of the
.‫טו ְּמ ָאה ְלצַ ד ׁ ֵשנִי‬ house such that they serve as a ceiling, since they have become part
of the building they are not susceptible to impurity. Therefore, even
if there are holes in the bundles and the grilles, they serve as a bar-
rier between the house and the upper floor such that the impurity
of a corpse present in the area of the house cannot enter the other
side, i.e., the upper floor.

halakha
A full ladle of dust imparts impurity by contact, and by car- not impart impurity via contact because it is impossible to touch
rying, and in a tent – ‫מל ֹא ַּת ְרוָ וד ָר ָקב ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע ו ְּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא ו ְּבא ֶֹהל‬:ְ all of the particles of dust simultaneously, and the dust is not
A full ladle of dust from a corpse whose bones decomposed considered one unit even if one mixed the dust with water, in
imparts impurity like a corpse itself via carrying and in a tent, in accordance with the conclusion of the Gemara on 126a (Rambam
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. But the dust does Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 2:11).

 ‫הכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 125b 283

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ְּכנֶ גֶ ד‬,‫ ּ ְפ ָר ָסן ַעל ּ ְפנֵי ַה ֵּמת ַ ּב ֲאוִ יר‬And if one spread out the bundles and grilles outside the house in
A compartment in a chest in which the open space has
one cubic handbreadth, etc. – ‫ֵּת ַיבת ַה ִּמגְ דָּ ל ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ּפ ֵֹות ַח‬ – ‫ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ֶ ּנ ֶקב‬,‫ ַה ֶ ּנ ֶקב – ָט ֵמא‬an impermanent manner by hanging them over a corpse in the air
like a net, one who touches, i.e., overlies the corpse, opposite a hole
‫ט ַפח וכו׳‬:ֶ If a compartment in a chest that is inside a house .‫ָטהֹור‬
contains a source of impurity, the house is impure if the in the netting becomes impure. By contrast, one who overlies it not
cavity of the compartment itself measures at least one opposite a hole remains pure.
cubic handbreadth, even if the opening of the compart-
ment to the house does not measure one handbreadth. – ‫ימא ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמ ֶּט ַפח‬ ָ ‫ ִא ֵיל‬,‫יכי דָּ ֵמי‬
ִ ‫ ֵה‬Rava explains his proof: What are the circumstances? If we say that
Nevertheless, if the source of impurity is inside the house ‫ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ֶ ּנ ֶקב ַא ַּמאי ָטהֹור? ֵמת‬he spread out the netting below the height of one handbreadth
but outside the chest, whatever is inside the compartment above the corpse, why does one who overlies the corpse not oppo-
remains pure. The reason is that it is typical for a source of !‫ ו ֵּמת ִ ּב ְכסוּתֹו ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬,‫ִ ּב ְכסוּתֹו ִהיא‬
site a hole in the netting remain pure? In such a case, the netting is
impurity to exit from its location, but it is not typical for
close enough to the corpse to be considered part of the clothing of
a source of impurity to enter a location (Rambam Sefer
Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 18:4).
the corpse. Therefore, the case is tantamount to one where the
corpse is dressed in its clothing, and a corpse dressed in its cloth-
ing imparts impurity to one who overlies it because the clothing
does not act as a barrier.

‫ וְ ָקא ָק ֵרי‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ְל ַמ ְע ָלה ִמ ֶּט ַפח‬Rather, is it not the case that he spread out the netting more than
ּ ‫ ֵל‬one handbreadth above the corpse? And Rabbi Yosei refers to
.‫יה ״נֹוגֵ ַע״‬
overlying the corpse as touching. Apparently, contrary to the opin-
ion of Abaye, Rabbi Yosei refers to overlying as touching even when
the overlying item is more than one handbreadth above the source
of impurity.

,‫עֹולם ְל ַמ ָּטה ִמ ֶּט ַפח‬

ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ Abaye rejected Rava’s proof and said: Actually, the case is one
‫ ֵמת ִ ּב ְכסוּתֹו הוּא – ֵמת‬:‫ו ְּד ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬ where one spread the netting out below the height of one hand-
breadth above the corpse. And with regard to that which you say:
‫ ָלא ְמ ַב ֵּטל‬,‫ ַהאי‬.‫יה‬ּ ‫ ְמ ַב ֵּטל ֵל‬,‫ִ ּב ְכסוּתֹו‬
If so, one who overlies the corpse not opposite a hole in the netting
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫ֵל‬ should also become impure as it is tantamount to a case of a corpse
dressed in its clothing, this case is not similar to the case of a corpse
dressed in its clothing. In the case of a corpse dressed in its clothing
the clothing does not act as a barrier to the impurity because the
one who dressed the corpse nullified the clothing by rendering
its status as though it is a part of the corpse. But in this case in
the baraita, the one who spread out the netting over the corpse
intended to remove the bundles and grilles afterward and he did
not nullify them.

!‫עֹולה‬
ָ ְ‫ וְ ֶת ֱהוֵ י ְּכטו ְּמ ָאה ְטמוּנָ ה ּב ַֹוק ַעת ו‬The Gemara objects with regard to Abaye’s explanation: But if the
ֵ ‫ ָק ָס ַבר ַר ִ ּבי‬case is one where he spread out the netting less than one hand-
‫ טו ְּמ ָאה ְטמוּנָ ה ֵאינָ ּה‬:‫יֹוסי‬
breadth above the corpse, even if it is not considered the clothing
.‫ּב ַֹוק ַעת‬
of the corpse, let it be considered like a source of impurity hidden
underneath an overlying structure at a distance of less than one
handbreadth. In such a case, the impurity breaks through and
ascends, and therefore it should transmit impurity even to one who
overlies it not opposite a hole in the netting. The Gemara explains:
Rabbi Yosei holds that hidden impurity does not break through
and ascend.

‫ ֵּת ַיבת ַה ִּמגְ דָּ ל‬:‫ימ ָרא? דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ ְ ‫ו ְּמנָ א ֵּת‬ And from where do you say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei?
‫יא ָת ּה‬ ָ ִ‫ֹות ַח ֶט ַפח וְ ֵאין ִ ּביצ‬ֵ ‫ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה ּפ‬ It is as we learned in a mishna (Oholot 4:2): In the case of a com-
partment in a chest that is inside a house, in which the open space
‫תֹוכ ּה – ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬
ָ ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה ְ ּב‬,‫ֹות ַח ֶט ַפח‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬
of the compartment itself has at least one cubic handbreadthh in
ָ ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת – ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ְ ּב‬.‫ָט ֵמא‬
‫תֹוכ ּה‬ volume, but the opening of the compartment to the house does not
.‫ָטהֹור‬ have the area of one square handbreadth, and the volume of the
entire chest is forty se’a, in that case, if there is a source of impurity
inside the compartment, the compartment does not act as a barrier
and the house is impure. If the source of impurity is inside the
house but outside the chest, whatever is inside the compartment
remains pure, because the opening of the compartment is less than
one handbreadth.

ְ‫ וְ ֵאין דֶּ ֶרך‬,‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשדֶּ ֶרךְ טו ְּמ ָאה ָלצֵ את‬This differentiation exists because it is typical for a source of impu-
.‫יכנֵס‬ָּ ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה ִל‬rity to exit from its location, and therefore impurity can be transmit-
ted out of the compartment and into the house. But it is not typical
for a source of impurity to enter a location, and therefore an impure
item that lies in the house does not transmit impurity into the
compartment. Since the volume of the chest is forty se’a it consti-
tutes a separate tent, and the compartment that is part of the chest
is also considered part of this tent.
284 Ĥullin . perek IX . 125b . ‫הכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫יא ּה‬
ָ ִ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ׁ ֶשּיָ כֹול הוּא ְלהֹוצ‬,‫יֹוסי ְמ ַט ֵהר‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yosei deems the house puren when the impure item is
ָ ‫ ַל ֲחצָ ִאין אֹו ְל ׂש ְֹור ָפ ּה ִ ּב ְמ‬in the compartment. The item will not necessarily impart impurity
.‫קֹומ ּה‬
outside of the compartment because one can remove the source of
impurity from the compartment in halves, i.e., in pieces that each
measure less than the requisite amount to impart impurity. Or, alter-
natively, one can burn the source of impurity while it still remains
in its place inside the compartment.

,‫ ֶה ֱע ִמ ָיד ּה ַ ּב ּ ֶפ ַתח ו ִּפ ְת ָח ּה ַלחוּץ‬:‫ וְ ָק ָתנֵי ֵס ָיפא‬And the latter clause of that mishna teaches: If one placed the chest
‫ ט ּו ְמ ָאה‬.‫תֹוכ ּה – ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָטהֹור‬ ָ ‫ ט ּו ְמ ָאה ְ ּב‬in the entrance to the house and the opening of the compartment
is facing out of the house, if there is a source of impurity inside the
,‫תֹוכ ּה ָטהֹור‬ ָ ‫ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת – ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ְ ּב‬
chest, the house remains pure because the impure item will typi-
cally exit the house. If there is a source of impurity in the house,
whatever is inside the chest remains pure, because the source of
impurity will not enter the chest.

notes
And Rabbi Yosei deems the house pure – ‫יֹוסי ְמ ַט ֵהר‬
ֵ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬: Some later halakha only if the piece of the corpse is present in a covered place
commentaries infer from the reason given by Rabbi Yosei, that one where there is no disgrace to the deceased. Other commentaries dis-
can burn the source of impurity while it remains inside the compart- agree with this opinion; they hold that one must always bury every
ment, that it is permitted to burn part of a corpse and there is no portion of a corpse and that Rabbi Yosei is referring to one who is not
obligation to bury a piece of flesh or a limb from a corpse, even if it familiar with this halakha (see Mishne LaMelekh on Rambam Sefer
measures an olive-bulk. Nevertheless, they point out that this is the Shofetim, Hilkhot Evel; Tosefot Yom Tov; and Ĥazon Ish).

Perek IX
Daf 126 Amud a

‫ימא‬ָ ‫ ַא ַהּיָ יא? ִא ֵיל‬.‫יֹוסי ְמ ַט ֵהר‬

ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ וְ ָתנֵי ֲע ָל ּה‬And it is taught with regard to that halakha in the mishna that
!‫ ַא ֵּס ָיפא – ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא נַ ִמי ְטהו ֵּרי ָקא ְמ ַט ֵהר‬Rabbi Yosei deems it pure. To which halakha in the mishna is this
referring? If we say that it is referring to the latter clause of the
mishna, which discusses a chest placed in the entrance of the house,
the first tanna also deems it pure in that case.

ָ ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה ְ ּב‬,‫ דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬

– ‫תֹוכ ּה‬ Rather, it is clear that the first tanna says that if a source of impurity
‫ ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ֶד ֶרךְ טו ְּמ ָאה ָלצֵ את‬,‫ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָט ֵמא‬ is inside the compartment of a chest that is inside the house, the
house is impure, either because it is typical for a source of impu-
‫ וְ ָק ָא ַמר‬.‫וְ ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ טו ְּמ ָאה ְטמוּנָ ה ּב ַֹוק ַעת‬
rity to exit its location, or because he holds that a hidden source of
‫ ּו ְד ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת דֶּ ֶר ְך ט ּו ְמ ָאה‬:‫יֹוסי‬ֵ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ impurity breaks through and ascends.n And Rabbi Yosei disagrees
‫יא ּה ַל ֲחצָ ִאין אֹו‬ ָ ִ‫ָלצֵ את – יָ כֹול הוּא ְלהֹוצ‬ and says to him: With regard to that which you say that it is typical
‫ ו ְּד ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת טו ְּמ ָאה ְטמוּנָ ה‬,‫קֹומ ּה‬
ָ ‫ְלשׂ ְֹור ָפ ּה ִ ּב ְמ‬ for a source of impurity to exit its location, it is not necessarily so.
.‫ּב ַֹוק ַעת – טו ְּמ ָאה ְטמוּנָ ה ֵאינָ ּה ּב ַֹוק ַעת‬ One can remove the impure item in halves or burn it in its place
inside the compartment. And with regard to that which you say that
a hidden source of impurity breaks through and ascends, a hidden
source of impurity does not break through. Consequently, Rabbi
Yosei must hold that a hidden source of impurity does not break
through and ascend.

.‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ ‫יֹוסי ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ֵ ‫וְ ָר ֵמי דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ §Based on the previous statement of Rabbi Yosei, the Gemara estab-
lished that Rabbi Yosei holds that a hidden source of impurity does
not break through and ascend. And the Gemara raises a contradic-
tion between that previous statement of Rabbi Yosei and another
statement of Rabbi Yosei.
notes
Or because a hidden impurity breaks through and ascends – compartment with a volume of one cubic handbreadth is facing out
‫וְ ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ טו ְּמ ָאה ְטמוּנָ ה ּב ַֹוק ַעת‬: Rashi explains that Rabbi Yosei of the house. This statement indicates that in a case where the vol-
derives from the statements of the first tanna in the mishna that ume of the compartment is less than one cubic handbreadth, then
he holds both that it is typical for a source of impurity to exit its even if the opening of the compartment were facing toward the
location and that a hidden source of impurity breaks through and outside of the house, the house is impure. This is because a hidden
ascends. In the first clause of the mishna, the first tanna rules that source of impurity breaks through and ascends, and therefore the
if the compartment has a cubic handbreadth in volume and is source of impurity inside the compartment is as though it is lying
inside the house, the house is impure because it is typical for impu- on the floor of the house, which overlies it and imparts impurity to
rity to exit its location. And in the latter clause of the mishna, the the rest of the house.
first tanna rules that the house remains pure if the opening of the

 ‫וכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 126a 285

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ּו ֵמת‬,‫ ַה ֶּכ ֶלב ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ֵמת‬:‫דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ As we learned in a mishna (Oholot 11:7): In the case of a dog that
A dog that ate the flesh of a corpse and the dog ate the flesh of a corpse, and the dog then diedn and is lying on
died, etc. – ‫ה ֶּכ ֶלב ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ֵמת ו ֵּמת ַה ֶּכ ֶלב וכו׳‬:ַ The rea- ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬.‫ַה ֶּכ ֶלב וּמו ָּּטל ַעל ָה ַא ְסקו ּ ָּפה‬
the thresholdhb in such a manner that its neck and mouth are facing
son the mishna refers to a case where the dog is dead – ‫ֹות ַח ֶט ַפח‬ ֵ ‫ ִאם יֵ ׁש ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹו ּפ‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ
is that impurity is not transmitted when located inside toward the inside of the house, Rabbi Meir says: If there is an
‫ וְ ִאם ָלאו – ֵאינֹו‬,‫ֵמ ִביא ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ opening the size of one cubic handbreadth inside the neck of the
living people and animals (see 71a). Rashi explains in
tractate Oholot that this is the halakha because a source .‫ֵמ ִביא ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ dog, i.e., the neck itself constitutes this measure, the dog imports
of impurity that is swallowed and inside a living animal impurity into the house because the upper portion of the dog’s
is digested and therefore no longer significant. Alterna- body overlies the impure item inside the dog and the impurity is
tively, a source of impurity that is swallowed is nullified
transmitted through the neck and mouth of the dog into the house.
because it becomes part of the body of the living animal
(Meiri; Rabbi Shimshon of Saens on Mikvaot 10:8). Others
But if there is not such a large cavity in the neck of the dog, then
understand the Rambam as holding that the body of a there is no halakha of a tent, and the dog does not import the
living animal is a barrier that prevents the imparting of impurity into the house.
impurity (Ĥiddushei Rabbeinu Ĥayyim HaLevi al HaRam-
bam, Sefer Tahara Hilkhot Tumat Met 22:2; Ĥiddushei HaGriz ‫ ִמ ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ׁ ּ ָשקֹוף‬,‫רֹואין‬
ִ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yosei says: One looks to determine exactly where on the
on Bekhorot 22a). ‫ ִמ ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ׁ ּ ָשקֹוף‬,‫ וְ ִל ְפנִים – ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָט ֵמא‬threshold the dog is located. If the impure item inside the dog is
We follow the measure of the empty space – ‫ֲאנַן ָ ּב ַתר‬ located anywhere from opposite, i.e., under, the lintel and toward
.‫וְ ַלחוּץ – ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָטהֹור‬
‫ח ָל ָל ּה ָאזְ ִלינַן‬:ֲ Rabbi Yosei concedes that an enclosed air- the inside of the house, the house is impure. If the dog is located
space measuring one cubic handbreadth imparts impu- anywhere from opposite the lintel and toward the outside of the
rity in a tent even if the height of the cavity inside is less house, the house remains pure.
than one handbreadth. In such a case, Rabbi Yosei views
the bottom layer of the enclosure as if it is absent and the ‫ ּ ִפיו ְל ָפנִים – ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬Rabbi Elazar says: One must determine the exact manner in which
upper layer as overlying the source of impurity located
inside the airspace. ‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי‬,‫ ּ ִפיו ַלחוּץ – ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָט ֵמא‬,‫ ָטהֹור‬the dog is lying on the threshold. If its mouth is located inside the
house, but its rear is located outside the house, the house remains
.‫ׁ ֶש ּטו ְּמ ָאה יֹוצְ ָאה דֶּ ֶרךְ ׁשו ָּליו‬
pure. If its mouth is located outside the house but its rear is located
halakha
inside the house, the house is impure. This is because the source
A dog that ate the flesh of a corpse, and the dog died
of impurity exits the dog’s body through its edge, i.e., its rear.
and is lying on the threshold – ‫ַה ֶּכ ֶלב ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ְ ּב ַ ׂשר ֵמת ו ֵּמת‬
‫ה ֶּכ ֶלב וּמו ָּּטל ַעל ָה ַא ְסקו ּ ָּפה‬:ַ If a dog ate the flesh of a corpse
and died within three days and is lying on the threshold,
‫ ֵ ּבין ָּכךְ ו ֵּבין‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵת ָירא‬Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: In both this case and that case, i.e.,
one looks to determine exactly where on the threshold .‫ ָּכךְ – ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָט ֵמא‬whether the dog is lying such that its mouth is inside the house or
the dog is located. If it is located anywhere from under outside the house, the house is impure. The reason is that the
the lintel and toward the inside of the house, the house is impure item can exit through either the mouth or the rear.
impure. If it is located anywhere from under the lintel and
toward the outside of the house, the house remains pure. ‫ֹות ַח ֶט ַפח״‬
ֵ ‫״אין ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹו ּפ‬
ֵ ‫ ַמאי ָלאו ַא‬The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rabbi Yosei that if the dog is
This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
ֵ ‫ ָק ֵאי ַר ִ ּבי‬located anywhere from under the lintel and toward the inside of the
,‫יֹוסי‬
Yosei (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Met 25:7). house, the house is impure. What, is the statement of Rabbi Yosei
not referring to a case where there is not an opening the size of
background one cubic handbreadth inside the dog’s neck, with regard to which
Threshold – ‫א ְסקו ּ ָּפה‬:
ַ The entrance to a house is com- Rabbi Meir says that the house remains pure? Accordingly, Rabbi
posed of three components: The threshold, which is the Yosei is responding to Rabbi Meir and saying: Even if the neck of
floor of the doorway; the lintel, which is the upper frame
the dog is not the size of one cubic handbreadth, as long as the
of the doorway; and the posts, which are the two sides
of the doorway’s frame. impure item inside the dog is located from under the lintel and
toward the house, the house is impure because it overlies the
impure item.

!‫ טו ְּמ ָאה ְטמוּנָ ה ּב ַֹוק ַעת‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬And therefore learn from it that Rabbi Yosei holds that a hidden
source of impurity breaks through and ascends, contrary to Rabbi
Yosei’s opinion as understood from his previous statement.

‫״רֹואין ֶאת ֲח ַלל ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה״‬ ִ :‫ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ Rava said: Rabbi Yosei holds that a hidden source of impurity does
‫יה‬ּ ‫ וְ ָק ָא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ַת ְר ֵּתי ּ ָפ ֵליג‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָק ָתנֵי‬ not break through and ascend. As for that which Rabbi Yosei
teaches: One looks whether the impure item inside the dog is
‫ דְּ ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִּכי יֵ ׁש ְ ּב ַצ ָּוארֹו‬:‫ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬
located opposite the lintel and toward the inside of the house, Rabbi
‫ ֲאנַן‬,‫ֹות ַח ֶט ַפח – ֵמ ִביא ֶאת ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ֵ ‫ּפ‬ Yosei actually teaches: One looks at the empty space adjacent to
.‫ָ ּב ַתר ֲח ָל ָל ּה ָאזְ ִלינַן‬ the source of impurity. And Rabbi Yosei disagrees with Rabbi
Meir with regard to two matters, and says to Rabbi Meir: As for
that which you say that if there is the width of one cubic hand-
breadth in the neck of the dog, it imports the impurity into the
house, that is not so. Rather, we follow the measure of the empty
space,n i.e., the neck of the dog imports impurity into the house
only if it contains a cubic handbreadth of space in addition to the
thickness of the flesh of the neck itself.
Components of a doorway
‫ ִמ ְּכנֶ גֶ ד‬.‫ ו ְּד ָקא ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ַה ַ ּביִ ת ּכוּלּ ֹו ָט ֵמא‬And with regard to that which you say that even if the dog is located
‫ ִמ ְּכנֶ גֶ ד‬,‫ ַה ׁ ּ ָשקֹוף וְ ִל ְפנִים – ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָט ֵמא‬on the outer portion of the threshold of the house, the entire house
is impure, that is not so. Rather, if the impurity inside the dog is
.‫ַה ׁ ּ ָשקֹוף וְ ַלחוּץ – ַה ַ ּביִ ת ָטהֹור‬
located anywhere from opposite the lintel and toward the inside
of the house, the house is impure. If the impurity inside the dog is
located anywhere from opposite the lintel and toward the outside
of the house, the house remains pure.
286 Ĥullin . perek IX . 126a . ‫וכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ְ ּב ֶה ְדיָ א‬

ּ ‫ ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, teaches that Rava’s explanation is explicit
.‫רֹואין ֶאת ֲח ַלל ַה ּטו ְּמ ָאה‬ ִ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬in the mishna itself, as follows: Rabbi Yosei says: One looks at the
empty space adjacent to the source of impurity.

ּ ‫§ ו ַּמאן ַּת ָּנא דְּ ָפ ֵליג ֲע ֵל‬Previously the Gemara established that Rabbi Yosei holds that
,‫יה? ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון הוּא‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬with regard to the halakhot of impurity, overlying is referred to as
:‫אֹומר‬
touching, as the transmission of impurity via contact and via overly-
ing are considered one category. But the mishna (Oholot 3:1) cited
earlier (125b) states that in the case of one who touches half an
olive-bulk of flesh of a corpse, if a tent simultaneously overlies him
and another half an olive-bulk of flesh he remains pure. Evidently,
there is a tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei and holds that these
two methods of transmitting impurity are not the same category.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi
Yosei? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in
a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says:

Perek IX
Daf 126 Amud b

‫ ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם‬,‫ׁ ָשל ֹׁש טו ְּמאֹות ּפ ְֹור ׁשֹות ִמן ַה ֵּמת‬ Parts of a corpse that impart impurity include an olive-bulk of flesh, background

a complete limb, the majority of a corpse’s bones, and the majority A grave cover [golel] and a grave wall [dofek] – ‫ֹּולל‬ ֵ ‫ג‬
:‫ וְ ֵאלּ ּו ֵהן‬.‫ישית ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ָכל ַא ַחת ו ׁ ְּש ִל‬
of the essential bones of its skeleton, namely, its legs, spine, and ribs. ‫דֹופק‬
ֵ ְ‫ו‬: It was common practice to bury corpses inside
‫גֹולל‬
ֵ ְ‫ ו‬,‫עֹורה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֶעצֶ ם ִּכ ְ ׂש‬,‫ְמל ֹא ַּת ְרוָ וד ָר ָקב‬ caves. After placing the dead in a compartment inside
All of these impart impurity via contact, carrying, and in a tent. a cave, they would roll a large stone called a golel into
.‫דֹופק‬
ֵ ְ‫ו‬ There are also three sources of impurity that derive from a corpse, the mouth of the cave to seal it. They would then place
each one of which imparts impurity in two ways but does not a triangle-shaped stone called a dofek under the golel
impart impurity in a third way. And they are the following: A full to keep it in place. As mentioned in the Notes, some
ladle of dust from a corpse, and a bone the size of a barley grain, commentaries interpret the reference in the Gemara to
and a grave cover [golel] and a grave wall [dofek]bn upon which golel and dofek to mean these stones used for burials
within caves.
the cover rests.

,‫ ְמל ֹא ַּת ְרוָ וד ָר ָקב ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא ו ְּבא ֶֹהל‬A full ladle of dust imparts impurity via carrying and in a tent,
ָ ‫ וְ ֵה‬.‫ וְ ֵאינֹו ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע‬but it does not impart impurity via contact, as it is impossible for
n
‫יכן ַמ ָ ּגעֹו – ִעם‬
one to touch all of the particles of dust simultaneously. And where
.‫ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן‬
among these sources of impurity is the imparting of impurity via
contact applicable? It is applicable with one of those other two
sources of impurity, i.e., a bone the size of a barley grain and the
cover or wall of a grave.

notes
A grave cover [golel] and a grave wall [dofek] – ‫דֹופק‬ ֵ ְ‫גֹּולל ו‬:
ֵ The A full ladle of dust imparts impurity via carrying and in a tent,
Stone used to seal a burial cave
early commentaries dispute the meaning of the terms golel and but it does not impart impurity via contact – ‫ְמל ֹא ַּת ְרוָ וד ָר ָקב‬
dofek. Some commentaries explain that the baraita is discussing ‫מ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא ו ְּבא ֶֹהל וְ ֵאינֹו ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע‬:ְ Rashi explains that the rea-
parts of a coffin: Dofek is the wall of a coffin and golel is the coffin’s son dust does not impart impurity via contact is that one cannot
cover (Rashi; Meiri, Sefer HaEshkol). Others explain that after the touch all the particles of dust simultaneously. But since one can
grave was dug, two stones would be placed as walls inside the carry all the particles of dust simultaneously and a tent can overlie
hole. The wall was called a dofek because it was the side, or rib all the particles of dust simultaneously, dust imparts impurity via
[dofek], of the grave. A stone called a golel was then placed on top carrying and in a tent. Therefore, it is evident that Rabbi Shimon
of these grave walls (Ramban; Arukh; Ra’avad; see also Rambam’s does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei that
Commentary on the Mishna). Alternatively, some commentaries imparting impurity in a tent is also called touching.
explain that the baraita is discussing a grave inside of a cave. After Other commentaries disagree with Rashi and maintain that
placing the deceased in a compartment inside a cave, they would Rabbi Yosei concedes that dust does not impart impurity via
roll a large stone called a golel into the mouth of the cave to seal contact. Rather, the proof that Rabbi Shimon does not agree
it. They would then place a triangle-shaped stone called a dofek with Rabbi Yosei is derived from that which Rabbi Shimon says:
under the golel to keep it in place (Or Zarua). And where among these sources of impurity is the imparting of
impurity via contact applicable? It is applicable with one of those
other two sources of impurity. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon holds
that there is no case of dust imparting impurity via contact. This
opinion is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, who holds that
impurity imparted in a tent is also called touching (Ramban).

 ‫וכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 126b 287

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫עֹורה ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא ו ְּב ַמ ָ ּגע‬
ָ ‫ ֶעצֶ ם ִּכ ְ ׂש‬A bone the size of a barley grainn imparts impurity via carrying
A bone the size of a barley grain – ‫עֹורה‬ ָ ‫עצֶ ם ִּכ ְ ׂש‬:ֶ
The early commentaries disagree with regard to the ‫יכן ָא ֳהלֹו – ִעם‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵה‬.‫ וְ ֵאינֹו ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּבא ֶֹהל‬and contact, but it does not impart impurity in a tent. This halakha
was transmitted to Moses from Sinai. And where among these
source of this halakha. Rashi holds that it is a halakha .‫ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהן‬
transmitted to Moses from Sinai that a bone the size sources of impurity is impurity imparted in a tent? It is with one of
of a barley grain imparts impurity via carrying and those other two sources of impurity.
contact but does not impart impurity in a tent (see
Nazir 53b). Tosafot disagree with Rashi and explain that ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו‬,‫דֹופק ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַמ ָ ּגע ו ְּבא ֶֹהל‬ ֵ ְ‫ גּ ֵֹולל ו‬A grave cover and a grave wall impart impurity via contact and in
the Gemara derives this halakha from that which the ‫יכן ַמ ּ ָ ׂשאֹו – ִעם ֶא ָחד‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵה‬.‫ ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬a tent, but they do not impart impurity via carrying. This halakha
verse states: “And upon him that touched the bone or too was transmitted to Moses from Sinai. And where among these
the slain” (Numbers 19:18). .‫ֵמ ֶהן‬
sources of impurity is impurity transmitted via carrying? It is with
one of those other two sources of impurity. It may be inferred from
Rabbi Shimon’s statement that a full ladle of dust imparts impurity
in a tent but not via contact that he disagrees with Rabbi Yosei and
holds that overlying is not the same category as touching.

‫ ָּתנ ּו‬.‫§ ״קו ִּלית נְ ֵב ָלה וְ קו ִּלית ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ״ וכו׳‬The mishna teaches: With regard to the thigh bone of an unslaugh-
ּ ְ :‫ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬tered carcass and the thigh bone of a creeping animal, one who
.‫״בנִ ְב ָל ָת ּה״ – וְ ל ֹא ְ ּבקו ִּלית ְסתו ָּמה‬
touches them when they are sealed remains ritually pure, because
the bone itself does not impart impurity. With regard to this topic,
the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “One who touches
the carcass thereof shall be impure until the evening” (Leviticus
11:39). The word “carcass” indicates that one who touches the carcass
is impure, but one who touches a sealed thigh bone is not.

...‫״הנּ ֹגֵ ַע‬

ַ :‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫נִיק ָבה? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ְּ ‫ יָ כֹול ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬One might have thought that even one who touches a perforated
‫ וְ ֶאת‬,‫ ֶאת ׁ ֶש ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ִל ַ ּיגע – ָט ֵמא‬,‫ יִ ְט ָמא״‬thigh bone remains pure. Therefore, the verse states: “One who
touches the carcass thereof [benivlatah] shall be impure,” indicating
.‫ׁ ֶש ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ִל ַ ּיגע – ָטהֹור‬
that one who touches a part of the animal through which it is pos-
sible to touch the flesh, which has the halakhic status of an unslaugh-
tered carcass [neveila], is impure, but one who touches a part of the
animal through which it is impossible to touch the flesh remains
pure. Therefore, one who touches a protective layer such as the
outside of a sealed thigh bone does not become impure, as it is
impossible to touch the marrow.

,‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ְל ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: If that is so, that one who touches the
‫עֹור ּה ל ֹא ְּת ַט ֵּמא! ּפֹוק ָחזֵ י ַּכ ָּמה‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב‬protective layer of a carcass via which it is impossible to touch the
flesh of the carcass itself does not become impure, an animal still in
.‫נְ ָק ִבים יֵ ׁש ָ ּב ּה‬
its hide should not impart impurity, as one can touch the hide,
which constitutes a protective layer, but not the flesh. Abaye
answered: Go out and see how many orifices there are in the body
of an animal via which one can touch the flesh, e.g., the eyes, the
nostrils, and the mouth.

,‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה‬:‫יה ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ְל ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Similarly, Rav Pappa said to Rava: If that is so, that one who
‫ ּכו ְּליָ א ְ ּב ֶח ְל ָ ּב ּה ל ֹא ְּת ַט ֵּמא! ָּתא ָחזֵ י ַּכ ָּמה‬touches the protective layer of a carcass via which it is impossible to
touch the flesh of the carcass itself does not become impure, the
.‫ימ ָּנה‬
ֶ ‫חו ִּטין נִ ְמ ׁ ָש ִכין ֵה‬
kidney of a carcass that is completely covered in its fat should not
impart impurity via contact. Rava answered: Come and see how
many sinews emerge from the kidney that one is able to touch.

‫נֹוק ָב ּה‬
ְ ‫יה ְל‬ ָ ‫ישב ָע ֶל‬ ַ ׁ ‫§ ָ ּב ֵעי ַרב‬The mishna taught that the halakha distinguishes between a sealed
ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ ִח‬:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬
ְּ ‫ וְ ל ֹא‬and a perforated thigh bone of a carcass or a creeping animal. With
‫ ַמהוּ? ְמחו ַּּסר נְ ִק ָיבה ִּכ ְמחו ַּּסר‬,‫נִיק ָב ּה‬
regard to this topic, Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma: What is the
?‫ אֹו ל ֹא‬,‫ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה דָּ ֵמי‬
halakha if one intended to perforate the thigh bone but did not yet
perforate it?h This is the dilemma: Is a thigh bone lacking perfora-
tion considered to be lacking the necessary action for it to impart
impurity, and it therefore retains its status as a sealed thigh bone,
or not?

halakha
One intended to perforate the thigh bone but did not yet per- Mishne explains that although the Gemara rules that such a bone
ְּ ‫נֹוק ָב ּה וְ ל ֹא‬
forate it – ‫נִיק ָב ּה‬ ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ח‬:ִ If one intended to perforate
ְ ‫ישב ָע ֶל ָיה ְל‬ is not considered to be lacking the necessary action, the Rambam
the thigh bone but did not yet perforate it, it is uncertain if one apparently had an alternative version of the text that leaves the
who touches the bone becomes impure, because it is uncertain dilemma of Rav Oshaya unresolved (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
whether a bone lacking perforation is considered to be lacking She’ar Avot HaTumot 2:12, and see Mahari Kurkus there).
the necessary action for it to impart impurity or not. The Kesef

288 Ĥullin . perek IX . 126b . ‫וכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ְמחו ַּּסר נְ ִק ָיבה ָלאו ִּכ ְמחו ַּּסר‬:‫ ֲה ַדר ּ ְפ ׁ ָש ָט ּה‬Rabbi Oshaya then resolves the dilemma: A thigh bone lacking
Lacking perforation is not considered to be lacking
.‫ ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה דָּ ֵמי‬perforation is not considered to be lacking the necessary action
n
action – ‫מחו ַּּסר נְ ִק ָיבה ָלאו ִּכ ְמחו ַּּסר ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשה דָּ ֵמי‬:ְ There are
for it to impart impurity. If one intends to perforate it, it imparts many examples in the Gemara of similar rulings (see,
impurity immediately. e.g., 103b, Gittin 21b, Yoma 63a, and Zevaĥim 19b). An

mishna
alternative version of the text reads: Lacking perfora-
,‫הֹורה‬ָ ‫מתני׳ ֵ ּביצַ ת ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ ַה ְמרו ֶ ּּק ֶמת – ְט‬ The egg of a creeping animalh in which tion is considered to be lacking the necessary action.
tissue of an embryo developedn and one Accordingly, a bone that one wishes to perforate is
‫ ַע ְכ ָ ּבר ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו‬.‫נִיק ָבה ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא – ָט ֵמא‬ ְּ
who comes into contact with the egg are ritually pure, as the impure not considered perforated until he actually perforates
,‫ ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ַ ּב ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָט ֵמא‬,‫ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ֶחצְ יֹו ֲא ָד ָמה‬ creeping animal is hermetically sealed. But if one perforated the it (Shita Mekubbetzet). Another alternative version of
‫ ַאף‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ָ ּב ֲא ָד ָמה – ָטהֹור‬ egg with a hole of any size, one who comes in contact with the egg the text leaves the dilemma of Rav Oshaya unresolved
(Kesef Mishne; Sidrei Tohora). Even according to the
.‫ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ָ ּב ֲא ָד ָמה ׁ ֶש ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָט ֵמא‬ is ritually impure. In the case of a mouse that grows from the
versions of the text that say the dilemma of Rav Oshaya
ground and is half-flesh half-earth,nh one who touches the half is in fact resolved, the Gemara does not offer any expla-
that is flesh is impure; one who touches the half that is earth is nation, and the later commentaries attempt to fill this
pure. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who touches the half that is void by explaining the logic behind the Gemara’s
earth where it is adjacent to the flesh is ritually impure. answer (Shoshannim LeDavid).

‫״ה ְּט ֵמ ִאים״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֵ ּביצַ ת‬ַ :‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬

.‫ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ וְ קו ִּלית ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ‬
gemara The mishna states that in the case of an egg
of a creeping animal in which tissue of an
The egg of a creeping animal in which tissue of an
embryo developed – ‫ביצַ ת ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ ַה ְמרו ֶ ּּק ֶמת‬:
ber of the eight creeping animals listed in the Torah
ּ ֵ A num-

embryo developed, if it is perforated then one who touches it is ritu- lay eggs, including the great lizard, lizard, and skink
ally impure. With regard to this matter the Sages taught in a baraita: (Rabbi Ovadya Bartenura). The Rambam describes this
The verse states: “These are the impure ones to you among all that stage of development of the embryo referred to in the
creep; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure mishna as being one where the embryo has developed
until the evening” (Leviticus 11:31). The term “the impure ones” is a recognizable form and limbs (Rambam’s Commen-
tary on the Mishna).
interpreted as including the egg of a creeping animal and the thigh
bone of a creeping animal in the category of sources of impurity. A mouse that is half-flesh half-earth – ‫ַע ְכ ָ ּבר ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו‬
‫ב ָ ׂשר וְ ֶחצְ יֹו ֲא ָד ָמה‬:
ּ ָ Post-talmudic sages, ranging from
:‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫יק ָמה – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ְּ ‫יל ּו ל ֹא ִר‬ ּ ‫ יָ כֹול ֲא ִפ‬One might have thought that even an egg in which tissue of an the Rambam to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, have
embryo has not developed imparts impurity. Therefore, the verse asserted that the Sages’ beliefs about the natural world
‫ ַאף ֵ ּביצַ ת‬,‫ ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ ׁ ֶש ֻר ַ ּקם‬,‫״ה ׁ ּ ָש ֶרץ״‬ ַ were often derived from prevailing contemporary
states: “That creep,” indicating that just as a creeping animal has
.‫ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ ׁ ֶש ֻר ְּק ָמה‬ views. Their understanding of the natural world, includ-
developed tissue, so too only the egg of a creeping animal in ing details that have halakhic implications, is some-
which tissue of an embryo has developed imparts impurity. times inconsistent with modern science. In the case
of the creature discussed here, the Sages may have
:‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫נִיקב ּו – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ּ ‫ יָ כֹול ֲא ִפ‬One might have thought that in the case of an egg in which tissue
ְּ ‫יל ּו ל ֹא‬ heard tell of such a creature, or may even have them-
ַ of an embryo has developed, it imparts impurity even if it was not
,‫ ֶאת ׁ ֶש ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ִלי ַ ּגע – ָט ֵמא‬,‫יִ ְט ָמא״‬...‫״הנּ ֹגֵ ַע‬ selves observed a rodent which superficially appeared
perforated. Therefore, the verse states: “Whoever touches them to have the characteristics described in this passage.
.‫וְ ֶאת ׁ ֶש ִאי ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ִל ַ ּיגע – ָטהֹור‬
when they are dead shall be impure,” indicating that when it is Some commentaries (Rashi; Meiri) understand that this
possible to touch the flesh, contact renders one impure; but when creature was spontaneously generated from the earth.
it is impossible to touch the flesh, one remains pure. Spontaneous generation from inanimate matter is now
discredited, but it was a widely accepted explanation
of how creatures came into being, seemingly from
‫ ׁ ֶש ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬,‫ וְ ַכ ָּמה נְ ִק ָיב ָת ּה – ְּכחוּט ַה ּ ַ ׂש ֲע ָרה‬And how large must its perforation be to render one touching the
nothing, until well into the nineteenth century. Only
.‫ ִל ַ ּיגע ְּכחוּט ַה ּ ַ ׂש ֲע ָרה‬egg or thigh bone impure? Its width must be the size of a strand of with the advent of microscopes and the discovery of
hair, as it is possible for one to touch the inside of an egg or thigh microscopic creatures and eggs was it rejected. Rabbi
bone with a strand of his hair. Yosef Kapaĥ explains that the Sages are referring to
creatures that live in and around mud and accumulate
‫הֹוש ַע‬ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬.]‫״ע ְכ ָ ּבר ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו״ [וכו׳‬ ַ §The mishna teaches: In the case of a mouse that grows from the a thick layer of mud on their lower bodies, giving the
‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬.‫ וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ִה ׁ ְש ִריץ ַעל ּ ְפנֵי ּכוּלּ ֹו‬:‫ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ground and is half-flesh half-earth, one who touches the half that is appearance of being made from mud.
flesh is impure. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in this regard: One
‫ ַאף‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ַא ֵּס ָיפא‬
becomes impure in such a case only if the flesh of the mouse has
‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫ַהנּ ֹוגֵ ַע ָ ּב ֲא ָד ָמה ׁ ֶש ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ָ ּב ָ ׂשר – ָט ֵמא‬ developed along the entire lengthh of the mouse, from head to foot.
‫ וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ִה ׁ ְש ִריץ ַעל ּ ְפנֵי‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬
ֻ ׁ ְ‫ַר ִ ּבי י‬ Some teach the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi with regard
.‫ּכוּלּ ֹו‬ to the latter clause of the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one
who touches the half that is earth where it is adjacent to the flesh
is ritually impure. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One becomes
impure in such a case only if the flesh of the mouse has developed
along the entire length of the mouse.

halakha
The egg of a creeping animal, etc. – ‫ביצַ ת ַה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ וכו׳‬:
ּ ֵ The egg touches the half that is earth is ritually pure (Rambam Sefer Tahara,
of a creeping animal in which tissue of an embryo developed Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 4:11).
is ritually pure, as is one who touches the egg, since the impure
creeping animal is hermetically sealed. But if one perforated the Only if the flesh of the mouse has developed along the entire
egg with a perforation of any size, one who comes in contact with length – ‫וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ִה ׁ ְש ִריץ ַעל ּ ְפנֵי ּכו ּּלֹו‬: One who touches a creeping
the egg is ritually impure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar animal that is half-flesh half-earth becomes impure even if he
Avot HaTumot 4:10). touches the half that is earth, provided the flesh of the creep-
ing animal has developed along the entire length of the mouse
A mouse that is half-flesh half-earth – ‫( ַע ְכ ָ ּבר ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ֶחצְ יֹו‬Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 4:11, and see
‫א ָד ָמה‬:ֲ One who touches a creeping animal that is half-flesh half- Kesef Mishne and Mahari Kurkus there).
earth on the half that is flesh is impure. By contrast, one who

 ‫וכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 126b 289

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

.‫ישא – ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ַא ֵּס ָיפא‬ָ ׁ ‫ ַמאן דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ַא ֵר‬The one who teaches the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi
‫ישא – ַאף‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ֲא ָבל ֵר‬,‫ ו ַּמאן דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ַא ֵּס ָיפא‬with regard to the first clause of the mishna, all the more so he
teaches this same halakha with regard to the latter clause of the
.‫ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ָלא ִה ׁ ְש ִריץ‬
mishna. But the one who teaches the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua
ben Levi with regard to the latter clause of the mishna holds that it
applies only to that clause, with regard to one who touches the half
that is earth where it is adjacent to the flesh according to Rabbi
Yehuda. But according to the opinion of the first tanna, stated in the
first clause of the mishna, even if the flesh of the mouse has not
developed along the entire length of the mouse, one who touches
the half of the mouse that is flesh is impure.

ֵ ‫״ע ְכ ָ ּבר״ ׁש‬

‫ֹומ ַע ֲאנִי‬ ַ ‫ ִמ ּתֹוךְ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ §The Sages taught in a baraita concerning the following verse: “And
ּ ‫ֲא ִפ‬
ַ ‫ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְשמֹו‬,‫יל ּו ַע ְכ ָ ּבר ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּיָ ם‬
‫ וְ ִדין‬.‫״ע ְכ ָ ּבר״‬ these are they which are impure to you among the creeping animals
that creep upon the earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the great
‫ ָמה‬,‫ימא ָ ּב ַע ְכ ָ ּבר‬ ֵּ ‫ימא ַ ּבחו ְּלדָּ ה וְ ִט‬ ֵּ ‫ ִט‬:‫הוּא‬
lizard after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:29). Since “mouse” is stated
– ‫ ַאף ַע ְכ ָ ּבר‬,‫חו ְּלדָּ ה – ִמין ַה ָ ּג ֵדל ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ among the creeping animals that impart impurity, I would derive
.‫ִמין ַה ָ ּג ֵדל ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ that even a sea mouse, i.e., a sea creature that has an appearance
similar to a mouse, imparts impurity because its name is also mouse.
But ostensibly, the opposite conclusion could be derived through
logical inference: The verse deems a weasel impure and deems a
mouse impure. Therefore, just as a weasel is a species that grows
on land, so too the mouse to which the verse is referring is a species
that grows on land; a sea mouse does not impart impurity.

‫ימא‬ ֵּ ‫ימא ַ ּבחו ְּלדָּ ה וְ ִט‬ ֵּ ‫ ִט‬:‫אֹו ַּכ ֵּל ְך ְל ֶד ֶר ְך זֹו‬ Or, perhaps go this way: The verse deems a weasel impure and
,‫ ָמה חו ְּלדָּ ה – ָּכל ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ּה חו ְּלדָּ ה‬,‫ָ ּב ַע ְכ ָ ּבר‬ deems a mouse impure; accordingly, just as “weasel” is referring
to any animal whose name is weasel, so too, “mouse” is referring
‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַע ְכ ָ ּבר‬,‫ַאף ַע ְכ ָ ּבר – ָּכל ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְשמֹו ַע ְכ ָ ּבר‬
to any animal whose name is mouse, even a sea mouse, as its name
‫״על‬ ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬.‫״ע ְכ ָ ּבר״‬ ַ ‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּיָ ם ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְשמֹו‬ is also mouse. Therefore, the verse states: “Upon the earth,” indi-
.‫ָה ָא ֶרץ״‬ cating that a land mouse imparts impurity, but a sea mouse does not.

,‫ ַעל ָה ָא ֶרץ – יְ ַט ֵּמא‬:‫ יָ כֹול‬,‫״על ָה ָא ֶרץ״‬ ַ ‫ ִאי‬If this halakha is derived only from the phrase “upon the earth,” one
,‫ יָ ַרד ַלּיָ ם – ל ֹא יְ ַט ֵּמא‬might have thought that the verse means that any mouse, whether
a land mouse or a sea mouse, imparts impurity when it is upon the
earth, but if it descended to the sea it does not impart impurity.

Perek IX
Daf 127 Amud a

.‫״ה ׁ ּש ֵֹרץ״ – ָּכל ָמקֹום ׁ ֶש ׁ ּש ֵֹורץ‬

ַ ‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬Therefore, the verse states: “That creep,” indicating that creeping
animals impart impurity anywhere that they creep, including the
sea, as these animals can float in the sea. Consequently, the phrase
“upon the earth” is understood as indicating that a sea mouse does
not impart impurity.

‫״ה ׁ ּש ֵֹרץ״ – יָ כֹול ָּכל ַה ַּמ ׁ ְש ִריץ‬ ַ ‫אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא‬ The baraita raises an alternative interpretation: Or perhaps the term
‫ אֹוצִ יא‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַמ ׁ ְש ִריץ – ל ֹא יְ ַט ֵּמא‬,‫יְ ַט ֵּמא‬ “that creep [hashoretz]” should not be interpreted in this manner,
as it could rather be interpreted to mean that any creeping animal
‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאין ּ ָפ ֶרה‬,‫ַע ְכ ָ ּבר ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ֶחצְ יֹו ֲא ָד ָמה‬
that breeds [hammashritz] imparts impurity, but a creeping ani-
!‫וְ ָר ֶבה‬ mal that does not breed does not impart impurity. I shall therefore
exclude a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth, i.e., that generates
spontaneously from the earth, as it does not breed and therefore
does not impart impurity.

,‫ימא ָ ּב ַע ְכ ָ ּבר‬ ֵּ ‫ימא ַ ּבחו ְּלדָּ ה וְ ִט‬ֵּ ‫ ִט‬:‫וְ ִדין הוּא‬ But ostensibly, the halakha of a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth is
– ‫ ַאף ַע ְכ ָ ּבר‬,‫ַמה חו ְּלדָּ ה – ָּכל ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָמ ּה חו ְּלדָּ ה‬ subject to logical inference: Since the verse deems a weasel impure
and deems a mouse impure, then just as “weasel” is referring to
‫ ָא ִביא ַע ְכ ָ ּבר ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬.‫ָּכל ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְשמֹו ַע ְכ ָ ּבר‬
any animal whose name is weasel, so too, “mouse” is referring
.‫וְ ֶחצְ יֹו ֲא ָד ָמה‬ to any animal whose name is mouse, even a mouse that is half-
flesh half-earth.
290 Ĥullin . perek IX . 127a . ‫זכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
‫ ַאף‬,‫ ָמה חו ְּלדָּ ה – ּ ָפ ָרה וְ ָר ָבה‬:‫ אֹו ַּכ ֵּלךְ ְל ֶד ֶרךְ זֹו‬Or perhaps go this way: One might think that just as a weasel
Salamander [salamandera] – ‫ס ָל ַמנְ דְּ ָרא‬:ָ From the
.‫״ב ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ״‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬.‫ ַע ְכ ָ ּבר – ּ ָפ ֶרה וְ ָר ֶבה‬breeds, so too, “mouse” is referring to a mouse that breeds,
ּ ַ ‫לֹומר‬ Greek σαλαμάνδρα, salamandra, a tailed amphibian.
excluding one that generates from the earth, which does not impart Ancient Greeks also ascribed powers of extinguishing
impurity. Therefore, the verse states: “And these are they which fire to this creature.
are impure to you among the creeping animalsn that creep upon
the earth.” The term “among the creeping animals” is interpreted
as including a spontaneously generated mouse. Therefore, the term
“that creep” is interpreted as indicating that creeping animals impart
impurity on land and in the sea, and the phrase “upon the earth”
teaches that a sea mouse is not included in the category of mouse
and does not impart impurity.

– ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬:‫יה ַההוּא ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ְל ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ One of the Sages said to Rava: Say the interpretation of the verse
‫״ב ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ״ – ַל ֲאתוּיֵ י ַע ְכ ָ ּבר ׁ ֶש ֶחצְ יֹו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ֶחצְ יֹו‬
ַּ differently. The term “among the creeping animals” serves to
include a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth among those that
‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬,‫״ה ׁ ּש ֵֹרץ״ – ָּכל ׁ ֶשהוּא ׁש ֵֹורץ‬ ַ ,‫ֲא ָד ָמה‬
impart impurity. The term “that creep” teaches that any animal
‫״על ָה ָא ֶרץ״ – ַעל‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִאי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬.‫ַע ְכ ָ ּבר ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּיָ ם‬ that creeps imparts impurity, and even a sea mouse. And if one
!‫ יָ ַרד ַלּיָ ם – ל ֹא יְ ַט ֵּמא‬,‫ָה ָא ֶרץ – יְ ַט ֵּמא‬ should reject this interpretation due to the phrase “upon the
earth,” which seems to indicate that a sea mouse does not impart
impurity, that phrase teaches that a creeping animal imparts impu-
rity only when it is on land, but if it descended to the sea it does
not impart impurity.

‫יה ַלּיָ ם ְמקֹום‬

ּ ‫ית‬
ֵ ‫ ּו ֵמ ַא ַחר דְּ ׁ ַש ִּו‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to him: Your suggestion is not logical. According to your
?‫ ַמה ִּלי ָה ָכא‬,‫ ַמה ִּלי ָה ָכא‬,‫ טו ְּמ ָאה‬opinion, a sea mouse, which is in the sea, imparts impurity. And
since you consider the sea a location of impurity, it is impossible
to suggest that a mouse does not impart impurity when it is located
in the sea. Since both land and sea are places of impurity, what
difference does it make for me if the mouse is located here on land,
and what difference does it make for me if it is located there in
the sea?

‫יה ְלהֹוצִ יא ְס ֵפק‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ּ ָ ‫״על ָה ָא ֶרץ״ ִמ‬ַ ‫ וְ ַהאי‬The Gemara asks: How can the baraita interpret the phrase “upon
ִ ִּ‫ טו ְּמ ָאה צָ ָפה! דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר ַא ְבד‬the earth” as teaching that a sea mouse does not impart impurity?
:‫ימי‬
Isn’t this phrase: “Upon the earth,” necessary to exclude a case
!‫״על ָה ָא ֶרץ״ – ְלהֹוצִ יא ְס ֵפק טו ְּמ ָאה צָ ָפה‬ ַ
of uncertainty involving a floating source of impurity? If a person
is uncertain whether he touched a source of impurity that is float-
ing in the water, he remains pure even if the incident took place in
a private domain, where a case of uncertain impurity is generally
deemed impure. As Rav Yitzĥak bar Avdimi said: The phrase
“upon the earth” is written to exclude a case of uncertainty involv-
ing a floating source of impurity.

.‫״על ָה ָא ֶרץ״ ְּכ ִת ִיבי‬

ַ ‫ ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬The Gemara answers: The phrase “upon the earth” is written two
times in the passage. One instance is written to exclude a case of
uncertainty involving a source of impurity that is floating, and the
other instance teaches that a sea mouse does not impart impurity.

,‫״ה ָ ּצב ְל ִמינֵ הוּ״ – ְל ָה ִביא ָה ַע ְרוָ ד‬ ַ :‫§ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬With regard to the topic of the eight creeping animals mentioned
.‫ וְ ָס ָל ַמנְ דְּ ָרא‬,‫ וְ ֵכן ַה ְּנ ִפ ִילים‬in the Torah, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse: “The great
lizard after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:29) includes in the category
of creeping animals the arvad, a type of snake, and also the
creeping animals called nefilim and salamander [salamandera].ln

notes
The verse states: Among the creeping animals – ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ Salamander [salamandera] – ‫וְ ָס ָל ַמנְ דְּ ָרא‬: Rashi explains that a
‫ב ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ‬:
ּ ַ The commentaries offer different explanations as to the salamandera is an animal created from a fire burning myrtle wood,
interpretation of the verse. Rashi explains that the verse states: via sorcery. Anyone who anoints himself with the blood of this crea-
“And these are they which are impure to you among the creep- ture is immune to fire. Rabbi Akiva received via tradition that this
ing animals that creep upon the earth…These are they which animal was a type of great lizard. Elsewhere (Sanhedrin 63b), Rashi
are impure to you among all that creep” (Leviticus 11:29–31). The explains that the salamandera is an animal created in a fire that is
repetition of the terms “among the creeping animals [basheretz]” kept burning for a period of seven years. The later commentaries
and “among all that creep [bekhol hasharetz]” indicates inclusion question why Rashi did not mention here that it takes seven years
of a mouse that is half-flesh half-earth. Others explain that the of fire to create the salamandera. Some explain that a salamandera
term “among” indicates inclusion of a partial animal, i.e., one that is created in an active volcano, but it is also possible to create one
is formed as half-flesh half-earth (Kol HaRemez). via sorcery by burning a fire of myrtle wood for seven years (Arukh,
Maharatz Ĥayyut, Ĥatam Sofer).

 ‫זכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 127a 291

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫יבא ַמ ִ ּג ַיע ְל ָפס ּוק זֶ ה‬ ָ ‫ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק‬ Apropos the salamander, which was thought to generate from fire,
Beavers [beivari] – ‫ב ָיב ִרי‬:ּ ֵ Beavers are large rodents the baraita continues: When Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse
of the genus Castor. They can grow to more than one ‫״מה ַר ּב ּו ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשיךָ ה׳״! יֵ ׁש ְלךָ ְ ּב ִרּיֹות‬ ָ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ
in Leviticus, he would say in exclamation: “How great are Your
meter in length and are covered in fur. They spend ,‫ְ ּג ֵדלֹות ַ ּבּיָ ם וְ יֵ ׁש ְלךָ ְ ּב ִרּיֹות ְ ּג ֵדלֹות ַ ּבּיַ ָ ּב ׁ ָשה‬
most of their time in water and build a type of wood works, O Lord” (Psalms 104:24). You have creatures that grow in
,‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּיָ ם – ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלי עֹולֹות ַ ּבּיַ ָ ּב ׁ ָשה ִמּיָ ד ֵמתֹות‬ the sea and you have creatures that grow on land. If those in the
house there, which often forms a dam and creates
a small lake. Nevertheless, they are also capable of .‫יֹורדֹות ַלּיָ ם ִמּיָ ד ֵמתֹות‬ ְ ‫ּיַב ׁ ָשה – ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלי‬ ּ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ַ ּב‬ sea would ascend to the land they would immediately die. If
walking on land, and they subsist on bark and young those that are on land would descend to the sea they would
branches. They live in groups, enabling them to build immediately die.
large structures.
‫ וְ יֵ ׁש ְלךָ ְ ּב ִרּיֹות‬,‫יֵ ׁש ְלךָ ְ ּב ִרּיֹות ְ ּג ֵדלֹות ָ ּבאוּר‬ Similarly, you have creatures that grow in the fire and you have
‫ ׁ ֶש ָ ּבאוּר – ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלי עֹולֹות‬,‫ְ ּג ֵדלֹות ַ ּב ֲאוִ יר‬ creatures that grow in the air. If those in the fire would ascend
to the air they would immediately die. If those in the air would
‫יֹורדֹות‬ְ ‫ ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ֲאוִ יר – ִא ְיל ָמ ֵלי‬,‫ָל ֲאוִ יר ִמּיָ ד ֵמתֹות‬
descend to the fire they would immediately die. Therefore, “how
.‫״מה ַר ּב ּו ַמ ֲע ֶ ׂשיךָ ה׳״‬ ָ .‫ָלאוּר ִמּיָ ד ֵמתֹות‬ great are Your works, O Lord.”

‫ חוּץ‬,‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש ַ ּבּיַ ָ ּב ׁ ָשה יֵ ׁש ַ ּבּיָ ם‬:‫§ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬The Gemara continues to discuss creatures living in a particular
– ‫ ַמאי ְק ָר ָאה‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬.‫ ִמן ַהחו ְּלדָּ ה‬environment. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kilayim 5:10):
For every animal that exists on land there is an equivalent animal
.‫״ה ֲאזִ ינ ּו ָּכל י ׁ ְֹש ֵבי ָח ֶלד״‬ ַ
Eurasian beaver in the sea, except for the weasel, which exists only on land. Rabbi
Zeira said: What is the verse from which it is derived? It is written:
Neresh, Nehar Pekod, and Pumbedita – ‫ נְ ַהר‬,‫נֶ ֶר ׁש‬
‫ ּפו ְּמ ַ ּב ִד ָיתא‬,‫פקו ָּד ָאה‬:ְ ּ “Listen all you inhabitants of the world [ĥeled]” (Psalms 49:2). Dry
land is called ĥeled because it is the sole habitat for the weasel [ĥulda].

‫ ֵ ּב ָיב ִרי‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬

ֻ ׁ ְ‫יה דְּ ַרב י‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ְ ּב ֵר‬In continuation of the discussion of creatures living in a particular
.‫ דְּ נֶ ֶר ׁש ֵאינָן ִמן ַהּיִ ׁ ּשוּב‬environment, Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said: The bea-
versb of the region of Neresh are not from the settled area, because
they live only in the water and not on dry land. Consequently, one
who eats their meat is not liable to receive lashes for violating the
prohibition: “And every creeping animal that creeps upon the earth
is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41).

‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ַּת ְר ֵ ּב‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְמ ָּתא נֶ ֶר ׁש‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ §Apropos the region surrounding Neresh, Rav Pappa said: The
‫״א ֶרץ ֶא ֶרץ ָא ֶרץ ׁ ִש ְמ ִעי‬ ֶ .‫יה‬ ּ ‫ית‬
ֵ ‫יה וַ ֲא ִל‬
ּ ‫ַמ ׁ ְש ֵכ‬ people of the city of Neresh shall be placed under excommunica-
tion, as they are all wicked, including its fat, its hide, and its tail, i.e.,
‫ ל ֹא ָא ָבה נֶ ֶר ׁש‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬,‫דְּ ַבר ה׳״‬
all types of people, both old and young. The Gemara continues to
.‫מֹוע דְּ ַבר ה׳‬
ַ ‫ׁ ְש‬ discuss Neresh. The verse states: “Oh land, land, land hear the word
of the Lord” ( Jeremiah 22:29). Rav Pappa said: This verse is appro-
priate with regard to the inhabitants of Neresh, as Neresh does not
Jewish centers in Babylonia want to listen to the word of the Lord.

– ְ‫נַש ֵקיך‬ ְ ׁ ‫ נַ ְר ׁ ָש ָאה‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ִ ּגידֵּ ל‬ Furthermore, Rav Giddel said that Rav said: If a resident of Neresh
‫ימא‬ָ ‫ נְ ַהר ּ ְפקו ָּד ָאה ַלוְ יָ יךְ – ִמ ְ ּג ִל‬.‫יך‬ ְ ‫ְמנִי ָּכ ֵכ‬ kisses you, count your teeth to make sure he did not steal one. And
if a resident of the city of Nehar Pekod accompanies you on a
– ‫יך‬ְ ָ‫ית ָאה ַלוְ י‬ ָ ‫ ּפו ְּמ ַ ּב ִד‬.‫ׁ ְש ִפ ָירא דְּ ָחזֵ י ֲע ָל ְך‬
journey, it is because of the beautiful jacket that he sees on you
.‫ַא ׁ ְשנֵי או ׁ ְּש ּ ִפיזָ ְך‬ and wants to steal from you. If a resident of Pumbeditab accompa-
nies you on a journey, change your lodging place because there is
a concern that he will rob you.

‫ ּ ַפ ַעם ַא ַחת‬:‫§ ֲא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ַ ּבר ּת ְֹור ָתא‬The Gemara returns to discussing different types of creatures. Rav
‫יתי נָ ָח ׁש ׁ ֶשהוּא ָּכרו ְּך‬ ַ ‫ ָה ַל ְכ ִּתי ַל ַּו‬Huna bar Torta said: Once I went to the city of Va’ad and I saw
ִ ‫ועד וְ ָר ִא‬
that the locals were in the practice of placing a snake wrapped
.‫ינֵיהם‬
ֶ ‫ ְליָ ִמים יָ צָ א ַע ְרוָ ד ִמ ֵ ּב‬,‫ַעל ַה ָ ּצב‬
around a great lizard in order to breed the two. After a period of
time, an arvad, a snake that bites and kills people, emerged from
between them.

‫ ָא ַמר‬,‫אתי ִל ְפנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶה ָח ִסיד‬ ִ ‫ו ְּכ ׁ ֶש ָ ּב‬ And when I came before Rabbi Shimon the Righteous, he
‫ ֵהם ֵה ִביא ּו‬:‫דֹוש ָ ּברו ְּך הוּא‬ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ַה ָ ּק‬:‫ִלי‬ explained why this crossbreeding created an arvad and said to me:
The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: These residents of Va’ad caused
‫ ַאף ֲאנִי ָא ִביא‬,‫עֹול ִמי‬
ָ ‫אתי ְ ּב‬ ִ ‫ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָ ּב ָר‬
the emergence of a creature that I did not create in My world by
.‫עֹול ִמי‬ ִ ‫יהם ְ ּב ִרּיָ ה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ָ ּב ָר‬
ָ ‫אתי ְ ּב‬ ֶ ‫ֲע ֵל‬ crossbreeding a snake and a great lizard; so too, I will bring upon
them a punishment, the hazard of this uniquely dangerous creature
that I did not create in My world, i.e., an arvad.

– ‫יבו ָּרן ׁ ָשוֶ ה‬ּ ‫ישן וְ ִע‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ָּכל ׁ ֶש ַּת ׁ ְש ִמ‬:‫ וְ ָה ָא ַמר ָמר‬The Gemara objects: But didn’t the Master say: All different ani-
‫ישן‬
ָ ׁ ‫ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַּת ׁ ְש ִמ‬,‫יֹול ִדין ו ְּמגַ דְּ ִלין זֶ ה ִמּזֶ ה‬
ְ mals whose method of procreation and period of gestation are the
same are able to reproduce and raise offspring together. But all
!‫יֹול ִדין ו ְּמגַ דְּ ִלין זֶ ה ִמּזֶ ה‬
ְ ‫יבו ָּרן ׁ ָשוֶ ה – ֵאין‬ ּ ‫וְ ִע‬
animals whose method of procreation and period of gestation are
not the same cannot reproduce and raise offspring together. And
the gestation period for a great lizard and a snake are not equal.
292 Ĥullin . perek IX . 127a . ‫זכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ַהאי ּפו ְּר ָענו ָּתא‬.‫ נֵס ְ ּבתֹוךְ נֵס‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav says: It was a miracle within a miracle that they were able to
.‫ הוּא! ַמאי ״נֵס ְ ּבתֹוךְ נֵס״ – ְלפו ְּר ָענוּת‬reproduce and a new creature was born. The Gemara asks: Why is
this considered a miracle? It was a calamity because an arvad was
born. The Gemara answers: What is meant by a miracle within a
miracle? It was a miraculous calamity for the wicked people, to
punish them for their actions.

‫מתני׳ ָה ֵא ֶבר וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ְמדו ְּלדָּ ִלין‬

ָ ‫ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – ִמ ַּט ְּמ ִאין טו ְּמ ַאת‬
‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
mishna The limb of an animal, with flesh, sinews, and
bones, and the flesh of an animal, that were
partially severed and remain hanging from the animalh do not have
,‫יכין ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ִ ‫ וּצְ ִר‬,‫קֹומן‬
ָ ‫ ִ ּב ְמ‬the halakhic status of a limb severed from a living animal, which
imparts impurity like an unslaughtered carcass, or of flesh severed
from a living animal, which is ritually pure, respectively. If one had
intent to eat the limb or the flesh, the limb or flesh becomes impure
if it comes in contact with a source of impurity, and they impart
impurity as food to other foods and liquids, although they remain in
their place attached to the animal. But in order for them to become
impure, they need to be rendered susceptible to impurity through
contact with one of the seven liquids that facilitate susceptibility.
halakha
The limb and the flesh that were hanging from the animal – the status of food and impart impurity as food to other foods and
‫ה ֵא ֶבר וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ְמדו ְּלדָּ ִלין ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:ָ The limb of an animal and the liquids. In order for the limb to become impure, it needs to be
flesh of an animal that were partially severed and will not heal rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with one of the
and which remain hanging from the animal do not have the seven liquids that facilitate susceptibility (Rambam Sefer Tahara,
halakhic status of a limb severed from a living animal, which Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 2:5).
imparts impurity like an unslaughtered carcass. Rather, they have

Perek IX
Daf 127 Amud b
halakha
,‫יה‬
ָ ‫נִש ֲח ָטה ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – הו ְּכ ׁ ְשר ּו ְ ּב ָד ֶמ‬
ְ ׁ If the animal was slaughtered,h although this act of slaughter does
If the animal was slaughtered – ‫נִש ֲח ָטה ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:
ְ ׁ With
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬not render it permitted for consumption by a Jew (see 73b), the limb
:‫אֹומר‬ regard to the limb of an animal and the flesh of an animal,
and the flesh were thereby rendered susceptible to impurity by
.ּ‫ל ֹא הו ְּכ ׁ ְשרו‬ if they were partially severed and will not heal, and they
coming in contact with the blood of the slaughtered animal,n as remain hanging from the animal, they do not have the
blood is one of the seven liquids; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. halakhic status of a limb severed from a living animal,
Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible to impu- which imparts impurity like an unslaughtered carcass.
rity through the animal’s own blood; they are rendered susceptible If the animal is slaughtered, the limb and the flesh are
only once they have been wet with another liquid. rendered susceptible to impurity as food, but they do
not impart the impurity of a carcass because, unlike a
.‫ֵמ ָתה ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר צָ ִריךְ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬ If the animal diedh without slaughter, the hanging flesh needs to be limb that falls from a living animal, they do not have the
status of an unslaughtered carcass (Rambam Sefer Tahara,
,‫ָה ֵא ֶבר ְמ ַט ֵּמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬ rendered susceptible to impurity in order to become impure, as its
Hilkhot She’ar Avot HaTumot 2:5).
halakhic status is that of flesh severed from a living animal, which is
‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫וְ ֵאינֹו ְמ ַט ֵּמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֵא ַבר נְ ֵב ָלה‬ If the animal died, etc. – ‫מ ָתה ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה וכו׳‬:ֵ If the animal
ritually pure and does not have the status of an unslaughtered carcass.
.‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְמ ַט ֵהר‬.‫ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ The hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from a living died, any hanging flesh needs to be rendered susceptible
to impurity in order to become impure, as its halakhic
animal but does not impart impurity as the limb of an unslaugh- status is that of flesh severed from a living animal, which
tered carcass; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi is ritually pure. A hanging limb imparts impurity due to
Shimon deems the limb ritually pure. its status as a limb severed from a living animal and does

gemara
not impart impurity due to the status of the limb of an
ָ ‫גמ׳ טו ְּמ ַאת‬
‫ טו ְּמ ַאת‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין – ִאין‬ The mishna states that the limb of an animal unslaughtered carcass. What is the difference between
that was partially severed and remains hang- the impurity of a limb severed from a living animal and
.‫נְ ֵב ָלה – ָלא‬
ing from the animal imparts impurity as food if one had intent to eat that of an unslaughtered carcass? Flesh that comes from
it. The Gemara infers: It imparts impurity as food, yes, but it does a limb severed from a living animal is pure, but flesh that
not impart the impurity of a carcass, which can be transmitted to is severed from a limb severed from a carcass imparts
impurity via contact and carrying. Both types of impurity
people and utensils in addition to food. are equivalent with regard to the requisite measure of an
olive-bulk. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion
notes
of Rabbi Meir (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot She’ar Avot
The limb and the flesh were rendered susceptible to impurity tion against eating a torn animal. Nevertheless, slaughter does HaTumot 2:5).
with the blood of the slaughtered animal – ‫יה‬ ָ ‫הו ְּכ ׁ ְשר ּו ְ ּב ָד ֶמ‬: affect a partially severed limb in two ways: First, the limb is not
The slaughter of an animal does not permit one to consume a considered an unslaughtered carcass after the slaughter, and
partially severed limb. This halakha is derived from the verse: “And second, the slaughter renders the limb susceptible to impurity
any flesh torn of animals in the field you shall not eat” (Exodus because it has come into contact with the blood of the slaughter
22:30), indicating that even a partially severed limb of an animal is (Rashi).
forbidden for consumption because it is included in the prohibi-

 ‫זכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 127b 293

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ִאי דְּ ַמ ֲע ִלין ֲארו ָּכה – ֲא ִפילּ ּו טו ְּמ ַאת‬,‫ ֵה ִיכי דָּ ֵמי‬The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the limb can
Gourd – ‫דְּ ַל ַעת‬: This is referring to the bottle gourd, heal and reattach to the animal’s body then it should not be sus-
Lagenaria vulgaris, a pale-green summer vegetable ‫ וְ ִאי דְּ ֵאין ַמ ֲע ִלין‬.‫יטמ ּו‬ ְ ‫אֹוכ ִלין נַ ִמי ָלא ִל‬ ָ
ceptible even to impurity as food. And if it cannot heal, it should
shaped like a bottle. It grows on vines that generally !ּ‫יטמו‬ ְ ‫ֲארו ָּכה – טו ְּמ ַאת נְ ֵב ָלה נַ ִמי ִל‬
lie on the ground but are occasionally suspended impart the impurity of a carcass as well.
on trees. The gourd is a large vegetable, measur-
ing 40–50 cm long and 25–30 cm wide. Young ‫ וְ ׁ ָשאנֵי טו ְּמ ַאת‬,‫עֹולם דְּ ֵאין ַמ ֲע ִלין ֲארו ָּכה‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is discussing a case
gourds are usually eaten cooked, and their seeds ִּ :‫ דְּ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ֲא ַמר‬,‫ נְ ֵב ָלה‬where the limb will not heal, and the reason that the limb does not
.‫״כי יִ ּפֹל״ – ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ ּפֹול‬
are roasted. impart impurity of a carcass is that the impurity of a carcass is
different and unique, as the Merciful One states with regard to
the impurity of a carcass: “And if any of their carcass fall upon any
sowing seed” (Leviticus 11:37), indicating that the severed limb of
an animal is not considered a carcass until it completely falls from
the animal.

‫ ָה ֵא ֶבר וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ְמדו ְּלדָּ ִלין‬:‫ַּתנְ יָ א נַ ִמי ָה ִכי‬ This explanation is also taught in a baraita: With regard to the limb
‫ יָ כֹול יְ ַט ְּמא ּו‬,‫ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ו ְּמעו ִּרין ְ ּבחוּט ַה ּ ַ ׂש ֲע ָרה‬ and the flesh of an animal that were partially severed and remain
hanging from the animal and are connected to the animal by a
‫ ״יִ ּפֹל״ – ַעד‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫טו ְּמ ַאת נְ ֵב ָלה – ַּת ְלמוּד‬
connector the size of a strand of hair, one might have thought that
ַּ ‫אֹוכ ִלין ִמ‬
.ּ‫יט ּמו‬ ָ ‫ טו ְּמ ַאת‬,‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָה ִכי‬.‫ׁ ֶשּיִ ּפֹול‬ they impart the impurity of a carcass. Therefore, the verse states:
“And if any of the carcass fall,” indicating that a severed limb does
not impart the impurity of a carcass until it completely falls from
the animal. And nevertheless, despite the fact that it is not consid-
ered severed with regard to the impurity of a carcass, such a limb is
considered severed with regard to being susceptible to impurity
as food.

‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬,‫יה ְל ַרב ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ This explanation supports the opinion of Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi, as
Bottle gourd ‫ ְּת ֵאנִים ׁ ֶש ָ ּצ ְמק ּו‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַא ׁ ִשי‬ Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi said that Shmuel said: With regard to figs that
dried while still attached to their tree,h despite the fact that they
ָ ‫יב ֶיהן – ִמ ַּט ְּמאֹות טו ְּמ ַאת‬
‫ וְ ַה ּת ֵֹול ׁש‬,‫אֹוכ ִלין‬ ּ ֵ ‫ְ ּב ִא‬
are still attached, they are considered as if they have been picked
.‫ֵמ ֶהן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת – ַחּיָ יב ַח ָּטאת‬ and are susceptible to impurity as food. But with regard to one
who picks them on Shabbath they are considered attached, and he
is liable to bring a sin offering. Just as a partially severed limb of
an animal is considered both attached and severed with regard to
different halakhot, so too this dried fruit is considered both attached
and detached with regard to different halakhot.

,‫יהן‬
ֶ ‫יב‬
ּ ֵ ‫ יְ ָרקֹות ׁ ֶש ָ ּצ ְמק ּו ְ ּב ִא‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ימא ְמ ַסּיַ יע ֵל‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ Let us say that a baraita (Tosefta, Okatzin 2:11) supports the opin-
‫ְּכגֹון ַה ְּכרוּב וְ ַהדְּ ַל ַעת – ֵאין ִמ ַּט ְּמ ִאין טו ְּמ ַאת‬ ion of Shmuel, who holds that dried figs still attached to the tree
are considered as if they are detached with regard to susceptibility
‫ ְקצָ צָ ן וְ יִ ְ ּב ׁ ָשן – ִמ ַּט ְּמ ִאין ט ּו ְמ ַאת‬.‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
ָ
to impurity as food: Vegetables that dried while they are attached
.‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
ָ to their plant, such as cabbage and gourd,bh which become hard
as wood and inedible when dried, are not susceptible to impurity
as food. But if one cut them when they were still moist and then
dried them in order to use them for fuel, or, in the case of gourds,
to make utensils out of them, they are susceptible to impurity
as food.

halakha
Figs that dried while still attached to their tree – ‫ ְּת ֵאנִים ׁ ֶש ָ ּצ ְמק ּו‬considered as if they had been picked. This ruling is in accordance
‫יהן‬
ֶ ‫יב‬
ּ ֵ ‫ב ִא‬:ּ ְ Figs that dried while still attached to their tree are suscep- with the opinion of Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Shmuel
tible to contract impurity as food. This ruling is in accordance with (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 8:4).
the opinion of Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Shmuel (Rambam
Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 2:5).
Vegetables that dried while attached to their plant such as
One who picks them on Shabbat – ‫וְ ַה ּת ֵֹול ׁש ֵמ ֶהן ַ ּב ׁ ּ ַש ָ ּבת‬: With regard cabbage and gourd – ‫יהן ְּכגֹון ַה ְּכרוּב וְ ַהדְּ ַל ַעת‬
ֶ ‫יב‬
ּ ֵ ‫יְ ָרקֹות ׁ ֶש ָ ּצ ְמק ּו ְ ּב ִא‬:
to figs that dried while still attached to their tree, one who picks Vegetables that dried while attached to their plant, such as cabbage
them on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin offering, despite the fact and gourd, are not susceptible to impurity as food (Rambam Sefer
that with regard to susceptibility to contracting impurity they are Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 2:3).

294 Ĥullin . perek IX . 127b . ‫זכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ְקצָ צָ ן וְ יִ ְ ּב ׁ ָשן ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּת ְך? ֵעץ ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא‬The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind that if one cut
ּ ְ ‫ ְ ּב ַעל ְמנָ ת ְל‬:‫ הוּא! וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬them and dried them they are susceptible to impurity as food?
.‫יַב ׁ ָשן‬
Such a vegetable is merely wood, and it is inedible. And Rabbi
Yitzĥak says: The baraita is discussing a case where one cut the
vegetables when they were still moist in order to dry them.h
The novelty of the baraita is that even though one intends to dry
the vegetables and render them inedible, as long as they are still
moist they are susceptible to impurity as food.

– ‫יִב ׁ ָשן‬
ּ ְ ְּ‫ ֵּכיוָ ן ד‬,‫ ַט ֲע ָמא דִּ ְכרוּב ו ְּד ַל ַעת הוּא‬The Gemara infers: The reason for this halakha in the baraita is
– ‫ ָהא ׁ ְש ָאר ּ ֵפירֹות‬,ּ‫ ָלאו ְ ּבנֵי ֲא ִכ ָילה נִינְ הו‬that it is discussing cabbage and gourd: Since one dried them,
they are inedible and consequently are not susceptible to impu-
!‫ִמ ַּט ְּמ ִאי‬
rity as food. But other types of produce, which are edible when
dried, are susceptible to impurity.

,‫יטא‬
ָ ‫יִב ׁ ָשן ֵהן וְ עו ְּקצֵ ֶיהן – ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬
ּ ְ ְּ‫ ִאי ד‬,‫ ֵה ִיכי דָּ ֵמי‬The Gemara explains the suggested support to Shmuel: What
ֶ ֵ‫ ְ ּב ָלא עו ְּקצ‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו‬are the circumstances? If one dried both the produce itself and
.‫יהן‬
its stems, isn’t it obvious that the produce is no longer consid-
ered attached to the plant and is susceptible to impurity? If so, it
would be unnecessary for the baraita to teach this. Rather, isn’t
the baraita discussing a case where one dried the produce with-
out drying its stems? Accordingly, in such a case the produce is
considered detached with regard to impurity even though it is
considered attached with regard to Shabbat, in accordance with
the statement of Shmuel.

‫יַב ׁ ָשן‬
ּ ְ ‫ ו ְּקצָ צָ ן ַעל ְמנָ ת ְל‬,‫יהן‬
ֶ ֵ‫עֹולם ֵהן וְ עו ְּקצ‬
ָ ‫ ְל‬The Gemara rejects this interpretation: The baraita is not neces-
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫יכא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ִאיצְ ְט ִר‬sarily discussing that case. Actually, the baraita is discussing a
case where both the produce itself and its stems were dried.
And although it appears that the halakha is obvious in such a
case, it was necessary for the baraita to mention it in order to
teach the latter clause of the baraita: In a case where one cut
the cabbage and gourd when they were still moist in order to
dry them, they are susceptible to impurity as long as they are
still moist.

‫ ִא ָילן ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ׁ ַשח וּבֹו ּ ֵפירֹות – ֲה ֵרי‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a challenge to the opinion
.‫ יָ ְב ׁש ּו – ֲה ֵרי ֵהן ִּכ ְמחו ָ ּּב ִרין‬,‫ֵהן ִּכ ְתל ּו ׁ ִשין‬ of Shmuel from a baraita: In the case of a tree from which a
branch broke off, and the branch has fruit attached to it,h even
‫ ַאף‬,‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫ ַמה ְּתלו ׁ ִּשין – ְל ָכל דִּ ְב ֵר‬,‫ַמאי ָלאו‬
if the fruit is still moist it is considered detached from the tree.
!‫יהן‬
ֶ ‫ְמחו ָ ּּב ִרין – ְל ָכל דִּ ְב ֵר‬ But if the branch did not break off, and the fruit dried on the
tree, it is considered attached. What, isn’t the ruling of the
baraita that just as in the first clause the fruit on the detached
branch is considered detached with regard to all matters, the
halakhot of both Shabbat and impurity, so too in the latter clause
the fruit that dried on the tree is considered attached to the tree
with regard to all matters, even the transmission of impurity,
contrary to the opinion of Shmuel?

.‫ וְ ָהא ִּכ ְד ִא ָיתא‬,‫ ִמ ֵידי ִא ְיריָא? ָהא ִּכ ְד ִא ָיתא‬The Gemara rejects this challenge: Are the cases comparable?
This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. In the first clause
of the baraita, the fruit on the detached branch is considered
detached with regard to all matters. In the latter clause of the
baraita, the dried fruit on the tree is considered attached with
regard to Shabbat but detached with regard to impurity.

‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ָקא‬.]‫§ ״נִ ׁ ְש ֲח ָטה ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמ ה״ [וכו׳‬The mishna teaches: If the animal was slaughtered, Rabbi
?‫ ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬Meir holds that with the blood of the slaughtered animal the
limb and the flesh were rendered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi
Shimon says that they were not rendered susceptible with the
animal’s own blood. The Gemara asks: With regard to what
principle do Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree?

halakha
In order to dry them – ‫יַב ׁ ָשן‬
ּ ְ ‫על ְמנָ ת ְל‬:ַ If one cut vegetables in A tree from which a branch broke off and has fruit attached
order to dry them, as long as they are still moist, the vegetables to it – ‫א ָילן ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ׁ ַשח וּבֹו ּ ֵפירֹות‬:ִ If fruit is attached to a branch that
are susceptible to impurity as food (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot was cut from a tree, the fruit is considered detached from the tree
Tumat Okhalin 2:3). (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 2:4).

 ‫זכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 127b 295

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫נַע ֵ ׂשית יָ ד ְל ֵא ֶבר‬

ֲ ‫ ִ ּב ְב ֵה ָמה‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬ Rabba said: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of the
‫נַע ֵ ׂשית‬
ֲ ‫ ֵאין ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:‫ ָמר ְס ַבר‬.‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ַ ּ ‫ָק ִמ‬ slaughtered animal came into contact with the body of the animal
but not with the partially severed limb. The tanna’im agree that if
‫נַע ֵ ׂשית יָ ד‬
ֲ ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬.‫יָ ד ְל ֵא ֶבר‬
an appendage that constitutes a handle is rendered susceptible to
.‫ְל ֵא ֶבר‬ impurity, the food to which it is attached is also rendered susceptible.
But they disagree with regard to whether an animal constitutes
a handle for its limb. One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that an ani-
mal does not constitute a handle for its limb, and therefore the
limb is not rendered susceptible to contract impurity along with
the body of the animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that an
animal constitutes a handle for its limb,h and therefore the limb is
rendered susceptible along with the body of the animal.

ֶ ‫אֹוחז ְ ּב ָק ָטן וְ ֵאין ָ ּגדֹול‬

‫עֹולה‬ ֵ ‫ ְ ּב‬:‫ ַא ַ ּביֵ י ֲא ַמר‬Abaye said a different explanation of the dispute between Rabbi
.‫ ִע ּמֹו ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬Meir and Rabbi Shimon: The mishna is discussing a case where the
blood of the slaughtered animal came into contact with the body of
the animal but not with the partially severed limb, and both tanna’im
agree that an animal does not constitute a handle for its limb. But
they also agree that if the liquid comes into contact with only part
of the food it renders the entire item susceptible to impurity. There-
fore, if the partially severed limb is considered part of the animal it
is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the animal. Rabbi
Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to whether the limb
is considered part of the animal, and generally speaking, with regard
to any case where a small part of an item is hanging off the larger part
such that if one grasps and lifts the small part the large part does
not ascend with it.

ֶ ‫אֹוחז ְ ּב ָק ָטן וְ ֵאין ָ ּגדֹול‬

‫עֹולה‬ ֵ :‫ ָמר ְס ַבר‬One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that although if one grasps and lifts
‫ ֵאינֹו‬:‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬.ּ‫ ִע ּמֹו – ֲה ֵרי הוּא ָּכמֹוהו‬the small part the large part does not ascend with it, the small part
is still considered one and the same with the large part. Therefore,
.ּ‫ָּכמֹוהו‬
a partially severed limb is rendered susceptible to impurity along
with the body of the animal. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds
that the small part is not considered one and the same with the large
part in such a case, and therefore the partially severed limb is not
rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body of the animal.

‫אֹוחז ְ ּב ָק ָטן וְ ֵאין‬

ֵ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ְס ַבר ְ ּב‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַאף ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yoĥanan also holds in accordance with the explanation
ֶ ‫ ָ ּגדֹול‬of Abaye that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the status of a
.‫עֹולה ִע ּמֹו ָקא ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬
small part of an item that is hanging off the larger part such that one
grasps the small part and the large part does not ascend with it.

:‫יֹוחנָן ָר ֵמי דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬

ָ ‫ דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬As Rabbi Yoĥanan raises a contradiction between one statement
ֵ ‫ ִמי ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬of Rabbi Meir and another statement of Rabbi Meir: Did Rabbi
‫אֹוחז ְ ּב ָק ָטן וְ ֵאין ָ ּגדֹול‬
Meir actually say that even in a case where one grasps the small part
?ּ‫עֹולה ִע ּמֹו ֲה ֵרי הוּא ָּכמֹוהו‬ ֶ
of an item and the large part does not ascend with it, the small part
is still considered one and the same with the large part?

,‫אֹוכל ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ַרס ו ְּמעו ֶּרה ְ ּב ִמ ְקצָ ת‬

ֶ :ּ‫ ו ְּר ִמינְהו‬One can raise a contradiction to this statement from a mishna
(Tevul Yom 3:1): With regard to a piece of food that was sliced from
a larger piece of food and remains partially connected to the larger
piece,h the entire item is considered one and the same with regard
to impurity. If one who was previously ritually impure and immersed
that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to
be completed touched either piece of the item, the entire item
becomes impure.

halakha
An animal constitutes a handle for its limb – ‫נַע ֵ ׂשית יָ ד‬ ֲ ‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ larger piece, if one of the pieces was rendered impure and one
‫ל ֵא ֶבר‬:ְ An animal constitutes a handle for its limb. Therefore, if an grasped that piece, if the other piece ascends with it, they are
animal is slaughtered, a partially severed limb is rendered suscep- considered connected and share the same level of impurity. But
tible to impurity along with the body of the animal. This ruling is in if when one lifts the impure piece the other falls off, they are not
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir (Rambam Sefer Tahara, considered connected, and the other piece is only considered as if
Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 2:6, and see Kesef Mishne there). it touched the impure piece. This ruling is in accordance with the
opinion of Rabbi Meir as cited in the Gemara here, which is identi-
Food that was sliced and remains partially connected – ‫אֹוכל‬ ֶ cal to the opinion of the Sages as cited in the mishna in tractate
‫ש ִּנ ְפ ַרס ו ְּמעו ֶּרה ְ ּב ִמ ְקצָ ת‬:
ֶ ׁ In the case of a piece of food that was sliced Tevul Yom (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 6:9).
from a larger piece of food and remains partially connected to the

296 Ĥullin . perek IX . 127b . ‫זכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek IX
Daf 128 Amud a

‫אֹוחז ְ ּב ָק ָטן וְ גָ דֹול‬

ֵ ‫ ִאם‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬Rabbi Meir says: If when one grasps the small piece, the large piece
‫ וְ ִאם‬,ּ‫עֹולה ִע ּמֹו – ֲה ֵרי הוּא ָּכמֹוהו‬ ֶ ascends with it, it is considered one and the same;n but if it does
not ascend with it, it is not considered one and the same. This state-
.ּ‫ָלאו – ֵאינֹו ָּכמֹוהו‬
ment of Rabbi Meir is not in accordance with his statement in the
mishna that a partially severed limb is part of the body of the animal
and is rendered susceptible to impurity along with the body even if
one lifts the partially severed limb and the body of the animal does
not ascend with it.

ָ ‫ מו ְּח ֶל ֶפת ַה ׁ ּ ִש‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬

.‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬And Rabbi Yoĥanan resolves the contradiction and says: The attri-
bution of the opinions in tractate Tevul Yom is reversed.n Indeed,
Rabbi Meir holds that even if when one lifts the smaller piece, the
larger piece does not ascend with it, it is still the same item. Therefore,
it is apparent that Rabbi Yoĥanan explains the dispute between
Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon in the mishna in accordance with the
explanation of Abaye.

‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ ו ַּמאי קו ׁ ְּשיָ א? דִּ ְיל ָמא ׁ ָשנֵי ֵל‬With regard to the contradiction between the two statements of
?‫ ֵמ ִאיר ֵ ּבין ְטבוּל יֹום ִל ׁ ְש ָאר טו ְּמאֹות‬Rabbi Meir, the Gemara asks: What is the difficulty? Perhaps Rabbi
Meir distinguishes between the impurity of one who immersed
that day and other types of impurity. The impurity of one who
immersed that day is a more lenient type of impurity, because he has
already immersed and need only wait until the end of the day in order
to consume sacrificial offerings. Therefore, there is reason to be more
lenient when he touches a partially severed piece of food and to rule
that the entire food item does not become impure.

‫ ֶא ָחד ְטבוּל יֹום וְ ֶא ָחד‬:‫אֹומר‬

ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ַּתנְיָא‬The Gemara answers: One cannot make such a distinction between
.‫ ׁ ְש ָאר טו ְּמאֹות‬different types of impurity because it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to both the impurity of one who
immersed that day and other types of impurity, the halakhot of
contact are the same; whatever is considered contact that transmits
impurity with regard to one type of impurity transmits impurity for
all types of impurity.

‫ ו ְּל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ְל ַר ִ ּבי ָלא ׁ ָשנֵי ֵל‬:‫ וְ ִד ְיל ָמא‬The Gemara asks: But perhaps Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not
?‫יה‬ּ ‫ ֵמ ִאיר ׁ ָשנֵי ֵל‬distinguish between the impurity of one who immersed that day
and other types of impurity and Rabbi Meir does distinguish in
such a manner. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the
statements of Rabbi Meir.

:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ָה ִכי ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֹאשּיָ ה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬Rabbi Yoshiya said: This is what Rabbi Yoĥanan meant to say:
.‫יטה‬ ָ ‫ ְל ִד ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי מו ְּח ֶל ֶפת ַה ׁ ּ ִש‬According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who does not
distinguish between the impurity of one who immersed that day and
other types of impurity, there is a contradiction between the two
statements of Rabbi Meir, and the attribution of the opinions in the
mishna in tractate Tevul Yom is reversed.

notes
If when one grasps the small piece, the large piece ascends The attribution of the opinions is reversed – ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫מו ְּח ֶל ֶפת ַה ׁ ּ ִש‬:
with it, it is considered one and the same – ‫אֹוחז ְ ּב ָק ָטן וְ גָ דֹול‬
ֵ ‫ִאם‬ The early commentaries disagree about the nature of the reversal
‫עֹולה ִע ּמֹו ֲה ֵרי הוּא ָּכמֹוה ּו‬:
ֶ Tosafot point out that the contradiction of Rabbi Meir’s opinion. Tiferet Yisrael explains that Rabbi Meir
between the two statements of Rabbi Meir is based on the text holds that even if when one grasps the smaller piece, the larger
of the mishna in tractate Tevul Yom that the Gemara cites. But the piece does not ascend with it, it is still considered part of one
version of that mishna that appears in tractate Tevul Yom reads item. Therefore, Rabbi Meir’s opinion in the mishna in tractate
differently: Rabbi Meir says: If when one grasps the large piece, Tevul Yom is changed accordingly. By contrast, Rashi explains that
the small piece ascends with it, it is considered one and the same. the Gemara is not proposing to change the statement of Rabbi
Rabbi Yehuda says: If when one grasps the small piece, the large Meir. Rather, the Gemara is explaining that Rabbi Meir generally
piece ascends with it, it is considered one and the same. Based holds that even if when one grasps and lifts the smaller piece,
on this version of the mishna there is no contradiction between the larger piece does not ascend with it, it is still considered part
the two statements of Rabbi Meir. of one item. Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir deviates from his general
opinion in his ruling in Tevul Yom.

 ‫חכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 128a 297

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ְ ּביֵ ׁש יָ ד ְלטו ְּמ ָאה וְ ֵאין יָ ד‬:‫ ָר ָבא ֲא ַמר‬Rava said a different explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir
Fat from an animal slaughtered in the villages –
‫ח ֶלב ׁ ְשחו ָּטה ַ ּב ְּכ ָפ ִרים‬:ֵ In order that forbidden fat from a .‫ ְל ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬and Rabbi Shimon: The mishna is discussing a case where the blood
kosher animal slaughtered in the villages be rendered
from the slaughter came into contact with the body of the animal but
susceptible to impurity, the Jew must first have inten- not with the partially severed limb, and both tanna’im agree that an
tion to use it as food. It must then come into contact animal constitutes a handle for its limb. They disagree with regard
with a liquid that renders it susceptible to impurity, to the principle that there is a status of a handle, i.e., a handle is
even though it had previously come into contact with considered part of the item itself, with regard to transmitting impu-
the blood of slaughter prior to the intention to use it rity to the attached food, but there is no status of a handle with
as food. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion
regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity, as in
of Rabbi Yehuda as well as Rabbi Akiva, as Rabbi Akiva
retracted his own ruling and taught the halakha in
that regard the handle is considered a separate item.
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (Ram-
bam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 3:3). ,‫ ׁיֵש יָ ד ְלטו ְּמ ָאה וְ ֵאין יָ ד ְל ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬:‫ ָמר ְס ַבר‬One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that there is a status of a handle
.‫ יֵ ׁש יָ ד ְלטו ְּמ ָאה ו ְּל ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬:‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬with regard to transmitting impurity, but there is no status of a
Endives that one picked and rinsed in water for an handle with regard to rendering the attached food susceptible to
ָ ‫עֹול ׁ ִשין ׁ ֶש ִּל ְּק ָטן וֶ ֱה ִד‬:
animal – ‫יחן ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ ָ If one picked
impurity. Therefore, although the body of the animal constitutes a
endives and rinsed them in water in order to give them
to an animal, and later he reconsidered and decided to handle vis-à-vis the limb, it does not render the limb susceptible to
designate them for human consumption, the endives impurity. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that there is a status of a
need to come into contact with liquid a second time handle both with regard to transmitting impurity and with regard
in order to be rendered susceptible to impurity. This to rendering the attached food susceptible to impurity. Therefore,
ruling is in accordance with the opinion of both Rabbi the body of the animal renders the limb susceptible to impurity.
Yehuda and Rabbi Akiva (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
Tumat Okhalin 3:3). ‫קֹודם ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה‬
ֶ ‫ ְ ּב ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬:‫ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ֲא ַמר‬Rav Pappa said a different explanation of the dispute: Both tanna’im
.‫ ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬hold that a handle renders the attached food susceptible to impurity.
background Yet, the mishna is discussing a case where the slaughter took place
Endives – ‫עֹול ׁ ִשין‬:
ָ The mishna is referring to Cichorium before the owner of the animal designated its meat for the consump-
endivia, a winter vegetable similar to lettuce. There tion of a gentile. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard
are several varieties of endives, including curly endive to whether an item can be rendered susceptible to impurity before
and broad-leaf endive. The leaves, which are clustered
together tightly around the base of the plant, have a
intention, i.e., before one intends to use it as food. Rabbi Shimon
pleasant taste when they are young but become bitter holds that since the animal came in contact with the blood of the
as the plant matures. The flower of the plant is usually slaughter before the owner intended to use it as food, it is not ren-
blue, but sometimes pink and white. Today the endive dered susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir holds that the susceptibil-
is mainly harvested for the chicory root, which is used ity to impurity takes effect such that when the owner considers it as
as a substitute for coffee. food it will be susceptible to impurity.

‫ ָּכ ְך ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ This dispute is also found in that which we learned in a baraita
– ‫ ֵח ֶלב ׁ ְשחו ָּטה ַ ּב ְּכ ָפ ִרים‬,‫ֲע ִק ָיבא ׁשֹונֶ ה‬ (Tosefta, Okatzin 3:2): Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Akiva would
teach this halakha: Fat forbidden in consumption for a Jew from
‫ ׁ ֶש ְּכ ָבר‬,‫ וְ ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬,‫צָ ִריךְ ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה‬
an animal slaughtered in the villageshn requires intention, i.e., des-
.‫יטה‬ ָ ‫הו ְּכ ׁ ַשר ַ ּב ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬ ignation, for consumption, for it to become susceptible to impurity.
This is because the population in such places is small and there is an
abundance of meat, so people do not generally consume the fat.
Consequently, unless the Jewish owner intends for a gentile to con-
sume it, it is not considered food. But the fat does not require con-
Endive plants
tact with a liquid in order to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as
it was already rendered susceptible by the blood of slaughter even
though it came into contact with the blood before the Jew designated
it for consumption.

‫עֹול ׁ ִשין‬
ָ ,ּ‫ ִל ַּמ ְד ָּתנ ּו ַר ֵ ּבינו‬:‫ָא ַמ ְר ִּתי ְל ָפנָיו‬ Rabbi Yehuda continues: I said before him: You taught us, our
‫יהן‬ ֶ ‫יחן ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה וְ נִ ְמ ַל ְך ֲע ֵל‬ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ִּל ְּק ָטן וֶ ֱה ִד‬ teacher, that in a case of endivesb that one picked and rinsed in
water for the consumption of an animal,h and one later reconsidered
‫ָל ָא ָדם – צְ ִריכֹות ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ׁ ֵשנִי! וְ ָחזַ ר ַר ִ ּבי‬
and decided to designate them for human consumption, the endives
.‫ֲע ִק ָיבא ִל ְהיֹות ׁשֹונֶ ה ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬ need to come into contact with liquid a second time in order to be
rendered susceptible to impurity, as food designated for animal
consumption does not contract impurity. Evidently, for a food item
to become susceptible to impurity, its contact with liquid must occur
after one designated it as food. And Rabbi Akiva then retracted his
previous statement and taught the halakha in accordance with the
statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

notes
Fat from an animal slaughtered in the villages – ‫ֵח ֶלב ׁ ְשחו ָּטה‬ as food in order for it to be rendered susceptible to impurity. The
‫ב ְּכ ָפ ִרים‬:
ּ ַ Rashi offers two explanations. The first is that people second explanation is that only wealthy people can afford to
prefer not to eat the fat. Since there are few residents in the vil- eat the fat. Since the people in the villages are poor, they do not
lages, there is sufficient meat for everyone and no one consumes normally eat it.
the fat. Consequently, a Jew must specifically designate the fat

298 Ĥullin . perek IX . 128a . ‫חכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
ּ ָ ‫ ָמר ְס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ֵמ ִע‬Rav Pappa concludes: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree in
‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר ָל ּה‬,‫יק ָרא‬
Rav Ashi said, etc. – ‫רב ַא ׁ ִשי ֲא ַמר וכו׳‬:ַ The Gemara offers
.‫ ַּכ ֲחזָ ָרה‬the same manner. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds in accordance with six explanations in total with regard to the disagreement
that which Rabbi Akiva taught originally, and one Sage, Rabbi between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon. According to
Shimon, holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Akiva taught the first three explanations, the mishna is discussing a
after his retraction of his original statement. case where the blood of the slaughtered animal came
into contact with the body of the animal but not with
‫ ְ ּבנִ ְת ַק ֵ ּנ ַח‬:‫יה דְּ ַרב ִא ָיקא ֲא ַמר‬ ּ ‫ ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬Rav Aĥa, son of Rav Ika, said another explanation of the dispute: the partially severed limb. Rabba explains that they
.‫ימן ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬
ָ ‫ימן ְל ִס‬ָ ‫ ַהדָּ ם ֵ ּבין ִס‬The mishna is discussing a case where the blood of slaughter came disagree with regard to whether an animal becomes a
into contact with a partially severed limb, and the blood of slaughter handle for its limb. Abaye explains that Rabbi Meir and
is one of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. But Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to one who grasps
slaughter is valid only if one cuts the two simanim, the windpipe and a small part of an item such that the large part of the
item does not ascend with the small part. Rava explains
the gullet, or the majority of the two simanim, and the tanna’im that they disagree with regard to whether a handle only
disagree with regard to a case where the blood in question was imparts impurity to the attached food, but does not
wiped off between the cutting of the first siman and the second render the attached food susceptible to impurity, or
siman. whether it also renders the attached food susceptible
to impurity.
‫יטה ִמ ְּת ִח ָּלה וְ ַעד‬
ָ ‫ יֶ ׁ ְשנָ ּה ַל ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬:‫ָמר ְס ַבר‬ One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that slaughter is defined from the According to the latter three explanations, the
:‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬.‫יטה הוּא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַהאי דַּ ם ׁ ְש ִח‬,‫סֹוף‬ beginning to the end of its performance, and this blood that mishna is discussing a case where the blood of slaughter
splashed on the limb is considered blood of slaughter. And one came into direct contact with the partially severed limb.
‫ וְ ַהאי דַּ ם‬,‫יטה ֶא ָּלא ַל ּסֹוף‬ ָ ‫ֵאינָ ּה ַל ׁ ּ ְש ִח‬ Rav Pappa explains that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon
Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that slaughter is defined only as the
.‫ַמ ָּכה הוּא‬ conclusion of its performance, and this blood from the first siman
disagree whether one must intend for the item to be
used as food before it comes into contact with liquid in
is considered the blood of a wound and does not render the limb order for that item to be rendered susceptible to impu-
susceptible to impurity. rity. Rav Aĥa, son of Rav Ika, explains that the mishna is
discussing a case where the blood is wiped off between
‫יטה ַמ ְכ ׁ ֶש ֶרת וְ ל ֹא‬
ָ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִח‬:‫ ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ֲא ַמר‬Rav Ashi saidn another explanation of the dispute: The case is the cutting of the first siman and the second siman,
.‫ דָּ ם ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬where the blood of slaughter came in contact with the partially and they disagree whether slaughter is defined from
severed limb, but Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree with the beginning to the end of its performance. Rav Ashi
regard to the principle that the slaughter itself renders the limb explains that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon disagree
susceptible to impurity, and not the blood of slaughter. Rabbi with regard to the fundamental question of whether the
slaughter itself, and not the blood of slaughter, renders
Shimon holds that the blood of slaughter is not one of the liquids the limb susceptible to impurity.
that render food susceptible to impurity. But the slaughter itself
renders the meat of the animal susceptible to impurity, because it
halakha
prepares the meat for consumption. Therefore, since a partially
An impure cucumber that one planted in a flowerpot –
severed limb is not prepared for consumption by the slaughter, as it ּ ׁ ‫ק‬:ִ A cucumber that was planted in
‫ישוּת ׁ ֶש ּנ ְָט ָע ּה ְ ּב ָעצִ יץ‬
remains forbidden, the slaughter does not render it susceptible to a perforated flowerpot is not susceptible to impurity,
impurity. Rabbi Meir maintains that the blood of slaughter is one even if it grew and went out beyond the edge of the
of the liquids that render food susceptible to impurity, and therefore, flowerpot (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin
the limb is rendered susceptible. 2:9 and Kesef Mishne there, and see Ra’avad there).

ָ ֶ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְ ּב ַחּי‬:‫§ ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ָ ּבה‬Earlier (127b), Rabba explained that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shi-
‫ ַמה ּו ׁ ֶש ֵּת ָע ֶ ׂשה‬,‫יה‬
.ּ‫ יָ ד ְל ֵא ֶבר? ֵּתיקו‬mon disagree with regard to whether the body of an animal consti-
tutes a handle for its limb. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir,
who holds that it does constitute a handle, Rabba raises a dilemma:
What is the halakha if an animal with a partially severed limb came
into contact with a source of impurity during its lifetime? In such
a case, where the animal is not susceptible to contract impurity
because it is alive but the partially severed limb is susceptible to
contract impurity as food, does the animal constitute a handle
for its limb and transmit the impurity to the limb? The Gemara
concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ּ ׁ ‫ ֲה ֵרי ָא ְמר ּו ִק‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬The Gemara introduces a similar dilemma. Abaye says: The Sages
‫ישוּת ׁ ֶש ְּנ ָט ָע ּה‬
– ‫ וְ ִהגְ דִּ ָילה וְ יָ צָ את חוּץ ֶל ָעצִ יץ‬,‫ ְ ּב ָעצִ יץ‬said in the mishna (Okatzin 2:9): In the case of an impure cucum-
berb that one planted in an unperforated flowerpot,h such that the
.‫הֹורה‬
ָ ‫ְט‬
cucumber is considered detached from the ground and susceptible
to impurity as food, and the cucumber grew and went out beyond
the edge of the flowerpot such that part of the cucumber is overly-
ing the ground, the entire cucumber is considered attached to the
ground and therefore becomes pure.

background
Cucumber – ‫ישוּת‬ ּ ׁ ‫ק‬:ִ The cucumber, Cucumis chate, is a summer a width of about 3 cm, and sometimes grows bent or twisted. The
fruit of the Cucurbitaceae family and is a species of gourd. It is fruit may be eaten raw or cooked, but it becomes bitter or sour
called melafefon in modern Hebrew. The fruit is up to 80 cm and when it is overripe.

 ‫חכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 128a 299

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

?‫ וְ ִכי ַמה ִּט ָיב ּה ְל ַט ֵהר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬Rabbi Shimon says: What is the nature of the impurity of the
.‫ וְ ָטהֹור ְ ּב ָט ֳה ָרתֹו‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ַה ָּט ֵמא ְ ּבטו ְּמ ָאתֹו‬cucumber that it is rendered pure in such a case? Rather, the part of
the cucumber that is inside the flowerpot and impure remains in its
state of impurity, and the part of the cucumber that is outside the
flowerpot and pure remains in its state of purity.

?‫ ַמה ּו ׁ ֶש ֵּת ָע ֶ ׂשה יָ ד ַל ֲח ֶב ְר ָּת ּה‬:‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Based on this mishna, Abaye raises a dilemma according to the
.ּ‫ ֵּתיקו‬opinion of Rabbi Shimon: What is the halakha if the part of the
cucumber outside of the flowerpot comes into contact with a source
of impurity? Does the part of the cucumber outside the flowerpot
constitute a handle for its counterpart inside the flowerpot and
transmit impurity to it to it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma
shall stand unresolved.

‫ ֲה ֵרי ָא ְמר ּו ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֲחוֶ ה‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬The Gemara relates another dilemma based on the opinion of Rabbi
:‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה‬.‫ ַל ֲחצִ י דְּ ַל ַעת – ֲא ָס ָר ּה‬Shimon. Rabbi Yirmeya says: The Sages said that one who bows
down to a half of a gourd, worshipping it as a divinity, renders that
half of the gourd forbidden, i.e., it is prohibited to derive benefit from
it, because it was worshipped as an idol. The other half, though, is not
forbidden. Based on this ruling, Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma:

Perek IX
Daf 128 Amud b

.ּ‫ ַמה ּו ׁ ֶש ֵּת ָע ֶ ׂשה יָ ד ַל ֲח ֶב ְר ָּת ּה? ֵּתיקו‬According to Rabbi Shimon, an item that is forbidden due to idol
worship is not susceptible to impurity as food (see 129a). What is the
halakha if the forbidden part of the gourd comes into contact with a
source of impurity? Does the forbidden part constitute a handle for
its permitted counterpart and transmit impurity to it? The Gemara
concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

‫ יִ ח ּור ׁ ֶשל‬:‫ ֲה ֵרי ָא ְמר ּו‬,‫ָא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ The Gemara discusses a similar dilemma. Rav Pappa says: The Sages
‫ְּת ֵאנָ ה ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ׁ ַשח ו ְּמעו ֶּרה ִ ּב ְק ִל ּ ָיפ ָת ּה – ַר ִ ּבי‬ said in a mishna (Okatzin 3:8): In the case of a branch of a fig tree
that was mainly detachedh from the tree and which remains attached
‫ ִאם יָ כֹול‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫יְ הו ָּדה ְמ ַט ֵהר‬
only to the bark of the tree, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the figs on the
.‫ וְ ִאם ָלאו – ָט ֵמא‬,‫ִל ְחיֹות – ָטהֹור‬ branch are considered as if they are still attached to the tree. Therefore,
he deems them not susceptible to impurity. And the Rabbis say: If
one is able to reattach the branch to the tree such that the branch can
continue to live and produce fruit, then it is considered as if it is
attached to the tree and the fruit on it is not susceptible to impurity.
But if not, then the fruit is susceptible to impurity.

?‫ ַמה ּו ׁ ֶשּיֵ ָע ֶ ׂשה יָ ד ַל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬:‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬With regard to this mishna, Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: According
.ּ‫ ֵּתיקו‬to the Rabbis, who distinguish between a branch that can be reat-
tached and one that cannot, what is the halakha in the case of a branch
that is mainly detached from a tree but can be reattached, and a second
branch grows out from that branch, and is mainly detached from it
and cannot be reattached? In such a case, the branch that can be reat-
tached to the tree is not susceptible to contracting impurity, but the
branch attached to it is. If the branch that is not susceptible to contract
impurity comes into contact with a source of impurity, does it con-
stitute a handle for the other branchh and transmit impurity to it?
The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

halakha
A branch of a fig tree that was detached – ‫יִ חוּר ׁ ֶשל ְּת ֵאנָ ה ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ׁ ַשח‬: Does it constitute a handle for the other branch – ‫ַמה ּו ׁ ֶשּיֵ ָע ֶ ׂשה יָ ד‬
If a branch of a fig tree was detached from the tree and remains ‫ל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬:ַ With regard to a branch of a fig tree that was detached from
attached only to the bark of the tree, the fruit on the branch is the tree and remains attached only to the bark of the tree, if one
susceptible to impurity if one is unable to reattach the branch to is not able to reattach the branch to the tree such that the branch
the tree such that the branch can continue to live and produce can continue to live and produce fruit, it is uncertain whether the
fruit. This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis rest of the tree is considered a handle for this branch in order to
in the mishna in tractate Okatzin (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot impart impurity to the branch, as the Gemara leaves the dilemma
Tumat Okhalin 2:2). unresolved (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 2:2).

300 Ĥullin . perek IX . 128b . ‫חכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
,‫ ֶא ֶבן ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּזָ וִ ית‬:ּ‫ ֲה ֵרי ָא ְמרו‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬ The Gemara discusses another similar dilemma. Rabbi Zeira says:
The Sages said in a mishna (Nega’im 13:2): In the case of a large A stone that is situated in the corner, etc. – ‫ֶא ֶבן‬
‫ ו ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫חֹולץ ֶאת ּכו ָּּל ּה‬ ֵ – ‫חֹולץ‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ ‫ש ַ ּבּזָ וִ ית וכו׳‬:
ֶ ׁ In the case of a large stone that is situated
stone that is situated in the cornerh of a wall shared by two houses,
‫נֹותץ ֶאת ׁ ֶש ּלֹו ו ַּמ ּנ ִַיח ֶאת ׁ ֶשל‬ ֵ – ‫נֹותץ‬ ֵ in the corner of a wall shared by two houses where
where the stone is visible from inside both houses, if a leprous mark the stone is visible from inside both houses, if a lep-
.‫ֲח ֵבירֹו‬ appears in one of the houses on the stone, when one extracts the rous mark appears in one of the houses on the stone,
stone he must extract the entire stone, even the part of the stone the owner of that house must extract the entire stone
that is part of the neighbor’s wall. But when one destroysn his house, from the house, even the part that is a portion of his
after a reappearance of the leprous mark, he must destroy only the neighbor’s wall. But in a case when he must destroy
the house, he must destroy only the part of the stone
part of a stone that is in his house, and leaves the part of a stone
that is in his house and leave the part of the stone that
that belongs to his neighbor.n belongs to his neighbor (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
Tumat Tzara’at 15:5).
?‫ ַמה ּו ׁ ֶש ֵּת ָע ֶ ׂשה יָ ד ַל ֲח ֶב ְר ָּת ּה‬:‫ ָ ּב ֵעי ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬With regard to this mishna Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: What is
Does half of the stone in the adjacent house consti-
.ּ‫ ֵּתיקו‬the halakha in such a case with regard to the transmission of impu-
rity from the leprous house to the adjacent house? Does half of the tute a handle for the other half – ‫ש ֵּת ָע ֶ ׂשה יָ ד ַל ֲח ֶב ְר ָּת ּה‬:
ֶׁ
In the case of a large stone that is situated in the corner
stone in the adjacent house constitute a handle for the other
of a wall shared by two houses where the stone is vis-
half h and impart impurity such that one who enters the neighbor’s ible from inside both houses, if a leprous mark appears
house becomes impure just as one who enters the leprous house? in one of the houses on the stone such that he must
Or perhaps there is no halakha of a handle with regard to the impu- destroy the house, he destroys only the part of the
rity of a leprous house. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stone that is in his house and leaves the part of the
stand unresolved. stone which belongs to his neighbor. The Gemara is
uncertain if the shared stone constitutes a handle for
‫יכא ֵ ּבין ֵא ֶבר ִמן‬
ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬.‫״מ ָתה ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה״‬ ֵ §The mishna teaches: If the animal died, the hanging flesh needs the other house and imparts impurity such that one
who enters the neighbor’s house becomes impure just
?‫ ַה ַחי ְל ֵא ֶבר ׁ ֶשל ַה ְּנ ֵב ָלה‬to be rendered susceptible to impurity via contact with a liquid in as one who enters the leprous house becomes impure
order to become impure, as its halakhic status is that of flesh severed (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Tzara’at 15:5).
from a living animal, which is ritually pure and does not have the
status of an unslaughtered carcass. The hanging limb imparts impu- Flesh that separates from the limb of an animal –
‫ב ָ ׂשר ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ֵמ ֵא ֶבר ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:ּ ָ What difference is there
rity as a limb severed from a living animal but does not impart
between the impurity of a limb from a living animal
impurity as the limb of an unslaughtered carcass. The Gemara asks: and the impurity of a limb from a carcass? The differ-
What difference is there between the impurity of a limb from a ence between them is with regard to flesh that sepa-
living animal and the impurity of a limb from a carcass? rates from the limb of an animal. If flesh separates from
a limb severed from a living animal, it does not impart
‫ ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ֵמ ֵא ֶבר‬:ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard impurity. But flesh that separates from the limb of a
‫יל ּו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ֵמ ֵא ֶבר ִמן‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ִא‬,‫ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ to flesh that separates from the limb of an animal,h as flesh that carcass imparts impurity via contact and carrying in the
separates from a limb severed from the living does not impart measure of an olive-bulk (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
– ‫ ֵמ ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ְּנ ֵב ָלה‬,‫ַה ַחי – ל ֹא ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ She’ar Avot HaTumot 2:5).
impurity, just like flesh that separates directly from a living animal.
.‫ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ By contrast, an olive-bulk of flesh that separates from the limb of a
carcass imparts impurity like the flesh of a carcass.

notes
When one extracts…but when one destroys – ...‫חֹולץ‬ ֵ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬ the plague is” (Leviticus 14:40), indicating that one must remove
‫נֹותץ‬
ֵ ‫ו ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬: A leprous mark found inside a house, which is either the entire stone, even that part which is in his neighbor’s house.
green or red in appearance, evolves in three stages that are dis- But with regard to destroying the house the verse is concerned
cussed in the Torah (see Leviticus 14:35–48). Upon first seeing a with the house and not the stone, as it is written: “And he shall
leprous mark, the priest seals off the house and returns to inspect break down the house” (Leviticus 14:45), indicating that one must
the leprous mark after one week. If the leprous mark remains, the destroy the entire house but not necessarily the entire stone.
priest seals off the house for another week. If the leprous mark Rabbi Shimshon of Saens explains the verses differently: With
spread after that first week, or remained in place after the first regard to removing the leprous stone the verse employs the third-
and second weeks, the stones containing the leprosy are removed person plural form: “They take out the stones in which the plague
and the house is sealed off for another week. If after another week is,” indicating that more than one person is obligated to remove
the leprous mark has not spread, the priest deems the house pure. the stone, i.e., it includes the neighbor. But with regard to destroy-
But if the leprous mark has returned and spread, the house must ing the house the verse uses the third-person singular form: “And
be destroyed. he shall break down the house,” indicating that only one person
is responsible for destroying his house.
He must destroy only a stone in his house and leaves the part Other commentaries offer a third reason for the difference:
that belongs to his neighbor – ‫נֹותץ ֶאת ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו ו ַּמ ּנ ִַיח ֶאת ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬:
ֵ At first, one assumes that the cause of the leprosy is a particular
The early commentaries explain the difference between the hal- stone, and therefore he must remove the entire stone. But after the
akha with regard to removing the stone, which applies to the leprosy spreads, it is clear that the cause is not a particular stone
neighbor’s house, and the halakha with regard to destroying the but rather his house. Therefore, he must destroy all parts of his
house, which does not apply to the neighbor’s house. Rashi states: house, but not sections of the stones that are part of his neighbor’s
With regard to removing the leprous stone the verse is concerned house (Ramban’s Commentary on the Torah).
with the stone, as it is written: “They take out the stones in which

 ‫חכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 128b 301

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

?‫ ַמאי ְק ָרא‬,‫ ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי דִּ ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬The Gemara asks: What is the verse from which it is derived that a
‫ ״וְ ִכי יָ מוּת ִמן‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬limb severed from the living imparts impurity? Rav Yehuda says
that Rav says: With regard to the impurity of a carcass it is written:
.‫ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה״‬
“And if some animal [min habehema] of which you may eat dies, he
who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening” (Leviticus
11:39). The phrase “some animal [min habehema],” which also means:
From an animal, is interpreted as indicating that a limb torn from an
animal is included in the impurity discussed in the verse.

,‫יה ִל ְכ ִא ָיד ְך דְּ ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ַהאי ִמ‬ The Gemara asks: How can Rav interpret this verse in such a manner?
,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַרב‬ This verse is necessary for another halakha that Rav Yehuda said
that Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, and some say it
‫ ״וְ ִכי יָ מוּת‬:‫נִיתא ָּתנָ א‬ ָ ‫וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְ ּב ַמ ְת‬
was taught in a baraita: In the verse: “And if some animal [min
,‫ִמן ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה״ – ִמ ְקצָ ת ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה‬ habehema] of which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass
– ‫ וְ ֵאיזֹו זֹו‬.‫ו ִּמ ְקצָ ת ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ֵאינָ ּה ְמ ַט ְּמ ָאה‬ shall be impure until evening,” the phrase “some animal [min habe-
!‫זֹו ְט ֵר ָפה ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְש ָח ָט ּה‬ hema]” indicates that some dead animals impart impurity as a
carcass, and some dead animals do not impart impurity as a carcass.
And which is that animal that does not impart impurity as a carcass?
That is an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within
twelve months [tereifa] that one slaughtered. Even though slaugh-
ter does not render the animal permitted to be eaten, it removes the
animal from the category of a carcass with regard to impurity.

‫ ַמאי‬,‫״מ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה״‬ ִ ‫ ִל ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫ ִאם ֵּכן‬The Gemara answers: If so, if the verse teaches only one of the two
ִ halakhot, let the Merciful One write mibehema, in one Hebrew
.‫״מן ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה״ – ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ַּת ְר ֵּתי‬
word. What is the verse teaching when it states: “Min habehema,”
with two Hebrew words? It is teaching that one should conclude
two conclusions from it.

‫יל ּו ָ ּב ָ ׂשר נַ ִמי! ָלא ָס ְל ָקא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬,‫ִאי ָה ִכי‬ The Gemara challenges: If so, if this verse teaches that a limb from a
‫ יָ כֹול יְ ֵהא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬, ְ‫דַּ ְע ָּתך‬ living animal imparts impurity, one can also derive from it that even
flesh from a living animal imparts impurity. The Gemara responds:
‫ ״וְ ִכי יָ מוּת‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ִמן ַה ַחי ָט ֵמא? ַּת ְלמוּד‬
It should not enter your mind to derive this, as it is taught in a
‫עֹושה‬
ׂ ָ ‫יתה – ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ ָ ‫ ַמה ִּמ‬,‫ִמן ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה״‬ baraita: One might have thought that flesh that separates from a
,‫עֹושה ֲח ִל ִיפין‬ ׂ ֶ ‫ ַאף ּכֹל – ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬,‫ֲח ִל ִיפין‬ living animal is impure like a carcass. Therefore, the verse states:
.‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬ “And if some animal of which you may eat dies.” Just as death does
not generate a replacement, i.e., life is not regenerated from the
dead, so too any element of an animal that dies and does not gener-
ate a replacement assumes the impurity of a carcass. An animal does
not replace a severed limb but it does replace severed flesh; this is
the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

– ‫ ַמה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬,‫״ב ֵה ָמה״‬ ּ ְ :‫אֹומר‬

ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ Rabbi Akiva says: One can derive this halakha from the word “ani-
.‫ ַאף ּכֹל – ִ ּג ִידים וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬,‫ִ ּג ִידים וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬ mal” in the verse. Just as an animal contains sinews and bones, so
too, any element of an animal that contains sinews and bones
‫ ַמה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫״ב ֵה ָמה״‬ּ ְ :‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי‬
imparts impurity. Therefore, a limb, which contains sinews and
‫ ַאף ּכֹל – ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִ ּג ִידים‬,‫ִ ּג ִידים וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬ bones, imparts impurity, but flesh, which does not contain sinews
.‫וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬ and bones, does not impart impurity. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says:
One can derive this halakha from the word “animal” in the verse.
Just as an animal contains flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, any
element of an animal that contains flesh, sinews, and bones imparts
impurity.

‫יכא‬
ָּ ‫יכא ֵ ּבין ַר ִ ּבי ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא? ִא‬
ָּ ‫ ַמאי ִא‬The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of
.‫ ַא ְר ּכו ָּבה‬:ּ‫ ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: The
practical difference between them is with regard to the leg joint,
which contains sinews and bones but no flesh. According to Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi it does not impart impurity when it separates from
a living animal, but according to Rabbi Akiva it does.

‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי ַמאי‬

ֵ ‫ ֵ ּבין ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara asks: What practical difference is there between the
‫ ּכו ְּליָ א‬:‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? Rav Pappa
said: The practical difference between them is with regard to the
.ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ָּ ‫וְ נִיב ְ ׂש ָפ ַתיִ ם ִא‬
kidney and the upper lip that separate from a living animal. Accord-
ing to Rabbi Yosei these parts of the animal impart impurity because
the animal does not generate a replacement for them; according to
Rabbi Akiva they do not impart impurity, because they do not
contain bones.
302 Ĥullin . perek IX . 128b . ‫חכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ יָ כֹול ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬:‫ַּתנְיָא נַ ִמי ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ׁ ְש ָרצִ ים ְּכ ַהאי ַ ּגוְ ונָ א‬ The Gemara states a different halakha where these three tanna’im
:‫לֹומר‬ַ ‫ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ִמן ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָרצִ ים יְ ֵהא ָט ֵמא? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ express the same opinions. So too, it is taught in a baraita with
regard to creeping animals like this case: One might have thought
,‫יפין‬ ִ ‫עֹושה ֲח ִל‬
ׂ ָ ‫יתה – ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ ָ ‫ ַמה ִּמ‬,‫״במ ָֹתם״‬ ְּ
that flesh that separates from a creeping animal during its lifetime
‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ ‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫עֹושה ֲח ִל ִיפין‬ׂ ָ ‫ַאף ּכֹל – ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ should be impure like a creeping animal carcass. Therefore, the
.‫ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי‬ verse states with regard to creeping animal carcasses: “And upon
whatever any of them falls when they are dead shall be impure”
(Leviticus 11:32). The word “dead” teaches that just as death does
not generate a replacement, so too any element of a creeping
animal that dies and does not generate a replacement imparts the
impurity of a creeping animal carcass, excluding flesh; this is the
statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

‫ ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ – ִ ּג ִידים‬,‫״ש ֶרץ״‬ֶ ׁ :‫אֹומר‬

ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬ Rabbi Akiva says: One can derive this halakha from the term
:‫אֹומר‬ ּ
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ ַאף ּכֹל – ִג ִידים וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬,‫וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬ “creeping animal.” Just as a creeping animal contains sinews and
bones, so too any element of a creeping animal that contains sin-
‫ ַאף‬,‫ ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶרץ – ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִ ּג ִידים וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬,‫״ש ֶרץ״‬ ֶׁ
ews and bones imparts impurity. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One
.‫ּכֹל – ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ִ ּג ִידים וַ ֲעצָ מֹות‬ can derive this halakha from the term “creeping animal.” Just as a
creeping animal contains flesh, sinews, and bones, so too, any
element of a creeping animal that contains flesh, sinews, and bones
imparts impurity.

.‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יה ּו ַא ְר ּכו ָּבה‬

ָּ ‫ֵ ּבין ַר ִ ּבי ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא – ִא‬ The Gemara comments: The practical difference between the opin-
‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫יֹוסי ַה ְ ּג ִל ִילי ַמאי ִא‬ ֵ ‫ֵ ּבין ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬ ions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Akiva is with regard to
the leg joint, which contains sinews and bones but no flesh. What
‫ ּכו ְּליָ א וְ נִיב ְ ׂש ָפ ַתיִ ם‬:‫ֵ ּבינַיְ יהוּ? ֲא ַמר ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬
difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and
.ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? Rav Pappa said: The practical difference
between them is with regard to the kidney and the upper lip,
which contain no bones and which are not regenerated by the
creeping animal.

‫ דְּ ִאי ַא ׁ ְש ַמ ִעינַן ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – ַהיְ ינ ּו ַט ֲע ָמא‬,‫יכא‬ ָ ‫וּצְ ִר‬ And it is necessary to teach this halakha both with regard to flesh
‫ ִמ ׁ ּש ּו ם דְּ ָלא ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬,‫דְּ ָלא ְמ ַט ֵּמא ֵמ ַח ּיִ ים‬ that separates from a living animal and with regard to flesh that
separates from a creeping animal. As if the baraita had taught us
‫ימא‬
ָ ‫ ֵא‬,‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ֶש ֶרץ דִּ ְמ ַט ֵּמא ְ ּב ַכ ֲע ָד ׁ ָשה‬.‫ְ ּב ַכ ֲע ָד ׁ ָשה‬
this halakha only with regard to an animal, one might have said that
!‫ְל ַט ֵּמא ֵמ ַחּיִ ים‬ this is the reason that flesh that separates from a living animal does
not impart impurity: It is because an animal carcass does not
impart impurity in the measure of a lentil-bulk, but rather only in
the measure of an olive-bulk. But with regard to a creeping animal,
which imparts impurity even in the measure of a lentil-bulk, say
that flesh that separates from it while it is living should impart
impurity.

‫ וְ ִאי ַא ׁ ְשמ ּו ִעינַ ן ׁ ֶש ֶרץ – ִמ ׁ ּש ּום דְּ ָלא ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬And if the baraita had taught us this halakha only with regard to a
‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה דִּ ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬,‫ ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא ל ֹא ְמ ַט ֵּמא ֵמ ַחּיִ ים‬creeping animal, one might have said that flesh that separates from
a creeping animal does not impart impurity because a creeping
.‫יכא‬ָ ‫ צְ ִר‬,‫ימא ְּת ַט ֵּמא ֵמ ַחּיִ ים‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬,‫ְ ּב ַמ ּ ָ ׂשא‬
animal does not impart impurity via carrying, and therefore flesh
that separates from it while it is living does not impart impurity.
But with regard to an animal, which imparts impurity via carry-
ing, say that flesh that separates from it while it is living should
impart impurity. Therefore, it is necessary to teach this halakha in
both cases.

ֵ ‫ ַה‬:‫§ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬The Gemara continues to discuss flesh that separates from a living
,‫חֹות ְך ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ֵמ ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬
.‫ישב ָע ָליו – ָטהֹור‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ ֲח ָתכֹו וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ִח‬animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who severs
ּ
an olive-bulk of flesh from a limb severed from the living, the
flesh does not impart the impurity of a carcass but it does impart
impurity as food if one designated it as food before it came into
contact with a source of impurity. Therefore, if one severed the flesh
from the limb and afterward intended it to be used for the con-
sumption of a gentile, the flesh remains pure because at the time
he designated the flesh as food it was not in contact with a source
of impurity.

ֵ ּ ׁ ‫ ִח‬But if he intended it to be used for the consumption of a gentile

.‫ישב ָע ָליו וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ֲח ָתכֹו – ָט ֵמא‬
and afterward severed the flesh, the flesh is impure, because it
came into contact with a source of impurity, i.e., the limb, after it
was designated as food.
 ‫חכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 128b 303
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ ַא ׁ ְש ְּכ ֵח‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי ָלא ַעל ְל ֵבי ִמ ְד ְר ׁ ָשא‬ One day Rabbi Asi did not go to the study hall. He found Rabbi
?‫ ַמאי ֲאמוּר ְ ּב ֵבי ִמ ְד ְר ׁ ָשא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫זֵ ָירא‬ Zeira, and said to him: What was said today in the study hall?
Rabbi Zeira said to him: What matter is difficult for you that you
‫ דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ַמאי ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָלךְ ? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
think may have been discussed in the study hall? Rabbi Asi said to
.‫ישב וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ֲח ָתכֹו – ָט ֵמא״‬ ֵ ּ ׁ ‫״ח‬
ִ him: I find difficult that which is taught in a baraita: If one intended
flesh from a limb that was severed from a living animal to be used
for the consumption of a gentile, and afterward he severed the flesh
from the limb, the flesh is impure.

Perek IX
Daf 129 Amud a
notes
‫ וְ טו ְּמ ַאת ֵ ּבית‬,‫ טו ְּמ ַאת ֵ ּבית ַה ְּס ָת ִרים ִהיא‬Why should the flesh be impure? Since the source of its impurity is
And impurity in a concealed part does not
render an item impure – ‫וְ טו ְּמ ַאת ֵ ּבית ַה ְּס ָת ִרים‬ !‫ ַה ְּס ָת ִרים ל ֹא ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬the limb, and the location of the contact between the limb and the
‫ל ֹא ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬: The halakha is in accordance with the
flesh is hidden and not visible, it constitutes contact with a source
opinion that impurity in a concealed part of the of impurity in a concealed part of the body, and the principle is
body does not impart impurity to people, food, that contact with a source of impurity in a concealed part of the
vessels, and garments. Tosafot explain that with body does not render an item impure.n
regard to all types of impurity, the term touching is
stated, and this refers to that which is exposed and ‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ו ׁ ְּש ִא ְיל ֵּת‬,‫ ַאף ְל ִד ִידי ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ִלי‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: This matter is difficult for me as well,
fit for touching, but not to that which is concealed and I asked Rabbi Abba bar Memel,p and he said to me: In accor-
‫ ָהא ַמ ּנִי – ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ֶמ ֶמל וַ ֲא ַמר ִלי‬
(Nidda 42a; Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat dance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with
Met 1:3, 8). ‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר טו ְּמ ַאת ֵ ּבית ַה ְּס ָת ִרים‬,‫ֵמ ִאיר ִהיא‬
the opinion of Rabbi Meir,n who said that contact with a source of
It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi .‫ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ impurity in a concealed part of the body renders an item impure.
Meir – ‫ר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ִהיא‬:ַ Rashi explains that this is refer-
ring to the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the mishna ִ ‫ימנִין ַס ִ ּג‬
,‫יאין ֲא ַמ ָר ּה ַק ַּמאי‬ ְ ִ‫ וְ ָלאו ז‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: But hasn’t Rabbi Abba bar Memel
earlier (72a) with regard to an animal fetus that said this answer in my presence many times? And I said to him
extended its foreleg from its mother’s womb dur-
‫יה ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר ֵ ּבין טו ְּמ ָאה‬
ּ ‫ ׁ ָשנֵי ֵל‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ִרי ֵל‬
that this answer does not explain the ruling of the baraita. The rea-
ing birth. If one slaughtered the mother and then ‫דְּ ָב ֲעיָ א ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר ו ֵּבין ט ּו ְמ ָאה דְּ ָלא ָ ּב ֲעיָ א‬
severed the foreleg, Rabbi Meir holds that all the
son is that with regard to a concealed part of the body imparting
!‫ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬ impurity, Rabbi Meir differentiates between a type of impurity
flesh of the fetus is rendered impure due to its pre-
vious connection to the foreleg, which imparted that requires an item to be rendered susceptible in order to take
the impurity of an animal carcass. effect and a type of impurity that does not require an item to be
rendered susceptible. The case in the baraita is one where the flesh
Personalities was not yet rendered susceptible to impurity when it was severed
Rabbi Abba bar Memel – ‫ר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא ַ ּבר ֶמ ֶמל‬:ַ Rabbi from the limb, and Rabbi Meir concedes that in such a case impurity
Abba bar Memel was part of the second and should not apply to a concealed part of the body.
third generations of amora’im living in Eretz Yis-
rael. Some say that he was called bar Memel not ?‫ ו ַּמאי קו ׁ ְּשיָא? דִּ ְל ָמא ְ ּב ׁ ֶשהו ְּכ ׁ ַשר‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava was surprised by Rabbi Asi’s statement and said: But what is
because his father’s name was Memel, but because the difficulty? Perhaps the baraita is discussing a case where the
he lived in an area in the western Galilee called flesh was rendered susceptible to impurity before it was severed
Memela. Rabbi Abba bar Memel was a colleague
from the limb.
of the students of Rabbi Yoĥanan such as Rabbi
Elazar and Rabbi Ami, but he himself was not a
student of Rabbi Yoĥanan. It seems that he was a
‫ ָל ָּמה ִלי‬:‫ ְל ָר ָבא‬,‫יה ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב ָחנָ ן‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabba bar Rav Ĥanan said to Rava: Why do I need the flesh sev-
student of Rabbi Yoĥanan’s teacher, Rabbi Oshaya ‫ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר? ֲה ֵרי ְמ ַט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ָאה ֲחמו ָּרה ַא ַ ּגב‬ered from the limb to be rendered susceptible to impurity? Flesh
the Elder, who lived in Caesarea. The statements of that is upon a limb from a living animal imparts a severe form of
!‫ָא ִביו‬
Rabbi Abba bar Memel are mostly taught by the impurity due to its original limb, as it is considered part of the limb
amora’im who lived in Eretz Yisrael in the genera- that was severed from a living animal, which imparts the impurity
tion after him. Very little is known about his private of a carcass, a severe form of impurity that is transmitted even to
life and family. He had at least one son, Rabbi Aĥa. people and vessels. Therefore, it is not necessary to render this flesh
susceptible to impurity after its separation from the limb, because
the halakha is that any food item that will eventually impart a severe
form of impurity does not require contact with liquid in order to be
rendered susceptible to imparting a lesser form of impurity.

.‫ימ ׁש‬ ֵּ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש‬:‫יה‬

ֵּ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ֵעץ ׁ ִש‬,‫ימ ׁש‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to Rabba bar Rav Ĥanan: This principle applies only when
the more severe and more lenient forms of impurity are both impuri-
ties of food. But in the case of the baraita, the flesh needs to be
rendered susceptible to impurity after it is severed from the limb,
because when it initially served as part of the limb, it performed
the role of wood, i.e., it had the status of flesh of the limb, which is
necessary to give the limb the status of a limb severed from the living
(see 128b), but it was not impure due to its status as food.
304 Ĥullin . perek IX . 129a . ‫טכק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ּכ ֶֹופת ְ ׂשאֹור ׁ ֶשּיִ ֲח ָד ּה‬:ּ‫ ֲה ֵרי ָא ְמרו‬,‫§ ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Rava said that if a food item serves a function other than food, the
.‫יש ָיבה – ָ ּב ְט ָלה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ִל‬principle that if it will eventually contract a severe form of impurity
it does not require contact with liquid in order to be rendered sus-
ceptible to a lesser form of impurity does not apply. The Gemara
now relates a number of matters that are explained with the same
reasoning. Abaye said: The Sages said in a baraita: A mass of hard-
ened leaven that one designated for the purpose of sitting upon it,
not for consumption, is nullified.n The item is no longer considered
food and one may possess it in his house during Passover. But the
item is now considered a chair, and it is subject to ritual impurity
imparted by treading. It therefore is rendered impure if a zav sits
on it.

ְ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא – דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתך‬

ַ ְּ‫ טו ְּמ ָא ָת ּה ָלאו ד‬Abaye explained: Its impurity in such a case is clearly not by Torah
‫אֹוכ ִלין ׁ ֶש ִּמ ַּט ְּמ ִאין טו ְּמ ָאה‬
ָ ‫ ָמצִ ינ ּו ָל‬,‫אֹוריְ ָיתא‬ ַ ְּ‫ ד‬law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters your mind that it is impure
by Torah law, then we have found that food can become suscep-
.‫ימ ׁש‬
ֵּ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ֵעץ ׁ ִש‬,‫ימ ׁש‬ ֵּ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש‬.‫ֲחמו ָּרה‬
tible to a severe type of impurity. This cannot be true, because the
category of food that requires contact with liquid to be susceptible
to impurity is food that will not eventually impart a more severe
type of impurity. Based on Rava’s reasoning, the Gemara responds:
The seat imparts impurity by Torah law. When the leaven served as
a chair it was not considered food, as it performed the role of wood.

‫בֹודה זָ ָרה‬ָ ‫רֹובת ֲע‬ ֶ ‫ ִּת ְק‬:ּ‫ ֲה ֵרי ָא ְמרו‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ Similarly, Abaye said: The Sages said in a baraita: An idolatrous
‫ טו ְּמ ָא ָת ּה ָלאו‬.‫אֹוהל‬ֶ ‫אֹוכ ִלין – ְמ ַט ְּמ ִאין ָ ּב‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶשל‬ offering of food imparts impurity in a tent. Abaye explained: Its
impurity is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters
,‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫יתא – דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּת ְך ד‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ד‬
your mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that
!‫אֹוכ ִלין ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַט ְּמ ִאין טו ְּמ ָאה ֲחמו ָּרה‬ ָ ‫ָמצִ ינ ּו ָל‬ food can become susceptible to a severe type of impurity. The
.‫ימ ׁש‬ ֵּ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ֵעץ ׁ ִש‬,‫ימ ׁש‬ ֵּ ‫ְּכ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש‬ Gemara responds: The idolatrous offering imparts impurity by
Torah law. When the food served as an idolatrous offering it was not
considered food, as it performed the role of wood.

‫אֹוכ ִלין ְּכ ֵכ ִלים‬

ָ ‫ ִח ּבו ֵּרי‬:ּ‫ ֲה ֵרי ָא ְמרו‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ Similarly, Abaye said: The Sages said in a baraita: Foods that are
‫יתא – דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא‬ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ ַ ְּ‫ טו ְּמ ָא ָתן ָלאו ד‬.ּ‫דָּ מו‬ connected to vessels are considered like the vessels. For example,
if dough is attached to a kneading bowl and the owner wishes for
‫אֹוכל ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַט ֵּמא‬
ֶ ‫ ָמצִ ינ ּו ָל‬,‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫דַּ ְע ָּת ְך ד‬
the dough to remain there, the dough is considered part of the bowl.
‫ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ֵעץ‬,‫ימ ׁש‬ ֵּ ‫ט ּו ְמ ָאה ֲחמ ּו ָרה! ְּכ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש‬ Therefore, if an olive-bulk of a corpse touches that dough, it becomes
.‫ימ ׁש‬
ֵּ ‫ׁ ִש‬ impure with the more severe impurity of a vessel, which imparts
impurity to people and other vessels. Abaye explained: Their impu-
rity is not by Torah law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters your
mind that it is impure by Torah law, then we have found that food
can become susceptible to a severe type of impurity. The Gemara
responds: Food connected to vessels imparts impurity by Torah
law. When the food served as a connection to the vessel it was not
considered food, as it performed the role of wood.

‫ ֵח ֶלב‬:‫ ָהא דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫יה ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא ְל ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Similarly, Rav Pappa said to Rava in explanation of that which is
.‫יך ַמ ֲח ׁ ָש ָבה וְ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬ְ ‫נְ ֵב ָלה ַ ּב ְּכ ָפ ִרים צָ ִר‬ taught in a mishna (Okatzin 3:3): Fat forbidden in consumption for
a Jew from an animal carcass in the villages, requires designation
‫יתא – דְּ ִאי‬ ַ ְּ‫טו ְּמ ָאתֹו ַא ַ ּגב ּכו ְּליָ א ָלאו ד‬
ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
as food in order for it to become susceptible to contract impurity as
‫אֹוכל‬
ֶ ‫ ָמצִ ינ ּו ָל‬,‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּת ְך ד‬ food, and it must be rendered susceptible via contact with liquid.
!‫ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ָאה ֲחמו ָּרה‬ Rav Pappa explained: Although the forbidden fat that covers the
kidney of a carcass imparts the impurity of a carcass, its impurity
due to the impurity of the kidney is not by Torah law but by rab-
binic law. As if it enters your mind that it is impure by Torah law,
then we have found that food can impart a severe type of impurity
and subsequently become susceptible to impurity as food.

notes
A mass of hardened leaven that one designated for sitting is once a ritually impure vessel undergoes a physical change, it is no
nullified – ‫יש ָיבה ָ ּב ְט ָלה‬
ִ ׁ ‫כ ֶֹופת ְ ׂשאֹור ׁ ֶשּיִ ֲח ָד ּה ִל‬:ּ Even if the leaven is still longer ritually impure. Based on this, these early commentaries
edible, it is now considered a chair and no longer considered food. rule that in order to change the status of the leaven from that of
Therefore, one may possess it in his house during Passover (Rashi; food to a chair, it is not sufficient for one to merely reconsider the
Tosafot on Pesaĥim 45b). Early commentaries point out that it is item’s designation. Rather, one must change its status by means of a
taught in a mishna (Kelim 25:9) that all vessels are rendered ritually change resulting from an action (Tosafot on Bava Batra 15b; Rambam
impure by means of intent to be used as vessels, but can become Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Kelim 25:12 and Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Ĥametz
pure only by means of a change resulting from an action. Therefore, UMatza 2:15).

 ‫טכק ףד‬. ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 129a 305

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

.‫ימ ׁש‬ ֵּ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש‬The Gemara responds: The fat of a carcass imparts impurity by Torah
ֵּ ‫ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה ֵעץ ׁ ִש‬,‫ימ ׁש‬
law. When the fat served the kidney as protection and imparted the
impurity of a carcass it did not serve as food, as it performed the role
of wood.

‫ ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ִּס ְּככֹו‬:ּ‫ ֲה ֵרי ָא ְמרו‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬ Similarly, Rav Mattana said: The Sages said in a baraita: With regard to
– ‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫ טו ְּמ ָאתֹו ָלאו ד‬.‫ַ ּבּזְ ָר ִעים – ִט ֲהרֹו‬ a house that one roofed with seeds, i.e., vegetation, if those seeds
were impure, they are rendered pure when they are used as the roof of
‫ ָמצִ ינ ּו ַלּזְ ָר ִעים‬,‫יתא‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫דְּ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ד‬
the house. The seeds are no longer considered food but rather part of
‫ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬,‫ימ ׁש‬ ֵּ ‫ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ָאה ֲחמו ָּרה! ְּכ ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ִש‬ the house. Therefore, if the house becomes leprous, the entire house
.‫ימ ׁש‬
ֵּ ‫ֵעץ ׁ ִש‬ becomes impure. Rav Mattana explained: Its impurity is not by Torah
law but by rabbinic law; as if it enters your mind that it is impure by
Torah law, then we have found that seeds can become susceptible to
a severe type of impurity. The Gemara responds: The seeds used for
the roof of the house impart impurity by Torah law. When the seeds
served as the roof of the house they were not considered food, but rather
performed the role of wood.

.‫ַ״ר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְמ ַט ֵהר״‬ §The mishna teaches with regard to a hanging limb or flesh of a living
animal that if the animal died, the hanging flesh needs to be rendered
susceptible to impurity, as its halakhic status is that of flesh severed from
a living animal, which is ritually pure. Rabbi Meir then states that the
hanging limb imparts impurity as a limb severed from a living animal,
but not as an unslaughtered carcass. And Rabbi Shimon deems the
limb pure.

ָּ ‫נִיפוּל – ִל‬
‫יט ֵמא‬ ּ ‫עֹושה‬ׂ ָ ‫יתה‬ ָ ‫ ִאי ִמ‬, ְ‫ ַמה ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָשך‬The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, the ruling of Rabbi
‫עֹושה‬
ׂ ָ ‫יתה‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי! ִאי ֵאין ִמ‬Shimon is difficult. If death renders a hanging limb one that has fallen
off, i.e., if when the animal died of its own accord the hanging limb is
ָּ ‫נִיפוּל – ִל‬
!‫יט ֵמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ְּנ ֵב ָלה‬ ּ
considered to have fallen off its body beforehand, the limb should
become impure as a limb from a living animal. If death does not
render a hanging limb one that has fallen off, the limb should become
impure as a limb from a carcass. How is it possible for Rabbi Shimon
to deem the limb pure?

‫ ָה ֵא ֶבר וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬,‫ישא ָק ֵאי‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַא ֵר‬The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon is not responding to Rabbi Meir’s
ָ ‫ ַה ְמדו ְּלדָּ ִלין ַ ּב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – ְמ ַט ֵּמא טו ְּמ ַאת‬statement in the final clause of the mishna. Rather, Rabbi Shimon is
‫אֹוכ ִלין‬
referring to the first clause of the mishna, which teaches: The limb and
.‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְמ ַט ֵהר‬.‫יכין ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬ ִ ‫קֹומן וּצְ ִר‬
ָ ‫ִ ּב ְמ‬
the flesh of an animal that were partially severed and remain hanging
from the animal impart impurity as food although they remain in their
place attached to the animal. But in order for them to become impure,
they need to be rendered susceptible through contact with a liquid.
And Rabbi Shimon deems them not susceptible to impurity at all.

‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי‬ Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: What is the reason for the
‫״מ ָּכל ָהא ֶֹכל‬ ִ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון – ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to impurity
as food: “From all food which may be eaten, that on which water
‫אֹוכל ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה יָ כֹול ְל ַה ֲא ִכילֹו‬
ֶ ,‫ֲא ׁ ֶשר יֵ ָא ֵכל״‬
comes shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). The repetitive phrase “food
‫אֹוכל ׁ ֶש ִאי ַא ָּתה יָ כֹול‬
ֶ ,‫אֹוכל‬ ֶ ‫ַל ֲא ֵח ִרים – ָקרוּי‬ which may be eaten” indicates that only food that you are able to
‫ְל ַה ֲא ִכילֹו‬ feed to others, including gentiles, is called food with regard to being
susceptible to impurity as food, but food that you are not able to feed

Perek IX
Daf 129 Amud b

.‫אֹוכל‬
ֶ ‫ ַל ֲא ֵח ִרים – ֵאין ָקרוּי‬to others, such as the limb and flesh from a living animal, which are
forbidden even to gentiles, is not called food.

‫ דִּ ְיל ָמא ַט ֲע ָמא‬:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ְל ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Zeira questioned the explanation of Rabbi Yoĥanan and said to
?‫הֹואיל ו ְּמעו ֶּרה ְמעו ֶּרה‬ִ – ‫ דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ָה ָתם‬Rabbi Asi: If Rabbi Shimon is discussing the first clause in the mishna,
claiming that a hanging limb or flesh is pure during the lifetime of the
animal, the reason for his statement is not necessarily that food that is
forbidden to all people is not considered food. Perhaps the reason for
the opinion of Rabbi Shimon there is that since the flesh or limb is still
attached to the animal, it is considered attached.
306 Ĥullin . perek IX . 129b . ‫טכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ו ְּמעו ֶּרה‬,‫ יִ חוּר ׁ ֶשל ְּת ֵאנָ ה ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְפ ׁ ַשח‬:‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ As it is taught in a mishna (Okatzin 3:8): With regard to a branch
‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫יפה – ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ְמ ַט ֵהר‬ ָ ּ ‫ַ ּב ְּק ִל‬ of a fig tree that was detached from the tree and remains attached
only to the bark of the tree, Rabbi Yehuda deems the figs on the
‫ וְ ִאם‬,‫ ִאם יָ כֹול ִל ְחיֹות – ָטהֹור‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ
branch not susceptible to impurity, as they are considered attached
‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא‬:‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרינַ ן ָל ְך‬.‫ָלאו – ָט ֵמא‬ to the tree. And the Rabbis say: If it is possible to reattach the
‫הֹואיל ו ְּמעו ֶּרה‬
ִ :‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה? וְ ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ָלן‬ branch to the tree and the branch can continue to live and produce
!‫ְמעו ֶּרה‬ fruit, then it is considered attached to the tree, and the fruit is
not susceptible to impurity. But if not, the fruit is susceptible to
impurity. And we said to you, Rabbi Asi: What is the reason for
the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? And you said to us: Since the branch
is still attached to the bark of the tree, it is considered attached.
Therefore, the same logic applies to the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

– ‫״נִש ֲח ָטה ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬

ְ ׁ ,‫ ַא ְּמצִ ִע ָיתא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Asi said to Rabbi Zeira: Rabbi Yoĥanan is explaining the
ָ ‫ הו ְּכ ׁ ְש ָרה ְ ּב ָד ֶמ‬reasoning for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in the middle clause of the
‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫יה‬
mishna, which teaches: If the animal was slaughtered, the limb and
.‫ ל ֹא הו ְּכ ׁ ְשרוּ״‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬
the flesh were rendered susceptible to impurity with the blood of
the slaughtered animal; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi
Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptiblen with the blood
of the slaughtered animal.

‫ ַמאי‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ָ ‫(א ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִסי) ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ֲ Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: What is the reason for
‫״מ ָּכל‬
ִ ‫ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון – ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The reason is that the verse states
with regard to impurity as food: “From all food which may be eaten,
‫אֹוכל ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה יָ כֹול‬
ֶ ,‫ָהא ֶֹכל ֲא ׁ ֶשר יֵ ָא ֵכל״‬
that on which water comes shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). The
‫אֹוכל‬
ֶ ,‫אֹוכל‬ ֶ ‫ְל ַה ֲא ִכילֹו ַל ֲא ֵח ִרים – ָקרוּי‬ phrase “food which may be eaten” indicates that only food that you
‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַא ָּתה יָ כֹול ְל ַה ֲא ִכילֹו ַל ֲא ֵח ִרים – ֵאין‬ can feed to others, including gentiles, is called food in this regard,
.‫אֹוכל‬
ֶ ‫ָקרוּי‬ but food that you cannot feed to others, such as the limb and flesh
from a living animal, is not called food.

‫ וְ ִד ְיל ָמא ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְ ּב ַה ִהיא‬Rabbi Zeira questioned this explanation of Rabbi Yoĥanan as well,
and said to Rabbi Asi: If it is with regard to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion
in the middle clause of the mishna, perhaps the reason for the
opinion of Rabbi Shimon in that clause is not that food that is
forbidden to all is not called food.

?‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ִאי ִּכ ְד ָר ָבא ִאי ִּכ ְד ַר ִ ּבי‬Rather, it is either in accordance with the explanation of Rava or
in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yoĥanan cited earlier
(127b–128a). According to both explanations of Rabbi Shimon’s
opinion, the mishna is discussing a case where only the body of the
animal, but not the partially severed limb, came into contact with
the blood of slaughter. According to Rava, the reason for Rabbi
Shimon’s opinion is that the body of the animal serves the partially
severed limb as a handle, and he holds that a handle of a food item
transmits impurity to the attached food, but a handle that comes
into contact with liquid does not render the attached food suscep-
tible to impurity. And according to Rabbi Yoĥanan, Rabbi Shimon
holds that if one grasps a small part of a large item such that the
large part does not ascend with the small part, the small part is not
considered part of the item with regard to impurity (see 127b).

notes
Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible – limb to be prohibited by rabbinic law, and some consider it to
‫אֹומר ל ֹא הו ְּכ ׁ ְשר ּו‬
ֵ ‫ר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬:ַ Rabbi Yoĥanan explains the reason be permitted to gentiles (see 74b). According to those opinions,
for this statement of Rabbi Shimon as being that only food that since the limb is a food that you are permitted to feed to others
you are permitted to feed to others is called food with regard to at least by Torah law, it is difficult to apply the explanation of
being susceptible to impurity as food, but food that you are not Rabbi Yoĥanan here. The later commentaries answer that Rabbi
permitted to feed to others is not called food. Rashi explains that a Asi holds like the opinion on 73a that slaughter renders a hanging
partially severed limb is classified as a food you are not permitted limb fallen off. Therefore, the hanging limb is considered to have
to feed to others because it is not permitted to be eaten even fallen off the body before slaughter, and the limb is forbidden to
by gentiles after the slaughter of the animal. According to the be consumed even by a gentile, like any limb from a living animal
Rambam, this is logical, as the limb is prohibited by Torah law as (Shakh on Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 55; Meromei Sadeh; Ĥazon Ish;
a limb from a living animal (Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 5:6). But Tiferet Ya’akov; Yosef Da’at).
the later commentaries note that some opinions consider this

 ‫טכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 129b 307

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ וְ ָלאו ַא ֵא ֶבר ֶא ָּלא‬,‫יפא‬ ָ ‫עֹולם ַא ֵּס‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, actually, one must explain the statement of Rabbi Shimon
The limb and the flesh that remain hanging
from a person – ‫ה ֵא ֶבר וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ְמדו ְּלדָּ ִלין ָ ּב ָא ָדם‬:ָ ֵ :‫ ַא ָ ּב ָ ׂשר‬as it was explained originally, that he is referring to the latter clause
,‫״מ ָתה ַה ְ ּב ֵה ָמה – ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר צָ ִריךְ ֶה ְכ ׁ ֵשר‬
of the mishna. And he is not referring to the case of a partially sev-
With regard to the limb and the flesh of a person, .‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְמ ַט ֵהר״‬
if they were partially severed and remain hanging ered limb, but rather to the case of partially severed flesh. Therefore,
from the person, they are ritually pure, even if there the latter clause of the mishna teaches: If the animal died without
is no potential for healing. If the person died, the slaughter, Rabbi Meir holds that the hanging flesh needs to be ren-
hanging flesh is ritually pure. By contrast, the hang- dered susceptible to impurity in order to impart impurity as food,
ing limb imparts impurity due to its status as a limb and Rabbi Shimon deems the limb not susceptible to impurity
severed from a living person, but does not impart
even if it came into contact with liquid.
impurity due to the status of the limb of a corpse.
What difference is there between the impurity of
– ‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi
a limb from a living person and the impurity of a
limb from a corpse? Flesh and bone that separate ֶ ,‫״מ ָּכל ָהא ֶֹכל ֲא ׁ ֶשר יֵ ָא ֵכל״‬
‫אֹוכל‬ ִ ‫ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ Shimon? The reason is that the verse states with regard to impurity
as food: “From all food which may be eaten, that on which water
from the severed limb of a living person are pure, ,‫אֹוכל‬
ֶ ‫ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה יָ כֹול ְל ַה ֲא ִכילֹו ַל ֲא ֵח ִרים – ָקרוּי‬
but if they separate from the limb from a corpse comes shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). The phrase “food which
they are impure (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot
– ‫אֹוכל ׁ ֶש ִאי ַא ָּתה יָ כֹול ְל ַה ֲא ִכילֹו ַל ֲא ֵח ִרים‬
ֶ may be eaten” indicates that only food that you can feed to others,
Tumat Met 2:6). .‫אֹוכל‬
ֶ ‫ֵאין ָקרוּי‬ including gentiles, is called food with regard to being susceptible to
impurity as food, but food that you cannot feed to others, such as
flesh from a living animal, which is forbidden even to gentiles, is not
called food.

– ‫מתני׳ ָה ֵא ֶבר וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ְמדו ְּלדָּ ִלין ָ ּב ָא ָדם‬

‫ ָה ֵא ָבר‬.‫ ֵמת ָה ָא ָדם – ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ָטהֹור‬,‫הֹורים‬ ִ ‫ְט‬
mishna The limb and the flesh of a person that were
partially severed and remain hanging from a
personh are ritually pure,n although there is no potential for healing.
‫ וְ ֵאינֹו ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬,‫ְמ ַט ֵּמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬ If the person died, the hanging flesh is ritually pure, as its halakhic
‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ֵּמת‬ status is that of flesh severed from a living person. The hanging limb
.‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְמ ַט ֵהר‬ imparts impurity as a limb severed from the living and does not
impart impurity as a limb from a corpse; this is the statement of
Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems the flesh and the limb
ritually pure.

ׂ ָ ‫ ִאי ִמ ָיתה‬, ְ‫גמ׳ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ַמה ַּנ ְפ ׁ ָשך‬

‫עֹושה‬
‫יט ֵמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי! וְ ִאי ֵאין‬ ָּ ‫נִיפוּל – ִל‬ ּ
gemara The Gemara challenges the opinion of Rabbi
Shimon in the latter clause of the mishna:
Whichever way you look at it, the ruling of Rabbi Shimon is difficult.
‫יט ֵמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֵא ֶבר‬ ָּ ‫נִיפוּל – ִל‬ּ ‫עֹושה‬ ׂ ָ ‫יתה‬ ָ ‫ ִמ‬If death renders a hanging limb fallen off, i.e., if after the person dies
!‫ ִמן ַה ֵּמת‬the hanging limb is considered to have fallen off his body beforehand,
the limb should impart impurity as a limb severed from the living.
And if death does not render a hanging limb fallen off, and the limb
is considered attached to the body at the time of death, then the limb
should impart impurity as a limb from a corpse.

‫ דְּ ָק ָא ַמר ַּת ָּנא‬,‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא ָק ֵאי‬ The Gemara explains: This statement of Rabbi Shimon is not refer-
‫״ה ֵא ֶבר ְמ ַט ֵּמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬ ָ ‫ַק ָּמא‬ ring directly to the case in the mishna. Rather, the statement of
Rabbi Shimon is referring to the matter of a limb that separates from
:‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬,‫וְ ֵאין ְמ ַט ֵּמא ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ֵּמת״‬
a corpse in general. Rabbi Shimon inferred from that which the first
‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ֵא ֶבר ַה ֵּמת ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא – ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ tanna, Rabbi Meir, said: The hanging limb imparts impurity as a
.‫ ֵא ֶבר ַה ֵּמת ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא ל ֹא ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬:‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ limb severed from the living and does not impart impurity as a
limb from a corpse, that evidently, in general the limb of a corpse
imparts impurity. And in reference to this Rabbi Shimon said to
him: In general, the limb of a corpse does not impart impurity, if
it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh.

‫ ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי ׁ ֶש ֵא ֶבר‬:‫יעזֶ ר‬
ֶ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ Another pair of tanna’im had the same dispute as Rabbi Meir and
‫ ִמן ַה ַחי‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬
ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ָא ַמר לֹו ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫ִמן ַה ַחי ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: I
heard that a limb severed from the living imparts impurity. Rabbi
‫ ו ַּמה ַחי ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫וְ ל ֹא ִמן ַה ֵּמת? וְ ַקל ו‬
Yehoshua said to him: May one infer from this statement that a limb
‫ ֵמת ׁ ֶשהוּא‬,‫ָטהֹור – ֵא ֶבר ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ָט ֵמא‬ from a living person imparts impurity but a limb from a corpse
?‫ָט ֵמא – ל ֹא ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬ does not? But it can be inferred a fortiori that a limb from a corpse
imparts impurity: If with regard to a living person, who is pure
and does not impart impurity, nevertheless a limb that separates
from him is impure, then with regard to a corpse, which is impure,
all the more so is it not clear that the limb that separates from it
is impure?

notes
The limb and the flesh hanging from a person are ritually pure – Tumat Met 2:6). The later commentaries explain that the mishna does
‫הֹורים‬
ִ ‫ה ֵא ֶבר וְ ַה ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ְמדו ְּלדָּ ִלין ָ ּב ָא ָדם ְט‬:ָ A living person is not a source not need to teach that a hanging limb that will heal and reattach
of impurity, as it is written that impurity applies: “When a man dies” remains pure because that is obvious. Therefore, the mishna must
(Numbers 19:14), indicating that only dead people impart impu- be teaching the novelty that even a hanging limb that will not heal
rity (Rashi; Shita Mekubbetzet; Meiri; Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot remains pure because it is attached to the person (Kesef Mishne).

308 Ĥullin . perek IX . 129b . ‫טכק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳ט‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ּ ִפ ְס ָחא זְ ֵע ָירא – דְּ ָלא‬,‫ ְּכתוּב ִ ּב ְמגִ ַּילת ַּת ֲענִית‬Furthermore, Rabbi Yehoshua adds that it is written in Megillat
ַּ ִ‫מג‬:ְ This is a scroll that
Megillat Ta’anit – ‫ילת ַּת ֲענִית‬
.‫ ָהא ַר ָ ּבה ְל ִמ ְס ּ ַפד? ֶא ָּלא – ָּכל דְּ ֵכן‬,‫ ְל ִמ ְס ּ ַפד‬Ta’anit: On Minor Passover, i.e., the fourteenth of Iyyar, one does
b b
contains primarily a list of joyous dates on which it is
not eulogize. Should one infer from here that on Major Passover,
.‫ ָּכךְ ׁ ָש ַמ ְע ִּתי‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ָה ָכא נַ ִמי – ָּכל דְּ ֵכן! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ prohibited to fast or eulogize. Most of the dates com-
i.e., the fourteenth of Nisan, it is permitted to eulogize? Clearly that memorate national events that took place between
is not the case. Rather, if one may not eulogize on the fourteenth the time of the Hasmoneans and the destruction of
of Iyyar, all the more so one may not eulogize on the fourteenth of the Second Temple, although some dates are based
Nisan. Here too, if a limb from a living person is impure, all the on earlier and later events. At the end of the scroll,
more so a limb from a corpse is impure. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: some editions include a list of dates of national trag-
edies, most of them from the era of the First Temple or
Despite this reasoning, such is the ruling I heard from my teachers.
earlier, that are commemorated as days of mourning
ָּ ‫§ ו ַּמאי ִא‬The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir holds that with regard to a
and fasting. The scroll is written primarily in Aramaic
‫יכא ֵ ּבין ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי ְל ֵא ֶבר ִמן‬ with lengthy notes in Hebrew.
ָ ‫ ַה ֵּמת? ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ֶעצֶ ם ַּכ ּ ְ ׂש‬partially severed limb of a person, after the person dies the limb
‫עֹורה ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש‬
imparts impurity as a limb from a living person but not as a limb Minor Passover – ‫פ ְס ָחא זְ ֵע ָירא‬:ִ ּ One who was ritually
.ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬ ָּ ‫ֵמ ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי ִא‬ impure, on a distant journey, or failed to bring the
from a corpse. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between
Paschal offering at its proper time on the fourteenth
the impurity of a limb from a living person and the impurity of a of Nisan may compensate by bringing the offering
limb from a corpse? The Gemara answers: The practical difference on the fourteenth of Iyyar. There is a tannaitic dispute
between them is with regard to the case of an olive-bulk of flesh, as to whether one who was not obligated to bring a
or a bone the volume of a barley grain, that separates from the Paschal offering must bring one on the fourteenth of
severed limb of a living person. Iyyar. All the halakhot that apply to the sacrifice of the
Paschal offering apply to the second Paschal offering,
– ‫ ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש ֵמ ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי‬:‫דִּ ְתנַן‬ As we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 6:3): In the case of an olive- with one exception: There is no prohibition against
bulk of flesh that separates from a limb severed from a living eating or possessing leavened bread on that day. Still,
‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי נְ חוּנְיָא ֶ ּבן ַה ָ ּקנָ ה‬,‫יעזֶ ר ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ leavened bread may not be eaten together with the
person, Rabbi Eliezer deems it impure, and Rabbi Neĥunya ben
ָ ‫ ֶעצֶ ם ַּכ ּ ְ ׂש‬.‫יְהֹוש ַע ְמ ַט ֲה ִרין‬
‫עֹורה ַה ּפ ֵֹור ׁש‬ ֻ ׁ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬ second Paschal offering itself.
HaKana and Rabbi Yehoshua deem it pure. In the case of a bone
‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ֵמ ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי – ַר ִ ּבי נְ חוּנְיָא ְמ ַט ֵּמא‬ the volume of a barley-grain that separates from a limb severed
.‫הֹוש ַע ְמ ַט ֲה ִרין‬
ֻ ׁ ְ‫יעזֶ ר וְ ַר ִ ּבי י‬
ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ from a living person, Rabbi Neĥunya deems it impure, and Rabbi
Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua deem it pure.

‫ ֵ ּבין ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ֵתית ְל ָה ִכי‬The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this dispute
,‫עֹורה‬ ָ ‫ ַּכּזַ יִ ת ָ ּב ָ ׂשר וְ ֶעצֶ ם ַּכ ּ ְ ׂש‬:‫ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון נַ ִמי‬between tanna’im, it is possible to say that the difference between
the first tanna in the mishna, i.e., Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Shimon
.ּ‫יכא ֵ ּבינַיְ יהו‬
ָּ ‫ִא‬
is also with regard to the cases of an olive-bulk of flesh and a bone
the size of a barley grain. Rabbi Meir states that the partially severed
limb of a person imparts the impurity of a limb from a living person
but not the impurity of a limb from a corpse. The difference between
these two types of impurity is with regard to a case where either an
olive-bulk of flesh or a bone the size of a barley grain was separated
from the severed limb; Rabbi Neĥunya holds that flesh that sepa-
rated from a limb of a living person is pure, but a bone that separated
from a limb of a living person is impure, and Rabbi Eliezer holds
vice versa. Rabbi Meir consequently holds in accordance with one
of these two opinions. Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the
opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that both a bone and flesh that separated
from a limb of a living person are pure.
‫הדרן עלך העור והרוטב‬

 ‫טכק ףד‬: ‫ ׳ט קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek IX . 129b 309

This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Summary of
Perek IX

The central theme of this chapter is ritual impurity. The discussion relates primarily
not to the sources of impurity themselves, but to items that are attached to them and
are consequently impure. The Gemara discussed the differences with regard to the
halakhot of ritual impurity between an appendage that serves the impure item as a
handle and one that provides protection for the item. Protection attached to a food
item is susceptible to impurity, imparts impurity if the food item is impure, and joins
together with the food to constitute the requisite measure for impurity. A handle is
also susceptible to impurity and can impart impurity, but it does not join together
with the food item to constitute the requisite measure for impurity.
The Gemara also explored the status of a limb or flesh from an animal that is partially
severed but remains hanging from the animal’s body while it is alive. A distinction
is made in this context between impurity due to its status as food and impurity due
to its status as an animal carcass.
The Gemara in this chapter examined whether the hide of an animal has the status of
protection or a handle, and what the status of congealed gravy attached to the meat
is. In certain instances these items do not impart the impurity of a carcass but do
impart impurity as food because they are edible. Several cases of an animal’s hide are
discussed, e.g., a partially flayed hide, which is susceptible to impurity as a handle
for the flesh, and a flayed hide that is still attached to small pieces of flesh. While in
general, a separated hide is not food and is not susceptible to impurity, a soft hide,
which is edible, has the status of a food item.
In addition, with regard to edible substances that are completely covered, such as
marrow and eggs, the Gemara considered whether a completely sealed food imparts
impurity, or if there must be a perforation for impurity to be transmitted.
The Gemara in this chapter also investigated the status of a partially severed limb, a
discussion with ramifications for impurity, but also with regard to the prohibition
against eating a limb from a living animal. When is a partially severed limb considered
to be separated, and therefore susceptible to impurity, and when is it considered to
be still attached?
These are the themes that were discussed in this chapter.

311
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from
those who slaughter an animal, whether it be ox or
sheep; and he shall give to the priest the foreleg, and
the jaw, and the maw.
Introduction to
Perek X
(Deuteronomy 18:3)

Just as one must separate teruma and tithes from one’s produce and give them to the
priests, so too, the verse states that there is a positive mitzva to separate the foreleg,
the jaw, and the maw from one’s slaughtered kosher animals to give to the priest. The
foreleg, the jaw, and the maw are referred to in the Gemara as gifts of the priesthood,
or sometimes simply as gifts.
Although the Torah specifies many of the details of the mitzva, i.e., which animals
are included in the obligation, which limbs are given, and to whom are they given,
nevertheless, many aspects of the fulfillment of this mitzva require clarification.
With regard to which animals are included in the obligation, the verse is apparently
referring to non-sacred kosher domesticated animals. Several questions arise here:
Does the mitzva apply only to slaughtered non-sacred kosher animals, or to all slaugh-
tered kosher animals, even sacrificial ones? Does the mitzva apply to animals to which
a certain measure of sanctity applies but which are not entirely sacred? Does the
obligation apply exclusively to animals raised in the possession of an Israelite? What
is the halakha with regard to purchased animals or those belonging to a convert? Is
one obligated to separate the gifts from them as well?
Similarly, the precise definition of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw must be estab-
lished, to determine the areas in the body of the animal that one is obligated to give
to the priest.
When the verse states that the gifts are given to the priests, this also raises several
questions: Which priests are entitled to receive the gifts? Are they given only to
priests capable of serving in the Temple, or do the gifts belong to the entire tribe
of priests and therefore may be given to all priests, and even to their daughters?
Furthermore, the status of the gifts themselves requires clarification. Are they sancti-
fied, or do they have no sanctity but are merely considered the monetary possession
of the priest? If the latter is correct, then the priest may sell them or give them to
whomever he chooses.
This chapter addresses and clarifies all of these questions and discusses other related
topics as well.

313
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek X
Daf 130 Amud a

ֲ ‫רֹוע וְ ַה ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬

‫נֹוהגִ ין‬ ַ ְ‫מתני׳ ַהּז‬
‫ ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת וְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬,‫ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ו ְּבחוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ‬
mishna The mitzva to give the foreleg, the jaw, and
the mawb of slaughtered animals to the
background
The foreleg, the jaw, and the maw – ‫רֹוע וְ ְל ָחיַ יִ ם וְ ֵק ָבה‬
ַ ְ‫ז‬:
priests, known as the gifts of the priesthood, appliesh both in Eretz
.‫ ְ ּבחו ִּּלין ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ְ ּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬,‫ ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael,n in the presence of the Temple
and not in the presence of the Temple, and it applies to non-sacred
animals, but not to sacrificial animals.

‫ ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ן‬,‫ ּו ָמה ִאם ַהחו ִּּלין‬:‫ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה ַ ּבדִּ ין‬ It is necessary to emphasize that it does not apply to sacrificial ani-
.‫ַחּיָ ִיבים ְ ּב ָחזֶ ה וְ ׁשֹוק – ַחּיָ ִיבים ַ ּב ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ mals, as by right it should be inferred a fortiori: If non-sacred ani-
mals, which are not obligated to have the breast and thighb taken
‫ ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ ִיבים ְ ּב ָחזֶ ה וְ ׁשֹוק – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין‬,‫ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬
from them and given to the priest, are obligated to have gifts of the Foreleg, jaw, and maw
?‫ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ ִיבים ַ ּב ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ priesthood given from them, then with regard to sacrificial animals,
which are obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them, Breast and thigh – ‫חזֶ ה וְ ׁשֹוק‬:ָ
is it not right that they should be obligated to have gifts of the
priesthood given from them?

‫ ״וָ ֶא ֵּתן א ָֹתם ְל ַא ֲהרֹן ַה ּכ ֵֹהן‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬Therefore, the verse states: “For the breast of waving and the thigh
‫עֹולם״ – ֵאין לֹו ֶא ָּלא ַמה‬ ָ ‫ ו ְּל ָבנָיו ְל ָחק‬of giving I have taken of the children of Israel from the sacrifice of
the peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and
.‫ׁ ּ ֶש ָאמוּר ָ ּב ִענְיָ ן‬
to his sons as a due forever from the children of Israel” (Leviticus
7:34), from which it is derived that the priest has only that which
is stated with regard to that matter, i.e., the breast and the thigh,
Breast and thigh
and not the foreleg, the jaw and the maw.

‫ָּכל ַה ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ַדם מוּם ָקבו ַּע ְל ֶה ְקדֵּ ׁ ָשן‬ All sacrificial animals in which a permanent blemish preceded
‫ וְ יֹוצְ ִאין‬,‫כֹורה ו ְּב ַמ ָּתנֹות‬
ָ ‫וְ נִ ְפדּ ּו – ַחּיָ ִיבין ִ ּב ְב‬ their consecration do not assume inherent sanctity, and only their
value is consecrated. And once they were redeemed, they are obli-
‫ וּוְ ָל ָדן וַ ֲח ָל ָבן מו ָּּתר‬,‫ְלחו ִּּלין ְל ִה ָ ּגזֵ ז ו ְּל ֵה ָע ֵבד‬
gated in the mitzva of a firstborn,h i.e., their offspring are subject to
,‫ְל ַא ַחר ּ ִפ ְדיֹונָן‬ being counted a firstborn, and in the giftsh of the priesthood, and
they can emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred
status with regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized
for labor,h as it is prohibited to shear animals with sacred status
or utilize them for labor. And their offspring and their milk are
permitted after their redemption.h

notes
In Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael – ‫ב ָא ֶרץ ו ְּבחוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ‬:ּ ָ would explain why the mitzva to give the gifts of the priesthood
The commentaries explain that this statement serves to exclude is mentioned only in Deuteronomy (18:3), immediately before
the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who holds that the mitzvot relating the entrance of the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael: While they
to gifts of the priesthood apply only in Eretz Yisrael (Rashi on remained in the wilderness, which is outside of Eretz Yisrael, the
136b and 138b; Ritva). According to Rashi and Tosafot (136b), the mitzva was not yet relevant (Meshekh Ĥokhma).
halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai. If so, that

halakha
The mitzva to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw to the And in the gifts – ‫ו ְּב ַמ ָּתנֹות‬: All sacrificial animals whose per-
ֲ ‫רֹוע וְ ַה ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬
priests applies, etc. – ‫נֹוהגִ ין וכו׳‬ ַ ְ‫הּז‬:ַ There is a manent blemish preceded their consecration and were later
positive mitzva to give a priest the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw redeemed are obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given
of every slaughtered kosher animal. These portions are referred from them (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:2).
to as gifts of the priesthood. This mitzva applies both in the pres-
ence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and And they can emerge and assume non-sacred status with
both inside and outside Eretz Yisrael. It applies only to non-sacred regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for
animals, not sacrificial ones. Some authorities hold that this mitzva labor – ‫וְ יֹוצְ ִאין ְלחו ִּּלין ְל ִה ָ ּגזֵ ז ו ְּל ֵה ָע ֵבד‬: If one consecrates an animal
does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the prevailing custom with a permanent blemish and then redeems it, the animal loses
is in accordance with this opinion (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot its non-sacred status entirely and may be shorn and utilized for
Bikkurim 9:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:21). labor (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Me’ila 1:9).

All sacrificial animals in which a permanent blemish preceded And their offspring…are permitted after their redemption –
their consecration…are obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn – ‫וּוְ ָל ָדן…מו ָּּתר ְל ַא ַחר ּ ִפ ְדיֹונָן‬: Offspring born to a consecrated animal
‫כֹורה‬ ַ ‫כל ַה ֳ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ַדם מוּם ָקבו ַּע ְל ֶה ְקדֵּ ׁ ָש‬:ָּ All sacrificial
ָ ‫ן…חּיָ ִיבין ִ ּב ְב‬ that has a permanent blemish are redeemed and become non-
animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration sacred. This is the halakha even if the offspring are unblemished,
and were redeemed are subject to the mitzva of a firstborn (Ram- so that the status of the secondary item, i.e., the offspring, should
bam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Bekhorot 5:8). not be more stringent than that of the principal, its mother (Ram-
bam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Issurei Mizbe’aĥ 1:11).

 ‫לק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 130a 315

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫עֹושין‬
ִׂ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫ֹוח ָטן ַ ּבח ּוץ – ּ ָפט ּור‬ ֲ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּש‬And one who slaughters these animals outside the Temple court-
And one who slaughters them outside is exempt –
‫ חוּץ ִמן ַה ְ ּבכֹור‬.ּ‫ וְ ִאם ֵמת ּו – יִ ּ ָפדו‬,‫ ְּתמו ָּרה‬yard is exempt from karet, and those animals do not render an
h
ֲ ‫וְ ַה ׁ ּש‬: If one slaughters outside the Tem-
‫ֹוח ָטן ַ ּבחוּץ ּ ָפטוּר‬
animal that was a substituteb for them consecrated.h And if these
ple courtyard an animal that may not be sacrificed .‫ו ִּמן ַה ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬
upon the altar, he is exempt from karet, even if the animals died before they were redeemed, they may be redeemedh
animal was blemished, as the verse states: “Before the and fed to dogs. Although typically sacrificial animals that were
Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4). This indicates redeemed may not be fed to the dogs, in this case it is permitted. This
that one is not liable for slaughtering outside the is the halakha with regard to all animals except for the firstborn
Temple any animal that is unfit to be brought before animal and the animal tithe,hn whose sanctity is inherent, even when
the Tabernacle (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh
a permanent blemish preceded their consecration.
HaKorbanot 18:6).
And they do not render a substitute for them con- ‫עֹובר‬ ֵ ‫ אֹו מוּם‬,‫ָּכל ׁ ֶש ָ ּק ַדם ֶה ְקדֵּ ׁ ָשן ֶאת מו ָּמן‬ With regard to all sacrificial animals whose consecration preceded
secrated – ‫עֹושין ְּתמו ָּרה‬
ׂ ִ ‫וְ ֵאין‬: A permanently blemished ‫נֹולד ָל ֶהם‬ ַ ‫קֹודם ְל ֶה ְקדֵּ ׁ ָשן ו ְּל ַא ַחר ִמ ָּכאן‬ ֵ their blemish, or who had a temporary blemish prior to their
animal that one consecrated cannot render an animal consecration and afterward developed a permanent blemish and
that was substituted for it consecrated. The reason is ‫כֹורה‬ ָ ‫ וְ נִ ְפדּ ּו – ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמן ַה ְ ּב‬,‫מוּם ָקבו ַּע‬
they were redeemed, they are exempt from the mitzva of a first-
that only its value, not its body, was sanctified (Ram- ‫ וְ ֵאינָן יֹוצְ ִאין ְלחו ִּּלין ְל ִה ָ ּגזֵ ז‬,‫ו ִּמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ born, and from the giftsh of the priestood, and they do not emerge
bam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Temura 1:13).
,‫ו ְּל ֵה ָע ֵבד‬ from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status with regard
And if they died they may be redeemed – ‫וְ ִאם ֵמת ּו‬ to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor.h
‫יִ ּ ָפד ּו‬: If one consecrated a permanently blemished
animal, it can be redeemed even after it dies, as the ֲ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּש‬,‫ וּוְ ָל ָדן וַ ֲח ָל ָבן ָאסוּר ְל ַא ַחר ּ ִפ ְדיֹונָן‬And their offspring, which were conceived prior to redemption, and
‫ֹוח ָטן‬
sanctity took effect not upon its body but only upon
ׂ ִ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ ַ ּבחוּץ – ַחּיָ יב‬their milk, are prohibited after their redemption. And one who
h
its value (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Issurei Mizbe’aĥ – ‫ וְ ִאם ֵמת ּו‬,‫עֹושין ְּתמו ָּרה‬
slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is liablen to receive
1:11). .ּ‫יִ ָ ּק ְברו‬
karet, and those animals render an animal that was a substitute
Except for the firstborn animal and the animal for them consecrated.h And if these animals died before they were
tithe – ‫חוּץ ִמן ַה ְ ּבכֹור ו ִּמן ַה ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬: Firstborn animals and
redeemed, they may not be redeemed and fed to dogs; rather, they
the animal tithe possess inherent sanctity and never
emerge from their sacred status. It remains prohibited must be buried.h

gemara
to shear them or use them for labor even if they have
a permanent blemish (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot ‫ ָהא‬,‫ דִּ ְכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״א ָֹתם״‬,‫גמ׳ ַט ֲע ָמא‬ The mishna teaches that the verse: “And have
Me’ila 1:9). given them to Aaron the priest and to his
‫יבין‬
ִ ָ‫ ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַחּי‬,‫ָלאו ָה ִכי‬
sons” (Leviticus 7:34), indicates that only the breast and thigh,
Exempt…and from the gifts – ‫פטו ִּרין…ו ִּמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬:ְ ּ .‫ ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנֹות‬which are the subject of that verse, are given from sacrificial animals
With regard to all sacrificial animals whose temporary
blemish preceded their consecration, or that were to the priest, but gifts of the priesthood are not given from sacrificial
consecrated while unblemished and thereafter devel- animals. The Gemara infers: The reason sacrificial animals are not
oped a permanent blemish and were subsequently included in the mitzva of gifts of the priesthood is due to the fact that
redeemed, their owners are exempt from the mitzva the Merciful One writes: “Them,” in reference to the breast and the
to give the gifts of the priesthood (Rambam Sefer thigh of sacrificial animals. But were it not for this, I would say by a
Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:2).
fortiori inference that sacrificial animals are obligated to have gifts
And they do not emerge…with regard to being of the priesthood given from them.
shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor –
‫ין…ל ִה ָ ּגזֵ ז ו ְּל ֵה ָע ֵבד‬
ְ ‫וְ ֵאינָן יֹוצְ ִא‬: A consecrated animal that
developed a blemish, or that was consecrated while
it had a temporary blemish and then developed a
permanent blemish and was subsequently redeemed,
may not be shorn or worked. This prohibition remains
in force until it is slaughtered (Rambam Sefer Avoda,
Hilkhot Me’ila 1:9).
And their offspring…are prohibited after their
redemption – ‫ן…אסוּר ְל ַא ַחר ּ ִפ ְדיֹונָן‬
ָ ‫וּוְ ָל ָד‬: The offspring
of an animal that developed a permanent blemish
after its consecration is prohibited and cannot be notes
redeemed if it was conceived before the mother Except for the firstborn animal and the animal tithe – ‫חוּץ ִמן‬ a blemished sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard is
was redeemed (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Issurei ‫ה ְ ּבכֹור ו ִּמן ַה ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬:ַ A firstborn animal and an animal designated as exempt from karet, as one is liable for slaughtering an offering
Mizbe’aĥ 1:11). animal tithe are inherently sanctified, even if they were blemished outside the Temple only if the offering was fit for sacrifice inside
And they render a substitute for them consecrated – at the time of their sanctification and are unfit for sacrifice upon (Zevaĥim 112b). By contrast, the mishna is referring to animals with
‫עֹושין ְּתמו ָּרה‬
ׂ ִ ְ‫ו‬: An animal that developed a permanent the altar. With regard to animal tithes, this is derived from a verbal minor blemishes, e.g., on the animal’s cornea, as the halakha is
blemish after its consecration renders an animal that analogy (see Bekhorot 14b), while in the case of a firstborn, the that if such animals ascended the altar they do not subsequently
was substituted for it consecrated (Rambam Sefer commentaries explain that it is because the firstborn is conse- descend. For this reason, one who slaughters them outside the
Korbanot, Hilkhot Temura 1:13). crated automatically from the womb (Rabbeinu Gershom Meor Temple is liable (Rashi). An alternative version of the text states
HaGola; Rambam). that one who slaughters them outside the Temple is exempt from
And if they died they must be buried – ‫וְ ִאם ֵמת ּו‬ karet (Rambam). Based on the Gemara in Bekhorot 16a, this was
‫יִ ָ ּק ְבר ּו‬: An animal that developed a permanent blemish And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard apparently the version of the amora’im as well.
after its consecration and then died is not redeemed ֲ ‫וְ ַה ׁ ּש‬: Generally, one who slaughters
is liable – ‫ֹוח ָטן ַ ּבחוּץ ַחּיָ יב‬
after death. It must be buried in the manner of all
unblemished sacrificial animals that died. The rea-
background
son is that it requires being stood before a priest and
appraised in order to be redeemed (Rambam Sefer Substitute – ‫תמו ָּרה‬:ְּ The act of substitution is mentioned in the are unblemished or blemished, and the animal designated as a
Avoda, Hilkhot Issurei Mizbe’aĥ 1:11). Torah (see Leviticus 27:10), and tractate Temura focuses on the substitute can never be used for labor or redeemed. The ultimate
halakhot of this act. The Torah prohibits the substitution of another fate of the substitute varies with the particular type of offering. In
animal for any offering, whether that offering is unblemished or some instances, e.g., a substitute for a sin offering, the animal is left
blemished. One who performs an act of substitution violates a to die. In other cases, such as a guilt offering, the animal is put out
prohibition and receives lashes as a punishment. Nevertheless, to graze until it becomes blemished. Lastly, some substitutes, e.g.,
if an act of substitution is performed, the second animal does that of a peace offering, are consecrated for the altar in addition
acquire a measure of sanctity, while the initial animal also remains to the original animal.
sacred. This applies to all animals used as substitutes, whether they

316 Ĥullin . perek X . 130a . ‫ףד‬ ‫לק‬. ‫׳י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ַמה ְּלחו ִּּלין – ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬:‫יפ ַר ְך‬
ְ ‫יכא ְל ִמ‬ ָּ ‫ ִא‬The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive this halakha from a verse?
First sheared wool – ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬
ִ ׁ ‫ר‬:ֵ One is obligated
!‫כֹורה‬ ָ ‫ ַחּיָ ִיבין ִ ּב ְב‬The a fortiori inference can be refuted as follows: What is unique about to give the priest the first portion of any wool shorn
non-sacred animals? They are unique in that they are obligated in the from a flock of five or more sheep (Deuteronomy
mitzva of a firstborn, whereas sacrificial animals are exempt. Therefore, 18:4). This donation must weigh at least five sela, and
the a fortiori inference stated in the mishna should not apply. it becomes the personal property of the priest. It is
not considered sacred. The details of this mitzva are
‫ ַמה ִּלזְ ָכ ִרים ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ַחּיָ ִיבין‬.‫יתי ִמּזְ ָכ ִרים‬ֵ ‫ ֵּת‬The Gemara responds: One could derive that the mitzva to give the gifts discussed in the next chapter of this tractate.
!‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ִ ׁ ‫ ְ ּב ֵר‬of the priesthood applies to sacrificial animals through an a fortiori Male goats [teyashim] – ‫ישים‬ ִ ׁ ָ‫תי‬:ְּ The male goat
inference from non-sacred male animals, which do not give birth to is referred to in the Torah with this word, as in the
offspring and whose owners are therefore exempt from counting their following verse: “Two hundred female goats [izim],
offspring a firstborn, and nevertheless are subject to the giving of the and twenty male goats [teyashim]” (Genesis 32:15).
gifts of the priesthood. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: What Its appearance is characterized by its beard, which is
is unique about non-sacred male animals? They are unique in that longer and hairier than that of the female goat, and
its long horns, which curve to the sides.
they are obligated to have the first sheared woolb given to the priest
from them.

‫נָסין‬ ִ ׁ ָ‫ ַמה ִּל ְתי‬.‫ישים‬

ִ ‫ישים ׁ ֶש ֵּכן נִ ְכ‬ ִ ׁ ָ‫ ִמ ְּתי‬The Gemara persists: One can derive that the obligation applies to sac-
!‫ ַלדִּ יר ְל ִה ְת ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר‬rificial animals by an a fortiori inference from male goats, whose owners
b

are exempt from counting their offspring a firstborn as well as from the
first sheared wool, and yet are subject to the obligation of gifts of the
priesthood. The Gemara rejects this claim as well: What is unique about
male goats? They are unique in that they enter the pen to be tithed
for the animal tithe, whereas sacrificial animals are not subject to the
animal tithe.

‫ ַמה ִּלזְ ֵקנִים ׁ ֶש ֵּכן נִ ְכנְס ּו ַלדִּ יר‬.‫ ִמּזְ ֵקנִים‬The Gemara further suggests that one can derive the obligation of sacri-
!‫ ְל ִה ְת ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר‬ficial animals having the breast and thigh given from them by a fortiori
inference from old male goats, which have already entered the pen in
order to be tithed. Consequently, the obligation of the animal tithe, the
obligation of counting the offspring a firstborn, and the first sheared
wool do not apply. The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: What is
unique about old male goats? They are unique in that they have entered
the pen to be tithed, which is not the case with regard to sacrificial Male goat
animals.

‫ ַמה ְּל ָלקו ַּח וְ יָ תֹום ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬.‫ ִמ ָּלקו ַּח וְ יָ תֹום‬The Gemara again suggests that perhaps one can derive the obligation
ִ ‫ נִ ְכ‬of giving gifts of the priesthood with regard to sacrificial animals by an
!‫נָסין ְ ּב ִמינָן ַלדִּ יר ְל ִה ְת ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר‬
a fortiori inference from a purchased animal, to which the obligation of
the animal tithe never applies. Or perhaps it can be derived from an
orphaned animal, born after the death of its mother, which is also not
subject to the obligation of animal tithe. The Gemara rejects this claim:
What is unique about a purchased animal or an orphaned animal?
They are unique in that although they themselves do not enter the pen,
animals of their type enter the pen to be tithed.

‫ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים נַ ִמי ְ ּב ִמינָ ן‬.‫ ְ ּב ִמינָ ן ָק ָא ְמ ַר ְּת‬The Gemara responds: You say that it is significant that animals of their
ִ ‫ נִ ְכ‬type enter the pen? With regard to sacrificial animals as well, non-
.‫נָסין ַלדִּ יר ְל ִה ְת ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר‬
sacred animals of their type enter the pen to be tithed. Accordingly,
one can claim a fortiori that the mitzva to give the gifts applies to
sacrificial animals, and it is only due to the verse that they are exempt.

‫ ִמ ַ ּקל‬,‫וְ יִ ְהי ּו חו ִּּלין ַחּיָ ִיבין ְ ּב ָחזֶ ה וְ ׁשֹוק‬ § The Gemara challenges: And now that it has been established that the
‫יבים‬ ִ ָ‫ ו ַּמה ָ ּק ָד ׁ ִשים ׁ ֶש ֵאין ַחּי‬:‫חֹומר‬ ֶ ָ‫ו‬ obligation of the gifts of the priesthood does not apply to sacrificial
animals, non-sacred animals should be obligated to have the breast
‫ חו ִּּלין‬,‫ַ ּב ַּמ ָּתנֹות – ַחּיָ ִיבין ְ ּב ָחזֶ ה וְ ׁשֹוק‬
and thigh given from them by an a fortiori inference: If sacrificial
‫ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ ִיבין ַ ּב ַּמ ָּתנֹות – ֵאינֹו דִּ ין ׁ ֶש ַחּיָ ִיבין‬ animals, which are not obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given
?‫ְ ּב ָחזֶ ה וְ ׁשֹוק‬ from them, are nevertheless obligated to have the breast and thigh
given from them, then with regard to non-sacred animals, which are
obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them, is it not
right that they should be obligated to have the breast and thigh given
from them?

,‫ ״וְ זֶ ה ְיִהיֶה ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ַפט ַה ּכ ֲֹהנִים״‬:‫ ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬The Gemara responds that the verse states: “And this shall be the
.‫ ִמ ֵידי ַא ֲח ִרינָ א – ָלא‬,‫ ״זֶ ה״ – ִאין‬priests’ due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter,
whether it be an ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg,
and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). The verse indicates that
“this,” the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, yes, is given to the priests, but
another item, i.e., the breast and thigh, is not given to the priests from
non-sacred slaughtered animals.
 ‫לק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 130a 317
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ָהא‬,‫ֶא ָּלא ַט ֲע ָמא דִּ ְכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״זֶ ה״‬ The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this derivation indicates that the
Wavings – ‫תנוּפֹות‬:ְּ An act of waving is performed with peace reason the giving of the breast and thigh does not apply to non-
offerings, thanks offerings, and the nazirite’s ram. Following ‫ חו ִּּלין ַחּיָ ִיבין‬:‫ָלאו ָה ִכי ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬
sacred animals is that the Merciful One writes “this,” from which
the slaughter of the animal and the presenting of its blood ‫יכא‬ָ ‫ ֵה‬,‫ְ ּב ָחזֶ ה וְ ׁשֹוק? וְ ָהא ָ ּב ֵעי ְּתנו ָּפה‬
upon the altar, its carcass is skinned; its fats, kidneys, and fat it may be inferred if not for this, I would say that one is obligated
‫״ל ְפנֵי ה׳״‬ ִ – ‫ינֹופינְ הוּ? ִאי ַא ְ ּב ָר ֵאי‬
ִ ‫ֵל‬ to give the breast and thigh from non-sacred animals. But the
tail are removed; and the breast and thigh are separated.
These parts are grasped by the individual bringing the offer- ,‫ְּכ ִתיב‬ procedure for giving the breast and thigh requires waving,b and
ing, and the officiating priest puts his hands beneath those where would one wave the breast and thigh of a non-sacred animal?
of the owner. Together they wave the sacrificial parts in the If it is suggested that one wave them outside the Temple, that can-
four directions of the compass, and then up and down. In
not be done, as it is written: “That the breast may be waved for a
the case of a thanks offering, four loaves of different types
of bread are placed upon the pile of animal parts before the
wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30), indicating that
waving is performed. they must be waved inside the Temple.

Perek X
Daf 130 Amud b
halakha
!‫ ִאי ַא ַ ּג ַּואי – ָקא ְמ ַעּיֵ יל חו ִּּלין ַל ֲעזָ ָרה‬If it is suggested that they should be waved inside the Temple, that
One who causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or
who consumed them – ‫ה ַּמּזִ יק ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה אֹו ׁ ֶש ֲא ָכ ָלן‬:ַ .‫ ִה ְל ָּכךְ ל ֹא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר‬too cannot be correct, because one who waves them inside the
It is prohibited for an Israelite to eat gifts of the priesthood
Temple thereby brings a non-sacred animal into the Temple court-
without the permission of a priest. If he consumed them yard. Therefore, since it is not possible to perform the procedure
without permission, or if he caused damage to them or sold of giving the breast and thigh with non-sacred animals, it is not
them, he is exempt from payment, as the gifts are consid- necessary for a verse to teach that the giving of the breast and thigh
ered money that has no specific claimants. The Shakh adds does not apply to such animals.
that even so, by the laws of Heaven one is obligated to pay
(Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:14; Shulĥan Arukh, ,‫ ֶא ָּלא ״זֶ ה״ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ְל ִכ ְד ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬The Gemara asks: But if that is so, why do I need the verse to state:
Yoreh De’a 61:31).
‫ ַה ַּמּזִ יק ַמ ְּתנֹות‬:‫“ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬This shall be the priests’ due” (Deuteronomy 18:3)? The Gemara
answers: The verse is necessary for that which Rav Ĥisda taught,
notes
.‫ְּכהו ָּּנה אֹו ׁ ֶש ֲא ָכ ָלן – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ׁ ַש ֵּלם‬
as Rav Ĥisda said: One who causes damage to gifts of the priest-
If you wish say that it is because “this” is written…money hood, or who consumed themh before they were given to the
that has no claimants – ‫ה…ממֹון ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬
ָ ֶ‫ימא דִּ ְכ ִתיב ז‬
ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬
ּ ָ ‫ִא‬ priests, is exempt from having to pay to the priest, as the verse
‫לֹו ּת ְֹוב ִעים‬: The early commentaries explain that according
states: “This shall be the priests’ due,” which indicates that only the
to the first reason, the verse indicates that only the gifts
themselves are given to the priest but not their substitute. foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves, not their replacements,
The verse also teaches that the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw are given to the priests.
are considered a judgment, whereas the breast and thigh are
not, as the Gemara later notes. By contrast, according to the ‫ ַה ַּמּזִ יק ַמ ְּתנֹות‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬,‫ּגו ָּפא‬ § The Gemara analyzes the matter itself: Rav Ĥisda said that one
second reason, only the second halakha is derived from the .‫ְּכהו ָּּנה אֹו ׁ ֶש ֲא ָכ ָלן – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ׁ ַש ֵּלם‬ who causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or who consumed
verse. Another practical difference is that according to the them is exempt from having to pay a substitute to the priest. The
second reason, although the priest may not issue a monetary ‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא? ִא‬
Gemara asks: What is the reason? If you wish, say that it is because
claim against one who causes damage to gifts of the priest- ‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ֲהוָ ה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫״זֶ ה״‬ “this” is written in the verse, indicating that only the foreleg, the jaw,
hood, the individual is nevertheless obligated to pay by .‫יה ָממֹון ׁ ֶש ֵאין לֹו ּת ְֹוב ִעים‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬
the laws of Heaven. According to the first reason, the verse
and the maw themselves are given to the priests, as explained above.
indicates that one is entirely exempt from payment (Tosafot; And if you wish, say instead that it is because it is money that has
Rosh). The Rosh and the Rambam rule in accordance with no claimants.n Since one may give the gifts to any priest, no single
the second reason (Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’a 61). priest can issue a claim on them.

– ‫ ״וְ זֶ ה יִ ְהיֶ ה ִמ ׁ ְש ּ ַפט ַה ּכ ֲֹהנִים״‬:‫ֵמ ִית ֵיבי‬ The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. The verse states:
,‫ ְל ַמאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬.‫ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות דִּ ין‬ “And this shall be the priests’ due [mishpat]” (Deuteronomy 18:3),
which teaches that the gifts given to the priests are considered a
‫חֹול ָקן‬
ְ ‫ ְל‬,‫יאן ְ ּב ַדּיָ ינִין? ָלא‬ ָ ִ‫ָלאו ְלהֹוצ‬
judgment, as mishpat can mean judgment. The Gemara continues:
,‫ְ ּב ַדּיָ ינִין‬ With regard to what halakha are the gifts a judgment? Is it not with
regard to extracting them through judges, i.e., a priest may claim
them in court and the court will order the individual to give the gifts
to that priest? If so, the gifts are considered to be money that has
claimants. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, they are a judg-
ment with regard to distributing them through judges, i.e., the
court dictates to the owner to which type of priests he should give
the gifts.
318 Ĥullin . perek X . 130b . ‫ףד‬ ‫לק‬: ‫׳י קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬.‫וְ ִכ ְד ַרב ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ַ ּבר נַ ְח ָמנִי‬ And this is in accordance with that which Rav Shmuel bar
Naĥmani taught, as Rav Shmuel bar Naĥmani said that Rabbi That one does not give a gift of the priesthood
‫נֹותנִין‬ְ ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יֹונָ ָתן‬,‫ַ ּבר נַ ְח ָמנִי‬ to a priest who is an am ha’aretz – ‫נֹותנִין‬ ְ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬
Yonatan said: From where is it derived that one does not give a gift
‫ֹאמר ָל ָעם‬ ֶ ‫ַמ ָּתנָ ה ְלכ ֵֹהן ַעם ָה ָא ֶרץ – ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״וַ ּי‬ ‫מ ָּתנָ ה ְלכ ֵֹהן ַעם ָה ָא ֶרץ‬:ַ Ideally, one should give the
of the priesthood to a priest who is an am ha’aretz?h It is derived gifts of the priesthood to a priest who is a ĥaver. If
‫יֹוש ֵבי יְ רו ׁ ָּש ַלִם ָל ֵתת ְמנָ ת ַל ּכ ֲֹהנִים וְ ַל ְלוִ ּיִ ם‬ ְ ׁ ‫ְל‬ from a verse, as it is stated: “And he commanded the people who there is no such priest, one gives it to a priest who
‫תֹורת‬ַ ‫תֹורת ה׳״ – ָּכל ַה ַּמ ֲחזִ יק ְ ּב‬ ַ ‫ְל ַמ ַען יֶ ֶחזְ ק ּו ְ ּב‬ dwelled in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and of the is an am ha’aretz. Along the same lines, the Rema
‫ ֵאין‬,‫תֹורת ה׳‬ ַ ‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ַמ ֲחזִ יק ְ ּב‬.‫ יֵ ׁש לֹו ְמנָ ת‬,‫ה׳‬ Levites, so that they may firmly adhere to the Torah of the Lord” adds that if the priest who is a ĥaver declines to
(II Chronicles 31:4). This indicates that anyone who firmly adheres accept the gifts, one gives them to a priest who
.‫לֹו ְמנָ ת‬ is an am ha’aretz (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:7).
to the Torah of the Lord has a portion, and one who does not
firmly adhere to the Torah of the Lord does not have a portion.

:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ ה ּו ָדה ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵת ָירא‬,‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the
ִ statement of Rav Ĥisda from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira
‫ יָ כֹול ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬.‫״מ ׁ ְש ּ ַפט״ – ְמ ַל ֵּמד ׁ ֶש ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות דִּ ין‬
says that the phrase “And this shall be the priests’ due” teaches that
.‫ ״זֶ ה״‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ָחזֶ ה וְ ׁשֹוק דִּ ין? ַּת ְלמוּד‬
the gifts of the priesthood are a judgment. One might have thought
that the gifts of the breast and thigh are also a judgment. Therefore,
the verse states: “This,” to teach that only the gifts of the foreleg, the
jaw, and the maw are called a judgment.

‫חֹולקֹו ְ ּב ַדּיָ ינִין – ַא ּט ּו ָחזֶ ה‬

ְ ‫ימא ְל‬ ָ ‫ ְל ַמאי? ִא ֵיל‬The Gemara analyzes this baraita: With regard to what matter is
‫ ְלהֹוצִ יא‬,‫יח ְלקוּ? ֶא ָּלא ָלאו‬ ַ ‫ וְ ׁשֹוק ָלאו ְ ּב ַדּיָ ינִין ִמ‬this halakha stated? If we say that it is with regard to distributing
them through judges, is that to say that the breast and thigh are
!‫ְ ּב ַדּיָ ינִין‬
not distributed through judges? These are also called a “portion”
(II Chronicles 31:4), and therefore the court determines to which
priests they should be given, as stated above. Rather, is it not stated
with regard to extracting them through judges? If so, one can infer
from the baraita that gifts of the priesthood can be extracted in court
by a priest, which contradicts the statement of Rav Ĥisda.

‫ ִאי דְּ ָאת ּו‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָאת ּו ִל ֵיד‬,‫ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן‬ The Gemara responds: Here, we are dealing with a case where the
,ּ‫יה ְ ּב ִט ְב ַליְ יהו‬
ּ ‫ימ ָרא? דְּ ָאת ּו ִל ֵיד‬
ְ ‫ ַמאי ְל ֵמ‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִל ֵיד‬ gifts already came into the priest’s possession, and the owner stole
them from him. The baraita teaches that the priest may claim them
‫ ַמ ָּתנֹות ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא הו ְּרמ ּו – ְּכ ִמי‬:‫וְ ָק ָס ַבר ַהאי ַּת ָּנא‬
in court and the court will order that they be returned to him. The
.‫ׁ ֶשהו ְּרמ ּו דָּ ְמיָ ין‬ Gemara asks: If this is a case where they came into his possession,
what is the purpose of stating that the priest may claim them in
court? That is obvious, as they already belong to him. The Gemara
responds: The baraita is referring to a case where they came into
his possession while they were still untithed, i.e., the priest received
the entire animal before the gifts were separated, and this tanna
holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as
though they have been separated. Accordingly, the gifts belong to
the priest, and if the owner takes them from him against his will it is
considered theft.

‫עֹובר ִמ ָּמקֹום‬ ֵ ‫ ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ָהיָ ה‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the
‫יטֹול ֶל ֶקט ׁ ִש ְכ ָחה ו ֵּפ ָאה‬ ּ ‫יך ִל‬
ְ ‫ וְ צָ ִר‬,‫ְל ָמקֹום‬ statement of Rav Ĥisda from a mishna (Pe’a 5:4): In the case of a
homeowner who was passing from place to place, and he ran out
‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי‬,‫ וְ ִל ְכ ׁ ֶשּיַ ֲחזֹור יְ ׁ ַש ֵּלם‬,‫נֹוטל‬
ֵ – ‫ו ַּמ ֲע ַ ׂשר ָענִי‬
of money while traveling and needs to take gleanings,b forgotten
!‫יעזֶ ר‬ֶ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ sheaves,b pe’a,b or the poor man’s titheb in order to sustain himself,
he may take them, and when he returns to his house he will pay a
poor person for whatever he took; this is the statement of Rabbi
Eliezer. The mishna teaches that a poor person may extract payment
for that which the homeowner took, despite the fact that he never
had possession of the gifts. This ruling apparently contradicts the
statement of Rav Ĥisda.

background
Gleanings – ‫ל ֶקט‬:ֶ The Torah prohibits the owner of a field from to collect this produce themselves. The Sages decreed that the area
gleaning for his own use individual stalks that have fallen during the of the corner must be at least one-sixtieth of the field. This mitzva is
harvest (Leviticus 19:9). Fewer than three stalks that fall in one place stated in the Torah (Leviticus 19:9, 23:22), and tractate Pe’a is devoted
are deemed gleanings and are considered the property of the poor. to the details of the mitzva.
The owner must leave them as one of the obligatory agricultural
Poor man’s tithe – ‫מ ְע ַ ׂשר ָענִי‬:ַ The poor man’s tithe is a special tithe set
gifts to the poor.
aside from agricultural produce and distributed to the poor. During
Forgotten sheaves – ‫ש ְכ ָחה‬:
ִ ׁ This, too, is one of the agricultural gifts the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, after the priests’ share
to the poor. A farmer who forgot a sheaf in the field while harvesting of the produce and the first tithe have been set aside, one-tenth of
his grain may not return to collect it. Instead, it must be left for the the remaining produce is distributed to the poor. This is called the
poor (Deuteronomy 24:19). poor man’s tithe. During the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, the
second tithe is separated instead of the poor man’s tithe. Although
Pe’a – ‫פ ָאה‬:ֵ ּ The Torah states that it is prohibited for a farmer to harvest the poor man’s tithe is not sacred, the crop is considered untithed
the produce in the corner of his field. Rather, he must allow the poor produce until it has been set aside, and the crop may not be eaten.

 ‫לק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 130b 319

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ִמדַּ ת ֲח ִסידוּת ׁ ָשנ ּו‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ Rav Ĥisda said: The mishna taught an attribute of piety here, i.e.,
First tithe – ‫אשֹון‬ׁ ‫מ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ִר‬:ַ After teruma is separated strictly speaking a poor person has no right to claim any amount
from the produce, one-tenth of the remaining produce ‫ וְ ַא ְּת‬,‫ ַּת ָּנא ְּתנֵי ״יְ ׁ ַש ֵּלם״‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬.‫ָּכאן‬
from the homeowner for what he took. Rava said in bewilderment:
is given to the Levites. This produce is called the first ,‫ָא ְמ ַר ְּת ִמדַּ ת ֲח ִסידוּת ׁ ָשנ ּו ָּכאן?! וְ עֹוד‬
tithe, which the owner gives to any Levite he chooses. A The tanna taught explicitly that he will pay, and you say that he
?‫יעזֶ ר ֵליקוּם וְ ֵליתוּב‬ ֶ ‫ִמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ taught an attribute of piety here? And furthermore, should one
Levite who received first tithe is required to set aside one-
tenth of this tithe as teruma, which he gives to a priest. arise and raise an objection from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer?
The remaining first tithe, which is the Levite’s property, The halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.
has no sanctity, and may be eaten by anyone. Produce
from which the first tithe has not been set aside has ‫ ָענִי‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬:‫יפא‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ִמ ֵּס‬Rather, the objection is from the latter clause of the mishna: And
the status of untithed produce and may not be eaten.
Because not everyone was conscientious about setting
ָ ‫ ָהיָ ה ְ ּב‬the Rabbis say that the homeowner is not required to pay for what
‫ ָהא‬,‫ ַט ֲע ָמא – דְּ ָענִי‬,‫אֹות ּה ׁ ָש ָעה‬
he took during his travels, as he was considered poor at that time.
aside the first tithe, the Sages instituted that one must ,‫ָע ׁ ִשיר – ְמ ׁ ַש ֵּלם‬
separate this tithe from doubtfully tithed produce as
It may be inferred that the reason he is exempt from payment is only
well. In such a case it is not given to a Levite; it may be that he was considered poor at the time, but if he were considered
eaten by anyone. wealthy, he would have to pay the poor people who issue a claim
against him in court, as he was not entitled to those gifts.
halakha
A Levite who consumed his tithes while they were
‫יהוֵ י ְּכ ַמּזִ יק ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה אֹו‬
ֱ ‫ ַא ַּמאי? ֶל‬The Gemara explains the objection: But why must he pay? Let it be
untithed…that he is exempt from payment – ‫ֵלוִ י ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל‬ ‫ ִמדַּ ת ֲח ִסידוּת‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֲא ָכ ָלן! ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬considered like a case where one causes damage to gifts of the
‫ים…ש ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ַּת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין‬
ֶׁ ‫רֹותיו ְט ָב ִל‬
ָ ‫מ ַע ְ ׂש‬:ַ If a Levite consumed priesthood or consumes them, with regard to which Rav Ĥisda
.‫ׁ ָשנ ּו ָּכאן‬
tithes before teruma of the tithe was separated from states that he is not required to pay the priest. The opinion of the
them, although he is liable to receive the punishment of Rabbis apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Ĥisda. Rav
death at the hand of Heaven, he is not required to pay Ĥisda says: Even if the homeowner was considered wealthy at the
for the gifts that he consumed (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, time he is not required to pay, and the Rabbis who obligated him to
Hilkhot Ma’aser 1:5).
pay taught an attribute of piety here.

‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ַב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: From
‫רֹותיו‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵכן ֵלוִ י ׁ ֶש ָא ַכל ַמ ַע ְ ׂש‬,‫ירֹותיו ְט ָב ִלין‬
ָ ‫ּ ֵפ‬ where is it derived with regard to a homeowner who consumed
his produce while it was untithed, i.e., neither teruma nor the first
– ‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ַּת ׁ ְשלו ִּמין‬,‫ְט ָב ִלים‬
titheb had been separated, and similarly, with regard to a Levite
‫לֹומר ״וְ ל ֹא יְ ַח ְּלל ּו ֶאת ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ְ ּבנֵי‬ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ who consumed his tithes while they were untithed, i.e., teruma of
‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ֲא ׁ ֶשר יָ ִרימוּ״ – ֵאין ְלךָ ָ ּב ֶהן ֶא ָּלא‬ the tithe had not been separated, from where is it derived that he
, ְ‫ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ַעת ֲה ָר ָמה וְ ֵא ָילך‬ is exempt from payment?h The verse states: “And they shall not
profane the sacred things of the children of Israel, which they set
apart to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). This teaches that you, the priest,
have rights to them only from the time of separation onward.
Since the produce was eaten before teruma was separated from it,
the priest cannot claim payment for it in court.

,‫יהא ְמ ׁ ַש ֵּלם‬
ָ ‫ ָהא ִמ ׁ ּ ְש ַעת ֲה ָר ָמה וְ ֵא ָילךְ ִמ‬The Gemara infers from this ruling: This indicates that if it was
ֱ ‫ ַא ַּמאי? ֶל‬consumed from the time of separation onward, the priest may in
‫יהוֵ י ְּכ ַמּזִ יק ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה אֹו‬
any event claim payment for the teruma in court, and the one who
‫ׁ ֶש ֲא ָכ ָלן! ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬
consumed it must pay. But why must one pay? Let it be like a case
where one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes
them, with regard to which Rav Ĥisda states that he is exempt from
payment. The Gemara responds: Here too,

Perek X
Daf 131 Amud a

‫ וְ ָק ָס ַבר ַהאי‬,ּ‫יה ְ ּב ִט ְב ַליְ יהו‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָאת ּו ִל ֵיד‬the baraita is referring to a case where they came into the priest’s
‫ ְּכ ִמי ׁ ֶשהו ְּרמ ּו‬,ּ‫ ַמ ָּתנֹות ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא הו ְּרמו‬:‫ ַּת ָּנא‬possession while they were still untithed, and this tanna holds
that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though
.‫דָּ ְמיָ ין‬
they have been separated. In such a case, the priest obtained rights
to the ownerless gifts by seizing them first. Although when he seized
the produce it was still untithed, the portion of the produce that is
to be separated has the status of teruma. Accordingly, one who
consumes such produce is required to pay the priest.
320 Ĥullin . perek X . 131a . ‫אלק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
‫ ֲה ֵרי ׁ ֶש ָאנְ ס ּו ֵ ּבית ַה ֶּמ ֶל ְך‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof with
Without reason [anparot] – ‫אנְ ּ ָפרֹות‬: ַ This is likely the
‫ ִאם‬,‫ ִאם ְ ּבחֹובֹו – ַחּיָ יב ְל ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר‬,‫ ָ ּג ְרנֹו‬regard to the statement of Rav Ĥisda from a baraita: In a case where Hebrew form of the Greek ἀναφορά, anaphora, which refers
the household of the king seized one’s threshing floor by force, if
!‫ְ ּב ַאנְ ּ ָפרֹות – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ַע ּ ֵ ׂשר‬ to the confiscation of one’s assets. In this context it refers to
they took it as payment of his debtn owed to the king, then he is unwarranted confiscation by a belligerent ruler rather than
obligated to tithe other grain in accordance with the amount he payment of an outstanding debt.
would have tithed before the grain was seized. Since he was already
Doubtfully tithed produce [demai] – ‫דְּ ַמאי‬: Demai is pro-
obligated to tithe the grain before it was seized, it is considered as duce from which one is obligated to separate teruma and
though the grain was sold in an untithed state. If they took it with- tithes due to uncertainty as to whether they were already
out reason [anparot],l then he is exempt from tithing. The fact separated from the produce. In general, demai refers to the
that one is required to tithe grain seized as payment of a debt indi- produce of an am ha’aretz, as the Sages investigated the
cates that the tithe is considered money that has claimants, from practices of amei ha’aretz and determined that some of
which it follows that a priest may extract payment of the tithe from them were not meticulous in separating tithes from their
produce. The Sages therefore decreed that one must sepa-
him. Again, this apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Ĥisda. rate tithes from produce purchased from amei ha’aretz.
Several explanations are offered with regard to the source
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם דְּ ָקא ִמ ׁ ְש ָּת ְר ׁ ִשי ֵל‬The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, since if one is of the word demai. Some explain that it is a conjunction of
not required to tithe grain seized as payment of a debt, this would two Aramaic words: Da, meaning: This, and mai, meaning:
mean that the seizure causes benefit for him,n as he will be exempt What is it, as demai denotes produce whose status is uncer-
from tithing grain that he was previously obligated to tithe. It is for tain. Others suggest that it is derived from the Hebrew dema,
this reason that the baraita rules that one must tithe other grain meaning mixture, as demai refers to mixed produce in the
instead of the seized grain, not because a priest could have issued a sense that its status is uncertain. Yet another explanation is
claim against him in court. that demai is from the Greek δῆμος, dēmos, which denotes
the masses; this is understood as a reference to the amei
ha’aretz from whom the produce was acquired.
‫״מכֹור ִלי ְ ּבנֵי ֵמ ֶע ָיה‬
ְ ‫ ָא ַמר לֹו‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (132a):
– ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ָ ּב ֶהן ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה‬,‫ׁ ֶשל ּ ָפ ָרה״‬ If an Israelite says to a butcher: Sell me the innards of a particular
cow, and there were gifts of the priesthood included with it, i.e., background
.‫ וְ ֵאינֹו ְמנַ ֶּכה לֹו ִמן ַהדָּ ִמים‬,‫נֹותנָן ַל ּכ ֵֹהן‬
ְ Teruma of the tithe – ‫תרו ַּמת ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬:ְּ The Levites are com-
the maw, that were not yet given to the priest, the purchaser must
,‫נֹותנָ ן ַל ּכ ֵֹהן‬
ְ – ‫ימנּ ּו ְ ּב ִמ ׁ ְש ָקל‬
ֶ ‫ָל ַקח ֵה‬ give them to the priest, and the butcher may not deduct the value manded to separate one-tenth of the tithe they receive
.‫ו ְּמנַ ֶּכה לֹו ִמן ַהדָּ ִמים‬ and to transfer it to the priests. The Torah calls this “a tithe
of the gifts from the money that the purchaser pays him, as it is from the tithe” (Numbers 18:26), and the Sages refer to it as
assumed that the gifts were not included in the sale. If he purchased teruma of the tithe. All of the halakhot that apply to teruma
the innards from the butcher by weight, the purchaser must give apply to this tithe as well. Even nowadays, this tithe must
the gifts to the priest, and the butcher deducts the value of the gifts be separated from produce, though it is ritually impure and
from the money that the Israelite pays him. therefore it may not be eaten.

‫יהוֵ י ְּכ ַמּזִ יק ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה‬

ֱ ‫ ַא ַּמאי? ֶל‬The Gemara asks: Why must the buyer give the maw to the priest?
ְ ‫ אֹו ׁ ֶש ֲא ָכ ָלן! ׁ ָשאנֵי ָה ָתם דְּ ִא‬Let the butcher’s sale of the maw be considered like a case where
‫יתנְ ה ּו‬
one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them,
.ּ‫ְ ּב ֵעינַיְ הו‬
with regard to which Rav Ĥisda states that one is exempt from pay-
ment. This mishna apparently contradicts Rav Ĥisda’s statement.
The Gemara rejects this: It is different there, as the gifts are intact,
i.e., they are distinct items in their own right. In such a case, the gifts
must be given to the priest. By contrast, Rav Ĥisda is discussing
cases in which the gifts are not distinguishable objects at the time.

,‫ ִּת ׁ ְש ָעה נִ ְכ ֵסי כ ֵֹהן – ְּתרו ָּמה‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof: Nine items
,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬,‫ וְ ַח ָּלה‬,‫ו ְּתרו ַּמת ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬ are the property of a priest: Teruma, teruma of the tithe,b ĥalla,
the portion of dough given to the priest, the first sheared wool, gifts
,‫ וְ ַה ֶ ּק ֶרן‬,‫ וְ ַה ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים‬,‫ וְ ַהדְּ ַמאי‬,‫ו ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬
of the priesthood, doubtfully tithed produce [demai],l first fruits,
.‫חֹומ ׁש‬
ֶ ‫וְ ַה‬ the principal value of the property of a convert, and the additional
one-fifth. The two are paid to the priest in a case where the property
of a convert was stolen and the thief took an oath that he did not
steal it, and after the convert died the thief admitted to taking a
false oath.

notes
If they took it as payment of his debt – ‫אם ְ ּבחֹובֹו‬:ִ The later according to this answer, it is difficult to understand why one
commentaries explain that the obligation to separate tithes for who consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment,
produce taken as payment of a tax applies only to a head tax or as stated earlier. In that case as well, he is benefiting from the
property tax. One is not obligated to separate tithes for produce fact that by consuming these gifts he need not consume his
taken as payment for income tax, which is deducted from one’s own food. The commentaries answer that consuming the gifts
profits. The same is true with regard to giving charity from one’s is not considered a tangible benefit, as one could have fasted
monetary income, i.e., money paid as income tax is deducted (Tosafot). Accordingly, if one sold gifts of the priesthood and
from the calculation of one’s assets when determining the received payment for them, even Rav Ĥisda agrees that one is
amount one is obligated to give to charity (Iggerot Moshe). obligated to pay the priest, as he clearly profited from the gifts.
Nevertheless, some rule that one who sells gifts of the priest-
It is different there since that causes benefit for him – ‫ׁ ָשאנֵי‬ hood is exempt from payment (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ה ָתם דְּ ָקא ִמ ׁ ְש ָּת ְר ׁ ִשי ֵל‬:ָ The early commentaries point out that Bikkurim 9:14; see Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:31).

 ‫אלק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 131a 321

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫יא ן ְ ּב ַד ּיָ ינִין?! ָלא‬ ָ ִ‫ְל ַמאי? ָלאו ְלהֹוצ‬ The Gemara explains the proof: With regard to what matter are
‫ ְל ָמה ָא ְמר ּו נִ ְכ ֵסי כ ֵֹהן – ׁ ֶש ּקֹונֶ ה‬:‫ִל ְכ ִד ְתנַן‬ these items considered the property of a priest? Is it not with
regard to extracting them with judges, which would contradict
,‫ָ ּב ֶהן ֲע ָב ִדים וְ ַק ְר ָקעֹות ו ְּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה‬
the opinion of Rav Ĥisda? The Gemara responds: No, it is with
,‫ וְ ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ִ ּב ְכתו ָ ּּב ָת ּה‬,‫נֹוט ָלן ְ ּבחֹובֹו‬
ְ ‫ו ַּב ַעל חֹוב‬ regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:12): To
.‫וְ ֵס ֶפר ּת ָֹורה‬ what end did they say that these items are the property of a
priest? It means that a priest may purchase with them slaves and
landsh and a non-kosher animal; and a lender takes them as
payment of his debt; and if the wife of a priest is divorced from
him, she takes them as payment of her marriage contract;b and
a priest may purchase a Torah scroll with them.

‫ ָאת ּו‬.‫ַההוּא ִליוָ ָאה דַּ ֲהוָ ה ָח ַטף ַמ ְּתנָ ָתא‬ § The Gemara relates: There was a certain Levite who would
‫יה‬ ּ ֵ‫ ָלא ִמ ְס ְּתי‬:ּ‫ ֲא ַמר ְלהו‬.‫יה ְל ַרב‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ּו ֵל‬ snatch gifts of the priesthood from children who were delivering
them to the priests on their fathers’ behalf. They came and told
‫יח ַטף נַ ִמי‬ ְ ‫ֵיה ֶא ָּלא ִמ‬
ּ ‫דְּ ָלא ׁ ָש ְק ִלינַ ן ִמ ּינ‬
Rav about this Levite. Rav said to them: Is it not enough that
?‫ָח ֵטיף‬ when he slaughters his own animals we do not take the gifts of
the priesthood from him, but he also snatches gifts that are being
delivered to priests?

‫״עם״ – ִמ ׁ ְש ַקל נַ ִמי ִל ׁ ְשקֹול‬

ַ ‫ ִאי ִא ְיקר ּו‬,‫ וְ ַרב‬Rav’s comment indicates that in his opinion there are grounds to
.ּ‫ ִמ ּינַיְ יהו‬take the gifts from Levites, but nevertheless they are not taken.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rav maintain in this regard? If
he maintains that Levites are called part of the “people,” then let
one take the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from them as well, as
the verse states: “From the people, from them that perform a
slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, they shall give to the priest
the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3).

!ּ‫״עם״ – ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ּ ָפ ְט ִרינְ הו‬ ַ ‫יקר ּו‬

ְ ‫ ִאי ָלא ִא‬And if they are not called part of the people, then the Merciful
‫״עם״ ִאי ָלא ִא ְיקר ּו‬ ּ ‫ ִמ ַּס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬One has exempted them from giving those gifts, and there would
ַ ‫יה ִאי ִא ְיקר ּו‬
be no grounds to take the gifts from them. The Gemara responds:
.‫״עם״‬ ַ
Rav is uncertain whether or not they are called part of the
people.h Therefore, he exempts the Levites from giving their own
gifts, in accordance with the principle that the burden of proof
rests upon the claimant.

halakha
The property of a priest that he may purchase with them He is uncertain whether or not they are called part of the
slaves and lands, etc. – ‫נִ ְכ ֵסי כ ֵֹהן ׁ ֶש ּקֹונֶ ה ָ ּב ֶהן ֲע ָב ִדים וְ ַק ְר ָקעֹות וכו׳‬: people – ‫יה ִאי ִא ְיקר ּו ַעם ִאי ָלא ִא ְיקר ּו ַעם‬
ּ ‫מ ַּס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬:ִ It is uncertain
A priest may sell the gifts of the priesthood or give them as a whether or not Levites are obligated to give the gifts of the
gift, even to a gentile, as they have no sanctity. The same is true priesthood, and they are therefore exempt from this obligation.
of a kosher blemished firstborn animal, whether it was born But if a priest took them from a Levite’s possession, he is not
blemished or it later developed a blemish. Nowadays, a priest required to return them. The Rema writes that some authorities
may sell even a live unblemished firstborn animal to an Israelite, disagree and rule that if the priest took them from the possession
as well as a live or slaughtered blemished firstborn animal. But a of a Levite, they must be returned to the Levite (Rambam Sefer
firstborn animal may not be sold in a butcher shop, nor may it be Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:23).
weighed in the usual manner of non-sacred meat. Rather, it must
be weighed either against another piece of meat or against a tool
(Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:20 and Sefer Korbanot,
Hilkhot Bekhorot 1:3; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:13, 306:6).

background
Marriage contract – ‫כתו ָ ּּבה‬:ְּ This is a legal document given by a a marriage contract are provided by the Talmud, but its particular
husband to his wife upon their marriage, stating his obligations provisions are often based on local custom. In addition, the mar-
toward her during and after their marriage. The contract includes riage contract may include individual stipulations agreed to by
a lien on the husband’s estate in the minimum amount of two the husband and wife. The marriage contract gives the marriage
hundred dinars for a virgin bride or one hundred dinars for other halakhic legitimacy. Without one, the couple’s relationship is
brides, payable if she is divorced or widowed. The guidelines for considered licentious.

322 Ĥullin . perek X . 131a . ‫אלק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
.‫יְ ִתיב ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא וְ ָק ָא ַמר ָל ּה ְל ָהא ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא‬ The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa was sitting and saying this
halakha in the name of Rav. Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection Peret – ‫פ ֶרט‬:ֶ ּ It is prohibited for the owner of a vine-
‫ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬,‫יה ַרב ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין ְל ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬ ּ ‫ֵא ִית ֵיב‬ yard to collect individual fallen grapes during the
to Rav Pappa from a baraita, with regard to the uncertainty of Rav:
‫עֹוללֹות‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרט וְ ָה‬:‫ַמ ְּתנֹות ֲענִּיִ ים ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֶּכ ֶרם‬ harvest. Those grapes must be left for the poor (see
Four gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a vineyard: The Leviticus 19:10).
‫ ַה ֶּל ֶקט‬:‫ וְ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ְּתבו ָּאה‬.‫וְ ַה ׁ ּ ִש ְכ ָחה וְ ַה ּ ֵפ ָאה‬ individual fallen grapes [peret],b and the incompletely formed
‫ ַה ׁ ּ ִש ְכ ָחה‬:‫ ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ִא ָילן‬.‫וְ ַה ׁ ּ ִש ְכ ָחה וְ ַה ּ ֵפ ָאה‬ Olelot – ‫עֹוללֹות‬:ֵ Olelot are clusters of grapes that
clusters of grapes [olelot],b and the forgotten clusters, and pe’a.
are not full. Commentaries explain that the word
.‫וְ ַה ּ ֵפ ָאה‬ And three gifts are left to the poor from grain: The gleanings, i.e., stems from the word olel, a small child. The Sages
sheaves that fell during the harvest, and the forgotten sheaves, and defined olelot as: Clusters that have no shoulder
the pe’a. Two gifts are left to the poor from the fruit of a tree:h The [katef ], i.e., that are not full around the middle, and
forgotten fruits and the pe’a. no natef, which some interpret as referring to grapes
that dangle down at the bottom of the cluster (see
‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬,‫טֹובת ֲהנָ ָאה ַל ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ַ ‫ ּכו ָּּלן ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהם‬The baraita elaborates: With regard to all of these gifts, the owner Jerusalem Talmud, Pe’a 7:4).
ִ ִ‫ ָענִי ׁ ֶש ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל מֹוצ‬of the produce does not have the benefit of discretion. This is
nh
.‫יאין ִמּיָ דֹו‬
the benefit accrued from giving a gift to an individual of one’s choice,
e.g., giving teruma or tithes to whichever priest or Levite that one
chooses. Instead, poor person who takes possession of these gifts
becomes their rightful owner. And even a poor person of Israel
who owns a vineyard, field, or tree must leave these gifts for all other
poor people; and if he does not do so, the court removes them from
his possession.

‫תֹוך ֵ ּביתֹו יֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬ ְ ‫ַמ ְע ַ ׂשר ָענִי ַה ִּמ ְת ַח ֵּלק ְ ּב‬ By contrast, with regard to the poor man’s tithe, which is distrib-
‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬ ׂ ְ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָענִי ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬,‫נָאה ַל ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬
ָ ‫טֹובת ֲה‬ַ uted from within one’s house, unlike other gifts to the poor that
are left in the field for them to take, the owner has the benefit of
,‫ ו ׁ ְּש ָאר ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה‬.‫יאין אֹותֹו ִמּיָ דֹו‬ ִ ִ‫מֹוצ‬
discretion.h And even in the case of a poor person in Israel, if he
‫יאין‬ ִ ִ‫רֹוע וְ ַה ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה – ֵאין מֹוצ‬ ַ ְ‫ְּכגֹון ַהּז‬ fails to separate the poor man’s tithe from his produce, the court
.‫ וְ ל ֹא ִמ ֵּלוִ י ְל ֵלוִ י‬,‫אֹותן ִמּיָ דֹו ל ֹא ִמ ּכ ֵֹהן ְלכ ֵֹהן‬
ָ removes it from his possession. And with regard to other gifts of
the priesthood, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, the
court does not remove them, neither from a priest to give to
another priest, nor from a Levite to give to another Levite.

‫עֹוללֹות‬
ֵ ‫ ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרט וְ ָה‬:‫ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַמ ָּתנֹות ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֶּכ ֶרם‬Before Rav Idi bar Avin explains his objection, the Gemara cites the
‫ ״וְ ַכ ְר ְמךָ ל ֹא‬:‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ וְ ַה ׁ ּ ִש ְכ ָחה וְ ַה ּ ֵפ ָאה‬sources for the halakhot of the baraita: The baraita teaches that four Complete grape cluster with both a katef and a natef
gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a vineyard: The peret,
,‫עֹולל ו ֶּפ ֶרט ַּכ ְר ְמךָ ל ֹא ְת ַל ֵ ּקט״‬
ֵ ‫ְת‬
and the olelot, and the forgotten clusters, and the pe’a, as it is
written: “And you shall not glean [te’olel] your vineyard, neither
shall you gather the fallen fruit [peret] of your vineyard; you shall
leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 19:10).

notes Grape cluster with a natef but without a katef

Benefit of discretion – ‫טֹובת ֲהנָ ָאה‬:
ַ The early commentaries dis- als and is willing to pay to that end (Rashi; Rabbeinu Gershom Meor
agree with regard to the type of benefit referred to here. Some HaGola; Tosafot on Nedarim 36b). The Sages disagree over whether
explain that the baraita is referring to the gratitude a poor per- or not the benefit of discretion is considered the asset of the owner.
son feels toward the owner for choosing to give the gifts to him There are various halakhic ramifications of this inquiry, e.g., whether
(Rabbeinu Ĥananel on Pesaĥim 46b; Arukh; Shita Mekubbetzet on a thief must pay double the amount of the benefit of discretion if
Nedarim 36b, citing Rabbi Eliyahu Mizraĥi). Others maintain that the he steals untithed produce of an Israelite, and whether a man may
baraita is referring to the owner’s acceptance of a small fee from betroth a woman with it (Nedarim 84b–85a).
someone who desires that the gifts be given to particular individu-

halakha
Four gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a vineyard… prohibitions that can be rectified by a positive mitzva, and therefore Grape cluster without a natef
and three from grain…two from the fruit of a tree – ‫ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַמ ְּתנֹות‬ the transgressor must fulfill that positive mitzva. If one fails to fulfill
‫ה…שנַיִ ם ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ִא ָילן‬
ְ ׁ ‫ענִּיִ ים ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֶּכ ֶרם…וְ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ְּתבו ָּא‬:ֲ Four gifts are left for the positive mitzva, he is liable to receive lashes. Similarly, the owner
the poor in a vineyard: Peret, olelot, pe’a, and forgotten clusters of does not have the benefit of discretion with regard to poor man’s
grapes. Three gifts are left from crops: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, tithe that is distributed on the threshing floor, and the poor may
and pe’a. Two gifts are left to the poor from the fruit of trees: Forgot- take it from him against his will. Even if the owner of the field is
ten fruits and pe’a (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim himself a poor person, these gifts are removed from his possession
1:7). (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim 1:5, 6:10).
With regard to all of these gifts the owner does not have the With regard to the poor man’s tithe which is distributed from
ַ ‫כו ָּּלן ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהם‬:ּ Peret and
benefit of discretion – ‫טֹובת ֲהנָ ָאה ַל ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ within one’s house the owner has the benefit of discretion –
olelot left from the harvest forgotten in a field may not be taken by ‫טֹובת ֲהנָ ָאה ַל ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ ְ ‫מ ְע ַ ׂשר ָענִי ַה ִּמ ְת ַח ֵּלק ְ ּב‬:ַ The owner
ַ ‫תֹוך ֵ ּביתֹו יֵ ׁש ּבֹו‬
their owner. If the owner transgressed this prohibition and took has the benefit of discretion with regard to poor man’s tithe, which
them, even if he processed them, they must be given to the poor, is distributed from inside one’s house, and he may therefore give
as the verse states that “it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, it to a poor man of his choosing (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot
and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:19). Accordingly, these are Mattenot Aniyyim 6:10).

 ‫אלק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 131a 323

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫עֹולל‬
ֵ ‫״כי ִת ְבצֹר ַּכ ְר ְמךָ ל ֹא ְת‬ ִּ :‫ ו ְּכ ִתיב‬And it is also written: “When you gather the grapes of your vine-
ַ :‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֵלוִ י‬,‫ ַא ֲח ֶריךָ ״‬yard, you shall not glean it [te’olel] after you; it shall be for the
‫״א ֲח ֶריךָ ״ – זֹו‬
stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy
,‫ׁ ִש ְכ ָחה‬
24:21). And Rabbi Levi says that with regard to the term “after you,”
this is a reference to forgotten clusters, as the halakha is that clusters
that were passed over by the harvester have the status of forgotten
clusters, whereas those that remain in front of him do not have
that status.

,‫״א ֲח ֶריךָ ״ ִמּזַ יִ ת‬

ַ ‫״א ֲח ֶריךָ ״‬ ַ ‫ּ ֵפ ָאה – ָ ּג ַמר‬ The halakha that the mitzva of pe’a applies to one’s vineyard is
‫יתךָ ל ֹא ְת ַפ ֵאר‬ ְ ֵ‫״כי ַת ְח ּבֹט ז‬ ִּ :‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ derived by a verbal analogy between the term “after you” in that
verse and the term “after you” from another verse concerning an
‫ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬:‫ וְ ָתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬,‫ַא ֲח ֶריךָ ״‬
olive tree. As it is written: “When you beat your olive tree, you
.ּ‫ִּת ּטֹול ִּת ְפ ַא ְר ּתֹו ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬ shall not go over the boughs [tefa’er] after you; it shall be for the
stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy
24:20); and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the term
“You shall not go over the boughs” means that you should not take
all of its splendor [tiferet] from it; rather, you should leave a portion
of the olives for the poor. So too, one must leave a portion of one’s
vineyard as pe’a for the poor.

,‫ ַה ֶּל ֶקט‬:‫ ׁ ְשל ׁ ָֹשה ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ְּתבו ָּאה‬The Gemara continues: The baraita teaches that three gifts are left
to the poor from grain: The gleanings,

Perek X
Daf 131 Amud b

‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״ו ְּב ֻקצְ ְר ֶכם‬,‫ַה ׁ ּ ִש ְכ ָחה וְ ַה ּ ֵפ ָאה‬ and the forgotten sheaves, and the pe’a. As it is written: “And when
ָ‫ֶאת ְקצִ יר ַא ְרצְ ֶכם ל ֹא ְת ַכ ֶּלה ּ ְפ ַאת ָ ׂש ְדך‬ you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the
corner of [pe’at] your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning
‫״כי ִת ְקצֹר‬ ִּ .‫ְ ּב ֻקצְ ֶרךָ וְ ֶל ֶקט ְקצִ ְירךָ ״ וגו׳‬
of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor, and for the
ּ
.‫ְקצִ ְירךָ ְב ָ ׂש ֶדךָ וְ ׁ ָש ַכ ְח ָּת ע ֶֹמר ַ ּב ָ ׂש ֶדה״‬ stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). And it is also written: “When you reap
your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field,
you shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the
fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:19).

‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ַה ׁ ּ ִש ְכ ָחה וְ ַה ּ ֵפ ָאה‬:‫ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ׁ ֶש ָ ּב ִא ָילן‬ The baraita taught that two gifts are left to the poor from the pro-
,‫יתךָ ל ֹא ְת ַפ ֵאר ַא ֲח ֶריךָ ״‬ ְ ֵ‫״כי ַת ְח ּבֹט ז‬ ִּ duce of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe’a, as it is written:
“When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs
‫ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִּת ּטֹול‬:‫וְ ָתנָ א דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל‬
[tefa’er] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and
.‫״א ֲח ֶריךָ ״ – זֶ ה ׁ ִש ְכ ָחה‬ ַ .ּ‫ִּת ְפ ַא ְר ּתֹו ִמ ֶּמנּ ו‬ for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:20), and the school of Rabbi
Yishmael taught that the phrase: “You shall not go over the boughs,”
means that you should not take all of its splendor [tiferet] from it;
rather, you should leave a portion of the olives for the poor as pe’a.
Additionally, when the verse states: “After you,” this is a reference
to forgotten fruits.

ַ ‫ ״וְ כו ָּּלן ֵאין ָ ּב ֶהן‬The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. And with regard
.‫טֹובת ֲהנָ ָאה ַל ְ ּב ָע ִלים״‬
ֲ ?‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא‬to all of the gifts left to the poor, the owner of the produce does not
.ּ‫״עזִ ָיבה״ ְּכ ִת ָיבא ְ ּבהו‬
have the benefit of discretion, i.e., the right to distribute the gifts
to poor people of his choosing. Instead, any poor person who takes
possession of these gifts becomes their rightful owner. What is the
reason for this halakha? It is because the requirement of leaving is
written with regard to them, e.g., in the verse that states: “You shall
leave them” (Leviticus 23:22).

‫יאין אֹותֹו‬ ִ ִ‫״וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָענִי ׁ ֶש ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל מֹוצ‬ The baraita also stated: And even a poor person of Israel who owns
‫ִמּיָ דֹו״ – דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״וְ ֶל ֶקט ְקצִ ְירךָ ל ֹא ְת ַל ֵ ּקט‬ a vineyard, field, or tree must leave these gifts for all poor people,
and if he does not, the court removes them from his possession.
‫ֶל ָענִי וְ ַל ֵ ּגר ַּת ֲעזֹב א ָֹתם״ – ְל ַהזְ ִהיר ָענִי‬
This is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Neither the gleaning
.‫ַעל ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ of your harvest shall you gather; for the poor you shall leave them,
and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). Since the verse juxtaposes
the words “the poor” to the mitzva in the previous clause, this serves
to warn a poor person that he must also separate these gifts from
his own produce.
324 Ĥullin . perek X . 131b . ‫אלק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ ״ו ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ָענִי ַה ִּמ ְת ַח ֵּלק ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת יֵ ׁש‬And the baraita teaches with regard to the poor man’s tithe that is
Teruma is given to the priest whereas first tithe is
?‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא‬.‫טֹובת ֲהנָ ָאה ַל ְ ּב ָע ִלים״‬ ַ ‫ ּבֹו‬distributed from within his house that the owner has the benefit of given to the Levite – ‫אשֹון ַל ֵּלוִ י‬
ׁ ‫תרו ָּמה ַל ּכ ֵֹהן ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ִר‬:ְּ This
discretion. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? It
.‫יה‬ ּ ‫״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ְּכ ִת ָיבא ֵ ּב‬ is the procedure for separating teruma and tithes: After
is because the requirement of giving is written with regard to it, as one harvests his field or gathers the fruit of his trees, he
the verse states: “When you have made an end of tithing all the tithe separates one-fiftieth of his produce as teruma gedola,
of your increase in the third year, which is the year of tithing, and you which he gives to a priest. One-fiftieth is the amount
shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the determined by the Sages as a standard proportion;
widow, that they may eat within your gates, and be satisfied” (Deuter- by Torah law, even one kernel of wheat exempts the
entire pile from teruma (Radbaz). Afterward, he sepa-
onomy 26:12). Consequently, in this case it is not left for the poor but
rates one-tenth of the remaining crop. This is called
is actively given to them. first tithe, and it is given to the Levites (Rambam Sefer
Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 6:2, and see 6:1).
‫יאין אֹותֹו‬ ּ ‫״וַ ֲא ִפ‬
ִ ִ‫יל ּו ָענִי ׁ ֶש ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל מֹוצ‬ The baraita states: And even in the case of a poor person in Israel, if
he fails to separate the poor man’s tithe from his produce, the court Did he say that it is given to the priest and not
‫״ל ֵ ּגר״‬
ַ ‫ ָ ּג ַמר‬:‫ִמּיָ דֹו״ – דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ִא ְיל ָעא‬ to the Levite…after Ezra penalized the Levites –
removes it from his possession. The Gemara explains that this is as
‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן – מוּזְ ָהר ָענִי ַעל‬,‫״ל ֵ ּגר״ ֵמ ָה ָתם‬ ַ ‫נְסינְ ה ּו ֶעזְ ָרא‬ ְ ‫ל ּכ ֵֹהן וְ ל ֹא ַל ֵּלוִ י ִמי ֲא ַמ‬:ַ Since the
ִ ‫ר…ל ָב ַתר דְּ ָק‬
Rabbi Ile’a said: This is derived from a verbal analogy between the Levites chose not to ascend with Ezra to Eretz Yisrael,
.‫ ַאף ָּכאן – מוּזְ ָהר ָענִי ַעל ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬,‫ׁ ֶשלּ ֹו‬ term “to the stranger” stated with regard to the poor man’s tithe in Ezra penalized them and decreed that they should not
the verse cited previously, and the term “to the stranger” from there, be given the first tithe. Instead, the priests receive it
the mitzva to leave gleanings for the poor. Just as there, with regard (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Ma’aser 1:4).
to the mitzva to leave gleanings, a poor person is warned that he must
leave gleanings from the produce of his own fields, so too here, with
regard to the mitzva to separate the poor man’s tithe, a poor person
is warned to separate it from his own fields.

‫רֹוע‬ַ ְ‫״ ּו ׁ ְש ָא ר ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכה ּו ָּנה ְּכגֹון ַהּז‬ The baraita taught: And with regard to other gifts of the priesthood,
‫אֹותן ל ֹא‬ָ ‫יאין‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ַה ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה ֵאין מֹוצ‬ such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, the court does not
remove them, neither from a priest to give to another priest nor
‫ִמ ּכ ֵֹהן ְלכ ֵֹהן וְ ל ֹא ִמ ֵּלוִ י ְל ֵלוִ י״ – ָהא ִמ ֵלוִ י‬
ּ
from a Levite to give to another Levite. Rav Idi bar Avin now explains
!‫״עם״‬
ַ ‫ ַא ְל ָמא ִא ְיקר ּו‬,‫יאין‬ ִ ִ‫ְלכ ֵֹהן מֹוצ‬ his objection: It may be inferred that the court does remove the gifts
from a Levite to give to a priest. Evidently, Levites are called part of
the “people.” Accordingly, since the verse states: “And this shall be
the priests’ due from the people” (Deuteronomy 18:3), the gifts of the
priesthood may be removed from the possession of Levites. Why,
then, was Rav uncertain with regard to their status?

‫ ו ַּמאי נִיה ּו – ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬,‫רֹוע‬

ַ ְ‫ וְ ל ֹא ז‬,‫רֹוע‬
ַ ְ‫ ְּכגֹון ַהּז‬The Gemara responds: The baraita is not referring to the actual gifts
ׁ ‫ ִר‬of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. Rather, it is referring
.‫אשֹון‬
to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but not the
foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. And what is this? It is the
first tithe.

‫ דְּ ֵלוִ י הוּא! ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬,‫אשֹון‬ ׁ ‫ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ִר‬ The Gemara asks: But the first tithe is given to the Levite. Why would
‫ ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬,‫ ְּתרו ָּמה – ַל ּכ ֵֹהן‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ it be removed from his possession? The Gemara responds: The baraita
is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it
‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא‬,‫אשֹון – ַל ֵּלוִ י‬ ׁ ‫ִר‬
is taught in another baraita: Teruma is given to the priest, whereas
.‫ ַאף ַל ּכ ֵֹהן‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה‬ the first tithe is given to the Levite;h this is the statement of Rabbi
Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The first tithe is given to the
priest as well, despite the fact that the Torah states that it is given to
the Levite, as priests are often called Levites in the Torah.

‫ימר דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ֶ ּבן ֲעזַ ְריָ ה ַאף‬

ַ ‫ ֵא‬The Gemara asks: Say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said that the first
,‫ ַל ּכ ֵֹהן וְ ל ֹא ַל ֵּלוִ י ִמי ֲא ַמר? ִאין‬,‫ ַל ּכ ֵֹהן‬tithe is given to the priest as well; but did he say that it is given
exclusively to the priest and not to the Levite? The Gemara responds:
.‫נְסינְ ה ּו ֶעזְ ָרא‬
ִ ‫ְל ָב ַתר דְּ ָק‬
Yes; although generally the first tithe is not removed from the posses-
sion of a Levite and given to a priest, the baraita is referring to first
tithe in the period after Ezra penalized the Levitesh for their unwill-
ingness to return to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, as he decreed that
they should no longer be given the first tithe.

,ּ‫נְסינְ ה ּו ֶעזְ ָרא – דְּ ָלא ֲיָה ִבינַן ְלהו‬

ִ ‫ימר דְּ ָק‬
ַ ‫ ֵא‬The Gemara persists: One can say that Ezra penalized them and
ַ ְ‫ ְּכגֹון ז‬,‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ַקל ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו ִמי ֲא ַמר? ֶא ָּלא‬decreed that we should not give them first tithe, but did he say that
‫רֹוע‬
first tithe should even be taken from them and given to the priests?
.‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬
ִ ׁ ‫ ו ַּמאי נִיה ּו – ֵר‬,‫רֹוע‬ ַ ְ‫וְ ל ֹא ז‬
Rather, explain instead that the baraita is referring to a gift that is like
the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but is not actually the foreleg, the
jaw, or the maw. And what is this? It is the first sheared wool, with
regard to which the verse states: “And the first of the fleece of your
sheep, you shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). Since the verse does
not state that the first fleece is taken from the “people,” even Levites
are obligated to give their first shearing to the priest, and it may be
removed from their possession to that end.
 ‫אלק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 131b 325
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ָּכל דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשהוּא‬:‫ זֶ ה ַה ְּכ ָלל‬,‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the uncer-
Tent of Meeting – ‫מֹועד‬
ֵ ‫א ֶֹהל‬: The Tent of Meeting tainty of Rav from a baraita. This is the principle: With regard to any
is another name for the Tabernacle (see Exodus ‫ ְּכגֹון ְּתרו ָּמה ו ְּתרו ַּמת ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬,‫ִ ּב ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה‬
item that is of sanctity, i.e., that may not be consumed by a non-priest,
27:21). The name is based on the fact that this was ‫ וְ ָכל דָּ ָבר‬.‫אֹותן ִמּיָ ָדם‬ָ ‫יאין‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ַח ָּלה – מֹוצ‬
the location where man encountered the divine. In such as teruma, and teruma of the tithe, and ĥalla, the court removes
‫רֹוע וְ ַה ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם‬
ַ ְ‫ ְּכגֹון ַהּז‬,‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִ ּב ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה‬ it from the possession of a Levite in order to give it to the priests. And
the wilderness, it was the principal place of God’s
communications to Moses. !‫יאין אֹותֹו ִמּיָ ָדם‬ ִ ִ‫וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה – ֵאין מֹוצ‬ with regard to any item that is not of sanctity, such as the foreleg,
and the jaw, and the maw, which are given from a non-sacred animal,
notes the court does not remove it from the possession of the Levites to
He shall make atonement, this is referring to the give to the priests. Evidently, Levites are not called part of the “people,”
Temple courtyards – ‫יְ ַכ ּ ֵפר ֵאלּ ּו ֲעזָ רֹות‬: and therefore they are exempt from giving the foreleg, the jaw, and
the maw.

‫ ו ַּמאי נִיה ּו – ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬,‫רֹוע‬ַ ְ‫רֹוע וְ ל ֹא ז‬ַ ְ‫ ְּכגֹון ז‬The Gemara rejects this proof: The baraita is referring to a gift that is
.‫נְסינְ ה ּו ֶעזְ ָרא‬ ׁ ‫ ִר‬like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but is not actually the foreleg,
ִ ‫ ו ְּל ָב ַתר דְּ ָק‬,‫אשֹון‬
the jaw, and the maw themselves. And what is this? It is first tithe, and
the baraita is dealing with first tithe in the period after Ezra penalized
the Levites and decreed that the first tithe should be given to the priests
rather than the Levites. Nevertheless, if a Levite received the first tithe
it may not be removed from his possession, since this penalty was not
included in Ezra’s decree.

‫ֹוחט ַל ּכ ֵֹהן וְ ַלגּ ֹוי – ּ ָפטוּר ִמן‬ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬ The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita:
‫ ָהא ַל ֵּלוִ י ו ְּליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַחּיָ יב! ָלא‬.‫ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ An Israelite who slaughters an animal for a priest or for a gentile is
exempt from giving the gifts, as priests and gentiles are exempt from
‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ ָהא ַל ֵּלוִ י ו ְּליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַחּיָ יב‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֵּת‬
this obligation. The Gemara infers: This indicates that if an Israelite
.‫ ָהא ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ַחּיָ יב‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ֵא‬ slaughtered an animal for a Levite or for an Israelite, he is obligated
Courtyards of the Temple to give the gifts, and they may be removed from his possession to that
end. Evidently, Levites are called part of the “people,” and Rav should
not have been uncertain with regard to their status. The Gemara rejects
this proof: Do not say that one should infer that if an Israelite slaugh-
tered an animal for a Levite or for an Israelite he is obligated to give
the gifts. Rather, say merely that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal
for another Israelite, he is obligated to give the gifts.

ְ ‫ ִל‬,‫ֲא ָבל ַל ֵּלוִ י ַמאי – ּ ָפטוּר? ִאי ָה ֵכי‬

‫יתנֵי‬ The Gemara asks: But if so, when one slaughters an animal for a Levite,
!‫ֹוחט ַל ֵּלוִ י וְ ַלגּ ֹוי ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות״‬ ֵ ‫״ה ׁ ּש‬
ַ what is the halakha? Is one exempt? If so, let the baraita teach: One
who slaughters an animal for a Levite or for a gentile is exempt from
– ‫ֹוחט ַל ּכ ֵֹהן וְ ַלגּ ֹוי‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ׁ ּש‬:‫ ָהא ַּתנְ יָ א‬,‫וְ עֹוד‬
giving the gifts, and it would be obvious that this is also the halakha
,‫ ַל ֵּלוִ י ו ְּליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל – ַחּיָ יב‬,‫ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ when one slaughters for a priest. And furthermore, isn’t it taught
!‫ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא דְּ ַרב‬ explicitly in a baraita that one who slaughters for a priest or for a
gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, whereas one who slaughters
for a Levite or for an Israelite is obligated to give the gifts? This
baraita apparently constitutes a conclusive refutation of the
uncertainty of Rav.

‫ ״וְ ִכ ּ ֶפר‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ ַּת ָּנ ֵאי ִהיא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ָל ְך ַרב‬The Gemara responds: Rav could say to you that although this baraita
,‫ ֶאת ִמ ְקדַּ ׁש ַה ּק ֶֹד ׁש״ – זֶ ה ִל ְפנַי וְ ִל ְפנִים‬is in fact contrary to his opinion, the question of whether or not Levites
are called part of the “people” is a dispute between tanna’im. As it is
taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur
Temple service: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place,
and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar;
and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of
the assembly” (Leviticus 16:33). The baraita explains: “And he shall
make atonement for the most holy place”; this is referring to the
innermost sanctum, i.e., the bull and goat offerings brought on Yom
Kippur atone for ritual impurity occurring inside the Holy of Holies.

– ‫״מזְ ֵ ּב ַח״‬ ִ ,‫יכל‬ ָ ‫מֹועד״ – זֶ ה ֵה‬ ֵ ‫״א ֶֹהל‬ The baraita continues: “Tent of Meeting”;b this is referring to the
– ‫״כ ֲֹהנִים״‬ ּ ,‫ ״יְ ַכ ּ ֵפר״ – ֵאלּ ּו ֲעזָ רֹות‬,‫ְּכ ַמ ׁ ְש ָמעֹו‬ Sanctuary, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring inside the
Sanctuary. “Altar”; this is understood in accordance with its plain
,‫״עם ַה ָ ּק ָהל״ – ֵא ּל ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ַ ,‫ְּכ ַמ ׁ ְש ָמעֹו‬
meaning, i.e., the offerings atone for one who performs sacrificial rites
.‫״יְ ַכ ּ ֵפר״ – ֵאלּ ּו ַה ְלוִ ּיִ ם‬ on the altar in a state of ritual impurity. “He shall make atonement”;
this is referring to the Temple courtyards,n i.e., the offerings atone for
impurity occurring there. “For the priests”; this is understood in
accordance with its plain meaning, indicating that the offerings atone
for a priest who unwittingly enters the courtyard while impure. “And
for all the people of the assembly”; these are the Israelites. “He shall
make atonement”; this is referring to the Levites.
326 Ĥullin . perek X . 131b . ‫אלק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ַמאי‬,‫ ״יְ ַכ ּ ֵפר״ – ֵאלּ ּו ֲע ָב ִדים‬: ְ‫ וְ ַתנְיָא ִא ָידך‬And it is taught in another baraita: “He shall make atonement”;
ַ ּ ‫ ָלאו ְ ּב ָהא ָק ִמ‬this is referring to Canaanite slaves in the possession of Jews.
b
‫יקר ּו‬
ְ ‫ דְּ ָמר ָס ַבר ִא‬,‫יפ ְלגִ י‬
These slaves are obligated in certain mitzvot and are therefore in
.‫״עם״‬ַ ‫ ו ָּמר ָס ַבר ָלא ִא ְיקר ּו‬,‫״עם״‬ ַ
need of atonement. The Gemara analyzes these sources: Why
doesn’t the tanna of this baraita interpret the term “He shall make
atonement” as a reference to Levites? What, is it not that they
disagree about this, as one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita,
holds that Levites are called part of the “people” and are therefore
included in the clause “the people of the assembly,” and conse-
quently, the term “he shall make atonement” is not required to
include the Levites but instead serves to include Canaanite slaves.
And by contrast, one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that
they are not called part of the “people,” which means that the term
“He shall make atonement” is required to include Levites.

,‫ימא‬
ָ ‫יה ְּכ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא – ֵל‬ּ ‫ ִאי ְס ִב ָירא ֵל‬,‫וְ ַרב‬ The Gemara asks: But if this is a dispute between tanna’im, why is
!‫ימא‬ָ ‫יה ְּכ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא – ֵל‬ ּ ‫וְ ִאי ְס ִב ָירא ֵל‬ Rav uncertain with regard to the status of Levites? If he holds in
accordance with this tanna, let him say that the halakha is in
‫ ִאי ְּכ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא ִאי ְּכ ַהאי‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִמ ַּס ּ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬
accordance with him, and if he holds in accordance with that
.‫ַּת ָּנא‬ tanna, let him say that the halakha is in accordance with him. The
Gemara responds: Rav is uncertain whether the halakha is in
accordance with this tanna or in accordance with that tanna.

,‫יה דְּ ַרב‬

ּ ‫ות‬ֵ ָ‫ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכו‬:‫ימר‬ ָ ‫ דָּ ַר ׁש ָמ ֵר‬Mareimar taught: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion
.‫יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ֵ ָ‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכו‬of Rav that it is uncertain whether or not Levites are called part
ּ ‫ות‬
of the “people.” Consequently, the court may not compel Levites
to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw to the priests. And the
halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda, who
said that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is
exempt from payment.

.‫ § עו ָּּלא ֲהוָ ה יָ ֵהיב ַמ ְּתנָ ָתא ְל ַכ ַהנְ ָּתא‬With regard to the gifts of the priesthood, the Gemara relates
ִ ‫ ֵא‬that Ulla would give gifts of the priesthood to a female priest,
h
– ‫ ִמנְ ַחת ּכ ֶֹהנֶ ת‬:‫יה ָר ָבא ְלעו ָּּלא‬ ּ ‫ית ֵיב‬
i.e., the daughter of a priest, even if she was married to an Israelite.
.‫ ִמנְ ַחת ּכ ֵֹהן – ֵאינָ ּה נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת‬,‫נֶ ֱא ֶכ ֶלת‬
Rava raised an objection to the practice of Ulla from a baraita:
The remainder of a meal offering of a female priest is consumed,h
just like the remainder of the meal offering of an Israelite. But the
remainder of a meal offering of a priest is not consumed, as the
verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly
made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16).

‫ וְ ָה ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ וְ ִאי ָא ַמ ְר ְּת ּכ ֵֹהן וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ּכ ֶֹהנֶ ת‬Rava explains his objection: And if you say that one may give gifts
!‫ ״וְ ָכל ִמנְ ַחת ּכ ֵֹהן ָּכ ִליל ִּת ְהיֶה ל ֹא ֵת ָא ֵכל״‬of a priest even to a female priest, because when the verse men-
tions a priest it is referring even to the daughter of a priest, but isn’t
,‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
it written: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly
made to smoke; it shall not be eaten”? Why, then, is the remain-
der of a meal offering of the daughter of a priest consumed? Ulla
said to him in response: My teacher,

background
Canaanite slave – ‫נַענִי‬ֲ ‫ע ֶבד ְּכ‬:ֶ A Canaanite slave is any gentile Accordingly, a Canaanite slave serves his master for life and is
slave purchased by a Jew (Leviticus 25:44–46). Such a slave must inherited by his master’s heirs. Theoretically, his master can free
be immersed in a ritual bath, and, if male, circumcised. These him by handing him a bill of manumission, which is similar to
acts signify a change in the slave’s status. Although he is not a a bill of divorce. Nevertheless, there is a positive mitzva not to
Jew in all aspects, a Canaanite slave must observe all the Torah’s free a Canaanite slave without compelling reasons. There is one
prohibitions and fulfill those positive mitzvot which are not exception to this principle: A master must set his slave free if he
time bound. In many respects Canaanite slaves are their masters’ blinds the slave, knocks out his tooth, or damages any one of
property and may be sold and purchased like other possessions. twenty-four other extremities.

halakha
Ulla would give gifts to a female priest – ‫עו ָּּלא ֲהוָ ה יָ ֵהיב ַמ ְּתנָ ָתא‬ The remainder of a meal offering of a female priest is
‫ל ַכ ַהנְ ָּתא‬:ְ One may give the gifts of the priesthood to the daugh- consumed – ‫נֶא ֶכ ֶלת‬
ֱ ‫מנְ ַחת ּכ ֶֹהנֶ ת‬:ִ With regard to the meal offering
ter of a priest, even if she is married to an Israelite, as the gifts of the unmarried daughter of a priest (Kesef Mishne; see Ra’avad
have no sanctity. This ruling is in accordance with the practice and Leĥem Mishne), a handful is removed from it in the manner of
of Ulla, as well as the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov on 132a the meal offering of an Israelite, and its remainder is consumed
(Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:20; Shulĥan Arukh, (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 12:10).
Yoreh De’a 61:8).

 ‫אלק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 131b 327

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek X
Daf 132 Amud a
language
ַ ! ְ‫ ִמ ּטוּנָ ך‬from your burden [mitunakh],l i.e., from that which you raise your
.‫״א ֲהרֹן ו ָּבנָיו״ ְּכתו ִּבין ַ ּב ּ ָפ ָר ׁ ָשה‬
From your burden [mitunakh] – ְ‫מ ּטוּנָ ך‬:ִ It was common objection, I can cite a proof for my practice: With regard to the meal
for Torah scholars engaging in debate in the study halls
to respond to their colleague’s objections by saying: From
offering of a priest, both Aaron and his sons are written in the
your burden, i.e., from the very point which you raise as passage discussing this offering: “And this is the law of the meal
an objection to me, I shall respond and raise an objection offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of
to you (Rashi on Rosh HaShana 4a). Alternatively, the the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). The verse emphasizes that these halakhot
response means: From your burden, i.e., that which you apply only to male priests and not to their daughters. This indicates
seek to heave upon me, I shall heave upon you (Rashi on that when the verse refers merely to priests, even their daughters are
Zevaĥim 32b). Here Rashi explains that this term is derived
included. Accordingly, one may give gifts of the priesthood to the
from the Aramaic term matu, meaning to reach, i.e., we
have reached you and responded to your objection.
daughter of a priest.

‫ וְ ל ֹא‬,‫״כ ֵֹהן״‬
ּ :‫ דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ָּתנָ א‬The Gemara cites the opinions of various tanna’im with regard to
Personalities
ָ ‫ וְ יִ ְלמֹוד ָסתוּם ִמן ַה ְמ‬,‫ ּכ ֶֹהנֶ ת‬the practice of Ulla: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Any-
!‫פֹור ׁש‬
where that the Torah mentions a priest with regard to gifts of the
Rav Kahana – ‫רב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬:ַ Several Babylonian amora’im
priesthood, it is referring specifically to a priest and not a female
were known by the name Rav Kahana. One was a con-
temporary of Rav and Shmuel and a first-generation
priest, and let one derive the meaning of an unspecified reference
amora, another was a student of Rav and a second- to a priest from the explicit verse that states with regard to meal
generation amora, a third was the student of Rabba and offerings: “Aaron and his sons.” This verse indicates that any
a fourth-generation amora, and one was a student of Rav reference to a priest excludes a priest’s daughter.
Zevid and a fifth- and sixth-generation amora. The Rav
Kahana cited in this Gemara was not a priest, but his wife ,‫״כ ֵֹהן״‬
ּ :‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן יַ ֲעקֹב ָּתנָ א‬
ֶ ‫ דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬The school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught: In general, the
was the daughter of a priest.
,‫ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ּכ ֶֹהנֶ ת – ָהוֵ י ִמיעוּט ַא ַחר ִמיעוּט‬reference to a priest in a verse serves to exclude a priest’s daughter.
But when the verse mentions a priest with regard to gifts of the
.‫וְ ֵאין ִמיעוּט ַא ַחר ִמיעוּט ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ּבֹות‬
notes priesthood, it means to include even a female priest. This is because
Partook of gifts of the priesthood on account of his the verse mentions priests twice: “And this shall be the priests’ due
wife – ‫א ַכל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬:
ָ The later commentaries ask: from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be
Considering that the gifts of the priesthood are meant ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the
for members of the priesthood and their daughters, how
was it permitted for these Sages, who were Israelites, to
jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). Since each reference to a
partake of the gifts? Such consumption is effectively priest excludes the daughter of a priest, this verse is a case of a
stealing and should be prohibited (Ĥatam Sofer). Some restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, and
commentaries explain that there is no theft here, as an there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression
Israelite who marries the daughter of a priest acquires following a restrictive expression serves only to amplifyb the
any rights that she may have to gifts of the priesthood halakha and include additional cases, in this instance, the daughter
(Maharam Schick).
of a priest.
halakha ‫ ַרב ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬,‫ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ָא ַכל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬ The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana,p who was an Israelite, partook
Rav Kahana partook of gifts of the priesthood on ‫ימר ָא ַכל‬ ָ ֵ‫ ַרב י‬,‫ָא ַכל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬ of gifts of the priesthood on account of his wife,nh who was the
account of his wife – ‫רב ָּכ ֲהנָ א ָא ַכל ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬:ַ A hus- daughter of a priest. Similarly, Rav Pappa partook of gifts of the
band may partake of gifts of the priesthood on account of ‫ ַרב ִא ִידי ַ ּבר ָא ִבין ָא ַכל‬,‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬
priesthood on account of his wife, Rav Yeimar partook of gifts on
his wife. Similarly, one who gives gifts of the priesthood .‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ִביל ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬ account of his wife, and Rav Idi bar Avin partook of them on
to the husband of the daughter of a priest has fulfilled his
obligation to give the gifts (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot
account of his wife.
Bikkurim 9:20; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:8).

background
A restrictive expression following a restrictive expression The principle: A restrictive expression following a restrictive
serves only to amplify – ‫אין ִמיעוּט ַא ַחר ִמיעוּט ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ּבֹות‬:
ֵ This expression comes only to amplify the halakha, follows a similar
hermeneutical principle is unrelated to the phenomenon in logic. If the Torah states a halakha and then writes a single restric-
many languages that a double negative indicates a positive. The tive expression with regard to that halakha, it is assumed that
principle does not relate specifically to negative terms such as the expression serves to limit the scope of the halakha. But if
“but” or “only.” Rather, it applies to restrictive phrases that limit the there are two restrictive expressions, evidently the expressions
scope of a certain halakha. do not come to limit the scope, as one such expression would
In fact, this principle is closely related to another principle: suffice for that purpose. Rather, the fact that there are two such
Two verses that come for the same purpose do not teach. The expressions indicates that they are merely examples of the hal-
meaning of that principle is that if a halakha is expressed by the akha. Consequently, there is no reason to exclude those cases
Torah in one specific case, it may be assumed that the case was that would have been excluded had the restrictive expressions
just an example, and one should therefore apply the halakha to been understood as limiting the scope of the halakha. Based
other cases as well. But if the halakha is stated with regard to two on this understanding, the principle applies only when the two
different cases, this is an indication that it applies only in those restrictive expressions do not teach two different halakhot. In that
two specific cases and should not be applied elsewhere. Accord- case, both expressions would be necessary, and the logic of the
ingly, the principle: Two verses that come for the same purpose principle would not apply (Yad Malakhi).
do not teach, means that if two verses teach the same halakha,
that halakha is not applied to additional cases.

328 Ĥullin . perek X . 132a . ‫בלק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא‬:‫ימר‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ַמר ִלי ָמ ֵר‬,‫ ֲא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬Ravina said: Mareimar said to me that the halakha is in accor-
Five sela – ‫ח ֵמ ׁש ְס ָל ִעים‬:ָ The mitzva to redeem a first-
,‫יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ּ ‫ ְּכוָ ֵות‬dance with the opinion of Rav that it is uncertain whether or not
ּ ‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכוָ ֵות‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ born son is mentioned in several places in the Torah
Levites are obligated to give the gifts of the priesthood, and conse-
,‫יה דְּ עו ָּּלא‬
ּ ‫ות‬ ֵ ָ‫וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכו‬ (Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:11–13, 44–51). Following the
quently, gifts are not removed from their possession to be given to plague of the firstborn in Egypt, the Torah declares that
the priests. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of a Jewish woman’s firstborn son is sacred to God. The
Rav Ĥisda that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priest- boy’s father must therefore redeem him from a priest
hood is exempt from payment. And the halakha is in accordance for a fixed sum of five sela. One whose father is a Levite
with the opinion of Ulla that gifts of the priesthood may be given or a priest, or one whose mother is the daughter of a
Levite or a priest, is not subject to this mitzva. In addi-
to the daughter of a priest.
tion, only children born by natural birth are redeemed;
those born by caesarean section are excluded.
:‫יה דְּ ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה‬ ּ ‫ות‬ ֵ ָ‫ וְ ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכו‬And in a case not previously discussed but related to the opinion of
.‫ ְלוִ ּיָ ה ׁ ֶשּיָ ְל ָדה – ְ ּבנָ ּה ּ ָפטוּר ֵמ ָח ֵמ ׁש ְס ָל ִעים‬Ulla, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda Hybrid animal – ‫כ ְל ַאיִ ם‬:ִּ The Torah prohibits cross-
bar Ahava with regard to a female Levite, i.e., the daughter of a breeding different species of animals (Leviticus 19:19),
Levite, who gave birth to a firstborn boy, even if she is married to a transgression punishable by lashes. It is nevertheless
permitted to make use of the offspring of crossbreed-
an Israelite, that her son is exempt from the obligation to give five
ing, e.g., a mule, which is the offspring of a female
selabh to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered the donkey and a horse. The halakhot of this prohibition
son of a Levite, and Levites are exempt from this obligation. are discussed in tractate Kilayim.

ֲ ‫רֹוע וְ ַה ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬

‫נֹוהגִ ים‬ ַ ְ‫ ַהּז‬:‫ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ § The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the gifts of the foreleg, Koy – ‫כֹוי‬:ּ Many problems arise in trying to identify the
koy. It is mentioned numerous times in the Mishna
‫ ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם‬:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫ַ ּב ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם ו ַּב ּכֹוי‬ the jaw, and the maw. The Sages taught in a baraita: The obligation
and the Gemara, not because it is a common animal,
to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies even to a hybrid
‫ ִמן‬,‫ַה ָ ּבא ִמן ָה ֵעז ו ִּמן ָה ָר ֵחל – ַחּיָ יב ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנֹות‬ but because it is useful in discussions that explore the
animalb and to the animal known as a koy.bh Rabbi Eliezer says: A criteria and limits of the halakhot of domesticated
.‫ַה ַּתיִ ׁיש ו ִּמן ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה – ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a eweb is obli- versus undomesticated animals. As early as the mish-
gated to have gifts of the priesthood given from it, while a hybrid naic period, the Sages disagreed with regard to the
that results from the mating of a goat and a doeh is exempt from identification of the koy. Some maintain that it is a
having gifts of the priesthood given from it. This is because the verse hybrid born to a deer or another kosher wild animal
and a goat.
states with regard to gifts of the priesthood: “Whether it be an ox
According to many researchers, the koy is identi-
or sheep” (Deuteronomy 18:3), i.e., a domesticated animal, and a fied as the water buffalo. There are allusions to this
doe is not a domesticated animal. identification in some medieval rabbinic sources. Oth-
ers reject this idea and claim that water buffalo did
‫ימא ָלן דִּ ְל ִענְיַ ן ִּכ ּסוּי ַהדָּ ם ו ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ ָ ְ‫ִמ ְּכ ֵדי ַקי‬ The Gemara asks: Now, we maintain (see 79b–80a) with regard to not live in Eretz Yisrael during the time of the Mishna,
‫יה ֶא ָּלא ִ ּבצְ ִבי ַה ָ ּבא ַעל‬ ּ ‫ָלא ַמ ׁ ְש ַּכ ַח ְּת ֵל‬ the mitzvot of covering the blood and giving the gifts of the priest- when the koy was first mentioned. Others maintain
hood that you do not find that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis dis- that the koy is the mouflon, a subspecies of wild sheep,
– ‫יעזֶ ר ֵ ּבין ְל ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬
ֶ ‫ ו ֵּבין ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬,‫ישה‬ ָ ׁ ָ‫ַה ְּתי‬ although there are a number of opinions as to the
agree except in the case of an animal born from a deer that mates
‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב ִאי‬ ְ ׁ ‫ִמ ַּס ּ ְפ ָקא ְלה ּו ִאי‬ with a female goat.h And both Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis are specific subspecies of mouflon it may be. There is also
,‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין‬
ְ ׁ ‫ֵאין‬ uncertainty with regard to both the origin of the term
uncertain whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity
koy and its proper vocalization.
when determining the species of a hybrid animal, which would
mean that this animal is part domesticated and part undomesticated,
or whether one does not need to be concerned with paternity and
the species of an animal is determined entirely by the species of its
mother, in which case it is a domesticated animal.

Water buffalo

halakha
A female Levite who gave birth to a firstborn boy, her son is From a goat and a doe – ‫מן ַה ַּתיִ ׁיש ו ִּמן ַה ְ ּצ ִבּיָ יה‬:ִ The owner of an
exempt from the obligation to give five sela – ‫ְלוִ ּיָ ה ׁ ֶשּיָ ְל ָדה ְ ּבנָ ּה‬ animal born from a goat that mated with a doe is exempt from the
‫פטוּר ֵמ ָח ֵמ ׁש ְס ָל ִעים‬:ָ ּ The mitzva of redemption does not apply to the obligation to give the priestly gifts, as it is uncertain whether one
firstborn son of the daughter of a Levite who married an Israelite. must be concerned about its paternity. Accordingly, the burden of
This is because the obligation of redemption is dependent on the proof that the obligation applies rests upon the priest (Rambam Mouflon
mother, as the verse states (Exodus 13:2): “Whatsoever opens the Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:18).
womb among the children of Israel” (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Hybrid that results from a goat and a ewe – ‫ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם‬
In the case of an animal born from a deer that mates with a ‫ה ָ ּבא ִמן ָה ֵעז ו ִּמן ָה ָר ֵחל‬:ַ The sheep, whose biological
Bikkurim 11:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 305:18).
female goat – ‫ישה‬ ָ ׁ ָ‫בצְ ִבי ַה ָ ּבא ַעל ַה ְּתי‬:ּ ִ The owner of the offspring genus is Ovis, and the goat, whose genus is Capra,
The obligation to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies of a deer and a female goat is obligated to give half the priestly both belong to the biological family Bovidae and the
even to a hybrid animal and to a koy – ‫נֹוהגִ ים‬ ֲ ‫רֹוע וְ ַה ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬
ַ ְ‫ַהּז‬ gifts, as such an animal is partially domesticated on account of its Caprinae subfamily. Sheep have fifty-four chromo-
‫ב ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם ו ַּב ּכֹוי‬:ּ ַ The mitzva to give the gifts of the priesthood from mother, and the term “sheep” (Deuteronomy 18:3) is interpreted as somes and goats have sixty, making it nearly impos-
an animal, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, applies even to referring to animals that are even partially domesticated (Rambam sible for them to interbreed and produce viable off-
the offspring of a goat and a ewe, as well as to a koy (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:18). spring. Nevertheless, even in modern times, rare cases
Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:5; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:17). of successful interbreeding have been reported.

 ‫בלק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 132a 329

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

.‫ ָק ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬,‫ו ְּב ֶ ׂשה – וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה‬ And they disagree with regard to whether the obligation of the gifts
,‫יל ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה‬ ּ ‫״שה״ – וַ ֲא ִפ‬ ׂ ֶ :‫ָמר ְס ַבר‬ applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep, i.e.,
partially domesticated. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the obliga-
‫״שה״ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה ָלא‬ ׂ ֶ :‫ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬
tion applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep;
.‫ָא ְמ ִרינַן‬ and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that we do not say that the
obligation applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially
a sheep.

:‫ ָק ָס ַבר‬,‫יעזֶ ר דְּ ָפ ַטר‬ ֶ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬ The Gemara concludes its question: Granted, it is understandable
‫ נְ ִהי‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן‬,‫״שה״ וְ ָלא ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה‬ ֶׂ that Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner of a hybrid exempt from the
mitzva to give the priestly gifts, as he holds that only in the case of
,‫״שה״ וַ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ִמ ְקצָ ת ֶ ׂשה‬ ׂ ֶ ‫נַ ִמי דְּ ָק ָס ְב ִרי‬
a sheep is one obligated to give gifts of the priesthood, but not with
:‫יה‬ּ ‫ימא ֵל‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬,‫ וְ ִא ָידךְ ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא‬.‫ּ ַפ ְל ָ ּגא ִל ׁ ְשקֹול‬ regard to animals that are only partially sheep. But according to
,‫חֹוש ׁ ִשין ְלזֶ ַרע ָה ָאב‬ ְ ׁ ‫יתי ְר ָאיָ ה דְּ ֵאין‬ ֵ ְ‫ַאי‬ the opinion of the Rabbis, though indeed they hold that sheep
‫ ַמאי‬:‫ו ׁ ְּשקֹול! ֲא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א ַ ּבר ִחּיָ יא‬ and even animals that are partially sheep are subject to the obliga-
‫״חּיָ יב״ נַ ִמי דְּ ָקא ֲא ַמר – ַחּיָ יב ַ ּב ֲחצִ י‬ ַ tion of giving gifts of the priesthood, let the priest take only half of
.‫ַמ ָּתנֹות‬ the gifts. And with regard to the other half, let the owner of the
animal say to him: Bring proof that one need not be concerned
with its paternity and then you may take the other half. Rav Huna
bar Ĥiyya said in response: What do the Rabbis mean when they
say that the owner of this animal is obligated? They mean that he
is obligated in half of the gifts.

‫ ּכֹוי יֵ ׁש ּבֹו דְּ ָר ִכים ׁ ָשוִ ין‬:‫ ְמ ִתיב ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא‬Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to this response from a baraita: In
‫ וְ יֵ ׁש‬,‫ וְ יֵ ׁש ּבֹו דְּ ָר ִכים ׁ ָשוִ ין ַל ַחּיָ ה‬,‫ ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬the case of a koy, with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is
a domesticated animal or an undomesticated one, there are ways
.‫ּבֹו דְּ ָר ִכים ׁ ָשוִ ין ַל ַחּיָ ה וְ ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬
in which its halakhot correspond to those of a domesticated ani-
mal, and there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those
of an undomesticated animal. And there are ways in which its
halakhot correspond to those of both an undomesticated animal
and a domesticated animal.

‫ וְ ָדמֹו‬,‫ ֶח ְל ּבֹו ָאסוּר – ְּכ ֵח ֶלב ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬:‫ֵּכיצַ ד‬ The baraita elaborates: How so? Its fat is forbiddenh like the forbid-
‫ דְּ ָר ִכים ׁ ָשוִ ין‬.‫ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות – ְּכ ַדם ַה ַחּיָ ה‬ den fat of a domesticated animal, unlike that of an undomesticated
one. And one is obligated to cover its bloodh from slaughter with
‫ַל ְ ּב ֵה ָמה וְ ַל ַחּיָ ה – ׁ ֶשדָּ מֹו וְ גִ ידֹו ֲאסו ִּרין‬
dirt, like the blood of an undomesticated animal. And there are
‫רֹוע ו ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם‬
ַ ְ‫ וְ ַחּיָ יב ִ ּבז‬,‫ִּכ ְב ֵה ָמה וְ ַחּיָ ה‬ ways in which its halakhot correspond to both those of a domesti-
.‫ֹוטר‬
ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ּפ‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬ cated animal and an undomesticated animal, as its blood and its
sciatic nerve are forbidden like those of a domesticated animal
and an undomesticated animal.h And its owner is obligated to give
the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from it to the priest, as in the case
of domesticated animals. And Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner of a
koy exempt from the mitzva to give the gifts.

‫״חּיָ יב ַ ּב ֲחצִ י ַמ ָּתנֹות״ ִמ ָ ּב ֵעי‬

ַ ,‫ וְ ִאם ִא ָיתא‬Rabbi Zeira asks: And if it is so that the Rabbis mean that the owner
ּ ‫ ֵל‬of a koy is obligated to give half of the gifts, then the baraita should
‫יה! ַאיְ ֵידי דִּ ְתנָ א ֶח ְל ּבֹו וְ ָדמֹו דְּ ָלא ִמ ְתנֵי‬
have said that he is obligated to give half of the gifts from it. The
.‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָה ִכי ָלא ָקא ָּתנֵי ֵחצִ י‬,‫ֵחצִ י ֵחצִ י‬
Gemara responds: Since the tanna taught that its fat and its blood
are forbidden, with regard to which it could not teach that half of
its blood or half of its fat are forbidden, as it is impossible that half
of it is forbidden while the other half is permitted, due to that reason
the tanna did not teach that the owner of a koy is obligated in half
of the gifts.

halakha
Its fat is forbidden – ‫ח ְל ּבֹו ָאסוּר‬:ֶ The offspring of a kosher domes- domesticated or undomesticated, must be covered after their
ticated animal and a kosher undomesticated animal is called a slaughter. One does not recite a blessing before covering their
koy. Its fat is forbidden, but one who consumed this forbidden blood, because one does not recite a blessing in a case of uncer-
fat is not liable to receive lashes (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot tainty (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 1:13;
Ma’akhalot Assurot 1:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 64:1). Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 28:3).
And one is obligated to cover its blood – ‫וְ ָדמֹו ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬: Forbidden like those of a domesticated animal and an undo-
The blood of the offspring of a domesticated animal and an mesticated animal – ‫אסו ִּרין ִּכ ְב ֵה ָמה וְ ַחּיָה‬:ֲ The prohibition against
undomesticated animal, as well as the blood of creatures with consuming the sciatic nerve applies to a koy, as stated in the
regard to which it is uncertain whether they are classified as baraita (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:6).

330 Ĥullin . perek X . 132a . ‫בלק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ּכֹוי ְל ַר ָ ּבנַן‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ The Gemara relates that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to
,‫״שֹור״‬ ׁ :‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ַחּיָ יב ְ ּבכו ְּּלה ּו ַמ ָּתנֹות‬ Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: According to the Rab-
bis, a koy is obligated to have all of the gifts of the priesthood given
‫״אם ׁשֹור״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות‬ ִ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד‬
from it. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to
‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫ ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד‬,‫״שה״‬ ׂ ֶ .‫ֶאת ַה ִּכ ְל ַאיִ ם‬ the gifts of the priesthood: “Whether it be an ox or sheep” (Deuter-
.‫״אם ֶ ׂשה״ – ְל ַר ּבֹות ֶאת ַה ּכֹוי‬ ִ onomy 18:3). Since the verse needed to state only “ox,” why must the
verse state: “Whether it be an ox”? This phrase serves to include a
hybrid in the obligation to give the gifts of the priesthood. And since
the verse needed to state only “sheep,” why must the verse state:
“Or sheep”? This phrase serves to include the koy in the obligation
to give the gifts.

?‫״אם״ ָל ָּמה ִלי‬ ִ ‫ ַהאי‬,‫יעזֶ ר‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,
‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ְל ַח ֵּלק ְמנָ א‬.‫יה ְל ַח ֵּלק‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִמ‬who deems the owners of a koy and the offspring of a hybrid exempt
ּ ‫יב ֵעי ֵל‬
from giving gifts of the priesthood from these animals, why do I need
.‫״מ ֵאת ז ְֹב ֵחי ַהּזֶ ַבח״‬ ֵ ‫ְלהוּ? נָ ְפ ָקא ְלה ּו‬
this phrase: “Whether it be an ox or sheep”? The Gemara responds:
He requires it to divide between an ox and a sheep, indicating that
one is obligated with regard to either animal alone. Were it not for
this phrase, one might have concluded that he is obligated to give
the gifts only after slaughtering both an ox and a sheep. The Gemara
asks: And the Rabbis, who derive other halakhot from this phrase,
from where do they derive to divide between an ox and a sheep?
The Gemara responds: They derive it from the phrase: “From them
that perform a slaughter” (Deuteronomy 18:3), which indicates that
the obligation to give the gifts applies even to one animal.

‫״מ ֵאת ז ְֹב ֵחי ַהּזֶ ַבח״‬ ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ַהאי‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this
,‫יה ְל ִכ ְד ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ ַמאי ֲע ֵביד ֵל‬phrase: “From them that perform a slaughter,” i.e., what does he
ּ ‫יה? ִמ ָ ּב ֵעי ֵל‬
derive from it? The Gemara responds: He requires it for a statement
.‫ ַהדִּ ין – ִעם ַה ַּט ָ ּבח‬:‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬
of Rava, as Rava said: If a priest seeks to claim gifts of the priesthood
in court, the priest issues his demand with the butcher, even if the
animal itself belongs to another individual.

‫ ִ ּבזְ ַמן‬,‫מתני׳ ְ ּבכֹור ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ָע ֵרב ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה‬

‫ֹוט ִרים ֶאת‬ ְ ‫ֹוח ִטין ֶאת ּכו ָּּלן – ּפ‬ ֲ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵּמ ָאה ׁש‬
mishna With regard to a blemished firstborn animal,
which one may slaughter and eat without
being required to give the foreleg, jaw, and maw to the priest, that
‫ֹוט ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֹוחט ֶאת ּכו ָּּלן – ּפ‬ ֵ ‫ ֶא ָחד ׁש‬.‫ ּכו ָּּלן‬was intermingled with one hundredh non-sacred animals, from
.‫ לֹו ֶא ָחד‬which one is required to give those gifts, in a case when one hundred
different people slaughter all of them, each slaughtering one animal,
one exempts them all from giving the gifts, as each could claim that
the animal that he slaughtered was the firstborn. If one person
slaughtered them all, one exempts one of the animals for him.

,‫ֹוחט ַל ּכ ֵֹהן וְ ַל ּגֹוי – ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬

ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬ One who slaughters the animal of a priest for the priest or the
‫ וְ ִאם‬.‫וְ ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּתף ִע ָּמ ֶהן – צָ ִריךְ ׁ ֶשּיִ ְר ׁשֹום‬ animal of a gentile for the gentileh is exempt from the obligation to
give the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. And an Israelite
‫ ״ח ּוץ ִמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות״ – ּ ָפטוּר ִמן‬,‫ָא ַמר‬
who enters into partnership with a priest or a gentileh must mark
.‫ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ the animal to indicate that it is jointly owned and exempt from the
obligation to give the gifts. And if a priest sold his animal to an
Israelite and said: The animal is sold except for the gifts with it, the
Israelite is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, as they are
not his.

halakha
A firstborn that was intermingled with one hundred – ‫ְ ּבכֹור‬ gentile is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts of the
‫ש ִּנ ְת ָע ֵרב ְ ּב ֵמ ָאה‬:
ֶ ׁ In the case of a firstborn animal that was given priesthood (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:10; Shulĥan
to a priest in a blemished state, and the priest then sold it to Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:25).
an Israelite, and the animal became intermingled with other
animals, the halakha is as follows: If multiple people slaughter And an Israelite who enters into partnership with a priest or a
those animals, each individual is exempt from giving the gifts, gentile – ‫וְ ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּתף ִע ָּמ ֶהן‬: One who enters into partnership with
since all of them can claim that his animal is the firstborn. If one a priest with regard to the ownership of an animal must mark his
person slaughters all of them, the exemption applies to only one portion of the animal, so that the gifts are in the portion of the
animal. This ruling is in accordance with Rav Oshaya’s explanation priest. If he does not do so, he is obligated to give the gifts, as
of the mishna on 132b (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:4; others might be unaware of his partnership with the priest, and
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:20). might conclude that giving the gifts in general is not obligatory
(Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
One who slaughters for the priest or for the gentile – ‫ֹוחט‬ ֵ ‫ַה ׁ ּש‬ De’a 61:25).
‫ל ּכ ֵֹהן וְ ַלגּ ֹוי‬:ַ One who slaughters an animal for a priest or for a

 ‫בלק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 132a 331

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ וְ ָהי ּו‬,‫יה ׁ ֶשל ּ ָפ ָרה״‬
ָ ‫״מכֹור ִלי ְ ּבנֵי ֵמ ֶע‬ ְ ‫ָא ַמר‬ If the Israelite said to the one slaughtering the animal: Sell me the
If he said, sell me the innards of a cow and there innards of a cow, and there were gifts included with it, i.e., the maw,
were gifts with it…if he bought the innards ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו ְמנַ ֶּכה לֹו ִמן‬,‫נֹותנָן ַל ּכ ֵֹהן‬
ְ – ‫ָ ּב ֶהן ַמ ָּתנֹות‬
the purchaser gives them to the priest and he does not deduct the
from the slaughterer by weight – ‫ָא ַמר ְמכֹור ִלי‬ ,‫נֹותנָן ַל ּכ ֵֹהן‬
ְ – ‫ימנּ ּו ְ ּב ִמ ׁ ְש ָקל‬
ֶ ‫ ְל ָק ָחן ֵה‬.‫ַהדָּ ִמים‬
‫ימנּ ּו ְ ּב ִמ ׁ ְש ָקל‬
ֶ ‫נֹות…ל ָק ָחן ֵה‬
ְ ‫יה ׁ ֶשל ּ ָפ ָרה וְ ָהי ּו ָ ּב ֶהן ַמ ָּת‬
ָ ‫בנֵי ֵמ ֶע‬:ּ ְ value of the gifts from the money that he pays him. If he bought
.‫ו ְּמנַ ֶּכה לֹו ִמן ַהדָּ ִמים‬ the innards from the slaughterer by weight,h the purchaser gives
If one said to a butcher: Sell me the innards of this
cow, he must give the gifts to the priest and does the gifts, i.e., the maw, to the priest and deducts the value of the
not deduct their value from the price paid to the gifts from the money that he pays him.
butcher. If he purchased the innards by weight, he
gives the gifts to the priest and deducts their value
from the price (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bik-
kurim 9:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:32).
,‫גמ׳ וְ ַא ַּמאי? יָ בֹא ָע ָליו ּכ ֵֹהן ִמ ׁ ּ ְשנֵי צְ ָד ִדין‬
,‫יה דִּ ִידי הוּא‬ ּ ‫ ִאי ְ ּבכֹור הוּא – ּכו ֵּּל‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ימא ֵל‬ָ ‫וְ ֵל‬
gemaraThe mishna teaches that if a firstborn animal
was intermingled with one hundred non-
sacred animals, each belonging to a different person, all of the ani-
!‫ וְ ִאי ָלאו ְ ּבכֹור הוּא – ַהב ִלי ַמ ְּתנָ ַתאי‬mals are excluded from the obligation to give the gifts, due to the
uncertainty of which animal is the firstborn. The Gemara asks: But
why is this the halakha? Let the priest come upon each slaughterer
with a claim from two sides, i.e., let the priest say to him: If this
animal is a firstborn, it is completely mine; and if it is not a
firstborn but is instead a non-sacred animal, then give me my gifts.

Perek X
Daf 132 Amud b
notes
‫ ו ְּמ ָכרֹו‬,‫ ְ ּב ָבא ִל ֵידי כ ֵֹהן‬:‫אֹוש ֲעיָ א‬
ַ ׁ ‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬Rav Oshaya says in response: In general, a priest may issue such a
Even a butcher who is a priest is included – ‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו‬
‫ט ָ ּבח ּכ ֵֹהן ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬:ַ Some commentaries explain that .‫ ְליִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ְ ּבמוּמֹו‬claim. But the mishna is dealing with a case where the firstborn
this derivation applies only to a priest who slaugh-
came into the possession of the priest when it was unblemished
ters the animals of an Israelite, as by Torah law a and thereafter it developed a permanent blemish, and the priest sold
priest is always exempt from separating gifts from it to an Israelite in its blemished state. In such a case, the priest may
his own animals. The Sages obligated a priest who not demand that the owner give him the entire animal with the claim
slaughters and sells his animal to separate gifts of that it is a firstborn, as he already received it once as a firstborn.
the priesthood (Tosafot).
.‫ֹוחט ַל ּכ ֵֹהן וְ ַלגּ ֹוי ּ ָפט ּור ִמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות״‬ ַ § The mishna teaches that one who slaughters the animal of a priest
ֵ ‫״ה ׁ ּש‬
language ְ ‫ וְ ִל‬for the priest or the animal of a gentile for the gentile is exempt
‫ ּכ ֵֹהן וְ גֹוי ּ ְפטו ִּרין ִמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות! ָא ַמר‬:‫יתנֵי‬
Host [ushpizikhnei] – ‫נֵיה‬
ּ ‫או ׁ ְּש ּ ִפיזִ ְיכ‬: From the Middle from the obligation to give the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the
.‫ ַהדִּ ין ִעם ַה ַּט ָ ּבח‬:‫אֹומ ֶרת‬
ֶ ‫ זֹאת‬,‫ָר ָבא‬
Persian aspanjakan, meaning host. maw. The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna simply teach that a
priest and a gentile are exempt from the obligation to give the gifts.
Rava says in explanation: That is to say, i.e., the wording of the
mishna indicates, that the demand of a priest who seeks to claim
gifts of the priesthood is with the butcher, not with the owner of
the animal. Even if the butcher is himself a priest, if he slaughters an
animal on behalf of an Israelite he is obligated to give the gifts.

,‫״מ ֵאת ָה ָעם״ – וְ ל ֹא ֵמ ֵאת ַה ּכ ֲֹהנִים‬ ֵ :‫ דָּ ַר ׁש ָר ָבא‬The Gemara adds: Rava also interpreted the verse in such a manner.
:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫״מ ֵאת ז ְֹב ֵחי ַהּזֶ ַבח״ ֱהוֵ י‬ ֵ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ׁ ֶשהוּא‬The verse states: “This shall be the priests’ due from the people, from
them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, that they
.‫ֲא ִפילּ ּו ַט ָ ּבח ּכ ֵֹהן ְ ּב ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע‬
shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deu-
teronomy 18:3). The verse specifies that the gifts are taken “from the
people,” and not from the priests. When the verse states: “From
them that perform a slaughter,” indicating that the gifts are given
by anyone who slaughters an animal, you must say that this teaches
that even a butcher who is a priest is includedn in the obligation to
give the gifts.

‫ וַ ֲהוָ ה‬,‫נֵיה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְב ָלא ּכ ֵֹהן ֲהוָ ה‬ ּ ‫יכ‬ ְ ִ‫או ׁ ְּש ּ ִפיז‬ § The mishna teaches that the obligation to give the gifts of the
,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְב ָלא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬.‫יה ִמ ְּל ָתא‬ ּ ‫דָּ ֵחיק ֵל‬ priesthood does not apply to an animal jointly owned by an Israelite
and a priest. The Gemara relates that the host [ushpizikhnei]l of
,‫יש ַּת ַּתף ַ ּב ֲה ֵדי ַט ָ ּב ֵחי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬
ְ ׁ ‫ זִ יל ִא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
Rabbi Tavla was a priest and he was hard-pressed for money. He
. ְ‫ ִמ ׁ ְש ַּת ְּת ִפי ַ ּב ֲה ָדך‬,‫דְּ ִמ ּגֹו דְּ ִמ ּ ַפ ְּט ִרי ִמ ַּמ ְּתנָ ָתא‬ came before Rabbi Tavla to ask for advice. Rabbi Tavla said to him:
Go and enter into a partnership with those Israelite butchers, to
obtain part ownership of their animals, as since they will be exempt
from the obligation to give the gifts on account of this partnership,
they will agree to enter into a business partnership with you free
of charge.
332 Ĥullin . perek X . 132b . ‫בלק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
‫ וְ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְב ָלא‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יה ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ּ ‫ ַחּיְ ֵיב‬The priest heeded the advice of Rabbi Tavla and entered into a
Your ear [unakh] – ‫אוּנָ ְך‬: This term is derived from
ּ ‫ ּ ָפ ְט ַרן! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬partnership with an Israelite butcher. Nevertheless, Rav Naĥman
‫ וְ ִאי ָלא – ַמ ּ ְפ ִקינָא‬,‫ זִ יל ַא ּ ֵפיק‬:‫יה‬ ona, a shortened form of odna, meaning ear in Ara-
obligated the butcher to give the gifts of the priesthood from the
! ְ‫ָלךְ ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְב ָלא ֵמאוּנָ ך‬ maic. With regard to the meaning of Rav Naĥman’s
animals he slaughtered. The priest said to Rav Naĥman: But Rabbi statement, some explain that he threatened to pun-
Tavla exempted us from this obligation. Rav Naĥman said to him: ish the host until he agreed to ignore the advice of
Go remove the gifts of the priesthood that are in your possession Rabbi Tavla and stop acting in accordance with his
and give them to a priest, and if you will not do so, I will remove opinion. Others maintain that Rav Naĥman meant
Rabbi Tavla from your ear [me’unakh],l i.e., I will refute his basis that he would cause the host to forget Rabbi Tavla
and he would no longer make any mention of his
for deeming you exempt.
name (Arukh).
:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן‬ ּ ‫ֲאזַ ל ַר ִ ּבי ַט ְב ָלא ַק ֵּמ‬ Rabbi Tavla came before Rav Naĥman and said to him: What is
‫ דְּ ִכי‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא ָע ֵביד ָמר ָה ִכי? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ the reason that the Master has done this and ruled in contradiction
to the mishna? Rav Naĥman said to him: I ruled in this manner, as
‫רֹומא ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬
ָ ָּ‫ֲא ָתא ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א ִמד‬
when Rabbi Aĥa bar Ĥanina of the south came from Eretz Yisrael
– ‫ ּכ ֵֹהן ַט ָ ּבח‬:ּ‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י זִ ְקנֵי ָדרֹום ָא ְמרו‬ֻ ׁ ְ‫י‬ to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and all the
,‫ׁ ְש ַּתיִ ם וְ ׁ ָשל ֹׁש ׁ ַש ָ ּבתֹות ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ elders of the southb said: With regard to a priest who becomes a
.‫ִמ ָּכאן וְ ֵא ָילךְ – ַחּיָ יב ְ ּב ַמ ָּתנֹות‬ butcher, for the first two or three weeks he is exempt from the
obligation to give the gifts, as he has not yet established himself in
the community as a butcher. But from this point forward he is
obligated to give the gifts, as he is now known as a butcher.

‫יהת ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָחא‬

ַ ‫יה ָמר ִמ‬ ּ ‫ וְ ַל ֲע ִביד ֵל‬:‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rabbi Tavla said to Rav Naĥman: And let the Master at least do
‫ילי – דְּ ָלא ָק ַבע‬ ּ ‫ ַ ּבר ֲחנִינָ א! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬for the priest in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aĥa bar
ֵּ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ‬:‫יה‬
Ĥanina and exempt him from giving the gifts for the first three
.‫ ֲא ָבל ָה ָכא – ָהא ָק ַבע ְמ ַס ְח ָּתא‬,‫ְמ ַס ְח ָּתא‬
weeks of his partnership. Rav Naĥman said to him: This statement
of Rabbi Aĥa bar Ĥanina applies only when the priest did not imme-
diately establish a butcher shop. In such a case, the priest is exempt
until he becomes known as a recognized butcher. But here, he has
already established a butcher shoph and is therefore obligated to
give the gifts without delay.

‫ ַהאי ָּכ ֲהנָ א דְּ ָלא ַמ ְפ ִר ׁיש‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ § Rav Ĥisda said: With regard to a priest who slaughters an animal
.‫יהוֵ י ְ ּב ׁ ַש ְמ ָּתא דֵּ אל ֵֹהי יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬
ֱ ‫ַמ ְּתנָ ָתא – ֶל‬ and does not separate gifts of the priesthood from them for another
priest, let him be under the excommunication of the God of Israel.
‫ ָהנֵי ַט ָ ּב ֵחי ְדהוּצֵ ל‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַרב ׁ ֵש ָילא‬
Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: These butchers of the city of Huzal
‫ימי ְ ּב ׁ ָש ְמ ָתא דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָהא ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים‬ ִ ְ‫ָקי‬ have remained under the excommunication of Rav Ĥisda these
.‫וְ ַת ְר ֵּתי ׁ ְשנִין‬ last twenty-two years, as they have continuously refused to separate
gifts of the priesthood for this period.

‫ימא דְּ ת ּו ָלא ְמ ׁ ַש ְמ ִּתינַן‬ ָ ‫ְל ַמאי ִה ְל ְכ ָתא? ִא ֵיל‬ The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha did Rabba bar Rav
‫ ַ ּב ֶּמה דְּ ָב ִרים ֲאמו ִּרים‬:‫ְלה ּו – וְ ָהא ַּתנְ יָ א‬ Sheila state that the butchers of Huzal have been under excommu-
nication for twenty-two years? If we say that we do not excom-
,‫ ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ִמצְ וַ ת ֲע ֵ ׂשה‬,‫ְ ּב ִמצְ וַ ת ל ֹא ַּת ֲע ֶ ׂשה‬
municate them for a period any longer than twenty-two years, but
,‫עֹושה‬
ׂ ֶ ‫״ע ֵ ׂשה סו ָּּכה״! וְ ֵאינֹו‬ ֲ ‫אֹומ ִרים לֹו‬
ְ :‫ְּכגֹון‬ isn’t it taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that one
‫״ע ֵ ׂשה צִ יצִ ית״! וְ ֵאינֹו‬ ֲ ,‫עֹושה‬ׂ ֶ ‫״לו ָּלב״! וְ ֵאינֹו‬ is not excommunicated for committing a transgression, said? It is
!‫עֹושה – ַמ ִּכין אֹותֹו ַעד ׁ ֶש ֵּתצֵ א נַ ְפ ׁשֹו‬
ֶׂ said with regard to a prohibition, for which one is liable to receive
a relatively severe punishment, e.g., death or karet. But with regard
to one who refuses to perform a positive mitzva, e.g., the court says
to him: Perform the mitzva of sukka, and he does not do so, or:
Perform the mitzva of taking the lulav, and he does not do so, or:
Prepare ritual fringes for your garments, and he does not do so,
the court strikes him an unlimited number of times, even until his
soul departs. Accordingly, the butchers of Huzal should remain
under excommunication indefinitely until they separate the gifts.

background
Elders of the south – ‫זִ ְקנֵי ָדרֹום‬: This was the title of a group of after Judea was ravaged by the war that led to the destruction of the
Torah scholars who lived in Judea, particularly in Lod and its sur- Second Temple and the bar Kokheva revolt, Torah scholars remained
rounding areas, during the period of the amora’im. During that era, in Judea who had studied under the greatest Torah scholars of the
the majority of the Jewish population in Eretz Yisrael lived in the previous generations. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi cites this halakha
Galilee, where the main centers of Torah study were located. Even in the name of this group of scholars.

halakha
A priest who becomes a butcher…established a butcher meat, the court does not wait. Rather, the gifts are removed from
shop – ‫ח…ק ַבע ְמ ַס ְח ָּתא‬
ָ ‫כ ֵֹהן ַט ָ ּב‬:ּ With regard to a priest who works his possession at once. If the priest refuses to relinquish them, he is
as a butcher, the court waits two or three weeks, after which they excommunicated until he complies (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot
remove gifts of the priesthood from his possession and give them Bikkurim 9:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:22, 24).
to other priests. If the priest established a butcher shop to sell the

 ‫בלק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 132b 333

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ִּכי ָהא‬.‫יתא‬ ִ ‫ דְּ ָק‬,‫ ֶא ָּלא‬Rather, Rabba bar Rav Sheila means that because the butchers of
ָ ָ‫נְסינַן ְלה ּו ְ ּב ָלא ַא ְת ָרי‬
ָ ‫ ְ ּג ִל‬:
Cloak – ‫ימא‬
‫ ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק ָקנֵיס‬,‫ דְּ ָר ָבא ָקנֵיס ַא ְט ָמא‬Huzal have refused to give the gifts for so many years, we fine them
even without forewarning. There was a case like this of a person
.‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ְ ּג ִל‬
who refused to give the gifts of the priesthood to a priest, where
Rava fined him by taking the entire thigh of his animal and giving
it to a priest. Similarly, Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak fined an individual
who refused to give the gifts of the priesthood to a priest by taking
his cloak b and giving it to a priest.

– ‫ וְ ֵק ָבה‬,‫רֹוע – ְל ֶא ָחד‬ ַ ְ‫ ז‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ § And Rav Ĥisda also says with regard to gifts of the priesthood:
‫ וְ ָהא ִּכי ֲא ָתא‬,‫ ִאינִי‬.‫ ְל ָחיַ יִ ם – ִל ׁ ְשנַיִ ים‬,‫ְל ֶא ָחד‬ The foreleg is given to one priest and the maw is given to one priest,
while the jaw is given to twoh priests. The Gemara asks: Is that so?
‫ ְ ּב ַמ ְע ְר ָבא ּ ָפ ְלגִ ינַן ְלה ּו‬:‫יֹוסף ֲא ַמר‬
ֵ ‫ַרב יִ צְ ָחק ַ ּבר‬
But when Rav Yitzĥak bar Yosef came to Babylonia from Eretz
!‫ְ ּג ָר ָמא ְ ּג ָר ָמא‬ Yisrael he said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, we divide the gifts bone
by bone, each of which is given to two priests.

.‫תֹורא‬
ָ ‫ ָה ָתם ִ ּב ְד‬The Gemara explains: There, in the case dealt with in Eretz Yisrael,
the gifts were of a large bull.h The Torah states: “That they shall give
to the priest” (Deuteronomy 18:3). The use of the term “give” indi-
cates that the gift given should be a substantial one. Even when one
Sculpture from the mishnaic era of a man in a cloak limb of the large bull was divided between two priests, each received
Mustard – ‫ח ְרדָּ ל‬:ַ This refers to Eruca sativa L., known a substantial portion. This is not the case with regard to the gifts of
in modern times as arugula. It is an annual plant smaller animals, where each limb is not large enough to provide two
that grows to heights of 20–100 cm, and it can be substantial portions.
found growing along the sides of roads throughout
Eretz Yisrael, with the exception of the Negev Desert. ‫ ָאסוּר‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה‬ § Rabba bar bar Ĥana says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: It is prohib-
Its leaves are used in salads and are eaten raw. The ited to partake of a slaughtered animal whose gifts have not yet
.‫יה‬ ֶ ‫ֶל ֱאכֹול ִמ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא הו ְּר ָמה ַמ ְּת‬
ָ ‫נֹות‬
flowers of the arugula plant have a yellowish color been separated.h Furthermore, Rabba bar bar Ĥana says that
with purple veins. During the Second Temple era ‫ ָּכל‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה‬
Rabbi Yoĥanan says: Anyone who partakes of an animal whose
the seeds of the arugula were used as a substitute – ‫יה‬ ֶ ‫אֹוכל ִמ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא הו ְּר ָמה ַמ ְּת‬
ָ ‫נֹות‬ ֵ ‫ָה‬ gifts have not yet been separated is considered as though he con-
for pepper.
.‫יה‬ּ ‫ וְ ֵלית ִה ְל ְכ ָתא ְּכוָ ֵות‬.‫אֹוכל ְט ָב ִלים‬ֵ ‫ְּכ ִאילּ ּו‬ sumes untithed produce. But the Gemara states: The halakha is
not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoĥanan.

‫ ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה ֵאין נֶ ֱא ָכלֹות‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ Rav Ĥisda says: Gifts of the priesthood may be consumed only
‫ ַמאי‬.‫ וְ ֵאין נֶ ֱא ָכלֹות ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַח ְרדָּ ל‬,‫ֶא ָּלא צָ ִלי‬ when they are roasted, and they may be consumed only with
mustardbh seasoning. What is the reason for this halakha? The
,‫״ל ָמ ׁ ְש ָחה״ – ִלגְ דו ָּּלה‬
ְ ‫ַט ֲע ָמא – ָא ַמר ְק ָרא‬
verse states: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron: And I, behold, I have
.‫אֹוכ ִלים‬
ְ ‫ְּכ ֶד ֶרךְ ׁ ֶש ַה ְּמ ָל ִכים‬ given you the charge of My gifts; of all the consecrated items of the
children of Israel to you have I given them for prominence, and to
your sons, as an eternal portion” (Numbers 18:8). The term “for
prominence” means that the portions were given to the priests as
a mark of greatness. Accordingly, they should be eaten in a manner
that kings eat, i.e., roasted and with mustard.

Flower of the arugula plant

halakha
The foreleg to one and the maw to one while the jaw is given to rest of the meat. The gifts themselves may not be consumed by
two – ‫רֹוע ְל ֶא ָחד וְ ֵק ָבה ְל ֶא ָחד ְל ָחיַ יִ ם ִל ׁ ְשנַיִ ים‬
ַ ְ‫ז‬: One who wishes to give an Israelite without the express permission of a priest. Although it
all of the gifts to one priest may do so. If he wishes to divide them is permitted to partake of such an animal, it is a mitzva to refrain
among more than one priest, he should not divide them among from partaking of it until the gifts have been set aside (Rambam
many, as each must receive a substantial portion. Accordingly, he Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:14; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:5).
should give the foreleg to one priest, the maw to one, and the jaw
Gifts of the priesthood may be consumed only roasted and
to two (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:17; Shulĥan Arukh,
they may be consumed only with mustard – ‫ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה ֵאין‬
Yoreh De’a 61:9).
‫נֶ ֱא ָכלֹות ֶא ָּלא צָ ִלי וְ ֵאין נֶ ֱא ָכלֹות ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ַח ְרדָּ ל‬: The priests may consume
Bone by bone…of a large bull – ‫תֹורא‬ ּ ִ ‫ג ָר ָמא ְ ּג ָר ָמ‬:ּ ְ If one owns gifts of the priesthood only with mustard, as the verse states: “For
ָ ‫א…ב ְד‬
a large bull and wishes to distribute the gifts from it to multiple prominence,” which indicates that the portions should be eaten
priests, he may divide the foreleg among two priests so that each in a manner of kings. Some commentaries claim that if the priest
one receives one bone (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:17; prefers cooked to roasted meat, he cannot be forced to consume
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:9). it roasted, as the manner of kings is to consume food in a manner
most pleasing to them (Kesef Mishne, citing Tosafot). The Shulĥan
Partaking of an animal whose gifts have not yet been separated – Arukh likewise states: A priest may consume the gifts in the manner
‫יה‬ ֶ ‫א ִכ ַילת ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא הו ְּרמ ּו ַמ ְּת‬:ֲ An animal whose gifts have not that is most pleasant to him. If he does not have a preference, he
ָ ‫נֹות‬
yet been separated may be consumed. It is not considered equiva- should eat it roasted and with mustard (Rambam Sefer Zera’im,
lent to untithed produce, because the gifts are distinct from the Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:22; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:12).

334 Ĥullin . perek X . 132b . ‫בלק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים וְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ַמ ְּתנֹות‬:‫וְ ָא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ And Rav Ĥisda says: One may not give a gift to any priest who is
not an expert in the halakhot pertaining to all twenty-four gifts of Any priest who does not believe in the Temple ser-
‫ ָּכל ּכ ֵֹהן ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָ ּב ִקי ָ ּב ֶהן – ֵאין‬,‫ְּכהו ָּּנה‬ vice – ‫בֹודה‬
ָ ‫מֹודה ַ ּב ֲע‬
ֶ ‫כל ּכ ֵֹהן ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬:ָּ Some commentaries
the priesthood. The Gemara notes: But this is not correct, as it is
,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ וְ ָלאו ִמ ְּיל ָתא ִהיא‬.‫נֹותנִין לֹו ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬
ְ explain that this refers to a priest who thinks that the
taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does sacrificial rites of the Temple service were fabricated
‫מֹודה‬
ֶ ‫ ָּכל ּכ ֵֹהן ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬ not believe in the validity of the Temple servicen has no portion by Moses and they were not commanded by God
‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫בֹודה – ֵאין לֹו ֵח ֶלק ִ ּב ְכהו ָּּנה‬
ָ ‫ַ ּב ֲע‬ in any of the gifts given to the priesthood, as it is stated: “He (Rashi). Others claim that this cannot refer to one who
‫״ה ַּמ ְק ִריב ֶאת דַּ ם ַה ׁ ּ ְש ָל ִמים וְ ֶאת ַה ֵח ֶלב‬ ַ among the sons of Aaron, who offers [hamakriv] the blood of denies the divinity of the entire Temple service, as it is
the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a obvious that such a person has no portion in the gifts
,‫ִמ ְ ּבנֵי ַא ֲהרֹן לֹו ִת ְהיֶ ה ׁשֹוק ַהּיָ ִמין ְל ָמנָ ה״‬ of the priesthood. Rather, it refers to one who denies
portion” (Leviticus 7:33). The word “hamakriv,” which literally
the divinity of certain rites, claiming that they are not
means: Who brings it close, indicates that only one who believes in obligatory or that their performance is not indispens-
the validity of conveying the blood to the altar is entitled to receive able (Ritva). Although such a person denies the words
the right thigh of the offering, as only one who believes in the rite of the Sages, he believes in the Written Torah. He is
would perform it. therefore not considered an apostate who rejects the
entire Torah, but one who rejects one matter of the
‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ְל ַר ּבֹות‬,‫ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא זֶ ה ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ The baraita continues: I have derived only that a priest does not Torah, and such a person does not disqualify the Temple
have a share in the priestly gifts if he does not believe in this rite of service (Ĥazon Ish). Others contend that the baraita
‫ ַהּיְ צִ יקֹות‬:‫ ְּכגֹון‬,‫ֲח ֵמ ׁש ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ֲעבֹודֹות‬
conveying of the blood alone. From where do I derive to include is dealing with a priest who thinks that the Temple
‫ ְּתנוּפֹות‬,‫וְ ַה ְ ּב ִלילֹות וְ ַה ּ ְפ ִתיתֹות וְ ַה ְּמ ִליחֹות‬ service is not genuine worship of God but merely a
fifteen additional sacrificial rites, such as the rites of a meal offering,
)‫ ַה ְק ָטרֹות (וְ ַה ְּמצִ ּיֹות‬,]‫וְ ַה ָ ּג ׁשֹות [וְ ַה ְּק ִמיצֹות‬ i.e., the pouring of the oil and the mixing of the oil and the subse-
series of actions intended to steer the Jewish people’s
thoughts away from idol worship (Ĥatam Sofer). Yet
]‫[וְ ַה ְּמ ִליקֹות‬ quent pouring of the oil; and the crumbling of meal offerings another explanation is that this priest thinks that the
prepared in a shallow or deep pan or in an oven, whose handfuls are Temple service may be performed by any member of
removed after they are baked and subsequently crumbled; and the the Jewish people and is not solely the domain of the
salting of meal offerings (see Leviticus 2:13); and the waving of priests (Mizbaĥ Kappara).
certain meal offerings; and the bringing of certain meal offerings
to the southwestern corner of the altar before a handful is removed;
and the removal of the handful; and the burning of offerings on
the altar; and the squeezing of a bird offering to extract its blood;
and the pinching of the nape of the neck of a bird offering;

Perek X
Daf 133 Amud a
halakha
‫ וַ ֲע ִר ַיפת‬,‫סֹוטה‬
ָ ‫ וְ ַה ׁ ְש ָק ַאת‬,‫ ַהּזָ אֹות‬,‫וְ ַק ָ ּבלֹות‬ and the receiving of the blood in a vessel; and its sprinkling upon
Veins that are contained in the jaw – ‫חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֶּל ִחי‬: The
‫ּנְשיאוּת‬ ׂ ִ ‫ ו‬,‫צֹורע‬
ָ ‫ וְ ָט ֳה ַרת ְמ‬,‫ֶעגְ ָלה ֲערו ָּפה‬ the altar, each offering according to its halakha; and the giving
veins in the lower jaw that are close to the tongue on
of water to a woman suspected by her husband of having been
‫ַּכ ּ ַפיִ ם ֵ ּבין ִמ ִ ּב ְפנִים ֵ ּבין ִמ ַ ּבחוּץ – ַּת ְלמוּד‬ either side are prohibited due to the blood they contain
unfaithful [sota]; and the ritual of breaking a heifer’s neck in an (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 7:13;
‫בֹודה ָה ֲאמו ָּרה ִל ְבנֵי‬
ָ ‫ ֲע‬,‫״מ ְ ּבנֵי ַא ֲהרֹן״‬
ִ ‫לֹומר‬ ַ untilled valley when a corpse is discovered and the murderer is Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 65:1).
.‫ַא ֲהרֹן‬ unknown; and the purification of a leper; and the lifting of the
hands for the Priestly Benediction, whether inside or outside the background
Temple; from where are these derived? The verse states: “Among Veins that are contained in the jaw – ‫חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֶּל ִחי‬:
the sons of Aaron,” indicating that this is the halakha with regard
to any sacrificial rite that is stated to the sons of Aaron.

‫מֹודה ָ ּב ּה – ֵאין לֹו ֵח ֶלק‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָכל ּכ ֵֹהן ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬And the Gemara explains the proof: The baraita teaches that any
‫ ָהא‬,‫מֹודה ָ ּב ּה‬ ֶ ‫ ַט ֲע ָמא – דְּ ֵאינֹו‬.‫ ַ ּב ְּכהו ָּּנה‬priest who does not believe in the validity of these rites has no
portion in the gifts of the priesthood. It may be inferred that the
.‫מֹודה ָ ּב ּה – ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דְּ ֵאינֹו ָ ּב ִקי ָ ּב ֶהן‬ֶ
reason the priest has no portion is that he does not believe in it,
whereas if he does believe in it, even though he is not an expert
in its halakhot, he receives a portion. This contradicts the opinion
of Rav Ĥisda.

:‫ ָא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬,‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ַא ָ ּבא‬With regard to priests who should not be given gifts of the priest-
‫ וְ ָכל ּכ ֵֹהן ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬,‫ חו ִּטין ׁ ֶש ַ ּב ֶּל ִחי ֲאסו ִּרים‬hood, Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: The
veins that are contained in the jawhb of an animal are prohibited
.‫נֹותנִין לֹו ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬
ְ ‫יט ָלן – ֵאין‬ ְּ ‫יֹוד ַע ִל‬
ֵ
for consumption, due to the blood they contain. And one does not
give the gift of the jaw to any priest who does not know how to
remove the veins, as the priest might eat them. Blood vessels of the head

 ‫גלק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 133a 335

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ וְ ִאי‬.‫ ִאי ְ ּב ָטוְ יָ א – ֵמ ָידב דָּ יְ ִיבי‬,‫ וְ ל ֹא ִהיא‬The Gemara notes: But that is not so, i.e., one need not be con-
A priest who seizes gifts – ‫כ ֲהנָ א דְּ ָח ֵטיף ַמ ְּתנָ ָתא‬:ָּ
A priest should not seize gifts of the priesthood, nor – ‫יח ַת ְך ְלה ּו ו ָּמ ַלח ְלה ּו‬ ֲ ‫ ִאי דְּ ִמ‬,‫ ִל ְק ֵד ָרה‬cerned that the priest might consume the blood within the veins, as
any method of preparing the jaw will remove the blood: If the priest
even request that they be given to him. Rather, if they .‫ֵמ ָידב דָּ יְ ִיבי‬
are given to him in a respectful manner, he should prepares the jaw by roasting it, the blood will drain from the jaw
take them (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:22; due to the fire. And if he intends to place the jaws in a pot to cook
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:11). them, if he cuts them and salts them, as one is required to do before
The modest ones withdraw their hands…to affirm cooking any meat, the blood will drain from them, and they will be
myself among the priests – …‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫מֹוש ִכין ֶאת יְ ֵד‬
ְ ׁ ‫ַה ְ ּצנו ִּעים‬ permitted for consumption.
‫ל ַא ֲחזו ֵּקי נַ ְפ ׁ ַשאי ְ ּב ָכ ֲהנֵי‬:ְ If there are many priests in the
slaughterhouse, the modest ones withdraw their hands ‫ ַהאי ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ ְ ּב ַדק ָלן ַרב‬,‫ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ § With regard to the manner in which a priest takes gifts of the
and the gluttons take the gifts. If there is a modest ,‫ ִח ּבו ֵּבי ָקא ְמ ַח ֵ ּבב ִמצְ וָ ה‬,‫דְּ ָח ֵטיף ַמ ְּתנָ ָתא‬ priesthood from their owners, Rava said: Rav Yosef examined us,
priest whose status as a priest is not widely known, he his students, with the following question: A priest who seizes giftsh
should take gifts in order to publicize the fact that he ‫אֹו זִ ְלזו ֵּלי ָקא ְמזַ ְלזֵ ל ַ ּב ִּמצְ וָ ה? ו ְּפ ׁ ַש ְטנָ א‬
of the priesthood from their owners, is he demonstrating fondness
is a priest (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:22; .‫ ״וְ נָ ַתן״ – וְ ל ֹא ׁ ֶשּיִ ּטֹול ֵמ ַעצְ מֹו‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ֵל‬ for the mitzva or is he demonstrating contempt for the mitzva?
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:11).
And I resolved this question for him from the verse: “That they
shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deu-
language
teronomy 18:3). The term “that they shall give” indicates that the
Modest ones [tzenu’im] – ‫צְ נו ִּעים‬: The Hebrew root
owner should give the gifts, and not that a priest should take them
tzadi, nun, ayin is generally associated with hiding or
concealing. Accordingly, tzenu’im refers to individu-
by himself. Accordingly, a priest who seizes the gifts from their
als who behave with humility. Tzenu’im may also be owners is demonstrating contempt for the mitzva.
related to the Aramaic meaning of tzena, intelligence
and comprehension. If so, when the Gemara discusses ,‫ ֵמ ֵר ׁיש ֲהוָ ה ָח ֵט ְיפנָ א ַמ ְּתנָ ָתא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ Abaye, who was a priest, said: At first, I would seize gifts of the
the actions of tzenu’im, it is referring to individuals pos- .‫ָא ִמינָ א – ִח ּבו ֵּבי ָקא ְמ ַח ֵ ּב ְיבנָ א ִמצְ וָ ה‬ priesthood, as I said to myself that I am demonstrating fondness
sessing great wisdom or awe of Heaven. for the mitzva in this manner. Once I heard this interpretation:
‫ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ ׁ ְש ַמ ֲענָ א ְל ָהא ״וְ נָ ַתן״ – וְ ל ֹא ׁ ֶשּיִ ּטֹול‬
“That they shall give,” and not that he should take by himself, I
notes
:‫ימר ָא ְמ ִרי‬ ַ ‫ ֵמ‬.‫יח ַטף ָלא ָח ֵט ְיפנָ א‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬,‫ֵמ ַעצְ מֹו‬ did not seize them anymore. Instead, I would say to the owners of
His schedule constrained him – ‫נֵיה‬ ּ ָּ‫יה ִעיד‬
ּ ‫יה ֵל‬
ּ ‫נְס‬
ֵ ‫א‬:
ָ :‫ וְ ֵכיוָ ן דִּ ׁ ְש ַמ ֲענָ א ְל ָהא דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫״הב ּו ִלי״‬ ֲ the gifts: Give me. And once I heard that which is taught in a
Some commentaries explain that Abaye suffered from ‫ ְ ּבנֵי‬:‫אֹומר‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬,‫״וַ ּיִ ּט ּו ַא ֲח ֵרי ַה ָ ּבצַ ע״‬ baraita: The verse states with regard to the sons of Samuel, who were
a condition that rendered him unable to delay relieving Levites: “But turned aside after wealth” (I Samuel 8:3), and Rabbi
‫ימר נַ ִמי‬ ַ ‫ ֵמ‬,‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ֶח ְל ָקם ׁ ָש ֲאל ּו ְ ּב ִפ‬
himself. Consequently, he could not raise his hands for Meir says: The sons of Samuel sinned when they asked for their
the Priestly Benediction (Rif; Rosh; Ritva). Others reject .‫ וְ ִאי יָ ֲהב ּו ִלי – ׁ ָש ֵק ְילנָ א‬,‫ָלא ָא ִמינָ א‬
this explanation on the grounds that it is unlikely that
portion, the first tithe given to the Levite, with their mouths, i.e.,
Abaye suffered from such a condition throughout his they demanded that the owners give them the first tithe. Abaye
entire life (Ma’adannei Yom Tov). continued: After I heard that, I also did not say anything to the
owners, but if they would give me gifts I would take them.

‫ ַה ְ ּצנ ּו ִעים‬:‫ֵּכיוָ ן דִּ ׁ ְש ַמ ֲענָ א ְל ָהא דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ Abaye said further: Once I heard that which is taught in a baraita
– ‫חֹול ִקים‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַה ַ ּג ְר ְ ּג ָרנִים‬,‫יהם‬
ֶ ‫מֹוש ִכין ֶאת יְ ֵד‬ ְׁ with regard to the distribution of the shewbread among the priests:
The modest ones [hatzenu’im]l withdraw their hands and do not
‫יֹומא‬
ָ ‫ ְל ַבר ִמ ַּמ ֲע ֵלי‬,‫ִמ ׁ ְש ַקל נַ ִמי ָלא ׁ ָש ֵק ְילנָ א‬
take, and the gluttons divide all the bread; I also did not take gifts
.‫ ְל ַא ֲחזו ֵּקי נַ ְפ ׁ ַשאי ְ ּב ָכ ֲהנֵי‬,‫דְּ ִכ ּיפו ֵּרי‬ even when they were offered to me, except for when they were given
on the eve of Yom Kippur, when there was an abundance of gifts
due to the many animals that were slaughtered, as it is a mitzva to
eat that day. In that instance, I took the gifts in order to affirm myself
among the priests,h i.e., if I would never take gifts then my status
as a priest might be called into question.

.‫נֵיה‬
ּ ָּ‫יה ִעיד‬
ּ ‫יה ֵל‬
ּ ‫נְס‬
ֵ ‫יה? ָא‬
ּ ‫ וְ ִל ְפרֹוס יְ ֵד‬The Gemara challenges: But let him spread his handsb for the
Priestly Benediction throughout the year, as this will make it clear
to all that he is in fact a priest. The Gemara responds: His schedule
constrained him,n as he was constantly involved in teaching Torah
to his students, so much so that he would miss the time during
which the community gathered in the synagogue for the Priestly
Benediction.

background
Lifting hands – ‫נְשיאוּת ַּכ ּ ַפיִ ם‬:
ׂ ִ The Priestly Benediction is recited by to bless the people in a spirit of love. While reciting the Priestly
priests in the synagogue between the blessings of thanksgiving Benediction, the priests lift their hands. In most places in Eretz
and peace, the final two blessings in the repetition of the Amida Yisrael, the Priestly Benediction is recited by the priests during the
prayer. It is comprised of the three verses of priestly benediction in repetition of every morning and additional prayer. In the Diaspora,
Numbers 6:24–26. As the priests turn to face the congregation to though, there is a long-established Ashkenazic practice of reciting
recite the Priestly Benediction, they first recite a blessing acknowl- it only during the additional prayer on Festivals.
edging the sanctity of the priesthood and their responsibility

336 Ĥullin . perek X . 133a . ‫גלק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ַהאי ָּכ ֲהנָ א דְּ ִאית ֵל‬:‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ַמר ַרב‬ Rav Yosef said: In a case where a priest who has a Torah scholar
[tzurva merabbanan]l living in his neighborhood and that Torah Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan] – ‫צו ְּר ָבא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬: This
‫יה‬
ּ ‫יה ו ְּד ִח ָיקא ֵל‬ ּ ‫צו ְּר ָבא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵבבו ֵּת‬ refers to a Torah scholar, particularly a young scholar.
scholar is hard-pressed for money,h let the priest grant his gifts to
‫ וְ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב‬.‫יה ַמ ְּתנָ ָתא‬ ּ ‫ִמ ְּיל ָתא – ִליזְ ֵּכי ֵל‬ Since ancient times, authorities have disagreed as to
him, i.e., the priest may declare that those gifts he is destined to the linguistic source of this expression. Some relate the
.‫ ְ ּב ַמ ָּכ ֵרי ְכהו ָּּנה ו ְּלוִ ּיָ ה‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫דְּ ָלא ָא ֵתי ִל ֵיד‬ receive should be given to the poor Torah scholar. And even though word tzurva to tzarevet, which connotes something
the gifts have not yet come into his possession, he may grant them hot and scorching like fire. This describes the intense
to the Torah scholar in a case where there are associates of the engagement of a young scholar in his Torah studies (Rav
priesthood and the Levites, i.e., if that specific priest or Levite was Hai Gaon). Other commentaries explain that it means
vigor and strength, finding support for this interpreta-
well known in his neighborhood and has a standard arrangement
tion from other talmudic expressions. The word would
with many people that they give him their gifts, as he is certain that therefore be similar to the Arabic root ‫رضب‬, ḍrb, which
he will be given them. also denotes vigor and strength (Ran; Arukh).

‫יֹוחנָ א‬
ֲ ‫ָר ָבא וְ ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא ִא ְיק ְלע ּו ְל ֵבי ָמר‬ With regard to the statement of Rav Yosef, the Gemara relates that
halakha
‫ וְ ָא ְמ ִרי ָל ּה ְל ֵבי‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב ָחנָ א ַ ּבר ַאדָּ א‬ ּ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬ Rava and Rav Safra visited the house of Mar Yoĥana, son of Rav
A priest who has a Torah scholar in his neighborhood
Ĥana bar Adda, and some say they visited the house of Mar
.‫יה דְּ ַרב ָחנָ א ַ ּבר ִ ּביזְ נָ א‬ ּ ‫ר‬ ֵ ‫ב‬
ּ ְ ‫א‬ ָ‫נ‬ ‫יֹוח‬
ֲ ‫ָמר‬ and he is hard-pressed for money, etc. – ‫ָּכ ֲהנָ א דְּ ִאית‬
Yoĥana, son of Rav Ĥana bar Bizna. Mar Yoĥana prepared for ְּ ‫יה ִמ‬
‫יל ָתא וכו׳‬ ּ ‫יה ו ְּד ִח ָיקא ֵל‬
ּ ‫יה צו ְּר ָבא ֵמ ַר ָ ּבנַן ִ ּב ׁ ְש ֵבבו ֵּת‬
ּ ‫ל‬:ֵ If a
‫יה ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ָע ִביד ְלה ּו ֶעגְ ָלא ִּת ְיל ָּתא‬ them a third-born calf.n Rava said to the attendant of Mar Yoĥana, priest has associates of the priesthood who normally
‫ דְּ ָב ֵעינָ א ְל ֵמ ַיכל‬,‫ זְ ֵכי ָלן ַמ ְּתנָ ָתא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ְל ׁ ַש ָּמ ֵע‬ who was a priest and would normally receive gifts of the priesthood give their gifts to him, he may grant these gifts to an
!‫ישנָ א ְ ּב ַח ְרדְּ ָלא‬ ָ ּ ׁ ‫ִל‬ from Mar Yoĥana: Grant us the gifts, as I wish to eat tongue with Israelite, such that the Israelite receives them directly
mustard, and the tongue along with the jaw is one of the gifts. from the priest’s associates. This is permitted only if the
Israelite is a Torah scholar who has no other means of
.‫ וְ ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא ָלא ֲא ַכל‬,‫ ָר ָבא ֲא ַכל‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫זְ ֵכי ֵל‬ The attendant granted the gifts to him; Rava ate from them but Rav sustenance (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:21;
Safra did not eat. Following this incident, they read the following Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:14).
‫״מ ֲע ֶדה ֶ ּבגֶ ד‬ַ :‫ַא ְק ִרּיו ּּה ְל ַרב ָס ְפ ָרא ְ ּב ֶח ְל ָמא‬
verse to Rav Safra in a dream: “As one that takes off a garment in When I said that a priest may grant the gifts that
‫ְ ּביֹום ָק ָרה ח ֶֹמץ ַעל נָ ֶתר וְ ׁ ָשר ַ ּב ׁ ּ ִש ִירים‬
cold weather, and as vinegar upon niter, so is he that sings songs was only with regard to another person of his own
.‫ַעל ֶלב ָרע״‬ to a heavy heart” (Proverbs 25:20). The verse can be interpreted choosing, etc. – ‫כי ָא ְמ ִרי ֲאנָ א ְ ּב ַא ֵחר וכו׳‬:ִּ A priest who is
allegorically as a chastisement of one who studies Torah but fails to an attendant in the house of an Israelite may not grant
gifts to the homeowner, such that he receives them
understand it. directly from the priest’s associates, even if the Israelite
is a poor Torah scholar. This ruling is in accordance with
‫ דִּ ְל ָמא‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫יֹוסף‬ֵ ‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ּ ‫ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬ Rav Safra came before Rav Yosef and said to him: Perhaps because
the Rambam’s explanation of Rav Yosef’s response to
‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ֲע ַב ִרי ַא ׁ ּ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא דְּ ָמר ַא ְק ִרּיָ ין‬ I transgressed the halakha of the Master they read this verse to Rav Safra (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:21;
me in chastisement. Rav Yosef said to him: No, you acted appropri- Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:14 and Gra there).
,‫ ִּכי ָא ְמ ִרי ֲאנָ א – ְ ּב ַא ֵחר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ָה ִכי? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
ately by refraining from consuming the gifts. When I said that a
‫ וְ ִכי ָא ְמ ִרי‬.‫יה ְמזַ ֵּכי‬ּ ‫ׁ ַש ָּמ ָעא – ְ ּב ַעל ָּכ ְר ֵח‬ priest may grant the gifts to a Torah scholar, that was only with
– ‫ ָהא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲאנָ א – ְל ַמאן דְּ ָלא ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ֵל‬ regard to a priest who grants them to another person of his own
.‫יה‬ּ ‫ֶא ְפ ׁ ָשר ֵל‬ choosing.h I did not permit this in the case of an attendant who
grants the gifts to a dignified guest of the homeowner. The reason is
that he grants the gifts against his will, as he feels pressured by the
homeowner to acquiesce. And furthermore, when I said this hal-
akha, it was only for one who cannot eat under another circum-
stance, as he is hard-pressed for money. In this incident, it was
possible for Rava to consume his own meat with mustard, since
Rava was not poor.

‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא ַא ְק ִרּיָ ין ָה ִכי? ְּכ ַל ּ ֵפי‬Rav Safra asked Rav Yosef: But if so, what is the reason that they
.‫ וְ ִל ְק ִריָ ין ְל ָר ָבא? ָר ָבא נָ זוּף ֲהוָ ה‬.‫ ָר ָבא‬read this verse to me? Rav Yosef responded: The reading was
directed not toward you but toward Rava, who ate from the gifts
against my ruling. The Gemara objects: But let them read this verse
to Rava himself in a dream. The Gemara responds: Rava was
rebukedn as a result of this incident and therefore was not granted
heavenly communication. The verse was therefore proclaimed to
Rav Safra instead.

notes
A third-born [tilta] calf – ‫עגְ ָלא ִּת ְיל ָּתא‬:ֶ According to Rashi (Shab-
complained to Heaven that rain should fall during the summer
bat 11a; Pesaĥim 68b), this refers to a calf that has grown to one- months when rainfall was not necessary, in honor of the mother of
third of its full size. Such a calf is considered to provide choice King Shapur (see Ta’anit 24b). The Gemara there relates that Rava’s
meat. Tosafot explain (Shabbat 11a; Pesaĥim 68b) that the term father appeared to him in a dream and warned him to change his
tilta, like its Hebrew equivalent shelish, means the best, just as place of rest since his behavior aroused a grievance against him
the verse: “A meshuleshet heifer” (Genesis 15:9), refers to a choice in Heaven. Rava obeyed, and the next morning he discovered
heifer, and the verse: “And captains [shalishim] over all of them” that his bed was slashed with the knives of angels sent to kill him.
(Exodus 14:7), refers to elite warriors. Rashi then suggests that in his opinion Rava was rebuked due to
Rava was rebuked – ‫ר ָבא נָ זוּף ֲהוָ ה‬:ָ Rashi first cites an explana- the incident cited in this Gemara, i.e., he was rebuked for eating
tion that Rava was rebuked due to another incident in which he from the gifts of the priesthood against the opinion of Rav Yosef.

 ‫גלק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 133a 337

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫יה דִּ ְק ָרא‬
ּ ‫ ו ְּפ ׁ ָש ֵט‬:‫ימי‬
ִ ִּ‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְל ַרב ד‬ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬In the preceding incident, the Gemara related that the verse: “As
It is referring to one who teaches an unworthy
student – ‫ב ׁשֹונֶ ה ְל ַת ְל ִמיד ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָהגוּן‬:
ּ ְ One should ‫ ְ ּב ׁשֹונֶ ה ְל ַת ְל ִמיד‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ ְ ּב ַמאי ְּכ ִתיב? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬one that takes off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon
niter, so is he that sings songs to a heavy heart” (Proverbs 25:20),
not teach Torah to an unworthy student. Rather, .‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָהגוּן‬
he should make an effort to change the student’s was proclaimed to Rav Safra in a dream. Abaye said to Rav Dimi:
behavior, after which the student is examined. If his And with regard to what matter is the plain meaning of the verse
behavior is appropriate he is brought into the study written? Rav Dimi said to him: It is referring to one who teaches
hall to be taught Torah (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, an unworthy student.h In other words, just as one should remove
Hilkhot Talmud Torah 4:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a a worn garment that has no use in cold weather, or just as vinegar
246:7).
upon niter ruins the niter, rendering it unusable, so too, there is no
use in singing songs, i.e., teaching Torah, to an unworthy student
background
who has a heavy heart, i.e., who does not intend to adhere to the
Markulis – ‫מ ְרקו ִּליס‬:ַ The reference here is to the halakhot he is taught.
Roman god Mercurius, which parallels the Greek
god Hermes. In Aramaic, the god is referred to as
‫ ָּכל ַה ׁ ּשֹונֶ ה‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב‬,‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who teaches Torah to
Markulis, with the second r in the name replaced
‫ ׁ ֶש ּנ ֱֶא ַמר‬,‫נֹופל ַ ּב ֵ ּג ִיה ָּנם‬
ֵ – ‫ְל ַת ְל ִמיד ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָהגוּן‬ an unworthy student falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “All dark-
with the letter l. The substitution of these sounds for
ness is laid up for his treasures; a fire not blown by man shall
one another is a common phenomenon, although ‫״כל ח ׁ ֶֹשךְ ָטמוּן ִלצְ ּפוּנָיו ְּת ָא ְכ ֵלה ּו ֵא ׁש ל ֹא‬ ָּ
it is possible that here it is also intentional, in order consume him; it shall go ill with him that remains [yera sarid] in
to avoid pronouncing the deity by its proper name.
‫״ש ִריד״ ֶא ָּלא‬ ׂ ָ ‫ וְ ֵאין‬,‫נֻ ּ ָפח יֵ ַרע ָ ׂש ִריד ְ ּב ָא ֳהלֹו״‬ his tent” ( Job 20:26), and sarid means nothing other than a Torah
Some suggest that the reference is to a different ‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״ו ַּב ּ ְ ׂש ִר ִידים ֲא ׁ ֶשר ה׳‬,‫ַּת ְל ִמיד ָח ָכם‬ scholar, as it is stated: “And among the remnant [sarid] those
deity called Heliopolitan Mercurius, a Hellenistic .‫ק ֵֹרא״‬ whom the Lord shall call” ( Joel 3:5). The word yera shares a root
amalgamation of Middle Eastern and Greco-Roman with the word ra, evil, and “yera sarid” is therefore understood to be
deities.
The deity Markulis was considered by its adher-
referring to an unworthy student.
ents to provide, among other things, protection for
travelers and merchants. For this reason they would
‫ ָּכל ַה ׁ ּשֹונֶ ה ְל ַת ְל ִמיד‬:‫ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי זֵ ָירא ָא ַמר ַרב‬ On a similar note, Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: Anyone who
erect statues of this idol at crossroads. Frequently, the ‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫זֹורק ֶא ֶבן ְל ַמ ְרקו ִּליס‬
ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ָהגוּן – ְּכ‬ teaches Torah to an unworthy student is considered like one
statue would not be whole, but merely the head of who throws a stone to Markulis,b as it is stated: “As a small
,‫נֹותן ִל ְכ ִסיל ָּכבֹוד״‬ ֵ ‫״כצְ רֹור ֶא ֶבן ְ ּב ַמ ְר ֵ ּג ָמה ֵּכן‬
ִּ
the idol placed on top of a pillar, a structure that was stone in a heap of stones, so is he that gives honor to a fool” (Prov-
called herma. As part of the usual manner of worship .‫ו ְּכ ִתיב ״ל ֹא נָ אוֶ ה ִל ְכ ִסיל ַּת ֲענוּג״‬ erbs 26:8), and it is written: “Luxury is not seemly for a fool”
of this god, adherents would cast stones toward the (Proverbs 19:10).
statue, so that over the course of time a large pile
of rocks would accumulate that were themselves ּ ‫ וַ ֲא ִפ‬.‫יך ִל ְר ׁשֹום״‬
‫יל ּו‬ ְ ‫״וְ ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּתף ִע ָּמ ֶהן צָ ִר‬ § The mishna teaches that one who enters into partnership with
considered as part of the idol.
– ‫ ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּתף ִעם ּכ ֵֹהן‬:ּ‫ִעם ַהגּ ֹוי? ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬ a priest or a gentile must mark the animal. The Gemara asks: And
It can be inferred from the Mishna and other
is one obligated to mark the animal even if he enters into partner-
sources that sometimes there was no statue pres- ‫ וְ ַה ִּמ ׁ ְש ַּת ֵּתף ִעם ַהגּ ֹוי ו ְּפסו ֵּלי‬,‫יך ִל ְר ׁשֹום‬ ְ ‫צָ ִר‬
ent at all. Rather, a symbolic arrangement of two ship with a gentile? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from
!‫ַה ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשים – ֵאין צָ ִריךְ ִל ְר ׁשֹום‬ a baraita: One who enters into partnership with a priest must
stones and one stone on top of them was placed
as a representation of the idol. The idolaters would mark the animal, but one who enters into partnership with a
then perform the standard ritual of worship with this gentile and one who slaughters disqualified consecrated animals
symbolic replacement. does not need to mark the animal.

Perek X
Daf 133 Amud b
halakha
.‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַן – דְּ יָ ֵתיב ּגֹוי ַא ְּמ ַס ְח ָּתא‬The Gemara responds: Here, we are dealing with a case where the
A case where the gentile is sitting in the butcher
gentile is sitting in the butcher shoph of the Israelite. In such a situ-
shop – ‫דְּ יָ ֵתיב גֹּוי ַא ְּמ ַס ְח ָּתא‬: With regard to one who
owns an animal in partnership with a gentile and
ation, it is evident that the gentile is in partnership with the Israelite
slaughters it, he must mark the animal. If the gentile and the animal need not be marked. By contrast, the mishna is
is sitting with him in the butcher shop, he is not referring to a case where the gentile does not sit in the shop.
required to mark the animal (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
De’a 61:25; see Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bik- ‫ ַא ַּמאי‬,‫ דִּ ְכוָ ָת ּה ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ּכ ֵֹהן דְּ יָ ֵתיב ַא ְּמ ַס ְח ָּתא‬The Gemara asks: If so, then in the corresponding situation involv-
kurim 9:10, and Kesef Mishne and Radbaz there). ‫ ִאי‬.‫ ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא ָקא זְ ֵבין‬:‫ צָ ִריךְ ִל ְר ׁשֹום? דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי‬ing a priest, where the baraita teaches that one who enters into
partnership with a priest must mark the animal, this must also be
!‫ ִ ּב ְ ׂש ָרא ָקא זְ ֵבין‬:‫ גּ ֹוי נַ ִמי ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ָה ִכי‬
referring to a case where the priest sits in the butcher shop. Why,
then, must one mark the animal? The Gemara responds: The fact
that the priest sits in the shop does not indicate that he is in partner-
ship with the Israelite, as people will say: He is in the shop because
he is purchasing meat. The Gemara objects: If so, then in the case
of the gentile as well, they will say that he is in the shop because
he is purchasing meat.
338 Ĥullin . perek X . 133b . ‫גלק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ֶא ָּלא ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי ָע ְס ִקינַ ן – דְּ יָ ֵתיב‬ Rather, here we are dealing with a case where the gentile sits by
the safe into which the butcher places money received from his All disqualified consecrated animals are sold in the
‫ דִּ ְכוָ ָת ּה ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ּכ ֵֹהן דְּ יָ ֵתיב‬.‫ּגֹוי ַא ַּכ ְס ְפ ָתא‬ meat market, etc. – ‫יט ִליז וכו׳‬
ְ ‫פסו ֵּלי ַה ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין נִ ְמ ָּכ ִרים ְ ּב ִא‬:ְ ּ
customers. In such a situation, it is evident that the gentile is in
:‫ ַא ַּמאי צָ ִריךְ ִל ְר ׁשֹום? ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ַא ַּכ ְס ְפ ָתא‬ All disqualified consecrated animals that were redeemed
partnership with the Israelite, and therefore the animal need not be may be slaughtered and sold in the meat market, and their
‫ ֵהמוּנֵי‬:‫ ָא ְמ ִרי‬,‫ גּ ֹוי נַ ִמי‬.‫נֵיה‬ ּ ‫ימ‬ְ ‫ֵהמוּנֵי ֵה‬ marked. The Gemara asks: If so, then the corresponding situation meat may be weighed by the litra like non-sacred animals,
!‫נֵיה‬
ּ ‫ימ‬ ְ ‫ֵה‬ in the baraita involving a priest must also be a case where the priest except for a firstborn animal and an animal tithe. The
sits by the safe. Why, then, must one mark the animal? The Gemara reason is that they would be sold in the market for a higher
responds: The fact that the priest sits by the safe does not indicate price (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Issurei Mizbe’aĥ 1:12).
that he is in partnership with the Israelite, as people will say: The A partner in the head…a partner in the leg and hoof…
butcher trusts him to protect the safe from theft. The Gemara asks: a partner in the innards – ‫ף…בּיָ ד ׁשו ָּּתף‬ ּ ַ ‫…שו ָּּת‬
ׁ ‫ֹאש‬
ׁ ‫ׁשו ָּּתף ָ ּבר‬
If so, then in the case of the gentile as well, they will say that he sits ‫ב ְבנֵי ֵמ ַעיִ ין‬:ּ ִ If one is in partnership with a priest or a gentile
by the safe because the butcher trusts him. in the head of an animal, but is the sole owner of the
remainder, he is exempt only from giving the jaw. If the
partnership is in the leg and hoof alone, he is exempt
‫ ְס ַתם‬:‫ימא‬
ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬
ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬.‫ ֵאין ֱאמוּנָ ה ְ ּבגֹוי‬The Gemara responds: It is not common for a Jew to place his trust
from giving the foreleg. If the partnership is only in the
.‫ גּ ֹוי ִמ ְפ ָעא ּ ָפ ֵעי‬in a gentile. If you wish, say instead that in both cases of the baraita innards, he is exempt from giving the maw. This ruling
the priest and the gentile sit in the butcher shop, not by the safe. It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna (Rambam
is evident that the gentile is in partnership with the Israelite, as an Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:12; Shulĥan Arukh Yoreh
ordinary gentile partner yells at the seller, saying, for example: Do De’a 61:26).
not sell an item for this price but for a different price. By contrast, a
priest, even if he sits in the shop, would not question the practices
of the salesman, due to his modesty, but would defer to the seller’s
expertise. Accordingly, it is not evident that the priest is a partner,
and the animal must therefore be marked.

ְ‫ ו ְּפסו ֵּלי ַה ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ֵאין צָ ִריך‬:‫ָא ַמר ָמר‬ § The Master said in the baraita: And the owner of disqualified
‫ וְ ָהא‬,‫מֹוכ ָחא ִמ ְּל ָתא‬ ְ ‫ ַא ְל ָמא‬.‫ִל ְר ׁשֹום‬ consecrated animals, which were slaughtered after they were
redeemed and became non-sacred, is exempt from the obligation
‫ ּ ְפסו ֵּלי ַה ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין נִ ְמ ָּכ ִרים‬:‫ֲאנַ ן ְּתנַ ן‬
to give the gifts, and one does not need to mark the animal. The
‫נִש ָק ִלים‬
ְ ׁ ְ‫ ו‬,‫יט ִליז‬
ְ ‫נִש ָח ִטים ְ ּב ִא‬
ְ ׁ ְ‫ ו‬,‫יט ִליז‬
ְ ‫ְ ּב ִא‬ Gemara objects: Apparently, it is an evident matter that this is a
!‫יט ָרא‬ ְ ‫ְ ּב ִל‬ disqualified consecrated animal, and therefore one need not mark
it. But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bekhorot 31a): All disqualified
consecrated animals are sold in the meat market [be’itliz],hl and
are slaughtered in the meat market, and are weighed and sold by
the litra,l in the manner of non-sacred meat? Since disqualified
consecrated animals are treated in the same manner as ordinary
non-sacred animals, how is it evident that this is a disqualified
consecrated animal?

ּ ‫ ִּת ְר ְ ּג ָמא ַרב ַאדָּ א ַ ּבר ַא ֲה ָבה ַק ֵּמ‬The Gemara responds: Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted the baraita
‫יה דְּ ַרב‬
ָ ‫ ְ ּב‬:‫ ּ ַפ ּ ָפא‬before Rav Pappa as referring to those disqualified consecrated
.‫אֹותן ַה ִּנ ְמ ָּכ ִרים ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬
animals that are sold from inside the house, i.e., a firstborn animal
and an animal tithe, whose redemption payments belong to their
owners, as their value has no sanctity. Since no gain would accrue
to the Temple, the Sages prohibited one from selling these animals
in the market, despite the fact one could have obtained a higher sale
price there due to the high concentration of customers.

‫ֹאש – ּ ָפטוּר‬ ׁ ‫ ׁשו ָּּתף ָ ּבר‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב הוּנָ א‬ § With regard to gifts of the priesthood from animals owned in
ַ ְ‫ ׁשו ָּּתף ַ ּבּיָ ד – ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַהּז‬,‫ִמן ַה ֶּל ִחי‬
,‫רֹוע‬ partnership, Rav Huna says: If an Israelite is a partner with a priest
or gentile in only the head of the animal, he is exempt merely from
.‫ׁשו ָּּתף ִ ּב ְבנֵי ֵמ ַעיִ ין – ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬
the obligation to give the jaw, which is part of the head. He remains
‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁשו ָּּתף ְ ּב ַא ַחת‬:‫וְ ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַרב ָא ַמר‬ obligated to give the foreleg and the maw. If he is a partner with a
.‫ֵמ ֶהן – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ּכו ָּּלן‬ priest or gentile in the leg and hoof of the animal, he is exempt only
from the obligation to give the foreleg. If he is a partner with a
priest or gentile in the innards,h he is exempt merely from the
obligation to give the maw. And Ĥiyya bar Rav says that even if the
priest or gentile is a partner in only one of them, the Israelite is
exempt from all of the gifts.

language
Meat market [itliz] – ‫יט ִליז‬
ְ ‫א‬:ִ This word is used in modern Hebrew ְ ‫ל‬:ִ From the Greek λίτρα, litra, which has a variety of
Litra – ‫יט ָרא‬
to mean butcher. Most scholars attribute the derivation to the meanings: A measurement of volume, a weight, and the name
Greek κατάλυσις, katalusis, meaning, among other things, of a coin. The volume of a litra is less than 300 cc and is there-
quarters, lodging, or a place to rest. Some claim that it derives fore a very small amount of meat. According to the Jerusalem
from the Greek ἀτελής, atelēs, meaning tax-free zone, and by Talmud, the value of a Greek litra is the equivalent of one hundred
extension, a fair, where people engaged in commerce and often dinars.
enjoyed tax-exempt status.

 ‫גלק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 133b 339

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫ וְ כו ָּּל ּה ׁ ֶש ְּלךָ ״‬,‫ֹאש ׁ ֶש ִּלי‬
ׁ ‫״הר‬ ָ :‫יבי‬ ֵ ‫ית‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Ĥiyya bar Rav
And with a covenant of salt – ‫ו ְּב ִרית ֶמ ַלח‬: Rashi explains from a baraita: If a priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter
that just as a covenant of salt is unbreakable, so too, the .‫ֹאש – ּ ָפטוּר‬ ׁ ‫יל ּו ֶא ָחד ִמ ֵּמ ָאה ָ ּבר‬ ּ ‫וַ ֲא ִפ‬
ּ ‫ ֲא ִפ‬,‫ וְ כו ָּּל ּה ׁ ֶש ְּלךָ ״‬,‫״הּיָ ד ׁ ֶש ִּלי‬ into a partnership in which the head of the animal is mine and the
gifts of the priesthood are given eternally to the priests. ‫יל ּו ֶא ָחד‬ ַ
In his commentary on the Torah, Rashi provides two entire remainder is yours, even if the priest proposes that only
,‫״בנֵי ֵמ ַעיִ ין ׁ ֶש ִּלי‬ ּ ְ .‫ִמ ֵּמ ָאה ַ ּבּיָ ד – ּ ָפטוּר‬ one-hundredth of the head should be his, the Israelite is exempt.
additional explanations for the depiction of the giving of
the gifts as a covenant of salt: God made a covenant with – ‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֶא ָחד ִמ ֵּמ ָאה ָ ּב ֶהן‬,‫וְ כו ָּּל ּה ׁ ֶש ְּלךָ ״‬ Similarly, if the priest offers: Let us enter into a partnership in which
Aaron by means of that which is healthy, enduring, and .‫ּ ָפטוּר‬ the leg and hoof of the animal are mine and the entire remainder
can heal others, i.e., salt; and that like salt, the covenant is yours, even if the priest suggests that only one-hundredth of the
with Aaron never spoils.
leg and hoof will be his, the Israelite is exempt. And likewise, if the
priest says: Let us enter into a partnership in which the innards of
the animal are mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the
priest offers to take only one-hundredth of the innards, the Israelite
is exempt.

,‫ וְ ַחּיָ יב ְ ּבכו ָּּלן‬,‫ ַמאי ָלאו ּ ָפטוּר – ִמן ַה ֶּל ִחי‬The Gemara explains the objection: What, is it not correct that the
‫ ּ ָפטוּר ִמן‬,‫רֹוע וְ ַחּיָ יב ְ ּבכו ָּּלן‬ ַ ְ‫ ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַהּז‬baraita is teaching that when the priest owns the head the butcher
is exempt from giving the jaw, but obligated in giving all the rest,
.‫ ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ּכו ָּּלן‬,‫ַה ֵ ּק ָבה וְ ַחּיָ יב ְ ּבכו ָּּלן! ָלא‬
and likewise when the priest owns the leg and hoof, he is exempt
from giving the foreleg but obligated in all the rest, and when the
priest owns the innards, he is exempt from the maw and obligated
in all the rest? This would contradict the opinion of Ĥiyya bar Rav.
The Gemara responds: No; in each case the baraita means that he is
exempt from all the gifts.

:‫ ַּתנְ יָ א‬,‫״פט ּור ִמ ּכו ָּּלן״! וְ עֹוד‬ ָ ּ ‫יתנֵי‬

ְ ‫וְ ִל‬ The Gemara suggests: But if so, let the baraita teach explicitly that
‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ֶא ָחד‬,‫ וְ כו ָּּל ּה ׁ ֶש ְּלךָ ״‬,‫ֹאש ׁ ֶש ִּלי‬
ׁ ‫״הר‬ָ he is exempt from all the gifts, rather than simply stating that he is
exempt. And furthermore, it is taught in another baraita that if a
‫ֹאש – ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ֶּל ִחי וְ ַחּיָ יב‬ ׁ ‫ִמ ֵּמ ָאה ָ ּבר‬
priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter into a partnership in
.‫ְ ּבכו ָּּלן! ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא ְד ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַרב ְּתיו ְּב ָּתא‬ which the head of the animal is mine and the entire remainder
is yours, even if the priest suggests that only one-hundredth of
the head will be his, the butcher is exempt from the obligation to
give the jaw but is obligated in giving all the rest. This baraita
explicitly contradicts the opinion of Ĥiyya bar Rav. The Gemara
concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Ĥiyya bar Rav is indeed
a conclusive refutation.

‫יה‬ּ ‫נִיתא ַא ְט ִע ֵית‬ ָ ‫ ָהא ַמ ְת‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ Rav Ĥisda said in explanation of the opinion of Ĥiyya bar Rav: This
‫ ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים וְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ְל ִחּיָ יא ַ ּבר ַרב‬ baraita misled Ĥiyya bar Rav, as it is taught in a baraita: There are
twenty-four gifts of the priesthood,h and all of them were given
ְּ ‫ וְ כו ָּּלן‬,‫ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה ֵהן‬
‫נִיתנ ּו ְל ַא ֲהרֹן‬
in the Torah to Aaron and his sons by a generalization and a detail,
.‫ו ְּל ָבנָיו ִ ּב ְכ ָלל ו ְּפ ָרט ו ְּב ִרית ֶמ ַלח‬ and with a covenant of salt.n The verse states: “And the Lord spoke
to Aaron: And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My gifts;
of all the consecrated items of the children of Israel to you have I
given them for prominence, and to your sons, as an eternal portion”
(Numbers 18:8). After this generalization, the Torah proceeds to
list the gifts in detail. Finally, after delineating all the gifts of the
priesthood, the verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt”
(Numbers 18:19), assuring Aaron that just as a covenant of salt is
unbreakable, so too, the gifts of the priesthood are eternal.

halakha
There are twenty-four gifts of the priesthood – ‫ֶע ְ ׂש ִרים וְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬ two loaves offering brought on Shavuot; the shewbread; and
‫מ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה ֵהן‬:ַ Twenty-four gifts were given to the priests, all the log of oil of a leper. The five gifts that may be consumed only
of which are delineated in the Torah and were given to Aaron. within the city walls of Jerusalem are the breast and thigh of a
Any priest who does not believe in them has no portion in the peace offering; the portions separated from a thanks offering; the
priesthood and is not given these gifts. Eight of the gifts may be portions separated from a nazirite’s ram; an unblemished kosher
consumed by priests only in the Temple, inside the walls of the firstborn animal; and first fruits. The five gifts that are granted to
Temple courtyard. Five of them are consumed only in Jerusalem, priests only in Eretz Yisrael are teruma, teruma of the tithe, and
within the city walls. Five are given to priests only inside Eretz ĥalla, all of which have sanctity; and first shearing and ancestral
Yisrael, while five are given to priests whether inside or outside fields, which have no sanctity. The five gifts that are granted
of Eretz Yisrael. Finally, one of the gifts is granted to the priests to priests anywhere are the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and
serving in the Temple. the maw; the redemption money of a firstborn son; a firstborn
The eight gifts that may be consumed only in the Temple are donkey; property stolen from a convert who has no heirs; and
the meat of a sin offering, whether a bird sin offering or an animal; dedications. All of these are non-sacred. The gift that is granted
the meat of a guilt offering, both a provisional and a definite guilt to the priests serving in the Temple is the skins of offerings of the
offering; communal peace offerings; the remainder of the omer most sacred order (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 1:1, 3–8,
meal offering; the remainder of an Israelite’s meal offering; the and see Kesef Mishne and Radbaz there).

340 Ĥullin . perek X . 133b . ‫גלק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

ּ ‫ימן – ְּכ ִא‬

‫יל ּו ִקּיֵ ים ִ ּב ְכ ָלל ו ְּפ ָרט‬ ָ ְ‫ ָּכל ַה ְמ ַקּי‬The baraita continues: Therefore, anyone who fulfills the mitzva of
ּ ‫יהן – ְּכ ִא‬
‫יל ּו‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָכל ָה‬,‫ ו ְּב ִרית ֶמ ַלח‬giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as though he fulfills
ֶ ‫עֹובר ֲע ֵל‬
all these mitzvot that are derived using the principle of a generaliza-
.‫עֹובר ַעל ִ ּב ְכ ָלל ו ְּפ ָרט ו ְּב ִרית ֶמ ַלח‬ֵ
tion and a detail, and as though he has upheld the covenant of salt.
And anyone who violates the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priest-
hood is considered as though he violates all of the mitzvot derived
by the principle of a generalization and a detail, and as though he
has not upheld the covenant of salt.

,‫ וְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ִ ּבירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬,‫ ֶע ֶ ׂשר ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬:‫וְ ֵאלּ ּו ֵהן‬ And these are the twenty-four gifts: Ten are consumed in the
,‫ ַח ָּטאת‬:‫ ֶע ֶ ׂשר ַ ּב ִּמ ְקדָּ ׁש‬.‫וְ ֶע ֶ ׂשר ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלים‬ Temple, and four in Jerusalem, and ten in the boundaries of Eretz
Yisrael. The ten gifts consumed only in the Temple are an animal
,‫ וְ ָא ׁ ָשם ָּתלוּי‬,‫ ָא ׁ ָשם וַ דַּ אי‬,‫וְ ַח ַּטאת ָהעֹוף‬
sin offering; and a bird sin offering; and a definite guilt offering;
,‫צֹורע‬
ָ ‫ וְ לֹוג ׁ ֶש ֶמן ׁ ֶשל ְמ‬,‫וְ זִ ְב ֵחי ׁ ַש ְל ֵמי צִ ּבוּר‬ and a provisional guilt offering; and communal peace offerings,
,‫ ו ׁ ְּשיָ ֵרי ְמנָ חֹות‬,‫ וְ ֶל ֶחם ַה ּ ָפנִים‬,‫ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי ַה ֶּל ֶחם‬ i.e., the lambs that accompany the two loaves brought on Shavuot
.‫עֹומר‬ֶ ‫ו ִּמנְ ַחת ָה‬ and which are considered offerings of the most sacred order; and
the remainder of the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering
of a recovered leper; and the two loaves offering from the new
wheat brought on Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the leftovers
of meal offerings; and the omer meal offering, i.e., the measure of
barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan.

,‫ וְ ַה ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים‬,‫כֹורה‬
ָ ‫ ַה ְ ּב‬:‫ וְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ִ ּבירו ׁ ָּש ַליִ ם‬And these are the four gifts that the priests consume anywhere in
‫ וְ עֹורֹות‬,‫ וּמו ָּרם ִמן ַה ּת ָֹודה ו ֵּמ ֵאיל נָ זִ יר‬Jerusalem: The unblemished firstborn of kosher animals; and the
first fruits; and the portions separated for the priests from the
.‫ֳק ָד ׁ ִשים‬
thanks offering, i.e., the breast and thigh and one loaf from each of
the four types of loaves brought with a thanks offerings: Cakes,
wafers, cakes of fine flour, and leavened bread, and the portions
separated from the nazirite’s ram, i.e., the boiled shoulder, a cake,
and a wafer, in addition to the breast and thigh of any peace offering;
and the hides of sacrificial animals brought as burnt offerings, sin
offerings, and guilt offerings.

,‫ ו ְּתרו ַּמת ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬,‫ ְּתרו ָּמה‬:‫ וְ ֶע ֶ ׂשר ַ ּב ְ ּגבו ִּלים‬And these are the ten gifts that the priests consume anywhere in the
,‫ ו ִּפ ְדיֹון ַה ֵ ּבן‬,‫ ו ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ִ ׁ ‫ וְ ֵר‬,‫ וְ ַח ָּלה‬boundaries of Eretz Yisrael: Teruma, i.e., the portion of the produce
designated for the priest; and teruma of the tithe; and ĥalla; and
,‫ו ִּפ ְדיֹון ּ ֶפ ֶטר ֲחמֹור‬
the first sheared wool; and the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the
maw; and the five sela given as redemption of the firstborn son;
and a sheep or goat given as redemption of the firstborn donkey.b

.‫ וְ גֵ זֶ ל ַה ֵ ּגר‬,‫ּש ֵדה ֲח ָר ִמים‬

ׂ ְ ‫ ו‬,‫ּש ֵדה ֲאחוּּזָ ה‬
ׂ ְ ‫ ו‬The baraita continues the list: And a consecrated ancestral field that
one did not redeem, which was sold to another by the Temple
treasurer and is therefore given to the members of the priestly watch
serving during the Jubilee Year; and a dedicated field; and payment
for the robbery of a convert who died without heirs. If one takes
an oath that he did not rob from a convert, and after the death of
the convert he admits to having taken a false oath, he must pay the
principal value of the stolen item and an additional one-fifth of the
value, all of which is given to the priests.

‫ ִמדְּ ָקא ָח ׁ ֵשיב ְלה ּו ְל ַמ ָּתנֹות‬:‫הוּא ְס ַבר‬ Rav Ĥisda explains how the baraita misled Ĥiyya bar Rav: He
‫ ַא ּט ּו מו ָּרם‬,‫ וְ ָלא ִהיא‬.ּ‫ַ ּב ֲח ָדא – ֲח ָדא נִינְ הו‬ thought that from the fact that the tanna of the baraita counts
the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw as one gift, they are
,‫ִמ ּת ָֹודה וְ ֵאיל נָ זִ יר דְּ ָקא ָח ׁ ֵשיב ְלה ּו ַּכ ֲח ָדא‬
treated as one gift, which means that if one is exempt from one of
‫ ֵּכיוָ ן דְּ ָד ְמיָ ין‬,‫ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דַּ ֲח ָדא נִינְ הוּ? ֶא ָּלא‬ them he is exempt from all of them. But it is not so, as is that to say
‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬,‫ַל ֲה ָד ֵדי – ָח ׁ ֵשיב ְלה ּו ַּכ ֲח ָדא‬ that the portions separated for the priests from the thanks offering
.‫דְּ ָד ְמיָ ין ַל ֲה ָד ֵדי – ָח ׁ ֵשיב ְלה ּו ַּכ ֲח ָדא‬ and from the nazirite’s ram, which the tanna counts as one, are
counted this way because they are one? Obviously, these are inde-
pendent gifts. Rather, since they are similar to one another the
tanna counts them as one. So too, with regard to the foreleg, the
jaw, and the maw, since they are similar to one another he counts
them as one.

background
Firstborn donkey – ‫פ ֶטר ֲחמֹור‬:ֶ ּ The Torah requires that a firstborn transaction, the donkey may not be put to work. If the donkey is
male donkey be redeemed with a sheep or goat that is given to a not redeemed in this manner, its neck must be broken and no
priest. Once this transfer is performed, the donkey loses all sanctity benefit may be derived from its carcass (Exodus 13:13).
of a firstborn animal and may be used for any purpose. Before the

 ‫גלק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 133b 341

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
,‫ וְ כו ָּּל ּה ׁ ֶש ִּלי״‬, ָ‫ֹאש ׁ ֶש ְּלך‬
ׁ ‫״הר‬ ָ :ּ‫יב ֲעיָ א ְלהו‬ ּ ַ ‫ִא‬ § With regard to animals owned in partnership with a priest, the
Except for the gifts – ‫חוּץ ִמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬: If a priest sold a Gemara relates that a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a
cow to an Israelite and stipulated: I am selling you the
‫ וְ ִחּיו ָּבא ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬,‫ַמהוּ? ָ ּב ַתר ִחּיו ָּבא ָאזְ ִלינַ ן‬
priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter into partnership in
entire cow except for the gifts contained with it, his ‫יקר ְ ּב ֵה ָמה‬ ּ ַ ‫ אֹו דִּ ְל ָמא ָ ּב ַתר ִע‬.‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל הוּא‬
stipulation is valid and the Israelite must give those ownership of a live animal, in which the head is yours and the
?‫יקר ְ ּב ֵה ָמה דְּ כ ֵֹהן הוּא‬ ּ ַ ‫ וְ ִע‬,‫ָאזְ ִלינַן‬ entire remainder is mine, what is the halakha? Is the Israelite obli-
parts to the seller (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bik-
kurim 9:11; Shulĥan Arukh Yoreh De’a 61:29). gated to give the jaw to a priest when it is slaughtered? The Gemara
explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we follow the obligation, i.e.,
the limbs of the animal which contain the gifts, and since the obliga-
tion is owned by the Israelite he is obligated? Or perhaps, we
follow the principal part of the animal, and since the principal of
the animal is in the possession of the priest, the Israelite is exempt?

‫יִש ָר ֵאל‬
ׂ ְ ‫ גֹּוי וְ כ ֵֹהן ׁ ֶש ָּמ ְסר ּו צֹאנָ ם ְל‬:‫ ָּתא ׁ ְש ַמע‬The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With
– ‫ ַה ּל ֵֹוק ַח ֵ ּגז צֹאנֹו ׁ ֶשל גּ ֹוי‬.‫ ִלגְ זֹוז – ּ ָפטוּר‬regard to a gentile or a priest who transferred his sheep to an
Israelite to act as his agent to shear it, the Israelite is exempt from
.‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫ּ ָפטוּר ֵמ ֵר‬
giving the first sheared wool to a priest. Similarly, one who pur-
chases the shearing of the sheep of a gentile, even before the sheep
was actually sheared, is exempt from giving the first sheared wool.

ֵ ‫רֹוע ו ַּב ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם ו ַּב ֵ ּק ָבה‬

‫יֹותר‬ ַ ְ‫חֹומר ַ ּבּז‬
ֶ ‫ וְ זֶ ה‬The baraita adds: And this, the halakha in a case where one pur-
‫ ָ ּב ַתר ִחּיו ָּבא‬:‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬.‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֵמ ֵר‬chases an item before the obligation of a certain gift of the priest-
hood takes effect, is a stringency that applies in the case of the
.‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ָאזְ ִלינַן‬
foreleg, the jaw, and the maw more so than in the case of the first
sheared wool. In other words, one who purchases wool from a
priest before it is shorn is exempt from giving first sheared wool,
whereas one who purchases part of an animal from a priest before
its slaughter is obligated to give any gifts contained within the pur-
chased portion. Since this is the halakha even if the portion he
purchased is not the principal part, similar to the stated case of one
who purchases only the shearing of the sheep of a gentile, one can
conclude from this baraita that we follow the obligation, i.e., the
limbs of the animal that contain the gifts. The Gemara concludes:
Indeed, conclude from it that this is correct.

‫ § ״וְ ִאם ָא ַמר לֹו חוּץ ִמן ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות ּ ָפטוּר ִמן‬The mishna teaches: And if a priest sold his animal to an Israelite
.‫ ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות״‬and said that he is selling everything except for the gifts with it,
h

the Israelite is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, because
they are not his.

Perek X
Daf 134 Amud a

halakha
ֵ – ‫״על ְמנָ ת ׁ ֶש ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות ׁ ֶש ִּלי״‬
‫נֹותן‬ ַ :ּ‫ ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬The Gemara objects: But one can raise a contradiction from a
On the condition that the gifts are mine – ‫ַעל ְמנָ ת‬
‫ש ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות ׁ ֶש ִּלי‬:
ֶ ׁ If a priest sold his cow to an Israelite and !‫ ְל ָכל ּכ ֵֹהן ׁ ֶשּיִ ְרצֶ ה‬baraita: If a priest sells his animal to an Israelite and stipulates: I am
stipulated: I am selling this cow to you on the condition
selling it on the condition that the gifts are mine,h the Israelite is
that the gifts are mine, the stipulation is void. Neverthe- not obligated to give the gifts to that priest. Rather, he gives the gifts
less, the sale is valid, and the buyer may give the gifts to to any priest that he wants. Since the priest sold his animal, the
a priest of his choosing (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot priest cannot issue a condition involving the gifts, as they no longer
Bikkurim 9:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:29). belong to him but to the entire tribe of priests. The baraita indicates
that the Israelite is nevertheless obligated to give the gifts, which
notes apparently contradicts the ruling of the mishna.
On the condition is not one of retention – ‫ַעל ְמנָ ת ָלאו‬
‫שּיו ָּרא‬:
ִ ׁ The commentaries raise the following difficulty: – ‫״על ְמנָ ת״ ַא״חוּץ״ ָקא ָר ֵמית? ״חוּץ״‬ ַ The Gemara responds: Do you raise a contradiction from a baraita
Since the buyer may give the gifts to a priest of his ַ ,‫ ׁ ִשּיו ָּרא‬that discusses a case where the priest states: On the condition that
.‫״על ְמנָ ת״ – ָלאו ׁ ִשּיו ָּרא‬
choosing, the sale should be invalidated, as the priest the gifts are mine, with regard to the case of the mishna, where the
stipulated that the buyer must give the gifts to him. priest states: Except for the gifts? That is not a contradiction, as the
Tosafot suggest two explanations: The first is that the
word except is a term of retention, i.e., the priest retains the gifts
baraita is referring to a case where the priest stipulated
that even if the condition is unfulfilled, the sale remains
and does not sell them to the Israelite. By contrast, the term: On
valid. The second is that the sale remains valid even if the condition, is not one of retention,n as the priest does not keep
the condition is unfulfilled, because this stipulation the gifts for himself but instead stipulates that the buyer must give
that the gifts must be given to a particular priest is the gifts to him. The priest is not authorized to issue such a stipula-
counter to that which is written in the Torah, and such tion and it is therefore disregarded entirely, and because the Israelite
a stipulation is void. owns the gifts he must give them to a priest.
342 Ĥullin . perek X . 134a . ‫דלק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
– ‫״על ְמנָ ת ׁ ֶש ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות ׁ ֶש ִּלי״‬
ַ :ּ‫ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬ The Gemara objects: But one may raise a contradiction against the
previous baraita from another baraita: If a priest sells his animal to Despair – ‫יֵ או ּׁש‬: This is referring to the owner’s despair of
:‫ ָמר ְס ַבר‬,‫ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות ׁ ֶש ּלֹו! ְ ּב ָהא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬ recovering an article that was lost or stolen. A lost article
an Israelite and stipulates: I am selling it on the condition that the
‫״על‬
ַ :‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬,‫״על ְמנָ ת״ – ׁ ִשּיו ָּרא הוּא‬ ַ whose owner has despaired of recovering it is considered
gifts are mine, the gifts are his and the Israelite must give the gifts ownerless and may be acquired by the finder. If an article
.‫ְמנָ ת״ – ָלאו ׁ ִשּיו ָּרא הוּא‬ to that priest. The Gemara responds: There is a dispute between the is lost in a natural disaster, e.g., a flood, the owner is con-
tanna’im of these baraitot, and they disagree with regard to this sidered to have immediately despaired of its recovery. With
matter: One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that the regard to stolen property, the owner’s despair of regaining
term: On the condition, is one of retention, and the priest there- possession of the article might negate his ownership over
the property and allow it to be acquired by the person
fore retains possession of the gifts. And one Sage, the tanna of the
to whom it is given or sold to by the thief. If so, there is
first baraita, holds that: On the condition, is not a term of reten- no requirement to return the stolen object to the owner.
tion, and the priest is not authorized to stipulate that the buyer must Nevertheless, the thief must still compensate the owner
give the gifts to him. for its value. Whether despair alone effects this transfer or
not is the subject of a dispute in the Talmud.
‫ ָא ַמר‬.‫יה״ וכו׳‬ ָ ‫״א ַמר לֹו ְמכֹור ִלי ְ ּבנֵי ֵמ ֶע‬ ָ § The mishna teaches that if one said to a butcher: Sell me the
‫ ֲא ָבל‬,‫ ל ֹא ׁ ָשנ ּו ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ָש ַקל ְל ַעצְ מֹו‬:‫ַרב‬ innards of a cow that you slaughtered, and there were gifts, i.e., the
maw, included with it, the buyer gives the gifts to the priest and does
‫ וְ ַרב‬.‫ׁ ָש ַקל לֹו ַט ָ ּבח – ַהדִּ ין ִעם ַה ַּט ָ ּבח‬
not deduct its value from the money that he pays to the butcher. If
‫ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ׁ ָש ַקל לֹו ַט ָ ּבח – ַהדִּ ין‬:‫ַא ִסי ָא ַמר‬ he bought the innards by weight, the buyer gives the maw to the
.‫ִע ּמֹו‬ priest and deducts its value from the money he pays to the butcher.
With regard to innards purchased by weight, Rav says: The Sages
taught that the buyer gives the maw to the priest only when the
buyer weighed the innards for himself when purchasing them. In
such a case, the priest claims the maw from the buyer. But if the
butcher weighed the innards for the buyer, the judgment is also
with the butcher, i.e., the priest may claim the maw from either
the butcher or the buyer. And Rav Asi says: Even if the butcher
weighed the innards for the buyer, the judgment is with the
buyer alone.

‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫ימא ִ ּב ְד ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָקא ִמ ּ ַיפ ְלגִ י‬ ָ ‫ֵל‬ The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree with regard to
,‫יא ׁש ּו ַה ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ ֲ ָ‫ ָ ּגזַ ל וְ ל ֹא נִ ְתי‬:‫ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ a statement of Rav Ĥisda, as Rav Ĥisda said: In a case where one
robbed another of an item, and the owners had not despairedb of
‫ ָרצָ ה‬,‫ו ָּבא ַא ֵחר וַ ֲא ָכלֹו – ָרצָ ה ִמּזֶ ה ּג ֶֹובה‬
retrieving it, and another person came and consumed the stolen
,‫יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ּ ‫ דְּ ָמר ִאית ֵל‬.‫ִמּזֶ ה גּ ֶֹובה‬ item,h if the owner wants, he may collect the value of the stolen
.‫יה דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ּ ‫ו ָּמר ֵלית ֵל‬ item from this one, the robber, and if he wants, he may collect from
that one who consumed it. The suggestion is that one Sage, Rav,
holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda, and he there-
fore holds that the priest may claim the maw from either the buyer
or the butcher; and one Sage, Rav Asi, does not hold in accordance
with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda, and the priest may therefore claim
the maw from the buyer alone.

,‫ דְּ כו ֵּּלי ָע ְל ָמא ִאית ְלה ּו דְּ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬,‫ָלא‬ The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; everyone holds in accor-
‫וְ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה נִ גְ זָ לֹות ָקא‬ dance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda, and here they disagree with
regard to whether or not gifts of the priesthood can be stolen.h
:‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר‬,‫ נִ גְ זָ לֹות‬:‫ דְּ ָמר ְס ַבר‬.‫יפ ְלגִ י‬ַ ּ ‫ִמ‬
As one Sage, Rav, holds that they can be stolen, and accordingly
.‫ֵאין נִ גְ זָ לֹות‬ the robber remains responsible for them even if they are consumed
by another. Consequently, if the butcher weighed the innards, the
priest may claim the gifts from either the butcher or the buyer. And
one Sage, Rav Asi, holds that gifts of the priesthood cannot be
stolen. Since technically one cannot steal the gifts, the obligation
to return them to the priest rests solely on the one in physical pos-
session of them. Accordingly, the priest may claim the gifts from the
buyer alone, as the gifts are in his custody.

halakha
Where one robbed another and the owners had not Gifts of the priesthood can be stolen – ‫מ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה נִ גְ זָ לֹות‬:ַ It
despaired of retrieving it, and another came and consumed is prohibited for an Israelite to consume gifts of the priesthood
ֲ ָ‫ ָ ּגזַ ל וְ ל ֹא נִ ְתי‬: In a case
the stolen item – ‫יא ׁש ּו ַה ְ ּב ָע ִלים ו ָּבא ַא ֵחר וַ ֲא ָכלֹו‬ without the permission of a priest. If he transgressed this prohi-
where one robbed another, and before the owner despaired of bition and consumed them, damaged them, or sold them, the
retrieving the stolen item another came and consumed it, if the court does not force him to pay, as the gifts are considered like
owner wants to collect from the one who consumed the item money that has no claimants. Nevertheless, he is obligated to
he may do so, since the item still belongs to the owner. If he pay by the laws of Heaven. If one purchases gifts of the priest-
prefers to collect from the robber instead, he has the right to do hood from an Israelite, although it is prohibited to do so, he
so (Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot Gezeila VaAveda 5:4; Shulĥan may consume them, as gifts of the priesthood can be stolen
Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 361:5). (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:14; Shulĥan Arukh,
Yoreh De’a 61:31 and Shakh there).

 ‫דלק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 134a 343

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
,‫ ִא ָּיכא דְּ ַמ ְתנֵי ָל ּה ְל ָהא ׁ ְש ַמ ֲע ָתא ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬The Gemara notes that some teach this halakha, that there is a
A convert who converted and he had a cow, etc. –
‫ ֵ ּגר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר וְ ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ּ ָפ ָרה וכו׳‬: With regard to one who ‫ וְ ַרב ַא ִסי‬,‫ ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה נִ גְ זָ לֹות‬:‫ ַרב ָא ַמר‬dispute between Rav and Rav Asi as to whether or not gifts of the
priesthood can be stolen, by itself, i.e., as an independent dispute
converted and owned a cow, if it was slaughtered .‫ ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה ֵאין נִ גְ זָ לֹות‬:‫ָא ַמר‬
before his conversion, he is exempt from giving between them rather than in explanation of another dispute: Rav
the gifts of the priesthood from that cow. If it was says that gifts of the priesthood can be stolen, and Rav Asi says
slaughtered after his conversion, he is obligated to that gifts of the priesthood cannot be stolen.
give gifts of the priesthood from it. If there is uncer-
tainty whether it was slaughtered before or after his
conversion, he is exempt, as the burden of proof rests
upon the claimant (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot
‫נִש ֲח ָטה‬ְ ׁ .‫מתני׳ ֵ ּגר ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר וְ ָהיְ ָתה לֹו ּ ָפ ָרה‬
mishna
.‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגיֵ יר – ַחּיָ יב‬,‫ַעד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא נִ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר – ּ ָפטוּר‬
In the case of a convert who converted and
he had a cow,h if the cow was slaughtered
before he converted, he is exempt from giving the gifts to the priest.
Bikkurim 9:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:33). ‫ ׁ ֶש ַה ּמֹוצִ יא ֵמ ֲח ֵבירֹו ָע ָליו‬,‫ ָס ֵפק – ּ ָפט ּור‬If the animal was slaughtered after he converted, the convert is
Grain found in ant holes that are inside the .‫ ָה ְר ָאיָ ה‬obligated to give the gifts. If there is uncertainty whether it was
standing crop – ‫תֹוך ַה ָ ּק ָמה‬
ְ ‫חֹורי ַה ְּנ ָמ ִלים ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬:
ֵ Grain slaughtered before or after the conversion, the convert is exempt,
that is found inside ant holes belongs to the owner as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.b
of the field if the holes are inside the standing crop,
as there are no gifts for the poor from the standing
crop. If the holes are in an already harvested area, the
grain belongs to the poor, as it is possible that the
‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ ְר ֵמי ֵל‬,‫ימי ֲא ַמר‬
– ‫ ָס ֵפק‬,‫ ְּתנַ ן‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ִ ִּ‫גמ׳ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬
ָ ‫ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ְל ַר ִ ּבי‬
gemara The mishna teaches that if there is an uncer-
tainty whether an individual is obligated to
grain is gleanings that were dragged by the ants into give gifts of the priesthood, he is exempt from giving them. In this
.‫ ַא ְל ָמא ְס ֵפ ָיקא ְלקו ָּּלא‬.‫ ּ ָפטוּר‬regard, the Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz
the hole. Even if the grain is black, it is not assumed
to be from previous years, as grain whose status as Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised
gleanings is uncertain is considered gleanings, in a contradiction to Rabbi Yoĥanan: We learned in the mishna that
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir (Rambam when there is an uncertainty one is exempt from giving the gifts.
Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim 4:9).
Evidently, in cases of uncertainty the halakha is to be lenient.

‫חֹורי ַה ְּנ ָמ ִלים ׁ ֶש ְ ּבתֹוךְ ַה ָ ּק ָמה – ֲה ֵרי‬

ֵ ,ּ‫ו ְּר ִמינְ הו‬ But one can raise a contradiction from that which is taught in
,‫ וְ ׁ ֶש ְּל ַא ַחר ַה ּקֹוצְ ִרים‬,‫ֵא ּל ּו ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ another mishna (Pe’a 4:11) with regard to gleanings left for the poor:
In a case of grain found in ant holes that are inside the standing
‫ וְ ַה ַּת ְח ּתֹונִים – ׁ ֶשל ַ ּב ַעל‬,‫ָה ֶע ְליֹונִים – ַל ֲענִּיִ ים‬
croph in an area of the field that was not harvested, these are the
.‫ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ property of the owner of the field, as this grain does not have the
status of gleanings. And in the case of grain found in ant holes
that are behind the harvesters in an already harvested area, the
upper wheat stalks, i.e., those stalks found at the mouth of the holes,
belong to the poor, as they are assumed to be gleanings that fell
from the bundles when that area was harvested, and the lower
wheat inside the holes are the property of the owner, since it is
possible that they were collected by the ants before the harvest and
are not gleanings.

– ‫ ׁ ֶש ְּס ֵפק ֶל ֶקט‬,‫ ַה ּכֹל ַל ֲענִּיִ ים‬:‫אֹומר‬

ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬Rabbi Meir says: Everything goes to the poor, as grain whose
!‫ ֶל ֶקט‬status as gleanings is uncertain is considered gleanings. According
to Rabbi Meir, the halakha is stringent in the case of an uncertainty
with regard to gifts left for the poor. This apparently contradicts the
mishna’s statement that one is lenient in the case of an uncertainty
with regard to gifts of the priesthood, as these gifts are similar in this
regard to gifts left for the poor. Since any unattributed mishna is
considered to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir,
this is apparently a contradiction with regard to the opinion of
Rabbi Meir.

‫ ׁ ֶש ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון יָ ִחיד ֲאנִי‬,‫נִיטנִי‬

ֵ ‫ ַאל ַּת ְק‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Do not trouble
‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ַאגְ ָרא‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫אֹות ּה‬
ָ ‫ׁשֹונֶ ה‬ me with this contradiction, as I teach that baraita in the singular,
i.e., it is not certain that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir; rather, it
,‫ ְס ֵפק ֶל ֶקט – ֶל ֶקט‬:‫אֹומר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר‬ ֵ
is merely the claim of one Sage that this is Rabbi Meir’s opinion. As
.‫ ְס ֵפק ּ ֵפ ָאה – ּ ֵפ ָאה‬,‫ְס ֵפק ׁ ִש ְכ ָחה – ׁ ִש ְכ ָחה‬ it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra says in the
name of Rabbi Meir: Grain whose status as gleanings is uncertain
is considered gleanings; grain whose status as forgotten sheaves is
uncertain is considered forgotten sheaves; and grain whose status
as pe’a is uncertain is considered pe’a. Therefore, one should not
raise a contradiction to the mishna from the statement of a single
Sage claiming to represent the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

background
The burden of proof rests upon the claimant – ‫ַה ּמֹוצִ יא ֵמ ֲח ֵבירֹו ָע ָליו‬ cannot provide such proof, the article remains in the hands of the
‫ה ְר ָאיָ ה‬:ָ This is a principle in monetary disputes, according to which defendant despite the fact that he too is unable to prove ownership.
the burden of proof is placed upon the plaintiff when he claims It is only in unusual circumstances that this principle is not applied.
property that is in the possession of the defendant. If the plaintiff

344 Ĥullin . perek X . 134a . ‫דלק ףד‬. ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫אֹות ּה ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְל ׁשֹון ֶ ּבן‬
ָ ‫ ַאל ִּת ׁ ְשנֶ ה‬:‫ָא ַמר לֹו‬ Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoĥanan: Even if you teach
that baraita only in a language whereby a certain imbecile named Here the cow maintains the presumptive status
‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫ וְ ָהא ַט ֲע ָמא ָק ָא ַמר‬,‫ְּת ָדל‬ of exemption – ‫ימא‬ ָ ְ‫ה ָכא ּ ָפ ָרה ְ ּב ֶחזְ ַקת ּ ְפטו ָּרה ַקי‬:ָ One
ben Tedal states that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, a question
?‫״ענִי וָ ָר ׁש ַהצְ דִּ יקוּ״‬ ָ ‫ ַמאי דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬:‫ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ way of explaining this difference is as follows: Due
remains, as isn’t there a stated reason for stringency in cases of to the cow’s presumptive status of exemption, the
?‫״הצְ דִּ יקוּ״‬
ַ ‫ַמאי‬ uncertainties with regard to gifts left for the poor? As Rabbi Shimon very applicability of the obligation to give the gifts
ben Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Do of the priesthood is itself uncertain. By contrast, the
justice to the afflicted and destitute” (Psalms 82:3)? Specifically, obligation to leave gleanings for the poor definitely
what is the meaning of “do justice”? applied to this stalk, as to the entire crop; the only
uncertainty is whether this particular stalk is consid-
‫ימא ְ ּב ִדינִים – וְ ָהא ְּכ ִתיב ״וְ ָדל ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫ ִא ֵיל‬If we say that it means that one should do justice in judgments, i.e., ered part of the gleanings.

!‫ ֶא ָּלא – צַ דֵּ ק ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ְּלךָ וְ ֵתן לֹו‬.‫ ֶת ְהדַּ ר ְ ּב ִריבֹו״‬a judge should sway judgments in favor of the afflicted and destitute,
but isn’t it written: “Neither shall you favor a poor man in his
cause” (Exodus 23:3)? Rather, the verse is teaching that in cases of
uncertainty with regard to gifts left for the poor, be righteous with
that which is yours and give it to the poor. Why, then, is the halakha
stringent in the case of gifts left for the poor but lenient with regard
to gifts to priests?

‫ ָה ָכא – ּ ָפ ָרה ְ ּב ֶחזְ ַקת ּ ְפטו ָּרה‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava said in response: Here, in the case of gifts of the priesthood,
.‫ימא‬ ָ ְ‫ ַקי‬the halakha is lenient because the cow of a convert maintains the
ָ ְ‫ ָק ָמה – ְ ּב ֶחזְ ַקת ִחּיו ָּבא ַקי‬,‫ימא‬
presumptive status of exemption,n as the obligation of the gifts did
not apply to the cow before the convert converted. By contrast, the
halakha is stringent in the case of the gifts left for the poor, as the
standing crop maintains the presumptive status of obligation.

‫נַע ֵ ׂשית ַעד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬ ֲ ‫יסה‬ ָּ ‫ וַ ֲה ֵרי ִע‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬

ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Abaye said to Rava: But with regard to the dough of a convert, the
,‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר – ַחּיָ יב‬,‫ נִ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר – ּ ָפטוּר ִמן ַה ַח ָּלה‬halakha is that if it was prepared before he converted he is exempt
h

from separating ĥalla from this dough, and if it was prepared after
!‫ָס ֵפק – ַחּיָ יב‬
he converted, he is obligated to separate ĥalla from it. And if there
is an uncertainty as to whether the dough was prepared before or
after his conversion, he is obligated, despite the fact that dough
prepared by a gentile is exempt from ĥalla. Why isn’t the convert
exempt from separating ĥalla just as he is exempt from giving gifts
of the priesthood in the case of an uncertainty, as both the dough
and the cow maintain a presumptive status of exemption?

‫ ְס ֵפק‬,‫ ְס ֵפק ִא ּיסו ָּרא – ְלחו ְּמ ָרא‬:‫יה‬ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to Abaye: There is a difference between ĥalla and gifts of
.‫ ָממֹונָ א – ְלקו ָּּלא‬the priesthood. Although the dough maintains the presumptive
status of exemption, here there is also uncertainty with regard to a
prohibition, as a non-priest who consumes ĥalla is liable to receive
the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven. And whenever there
is an uncertainty with regard to a prohibition, the halakha is to be
stringent. Conversely, uncertainties with regard to gifts of the priest-
hood involve no prohibition and are strictly monetary, and whenever
there is an uncertainty with regard to monetary matters, the hal-
akha is to be lenient. Consequently, one relies on the presumptive
status of exemption in the case of a cow, and the convert is exempt
from giving the gifts to the priest.

‫ ׁ ְשמֹונָ ה‬:‫ וְ ֵכן ָּתנֵי ַר ִ ּבי ִחּיָ יא‬,‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬As Rav Ĥisda said, and Rabbi Ĥiyya teaches likewise: Eight
‫ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ְל ִחּיוּב וְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬,‫ ְס ֵפקֹות נֶ ֶא ְמר ּו ַ ּב ֵ ּגר‬instances of uncertainties were stated with regard to the convert;
in four instances the halakha is that there is an obligation, and in
,‫ ָק ְר ַ ּבן ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬.‫ִל ְפטוּר‬
the other four instances the halakha is that there is an exemption.
These are the four instances where the halakha is stringent: The
first is an uncertainty with regard to the offering of one’s wifeh who
gave birth, where it is uncertain whether she gave birth before her
conversion and she is exempt from bringing an offering, or after her
conversion and she is obligated. This case involves a prohibition, as
a woman who does not bring her atonement offering is liable to
receive karet for consuming sanctified items.

halakha
Dough if it was prepared before he converted – ‫נַע ֵ ׂשית‬ ֲ ‫יסה‬
ָּ ‫ִע‬ The offering of one’s wife – ‫ק ְר ַ ּבן ִא ׁ ְש ּתֹו‬:ָ If it is uncertain whether a
‫עד ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא נִ ְת ַ ּגּיֵ יר‬:ַ One who converted and owned dough is exempt woman gave birth before or after her conversion, she brings a sin
from separating ĥalla if he rolled the dough before his conversion. offering due to uncertainty, and it is not consumed (Rambam Sefer
If he rolled it after his conversion, he is obligated. If there is an Korbanot, Hilkhot Meĥusrei Kappara 1:11).
uncertainty as to whether he rolled it before or after his conversion,
he is obligated (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 8:9; Shulĥan
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 330:4).

 ‫דלק ףד‬. ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 134a 345

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ו ְּבכֹור‬,‫ ו ְּבכֹור ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט ֵמ ָאה‬,‫ וְ ַח ָּלה‬And the second case is an uncertainty with regard to the obligation
ָ ‫ ְ ּב ֵה ָמה ְט‬to separate ĥalla from his dough, which also involves a prohibition,
,‫הֹורה – ְל ִחּיוּב‬
as explained above. And the third case is an uncertainty with regard
to a male firstborn non-kosher animal, i.e., a firstborn donkey,
where it is uncertain if it was born before or after the owner’s
conversion, which involves the prohibition against deriving benefit
from it before its redemption. And the fourth case of an uncer-
tainty is with regard to a male firstborn of a kosher animal, where
it is uncertain if it was born before or after the owner’s conversion,
where one can be liable to receive karet for slaughtering it outside
the Temple courtyard. In these four cases, the halakha is that there
is an obligation.

Perek X
Daf 134 Amud b
background
,‫ ו ִּפ ְדיֹון ַה ֵ ּבן‬,‫ וְ ַה ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬
ִ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬And these are the four uncertainties with regard to a convert where
Ravens – ‫עֹור ִבים‬:
ְ This is referring to members of an extensive
order of birds known as Passeriformes. Although these birds .‫ ו ִּפ ְדיֹון ּ ֶפ ֶטר ֲחמֹור – ִל ְפטוּר‬the halakha is lenient: The first is an uncertainty with regard to the
generally eat flesh, either from corpses or small creatures,
first sheared wool of one’s sheep, where it is uncertain whether
some are known to consume fruit. they were shorn before or after his conversion. And the second is
whether or not the obligation of giving the gifts of the foreleg, the
jaw, and the maw applies to his animal. And the third is an uncer-
tainty with regard to the obligation to give five sela for the mitzva
of the redemption of the firstborn son, where it is uncertain if he
was born before or after the owner’s conversion. And the last is an
uncertainty with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey
by means of a sheep or a goat, where it is uncertain if it was born
before or after the owner’s conversion. In each of these instances,
the uncertainty is only with regard to monetary matters, and
therefore the halakha is that one is exempt.

Fan-tailed raven ‫ ָק ָמה ַא ָ ּק ָמה ְר ֵמי‬:‫ ִּכי ֲא ָתא ָר ִבין ֲא ַמר‬In connection to the previous discussion between Rabbi Shimon
Bats – ‫ע ַט ֵּל ִפים‬:ֲ The bat is a member of the order Chiroptera, ּ ‫ ֵל‬ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoĥanan, the Gemara relates that when
.‫יה‬
and is a mammal that is capable of flight. Bats live in dark Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said a slightly
places and are generally active at night. They also have different version of the above discussion: Rabbi Shimon ben Lak-
exceptional hearing. While most bats feed on insects, some ish raised the contradiction to the opinion of Rabbi Meir from a
eat mainly fruit. baraita that states that Rabbi Meir exempts the standing crop of a
convert from the obligation to leave gleanings for the poor when
it is uncertain whether the crop was harvested before or after his
conversion. This baraita is in contradiction to the baraita that
likewise discusses the standing crop: Grain whose status as glean-
ings is uncertain is considered gleanings. Rabbi Yoĥanan resolved
this contradiction by explaining that the second baraita is the
opinion of Rabbi Meir only according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra.

‫ וְ ָלא ָהו ּו ֲענִּיִ ים ְל ִמ ׁ ְש ַקל‬,‫ישר‬ ַ ׁ ‫ֵלוִ י זָ ַרע ְ ּב ִכ‬ § With regard to gifts left for the poor, the Gemara relates that
‫ ֲא ַמר‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ָתא ְל ַק ֵּמ‬.‫ֶל ֶקט‬ Levi sowed crops in his field in Kishar, but there were no poor
people in Kishar to take gleanings from his field. Levi came before
‫״ל ָענִי וְ ַל ֵ ּגר ַּת ֲעזֹב א ָֹתם״ – וְ ל ֹא‬ ֶ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬
Rav Sheshet to ask what should be done with the gleanings. Rav
Egyptian fruit bat .‫עֹור ִבים וְ ל ֹא ָל ֲע ַט ֵּל ִפים‬ ְ ‫ָל‬ Sheshet said to him: The verse states with regard to the mitzvot of
pe’a and gleanings: “You shall leave them for the poor and for the
halakha stranger” (Leviticus 23:22), and not for the ravensb nor for the
And not for the ravens nor for the bats – ‫עֹור ִבים וְ ל ֹא‬ ְ ‫וְ ל ֹא ָל‬ bats.bhn Since there are no poor people to take the gleanings, you
‫ל ֲע ַט ֵּל ִפים‬:ָ The verse states with regard to gifts left for the
should take them for yourself.
poor: “You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger,”
and the Sages derived that this applies only if there are poor
people to claim them. Therefore, if the poor ceased to come
to one’s field to claim their gifts, the gifts may be taken by notes
anyone, as they have no sanctity. Additionally, one who You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger, and add another reason why one should not leave gleanings in one’s
takes them need not pay anything to the poor, as the verse not for the ravens nor for the bats – ‫ֶל ָענִי וְ ַל ֵ ּגר ַּת ֲעזֹב א ָֹתם וְ ל ֹא‬ field even in modern times, when the majority of the inhabit-
does not state: You shall give them, but: “You shall leave ‫עֹור ִבים וְ ל ֹא ָל ֲע ַט ֵּל ִפים‬
ְ ‫ל‬:ָ Similarly, one may not leave them for ants in Eretz Yisrael are Jewish: It is uncommon for a poor person
them,” and one is obligated only to leave them for the poor, gentiles. Accordingly, the Rema writes (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh to venture into a field in search of gleanings and other gifts left
not for the ravens or bats (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot De’a 332:1) that the mitzva to leave gleanings in the field no for the poor. Therefore, if one leaves them and the poor do not
Mattenot Aniyyim 1:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 332:1, and longer applies even in Eretz Yisrael, as in his time the majority of take them, one would violate the injunction of the Gemara: You
see Shakh and Pitĥei Teshuva there). its inhabitants were gentiles and if one leaves them in the field a shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger, and not for
gentile is likely to come and take them. The later commentaries the ravens or for the bats (Ĥazon Ish).

346 Ĥullin . perek X . 134b . ‫דלק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫יאין ְּתרו ָּמה ל ֹא ִמגּ ֶֹורן‬ ִ ‫ ֵאין ְמ ִב‬:‫ית ֵיבי‬ ִ ‫ֵמ‬ The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The owner of a field
‫ וְ ִאם ֵאין ׁ ָשם‬,‫ָל ִעיר וְ ל ֹא ִמ ִּמ ְד ָ ּבר ַלּיִ ׁ ּשוּב‬ does not need to expend the effort to bring teruma, neither from
the threshing floor to the city nor from the wilderness to a settled
‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ֶה ְפ ֵסד‬,‫יא ּה‬
ָ ‫ּכ ֵֹהן – שׂ ֵֹוכר ּ ָפ ָרה ו ְּמ ִב‬
area,h in order to give it to a priest. Rather, the priest must travel to
!‫ְּתרו ָּמה‬ the field to receive the teruma. And if there is no priest there, at the
threshing floor or in the wilderness, to receive the teruma, the owner
must hire a cow and bring the teruma to the city, due to the loss of
teruma that would occur if it were left in the field. According to this
baraita, the owner of the field should likewise be obligated to do the
same with gleanings.

‫ וְ ָלא ַסגְ יָ א‬,‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ְּתרו ָּמה – דְּ ָט ְב ָלה‬The Gemara explains: Teruma is different, in that if it is not sepa-
.‫ דְּ ָלא ַמ ְפ ִר ׁיש ָל ּה‬rated it causes the entire crop to be considered untithed, and it is
therefore not possible for one not to separate teruma from the crop.
By contrast, gleanings do not render the remaining crop prohibited
for consumption, and therefore it is not necessary to set them aside
and remove them.

‫ ָמקֹום‬:‫ וְ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ וַ ֲה ֵרי ַמ ָּתנֹות דְּ ָלא ָט ְב ִלי‬The Gemara objects: But what about the case of the gifts of the
‫ ׁ ֶש ָּנ ֲהג ּו ִל ְמלֹוג ַ ּב ֲעגָ ִלים – ל ֹא יַ ְפ ׁ ִשיט‬priesthood, which do not render the rest of the animal untithed,
i.e., they do not prohibit the entire animal in consumption before
.‫רֹוע‬
ַ ְ‫ֶאת ַהּז‬
they are separated. And nevertheless it is taught in a baraita: In a
place where they were accustomed to put the meat of slaughtered
calves in boiling water in order to remove the hairs from the skin,
and then eat the meat with the skin still attached to the flesh, one
may not skin the foreleg before giving it to the priest. Rather, he
gives it with its skin intact.

‫ֹאש – ל ֹא יַ ְפ ׁ ִשיט ֶאת‬ׁ ‫ ְל ַה ְפ ׁ ִשיט ֶאת ָהר‬The baraita continues: Similarly, in a place where people are accus-
ָ ‫ וְ ִאם ֵאין ׁ ָשם ּכ ֵֹהן – ַמ ֲע ִלין‬.‫ ַה ֶּל ִחי‬tomed to skin the head of an animal, one may not skin the cheek
‫אֹותן‬
of the jaw of an animal before giving it to the priest, but must give
!‫ ִמ ּ ְפנֵי ֶה ְפ ֵסד ּכ ֵֹהן‬,‫אֹוכ ָלן‬
ְ ְ‫ְ ּב ָד ִמים ו‬
it with its skin intact so that the priest may use the skin as he wishes.
And if there is no priest available to receive the gifts, the gifts are
appraised by their monetary value, and the owner may eat them
and gives their monetary value to a priest at the next available time,
due to the loss that would otherwise be incurred by the priest.
Evidently, one must expend effort to ensure that a priest receives
the gifts despite the fact that they do not render the entire animal
untithed. Why is the halakha different with regard to gleanings?

‫ דִּ ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ְּכ ִת ָיבא‬,‫ ׁ ָשאנֵי ַמ ְּתנֹות ְּכהו ָּּנה‬The Gemara responds: The halakha is different in the case of gifts
‫ ְּתרו ָּמה‬,‫ ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא דְּ ָא ֵתית ְל ָה ִכי‬.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֵ ּב‬of the priesthood, as a term of giving is written with regard to it:
“That they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ְּכ ִת ָיבא ֵ ּב‬:‫נַ ִמי‬
maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). This teaches that one must actively give
the gifts to a priest, whereas no equivalent term is written with
regard to gleanings. The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived
at this explanation with regard to gifts of the priesthood, one can
likewise explain that the reason teruma must be brought to a locale
where there is a priest is likewise due to the fact that a term of giving
is written with regard to it: “The first fruits of your grain, of your
wine, and of your oil, and the first sheared wool of your sheep you
shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), not because teruma renders
the crop untithed.

halakha
The owner does not bring teruma neither from the threshing the teruma and places it on the threshing floor. With regard
floor to the city nor from the wilderness to a settled area, etc. – to a case where the threshing floor is unprotected from wild
‫יאין ְּתרו ָּמה ל ֹא ִמג ֶֹּורן ָל ִעיר וְ ל ֹא ִמ ִּמ ְד ָ ּבר ַלּיִ ׁ ּשוּב וכו׳‬
ִ ‫אין ְמ ִב‬:ֵ An Israelite is animals who may consume the teruma, the Sages decreed that
not obligated to expend effort in order to bring teruma from the he must bring it to the city, as leaving it on the threshing floor
threshing floor to the city or from the wilderness to a settled area. for the animals is a desecration of God’s name. In that case, he
Rather, the priests go to the threshing floor and the Israelite gives may collect the cost of its transfer from the priest (Rambam Sefer
it to them there. If they do not come to collect it, he separates Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 12:17).

 ‫דלק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 134b 347

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
ַּ ‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא‬The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the verse to state an extra
?‫״ת ֲעזֹב״ יְ ֵת ָירא ָל ָּמה ִלי‬
Sack of dinars – ‫ש ָ ּקא דְּ ִדינָ ֵרי‬:
ׂ ַ The sack referred to both term of leaving with regard to gleanings? One verse states: “Neither
by the Torah and the Sages was fashioned from a coarse
fabric that came from goats’ hair. It was sometimes sewn
shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest, and your vineyard you
in the shape of a sack and sometimes in other shapes. shall not harvest completely, and the fallen fruit of your vineyard
Since most goats in those times had black hair, the color you shall not gather; you shall leave them for the poor and for the
of the sack was usually black as well. Sacks were gener- stranger” (Leviticus 19:9–10), and another verse states: “Neither
ally transported by donkey, often together in pairs, with shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them
the sacks tied together and hanging down the two sides for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). Doesn’t this
of the donkey’s body. These sacks were used for storing
additional mention of leaving indicate that even if there are no
various types of items, including coins.
poor people to take the gleanings, the owner must collect them and
ensure that a poor person can claim them?

‫ וְ ַל ׁ ּ ַש ַחר‬,‫ ַה ַּמ ְפ ִקיר ֶאת ַּכ ְרמֹו‬:‫ ְל ִכ ְד ַתנְיָא‬The Gemara responds: No, the extra term of leaving is required for
‫עֹוללֹות‬ ְ ‫ ִה ׁ ְש ִּכים ו ְּבצָ רֹו – ַחּיָ יב ְ ּב ֶפ ֶרט ו ְּב‬that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who declares
his vineyard ownerless,h and in the morning awoke and reclaimed
.‫ ו ָּפטוּר ִמן ַה ַּמ ַע ְ ׂשרֹות‬,‫ו ְּב ׁ ִש ְכ ָחה ו ְּב ֵפ ָאה‬
the ownerless vineyard and harvested the grapes, he is obligated
in the mitzva of leaving individual fallen grapes for the poor [peret],
and in the mitzva of leaving incompletely formed clusters of grapes
for the poor [olelot], and in the mitzva of leaving forgotten clusters,
and in the mitzva of pe’a. And he is exempt from the obligation to
separate the tithes from the grapes, as the vineyard had been owner-
Roman-style leather money bag less. The baraita rules that he is obligated in the gifts for the poor
despite the halakha that the obligation to leave these gifts does not
notes apply to an ownerless vineyard. It is derived from the additional
In beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth – ‫ְ ּבנֹוי ְ ּב ָח ְכ ָמה‬ mention of leaving that the obligation of gifts to the poor applies
‫עֹושר‬
ֶ ׁ ‫ו ְּב‬: In manuscripts and the parallel passage in trac- even to an ownerless field of this type.
tate Horayot 9a, strength is also mentioned as a quality of
the High Priest. In addition, some manuscripts mention ,‫ַההוּא ַ ׂש ָ ּקא דְּ ִדינָ ֵרי דַּ ֲא ָתא ְל ֵבי ִמ ְד ְר ׁ ָשא‬ § In relation to the discussion of a case where the owner of a field
honor as well.
‫יכי ָע ֵביד‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵה‬.‫ָק ֵדים ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי וְ זָ ָכה ָ ּב ֶהן‬ takes gifts left for the poor for himself, the Gemara relates that there
was a certain sack of dinarsb that was brought to the study hall to
‫ָה ִכי? וְ ָהא ְּכ ִתיב ״וְ נָ ַתן״ – וְ ל ֹא ׁ ֶשּיִ ּטֹול‬
provide financial assistance for the students. Rabbi Ami rushed and
.‫ֵמ ַעצְ מֹו! ַר ִ ּבי ַא ִמי נַ ִמי ַל ֲענִּיִ ים זָ ָכה ָ ּב ֶהן‬ acquired them. The Gemara asks: And how can he act in this man-
ner? But isn’t it written with regard to gifts of the priesthood: “That
they shall give to the priest” (Deuteronomy 18:3), and the Sages
derived from the verse that a priest should receive the gifts and he
should not take them by himself. The same applies to gifts for the
poor as well. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Ami too did not take the
gifts for himself. Rather, he acquired them for the poor.

,‫ ָא ָדם ָח ׁשוּב ׁ ָשאנֵי‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ וְ ִא‬And if you wish, say instead that the halakha with regard to a dis-
‫ ״וְ ַה ּכ ֵֹהן ַה ָ ּגדֹול ֵמ ֶא ָחיו״ – ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬tinguished person such as Rabbi Ami, who was the head of the
yeshiva, is different, and he may acquire the gifts for himself. As it
.‫עֹושר‬ֶ ׁ ‫ָ ּגדֹול ֵמ ֶא ָחיו ְ ּבנֹוי ְ ּב ָח ְכ ָמה ו ְּב‬
is taught in a baraita that the verse: “And the priest who is greater
than his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10), indicates that the High Priest
should be greater than his priestly brethren in beauty, in wisdom,
and in wealth.nh

,‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ׁ ֶש ִאם ֵאין לֹו‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ֲא ֵח ִרים‬ Others say: From where is it derived that if the High Priest does
‫ׁ ֶש ֶא ָחיו ַה ּכ ֲֹהנִים ְמגַ דְּ ִלין אֹותֹו? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ not have property of his own, his brethren the priests elevate
him and render him wealthy from their own property? The verse
‫ ״וְ ַה ּכ ֵֹהן ַה ָ ּגדֹול ֵמ ֶא ָחיו״ – ַ ּגדְּ ֵלה ּו‬:‫לֹומר‬
ַ
states: “And the priest who is greater than his brethren,” i.e., they
.‫ִמ ׁ ּ ֶשל ֶא ָחיו‬ must elevate him from the property of his brethren. Since the
members of the study hall are required to enrich Rabbi Ami from
their own property, it is certainly permitted for him to take these
gifts for himself.

halakha
One who declares his vineyard ownerless, etc. – ‫ַה ַּמ ְפ ִקיר ֶאת‬ That the High Priest should be greater than his brethren in
‫כ ְרמֹו וכו׳‬:ַּ With regard to one who declared his vineyard ownerless, beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth – ‫ּיְהא ָ ּגדֹול ֵמ ֶא ָחיו ְ ּבנֹוי ְ ּב ָח ְכ ָמה‬
ֵ ‫ׁ ֶש‬
and in the morning reacquired the field for himself and harvested ‫עֹושר‬
ֶ ׁ ‫ו ְּב‬: The High Priest should be greater than all of his priestly
it, he is obligated to leave peret, olelot, forgotten grape clusters, brethren in beauty, in strength, in wealth, in wisdom, and in
and pe’a for the poor. The reason is that such a vineyard is called bearing. If he does not have money, all of the priests provide
“your field” and “your vineyard,” as it was previously his and is now him with money from their own assets, each one according to
in his possession as well. If one acquires an ownerless field that his financial capability, until the point that he is wealthier than
formerly belonged to others, he is exempt from leaving these gifts the wealthiest of the other priests (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot
(Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim 5:27). Kelei HaMikdash 5:1).

348 Ĥullin . perek X . 134b . ‫דלק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫רֹוע – ִמן ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרק ׁ ֶשל‬ ַ ְ‫מתני׳ ֵאיזֶ ה ּו ַהּז‬

.‫ וְ הוּא ׁ ֶשל נָ זִ יר‬,‫ַא ְר ּכו ָּבה ַעד ַּכף ׁ ֶשל יָ ד‬
mishna What is the definition of the forelegh that is
given to the priests as one of the gifts? It is the
background
Foreleg, thigh, jaw – ‫ ֶל ִחי‬,‫ ׁשֹוק‬,‫רֹוע‬
ַ ְ‫ּז‬:
part of the leg from the joint of the lower knee until the rounded
:‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬.‫ ׁשֹוק‬,‫ו ְּכנֶ גְ דּ ֹו ָ ּב ֶרגֶ ל‬ protrusion surrounding the thigh bone of the foreleg; and that is
ְ‫סֹובך‬
ֶ ‫ׁשֹוק ִמן ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרק ׁ ֶשל ַא ְר ּכו ָּבה ַעד‬ the foreleg mentioned in the Torah with regard to the nazirite:
‫ ֵאי זֶ ה ּו ֶל ִחי – ִמן ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרק ׁ ֶשל‬.‫ׁ ֶשל ֶרגֶ ל‬ “And the priest shall take the foreleg of the ram when it is cooked”
.‫ ַעד ּ ִפ ָיקה ׁ ֶשל ַ ּג ְר ֶ ּג ֶרת‬,‫ֶל ִחי‬ (Numbers 6:19). And the parallel in the hind leg is the thigh that
is given to the priest from the peace offering, which is also from the
joint of the lower knee until the rounded protrusion surrounding
the thigh bone. Rabbi Yehuda says: The thigh is from the joint of
the lower knee until the upper knee joint, which connects the
middle and upper parts of the leg. What is the definition of the
jaw?hB It is from the joint of the lower jaw beneath the temples and
downward until the upper ring of the windpipe.

.‫רֹוע יָ ִמין‬
‫ אֹו ֵאינֹו ֶא ָּלא‬,‫רֹוע יָ ִמין‬
ַ :‫גמ׳ ָּתנ ּו ַר ָ ּבנַן‬
ַ ְ‫״הּזְ ר ַֹע״ – זֶ ה ז‬
ַ ְ‫אֹומר זֶ ה ז‬ֵ ‫ַא ָּתה‬
gemara The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse
states with regard to the gifts of the priest- Foreleg
hood: “That they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and
.‫״הּזְ ר ַֹע״‬
ַ :‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫רֹוע ְ ׂשמֹאל? ַּת ְלמוּד‬ ַ ְ‫ ז‬the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). “The foreleg”; this is the right
foreleg of the animal. The baraita continues: Do you say that this
is the right foreleg, or is it only the left foreleg? The verse states:
“The foreleg.” The definite article indicates that the verse is referring
to the right foreleg.

– ‫״הּיָ ֵרךְ ״‬
ַ :‫ ַמאי ַּת ְלמו ָּדא? ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for this, i.e., how
– ‫רֹוע״‬
ַ ְ‫״הּז‬ַ :‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬, ְ‫ ַה ְמיו ֶּּמנֶ ת ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּיָ ֵרך‬is it understood from the definite article that the verse is referring to
the right foreleg? The Gemara responds: It is derived like that which
.‫רֹוע‬
ַ ְ‫ַה ְּמיו ָּּמן ׁ ֶש ַ ּבּז‬
Rava said with regard to the verse: “Therefore the children of Israel
do not eat the sciatic nerve which is upon the hollow of the thigh”
(Genesis 32:33). The definite article indicates that this is referring to
the most important thigh. Here too, the definite article in the
term “the foreleg” indicates that the verse is referring to the most
important foreleg, i.e., the right foreleg.

‫״וְ ַה ְּל ָח יַ יִ ם״ ְל ַמאי ֲא ָתא? ְל ָה ִביא‬ The Gemara continues: And in the term “and the jaw,” for what
Thigh
‫ וְ ֵ ׂש ָער ׁ ֶש ִ ּבזְ ַקן‬,‫ֹאש ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים‬ׁ ‫צֶ ֶמר ׁ ֶש ְ ּבר‬ purpose does the definite article come, i.e., what halakha does it
teach? It serves to include wool that is on the head of lambs and
‫ ״וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה״ ְל ַמאי ֲא ָתא? ְל ָה ִביא‬.‫ישים‬ ִ ׁ ָ‫ְּתי‬
hair that is in the beard of goatsh in the obligation to give the jaw
ְ ‫ וְ ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬,‫ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬
‫תֹוך‬ to the priest. And in the term “and the maw,” for what purpose does
‫ ּכ ֲֹהנִים נָ ֲהג ּו‬:‫הֹוש ַע‬ֻ ׁ ְ‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬.‫ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬ the definite article come? It serves to include fat that is on the
– ‫ ַט ֲע ָמא‬,‫ּבֹו ַעיִ ן יָ ָפה וּנְ ָתנוּה ּו ַל ְ ּב ָע ִלים‬ maw and fat that is inside the mawh in the obligation to give the
.‫יה הוּא‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ָלא נָ ֲהג ּו – דִּ ֵיד‬,ּ‫דְּ נָ ֲהגו‬ maw to the priest. As Rabbi Yehoshua said: Priests behaved gener-
ously with fat that is on the maw and they gave it to its owner, i.e.,
they relinquished their right to receive it. The Gemara infers: The
reason this fat was not given to the priests is that they behaved
generously, but had they not behaved generously, the fat would be
his, the priest’s.

Jaw

halakha
What is the foreleg – ‫רֹוע‬
ַ ְ‫איזֶ ה ּו ַהּז‬‎ֵ : The foreleg that one is obli- What is the jaw – ‫אי זֶ ה ּו ֶל ִחי‬:ֵ The jaw that is given as a gift of
gated to give as part of the gifts of the priesthood is the right the priesthood is from the joint of the jaw until the upper ring
foreleg, from the joint of the lower knee until the rounded pro- of the windpipe, which is the large ring, with the tongue in
trusion surrounding the thigh bone of the foreleg. This consists between (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:18; Shulĥan
of two bones connected to one another (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:3).
Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot 9:10 and Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bik-
kurim 9:18; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:2).

 ‫דלק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 134b 349

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫רֹוע ְּכנֶ גֶ ד‬
ַ ְ‫ ַהּז‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ְ ‫ דּ ְֹור ׁ ֵשי ֲחמוּרֹות ָהי ּו‬The Gemara cites a homiletical idea with regard to the gifts of the
ֵ ‫ וְ ֵכן הוּא‬.‫ ַהּיָ ד‬priesthood: The interpreters of Torah symbolism [dorshei
.‫אֹומר ״וַ ּיִ ַ ּקח ר ַֹמח ְ ּביָ דֹו״‬
ĥamurot]l would say with regard to the reason why the foreleg, the
jaw, and the maw are given to the priests: The foreleg corresponds
to the hand of Pinehas, son of Elazar the priest, who killed Zimri,
son of Salu, thereby bringing an end to the plague that was ravaging
the children of Israel. And it likewise states in the verse: “And he
took a spear in his hand” (Numbers 25:7).

ֵ ‫ וְ ֵכן הוּא‬,‫ ו ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם ְּכנֶ גֶ ד ְּת ִפ ָּלה‬And the jaw corresponds to the prayer [tefilla] offered by Pinehas
‫אֹומר ״וַ ּיַ ֲעמֹד‬
‫ וְ ֵכן הוּא‬,‫ ֵק ָבה ְּכ ַמ ׁ ְש ָמ ָע ּה‬.‫ ּ ִפינְ ָחס וַ יְ ַפ ֵּלל״‬during the aforementioned incident. And so it states in the verse:
“Then stood up Pinehas, and wrought judgment [vayefallel], and
.‫אֹומר ״וְ ֶאת ָה ִא ׁ ּ ָשה ֶאל ֳק ָב ָת ּה״‬ ֵ
so the plague was stayed. And that was counted to him for righ-
teousness, to all generations forever” (Psalms 106:30). The maw is
as its plain meaning in the verses describing the incident, and it
likewise states: “And he thrust both of them through, the man of
Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed
from the children of Israel” (Numbers 25:8).

‫״שֹוק ַהּיָ ִמין״ ֵאין‬ ׁ :‫יתי ָל ּה ֵמ ָה ָכא‬ ֵ ְ‫וְ ַת ָּנא ַמי‬ The Gemara above cited a source for the halakha that the right
ַ ְ‫ ז‬,‫ִלי ֶא ָּלא ׁשֹוק ַהּיָ ִמין‬
?‫רֹוע מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬ foreleg is given to the priest. The Gemara notes: And the tanna of
the following baraita cites this halakha from here: The verse states
?‫רֹוע חו ִּּלין ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬ ַ ְ‫ ז‬.‫״תרו ָּמה״‬ ְּ :‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬
with regard to the gift to the priest from a peace offering: “And the
.‫״ת ְּתנוּ״‬ ִּ :‫לֹומר‬
ַ ‫ַּת ְלמוּד‬ right thigh you shall give to the priest as a gift from your sacrifices
of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:32). I have derived only that the
right thigh of a peace offering is given to the priest. From where
do I derive that the right foreleg of the sacrificial ram of the nazirite
is given to the priest? The verse states: “You shall give to the priest
as a gift.” And from where is it derived that the right foreleg of a
non-sacred animal is also given as a gift to the priest? The verse
states: “You shall give.”

‫״איזֶ ה ּו ֶל ִחי ִמן ַה ּ ֶפ ֶרק ׁ ֶשל ֶל ִחי וְ ַעד ּ ִפ ָיקה‬ֵ § The mishna taught: What is definition of the jaw? It is from
‫יטה‬ ְ :‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬.‫ ׁ ֶשל ַ ּג ְר ֶ ּג ֶרת״‬the joint of the jaw beneath the temples and below until the upper
ָ ‫נֹוט ָל ּה ו ֵּבית ׁ ְש ִח‬
ring of the windpipe. The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in a
!‫ִע ָּמ ּה‬
baraita that when one removes the jaw from the animal to give
to the priest, he removes it and the area of slaughter on the
throat with it? The area of slaughter is beyond the upper ring of
the windpipe.

‫ ָהא ַר ָ ּבנַ ן וְ ָהא ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָ א ֶ ּבן‬,‫ ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Everyone agrees that
,‫נְטיגְ נֹוס‬ִ ‫ ַא‬the priest receives only the part until the upper ring of the windpipe,
and the difference between the two rulings is that this mishna is in
accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that baraita is in
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ĥanina ben Antigonus.

language
Interpreters of Torah symbolism [dorshei ĥamurot] – ‫דּ ְֹור ׁ ֵשי‬ to pearls and spices that hang from the neck of a woman, which
‫חמוּרֹות‬:ֲ This term, which sometimes appears in the Gemara as: contain within them pleasant scents called ĥomer that refresh the
Interpreters in the manner of ĥomer, refers to a method of inter- soul (Rashi). Others have a version of the text that states: Homer,
pretation based on a comparative analysis of obscure verses. This similar to hamara, exchange, i.e., giving an allegorical interpreta-
exegetical method is known as ĥamurot because it is analogous tion in place of a straightforward one.

halakha
To include wool that is on the head of lambs and hair that is in It serves to include fat that is on the maw and fat that is inside
the beard of goats – ‫ישים‬ ִ ׁ ָ‫ֹאש ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים וְ ֵ ׂש ָער ׁ ֶש ִ ּבזְ ַקן ְּתי‬
ׁ ‫ל ָה ִביא צֶ ֶמר ׁ ֶש ְ ּבר‬:ְ ְ ‫ל ָה ִביא ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ַעל ַ ּג ֵ ּבי ַה ֵ ּק ָבה וְ ֵח ֶלב ׁ ֶש ְ ּב‬:ְ When
the maw – ‫תֹוך ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬
When one gives the jaw and the foreleg to the priest, he must do one gives the maw to the priest, he must give it with all its fat, i.e.,
so with their skin intact as well as the wool on the heads of sheep both the inner and outer fat, unless the priests are accustomed to
and the hair on the head of goats. One may not boil the flesh in allowing the owner to keep the fat (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot
water in order to remove the hairs, nor may one skin the animal Bikkurim 9:19; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:4).
before it is given to the priest (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bik-
kurim 9:19; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 61:3).

350 Ĥullin . perek X . 134b . ‫דלק ףד‬: ‫קרפ‬ ‫׳י‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ֵה ִעיד ַר ִ ּבי ֲחנִינָא‬.‫ מוּגְ ֶר ֶמת ּ ְפסו ָּלה‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬The Gemara explains that this is as it is taught in a baraita: The
.‫נְטיגְ נֹוס ַעל מוּגְ ֶר ֶמת ׁ ֶש ִהיא ְּכ ׁ ֵש ָרה‬ִ ‫ ֶ ּבן ַא‬slaughter of an animal in such a manner that the knife is diverted
to an area above the place of slaughter on its throat is not valid.
Rabbi Ĥanina ben Antigonus testified with regard to the slaughter
of an animal when the knife is diverted that it is valid (see 18b).
The baraita calls the area of the jaw until the upper ring of the wind-
pipe the area of slaughter, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
Ĥanina ben Antigonus, who maintains that it is also a valid area
for slaughter.

‫ ו ַּמאי‬,‫ ָהא וְ ָהא ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫ ִא‬And if you wish, say instead that this mishna and that baraita are
ִ both in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and what does
.‫״ע ָּמ ּה״? ִע ָּמ ּה דִּ ְב ֵה ָמה‬
the baraita mean when it says: With it? It means that the area of
slaughter remains with the animal, i.e., it remains with the owner
and is not given to the priest.
‫הדרן עלך הזרוע והלחיים‬

 ‫דלק ףד‬: ‫ ׳י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek X . 134b 351

This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Summary of
Perek X

This chapter dealt primarily with the parameters of a single positive mitzva: The
obligation to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw of a slaughtered animal to a priest.
The mishna taught that this mitzva applies at all times and in all places.
With regard to the question of which animals are included in the mitzva, the Gemara
concluded that the obligation applies only to non-sacred kosher slaughtered domes-
ticated animals, but sacred animals are exempt.
The Gemara also concluded that the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw have
no sanctity and may be given or sold to anyone of the priest’s choosing. Accordingly,
an Israelite may consume the gifts as well, provided that he receives permission from
the priest. Likewise, an animal whose gifts have not yet been separated is permitted
in consumption, as the gifts have no sanctity. Nevertheless, one must give the gifts
before partaking of the remainder of the animal ab initio. Nowadays, people are not
meticulous about performing this mitzva because it is only a monetary obligation,
and priests lack incontrovertible proof that they are members of the priesthood who
are entitled to the gifts.
The Gemara determined that gifts of the priesthood may be given to all priests and
to their daughters as well. They may be given entirely to one priest, or they may be
divided among several priests. The obligation of the gifts does not apply to an animal
owned in partnership with a priest or a gentile.
The chapter included a precise description of the gifts and their parameters. The
Gemara concluded that the foreleg refers to the right foreleg, and that it extends
from the joint of the lower knee until the rounded protrusion surrounding the thigh
bone of the foreleg. The jaw refers to both cheeks as well as the tongue, while the
maw includes fat on and inside it.

353
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from
those who slaughter an animal, whether it be ox or
sheep; and he shall give to the priest the foreleg, and
the jaw, and the maw. The first fruits of your grain, of
Introduction to
Perek XI
your wine, and of your oil; and the first sheared wool
of your flock shall you give him.
(Deuteronomy 18:3–4)

This chapter is a direct continuation of the previous one, as it continues to discuss

the gifts of the priesthood. Having examined the mitzva to give the priest the foreleg,
the jaw, and the maw, the Gemara focuses on the mitzva to give the priest the first
sheared wool. The order of these two chapters follows the order in which these
mitzvot appear in the Torah: The mitzva to give the priest the foreleg, the jaw, and
the maw is addressed first, and then the mitzva to give the priest the first sheared
wool is stated. The aforementioned verses also refer to the first fruits of the grain, i.e.,
teruma. The mitzva of teruma is discussed in the order of Zera’im, which is devoted
to halakhot relating to agricultural produce.
This chapter will clarify many details of the mitzva of the first sheared wool, as a
simple reading of the Torah raises many questions: The verse mentions the shearing
of sheep. Does this indicate that the mitzva does not apply to other animals, or is
this merely an example? Furthermore, the verse is apparently referring to non-sacred
sheep, just as the mitzvot of teruma and the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw both apply
to non-sacred possessions. If so, are consecrated animals exempt from the first
sheared wool, or does this mitzva apply even to consecrated animals?
Another question is: How many sheep must one own for him to be obligated in the
mitzva of the first sheared wool? In addition, the verse states that one must give the
priest the first sheared wool, but it does not indicate how much one is required to
give. Is any amount sufficient, or is there a minimum amount one must give the priest
in order to fulfill one’s obligation? It must also be established at which point in time
the obligation to separate the first sheared wool takes effect. It is possible that the
mitzva applies only to the individual who owned the flock prior to the process of
shearing; alternatively, it might take effect at the time of shearing.
Another case explored in the chapter is that of one who did not separate the first
sheared wool. Perhaps the mitzva continues to apply to the wool, even if one already
wove it into cloth, or perhaps it ceases to apply once the wool has been changed.
These and other matters are discussed in this chapter.

355
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek XI
Daf 135 Amud a

‫נֹוהג ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ו ְּבחוּצָ ה‬ ֵ ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫מתני׳ ֵר‬

,‫ ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת וְ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬,‫ָל ָא ֶרץ‬
mishna The mitzva of the first sheared wool that
every Jew must give to the priest, as stated in
halakha
Applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz
Yisrael, etc. – ‫נֹוהג ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ו ְּבחוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ וכו׳‬:
ֵ The mitzva
the verse: “And the first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha] shall of the first sheared wool applies only in Eretz Yisrael,
.‫ ַ ּבחו ִּּלין ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ַ ּב ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשים‬you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), applies both in Eretz Yisrael
but not outside of Eretz Yisrael, in accordance with
and outside of Eretz Yisrael,h in the presence of the Temple and the opinion of Rabbi Ilai in the baraita cited later
not in the presence of the Temple,n and with regard to non-sacred (136a), and not in accordance with the ruling of the
animals. But it does not apply to sacrificial animals. mishna. The mitzva applies both in the presence of
the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple,
:‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫רֹוע ו ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם ו ַּב ֵ ּק ָבה ֵמ ֵר‬
ַ ְ‫חֹומר ַ ּבּז‬
ֶ There are more stringent elements in the mitzva of the foreleg, the and it applies to non-sacred animals but not to con-
jaw, and the maw (see 130a) than in the halakha of the first sheared secrated animals, as stated in the mishna. According
ֲ ‫רֹוע וְ ַה ְּל ָחיַ יִ ם וְ ַה ֵ ּק ָבה‬
‫נֹוהגִ ין ַ ּב ָ ּב ָקר‬ ַ ְ‫ׁ ֶש ַהּז‬ to some authorities, the obligation of the first sheared
wool in that the mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies
‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫ וְ ֵר‬,‫ ַ ּב ְּמרו ֶ ּּבה ו ַּב ּמ ּו ָעט‬,‫ו ַּב ּצֹאן‬ wool applies even outside Eretz Yisrael by Torah law.
to cattle and to sheep, as it is written: “Whether it be ox or sheep, This opinion is not accepted in practice (Rambam
‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו‬,‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ְר ֵחלֹות‬ ֵ ‫ֵאינֹו‬ that he shall give unto the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:1; Shulĥan Arukh,
.‫ַ ּב ְּמרו ֶ ּּבה‬ maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3); and it applies to numerous animals and Yoreh De’a 333:1, and in the comment of Rema).
to few animals. But by contrast, the mitzva of the first sheared wool
The first sheared wool applies only to sheep –
applies only to sheephn and not to goats and cattle, and applies only ‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ְר ֵחלֹות‬
ֵ ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז ֵאינֹו‬
ִ ׁ ‫ר‬:ֵ The mitzva of the
to numerous animals. first sheared wool applies only to sheep, both males
and females (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim
:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ ‫וְ ַכ ָּמה הוּא ְמרו ֶ ּּבה? ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬ And how many are numerous?h Beit Shammai say: It is at least two 10:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:2).
‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״יְ ַחּיֶ ה ִא ׁיש ֶעגְ ַלת‬,‫ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְר ֵחלֹות‬ sheep, as it is stated: “That a man shall rear a young cow, and two
And how many are numerous, etc. – ‫וְ ַכ ָּמה הוּא ְמרו ֶ ּּבה‬
sheep [tzon]” (Isaiah 7:21), indicating that two sheep are character-
ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬.‫ָ ּב ָקר ו ׁ ְּש ֵּתי צֹאן״‬
,‫ ָח ֵמ ׁש‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ‫וכו׳‬: One must have at least five sheep in order to be
ized as tzon; and the mitzva of the first sheared wool is written using obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, as
.‫״ח ֵמ ׁש צֹאן ֲע ׂשוּיֹות״‬ ָ ‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ the term “your flock [tzonekha].” And Beit Hillel say: It is at least stated by Beit Hillel (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot
five sheep, as it is stated: “And five sheep [tzon] made” (I Samuel Bikkurim 10:13; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:9).
25:18). Laundered and not when sullied, etc. – ‫ְמלו ָ ּּבן וְ ל ֹא‬
‫צֹואי וכו׳‬:
ִ If one designated a large amount of wool as
‫ ָח ֵמ ׁש ְר ֵחלֹות‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ֹוסא ֶ ּבן ָה ְר ִּכינָס‬ ָ ּ‫ַר ִ ּבי ד‬ Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: When shearing five sheep, the the first sheared wool and wishes to divide it among
‫אשית‬ִ ׁ ‫ ו ְּפ ָרס – ַחּיָ יבֹות ְ ּב ֵר‬,‫ ָמנֶ ה‬,‫ּגֹוזְ זֹות ָמנֶ ה‬ sheared wool of each sheep weighing one hundred dinarsb each and several priests, he may not give each priest less than
half [peras]l of one hundred dinars each, i.e., one hundred and fifty the weight of five sela, which is enough to fashion a
‫ ָח ֵמ ׁש ְר ֵחלֹות ּגֹוזְ זֹות‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬.‫ַה ֵ ּגז‬
dinars each, are subject to the obligation of the first sheared wool, small garment. One may give the wool to the priest
.‫ָּכל ׁ ֶש ֵהן‬ i.e., they render the owner obligated to give the first sheared wool to without laundering it, but the wool must weigh at
the priests. And the Rabbis say: Any five sheep, each of whose least five sela after it is laundered. Other commentar-
ies maintain that one is not required to give each
sheared wool weighs any amount, render the owner obligated in
priest the weight of five sela. Rather, it is sufficient if
the mitzva. the total weight of the first sheared wool amounts to
five sela (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:16;
‫נֹותנִין לֹו – ִמ ׁ ְש ַקל ָח ֵמ ׁש ְס ָל ִעים‬ ְ ‫וְ ַכ ָּמה‬ And how much of the sheared wool does one give to the priest? One Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:13, and in the comment
‫ ְמלו ָ ּּבן‬,‫ ׁ ֶש ֵהן ֶע ֶ ׂשר ְס ָל ִעים ַ ּב ָ ּג ִליל‬,‫ִ ּביהו ָּדה‬ gives him sheared wool of the weight of five sela in Judea, which of Rema, and see Gra there).
are the equivalent of ten sela in the Galilee, as the weight of the
,‫ ְּכ ֵדי ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ֶ ּבגֶ ד ָק ָטן‬,‫צֹואי‬ ִ ‫וְ ל ֹא‬
Galilean sela is half that of the Judean sela. Furthermore, although background
.‫״ת ֶּתן לֹו״ – ׁ ֶשּיְ ֵהא ּבֹו ְּכ ֵדי ַמ ָּתנָ ה‬ ִּ ‫ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬ one may give the wool to the priest without laundering it, this must One hundred dinars [maneh] – ‫מנֶ ה‬:ָ A maneh is a
be the weight of the wool once laundered and not when sullied,h coin worth one hundred dinars. It should be noted
as is characteristic of wool when sheared. The measure that must be that the average daily wage of a laborer at the time
given to the priest is enough to fashion a small garment from it, as of the Talmud was approximately four dinars. One
it is stated: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), indicating hundred dinars was therefore roughly equivalent to
that the sheared wool must contain enough for a proper gift. a monthly wage.

language
Half [peras] – ‫פ ָרס‬:ְ ּ Derived from the root peh, reish,
samekh, it usually refers to breaking. Accordingly, a
peras is a part or piece broken from a whole. Generally,
when the word peras is used in the context of a size
or amount it means half of that amount.

notes
In the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the sheared wool the Rambam does not use the word: Always. Its omis-
Temple – ‫ב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת וְ ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬:ּ ִ The Rambam rules that the sion indicates that nowadays the mitzva of the first sheared wool is
mitzva of the first sheared wool applies both in the presence of the by rabbinic law, whereas the mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the
Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, as is the halakha maw is always by Torah law (Mahari Kurkus; Minĥat Ĥinnukh). Other
with regard to teruma (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim commentaries hold that according to the Rambam, the mitzva of
10:1). Some commentaries infer from this statement that just as the the first sheared wool applies by Torah law even today (Maharit;
Rambam holds that the obligation of teruma applies by rabbinic Sefer HaĤinnukh, as explained by Minĥat Ĥinnukh).
law nowadays (Hilkhot Terumot 1:26), so too, the mitzva of the first The first sheared wool applies only to sheep – ‫נֹוהג‬ ֵ ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז ֵאינֹו‬
ִ ׁ ‫ֵר‬
sheared wool applies by rabbinic law. One proof for this interpreta- ‫א ָּלא ָ ּב ְר ֵחלֹות‬:ֶ Although the Torah uses the term “tzonekha,” which
tion of the Rambam is that with regard to the foreleg, the jaw, and can be interpreted as referring to goats as well, and although goats’
the maw, the Rambam writes that this mitzva is always in effect, hair can be used to fashion clothing, the mitzva does not apply to
both in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of goats, as the term shearing refers only to sheep (Rashi, based on
the Temple (Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:1), whereas with regard to the first the Gemara on 137a).

 ‫הלק ףד‬. ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 135a 357

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
.‫ ל ֹא ִה ְס ּ ִפיק ִל ְּיתנֹו לֹו ַעד ׁ ֶש ְ ּצ ָבעֹו – ּ ָפטוּר‬If the owner of the shearing did not manage to give it to the priest
If the owner did not manage to give it to the priest
.‫ ִל ְ ּבנֹו וְ ל ֹא צְ ָבעֹו – ַחּיָ יב‬until he dyed it, the owner is exempt from the mitzva of the first
nh
until he dyed it he is exempt – ‫ל ֹא ִה ְס ּ ִפיק ִל ְּיתנֹו לֹו ַעד‬
‫ש ְ ּצ ָבעֹו ּ ָפטוּר‬:
ֶ ׁ Generally, a significant change in a stolen
sheared wool, as this constitutes a change in the wool by which means
article exempts one from returning the article itself, he acquires ownership of it. If he laundered it but did not dye it, he
though one is still obligated to pay the rightful owner is obligatedh to give the first sheared wool, as laundering does not
its value. Nevertheless, the first sheared wool is one constitute a change in the wool.
of the gifts of the priesthood, and as stated by Rav
Ĥisda, one who damages the gifts of the priesthood is ‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ַהלּ ֵֹוק ַח ֵ ּגז צֹאנֹו ׁ ֶשל גֹּוי – ּ ָפטוּר ֵמ ֵר‬ One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentileh is exempt
not obligated to pay their value to a priest (see Rashi; ‫ ִאם‬,‫ ַה ּל ֵֹוק ַח ֵ ּגז צֹאנֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו‬.‫ַה ֵ ּגז‬ from the obligation of giving the first sheared wool to the priest.
130b). The commentaries note that one is exempt from With regard to one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of another
giving the first sheared wool to the priest only if all of ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ִשּיֵ יר – ַהלּ ֵֹוק ַח‬,‫ׁ ִשּיֵ יר – ַה ּמ ֵֹוכר ַחּיָ יב‬
Jew,h if the seller kept some of the wool, then the seller is obligated
the wool was dyed, as otherwise the obligation applies ,‫ ָהי ּו לֹו ׁ ְשנֵי ִמינִים ׁ ְשחוּפֹות ו ְּל ָבנֹות‬.‫ַחּיָ יב‬ to give the first sheared wool to the priest. If the seller did not keep
to the remaining wool (Mishne LaMelekh; Ĥazon Ish).
‫ זְ ָכ ִרים‬,‫ָמ ַכר לֹו ׁ ְשחוּפֹות ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ְל ָבנֹות‬ any of the wool, the buyer is obligated to give it. If the seller had two
background
‫נֹותן ְל ַעצְ מֹו וְ זֶ ה‬
ֵ ‫ֲא ָבל ל ֹא נְ ֵקבֹות – זֶ ה‬ types of sheep, gray and white, and he sold the buyer the gray fleece
.‫נֹותן ְל ַעצְ מֹו‬ ֵ but not the white fleece, or if he sold the fleece of the male sheep but
Sheep consecrated to the treasury for Temple
maintenance – ‫ק ְד ׁ ֵשי ֶ ּב ֶדק ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬:ָ There is a distinction
not of the femaleh sheep, then this one, the seller, gives the first
between animals consecrated as sacrificial offerings sheared wool for himself to the priest from the wool that he kept, and
and items consecrated to the treasury for Temple main- that one, the buyer, gives the first sheared wool for himself to the
tenance. Items consecrated for Temple maintenance priest from the wool that he bought.
are used to repair the Temple, to replace its utensils,
or to beautify its structure. Alternatively, they are sold,
with the proceeds of the sale used for these purposes.
Anything of worth can be consecrated for Temple
‫גמ׳ ַ ּב ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא ָלא? ֲא ַמר‬
.‫ ״צֹאנְ ךָ ״ – וְ ל ֹא צֹאן ֶה ְקדֵּ ׁש‬:‫ְק ָרא‬
gemara The mishna states that the mitzva of the first
sheared wool does not apply to sacrificial
animals. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it does not apply?
maintenance, but animals that are fit to be sacrificed
The Gemara answers that the verse states: “Your flock” (Deuteron-
may be consecrated only as offerings.
omy 18:4), indicating that the mitzva applies to non-sacred animals,
which belong to a private individual, and not to a flock that is
consecrated property.

‫ ָהא‬,‫ַט ֲע ָמא דִּ ְכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״צֹאנְ ךָ ״‬ The Gemara challenges: The reason for the exemption of sacrificial
‫ָלאו ָה ִכי ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א ָק ָד ׁ ִשים ַחּיָ ִיבים‬ animals is that the Merciful One writes “your flock,” from which it
may be inferred that were that not the case I would say that even with
,ּ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז? ָהא ָלאו ְ ּבנֵי גִ יּזָ ה נִינְ הו‬
ִ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬
regard to sacrificial animals one is obligated in the mitzva of the
!‫ ״וְ ל ֹא ָתגֹז ְ ּבכֹור צֹאנֶ ךָ ״‬:‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ first sheared wool. But this suggestion is impossible, since they are
not fit for shearing, as it is written with regard to firstborn animals,
which are consecrated: “And you shall not shear the firstborn of
your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19).

‫ ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמאי‬,‫ ִאי ְ ּב ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ִמ ֵ ּזְב ַח – ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬The Gemara explains: If the mishna was referring to sheep conse-
.‫ ָע ְס ִקינַן – ְ ּב ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ֶב ֶדק ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬crated for the altar, indeed there would be no need to derive their
exemption from the verse. But here we are dealing with sheep con-
secrated to the treasury for Temple maintenance,b which it is permit-
ted to shear, and the verse teaches that even with regard to these one
is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool.

halakha
If the owner did not manage to give it to the priest until he the obligation of the first sheared wool (Rambam Sefer Zera’im,
dyed it he is exempt – ‫ל ֹא ִה ְס ּ ִפיק ִל ְּיתנֹו לֹו ַעד ׁ ֶש ְ ּצ ָבעֹו ּ ָפטוּר‬: If one Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:9; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:7).
dyed the wool before giving it to the priest, he is exempt from
One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of another
the obligation of giving the first sheared wool, as this constitutes
Jew, etc. – ‫הלּ ֵֹוק ַח ֵ ּגז צֹאנֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו וכו׳‬:ַ With regard to one who pur-
a change in the wool by means of which he acquires ownership.
chased the fleece of the sheep of a Jew before the seller sheared
Furthermore, the first sheared wool is one of the gifts of the priest-
it, if the seller kept some of the wool, he is obligated to give the
hood, and one who causes damage to the gifts of the priesthood
first sheared wool even for those sheep that he sold. The reason is
is not obligated to pay their value (Shakh). According to some
that it is presumed that he did not sell the gifts of the priesthood,
commentaries, although one is exempt by human laws, he must
and therefore the shearing to be given to the priest remained in
pay if he wishes to comply with the laws of Heaven (Rambam
the possession of the seller. If the seller did not keep any of the
Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:6, and see Mishne LaMelekh there;
wool, then the buyer is obligated to give the first sheared wool
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:3).
(Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
De’a 333:8).
If he laundered it but did not dye it he is obligated – ‫ִל ְ ּבנֹו וְ ל ֹא‬
‫צְ ָבעֹו ַחּיָ יב‬: If one sheared the fleece and laundered it, he is obli- Two types of sheep, gray and white…the fleece of the male
gated to give the first sheared wool to a priest, as laundering is but not of the female, etc. – ‫ׁ ְשנֵי ִמינִים ׁ ְשחוּפֹות ו ְּל ָבנֹות…זְ ָכ ִרים ֲא ָבל‬
not considered to have effected a change in the wool (Rambam ‫ל ֹא נְ ֵקבֹות וכו׳‬: If the seller had two types of sheep, e.g., gray sheep
Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:6; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:3 and white sheep, or male and female sheep, and he sold the fleece
and Shakh there). of one type and kept the fleece of the other type for himself, then
the seller gives the first sheared wool for the wool that he kept,
One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile, etc. – and the buyer gives the first sheared wool for the wool that he
‫הלּ ֵֹוק ַח ֵ ּגז צֹאנֹו ׁ ֶשל גֹּוי וכו׳‬:ַ If one purchased the fleece of the sheep of bought (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:11; Shulĥan
a gentile after the gentile sheared it, the purchaser is exempt from Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:8).

358 Ĥullin . perek XI . 135a . ‫הלק ףד‬. ‫א״י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ֶב ֶדק ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬:‫וְ ָה ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬ The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say with regard to animals
‫ ָס ְל ָקא‬.‫בֹודה! ִמדְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ ָ ‫ֲאסו ִּרים ְ ּבגִ יּזָ ה וַ ֲע‬ consecrated for Temple maintenance that it is prohibited to shear
them or to work them? The Gemara answers: The prohibition with
‫אֹוריְ ָיתא ְ ּבנֵי‬
ַ ְּ‫הֹואיל ו ִּמד‬ ִ :‫דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬
regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance applies by
‫יתיב‬ ִ ‫יה – ֵל‬ ּ ‫יכא דִּ גְ זַ ז ֵל‬ָ ‫ ֵה‬,ּ‫ִ ּגיּזָ ה נִינְ הו‬ rabbinic law, not by Torah law. Therefore, it might enter your mind
.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ to say that since by Torah law they are fit for shearing, in a case
where one transgressed the rabbinical prohibition and sheared the
consecrated sheep, he should give the first sheared wool to the priest.
Consequently, the verse teaches that he is exempt from the mitzva of
the first sheared wool.

:‫ וְ ָהא ָק ֵד ׁיש ָל ּה! ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ָא ִמינָ א‬The Gemara objects: But since he consecrated the wool it is conse-
.‫יה‬ּ ‫יתיב ֵל‬ ֵ ‫ ִל ְפרֹוק וְ ֵל‬crated property, and therefore in practice it cannot be given to a
priest. Consequently, there is no need to derive their exemption from
the verse. The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that
the owner is required to redeem the wool by giving its value to the
Temple treasury and then give it to the priest.

‫נִיחא‬ ָ ‫וְ ָהא ָ ּב ֵעי ַה ֲע ָמ ָדה וְ ַה ֲע ָר ָכה! ָה‬ The Gemara objects: But when an animal is redeemed it requires
‫ְל ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ֶב ֶדק ַה ַ ּביִ ת ל ֹא ָהי ּו‬ standing and valuation,n as it is written: “And he shall stand the
animal before the priest, and the priest shall value it, whether it be
‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן‬.‫ִ ּב ְכ ַלל ַה ֲע ָמ ָדה וְ ַה ֲע ָר ָכה‬
good or bad; as the priest evaluates it, so shall it be” (Leviticus
?‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ָהי ּו ַמאי ִא‬ 27:11–12). Once the wool has been sheared this process cannot be
performed, which means that the wool cannot be redeemed. The
Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who
said that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not
included in the requirement of standing and valuation. But accord-
ing to the one who said that they were included in this requirement,
what can be said?

:‫ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי ָמנִי ַ ּבר ּ ַפ ִּט ׁיש ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי יַ ַּנאי‬ Rabbi Mani bar Pattish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The
‫ָה ָכא ְ ּב ַמ ְקדִּ ׁיש ְ ּב ֶה ְמ ּתֹו ְל ֶב ֶדק ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ statement here in the mishna is referring to a case where one conse-
crated the rest of his animal for Temple maintenance except for its
:‫ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּת ְך ָא ִמינָ א‬.‫יה‬ ֶ ‫חוּץ ִמ ִ ּג‬
ָ ‫יּזֹות‬
fleece, which he reserved for himself. Because the owner did not
– ‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא ״צֹאנְ ךָ ״‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ִליגְ זֹוז וְ ֵל ֵיתיב ֵל‬ consecrate the wool, it might enter your mind to say: Let him shear
.‫וְ ל ֹא צֹאן ׁ ֶשל ֶה ְקדֵּ ׁש‬ the sheep and be obligated to give the wool to the priest. Therefore,
the verse states: “Your flock,” indicating that the mitzva applies to
non-sacred animals, which belong to an individual, and not to sheep
that are consecrated property.

.‫ ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח נַ ִמי! ָּכ ֲח ׁ ִשי‬,‫ ִאי ָה ִכי‬The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that the mishna is discussing a
case where one consecrated an animal except for its fleece, one could
say that it is also referring to animals consecrated for the altar. The
Gemara answers: The mishna cannot be discussing animals conse-
crated for the altar, as it is prohibited to shear them even if their fleece
was not consecrated. The reason is that this causes the animal to
become weakened, which entails a loss of consecrated property.

‫ ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ֶב ֶדק ַה ַ ּביִ ת נַ ִמי ָּכ ֲח ׁ ִשי! דַּ ֲא ַמר‬The Gemara objects: But animals consecrated for Temple mainte-
.‫ישה״‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ״חוּץ ִמ ִ ּגיּזָ ה ו ְּכ ִח‬nance are also weakened by shearing, and therefore it should be
prohibited to shear them as well. The Gemara explains: The mishna
is referring to a case where one said that he consecrates his animal
for Temple maintenance except for both its fleece and its weakening,
i.e., the loss of strength caused by shearing.

‫ ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח נַ ִמי דַּ ֲא ַמר ״חוּץ ִמ ִ ּגיּזָ ה‬The Gemara further objects: The mishna could also be referring to
‫ ּ ָפ ׁ ְש ָטה ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה‬,‫ישה״! ֲא ִפילּ ּו ָה ִכי‬ ָ ׁ ‫ ו ְּכ ִח‬animals consecrated for the altar in a case where one said that he
consecrates the animal except for both its fleece and the weakening,
.‫ְ ּבכו ָּּל ּה‬
i.e., the loss in strength caused by shearing. The Gemara explains:
With regard to animals consecrated for the altar this stipulation is
ineffective, as even so, i.e., despite his declaration, the sanctity
extends to the entire animal, and therefore it is prohibited to shear it.

notes
It requires standing and valuation – ‫הא ָ ּב ֵעי ַה ֲע ָמ ָדה וְ ַה ֲע ָר ָכה‬:ָ The Sages disagree as to whether this halakha applies only to animals
Gemara (Temura 32a) derives from Leviticus 27:11–12 that when consecrated as offerings, which are the subject of these verses, or
redeeming a sacrificial animal, one must stand it before a priest, also to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance. According
who evaluates it. If the animal died and cannot be stood before to one opinion, animals consecrated for Temple maintenance can
the priest, it cannot be redeemed, and instead it is buried. The be redeemed even after their death.

 ‫הלק ףד‬. ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 135a 359

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ וַ ֲהל ֹא‬:‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ ‫ימ ָרא – דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬ ְ ‫ו ְּמנָ א ֵּת‬ The Gemara explains: And from where do you say that if one con-
An animal owned by two partners is obligated secrates an animal for the altar the sanctity extends to the entire
in the first sheared wool – ‫ֶ ּב ֱה ַמת ַה ׁ ּשו ָּּת ִפים ַחּיָ יב‬ – ‫עֹולה״‬ ָ ‫אֹומר ַ״רגְ ָל ּה ׁ ֶשל זֹו‬ ֵ ‫ְ ּבמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ָה‬
animal? This is as Rabbi Yosei said: Isn’t it the halakha with regard
‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬
ִ ׁ ‫ב ֵר‬:
ּ ְ Partners who jointly own sheep are ָ ‫ּכו ָּּל ּה‬
‫ וְ ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֵמ ִאיר דַּ ֲא ַמר ֵאין‬.‫עֹולה‬
obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, to sacrificial animals that if one says: The leg of this animal is con-
‫עֹולה – ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי דְּ ַא ְקדֵּ ׁיש דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬
ָ ‫ּכו ָּּל ּה‬ secrated as a burnt offering, then the entire animal is a burnt offer-
provided that the share of each partner is the req-
uisite amount of five sheep and the fleece of each ‫ ֲא ָבל ִה ְקדִּ ׁיש דָּ ָבר‬,‫ַה ּנ ׁ ְָש ָמה ְּתל ּויָ ה ּבֹו‬ ing, as the sanctity of the leg spreads throughout the animal’s body?
sheep weighs no less than twelve sela. If the partners .‫ׁ ֶש ַה ּנ ׁ ְָש ָמה ְּתלוּיָ ה ּבֹו – ָק ְד ׁ ָשה‬ And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir that it is not
own only five sheep between them, they are exempt entirely a burnt offering, that statement of Rabbi Meir applies
from the first sheared wool. This ruling is in accor-
only where he consecrated its leg, which is not a matter, i.e., a limb,
dance with the opinion of the first tanna (Rambam
Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:14; Shulĥan Arukh,
upon which the animal’s life depends. It is possible for an animal
Yoreh De’a 333:10). to survive the removal of a leg. But if one consecrated a matter
upon which the animal’s life depends, everyone agrees that all of it
is consecrated.

‫ ָס ְל ָקא‬,‫ ְ ּב ַמ ְקדִּ ׁיש ִ ּגיּזָ ה ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬:‫ § ָר ָבא ָא ַמר‬Rava said that there is no need to interpret the mishna as discuss-
ּ ‫ ִליגְ זֹוז וְ ִל ְיפרֹוק וְ ֵל ֵיתיב ֵל‬:‫ דַּ ְע ָּתךָ ָא ִמינָ א‬ing a case where one consecrated a whole animal apart from its fleece
,‫יה‬
and the loss caused by shearing. Rather, the mishna is referring to
one who consecrates the fleece itself to the treasury for Temple
maintenance, but not the sheep. It might enter your mind to say:
Let him shear the sheep and redeem the wool by giving its value
to the Temple treasury, and then be required to give the wool to
the priest.

‫״גז צֹאנְ ךָ ִּת ֶּתן לֹו״ – ִמי ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬ ּ ֵ ‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬Therefore, the verse states: “The first sheared wool of your flock,
‫ יָ צָ א זֶ ה ׁ ֶש ְּמחו ָּּסר‬,‫ ְמחו ָּּסר ֶא ָּלא ְ ּגזִ יזָ ה וּנְ ִתינָ ה‬shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), which indicates that there
should be no additional action between shearing and giving the first
.‫ְ ּגזִ יזָ ה ּ ְפ ִדּיָ יה וּנְ ִתינָ ה‬
sheared wool to the priest. In other words, the mitzva of first sheared
wool applies to a sheep that is lacking only shearing and giving,
which excludes this sheep that is lacking shearing, redeeming,
and giving.

:‫ֶא ָּלא ״צֹאנְ ךָ ״ ְל ַמאי ֲא ָתא? ְל ִכ ְד ַתנְ יָ א‬ The Gemara asks: But if this verse is the source of the exemption of
‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬
ִ ׁ ‫ֶ ּב ֱה ַמת ַה ׁ ּשו ָּּת ִפים ַחּיָ יב ְ ּב ֵר‬ consecrated animals, then for what purpose does the term “your
flock” come? That term also indicates that certain sheep are excluded
– ‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬.‫ֹוטר‬ ֵ ‫ֶא ְל ַעאי ּפ‬
from the mitzva. The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that
.‫ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא ״צֹאנְ ךָ ״ – וְ ל ֹא ׁ ֶשל ׁשו ָּּתפוּת‬ which is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by two partners is
obligated, i.e., renders its owners obligated, in the mitzva of the first
sheared wool,h but Rabbi Ilai exempts them. What is the reason
for the ruling of Rabbi Ilai? The reason is that the verse states “your
flock,” using the singular pronoun, indicating that the mitzva applies
to animals belonging to an individual, but not to sheep that are
owned in partnership.

– ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬.‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן – ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ּגֹוי‬The Gemara asks: But according to the Rabbis, who hold that joint
ּ ‫ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת גּ ֹוי ְמנָ א ֵל‬owners of sheep are obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool,
?‫יה‬
what is excluded by the term “your flock”? The Gemara answers that
this serves to exclude an animal owned in partnership with a gentile.
The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Ilai derive that an
animal owned in partnership with a gentile renders its Jewish owner
exempt from the mitzva?

– ‫אשית דְּ גָ נְ ךָ ״‬
ִ ׁ ‫ישא דִּ ְק ָרא ֵ״ר‬ָ ׁ ‫יה ֵמ ֵר‬
ּ ‫ נָ ְפ ָקא ֵל‬The Gemara answers: He derives it from the beginning of this verse,
.‫ וְ ל ֹא ׁשו ָּּתפוּת גּ ֹוי‬which states with regard to teruma: “The first fruits of your grain, of
your wine, and of your oil” (Deuteronomy 18:4), using the singular
pronoun. This indicates that only in the case of produce owned by a
Jew is one obligated to separate teruma, but not with regard to that
which is owned in partnership with a gentile.

,‫(ה ֵ ּגז) ִה ְפ ִסיק ָה ִענְיָ ן‬

ַ ‫אשית״‬
ִ ׁ ‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן – ֵ״ר‬The Gemara asks: And why do the Rabbis, who derive the exemption
of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term “your
flock,” not derive this from the term “your grain”? The Gemara
answers that the repetition of the term “the first” with regard to the
first sheared wool: “The first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of
your oil, and the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him”
(Deuteronomy 18:4), is an indication that the verse concluded dis-
cussion of the previous matter. The superfluous mention of “first”
signals that the two issues discussed in this verse, which are the first
fruits, i.e., teruma, and the first sheared wool, are two separate matters.
Therefore, one cannot derive the halakhot of one from the other.
360 Ĥullin . perek XI . 135a . ‫הלק ףד‬. ‫א״י קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

,‫יה‬
ּ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי – וָ י״ו ֲה ַדר ַע ְר ֵב‬The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Ilai respond to the Rabbis’
claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ilai holds that when the verse
states: “And the first sheared wool,” the conjunction “and” goes
back and combines the two matters together.

Perek XI
Daf 135 Amud b
halakha
‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן – ָלא נִ ְכ ּתֹוב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ָלא וָ י״ו וְ ָלא‬The Gemara asks further: And how do the Rabbis respond to Rabbi
A Jew and a gentile who purchased a field in partner-
ִ ׁ ‫ ֵ״ר‬Ilai’s claim? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis do not accept that the
!‫אשית״‬ ship, etc. – ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ גֹוי ׁ ֶש ָּל ְקח ּו ָ ׂש ֶדה ְ ּב ׁשו ָּּתפוּת וכו׳‬: If a Jew
conjunction “and” goes back and combines the two matters together, and a gentile purchased a field in partnership, each stalk
as, if that were so, let the Merciful One write neither “and” nor in the field is considered a mixture of untithed produce
“the first.” and non-sacred produce. This is true even if they divided
the produce between them before harvesting it. Therefore,
‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי – ַאיְ ֵידי דְּ ַהאי ְקדו ׁ ּ ַּשת‬The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Ilai respond to this conten- the Jew must separate teruma not only for his share, but
,ּ‫ ּ ָפ ֵסיק ְלהו‬,‫ דָּ ִמים וְ ַהאי ְקדו ׁ ּ ַּשת ַהגּ וּף‬tion? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Ilai would say that the first also for the gentile’s share. This ruling is in accordance
sheared wool and teruma are essentially different obligations, as the with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as explained
.ּ‫וַ ֲה ַדר ָע ְר ִבי ְלהו‬ by Rashi, and applies in Eretz Yisrael, where the obligation
first sheared wool is merely a monetary obligation with no inherent
to separate teruma applies by Torah law. In Syria, and all
sanctity. By contrast, it is prohibited for non-priests to partake of
the more so other places outside Eretz Yisrael, where the
teruma. Since this case of the first sheared wool involves only sanc- obligation applies by rabbinic law, the gentile’s share is
tity that inheres in its value, and that case of teruma referred to in exempt. The reason is that although there is no retroactive
the beginning of the verse involves inherent sanctity, the verse clarification with regard to obligations that apply by Torah
separated them through the repetition of the term “the first,” and law, there is retroactive clarification concerning obliga-
then the verse went back and combined them through the term tions that apply by rabbinic law. Accordingly, the Shulĥan
“and,” so that their halakhot could be derived from one another. Arukh writes that because nowadays the obligation to
separate teruma applies only by rabbinic law even in Eretz
,‫ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת גֹּוי ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה‬:‫ימא‬ ָ ‫יב ֵעית ֵא‬ ּ ָ ‫וְ ִא‬ The Gemara provides an alternative explanation as to why the Rab- Yisrael, the gentile’s share is exempt in Eretz Yisrael as well
(Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 1:20–21; Shulĥan
‫ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל וְ גֹוי‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫ַר ָ ּבנַן ִחּיו ִּבי ְמ ַחּיְ ִיבי‬ bis do not derive the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 331:11).
a gentile from the case of teruma. If you wish, say instead that with
‫ׁ ֶש ָּל ְקח ּו ָ ׂש ֶדה ְ ּב ׁשו ָּּתפוּת – ֶט ֶבל וְ חו ִּּלין‬
regard to teruma, the Rabbis hold that one who owns produce in
‫ ַר ָ ּבן ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫ דִּ ְב ֵרי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫עֹור ִבים זֶ ה ָ ּבזֶ ה‬
ָ ‫ְמ‬ partnership with a gentile is in fact obligated, as it is taught in a
,‫ ׁ ֶשל יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל – ַחּיָ יב‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יאל‬ ֵ ‫ֶ ּבן ַ ּג ְמ ִל‬ baraita: If there were a Jew and a gentile who purchased a field in
.‫וְ ׁ ֶשל גּ ֹוי – ּ ָפטוּר‬ partnership,h the produce grown in that field is considered to be
untithed produce, which is subject to the halakhot of terumot and
tithes, and non-sacred produce, which is exempt from the require-
ments of terumot and tithes, mixed together;n this is the statement
of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The
portion of the Jew is obligated in teruma and tithes, but the portion
of the gentile is exempt.

notes
Untithed produce and non-sacred produce mixed together – he may separate teruma from the other produce on behalf of half
ָ ‫ט ֶבל וְ חו ִּּלין ְמ‬:ֶ Separating teruma from this produce
‫עֹור ִבים זֶ ה ָ ּבזֶ ה‬ the mixed produce, i.e., the half that is obligated in teruma. If the
presents a difficulty, as one may not separate teruma from pro- owner does not have any other produce, he should separate
duce that is exempt from teruma on behalf of produce that is teruma in full from the mixed produce itself, as it is considered
obligated. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the produce with regard to each part of the produce as though half belonged
designated as teruma was never part of the gentile’s portion. to the Jew and half to the gentile. Accordingly, only half the
Rashi cites an opinion according to which there is no remedy produce separated as teruma is actually teruma, but as he can-
in this situation: Since there is no retroactive clarification, it is not separate only this produce he must set aside twice the
impossible to determine which half of the produce originally requisite amount.
belonged to the Jew and is obligated and which half originally Rashi elsewhere writes that one cannot separate teruma from
belonged to the gentile and is exempt. the mixed produce, as it is possible that the part separated as
Rashi himself disagrees with this opinion and suggests a teruma originally belonged entirely to the gentile (Gittin 47b).
method of separating teruma in this case. If the owner has other Apparently, Rashi here retracts from his previous statement in
produce from which he is certainly obligated to separate teruma, tractate Gittin (Yam shel Shlomo).

 ‫הלק ףד‬: ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 135b 361

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָמר ְס ַבר יֵ ׁש‬,‫ ַעד ָּכאן ָלא ּ ְפ ִליגִ י‬The Gemara explains the inference. They disagree only with regard
Retroactive clarification – ‫ב ֵר ָירה‬: ּ ְ Retroactive
clarification, or retroactive designation, is a principle ‫ ֲא ָבל ׁשו ָּּתפוּת‬.‫ ו ָּמר ְס ַבר ֵאין ְ ּב ֵר ָירה‬,‫ ְ ּב ֵר ָירה‬to the following issue: That one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,
holds that there is retroactive clarification,b which means that
according to which an object that initially was not .‫דְּ גֹוי – דִּ ְב ֵרי ַה ּכֹל ַחּיֶ ֶיבת‬
explicitly designated for a certain purpose may retro- when they divide the produce it will be clarified who owned which
actively be considered as though it were designated produce from the outset; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi,
for that purpose from the outset. For example, if holds that there is no retroactive clarification, and because it grew
one declares that the last tenth of the produce to in a mixed state, it retains that status even after they divide the
remain in his granary shall be designated as the tithe, produce. But with regard to produce that a Jew owns in partnership
according to the principle of retroactive clarification
with a gentile, everyone agrees that it is obligated in teruma.
his separation of the tithe is valid, and the produce
is considered tithed from the moment of his declara-
‫ ַּת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ְל ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬:‫ימא‬ָ ‫ וְ ִאי ָ ּב ֵעית ֵא‬The Gemara presents an alternative explanation of Rabbi Ilai’s opin-
tion, despite the fact that the tithe was not identifi-
able at that time. The reason is that when the last ,‫ ִמ״צֹאנְ ךָ ״ נָ ְפ ָקא‬ion: If you wish, say instead that Rabbi Ilai does not derive only the
tenth remains, it is retroactively clarified that this has exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a Jew from the term
always been the designated tithe. There is a dispute “your flock” while he derives the exemption of sheep owned in part-
between the Sages as to whether or not the principle nership with a gentile from the term “your grain.” Rather, according
of retroactive clarification is accepted. In practice, this to Rabbi Ilai both exemptions are derived from the term “your
principle is generally accepted with regard to ques- flock.”
tions pertaining to rabbinic law but not with regard
to matters of Torah law. ‫יח ָדא‬ ֲ ַ‫ׁשו ָּּתפוּת דְּ גֹוי ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא – דְּ ָלא ְמי‬ The Gemara explains why both exemptions can be derived from a
,‫ וְ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬.‫יה‬
ּ ‫יח ָדא ֵל‬
ֲ ַ‫יִש ָר ֵאל נַ ִמי – ָלא ְמי‬
ׂ ְ ‫ ְל‬,‫יה‬
ּ ‫ֵל‬ single phrase: With regard to partnership with a gentile, what is
the reason that one is exempted from the obligation of the first
‫ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל – ַ ּבר‬,‫גּ ֹוי – ָלאו ַ ּבר ִחּיו ָּבא הוּא‬
sheared wool? It is due to the fact that the sheep is not exclusively
.‫ִחּיו ָּבא הוּא‬ his. In the case of a partnership with a Jew too, the sheep is not
exclusively his. The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis reply
to this claim of Rabbi Ilai? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold
that partnership with a Jew cannot be compared to partnership with
a gentile, as a gentile is not obligated in the mitzva of the first
sheared wool, whereas a Jew is obligated.

ֶ :‫ § ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬Rava said with regard to the dispute between the Rabbis and
,‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה‬
,‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְכ ִתיב ״דְּ גָ נְ ךָ ״ – דִּ ָיד ְך ִאין‬Rabbi Ilai: Although Rabbi Ilai holds that two partners who own a
sheep are exempt from the first sheared wool, he concedes that
,‫דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬
jointly owned produce is obligated in teruma. This is the halakha
even though it is written with regard to teruma: “Your grain” (Deu-
teronomy 18:4), using the singular pronoun, from which one may
infer that with regard to yours, yes, one is obligated, whereas with
regard to that which is owned in partnership, the partners are
not obligated.

‫ ֶא ָּלא ״דְּ גָ נְ ךָ ״‬.‫יכם״‬ ֶ ‫״תר ּומ ֵֹת‬

ְּ ‫ ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬The Gemara explains that the joint owners of produce are neverthe-
.‫ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ׁשו ָּּתפוּת גּ ֹוי‬less obligated in teruma, as the Merciful One writes: “There will I
require your terumot” (Ezekiel 20:40).h The use of the plural pro-
noun in this verse indicates that even partners who own produce are
obligated in teruma. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need
the term: “Your grain,” using the singular pronoun? The Gemara
answers: This serves to exclude produce owned in partnership with
a gentile.

‫יכא‬ָּ ‫ וְ ִא‬,‫אשית״‬ִ ׁ ‫ַח ָּלה ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְכ ִתיב ֵ״ר‬ Similarly, with regard to ĥalla, the portion of dough that one is
‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫אשית״ ֵמ ֵר‬ִ ׁ ‫אשית״ ֵ״ר‬ ִ ׁ ‫נֵילף ֵ״ר‬
ַ :‫ימר‬
ַ ‫ְל ֵמ‬ required to separate and give to a priest, Rabbi Ilai concedes that
joint owners are obligated in this mitzva, even though one could
– ‫ ַאף ָּכאן‬,‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן – דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬,‫ַה ֵ ּגז‬
claim otherwise, as it is written: “Of the first of your dough you
.‫סֹות ֶיכם״‬ ֵ ‫״ע ִר‬
ֲ ‫ ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬ shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:20), and it is possible
to say that one should derive a verbal analogy between the term
“the first” in this context and the term “the first” from the first
sheared wool: Just as there, with regard to the first sheared wool, if
the sheep are owned in partnership the owners are not obligated,
so too here, with regard to ĥalla, if the dough is owned in partner-
ship they are not obligated. Nevertheless, the Merciful One writes:
“Your dough,”h using a plural pronoun, indicating that even joint
owners of dough are obligated to separate ĥalla.

halakha
In teruma…the Merciful One writes: Your terumot – …‫ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה‬ With regard to ĥalla…the Merciful One writes: Your dough –
‫יכם‬
ֶ ‫כ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ְּתר ּומ ֵֹת‬:ְּ Teruma and tithes must be separated from ‫יכם‬
ֶ ‫סֹות‬ ְּ ‫ח ָּל‬:ַ Ĥalla must be separated from dough
ֵ ‫ה…כ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ֲע ִר‬
produce owned in partnership (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot owned in partnership (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 6:6;
Terumot 4:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 331:35). Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 330:2).

362 Ĥullin . perek XI . 135b . ‫הלק ףד‬: ‫א״י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ָהא‬,‫יכם״‬ ֶ ‫סֹות‬ ֲ ‫ֶא ָּלא ַט ֲע ָמא דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬

ֵ ‫״ע ִר‬ The Gemara challenges: But according to this claim, the reason joint
‫אשית״‬ ִ ׁ ‫נֵילף ֵ״ר‬ַ :‫ָלאו ָה ִכי ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬ owners of dough are obligated to separate ĥalla is that it is written
“your dough,” using a plural pronoun. It can be inferred from here
ַ ,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז? ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬
‫נֵילף‬ ִ ׁ ‫אשית״ ֵמ ֵר‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵ״ר‬
that were that not the case I would say that they are exempt, as
!‫ִמ ְּתרו ָּמה‬ derived by a verbal analogy between the term “the first” mentioned
with regard to ĥalla and the term “the first” from the first sheared
wool. On the contrary, one should derive a verbal analogy between
the term “the first” with regard to ĥalla and the term “the first” from
teruma: Just as the obligation to separate teruma applies to produce
owned in partnership, so too, the obligation to separate ĥalla applies
to dough owned in partnership. It is preferable to compare ĥalla to
teruma, because their halakhic status is similar in that they are both
prohibited to non-priests. If so, the inference from the term “your
dough” is unnecessary.

?‫יכם״ ָל ָּמה ִלי‬

ֶ ‫סֹות‬ ֲ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫ ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬The Gemara explains: It is indeed so; the obligation of produce
ֵ ‫״ע ִר‬
.‫יכם‬ ֵ ‫ ְּכ ֵדי ֲע ִר‬owned in partnership in the case of ĥalla is derived from the case of
ֶ ‫יסֹות‬
teruma. But if so, why do I need the term “your dough”? This teaches
that the quantity of dough to which the obligation of ĥalla applies is
equivalent to the quantity of your dough, i.e., the quantity of dough
kneaded daily by the Jewish people when they were in the Sinai
Desert, when the mitzva was given. This is one omer for each person
(see Exodus 16:16), which is a tenth of an ephah (see Exodus 16:36).

– ‫״ש ְדךָ ״‬ ׂ ָ ‫ּ ֵפ ָאה ַא ף ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ Likewise, with regard to pe’a, produce in the corner of the field that
‫ ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬,‫דִּ ָיד ְך ִאין‬ is left for the poor, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of
produce are obligated, even though it is written in the verse cited
‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫״ו ְּב ֻקצְ ְר ֶכם ֶאת ְקצִ יר ַא ְרצְ ֶכם״‬
below: “Your field [sadekha],” using a singular pronoun, from which
.‫״ש ְדךָ ״ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ּגֹוי‬
ָׂ it can be inferred that with regard to your field, yes, one is obligated,
whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership, one is
not obligated. The reason is that the Merciful One writes: “And
when you reap [uvekutzrekhem] the harvest of your land, you shall
not entirely reap the corner of your field” (Leviticus 19:9). The term
“when you reap” uses the plural pronoun, which indicates that even
partners of land are obligated in pe’a. The Gemara asks: But if so, why
do I need the term “your field” in the singular? The Gemara answers:
This serves to exclude land owned in partnership with a gentile
from the obligation of pe’a.

‫״כל ַה ְ ּבכֹור‬ ָּ ‫כֹורה ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ ָ ‫ ְ ּב‬Similarly, with regard to the firstborn status of a male firstborn
,‫ ֲא ׁ ֶשר יִ ָ ּו ֵלד ִ ּב ְב ָק ְרךָ ו ְּבצֹאנְ ךָ ״ – דִּ ָידךְ ִאין‬kosher animal, Rabbi Ilai concedes that jointly owned animals are
sanctified, even though it is written: “All the firstborn that are born
,‫דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬
of your herd [bivkarekha] and of your flock [tzonekha] that are
male you shall sanctify to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 15:19).
Once again it might have been inferred from the singular pronoun
in the terms “your herd” and “your flock” that your firstborn, yes,
are sanctified, but the firstborn that is owned in partnership is
not sanctified.

,‫ ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״ו ְּב ֹכרֹת ְ ּב ַק ְר ֶכם וְ צֹאנְ ֶכם״‬Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And there you shall bring there
‫״ב ָק ְרךָ וְ צֹאנְ ךָ ״ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ְל ַמעו ֵּטי‬ ּ ְ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬your burnt offerings, and your peace offerings, and your tithes, and
the gift of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the
.‫ׁשו ָּּתפוּת גּ ֹוי‬
firstborn of your herd [bekarkhem] and of your flock [tzonekhem]”
(Deuteronomy 12:6).h The pronouns in the terms “your herd” and
“your flock” in this verse are in the plural, which indicates that first-
born animals owned in partnership are sanctified. The Gemara asks:
But if so, why do I need the terms “your herd” and “your flock”
(Deuteronomy 15:19), where the pronouns are in the singular? The
Gemara again answers: This serves to exclude animals owned in
partnership with a gentile,h which are not sanctified.

halakha
The Merciful One writes: And the firstborn of your herd and of Your herd and your flock, to exclude animals owned in partner-
your flock, etc. – ‫כ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָא ו ְּב ֹכרֹת ְ ּב ַק ְר ֶכם וְ צֹאנְ ֶכם וכו׳‬:ְּ If an animal ship with a gentile – ‫…ל ַמעו ֵּטי ׁשו ָּּתפוּת גֹּוי‬
ְ ָ‫ב ָק ְרךָ וְ צֹאנְ ך‬:ּ ְ If an animal
is owned by Jews in partnership, its offspring is subject to being is owned by a Jew and a gentile in partnership, its offspring
counted a firstborn (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Bekhorot 4:1; is not subject to being counted a firstborn. Even if the gentile
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 320:2). owned one-thousandth of either the mother cow or the fetus,
the firstborn calf is not sanctified (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot
Bekhorot 4:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 320:3).

 ‫הלק ףד‬: ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 135b 363

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

ְ‫יתךָ ״ – דִּ ָידך‬ ּ ֵ ‫ְמזוּזָ ה ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬

ֶ ‫״ב‬ Likewise, with regard to a mezuza, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the
‫״ל ַמ ַען‬ ְ ‫ ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬,‫ִאין‬ house of two partners is obligated, even though it is written: “And
you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house [beitekha]”
‫יתךָ ״‬ֶ ‫״ב‬ ּ ֵ ‫ וְ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫נֵיכם״‬ֶ ‫ימי ְב‬ ֵ ִ‫יכם ו‬
ֶ ‫יִ ְר ּב ּו יְ ֵמ‬
(Deuteronomy 6:9), with a singular pronoun, from which one
:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ַר ָ ּבה‬,‫ְל ַמאי ֲא ָתא? ְל ִכ ְד ַר ָ ּבה‬ might have inferred that with regard to your house, yes, it is obli-
gated, whereas a house owned by two people in partnership is not
obligated. Consequently, the Merciful One writes with regard to
the mitzva of mezuza: “So that your days may be multiplied, and
the days of your children” (Deuteronomy 11:21). The use of the
plural pronoun in the terms “your days” and “your children” in this
verse indicates that partners are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza.
The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the term “your
house [beitekha]” come? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for
that which Rabba derived, as Rabba said:

Perek XI
Daf 136 Amud a
halakha
.‫ ִמן ַהּיָ ִמין‬, ָ‫יא ְתך‬
ָ ‫ דֶּ ֶרךְ ִ ּב‬The term “your house [beitekha]” is similar to the term: You enter
The mezuza is affixed to the right side of the
[bi’atkha], indicating that one places the mezuza in the way that you
doorway – ‫מן ַהּיָ ִמין‬:ִ A mezuza should be affixed in
the space of the doorway, within one handbreadth of
enter the house.n When a person lifts his foot to begin walking, he
the outer edge of the doorpost, at the beginning of lifts his right foot first. Therefore, the mezuza is affixed to the right
the upper third of its height. If the mezuza was affixed side of the doorway,hn as one enters.
higher than this, it is valid, provided it is at least one
handbreadth below the lintel. It must be affixed to the ַ ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ַמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬
– ‫״מ ְע ַ ׂשר דְּ גָ נְ ךָ ״‬ Similarly, with regard to tithe, Rabbi Ilai concedes that joint owners
right side of an individual entering the house, irrespec- ‫ ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫ דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬,‫דִּ ָיל ְך ִאין‬ of produce are obligated, even though it is written: “The tithe of
tive of whether or not he is left-handed (Rema). If the your grain [deganekha]” (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the singular
mezuza was affixed to the left side, it is invalid (Rambam ‫״מ ְע ַ ׂשר דְּ גָ נְ ךָ ״ ְל ַמאי‬ַ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫״מ ְע ְ ׂשר ֵֹת ֶיכם״‬
ַ
pronoun, from which one might have inferred that with regard
Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Torah 6:12). .‫ֲא ָתא? ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ׁשו ָּּתפוּת דְּ גֹוי‬ to your grain, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that
Tithe…the Merciful One writes: All your tithes, etc. – which is owned in partnership, one is not obligated. The reason is
‫יכם וכו׳‬
ֶ ‫ר…כ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַמ ְע ְ ׂשר ֵֹת‬
ְּ ‫מ ֲע ֵ ׂש‬:ַ If Jews own produce that the Merciful One writes: “All your tithes [ma’asroteikhem]”
in partnership, they are obligated to separate teruma (Numbers 18:28),h using the plural pronoun, indicating that even
and tithes from their jointly owned produce (Rambam
Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 4:8; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
partners are obligated in this mitzva. The Gemara asks: But if so, for
De’a 331:35). what purpose does the term: “The tithe of your grain [deganekha],”
using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves
to exclude produce owned in partnership with a gentile from the
obligation of tithes.

,‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ״וְ נָ ַתן״‬,‫ ַמ ָּתנֹות‬Likewise, with regard to the gifts to which members of the priest-
hood are entitled, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, Rabbi Ilai
concedes that the joint owners of an animal are obligated, even
though the Merciful One writes: “And this shall be the priests’ due
from the people, from those who slaughter an animal, whether it be
ox or sheep; and he shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw,
and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3).

notes
The way that you enter the house – ָ‫יא ְתך‬ ָ ‫דֶּ ֶרךְ ִ ּב‬: Unlike in the pre- the right side (Rashi). The later commentaries note that according
vious discussions, the Gemara does not answer that the singular to this reasoning, a left-footed person, who is accustomed to lift
pronoun in the term: “Your house [beitekha]” (Deuteronomy 6:9), his left foot first, should affix the mezuza to the left side of the
excludes from the obligation to affix a mezuza a house owned doorway, just as a left-handed person wears phylacteries on his
in partnership by a Jew and a gentile. The early commentaries right arm whereas right-handed people wear them on their left.
explain that the reason the Gemara did not offer this answer is Yet there is an essential difference between the mitzvot of phy-
that since the obligation to affix a mezuza is incumbent upon lacteries and mezuza: Wearing phylacteries is a personal mitzva,
the one who dwells in the house, as opposed to a requirement whereas the mezuza serves all the inhabitants of the house.
that applies to the house itself (Pesaĥim 4a; Bava Metzia 101b), if Therefore, even if the owner is left-footed the mezuza is affixed
a Jew dwells in a house owned in partnership with a gentile he to the right side (Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’a 289, citing Mordekhai).
is obligated to affix a mezuza. Furthermore, even if a Jew lives in Furthermore, the mitzva of phylacteries applies to one’s body.
the house of a gentile, he is obligated in this mitzva (Rashba; Ritva; Consequently, the place to affix them is determined by each
Ran; Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’a 286).
individual’s personal characteristics. Conversely, the mitzva of
The way that you enter the house, to the right side of the mezuza is incumbent upon the house, which is why even a left-
ָ ‫דֶּ ֶר ְך ִ ּב‬: When entering a room, one gen- footed person dwelling alone affixes the mezuza to the right side
doorway – ‫יא ְתךָ ִמן ַהּיָ ִמין‬
erally leads with his right foot. The mezuza is therefore affixed to of the doorway (Shakh).

364 Ĥullin . perek XI . 136a . ‫ולק ףד‬. ‫א״י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ יָ ֵליף ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ״נְ ִתינָ ה״‬:‫ימר‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ִא‬ The Gemara elaborates: It is possible to say that one should derive
a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in the context of gifts From those who slaughter…as Rava said, the priest
‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן – דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת‬,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵמ ֵר‬ issues his demand to receive the foreleg, the jaw, and
to the priesthood and giving from the first sheared wool. The
‫ ְּכ ַתב‬,‫ ַאף ָּכאן – דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬,‫ָלא‬ the maw from the butcher – ‫ֵמ ֵאת ז ְֹב ֵחי ַהּזֶ ַבח…דַּ ֲא ַמר‬
Torah states: “He shall give,” with regard to the gifts of the priest- ‫ר ָבא ַהדִּ ין ִעם ַה ַּט ָ ּבח‬:ָ Rashi notes that Rava’s statement
.‫״מ ֵאת ז ְֹב ֵחי ַהּזֶ ַבח״‬ ֵ ‫ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ hood, and it states: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), with is explained more fully in the previous chapter (132a).
regard to the first sheared wool; just as there, with regard to the first Rashi adds that the reason the term “those who slaughter”
sheared wool, sheep owned in partnership do not render their appears in the plural is that it is often the manner of the
owners obligated, so too here, with regard to the gifts of the priest- Torah to use the plural form even when referring to the
obligation of an individual (see Yissa Berakha).
hood, an animal owned in partnership does not render the owners
obligated. But the Merciful One writes: “From those who slaugh- Why do I need the term your land, to exclude outside
ter an animal,”h in the plural, indicating that even the owners of an of Eretz Yisrael – ‫א ְרצְ ךָ ָל ָּמה ִלי ְל ַמעו ֵּטי חוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ‬:ַ Rashi
animal owned in partnership are obligated to give the foreleg, the notes that this derivation is necessary, and the term:
“Their land” (Numbers 18:13), is insufficient to derive that
jaw, and the maw. first fruit is not brought from produce grown outside of
Eretz Yisrael. The reason is that the term “their land” could
ֵ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ַט ֲע ָמא דִּ ְכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬The Gemara challenges: But according to this inference, the reason
‫״מ ֵאת ז ְֹב ֵחי‬ be understood as referring to any land owned by a Jew,
‫ ֵל ַילף‬:‫ ָהא ָלאו ָה ִכי ֲהוָ ה ָא ִמינָ א‬,‫ ַהּזֶ ַבח״‬the joint owners of an animal are obligated in the gifts of the priest- even outside of Eretz Yisrael. By contrast, the singular
hood is that the Merciful One writes: “From those who slaughter form of the term “your land” emphasizes the unique-
ַ ,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז? ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬
!‫נֵילף ִמ ְּתרו ָּמה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵמ ֵר‬
an animal,” in the plural. But were it not so, I would say that they ness of the bond between land and owner. The Gemara
are exempt, as derived by means of a verbal analogy from the first therefore understands this term as referring either to
sheared wool. On the contrary, since the term “shall you give him” land owned by a single individual, or, according to the
is also referring to teruma, one should derive by means of a verbal Gemara’s conclusion, to Eretz Yisrael, which belongs
exclusively to the Jewish people.
analogy from teruma: Just as the obligation of teruma applies to The early commentaries ask: Since there is a principle
those who own produce in partnership, so too, the requirement of that any mitzva that is dependent on the land applies
the gifts of the priesthood applies to partners that own an animal only in Eretz Yisrael (Kiddushin 36b), it should be evident
together. that the mitzva of the first fruits does not apply outside
Eretz Yisrael. Why, then, is it necessary for the Gemara to
‫״מ ֵאת ז ְֹב ֵחי ַהּזֶ ַבח״ ָל ָּמה‬
ֵ ,‫ ִאין ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬The Gemara explains: Yes, it is indeed so; the obligation of partners derive this halakha from the term “your land”? The com-
‫ ַהדִּ ין ִעם‬:‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬,‫ ִלי? ְל ִכ ְד ָר ָבא‬with regard to gifts of the priesthood is derived from teruma. But if mentaries answer the following: Two verses juxtapose the
so, why do I need the phrase “from those who slaughter an ani- mitzva of first fruits to the prohibition against cooking
.‫ַה ַּט ָ ּבח‬ meat in milk: “The choicest first fruits of your land you
mal”? It is necessary for that which Rava taught, as Rava said: The
shall bring into the House of the Lord your God; you shall
priest issues his demand to receive the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19, 34:26).
from the butchern who slaughtered the animal, not from the buyer. Therefore, one might derive that just as the prohibition
against cooking meat in milk applies outside of Eretz
ַ ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫ ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים‬Similarly, with regard to the first fruits, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the
– ‫״א ְרצְ ךָ ״‬ Yisrael, the mitzva of first fruits likewise applies outside of
,‫ דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬,‫ דִּ ָידךְ ִאין‬joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written: Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara’s inference from the term “your
“And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which land” rules out this possibility (Tosafot, citing Rashbam).
you shall bring in from your land [be’artzekha]” (Deuteronomy
26:2), using the singular pronoun. One might have inferred from the
singular pronoun that with regard to your land, yes, one is obligated,
whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership one is
not obligated.

) ָ‫(ב ַא ְרצֶ ך‬
ּ ְ ‫״ב ּכו ֵּרי ָּכל ֲא ׁ ֶשר‬
ּ ִ ‫ ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “The first fruits of all that is
ּ ְ in their land, which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours” (Num-
h
?‫״א ְרצְ ךָ ״ ָל ָּמה ִלי‬ ַ ‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫[ב ַא ְרצָ ם]״‬
bers 18:13). The use of the plural pronoun indicates that even from
.‫ְל ַמעו ֵּטי חוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ‬
land owned in partnership one is obligated to bring first fruits.
The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term “your land
[be’artzekha],” using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers:
This serves to exclude produce grown outside of Eretz Yisraeln from
the mitzva of the first fruits.h

halakha
Gifts of the priesthood…the Merciful One writes: From those To exclude outside of Eretz Yisrael from the mitzva of the first
who slaughter an animal – ‫נֹות…כ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ֵמ ֵאת ז ְֹב ֵחי ַהּזֶ ַבח‬
ְּ ‫מ ָּת‬:ַ fruits – ‫ל ַמעו ֵּטי חוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ‬:ְ The mitzva of first fruits applies only
If an animal is owned by partners, the partners are obligated in to produce grown in Eretz Yisrael. If one brought first fruits from
the gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, outside Eretz Yisrael to the Temple, they do not have the halakhic
as the Torah states: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the status of first fruits. By rabbinic law, first fruits are brought from
people, from those who slaughter an animal” (Rambam Sefer the cities formerly controlled by Sihon and Og, to the east of
Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 9:7). Eretz Yisrael, and from Syria, in accordance with the statement
that one who buys land in Syria is comparable to one who buys
First fruits…the Merciful One writes: The first fruits of all that is land in Jerusalem (see Gittin 8a–b). The mitzva of first fruits does
in their land – ‫ים…כ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִ ּב ּכו ֵּרי ָּכל ֲא ׁ ֶשר ְ ּב ַא ְרצָ ם‬
ְּ ‫ב ּכו ִּר‬:ּ ִ Partners not apply in Ammon, Moab, and Babylonia (see Kelim 1:6), despite
are obligated in the mitzva to give the first fruits from their jointly the fact that by rabbinic law teruma and tithes must be separated
owned produce (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 2:8). in those places (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 2:1).

 ‫ולק ףד‬. ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 136a 365

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

ְּ ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫ צִ יצִ ית‬Likewise, with regard to the mitzva to attach ritual fringes to one’s
– ‫״כסו ְּתךָ ״‬
,‫ דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬,‫ דִּ ָידךְ ִאין‬garment, Rabbi Ilai concedes that a jointly owned garment is obli-
gated, even though the Merciful One writes: “You shall make
yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering [kes-
utekha]” (Deuteronomy 22:12), using the singular pronoun. It might
have been inferred from the singular form that with regard to your
covering, yes, it is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is
owned in partnership it is not obligated.

.‫יהם ְל ֹדר ָֹתם״‬ ֶ ‫״על ַּכנְ ֵפי ִבגְ ֵד‬ ַ ‫ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬ Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And they shall make for them-
,‫״כסו ְּתךָ ״ ָל ָּמה ִלי? ְל ִכ ְד ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬ ְּ ‫וְ ֶא ָּלא‬ selves fringes in the corners of their garments,h throughout their
generations, and they shall put with the fringe of each corner a
‫ ַט ִּלית ׁ ְשאו ָּלה – ּ ְפטו ָּרה‬:‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ַרב יְ הו ָּדה‬
thread of blue” (Numbers 15:38). The use of the plural pronoun
.‫ִמן ַה ִ ּציצִ ית ָּכל ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים יֹום‬ indicates that even jointly owned garments are obligated. The
Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term “your covering
[kesutekha],” using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers:
This is necessary for that which Rav Yehuda taught, as Rav Yehuda
said: A borrowed cloak is exempt from the mitzva of ritual fringes
throughout the first thirty days.h

– ‫״לגַ ֶ ּגךָ ״‬
ְ ‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דִּ ְכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬,‫ ַמ ֲע ֶקה‬Similarly, with regard to the obligation of establishing a parapet
,‫ דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬,‫ דִּ ָידךְ ִאין‬around a roof, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of a roof
are obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: “When you
build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof
[legaggekha],” using the singular pronoun, “and you shall not bring
blood upon your house, if any man falls from there” (Deuteronomy
22:8). One might have inferred from the singular form that with
regard to your roof, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to
that which is owned in partnership one is not obligated.

‫ ֶא ָּלא‬.‫״כי יִ ּפֹל ַהנּ ֵֹפל ִמ ֶּמנּ וּ״‬

ִּ ‫ ְּכ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “If any man falls from there,”h
ִ ‫״ג ֶ ּגךָ ״ ְל ַמאי ֲא ָתא? ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ָ ּב ֵּתי ְכ‬
‫נֵסּיֹות‬ ּ ַ indicating that wherever the danger of falling from the roof exists,
there is an obligation to erect a parapet. The Gemara asks: But if so,
.‫ו ָּב ֵּתי ִמ ְד ָר ׁשֹות‬
for what purpose does the term “your roof [gaggekha],” using the
singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude
synagogues and houses of study.h

ְ ‫ ֵל‬:‫ § ֲא ַמר ַרב ֵ ּב ָיבי ַ ּבר ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬Rava maintains that although Rabbi Ilai holds that if a sheep is
,‫יתנְ ה ּו ְל ָהנֵי ְּכ ָל ֵלי‬
,‫כֹורה‬ָ ‫ ֶ ּב ֱה ַמת ַה ׁ ּשו ָּּת ִפין ַחּיֶ ֶיבת ִ ּב ְב‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬owned in partnership its owners are exempt from giving the first
sheared wool to a priest, he concedes that partners are obligated
.‫ֹוט ָר ּה‬
ְ ‫וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי ּפ‬
with regard to all the other issues discussed above, including the
mitzva of the firstborn animal and the gifts of the priesthood. Rav
Beivai bar Abaye said: These principles stated by Rava are not
accepted, as it is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by partners
is obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, i.e., its offspring is subject
to firstborn status. And Rabbi Ilai exempts the animal from having
its offspring subject to firstborn status.

halakha
Ritual fringes…the Merciful One writes: In the corners of their Parapet…the Merciful One writes: If any man falls from there –
garments, etc. – ‫יהם וכו׳‬ ֶ ‫ית…כ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ַעל ַּכנְ ֵפי ִבגְ ֵד‬
ְּ ִ‫צִ יצ‬: One must ‫ה…כ ַתב ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִּכי יִ ּפֹל ַהנּ ֵֹפל ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו‬
ְּ ‫מ ֲע ֶק‬:ַ Jewish partners who own a
attach ritual fringes to a garment owned by partners. The Mishna house jointly are obligated to erect a parapet around their roof. This
Berura adds that this applies even to a garment owned jointly by is because the Torah states: “If any man falls from there” (Deuter-
a Jew and a gentile, or a man and a woman. Nevertheless, one onomy 22:8), indicating that the obligation applies wherever there
does not recite a blessing over this garment (Rambam Sefer Ahava, is a danger of falling from the roof. The commentaries disagree as to
Hilkhot Tzitzit 3:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 14:5). whether the mitzva applies to a house owned in partnership with a
gentile (Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot Rotze’aĥ UShmirat HaNefesh
A borrowed cloak is exempt from ritual fringes throughout the
11:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 427:3, and see Shakh there).
first thirty days – ‫ט ִּלית ׁ ְשאו ָּלה ּ ְפטו ָּרה ִמן ַה ִ ּציצִ ית ָּכל ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים יֹום‬:ַ If one
borrows a garment that does not have ritual fringes, he is exempt To exclude synagogues and houses of study – ‫נֵסּיֹות‬ ִ ‫ְל ַמעו ֵּטי ָ ּב ֵּתי ְכ‬
from affixing fringes for the first thirty days, as stated by Rav Yehuda. ‫ו ָּב ֵּתי ִמ ְד ָר ׁשֹות‬: Synagogues and houses of study, which are not places
After the first thirty days, he is required by rabbinic law to affix ritual of residence, are excluded from the obligation to erect a parapet
fringes to the garment, as it has the appearance of being owned by around the roof, as it is stated: “Your roof,” using the singular pro-
him. If one borrows a garment to which ritual fringes are already noun (Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot Rotze’aĥ UShmirat HaNefesh
affixed, he may recite the blessing over it immediately (Rambam 11:2; Shulĥan Arukh, Ĥoshen Mishpat 427:3).
Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tzitzit 3:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 14:3).

366 Ĥullin . perek XI . 136a . ‫ולק ףד‬. ‫א״י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי? דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi
‫״ב ַק ְר ֶכם‬
ּ ְ ‫ וְ ָהא ְּכ ִתיב‬,‫״ב ָק ְרךָ וְ צֹאנֶ ךָ ״‬ ּ ְ Ilai? As it is written: “And the firstborn of your herd and of your
flock [bekarekha vetzonekha]” (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the
.‫וְ צֹאנְ ֶכם״! דְּ כו ְּּלה ּו יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬
singular pronoun, indicating that only privately owned animals
are consecrated. The Gemara comments: But it is also written:
“And the firstborn of your herd and of your flock [bekarkhem
vetzonekhem]” (Deuteronomy 12:6), using the plural pronoun. The
Gemara explains: This verse is referring to the obligation of all Jewsn
to bring their firstborn animals to the Temple, but this applies only
to animals with a single owner.

‫יתנְ ה ּו‬ ְ ‫ ֵל‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַרב ֲחנִינָ א ִמ ּס ּו ָרא‬ Rav Ĥanina of Sura also said: These principles stated by Rava are
‫ ֶ ּב ֱה ַמת ַה ׁ ּשו ָּּת ִפין‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫ְל ָהנֵי ְּכ ָל ֵלי‬ not accepted, as it is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by
partners is obligated, i.e., renders its owners obligated, to take gifts
.‫ֹוטר‬ֵ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי ּפ‬,‫ַחּיֶ ֶיבת ַ ּב ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬
of the priesthood from it, and Rabbi Ilai exempts the partners from
‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא – יָ ֵליף ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ״נְ ִתינָ ה״‬ the obligation. What is the reason for Rabbi Ilai’s statement? He
‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן – דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת‬,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵמ ֵר‬ derives a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in this context
.‫ ַאף ָּכאן – דְּ ׁשו ָּּתפוּת ָלא‬,‫ָלא‬ and giving from the first sheared wool. The Torah states: “He shall
give” (Deuteronomy 18:3), with regard to the gifts of the priesthood,
and: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the
first sheared wool. Just as there, with regard to the first sheared
wool, in the case of sheep owned in partnership the owners are not
obligated according to Rabbi Ilai, so too here, with regard to the
gifts of the priesthood, if the animal is owned in partnership the
owners are not obligated.

,‫יחּיַ יב‬
ַ ‫ וְ ִאי ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתךְ ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה ִמ‬Rabbi Ĥanina of Sura adds: And if it enters your mind to accept
‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫נֵילף ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ִמ ְּתרו ָּמה‬ַ Rava’s statement that in the case of teruma Rabbi Ilai deems part-
ners obligated, this is not possible. The reason is that the term “shall
.‫ֹוטר‬
ֵ ‫ ִ ּב ְתרו ָּמה נַ ִמי ּפ‬:‫ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬
you give him” is also used with regard to teruma. Accordingly,
instead of deriving the halakha of an animal owned by partners with
regard to gifts of the priesthood by verbal analogy from the first
sheared wool, one should derive by verbal analogy between giving
mentioned with regard to gifts of the priesthood and giving from
teruma, as follows: Just as joint owners of produce are obligated to
separate teruma from that produce, so too with regard to an animal
owned in partnership, the owners are obligated to take the gifts of
the priesthood from it. Rather, conclude from the baraita that with
regard to teruma too, Rabbi Ilai deems partners exempt, and there-
fore their exemption from the gifts of the priesthood can be derived
either from the first sheared wool or from teruma.

‫ ְ ּבחוּצָ ה‬,‫ִאי ַמה ְּתרו ָּמה – ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ִאין‬ The Gemara raises a difficulty: If it is possible to derive halakhot
,‫ ַאף ַמ ָּתנֹות – ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ִאין‬,‫ָל ָא ֶרץ ָלא‬ of the gifts of the priesthood from teruma by verbal analogy, one
could also say: Just as with regard to teruma the halakha is that
‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ ‫ְ ּבח ּוצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ ָלא! ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬
in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael it
‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬,‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬.‫ ִאין‬:‫ִמ ְּנ ַה ְר ִ ּביל‬ does not apply, so too, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, in
,‫נֹוהגִ ין ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬
ֲ ‫ ַמ ָּתנֹות ֵאין‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ Eretz Yisrael, yes, they apply, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael they
‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫וְ ֵכן ָהיָ ה ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬ do not apply. Rabbi Yosei of Neharbil said: Yes, it is indeed so,
.‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬
ֵ ‫ַה ֵ ּגז ֵאין‬ and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ilai says: The gifts of the
priesthood apply only in Eretz Yisrael. And likewise, Rabbi Ilai
would say: The mitzva of the first sheared wool applies only in
Eretz Yisrael.

notes
This verse is referring to the obligation of all Jews – ‫דְּ כו ְּּלה ּו‬ with regard to the other nine mitzvot should be understood
‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬: Rav Beivai is saying that Rabbi Ilai exempts partners as a reference to the obligation of all Jews, not as referring to
with regard to all of the ten mitzvot discussed earlier: Separat- partners. Similarly, Rabbi Ĥanina claims that since Rabbi Ilai
ing teruma, ĥalla, pe’a, the sanctity of the firstborn, mezuza, exempts partners from the mitzva of teruma, the plural pronoun
tithes, the gifts of the priesthood, the first fruit, ritual fringes, in the term: “Your terumot ” (Ezekiel 20:40), necessarily refers to
and erecting a parapet. Rava claims that Rabbi Ilai concedes that the obligation of all Jews, and the plural pronoun used with
these mitzvot apply to partners, since the Torah uses the plural regard to the other nine mitzvot should be understood in a
pronoun with regard to them. By contrast, Rav Beivai holds that like manner (Torat Ĥayyim). Other commentaries explain that
just as the plural pronoun used with regard to the firstborn Rabbi Ilai exempts partners only with regard to some of the ten
refers to the obligation of all Jews, so too, the plural pronoun matters (Iggerot Moshe).

 ‫ולק ףד‬. ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 136a 367

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
:‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי? ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Ilai? Rava said: He derives
From five sheep the wool accumulates – ‫ָח ֵמ ׁש‬ by means of a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in the context
‫מצְ ָט ְרפֹות‬:ִ If an owner of five sheep sheared one ‫ ַמה‬,‫יָ ֵליף ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ִמ ְּתרו ָּמה‬
of the first sheared wool and giving from teruma that just as with regard
of them and sold the fleece before shearing the ,‫ ְ ּבחוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ ָלא‬,‫ְּתרו ָּמה – ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ִאין‬
second, and he then sheared the second and sold to teruma the halakha is that in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas
‫ ְ ּבחוּצָ ה‬,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז – ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ִאין‬ִ ׁ ‫ַאף ֵר‬ outside of Eretz Yisrael, it does not apply; so too, with regard to the first
the fleece before shearing the third, and then he
sheared the third and sold its fleece, and so on, all .‫ָל ָא ֶרץ ָלא‬ sheared wool, in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz
of the fleece combines to render one obligated Yisrael it does not apply.
in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. This is the
halakha even if the wool was shorn over a number ,‫טֹוב ֶלת‬
ֶ ‫ ִאי ַמה ְּתרו ָּמה‬:‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Abaye said to Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by
of years, in accordance with the opinion of the means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to the
Rabbis (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim
‫ ֲא ַמר‬:‫יה‬ ֶ ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬
ּ ‫טֹוב ֶלת! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ִ ׁ ‫ַאף ֵר‬
requirement to separate teruma, it produces the halakhic status of forbid-
10:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:12). ‫אשית ֵ ּגז צֹאנְ ךָ ִּת ֶּתן לֹו״ – ֵאין‬ִ ׁ ‫ְק ָרא ״וְ ֵר‬
den untithed produce, so too the requirement to separate the first
ִ ׁ ‫ְלךָ ּבֹו ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ֵר‬
. ְ‫אשיתֹו וְ ֵא ָילך‬ sheared wool produces the halakhic status of untithed produce, i.e.,
wool from which the first sheared wool has not been separated should be
forbidden. Yet this is not the halakha. Rava said to him that the verse
states: “And the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him,”
i.e., the priest, which indicates that you, i.e., the priest, have a right to the
first sheared wool only from its designation as the first sheared wool and
onward. Since the first sheared wool does not belong to the priest prior
to its designation, it does not render the rest of the wool forbidden.

‫יתה‬ ָ ‫יה ִמ‬

ָ ‫ ִאי ַמה ְּתרו ָּמה – ַחּיָ ִיבים ָע ֶל‬Abaye continues to question Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool
‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז ַחּיָ ִיבים ָע ָליו‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as non-priests
ִ ׁ ‫ ַאף ֵר‬,‫חֹומ ׁש‬
who partake of teruma intentionally are liable to receive the punishment
!‫חֹומ ׁש‬
ֶ ְ‫יתה ו‬ָ ‫ִמ‬
of death at the hand of Heaven, and those who do so unwittingly are
obligated to pay an additional one-fifth of its value, so too, non-priests
who derive benefit from the first sheared wool intentionally should be
liable to death at the hand of Heaven, and those who do so unwittingly
should be obligated to pay an additional one-fifth of its value.

,‫ ״ ּו ֵמת ּו בֹו וְ יָ ַסף ָע ָליו״‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬Rava replies: The verse states with regard to a non-priest who partakes
– ‫ ״בֹו״‬,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ִ ׁ ‫״ע ָליו״ – וְ ל ֹא ַעל ֵר‬ ָ of teruma: “Lest they bear sin for it, and die because of it, if they profane
it…and if a man eat of the holy thing through error, and he shall add its
.‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬
ִ ׁ ‫וְ ל ֹא ְ ּב ֵר‬
fifth part to it, and shall give to the priest the holy thing” (Leviticus
22:9–14). Rava infers: “He shall add its fifth part to it,” and not to the first
sheared wool. “And die because of it,” and not because of the first
sheared wool. Consequently, a non-priest is liable to death at the hand
of Heaven or to pay an additional one-fifth for partaking of teruma, but
not for deriving benefit from the first sheared wool.

,‫יה‬
ָ ‫אשֹון וְ ׁ ֵשנִי ַא ֲח ֶר‬ ׁ ‫ִאי ַמה ְּתרו ָּמה – ִר‬ Abaye further questions Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to
!‫יה‬ ׁ ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז – ִר‬
ָ ‫אשֹון וְ ׁ ֵשנִי ַא ֲח ֶר‬ ִ ׁ ‫ַאף ֵר‬ teruma by verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to teruma,
the first and second tithes are separated from the produce after teruma
‫אשית״ – ֵאין ְלךָ ּבֹו ֶא ָּלא‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֵ״ר‬:‫ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬
is separated, so too with regard to the first sheared wool, first and second
.‫אשית ִ ּב ְל ַבד‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵר‬ tithes should be separated from the fleece after it. Rava replies: The verse
states that the first sheared wool is “the first.” Since the verse already
stated “first” with regard to teruma, its repetition indicates that in this case
there is no second separation. One does not have any separation in this
case other than the first one.

,‫ ִאי ַמה ְּתרו ָּמה – ֵמ ָח ָד ׁש ַעל ַהּיָ ׁ ָשן ל ֹא‬Abaye continues to question Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool
ִ ׁ ‫ ַאף ֵר‬to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard
!‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז – ֵמ ָח ָד ׁש ַעל ַהּיָ ׁ ָשן ל ֹא‬
to teruma one may not separate from the new produce of this year on
,‫ִאין‬
behalf of the old produce from last year, so too, one may not separate the
first sheared wool from the new shearing of this year on behalf of the
old shearing from last year. On this occasion Rava replied: Yes, that is
the halakha.

,‫ ָ ּגזַ ז וְ ִה ּנ ִַיח‬,‫ ָהי ּו לֹו ׁ ְש ֵּתי ְר ֵחלֹות‬:‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬Rava proves his point: And it is likewise taught that this is Rabbi Ilai’s
‫ ׁ ְשנַיִ ם ו ׁ ְּשל ׁ ָֹשה ׁ ָשנִים – ֵאין‬,‫ ָ ּגזַ ז וְ ִה ּנ ִַיח‬opinion, through a contradiction between two baraitot. One baraita
teaches: A person had two sheep; he sheared them and left the shearing
.‫ ָהא ָח ֵמ ׁש – ִמצְ ָט ְרפֹות‬,‫ִמצְ ָט ְרפֹות‬
in his possession, and the following year he again sheared them and left
the shearing in his possession, and continued in this manner for two or
three years. Although the accumulated wool is equivalent to the wool of
five sheep, to which the obligation of the first sheared wool applies, the
wool does not accumulate to constitute the minimum amount, as only
two sheep were shorn. This indicates that if the wool is from five sheep,
then it accumulates, and one is obligated to give the priest the first
sheared wool, despite the fact that the wool was shorn in different years.h
368 Ĥullin . perek XI . 136a . ‫ולק ףד‬. ‫א״י קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ ֵאין ִמצְ ָט ְרפֹות! ֶא ָּלא ׁ ְש ַמע‬:‫ וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬But isn’t it taught in a baraita that even wool from five sheep shorn
Syria – ‫סו ְּריָ א‬: Syria is comprised of the lands north of Eretz
– ‫ וְ ָהא‬,‫ ָהא – דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬:‫ ִמ ָּינ ּה‬in different years does not accumulate to create an obligation? Yisrael that were conquered by King David. The biblical
Rather, conclude from this contradiction that this second baraita
.‫דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן‬ names for these areas are Aram, Aram of Damascus, and
is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the Aram Zobah. This area is roughly parallel to modern-day
first sheared wool to teruma. Therefore, he holds that wool from Syria, extending as far as Aleppo, although the border of
separate years does not accumulate. And that first baraita is in Eretz Yisrael was further north than the current border of
accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not compare the State of Israel. The Sages accorded Syria a halakhic status
the first sheared wool to teruma. Therefore, they maintain that wool in between the status of Eretz Yisrael and that of outside of
Eretz Yisrael: Although it does not have the sanctity of Eretz
from separate years does accumulate.
Yisrael, some of the halakhot unique to Eretz Yisrael also
apply in Syria, either completely or partially. This is because
,‫ ָ ּג ֵדל ְ ּב ִחּיוּב – ַחּיָ יב‬,‫ִאי ַמה ְּתרו ָּמה‬ Abaye asks Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma,
when Syria was conquered by King David, he conquered it as
‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬
ִ ׁ ‫ ַאף ֵר‬,‫ָ ּג ֵדל ִ ּב ְפטוּר – ּ ָפטוּר‬ one can say that just as with regard to teruma, if a Jew purchased a an individual rather than as the representative of the entire
field from a gentile then produce that grew under the ownership of
– ‫ ִ ּב ְפטוּר‬,‫ ָ ּג ֵדל ְ ּב ִחּיוּב – ַחּיָ יב‬,‫נַ ִמי‬ Jewish people. Another reason for Syria’s special status is
a Jew, who is obligated to separate teruma from his produce, is that it was under Jewish rule during various other periods.
!‫ּ ָפטוּר‬ obligated, whereas produce that grew under the ownership of a
gentile, whose produce is exempt, is exempt even after purchase by
a Jew; so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, the fleece that
grew under the ownership of a Jew, who is obligated in the first
sheared wool, is obligated, whereas the fleece that grew under
the ownership of a gentile, who is exempt, is exempt even after
purchase by a Jew.

‫ יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬:‫וְ גַ ֵ ּבי ְּתרו ָּמה ְמ ַנָלן? דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ Abaye adds: And with regard to teruma, from where do we derive
‫ ַעד ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬,‫ׁ ֶש ָּל ַקח ָ ׂש ֶדה ְ ּבסו ְּריָ א ִמגּ ֹוי‬ that produce that grew when owned by a gentile is exempt? As it is
taught in a baraita: With regard to a Jew who purchased a field in
‫יאה‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ׁ ּ ֶש ֵה ִב‬,‫יאה ׁ ְש ִל ׁיש – ַחּיָ יב‬ ָ ‫ֵה ִב‬
Syriab from a gentile,h if he bought the field before the produce
,‫ֹוס ֶפת‬ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֲע ִק ָיבא ְמ ַחּיֵ יב ַ ּב ּת‬,‫ׁ ְש ִל ׁיש‬ reached one-third of its growth, he is obligated to separate teruma.
.‫ֹוט ִרין‬
ְ ‫וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ּפ‬ If he bought the field after the produce reached one-third of its
growth, Rabbi Akiva deems him obligated to separate teruma from
the growth added after he bought the field, and the Rabbis deem
him exempt. All agree, though, that he is exempt with regard to the
part of the produce that grew under the gentile’s ownership.

‫ ַהלּ ֵֹוק ַח ֵ ּגז‬:‫ וְ ָה ְתנַן‬,‫ימא ָה ִכי נַ ִמי‬

ָ ‫ וְ ִכי ֵּת‬And if you would say: Indeed, Rabbi Ilai holds that wool that grew
‫ ָהא‬,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫ צֹאן גּ ֹוי – ּ ָפטוּר ֵמ ֵר‬under the ownership of a gentile is exempt from the mitzva of the
first sheared wool, that is difficult, as didn’t we learn in the mishna
‫נִיתין‬
ִ ‫צֹאנֹו ִלגְ זֹוז – ַחּיָ יב! ַמ ְת‬
(135a): One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is Syria
exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool? It can be
inferred from the mishna that if one purchased the gentile’s sheep
when they were ready for shearing, he is obligated in the mitzva of
the first sheared wool. Rava replied: The mishna

halakha
A Jew who purchased a field in Syria from a gentile – ‫יִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל‬ purchased the field a second time he is obligated to separate
‫ש ָּל ַקח ָ ׂש ֶדה ְ ּבסו ְּריָ א ִמגּ ֹוי‬:
ֶ ׁ In a case where a Jew purchased a teruma and tithes from this produce, as the obligation took
field in Syria from a gentile before the produce reached one- effect while the field was under Jewish ownership (Rambam
third of its growth, and then he sold it back to the gentile after Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 1:18).
it reached one-third of its growth, if the Jew subsequently

Perek XI
Daf 136 Amud b

;‫ דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who holds that
if the wool grew under the ownership of a gentile one is exempt
from separating the first sheared wool.

,‫ ִאי ַמה ְּתרו ָּמה – ִמ ִּמין ַעל ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמינֹו‬Abaye further asks Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to
ִ ׁ ‫ ַאף ֵר‬.‫ ל ֹא‬teruma, can one say that just as with regard to teruma one may not
‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז – ִמ ִּמין ַעל ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו‬
separate teruma from one type of produce on behalf of that which
!‫ ל ֹא‬,‫ִמינֹו‬
is not of the same type, so too, one may not separate the first
sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of sheep which are
not of the same type?
 ‫ולק ףד‬: ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 136b 369
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ָהי ּו לֹו ׁ ְשנֵי ִמינֵי‬:‫וְ גַ ֵ ּבי ְּתרו ָּמה ְמ ַנָלן? דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬ The Gemara asks: And with regard to teruma, from where do we
– ‫ וְ ֵכן ׁ ְשנֵי ִמינֵי ִח ִּטין‬,‫ְת ֵאנִים ׁ ְשחֹורֹות ו ְּל ָבנֹות‬ derive that one may not do so? As it is taught in a baraita: If one
had two types of figs, black figs and white figs; or similarly, if one
‫ ַר ִ ּבי יִ צְ ָחק‬.‫ֵאין ּת ְֹור ִמים ו ְּמ ַע ּ ְ ׂש ִרים ִמּזֶ ה ַעל זֶ ה‬
had two types of wheat,h one may not separate teruma and tithes
ְ ‫ ֵ ּבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬:‫אֹומר ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬
‫אֹומ ִרים‬ ֵ from this type on behalf of that type. Rabbi Yitzĥak says in the
‫ ַאף‬.‫אֹומ ִרים ּת ְֹור ִמין‬ ְ ‫ ו ֵּבית ִה ֵּלל‬,‫ֵאין ּת ְֹור ִמין‬ name of Rabbi Ilai: Beit Shammai say that one may not separate
!‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז – ִמ ִּמין ַעל ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ִמינֹו ל ֹא‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵר‬ teruma from one of these on behalf of the other, and Beit Hillel
say that one may separate teruma from one on behalf of the other,
as they consider all forms of figs or wheat to be a single type. But
all agree that with regard to two distinct types of food one may not
separate teruma from one type on behalf of another type. So too,
with regard to the first sheared wool, perhaps one may not separate
from one type of sheep on behalf of sheep which are not of the
same type.

,‫ ׁ ְשחוּפֹות ו ְּל ָבנֹות‬,‫ ָהי ּו לֹו ׁ ְשנֵי ִמינִים‬:‫ וְ ָה ְתנַן‬,‫ ִאין‬Rava replied: Yes, this is the halakha. And we learned in the mishna
ֵ ‫( ָמ ַכר לֹו ׁ ְשחוּפֹות ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ְל ָבנֹות – זֶ ה‬135a) that one may not separate the first sheared wool from one
‫נֹותן‬
type of sheep on behalf of another: If the seller had two types of
.‫נֹותן ְל ַעצְ מֹו‬ֵ ‫ְל ַעצְ מֹו וְ זֶ ה‬
sheep, gray and white, and he sold him the gray fleece but not the
white fleece, then this seller gives the first sheared wool for himself
from the wool that he kept, and that buyer gives the first sheared
wool for himself from the wool that he bought.

‫ זְ ָכ ִרים ֲא ָבל ל ֹא‬,‫יפא דְּ ָק ָתנֵי‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה ֵס‬The Gemara objects: If that is so, then consider the latter clause,
‫ ָה ִכי‬,‫נֹותן ְל ַעצְ מֹו‬ ֵ ‫ נְ ֵקבֹות – זֶ ה‬which teaches: If he sold the fleece of the male sheep but not of
ֵ ‫נֹותן ְל ַעצְ מֹו וְ זֶ ה‬
the female sheep, then this seller gives the first sheared wool for
?ּ‫נַ ִמי ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דִּ ְת ֵרי ִמינֵי נִינְ הו‬
himself from the wool that he kept, and that buyer gives the first
sheared wool for himself from the wool that he bought. Is this also
due to the fact that they are two different types? Clearly, it is not.

‫יה‬
ּ ‫ דְּ ֵל ִיתיב ֵל‬,‫טֹובה ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא – ֵעצָ ה‬The Gemara explains: Rather, the mishna teaches us good advice.
‫ ֵעצָ ה‬:‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬.‫ ֵמ ַהאי דְּ ַר ִּכיךְ ו ֵּמ ַהאי דְּ ַא ׁ ְשוַ ן‬The seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool even on behalf
of the wool he sold. Since the fleece of the female sheep is softer
!ּ‫יתיב ְלה ּו ִמ ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהו‬
ִ ‫ דְּ ֵל‬,‫טֹובה ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬
ָ
and more valuable, it is profitable for the seller to buy back part of
the fleece of the male sheep and separate it as the first sheared wool
on behalf of the sheep he sold, so that he gives the priest both from
this wool that is soft and from that wool that is hard, rather than
giving him from the fleece of his female sheep on behalf of the
male sheep. Here too, with regard to the gray and white sheep, the
mishna teaches us good advice, that it is profitable for the seller to
buy back part of the fleece of the gray sheep, so that he gives the
priests from both types of wool, rather than giving the first sheared
wool entirely from the more valuable white fleece.

.‫נִיתין דְּ ָלא ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬

ִ ‫ימנָ א ְל ַמ ְת‬
ְ ‫אֹוק‬
ִ ‫ ָהא‬According to the above explanation, the mishna rules that it is
permitted to separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep
on behalf of another type. This is difficult according to the opinion
of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the first sheared wool to teruma, where
this practice is prohibited. The Gemara answers: We already estab-
lished that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Ilai.

ָ ‫אשית ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְשיָ ֶר‬

‫יה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ִאי ַמה ְּתרו ָּמה – ָ ּב ֵעינַן ֵר‬The Gemara challenges further: If one compares the first sheared
ָּ ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז – ׁ ֶש ׁ ּ ְשיָ ֶר ָיה‬
!‫נִיכ ִרין‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַאף ֵר‬,‫נִיכ ִרין‬
ָּ wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just
as with regard to teruma we require it to be a first gift whose
,‫ִאין‬
remainders are evident, i.e., a part of the produce must remain
after one has separated teruma, so too, the first sheared wool must
be a gift whose remainders are evident. The Gemara responds:
Yes, it is indeed so.

halakha
One had two types of figs…or similarly two types of wheat, of figs, dried figs, and pressed figs are considered a single type. One
etc. – ‫הי ּו לֹו ׁ ְשנֵי ִמינֵי ְת ֵאנִים…וְ ֵכן ׁ ְשנֵי ִמינֵי ִח ִּטין וכו׳‬:ָ All types of wheat are may therefore separate teruma from one on behalf of the other, as
considered a single type with regard to teruma. Likewise, all types stated by Beit Hillel (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 5:3).

370 Ĥullin . perek XI . 136b . ‫ולק ףד‬: ‫א״י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ וְ ָכל‬,‫״כל ָ ּג ְרנִי ְּתרו ָּמה‬

ָּ ‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ ָה‬:‫וְ ָה ְתנַ ן‬ The Gemara cites a proof for this claim. And we learned in a mishna
ָּ ‫ ָהא‬.‫יס ִתי ַח ָּלה״ – ל ֹא ָא ַמר ְּכלוּם‬
‫״כל‬ ָּ ‫ִע‬ (Ĥalla 1:9): With regard to one who says: All my granary shall be
teruma,h or: All my dough shall be ĥalla,h he has not said any-
‫ וְ ַתנְ יָ א‬.‫ימין‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְ ּגזָ יַ י ֵר‬
ִ ָ‫אשית״ – דְּ ָב ָריו ַקּי‬
thing. But one can infer from the mishna that if he said: All my
!‫ ל ֹא ָא ַמר ְּכלוּם‬: ְ‫ִא ָידך‬ shearing shall be designated as first sheared wool, his declaration
is valid. And yet it is taught in another tannaitic source, a baraita,
that if he said: All my shearing shall be designated as first sheared
wool, he did not say anything.

,‫ ָהא – ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬:‫ ֶא ָּלא ָלאו ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬Rather, must one not conclude from the conflicting rulings that
.‫ ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה‬,‫ וְ ָהא – ַר ָ ּבנַן‬this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who
compares the first sheared wool to teruma, and that mishna is in
accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not compare
the two cases? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from here that this
is correct.

‫ ָה ִאידָּ נָ א נְ הוּג‬:‫ֲא ַמר ַרב נַ ְח ָמן ַ ּבר יִ צְ ָחק‬ § Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: Nowadays the universally
– ‫ ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬.‫ָע ְל ָמא ְּכ ָהנֵי ְּת ָלת ָס ֵבי‬ accepted practice is in accordance with the lenient rulings of
these three elders:n It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬.‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬
:‫אֹומר‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְ ּב ֵר‬
Ilain with regard to the first sheared wool,n as it is taught in a
.‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬
ֵ ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז ֵאינֹו‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵר‬ baraita that Rabbi Ilai says: The mitzva of the first sheared wool
applies only in Eretz Yisrael.h

halakha
All my granary shall be teruma – ‫כל ָ ּג ְרנִי ְּתרו ָּמה‬:ָּ With regard to mishna in tractate Ĥalla (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim
one who separates a greater portion of his produce than required 5:1; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 322:1).
as teruma, if he left a portion of the produce as non-sacred, his
The first sheared wool applies only in Eretz Yisrael – ‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵר‬
separation is valid. But if he said: All this produce shall be teruma,
‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬
ֵ ‫ה ֵ ּגז ֵאינֹו‬:ַ The mitzva of the first sheared wool
then his declaration is of no effect, as stated by the mishna in
applies only in Eretz Yisrael, whether or not the Temple is stand-
tractate Ĥalla (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 3:5).
ing. According to some authorities, the mitzva of the first sheared
wool applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael by Torah law (Rema, cit-
All my dough shall be ĥalla – ‫יס ִתי ַח ָּלה‬
ָּ ‫כל ִע‬:ָּ If one declares ing Tur). Nevertheless, the accepted custom is not in accordance
that all his dough should be ĥalla, his statement is of no effect, with this opinion (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:1;
unless he left a part of the dough non-sacred, as stated by the Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:1).

notes
The universally accepted practice is in accordance with the the jaw, and the maw (Rashi; Tosafot; Rosh). Others maintain
lenient rulings of these three elders – ‫נְ הוּג ָע ְל ָמא ְּכ ָהנֵי ְּת ָלת ָס ֵבי‬: that the custom to follow Rabbi Ilai’s lenient ruling only applies
Tosafot note that with regard to each of these halakhot it became to the first sheared wool, whereas the obligation to give gifts of
the accepted practice to follow the lenient ruling notwithstand- the priesthood applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael (Rambam;
ing a dissenting majority opinion. With regard to the first sheared Ramban; Ran). Both opinions are cited by the Shulĥan Arukh.
wool and the gifts of the priesthood, which are equivalent in this There are also divergent opinions with regard to the fulfill-
regard in his opinion, the Gemara (132a) lists many amora’im who ment of these mitzvot today in Eretz Yisrael. Some hold that the
received the gifts of the priesthood, even though they lived in second consecration of Eretz Yisrael, at the time of Ezra, remains
Babylonia. Clearly they held that these gifts apply even outside in effect even after the destruction of the Temple, and therefore
of Eretz Yisrael. Concerning the sowing of diverse kinds, most of the mitzvot of the first sheared wool and the gifts of the priest-
the amora’im do not accept Rabbi Yoshiya’s opinion (see Shabbat hood apply by Torah law, like teruma (Ra’avad). Others maintain
139b). With regard to one who experiences a seminal emission, that the second consecration was abrogated by the destruction
many tanna’im and amora’im hold that it is prohibited for him of the Second Temple, and therefore the mitzva of the gifts of
to engage in Torah study until he immerses himself in a ritual the priesthood applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law (Rashba).
bath (Berakhot 22a). With regard to the opinion of the Rambam, although he holds
that the second consecration is in effect even after the destruc-
In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai – ‫כ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי‬:ְּ The
tion of the Temple, he states that the mitzva of teruma applies
early commentaries raise a difficulty: Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak
by Torah law only when the majority of the Jewish people live in
rules here that the gifts of the priesthood do not apply outside of
Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the mitzva of the gifts of the priesthood
Eretz Yisrael. Yet in the previous chapter (132b), the Gemara states
also applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law. Nevertheless, the
that Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak, who lived outside Eretz Yisrael,
common practice is to refrain from giving the gifts of the priest-
fined butchers who neglected to give the gifts of the priesthood
hood in Eretz Yisrael altogether. The later commentaries suggest
by appropriating their cloaks. The commentaries answer that Rav
the following explanation for this practice: Generally, priests are
Naĥman bar Yitzĥak acted in this manner before it became the
unable to prove their priestly lineage, and it is inappropriate
accepted practice to follow the ruling of Rabbi Ilai (Tosafot).
for one to receive the gifts of the priesthood without proving
In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai with regard to the his lineage. Nevertheless, some commentaries write that one
first sheared wool – ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬
ִ ׁ ‫כ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי ְ ּב ֵר‬:ְּ According to some should give the gifts of the priesthood in Eretz Yisrael nowadays
of the early commentaries, this ruling applies both to the first (Ĥazon Ish).
sheared wool and to the gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg,

 ‫ולק ףד‬: ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 136b 371

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫תֹורה‬
ָ ‫ ו ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵת ָירה – ְ ּב ִד ְב ֵרי‬And the accepted practice is in accordance with the opinion of
In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben
ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ֶ ּבן ְ ּב ֵת ָירה‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah, as it
n
Beteira with regard to matters of Torah – ‫ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי יְהו ָּדה ֶ ּבן‬ ‫ ֵאין‬:‫אֹומר‬
is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters
‫תֹורה‬
ָ ‫ב ֵת ָירה ְ ּב ִד ְב ֵרי‬:ּ ְ Ezra instituted an ordinance that one .‫תֹורה ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה‬ ָ ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי‬
who experiences a seminal emission must immerse in of Torah are not susceptible to ritual impurity.nh Therefore, it is
a ritual bath prior to studying Torah or praying. Accord- permitted for one who experienced a seminal emission to engage in
ing to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, this ordinance is no Torah study even without first immersing in a ritual bath.
longer in effect. The later commentaries ask how Rabbi
Yehuda ben Beteira could revoke an ordinance that had ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ דְּ ַתנְ יָ א‬,‫ֹאשּיָ ה – ְ ּב ִכ ְל ַאיִ ם‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ו ְּכ ַר ִ ּבי י‬And lastly, the accepted practice is in accordance with the opinion
been in effect for many generations, as one rabbinical ‫עֹולם ֵאין ַחּיָ יב ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ זְ ַרע‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ֹאשּיָה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ י‬of Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is taught in a
court cannot rescind an ordinance instituted by another baraita that Rabbi Yoshiya says: One who sows diverse kinds is
rabbinical court, unless it is superior to the earlier court .‫עֹורה וְ ַח ְרצָ ן ְ ּב ַמ ּפ ֶֹולת יָ ד‬
ָ ‫ּש‬ ׂ ְ ‫ִח ָּטה ו‬
never liable by Torah law until he sows wheat and barley and a
in wisdom and in number (see Megilla 2a). The com-
mentaries explain that from the outset this particular
grape pit with a single hand motion,h i.e., by sowing in the vineyard
ordination included a stipulation that later Sages have he violates the prohibitions of diverse kinds that apply to seeds and
the authority to rescind the decree in the future (see to the vineyard simultaneously.
Moed Katan 3b). Others answer that this ordinance was
never adopted by the majority of the Jewish people, ‫חֹומר‬
ֶ ‫יתנֵי‬
ְ ‫ וְ ִל‬.]‫רֹוע״ [וכו׳‬ ַ ְ‫״חֹומר ִ ּבז‬ֶ § The mishna states: There are more stringent elements in the
and therefore a lesser court could rescind it (see Tosafot ִ ׁ ‫ ְ ּב ֵר‬mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw than in the mitzva of the
ֵ ּ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז ׁ ֶשנ‬
‫ ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ֵאין‬,‫ֹוהג ִ ּב ְט ֵרפֹות‬
on Bava Kama 82b). Tosafot on 122b cite the opinion of first sheared wool. The mishna then proceeds to list a number of
Rabbeinu Ĥananel that Ezra’s ordinance was rescinded !‫ֵּכן ַ ּב ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬
these stringent elements. The Gemara objects: But let the mishna
only with regard to Torah study but not with regard to
teach that there is a more stringent element in the mitzva of the
prayer (Yissa Berakha).
The Gemara (Pesaĥim 7b) states: One recites a bless-
first sheared wool, as it is in effect with regard to animals with a
ing prior to performing all mitzvot, except for ritual wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot],
immersion, as before one’s immersion one is unfit to but that is not so with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the
recite a blessing. The ge’onim write that this ruling foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, which are not given to the priest from
applies only to the immersion of a convert, who can- a tereifa. This is because the Torah states: “He shall give to the priest
not recite the phrase: Who commanded us, before the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3), whereas
his immersion, as he is not yet Jewish. But one who
in the case of a tereifa the gifts are effectively not given to the priest
immerses in a ritual bath due to a seminal emission
does recite the blessing before he immerses himself, as himself but to his dog, as it is prohibited for the priest to eat them.
according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira
he is fit to recite blessings prior to immersing (Tosafot, ,‫ ָהא ַמ ּנִי – ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ִהיא‬:‫ֲא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬ Ravina said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It
citing Rav Hai Gaon). Tosafot also cite a different opinion, ‫ֹוטר ֶאת ַה ְּט ֵרפֹות‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ּפ‬:‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬ is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught
according to which the blessing is always recited after in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon deems tereifot exempt from the mitzva
?‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬.‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ִ ׁ ‫ֵמ ֵר‬
the immersion. The reason for this is that although the of the first sheared wool. What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi
accepted practice follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ‫ ַמה‬,‫יָ ֵליף ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ִמ ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ Shimon? The reason is that he derives a verbal analogy between the
ben Beteira, many people are stringent in this matter ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ִ ׁ ‫ ַאף ֵר‬,‫ַּמ ָּתנֹות – ְט ֵר ָפה ל ֹא‬ term giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and
and immerse themselves before they study Torah or
recite blessings. Therefore, the correct practice is to
.‫נַ ִמי – ְט ֵר ָפה ל ֹא‬ giving from the gifts of the priesthood. The Torah states: “Shall you
immerse oneself first and recite the blessing afterward. give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool,
and it states: “He shall give,” with regard to the gifts of the priest-
Matters of Torah are not susceptible to ritual
hood. Just as with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, one is not
impurity – ‫תֹורה ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה‬
ָ ‫אין דִּ ְב ֵרי‬:ֵ This statement
does not contradict the prohibition against reciting
obligated to give them from a tereifa animal, so too, with regard
matters of Torah in a place of filth (Berakhot 24b). The to the first sheared wool, one is not obligated to give them from
difference between filth and impurity is that ritual impu- a tereifa.
rity is not concrete but conceptual, and as the words of
the Lord are like fire they are incapable of becoming
ritually impure (see Berakhot 22a). By contrast, filth that
can be perceived by the senses impresses upon the indi-
vidual that he is in a contemptible place, and one who
recites matters of Torah in such a place is included in the
verse (Numbers 15:31): “For he has shown contempt for
halakha
the word of the Lord” (Kesef Mishne).
Matters of Torah are not susceptible to ritual impurity – ‫ֵאין דִּ ְב ֵרי‬ the opportunity to pray with a quorum of ten men. The Mishna
‫תֹורה ְמ ַק ְ ּב ִלין טו ְּמ ָאה‬:
ָ It is permitted for one who is ritually impure Berura adds that if one wishes to adhere to Ezra’s ordinance but
to read the Torah, recite Shema, and pray, except if he experienced he finds it difficult to immerse himself, he may instead pour on
a seminal emission. Ezra decreed that it is prohibited for one who himself nine kav of water. Drawn water is fit for this purpose, and
experienced a seminal emission to engage in these matters until the nine kav may be poured from up to three vessels. The later
he immerses in a ritual bath, so that Torah scholars would not be commentaries note that immersing oneself in forty se’a of drawn
with their wives constantly. This decree was never adopted by the water is also sufficient with regard to Ezra’s ordinance (Rambam
entire Jewish people, and most people were unable to adhere to Sefer Ahava, Hilkhot Tefillin UMezuza VeSefer Torah 10:8; Shulĥan
it. Therefore, Ezra’s ordinance was repealed in subsequent gen- Arukh 282:9 and Mishna Berura there).
erations, and it is permitted for one who experienced a seminal
emission to engage in all these activities without immersion in a
ritual bath. This became the accepted practice, in accordance with One who sows diverse kinds is never liable until he sows wheat
the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that matters of Torah are and barley and a grape pit with a single hand motion – ‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ְל‬
not susceptible to ritual impurity. Furthermore, it is permitted for ‫עֹורה וְ ַח ְרצָ ן ְ ּב ַמ ּפ ֶֹולת יָ ד‬
ָ ‫ּש‬ׂ ְ ‫אין ַחּיָ יב ַעד ׁ ֶשּיִ זְ ַרע ִח ָּטה ו‬:
ֵ One is liable to be
all those who are ritually impure to hold the Torah scroll and read flogged for planting diverse kinds in a vineyard only if he plants
from the Torah, provided their hands are not filthy. The commen- wheat and barley and a grape pit at one time in Eretz Yisrael. One
taries write that even so, one who wishes to adopt the custom of is also liable if he covers them with soil. Furthermore, this prohibi-
immersing himself after a seminal emission before praying and tion applies to either two species of vegetable seed and a grape
studying Torah is praiseworthy. Nevertheless, one may not wait to pit or one vegetable seed, one seed of grain, and one grape pit. By
immerse himself if meanwhile the time for reciting the Shema and rabbinic law, this prohibition applies outside of Eretz Yisrael as well,
the morning prayer is liable to elapse. Furthermore, it is possibly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya (Rambam Sefer
improper to delay even if this practice merely causes one to miss Zera’im, Hilkhot Kilayim 5:1–2; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 296:1).

372 Ĥullin . perek XI . 136b . ‫ולק ףד‬: ‫א״י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
,‫וְ ִאי יָ ֵליף ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ִמ ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Shimon derives a verbal analogy between
giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and giving Excludes a tereifa, which is not able to pass under the
‫ ַמה‬,‫ֵל ַילף ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ״נְ ִתינָ ה״ ִמ ְּתרו ָּמה‬ rod – ‫עֹוב ֶרת‬
ֶ ‫פ ָרט ִל ְט ֵר ָפה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬:ְ ּ Rashi explains that the
from the gifts of the priesthood, let him also derive a verbal analogy
‫ְּתרו ָּמה – ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ִאין ְ ּבחוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ‬ verse excludes an animal whose leg was severed above
between giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and the leg joint and is therefore unable to walk or pass under
‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז – נַ ִמי ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ִאין‬
ִ ׁ ‫ ַאף ֵר‬,‫ָלא‬ giving from teruma. The Torah states: “The first fruits of your grain, the rod of the owner counting the animals. An animal
‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬:‫ ַא ָּל ָּמה ְּתנַן‬,‫ְ ּבחוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ ָלא‬ of your wine, and of your oil, and the first sheared wool of your flock whose leg was severed above the joint is one of the eigh-
ֵ ‫ַה ֵ ּגז‬
?‫נֹוהג ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ו ְּבחוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ‬ shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). Just as with regard to teen tereifot, and the Sages derive from this case that the
teruma, produce grown in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it is obligated, whereas owner is exempt from animal tithe with regard to all other
tereifot. The commentaries point out: An animal whose leg
produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael is not obligated, so too with
was severed below the joint is also unable to pass under
regard to the mitzva of the first sheared wool: In Eretz Yisrael, yes, the rod, although it is not a tereifa. Therefore, it too should
it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael it does not apply. Why, not be subject to the obligation of animal tithe. Tosafot
then, did we learn in the mishna that the mitzva of the first sheared suggest that perhaps this animal is in fact exempt from
wool applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael? animal tithe. Nevertheless, they admit that this resolution
is unlikely to be correct, as the Gemara states only that
‫ דְּ יָ ֵליף‬:‫ ַהיְ ינ ּו ַט ֲע ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון‬,‫ֶא ָּלא‬ The Gemara suggests: Rather, this is the reason for the ruling of tereifot are exempt.

– ‫ ַמה ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬,‫״צֹאן״ ״צֹאן״ ִמ ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר‬ Rabbi Shimon, as he derives a verbal analogy between the term
“flock [tzon]” mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and
‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז – ְט ֵר ָפה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַאף ֵר‬,‫ְט ֵר ָפה ָלא‬
the term “flock [tzon]” from the animal tithe. With regard to the
.‫ָלא‬ first sheared wool, the verse states: “And the first sheared wool of
your flock [tzonekha], shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), and
with regard to the animal tithe it states: “And all the tithe of the herd
or the flock [tzon], whichever passes under the rod, the tenth shall
be holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). Just as with regard to the
tithe, one is not obligated in the case of an animal that is a tereifa, so
too, with regard to the first sheared wool, one is not obligated in
the case of a tereifa.

‫״כֹל ֲא ׁ ֶשר יַ ֲעבֹר‬ ּ ‫וְ ָה ָתם ְמ ַנָלן? דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the animal tithe, from
‫ַּת ַחת ַה ׁ ּ ָש ֶבט״ – ּ ְפ ָרט ִל ְט ֵר ָפה ׁ ֶש ֵאינָ ּה‬ where do we derive that it does not apply to a tereifa? The Gemara
answers that it is written: “Whichever passes under the rod,”
,‫ וְ ֵל ַילף ״צֹאן״ ״צֹאן״ ִמ ְ ּבכֹור‬.‫עֹוב ֶרת‬ ֶ
which excludes a tereifa, which is not able to pass under the rodn
‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ַאף ֵר‬,‫ַמה ְ ּבכֹור – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְט ֵר ָפה‬ due to its physical state. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let Rabbi
!‫ַה ֵ ּגז – ֲא ִפילּ ּו ְט ֵר ָפה‬ Shimon derive a verbal analogy between the term “flock [tzon]”
mentioned in this context and the term “flock [tzon]” from the
mitzva to consecrate the male firstborn animal. In that context, the
Torah states: “All the firstborn males that are born of your herd and
of your flock [tzonekha] you shall sanctify to the Lord your God”
(Deuteronomy 15:19). Just as with regard to the consecration of the
firstborn even a tereifa is consecrated, so too, with regard to the first
sheared wool the obligation applies even in the case of a tereifa.

,‫יה ְל ֵמ ַילף‬
ּ ‫ ִמ ַּמ ֲע ֵ ׂשר ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ ִמ ְס ַּת ְ ּב ָרא‬The Gemara answers: It is reasonable that Rabbi Shimon should
,‫ ְט ֵמ ִאין‬,‫ זְ ָכ ִרים‬:‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬derive the halakha of the first sheared wool from the halakha of
animal tithe rather than from the mitzva of the firstborn, as there
are many halakhot that are common to both the first sheared wool
and the animal tithe. The Gemara enumerates these halakhot: First,
the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply to both male and
female animals, while the mitzva of the firstborn applies only to
males. Furthermore, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe
do not apply to non-kosher animals, whereas the sanctity of the
firstborn also applies to donkeys, which are not kosher.

,‫ ֵמ ֶר ֶחם‬,‫ ִ ּב ְמרו ִ ּּבין‬In addition, these two mitzvot both apply only in a case of numerous
animals: The first sheared wool applies only if one shears no fewer
than five sheep, and one must own at least ten animals to set aside
the animal tithe, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn applies to a
single animal. Another common feature is that unlike the firstborn,
the first sheared wool and the animal tithe are not sanctified from
the womb, but only once they are designated.

.‫ ִל ְפנֵי ַהדִּ ּבוּר‬,‫ ּ ָפ ׁשוּט‬,‫ ָא ָדם‬Moreover, both the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply only
to animals, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn also applies to a
firstborn son in the case of a man. Likewise, these two mitzvot apply
not only to firstborn animals but also to ordinary non-firstborn
animals, unlike the sanctity of the firstborn. Finally, the first sheared
wool and the animal tithe did not apply before the divine word was
issued at the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, whereas the sanctity
of the firstborn already applied while the Jews were still in Egypt.
 ‫ולק ףד‬: ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 136b 373
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

:‫ ׁ ֶש ֵּכן‬,‫יה ְל ֵמ ַילף‬
ּ ‫ ִמ ְ ּבכֹור ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ ַאדְּ ַר ָ ּבה‬The Gemara responds: On the contrary, Rabbi Shimon should
,‫ ׁ ֶש ְּל ָקחֹו‬,‫ יָ תֹום‬derive the halakha of the first sheared wool from the sanctity of the
firstborn rather than from the animal tithe, as there are many hal-
akhot common to the first sheared wool and the firstborn animal.
The Gemara again enumerates the halakhot in common: Both apply
to an orphan animal, i.e., one whose mother died before its birth,
whereas the animal tithe does not apply to an animal of this kind.
Furthermore, both mitzvot are in effect in the case of an animal
that one purchased, whereas the animal tithe does not apply to a
purchased animal.

,‫ ּכ ֵֹהן‬,‫ ִ ּב ְפנֵי‬,‫ נְ ָתנֹו‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁשו ָּּתפוּת‬In addition, both the mitzva of the first sheared wool and the mitzva
of the firstborn animal apply to an animal owned in partnership,
unlike the animal tithe. Both apply as well to an animal that one gave
another as a gift, whereas the animal tithe does not apply in the case
of a gift. Likewise, both apply even when not in the presence ofn
the Temple, whereas the animal tithe is in effect only when the
Temple is standing. Moreover, both the first sheared wool and the
firstborn are given to a priest, whereas the animal tithe is eaten by
the owner.

notes
In the presence of [bifnei] – ‫ב ְפנֵי‬:ּ ִ Rashi and Tosafot disagree these halakhot as considerations to prefer one verbal analogy
with regard to the correct version of the text. Rashi accepts the over another, which is a matter of Torah law, but a decree of
version of the Gemara as it appears here: Unlike the firstborn rabbinic origin cannot serve as a consideration when deriving
and the first sheared wool, the obligation of animal tithe applies a Torah law. Tosafot therefore claim that the text should read:
only when the Temple is standing; but the Sages decreed that Lifnei, i.e., before. This is an abbreviated form of the phrase:
nowadays one should not tithe his animals, lest he mistakenly Sanctification of those walking before or after it. It refers to a
slaughter the tithe animal, utilize it for labor, or shear its wool, halakha unique to the animal tithe, that if one lost count and
which is prohibited (Bekhorot 53a; see also Rashi here). Tosafot mistakenly counted the ninth or eleventh animal in line as the
raise a difficulty with this explanation: The Gemara here lists tenth, that animal is also sanctified (see Tiferet Ya’akov).

Perek XI
Daf 137 Amud a
notes
ִ ׁ ‫ וְ ָהנָ ךְ נְ ִפ‬,‫ ו ְּמ ִכ ָירה‬,‫ ִ ּב ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה‬The Gemara further states that the matter of consecrationn applies
!‫ישין‬
Of consecration – ‫ב ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּשה‬:
ּ ִ The commentaries suggest
neither to the mitzva of the first sheared wool nor to the firstborn
different halakhot to which this word might be referring.
Rashi explains that the first sheared wool has no sanctity.
animal. The firstborn is consecrated from the womb, while the first
Others, such as Rav Se’adya Gaon, maintain that it does sheared wool is non-sacred. By contrast, the animal tithe is conse-
become consecrated, and there is even a mitzva to conse- crated by the owner when passed under the rod. And finally, the
crate it. According to this opinion, the Gemara here can be option of sale by the priest applies to the first sheared wool and the
interpreted as follows: The sanctity of the firstborn applies firstborn animal after the priest receives them, whereas the animal
only to the firstborn animal itself, not to the animal born tithe may not be sold. The Gemara adds: And these halakhot com-
after it. Likewise, the first sheared wool is itself sanctified,
mon to the first sheared wool and the firstborn are more numerous
but no sanctity applies to the remainder of the fleece. By
contrast, in some cases the sanctity of the animal tithe than the halakhot shared by the first sheared wool and the animal
extends to the ninth or eleventh animal as well (Arukh, cit- tithe. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon should derive the verbal analogy
ing Rabbeinu Ĥananel). As stated earlier, Tosafot hold that between the first sheared wool and the firstborn.
the term: In the presence of [lifnei], refers to this halakha
(see Bekhorot 60b). ּ ‫ ּ ָפ ׁשוּט ִמ ּ ָפ ׁשוּט ֲע ִדיף ֵל‬The Gemara answers: Even so, Rabbi Shimon prefers to derive the
.‫יה‬
halakhot of the first sheared wool, which apply to an ordinary non-
firstborn animal, from those of animal tithe, which also apply to an
ordinary animal. Rabbi Shimon maintains that the shared factor
that the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply to all animals,
not only the first to emerge from the womb, is decisive and overrides
the other shared halakhot.
374 Ĥullin . perek XI . 137a . ‫זלק ףד‬. ‫א״י קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

.‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ִ ּב ְר ֵח ִלים״‬ ֵ ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז ֵאינֹו‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵ״ר‬ § The mishna states: The first sheared wool is in effect only with background

regard to sheep. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters Sheep…goats – ‫ים…עּזִ ים‬ִ ‫כ ָב ִ ׂש‬:ְּ There are a number of
‫ ָא ְתיָ א‬:‫ילי? ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬ ֵּ ‫ְמנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ‬ breeds of goats and sheep, which differ from each other
derived?n Rav Ĥisda said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy
‫אשית ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָכא ֵ״ר‬,‫״גיּזָ ה״‬ ּ ִ ‫״גיּזָ ה״‬ ִּ in their characteristics. The descriptions in the Mishna
between shearing mentioned in this context and shearingn men- and Talmud indicate that the breed of sheep under
‫צֹאנְ ךָ ִּת ֶּתן לֹו״ ו ְּכ ִתיב ָה ָתם ״ו ִּמ ֵ ּגז ְּכ ָב ַ ׂשי‬ tioned elsewhere. It is written here: “The first sheared wool of your discussion is similar to the Awassi breed, Ovis aries
‫ ַאף ָּכאן‬,‫ ַמה ְּל ַה ָּלן ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים‬,‫יִ ְת ַח ָּמם״‬ flock [tzonekha], shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), and it platyura, a fat-tailed type of sheep common nowadays
.‫ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים‬ is written there that Job says concerning the needy: “And he was in Israel. The breed of goats is apparently similar to the
warmed with the shearing of my sheep [kevasai]” ( Job 31:20). Just Israeli goat breed Capra mambrica. There are several
as there, the verse is referring specifically to the shearing of sheep, distinctive characteristics that differentiate between
these types of sheep and goats: The sheep’s fleece is
as the term keves is used only with regard to a sheep, so too here, white, soft, and curly, as opposed to the black, hard
with regard to the first sheared wool, the verse is referring to sheep, hair of the goats. The sheep has a long, thick, and fatty
despite the fact that the term tzon can be interpreted as referring tail, whereas the goat’s tail is short and upright. Further-
also to goats.b more, the lamb has short ears, and the goat kid has long,
hanging ears. The male goat has a beard, while the ram
‫ ״ל ֹא‬:‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬,‫״גיּזָ ה״ ִמ ְ ּבכֹור‬ ּ ִ ‫״גיּזָ ה״‬
ּ ִ ‫נֵילף‬
ַ ְ‫ ו‬The Gemara objects: But derive instead a verbal analogy concerning does not. Finally, the female goat has horns, whereas
‫ ַת ֲעבֹד ִ ּב ְבכֹר ׁש ֶֹורךָ וְ ל ֹא ָתגֹז ְ ּבכֹור צֹאנֶ ךָ ״‬shearing mentioned in this context from shearing mentioned in the ewe has no horns. They can also be differentiated
the case of the firstborn animal: Just as the prohibition against by the sound of their bleat.
ָ ‫ֵאין ִלי ֶא ָּלא ׁשֹור ַ ּב ֲע‬
,‫בֹודה וְ צֹאן ְ ּבגִ יּזָ ה‬
shearing the firstborn also applies to a firstborn ox, so too, the hal-
akhot of the first sheared wool should also apply to oxen. It is pro-
hibited to shear a firstborn ox, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse
states: “You shall do no work with the firstborn of your ox, and
you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock” (Deuteronomy
15:19). From a straightforward reading of the verse, I have derived
only that a firstborn ox may not be used for labor and that a
firstborn of an animal from the flock may not be used for shearing.

‫ ִמ ּנַיִ ן ִל ֵּיתן ָה ָאמוּר ׁ ֶשל זֶ ה ָ ּבזֶ ה וְ ֶאת ָה ָאמוּר‬The baraita continues: From where is it derived to apply the prohi-
Awassi lamb
‫ ״ל ֹא ַת ֲעבֹד״‬:‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ ׁ ֶשל זֶ ה ָ ּבזֶ ה? ַּת ְלמוּד‬bition that was stated about that animal to this one, and the pro-
hibition that was stated about this animal to that one? The verse
!‫״וְ ל ֹא ָתגֹז״‬
states: “You shall do no work…and you shall not shear.”n The
conjunction “and” indicates that the two parts of the verse apply to
both animals.

.‫״ת ֶּתן לֹו״ – וְ ל ֹא ְל ַ ׂש ּקֹו‬

ִּ :‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬The Gemara explains: One cannot say that oxen are subject to the
mitzva of first sheared wool, as the verse states with regard to this
mitzva: “Shall you give him,” which indicates that the shearing is
given to the priest himself, i.e., for him to wear, and not for use as
his sack. The shearing of oxen is fit for use only as sackcloth, not
as clothing.

ַ ‫ ֶא ָּלא ֵמ ַע ָּתה נֹוצָ ה ׁ ֶשל ִעּזִ ים ִל‬The Gemara objects: If that is so, let one be obligated in the mitzva
‫יחּיֵ יב! ָ ּב ֵעינַן‬
!‫יכא‬ ָּ ‫ ִ ּגיּזָ ה וְ ֵל‬of the first sheared wool in the case of goats’ hair, as it too can be
used for clothing. The Gemara explains: To be obligated in the
first sheared wool we require an act of shearing, and goats’ hair is
plucked, not sheared.

Mamber goat

notes
From where are these matters derived – ‫מנָ א ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי‬:ְ The verse serve to reveal the meaning of shearing in this context. The verse
states that the first sheared wool applies to the flock [tzon] (Deu- from Job indicates that this term refers specifically to sheep.
teronomy 18:4). The term tzon can refer to goats as well as to sheep,
as in the verse: “Go now to the flock [tzon], and fetch me from
The verse states, you shall do no work…and you shall not
there two good goat kids” (Genesis 27:9). The Gemara therefore
shear – ‫לֹומר ל ֹא ַת ֲעבֹד וְ ל ֹא ָתגֹז‬
ַ ‫ת ְלמוּד‬:ַּ The conjunction “and” signi-
asks: From where does the mishna derive that the first sheared
fies that the second clause of the verse adds to the first clause
wool applies only to sheep (Tosafot)?
(Rashi on Bekhorot 25a). Therefore, it is prohibited both to use the
It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between shearing ox for labor as well as to shear it. In addition, one can infer from
and shearing, etc. – ‫א ְתיָ א ִ ּגיּזָ ה ִ ּגיּזָ ה וכו׳‬:
ָ The commentaries are the juxtaposition of the flock to the ox that both prohibitions
puzzled by this inference, as it is based on a verse in the book of also apply to the flock. The later commentaries explain slightly
Job, which is from the Writings, but the Gemara states elsewhere differently: The conjunction “and” enables one to read the verse as
that Torah laws cannot be derived from the Prophets or the Writ- though it were written: You shall not work and you shall not shear
ings (Ĥagiga 17b; Bava Kamma 2b). Tosafot explain that strictly the firstborn of your ox or the firstborn of your flock. The verse did
speaking, the Gemara’s inference here is not a verbal analogy. A not state this explicitly, as the Torah expresses its prohibitions in
verbal analogy is a hermeneutical principle by which new hal- accordance with standard behavior. People generally designate
akhot are derived, whereas in this case the parallel words merely an ox for labor and a sheep for use of its fleece (Torat Ĥayyim).

 ‫זלק ףד‬. ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 137a 375

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ ָהא‬,‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ ‫יה ַהאי ְס ָב ָרא – ַר ִ ּבי‬ ּ ‫ ַמאן ׁ ָש ְמ ַע ְּת ֵל‬The Gemara asks: Who did you hear who accepts this reasoning
!‫יה‬ ּ ‫אֹור ֵח‬
ְ ְּ‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ִמ ֵידי ד‬
ֵ ‫מֹודי ַר ִ ּבי‬ֵ that only an act of shearing renders one obligated in the mitzva of
the first sheared wool? This is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, which
the Gemara will soon cite. But Rabbi Yosei concedes that the
obligation does exist without the act of shearing in a case where
the usual manner of removing the wool is not by shearing. Since
goats’ hair is not commonly shorn, the obligation of the first sheared
wool should apply.

‫״ל ֲעמֹד‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ ֶא ָּלא ְּכ ַד ֲא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי י‬Rather, the Gemara provides a different source for the mishna’s
ַ :‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬
:‫ ָה ָכא נַ ִמי‬.‫ ְל ׁ ָש ֵרת״ – דָּ ָבר ָה ָראוּי ְל ׁ ֵשירוּת‬statement. The reason that the mitzva of first sheared wool applies
only to sheep is as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is stated in the
.‫דָּ ָבר ָה ָראוּי ְל ׁ ֵשירוּת‬
verse following the source for the mitzva of first sheared wool: “For
the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand
to serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sons forever” (Deuter-
onomy 18:5). The term “to serve” indicates that the first sheared
wool that is given to the priest must consist of a matter fit for the
Temple service, i.e., its size must be large enough for use for the
priestly garments. Here too, the first sheared wool must be of a
matter fit for Temple service,h i.e., sheep’s wool, from which the
priestly garments are woven.

‫״גיּזָ ה״ ְל ַמאי ֲא ָתא? ְל ִכ ְד ָתנָ א‬ ּ ִ ‫ֶא ָּלא‬

ּ ִ ‫״גיּזָ ה״‬ The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the verbal anal-
:‫יִש ָמ ֵעאל‬ ְ ׁ ‫ דְּ ָתנָא דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יִש ָמ ֵעאל‬ ְ ׁ ‫דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי‬ ogy between shearing mentioned with regard to the first sheared
wool and shearing mentioned with regard to the flock come? The
‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ְּכ ָב ִ ׂשים ׁ ֶש ַ ּצ ְמ ָרן ָק ׁ ֶשה – ּ ְפטו ִּרים ֵמ ֵר‬
Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which was taught in the
.‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״ו ִּמ ֵ ּגז ְּכ ָב ַ ׂשי יִ ְת ַח ָּמם״‬,‫ַה ֵ ּגז‬ school of Rabbi Yishmael. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael
taught: In the case of sheep whose wool is hard,h the owner is
exempt from the first sheared wool, as it is stated: “And he was
warmed with the shearing of my sheep” ( Job 31:20). Since hard
wool does not provide warmth, the mitzva of the first sheared wool
does not apply to this wool.

‫ֹוטף ֶאת‬ ֵ ‫ גּ ֹוזֵ ז ֶאת ָה ִעּזִ ים וְ ׁש‬:‫ָּתנֵי ֲח ָדא‬ § It is taught in one baraita: If one shears goats, or washes sheep,
‫ ַהגּ ֹוזֵ ז ֶאת‬: ְ‫ וְ ַתנְיָא ִא ָידך‬,‫ָה ְר ֵח ִלים – ּ ָפטוּר‬ which causes some of their wool to be detached, he is exempt from
the obligation of first sheared wool with regard to this wool. And it
!‫ֹוטף ֶאת ָה ְר ֵח ִלים – ַחּיָ יב‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ׁש‬,‫ָה ִעּזִ ים – ּ ָפטוּר‬
is taught in another baraita: One who shears goats is exempt but
.‫יֹוסי‬
ֵ ‫ ָהא – ַר ָ ּבנַן וְ ָהא – ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ one who washes the sheep is obligated to separate the first sheared
wool from the wool that was washed off. The Gemara resolves this
apparent contradiction: It is not difficult, as this baraita, which
requires one to separate the first sheared wool from the washed-off
wool, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that
baraita, which exempts the washed off wool, is in accordance with
the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

ּ ‫״ל ֶקט ְקצִ ְירךָ ״ – וְ ל ֹא ֶל ֶקט ִק‬

.‫יטוּף‬ ֶ :‫ דְּ ַתנְיָא‬The Gemara cites the source of this dispute. As it is taught in a
‫ ֵאין ֶל ֶקט ֶא ָּלא ַה ָ ּבא ֵמ ֲח ַמת‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬baraita with regard to the verse: “And when you reap the harvest of
ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬
your land, you shall not completely remove the corner of your field
.‫ָקצִ יר‬
when you reap, and you shall not gather the gleaning of your harvest;
you shall leave them for the poor” (Leviticus 23:22). The phrase “the
gleaning of your harvest” indicates that only such a gleaning is
included, and not gleaning from picking.h If one picks the crop by
hand rather than harvesting it using agricultural tools, he is exempt
from the mitzva to leave the gleanings for the poor. Rabbi Yosei
says: Gleanings are only those that come due to harvesting using
agricultural tools.

halakha
A matter fit for Temple service – ‫דָּ ָבר ָה ָראוּי ְל ׁ ֵשירוּת‬: The mitzva of The gleaning of your harvest and not gleaning from picking –
the first sheared wool applies only to male and female sheep, as ‫ל ֶקט ְקצִ ְירךָ וְ ל ֹא ֶל ֶקט ִק ּיטוּף‬:ֶ If one harvests without a scythe, whatever
derived by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot falls from his hand is not classified as gleanings. If one picks by
Bikkurim 10:4; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:2). hand those crops that are usually picked by hand, whatever falls
from his hands is considered gleanings, as stated by Rabbi Yosei
Sheep whose wool is hard, etc. – ‫כ ָב ִ ׂשים ׁ ֶש ַ ּצ ְמ ָרן ָק ׁ ֶשה וכו׳‬:ְּ If a (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim 4:2).
sheep’s wool is hard and unfit to be worn, the obligation of the
first sheared wool does not apply to it, as taught by the school
of Rabbi Yishmael (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:4;
Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:2).

376 Ĥullin . perek XI . 137a . ‫זלק ףד‬. ‫א״י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫יֹוסי ַהיְ ינ ּו ַּת ָּנא ַק ָּמא! ּכו ָּּל ּה ַר ִ ּבי‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this baraita: The opinion of
Rabbi Yosei is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. The Garden beds of onions that are among the vegetables,
‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ַר ִ ּבי‬:‫ וְ ָה ִכי ָק ָתנֵי‬,‫יֹוסי ִהיא‬
ֵ etc. – ‫מ ְל ְ ּבנֹות ְ ּבצָ ִלים ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין ַהּיָ ָרק וכו׳‬:ַ With regard to garden beds
Gemara explains: The entire baraita is in accordance with the
.‫ֵאין ֶל ֶקט ֶא ָּלא ַה ָ ּבא ֵמ ֲח ַמת ָקצִ יר‬ of onions that are situated among vegetables, one leaves pe’a
opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and this is what the baraita is teaching: from one garden bed for all of the others, despite the fact that
The phrase “the gleaning of your harvest” teaches that crops picked the vegetables divide the onions into individual garden beds.
by hand are exempt from the mitzva, as Rabbi Yosei says: Glean- This ruling is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis
ings are only those that come due to harvesting. The Gemara (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim 3:10).
infers that just as Rabbi Yosei interprets the term “harvest” as
exempting crops that were picked by hand, so too he derives from
the term “shearing” that the mitzva of the first sheared wool does
not apply to fleece that was washed off. The Rabbis, who disagree
with Rabbi Yosei with regard to the gleanings, likewise disagree
with regard to the first sheared wool.

‫יה דְּ ָר ָבא ְל ַרב‬

ּ ‫יה ַרב ַא ָחא ְ ּב ֵר‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rav Aĥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Rabbi Yosei concedes
.‫יה‬
ּ ‫אֹור ֵח‬
ְ ְּ‫יֹוסי ְ ּב ִמ ֵידי ד‬
ֵ ‫מֹודה ַר ִ ּבי‬
ֶ :‫ַא ׁ ִשי‬ that the mitzva of gleanings applies to a case where the usual man-
ner of harvesting is by picking, as it is taught in a baraita with
‫״קצִ יר״ – ֵאין‬ ְ :‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ֵ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬
regard to the verse cited above that Rabbi Yosei says: From the
ֵ ,‫ִלי ֶא ָּלא ָקצִ יר‬
?‫עֹוקר ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬ term “harvest” I have derived only the obligation of gleanings
with regard to harvest. From where do I derive the obligation of
gleanings with regard to one who uproots the crop?

?‫ ּת ֵֹול ׁש ִמ ּנַיִ ן‬,‫״ל ְקצֹר״‬ ִ :‫לֹומר‬

ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬The verse states: “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you
.‫״ב ֻקצְ ֶרךָ ״‬ ַ ‫ ַּת ְלמוּד‬shall not completely remove the corner of your field by reaping,
ּ ְ :‫לֹומר‬
and you shall not gather the gleaning of your harvest” (Leviticus
19:9). The superfluous term “by reaping” includes uprooting the
crop. From where is it derived that the obligation extends to one
who picked the crop by hand? The verse states: “When you reap”
(Leviticus 23:22), which is also superfluous. It is derived from here
that the mitzva applies to all ways of gathering the crop, provided
they are the usual manner of harvesting that particular crop.

‫ ַאף ֲאנַן‬,‫יה ָר ִבינָ א ְל ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Ravina said to Ravi Ashi: We learn as well in a mishna (Pe’a 3:4)
‫ ַמ ְל ְ ּבנֹות ְ ּבצָ ִלים ׁ ֶש ֵ ּבין‬:‫נַ ִמי ְּתנֵינָ א‬ that discusses the mitzva to leave produce in the corner of the field
for the poor [pe’a]: If one has garden beds of onionsn that are
‫ ּ ֵפ ָאה ִמ ָּכל‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ַהּיָ ָרק – ַר ִ ּבי‬
among the vegetables,hn Rabbi Yosei says that one leaves separate
‫ ֵמ ַא ַחת‬:‫אֹומ ִרים‬
ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים‬,‫ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬ pe’a from each and every one of the beds. And the Rabbis say that
.‫ַעל ַה ּכֹל‬ one leaves pe’a from one garden bed for all of them. This indicates
that Rabbi Yosei concedes that one is obligated to leave pe’a and
gleanings from onions, despite the fact that they are picked by hand
rather than harvested with tools. The reason is that this is the usual
manner of gathering onions.

notes
Garden beds of onions, etc. – ‫מ ְל ְ ּבנֹות ְ ּבצָ ִלים וכו׳‬:ַ The Jerusalem That are among the vegetables – ‫ש ֵ ּבין ַהּיָ ָרק‬:ֶ ׁ The obligation
Talmud (Pe’a 4:1) explains Rabbi Yosei’s ruling: Since people of pe’a does not apply to vegetables, in accordance with the
generally do not plant onions among vegetables, this is not ruling of a mishna (Pe’a 1:4) that the mitzva of pe’a applies
considered a single bed of onions. Some commentaries explain only when five conditions are fulfilled: First, the produce must
that because the mitzva of pe’a does not apply to vegetables be fit for human consumption, which excludes certain types
(see following note), according to Rabbi Yosei their presence of grass that are eaten only occasionally. Second, it must be
therefore causes the onions, to which the obligation of pe’a protected, which excludes ownerless crops. Third, it must grow
does apply, to be divided into separate garden beds. The Rab- from the ground, which excludes mushrooms, which draw their
bis reason in the opposite manner: Because the mitzva of pe’a sustenance from the air and not from the ground. Fourth, the
does not apply to the vegetables, their presence is ignored with produce must be gathered at one time, which excludes types
regard to pe’a, and therefore the onion beds are considered like of fruit that are gathered throughout an extended period, e.g.,
a single bed (Arukh). This latter explanation is in accordance figs, which do not ripen all together. Finally, it must be possible
with the Jerusalem Talmud’s ruling that only a species to which to store the produce for a prolonged period. This excludes
the obligation of pe’a applies causes produce to be separated vegetables, which rot quickly and therefore cannot be stored
into different fields with regard to the obligation of pe’a (see for protracted lengths of time (Pesaĥim 56b). Since onions and
also Melekhet Shlomo). garlic can be stored for lengthy periods, the obligation of pe’a
does apply to them (Rashi).

 ‫זלק ףד‬. ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 137a 377

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
– ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ֵבית ׁ ַש ַּמאי‬.‫ § ״וְ ַכ ָּמה הוּא ְמרו ֶ ּּבה״‬The mishna states: And how many is numerous? Beit Shammai
According to your reasoning…isn’t one animal
obligated – ‫יחּיְ ָיבא‬
ַ ‫ְ…ח ָדא ִמי ָלא ִמ‬
ֲ ‫ל ַט ֲע ִמיך‬:ְ The later
‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ֵבית ִה ֵּלל‬,‫יקר ּו ״צֹאן״‬ ְ ‫ ַּת ְר ֵּתי נַ ִמי ִא‬say: It is at least two sheep, and Beit Hillel say: It is at least five sheep.
The Gemara objects: Granted, according to the opinion of Beit
commentaries are puzzled by this question: If the ?‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא‬
verse is referring to the first sheared wool and the Shammai, two sheep are also called tzon, as in the verse cited by
gifts of the priesthood, as initially suggested accord- Beit Shammai: “That a man shall rear a young cow and two sheep
ing to the opinion of Beit Hillel, one can understand [tzon]” (Isaiah 7:21). Since the mitzva of the first sheared wool is
why the verse specifies five sheep, because if there written with regard to tzon, it is logical that it applies to two sheep.
are less than five then one of the mitzvot, the first But what is the reasoning of Beit Hillel, who hold that the mitzva
sheared wool, does not apply. But according to the applies only to five sheep, due to the verse: “And five sheep [tzon]
suggestion that the two mitzvot are the firstborn
and the gifts of the priesthood, why does the verse
made” (I Samuel 25:18)? Why do they not apply the obligation using
specify five sheep? After all, these two mitzvot the broader criterion of two sheep, as the verse quoted by Beit
already apply to a single sheep. Clearly, the first inter- Shammai clearly indicates that two sheep are also called tzon?
pretation is preferable. The commentaries therefore
explain the question as follows: One cannot say that – ‫״ע ׂש ּויֹות״‬ ֲ ‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ָּכ ֲהנָ א‬Rav Kahana said: The verse states: “Five sheep made [asuyot],” in
the term “made [asuyot]” means that two mitzvot .‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז ו ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬ ׂ ‫ ׁ ֶש‬plural. The plural form indicates that two mitzvot have been made,
ִ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬,‫עֹושֹות ׁ ְש ֵּתי ִמצְ �ות‬
were performed with them, as one of the mitzvot i.e., performed, with them. The two mitzvot are the first sheared
was obligatory with even less than five sheep. There-
!‫כֹורה ו ַּמ ָּתנֹות‬
ָ ‫ ְ ּב‬:‫ימא‬ָ ‫ֵא‬
wool and the gifts of the priesthood, a mitzva that applies to a single
fore, the Gemara suggests a different interpretation animal. If the two mitzvot have been performed only when there
of the verse.
are five sheep, evidently the mitzva of the first sheared wool applies
Statements of the Torah…texts of the tradition only to five sheep. The Gemara asks: Why can’t one say that the two
[kabbala] – ‫ה…ק ָ ּב ָלה‬
ַ ‫תֹור‬
ָ ‫דִּ ְב ֵרי‬: Rashi explains that mitzvot are the firstborn animal and the gifts of the priesthood?
the term Torah refers to the five books of Moses.
The word Torah means teaching, and the five books ,‫יך‬
ְ ‫יחּיְ ָיבא? ו ְּל ַט ֲע ִמ‬ ַ ‫ ֲח ָדא ִמי ָלא ִמ‬,‫כֹורה‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב‬ The Gemara answers: The other mitzva cannot be the firstborn
are called by this name because they are a divine
‫יחּיְ ָיבא? ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר‬ ַ ‫ַמ ָּתנֹות – ֲח ָדא ִמי ָלא ִמ‬ animal, as with regard to the firstborn, isn’t one animal obligated,
teaching for all generations. The Prophets and
i.e., doesn’t one animal render its owner obligated? Yet the verse
Writings are called kabbala, which literally means: ֶ ‫״ע ׂשוּיֹות״ – ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַע ּ ׂשֹות ֶאת ַ ּב ֲע ֵל‬
‫יהן‬ ֲ :‫ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי‬
Received, because they are prophecies received for states that one performs the two mitzvot only with five sheep. The
.‫ קוּם ֲע ֵ ׂשה ִמצְ וָ ה‬:‫אֹומרֹות לֹו‬ ְ ְ‫ו‬ Gemara asks: And according to your reasoning, with regard to the
the requirements of the time and the generation
(Rashi). Elsewhere Rashi writes that the term kabbala gifts of the priesthood, isn’t one animal obligated,n i.e., doesn’t one
refers specifically to commands of a prophet to the animal render its owner obligated? Rather, Rav Ashi says: The term
people, but the narrative portions of the books of the “made” should be understood as meaning that five sheep make their
Prophets are not referred to as kabbala (Ta’anit 15a).
owner perform the first sheared wool and figuratively say to him:
Stand and fulfill a mitzva, whereas less than five sheep do not
obligate their owner in the mitzva of first sheared wool.

‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫יֹוסי‬ ֵ ‫ ַּתנְ יָ א דְּ ֵבי ַר ִ ּבי יִ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵעאל ְ ּב ַר ִ ּבי‬It was taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, son of
‫ ׁ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר ״וְ ַא ְר ַ ּבע צֹאן‬,‫ ַא ְר ַ ּבע‬:‫ ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ָא ִביו‬Rabbi Yosei, that he says in the name of his father: The obligation
of the first sheared wool applies to one who owns four sheep, since
.‫ַּת ַחת ַה ּ ֶ ׂשה״‬
a verse calls four sheep tzon, as it is stated: “If a man steals an ox or
a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and
four sheep [tzon] for a sheep” (Exodus 21:37).

‫יהן דִּ ְב ֵרי‬ ֶ ‫ ִא ְל ָמ ֵלא דִּ ְב ֵר‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ַּתנְ יָ א‬ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Had their
‫יבי‬
ּ ִ ‫יבי ַק ָ ּב ָלה – ֲאנַן דִּ ְב ֵרי ְ ּב ִר‬ּ ִ ‫תֹורה וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ְ ּב ִר‬ ָ statements, i.e., the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, been
based on statements of the Torah, and the statement of the Dis-
,‫יהם דִּ ְב ֵרי ַק ָ ּב ָלה‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵּכן ׁ ֶשדִּ ְב ֵר‬.‫ֹומ ִעין‬ ְ ‫ׁש‬
tinguished One [Beribbi],l Rabbi Yosei, based on the texts of the
.‫תֹורה‬ ָ ‫יבי דִּ ְב ֵרי‬ ּ ִ ‫וְ ִד ְב ֵרי ְ ּב ִר‬ tradition [kabbala],n the Prophets and Writings, even so we would
listen to the statement of the Distinguished One, Rabbi Yosei. All
the more so now that their statements are based on texts of the
tradition, as both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel derived their rulings
from verses from the Prophets, while the statement of the Distin-
guished One, Rabbi Yosei, is based on the statements of the Torah.

!‫ישית ַמ ְכ ַר ַעת‬
ִ ׁ ‫ ֵאין ַה ְכ ָר ָעה ׁ ְש ִל‬:‫ וְ ָה ָא ַמר ָמר‬The Gemara objects: But didn’t the Master say: The decision of a
third opinion that compromises between the first two opinions is
not considered decisive if it is based on considerations that were
not mentioned by the other two opinions. Although Rabbi Yosei’s
opinion is a compromise between the opinions of Beit Shammai
and Beit Hillel, it is based on a different source.

language
Distinguished One [Beribbi] – ‫יבי‬ּ ִ ‫ב ִר‬:ּ ְ The appellation Beribbi origi- term was used irrespective of whether or not the Sage in question
nated as an abbreviated form of the term ben rabbi, son of a rabbi. was actually the son of another great Sage. Sometimes the term
Already during the tannaitic period, the term was used as an hon- Beribbi was used in reference to a great Sage without mentioning
orific title appended to the name of an important Sage, acquiring his name, as in the Gemara here.
the meaning of: Son of great men, or: Son of Sages. In this sense, the

378 Ĥullin . perek XI . 137a . ‫זלק ףד‬. ‫א״י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek XI
Daf 137 Amud b
halakha
‫ ִמ ּ ִפי‬,‫ ִמ ּ ִפי ׁ ְשמו ָּעה ֲא ָמ ָר ּה‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabbi Yoĥanan says in response: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted
One hundred dinars and half of one hundred dinars
.‫ ַח ַ ּגי זְ ַכ ְריָ ה ו ַּמ ְל ָא ִכי‬Rabbi Yosei’s opinion not because it was a compromise, but rather provided that they are divided equally between the five
because he said it according to a tradition he had from the sheep – ‫מנֶ ה ו ְּפ ָרס ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשּיְ ה ּו ְמחו ָּּמ ׁשֹות‬:ָ How many sheep
prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.n must one own in order to be obligated in the first sheared
wool? One must own no less than five sheep, as stated
‫ וְ ַכ ָּמה‬.‫אֹומר״ וכו׳‬ ֵ ‫ֹוסא ֶ ּבן ָה ְר ִּכינָס‬ ָ ּ‫ַ״ר ִ ּבי ד‬ § The mishna states: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says n
that the by Beit Hillel, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, and the Rabbis.
‫ ו ִּב ְל ַבד‬,‫ ָמנֶ ה ו ְּפ ָרס‬:‫״כל ׁ ֶש ֵהן״? ָא ַמר ַרב‬ ָּ mitzva of the first sheared wool applies to five sheep, each of whose The total weight of their shearing must be no less than
shearing weighs one hundred and fifty dinars, whereas the Rabbis sixty sela, and the shearing of each sheep at least twelve
,‫ ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬:‫ ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬.‫ׁ ֶשּיְה ּו ְמחו ָּּמ ׁשֹות‬ sela, in accordance with the opinion of Rav and Shmuel.
say: Five sheep, each of whose shearing is any amount. The Gemara
.‫נֹותן ֶס ַלע ַא ַחת ַל ּכ ֵֹהן‬ֵ ְ‫ו‬ asks: And how much is signified by the phrase: Any amount? Rav If the shearing from one sheep is less than twelve sela
one is exempt from the first sheared wool, even though
says: It is a total weight of one hundred dinars [maneh] and half
the total weight of the shearing is sixty sela or more, as
of one hundred dinars [peras],n provided that they are divided stated by Rav. Although Shmuel disagrees, the halakha
equally between the five sheep.hn And Shmuel says: It is a total is in accordance with Rav with regard to ritual matters
weight of sixty sela, of which he gives the weight of one sela to the (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 10:1; Shulĥan Arukh,
priest. Yoreh De’a 333:9).

,‫ ׁ ֵש ׁש‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ ַר ָ ּבה ַ ּבר ַ ּבר ָחנָ ה ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬Rabba bar bar Ĥana says that Rabbi Yoĥanan says: It is a total
‫ עו ָּּלא ָא ַמר‬.‫ וְ ֶא ָחד – לֹו‬,‫ ַל ּכ ֵֹהן – ֲח ִמ ׁ ּ ָשה‬weight of six sela, of which he gives to the priest the weight of five
sela, and he leaves one sela for himself. Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar
.ּ‫״כל ׁ ֶש ֵהן״ ׁ ָשנִינו‬
ָּ :‫ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר‬
says: We learned in the mishna that according to the Rabbis the
obligation of the first sheared wool applies to any amount, even if
the total weight is only one sela.

‫נֹותן לֹו – ִמ ׁ ְש ַקל ָח ֵמ ׁש ְס ָל ִעים‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ַכ ָּמה‬:‫ְּתנַן‬ We learned in the mishna (135a): And how much does one give
.‫ ׁ ֶש ֵהן ֶע ֶ ׂשר ְס ָל ִעים ַ ּב ָ ּג ִליל‬,‫ִ ּביה ּו ָדה‬ to the priest? One gives him sheared wool of the weight of five
sela in Judea, which are the equivalent of ten sela in the Galilee.
‫ ֶא ָּלא‬,‫נִיחא‬ ָ – ‫יֹוחנָן‬ ָ ‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ְל ַרב וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬
Granted, according to the opinions of Rav and Rabbi Yoĥanan,
!‫ִל ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל וְ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ָעזָ ר ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ the mishna works out well, as their statements do not contradict
the mishna. Rav does not discuss the amount one is required to
give the priest, and Rabbi Yoĥanan states that one gives the priest
five sela. But according to Shmuel and Rabbi Elazar, the mishna
is difficult, as Shmuel states that one is required to give one sela,
while Rabbi Elazar states that the obligation of the first sheared
wool applies even for a weight of less than five sela.

‫נִיחא? וְ ָהא ַרב‬

ָ ‫ ו ְּל ַרב ִמי‬,‫יך‬ ְ ‫יט ֲע ִמ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִל‬The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, does it
‫אשית‬ִ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬:ּ‫ ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהו‬work out well according to the opinion of Rav? But Rav and
Shmuel both say that the first sheared wool given to the priest is
!‫ַה ֵ ּגז ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬
one part in sixty.n Rav holds that the weight of one hundred and
fifty dinars renders one obligated in the first sheared wool, and
one-sixtieth of this weight is less than one sela. Therefore, Rav’s
opinion is also not in accordance with the mishna.

notes
From the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi – ‫ִמ ּ ִפי ַח ַ ּגי‬ use the term: Any amount, this is an exaggeration (Rashi) The first sheared wool given to the priest is one part in
‫זְ ַכ ְריָה ו ַּמ ְל ָא ִכי‬: Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who lived at the that serves to emphasize that in comparison to the amount sixty – ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬
ִ ׁ ‫ר‬:ֵ Some commentaries hold that by
beginning of the Second Temple period, were the last prophets. mentioned by Rabbi Dosa, the amount stated by the Rabbis is Torah law there is no fixed amount that one must give as the first
They were also members of the Great Assembly, which insti- relatively small: Rabbi Dosa holds that one is obligated only if sheared wool, as the Torah states simply: “The first sheared wool”
tuted ordinances to ensure the continued observance of the the shearing of each sheep weighs one hundred and fifty dinars, (Deuteronomy 18:4), without indicating a specific amount. The
Torah (see Rashi on Sukka 44a). whereas the Rabbis maintain that the obligation applies if the measure of one-sixtieth stated by Rav and Shmuel applies by
total weight of the fleece is one hundred and fifty dinars. Nev- rabbinic law (Minĥat Ĥinnukh). Similarly, the mishna (Pe’a 1:1)
Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says, etc. – ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ֹוסא ֶ ּבן ָה ְר ִּכינָס‬
ָ ּ‫ַר ִ ּבי ד‬
ertheless, as explained in the previous note, the Ramban holds states that by Torah law the mitzva of pe’a has no measure,
‫וכו׳‬: Some early commentaries explain that according to Rabbi
that there is no significant difference between the opinions of and the Sages instituted a measure of one-sixtieth, again as
Dosa ben Harkinas, the mitzva of the first sheared wool applies
Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis, as Rabbi Dosa holds that the first stated by Rav and Shmuel. Other commentaries raise a difficulty
to five sheep whose shearing has a total weight of twice one
sheared wool applies to fleece weighing three hundred dinars with this opinion: If by Torah law the first sheared wool has no
hundred and fifty dinars. Rabbi Dosa does not say simply: Three
in total, and Shmuel states that the Rabbis apply the mitzva to measure, why is it not included in the list of mitzvot that have
hundred dinars, because the sheep are sheared twice a year,
sixty sela, which are 240 dinars. no measure (Pe’a 1:1)? They therefore claim that with regard to
and the phrase: Twice one hundred and fifty dinars, teaches that
the first sheared wool, the measure of one-sixtieth applies by
the two portions of shearing combine to form the minimum Provided that they are divided equally between the five
Torah law, although the source from which the Sages derived
amount. Furthermore, even when one shears the sheep several sheep – ‫ו ִּב ְל ַבד ׁ ֶשּיְה ּו ְמחו ָּּמ ׁשֹות‬: According to some commentar-
this halakha is unknown (Yosef Da’at). Similarly, with regard to
times, each time by a small amount, if by the end of the year the ies, Shmuel disagrees with Rav only with regard to the amount
the dispute mentioned earlier between Rabbi Dosa and the
shearing accumulates to the required amount, one is obligated of shearing that renders one obligated in the first sheared wool,
Rabbis as to the amount of shearing that renders one obligated
to separate the first sheared wool from it all (Ramban, based but he concedes that the requisite amount must be divided
in the mitzva, Tosafot state that the source of each opinion is
on Tosefta). equally between the five sheep (Kesef Mishne). Others maintain
unknown (Tosafot on Bava Batra 150a).
that Shmuel disagrees on this point as well, since he holds that
Rav says a total weight of one hundred dinars and half of there is no need for the total weight of sixty sela to be divided
one hundred dinars – ‫א ַמר ַרב ָמנֶ ה ו ְּפ ָרס‬:ָ Although the Rabbis equally between the sheep (Beit Yosef; Gra; Lev Arye).

 ‫זלק ףד‬: ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 137b 379

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
‫ ַרב ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬,‫ית ַמר ֲע ָל ּה דְּ ַה ִהיא‬ ְ ‫ָהא ִא‬ The Gemara answers: It was stated with regard to that mishna that
Pile [keri] – ‫כ ִרי‬:ְּ The word keri denotes the heap into Rav and Shmuel both say: The five sela stated in the mishna is not
which the grain is piled after harvest, as does the ‫ ְ ּביִ ְ ׂש ָר ֵאל ׁ ֶשּיֵ ׁש לֹו ִ ּגיּזִ ין‬:ּ‫דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יהו‬
referring to the total amount given from the sheared wool. Rather,
Aramaic karya. After it is stacked, the pile of grain is ,‫יתנָ ן ַל ּכ ֵֹהן‬ ְּ ‫ ּו ְמ ַב ֵ ּק ׁש ִל‬,‫ַה ְר ֵ ּבה ָע ְס ִקינַ ן‬
smoothed and evened out with a special tool, at which in the mishna we are dealing with a Jew who has a large amount
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ ָּכל ַחד וְ ַחד ָלא ִּת ְבצַ ר ֵל‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ָא ְמ ִרינַן ֵל‬ of shearing, and he wishes to give them to the priest, i.e., to several
point the owner is obligated to separate teruma and
tithes from the grain. .‫ֵמ ֲח ֵמ ׁ ֶשת ְס ָל ִעים‬ priests. And we say to him: With regard to each and every one of
the priests, do not give him less than five sela. But if one has only
notes a small amount of shearing, he gives the priest one-sixtieth of the
These are matters that have no measure – ‫ֵאלּ ּו דְּ ָב ִרים‬ shearing, even if it is less than five sela.
‫ש ֵאין ָל ֶהן ׁ ִשיעוּר‬:
ֶ ׁ The term: These, indicates that only
these mitzvot have no measure, whereas other mitzvot :‫ ַרב ּו ׁ ְשמ ּו ֵאל דְּ ָא ְמ ִרי ַּת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו‬,‫ § גּ ּו ָפא‬The Gemara mentioned a ruling of Rav and Shmuel with regard
do have a requisite measure. The Jerusalem Talmud ִ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬to the amount that one is required to give as the first sheared wool.
,‫ ְּתרו ָּמה – ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז – ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬
at the beginning of tractate Pe’a discusses the reason The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav and Shmuel both say:
why the mishna does not list other mitzvot that have .‫ּ ֵפ ָאה – ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬
The first sheared wool given to the priest is one part of sixty. Like-
no measure, e.g., teruma, in accordance with the state-
wise, the amount one is required to separate as teruma is one part
ment of Shmuel here that by Torah law it is sufficient
to separate one grain of wheat as teruma. It explains of sixty, and the amount one must leave in his field as pe’a is one
that although teruma has no minimum measure, it has part of sixty.
a maximum measure, as one may not declare that his
entire granary is teruma, as noted earlier (136b). The ,‫ ְּתרו ָּמה‬:‫ ְּתרו ָּמה ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים? וְ ָהא ֲאנַ ן ְּתנַ ן‬The Gemara asks: Is the amount one is required to separate as
commentaries add other mitzvot that have no measure, ‫יתא‬ ַ ְּ‫ ַעיִ ן יָ ָפה – ֶא ָחד ֵמ ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים! ד‬teruma one part of sixty? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Terumot
ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
and they explain why those mitzvot are not discussed 4:3): With regard to the measure one should separate as teruma, if
by the Jerusalem Talmud: The mitzva to honor one’s
.‫ דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן ְ ּב ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬,‫ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬
one is of generous disposition he gives one-fortieth.h The Gemara
parents has no measure, but it is included in the general answers: By Torah law, it is sufficient to give one part of sixty; by
mitzva of acts of loving-kindness, which is listed in the
rabbinic law the requisite amount is one part of forty.
mishna (Rabbi Shimshon of Saens). The peace offering
of rejoicing is not listed, because it is consumed by its
:‫יתא ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים? וְ ָה ָא ַמר ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬ַ ְּ‫ד‬ The Gemara asks: Is the measure of teruma by Torah law one part
owner. The prohibition against rounding the hair on
the sides of one’s head is not listed, because although – ‫אֹוריְ ָיתא‬
ַ ְּ‫ֹוט ֶרת ֶאת ַה ְּכ ִרי! ד‬ ֶ ‫ִח ָּטה ַא ַחת ּפ‬ of sixty? But doesn’t Shmuel say: By Torah law, even one grain of
wheat given as teruma exempts the entire pile [keri]l of grain?h The
one must leave hair on the side of the head, one may ‫יתא – ַא ַחת‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ‫ דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן ִ ּב ְד‬.‫ְּכ ִד ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬
leave any amount of hair (Melekhet Shlomo). The sin Gemara answers: By Torah law the measure is as stated by Shmuel,
offering is not listed, because it is undesirable to incur
.‫ דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַן ִ ּב ְד ַר ָ ּבנַן – ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬,‫ֵמ ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ that even one grain of wheat is sufficient. By rabbinic law, with
the obligation to sacrifice a sin offering. The mitzva regard to produce that is obligated in teruma by Torah law the
to relate the story of the exodus on the first night of measure is one-fortieth, whereas by rabbinic law, with regard to
Passover is not listed, because one cannot extend the
produce obligated in teruma by rabbinic law the measure is one part
mitzva beyond the time to recite the morning Shema.
Prayer is not listed, despite the fact that the Rambam of sixty.
holds that this mitzva applies by Torah law, because
prayer also has a measure: One must leave time to ‫ ֵאלּ ּו דְּ ָב ִרים ׁ ֶש ֵאין‬:‫ּ ֵפ ָאה ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים? וְ ָה ְתנַן‬ Rav and Shmuel said above that the amount one is required to leave
study Torah and fulfill other mitzvot (Mishna Rishona). !‫ וְ ָה ֵר ָאיֹון‬,‫ וְ ַה ִ ּב ּכו ִּרים‬,‫ ַה ּ ֵפ ָאה‬:‫ָל ֶהן ׁ ִשיעוּר‬ in his field as pe’a is one part out of sixty. The Gemara raises a dif-
ficulty: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Pe’a 1:1): These are the
– ‫ דְּ ַר ָ ּבנַ ן‬,‫יתא – ֵאין ָל ּה ׁ ִשיע ּור‬ ָ ְ‫אֹורי‬
ַ ְּ‫ד‬
matters, i.e., mitzvot, that have no measure:n Pe’a, and the first
.‫ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬ fruits,h and the burnt offering of appearancebh sacrificed on the
background
Burnt offering of appearance – ‫ר ָאיֹון‬:ֵ This refers to pilgrimage Festivals. The Gemara answers: By Torah law, pe’a has
the burnt offering that one is obligated to sacrifice on no fixed measure; by rabbinic law the measure is one part of sixty.
each of the three pilgrimage Festivals. It is prohibited to
come to the Temple on these Festivals empty-handed
(Deuteronomy 16:16–17). In addition to the burnt offer-
ing, one is also required to sacrifice a peace offering,
known as the Festival peace offering, part of which is
consumed by the owner.

halakha
With regard to teruma if one is of generous disposition he gives Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 3:1; see also Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh
one-fortieth – ‫תרו ָּמה ַעיִ ן יָ ָפה ֶא ָחד ֵמ ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬:ְּ The Sages set fixed De’a 331:19).
measures for the amount that one should separate as teruma:
First fruits – ‫ב ּכו ִּרים‬:ּ ִ The first fruits have no measure by Torah law.
One who is generous gives one-fortieth, one of average disposi-
By rabbinic law, one must separate one-sixtieth of his produce as
tion gives one-fiftieth, and one who is miserly gives no less than
first fruits. If one wishes to consecrate the produce of his entire
one-sixtieth, as stated in the mishna in tractate Terumot (Rambam
field as first fruits he may do so, as stated in the mishna in tractate
Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Terumot 3:2).
Pe’a 1:1 (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Bikkurim 2:17).
One grain of wheat given as teruma exempts the entire pile – Burnt offering of appearance – ‫ר ָאיֹון‬:ֵ The burnt offering of
ֶ ‫ח ָּטה ַא ַחת ּפ‬:ִ By Torah law there is no minimal amount
‫ֹוט ֶרת ֶאת ַה ְּכ ִרי‬ appearance and the Festival peace offering have no measure by
that must be separated as teruma, as the verse states: “The first Torah law, in accordance with the verse: “Every man shall give as
fruits of your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4), which can be any amount, he is able” (Deuteronomy 16:17). The Sages instituted an ordinance
even a single grain of wheat from an entire pile of grain, as stated that the burnt offering of appearance should be worth no less
by Shmuel. Nevertheless, one should separate the measure set than one silver ma’a, and the Festival peace offering at least two
by the Sages ab initio. Today, when everyone is considered in a silver ma’a. Although this is the minimum measure, it is a mitzva to
state of ritual impurity and therefore teruma is burned rather than bring offerings as befitting one’s means (Rambam Sefer Korbanot,
consumed, one should separate a single grain ab initio (Rambam Hilkhot Ĥagiga 1:2).

380 Ĥullin . perek XI . 137b . ‫זלק ףד‬: ‫א״י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
ֲ ‫ ֵאין ּפ‬:‫ַמאי ָקא ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן? ָּתנֵינָ א‬
‫ֹוח ִתין‬ The Gemara asks: What is the statement of Rav and Shmuel teaching
us? We already learn in the subsequent mishna (Pe’a 1:2): One should Pe’a has no measure – ‫פ ָאה ֵאין ָל ּה ׁ ִשיעוּר‬:ֵ ּ The mitzva
‫ ַאף ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ָא ְמר ּו‬,‫ְל ֵפ ָאה ִמ ׁ ּ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬ of pe’a has no measure by Torah law; if one leaves
not give for pe’a less than one part of sixty, even though they said
,‫ַה ּ ֵפ ָאה ֵאין ָל ּה ׁ ִשיעוּר! ָה ָתם – ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬ even a single stalk he has fulfilled his obligation. By
that the mitzva of pe’a has no measure.h The Gemara answers: The rabbinic law its measure is no less than one-sixtieth of
.‫ָה ָכא – ְ ּבחוּצָ ה ָל ָא ֶרץ‬ mishna there is referring to the obligation to leave pe’a in Eretz Yisrael, the produce, both within and outside of Eretz Yisrael.
whereas here, the statement of Rav and Shmuel is referring to the One should add to this one-sixtieth in accordance
obligation of pe’a outside of Eretz Yisrael.n with the size of the field, the number of poor people,
and the size of the crop with which he is blessed.
How is this done? If one has a very small field, of
)‫יה ְ(ל ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫יסי ַ ּבר ִהינִי ַא ׁ ְש ְּכ ֵח‬
ִ ‫ִּכי ְס ֵליק ִא‬ § When Isi bar Hini ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi which one-sixtieth is a portion of no consequence,
‫יה‬
ּ ‫יה ִל ְב ֵר‬ ּ ‫יֹוחנָ ן דְּ ָקא ַמ ְתנֵי ֵל‬ ָ ]‫ַ[ר ִ ּבי‬ Yoĥanan found him teaching the mishna to his son. Isi taught that the or if there are many poor people, one should add
obligation of the first sheared wool applies only in the case of sheep to the specified measure. If one sowed little and yet
!‫יה ְ״ר ֵחלֹות״‬ ּ ֵ‫ ַא ְתנִּי‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ְ״ר ֵח ִלים״‬
[reĥelim], the masculine plural form of raĥel, meaning a sheep. Rabbi harvested a large crop, he should likewise add to the
.‫אתיִ ם״‬ ַ ‫ ְּכ ִד ְכ ִתיב ְ״ר ֵח ִלים ָמ‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Yoĥanan said to Isi: You should teach him using the term reĥelot, the measure in accordance with the blessing he received.
‫ ְל ׁשֹון‬,‫ ְל ׁשֹון ּת ָֹורה ְל ַעצְ ָמ ּה‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ feminine plural form. Isi said to him in reply: I teach the mishna in The amount one should add to the minimal require-
ment has no measure, and whoever adds more pe’a
.‫ֲח ָכ ִמים ְל ַעצְ ָמן‬ accordance with that which is written: “Two hundred reĥelim” (Gen-
receives additional reward. This ruling is based upon
esis 32:15). Rabbi Yoĥanan said to Isi: The language of the Torah is the mishna in tractate Pe’a and upon the statement
distinct and the language of the Sages is distinct, i.e., these are like of Rav and Shmuel (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot
two separate languages, and the Sages do not always use the same forms Mattenot Aniyyim 1:15).
that appear in the Bible. In this case, they use reĥelot rather than reĥelim.
background
‫ ַמאן ֵר ׁיש ִס ְד ָרא ְ ּב ָב ֶבל? ֲא ַמר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Rabbi Yoĥanan said to Isi: Who is the head of the yeshiva [reish Head of the yeshiva [reish sidra] – ‫ר ׁיש ִס ְד ָרא‬:ֵ The
‫״א ָ ּבא‬ַ :‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ ַא ָ ּבא ֲא ִר‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫ֵל‬ sidra]b in Babylonia? Isi said to Rabbi Yoĥanan: It is Abba the tall,p ancient title of the head of the yeshiva in Babylonia
i.e., the amora Rav. Rabbi Yoĥanan said to Isi: You call him Abba the was reish sidra, presumably because he would give
‫יה? דָּ ֵכ ְירנָ א ַּכד ֲהוָ ה‬ ּ ‫יכא״ ְק ֵרית ֵל‬ ָ ‫ֲא ִר‬ a discourse on the weekly Torah portion, which is
tall, in such a familiar manner? I remember when I sat seventeen rows
‫יה‬
ּ ‫חֹור‬
ֵ ‫יָ ֵת ְיבנָ א ַא ַחר ׁ ֵשב ֶע ְ ׂש ֵרה ׁשו ָּרן ֲא‬ behind Rav, who sat before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and fiery sparks called a sidra.
‫ וְ נָ ְפ ִקי זִ יקו ִּקין דְּ נוּר‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫דְּ ַרב ַק ֵּמ‬ emerged from the mouth of Rav to the mouth of Rabbi Yehuda
Personalities
‫יה‬ּ ‫ ו ִּמ ּפו ֵּמ‬,‫יה דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫יה דְּ ַרב ְלפו ֵּמ‬ ּ ‫ִמ ּפו ֵּמ‬ HaNasi, and from the mouth of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to the mouth
of Rav, and I did not know what they said, due to the profundity of Abba the tall – ‫א ָ ּבא ֲא ִר ָיכא‬:ַ Abba the tall is a moniker
‫ וְ ֵלית ֲאנָא יָ ַדע ַמה ֵהן‬,‫יה דְּ ַרב‬ ּ ‫דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ְלפו ֵּמ‬ of Rav, founder of the yeshiva in Sura and one of the
!‫יה‬
ּ ‫״א ָ ּבא ֲא ִר ָיכא״ ְק ֵרית ֵל‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַא ְּת‬,‫ָא ְמ ִרין‬ their discussion. And yet you call him Abba the tall? first Babylonian amora’im. His name was Abba bar
Aivu, although he was referred to as Rav because he
was the greatest scholar in the Diaspora. The name
?‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז ְ ּב ַכ ָּמה‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬:ּ‫יה ִאיהו‬ ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ Isi said to Rabbi Yoĥanan: With regard to the first sheared wool, to
Abba the tall is derived from the fact that he was one
‫ וְ ָה ֲאנַ ן‬.‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬:‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ָ ‫יה ַר ִ ּבי‬ּ ‫ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ how much fleece does the mitzva apply? Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: of the tallest men of his time (Nidda 24b).
The first sheared wool applies to fleece weighing sixty sela. Isi asked:
‫ ַמה‬,‫ ִאם ֵּכן‬:‫יה‬ ּ ‫״ב ָכל ׁ ֶש ֵהן״ ְּתנַן? ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ ְּ
But didn’t we learn in the mishna (135a) that the first sheared wool
? ְ‫ֵ ּבין ִלי וָ ָלך‬ applies to any amount of fleece? Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him in reply:
If so, i.e., if the halakha could be understood by a simple reading of
the mishna, what is the difference between my knowledge and yours?
In fact, you know only the mishna’s statement, whereas I know the
halakhic conclusion in this matter.

– ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ֵר‬:‫ימי ֲא ַמר‬ ִ ִּ‫ִּכי ֲא ָתא ַרב ד‬ § When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said:
‫יֹוחנָן ִמ ׁ ּשוּם ַר ִ ּבי‬
ָ ‫ וְ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬:‫ַרב ָא ַמר‬ With regard to the first sheared wool, Rav says that the mitzva applies
to sixty sela, and Rabbi Yoĥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai says
‫יה ַא ַ ּביֵ י ְל ַרב‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ ְ ּב ׁ ֵש ׁש‬:‫יַ ַּנאי ָא ַמר‬
that the mitzva applies to six sela. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: You have
.‫ וְ ַא ְק ׁ ַשת ָלן ֲח ָדא‬,‫ ַאנְ ַחת ָלן ֲח ָדא‬:‫ימי‬ ִ ִּ‫ד‬ made one statement work out well for us, but you have made another
statement difficult for us.

‫יֹוחנָ ן ָלא‬
ָ ‫יֹוחנָ ן ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ָ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬Abaye elaborates: Granted, you have resolved a contradiction between
.‫יה‬ ּ ‫ ָהא – דְּ ַר ֵ ּב‬,‫יה‬ּ ‫ ָהא – דִּ ֵיד‬,‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬two statements of Rabbi Yoĥanan. Rabbi Yoĥanan said above that the
amount of fleece to which the obligation of the first sheared wool
applies is six sela, whereas in his answer to Isi he stated that the amount
is sixty sela. According to Rav Dimi, the apparent contradiction
between one statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan and the other statement of
Rabbi Yoĥanan is not difficult, as this statement is his and that state-
ment is his teacher’s. Rabbi Yoĥanan holds that the obligation applies
to sixty sela, whereas his teacher Rabbi Yannai maintains that it applies
to six sela.

notes
The obligation of pe’a outside of Eretz Yisrael – ‫ִחּיוּב ּ ֵפ ָאה ְ ּבחוּצָ ה‬ poor people available to collect them. The obligation to leave pe’a
‫ל ָא ֶרץ‬:ָ The Rambam writes that according to the Gemara, the mitzva is possibly similar to the obligation to leave gleanings in this regard,
of pe’a applies outside of Eretz Yisrael by rabbinic law (Rambam and although the exact location of Kishar is unknown, it was likely
Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim 1:14). Some commentaries outside of Eretz Yisrael, as the Babylonian amora Rav Sheshet was
explain that the Rambam is referring to the Gemara earlier (134b) consulted (Kesef Mishne). Since the Gemara here explicitly refers to
that relates that Levi sowed crops in a place called Kishar and asked the obligation of pe’a outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is more likely that
Rav Sheshet whether he should leave gleanings, as there were no the Rambam’s ruling is based on this discussion (Torat Ĥayyim).

 ‫זלק ףד‬: ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 137b 381

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

:‫ דְּ ָהא ֲא ַמר ַרב‬,‫ֶא ָּלא דְּ ַרב ַאדְּ ַרב ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ But the contradiction between one statement of Rav and another
,‫ָמנֶ ה ו ְּפ ָרס! דְּ ַרב ַאדְּ ַרב נַ ִמי ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ statement of Rav poses a difficulty, as Rav said that fleece weighing
one hundred dinars [maneh] and half of one hundred dinars
‫״מנֶ ה״ דְּ ָק ָא ַמר – ֶ ּבן ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬ ָ ‫ַמאי‬
[maneh] is obligated in the first sheared wool, whereas Rav Dimi
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬,‫ְס ָל ִעים‬ stated that according to Rav the obligation applies to sixty sela,
which are 240 dinars. The Gemara answers: The apparent contradic-
tion between the one statement of Rav and the other statement of
Rav is also not difficult, as what is the maneh of which Rav said
that a maneh and a half are obligated? Rav was referring not to a
maneh of one hundred dinars but to a maneh of forty sela, i.e., 160
dinars, a maneh and a half of which is

Perek XI
Daf 138 Amud a
notes
ָ ‫ וְ ָתנֵי ַּת ָּנא‬,‫ ְ ּב ׁ ִש ׁ ּ ִשים‬equivalent to the weight of sixty sela, as stated by Rav Dimi. The
‫״מנֶ ה ֶ ּבן ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים‬
To stand to serve, etc. – ‫ל ֲעמֹד ְל ׁ ָש ֵרת וכו׳‬:ַ Rabbi Yehoshua
ben Levi’s inference was cited earlier (137a) with regard to ‫ ַאף‬,‫ ֵח ֶמת ֲח ָד ׁ ָשה‬:‫ וְ ָה ְתנַן‬,‫ ְס ָל ִעים״? ִאין‬Gemara asks: But does a tanna teach that a maneh is of forty sela?
The Gemara answers: Yes; and we learned in the Tosefta (Kelim,
the halakha that the obligation of the first sheared wool ‫הֹורה‬ָ ‫ַעל ּ ִפי ׁ ֶש ְּמ ַק ֶ ּב ֶלת ִר ּמֹונִים – ְט‬
applies only to sheep’s wool, from which the priestly gar- Bava Metzia 6:2): With regard to a new leather flaskb that is not yet
ments are woven. The Gemara here cites this reasoning completely sewn together, even though it can contain pomegran-
with regard to the amount of wool one must give the ates, nevertheless, because it cannot contain liquids it is considered
priest, which was the original subject of Rabbi Yehoshua unfinished and is not susceptible to ritual impurity.
ben Levi’s inference.
Belt – ‫א ְבנֵט‬:ַ The belt was fashioned from four types of ‫ְּת ָפ ָר ּה וְ נִ ְק ְר ָעה – ׁ ִשיע ּו ָר ּה ְּכמֹוצִ יא‬ If one sewed the flask together and it tore, the measure of the tear
threads, each of which was spun from six strands (Yoma :‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫יעזֶ ר ֶ ּבן יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ֶ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי ֱא ִל‬.‫ִר ּמֹונִים‬ that renders the flask no longer susceptible to impurity is a hole large
71b, and see Rashi there). The High Priest’s belt was enough to enable pomegranates to go out, as then it ceases to serve
‫ ַא ַחת ֵמ ַא ְר ַ ּבע ְ ּב ָמנֶ ה‬,‫ִּכ ְפ ָק ִעּיֹות ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְש ִתי‬
embroidered (see Exodus 28:39), as were the belts of as a vessel. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The tear must be like
the common priests, according to some commentar- .‫ֶ ּבן ַא ְר ָ ּב ִעים ְס ָל ִעים‬ the measure of balls of a warp,b the weight of each of which is one-
ies (Ramban; Smag). Others maintain that the belts of quarter of a maneh of forty sela. This tanna explicitly mentions a
common priests were not embroidered (Rambam; Sefer
HaĤinnukh). There was an alcove in the chamber of vest-
maneh of forty sela.
ments marked: Belts, in which the belts were stored.
The belt, which was worn above the tunic, was ‫ ל ֹא ׁ ֶשּיְ ַל ְ ּבנֶ נּ ּו‬:‫ ָּתנָ א‬.‫נֹותן לֹו״ כו׳‬ ֵ ‫ § ״וְ ַכ ָּמה‬The mishna states: And how much of the sheared wool does one
thirty-two cubits in length (Jerusalem Talmud, Yoma 7:3) ‫ ֶא ָּלא ׁ ֶשּיְ ַל ְ ּבנֶ נּ ּו ּכ ֵֹהן וְ יַ ֲעמֹוד ַעל‬,‫ וְ יִ ְּתנֶ נּ ּו לֹו‬give to the priest? One gives him the weight of five sela in Judea,
and three fingerbreadths wide. The priest would wind which are ten sela in the Galilee, once laundered and not when sul-
.‫ָח ֵמ ׁש ְס ָל ִעים‬
the belt around his body several times before tying it lied. The Sages taught: The mishna does not mean that one must
(Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 10:1–2). launder the wool and then give it to the priest; rather, the meaning
Josephus writes that the ends of the belt would dangle is that one must give him enough wool for the priest to launder it
down to the priest’s ankles (Antiquities of the Jews III:7).
and it will amount to five sela.

‫ ְמנָ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי? ֲא ַמר‬.‫ְּכ ֵדי ַל ֲע ׂשֹות ֶ ּבגֶ ד ָק ָטן‬ The mishna states: The measure that must be given to the priest is
‫״ל ֲעמֹד‬
ַ ‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬:‫הֹוש ַע ֶ ּבן ֵלוִ י‬ ֻ ׁ ְ‫ַר ִ ּבי י‬ enough to fashion a small garment from it. The Gemara asks:
From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi
‫ ַמאי‬,‫ְל ׁ ָש ֵרת״ – דָּ ָבר ׁ ֶשהוּא ָראוּי ְל ׁ ֵשירוּת‬
said: The verse that follows the mention of the first sheared wool
.‫נִיה ּו – ַא ְבנֵט‬ states: “For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes,
to stand to serven in the name of the Lord, he and his sons forever”
(Deuteronomy 18:5). The term “to serve” indicates that the first
sheared wool given to the priest must be a matter that is fitting for
service in the Temple, i.e., an amount of wool sufficient to fashion
one of the priestly garments. What is the garment in question? It is
the belt,n which is made from wool weighing five sela.

background
New leather flask – ‫ח ֶמת ֲח ָד ׁ ָשה‬:ֵ The leather flask was a wine- Balls of a warp – ‫פ ָק ִעּיֹות ׁ ֶשל ׁ ְש ִתי‬:ְ ּ The threads of the warp formed
skin, a type of sack fashioned from leather, mainly used to store the basis of the fabric. The weaver first attached the threads of
liquids, such as water or wine. The two sides of the skin were the warp to the loom in a fixed position, and then would weave
sewn firmly together to prevent the liquids from seeping out. An the threads of the woof between those of the warp. Although the
opening was left at the top of the flask, which was tied closed threads of the warp were sometimes lifted to enable the threads
and opened only when necessary. A new flask was one that was of the woof to pass between them, their position was fixed. Since
not yet completely sewn together. Since it still contained holes the threads of the warp held the fabric together, they had to be
through which the liquids could seep, it was unfit for use and much stronger than the threads of the woof, and typically were
considered unfinished. also thinner. Before they were placed in the loom, the threads of
the warp were wrapped around balls. Apparently the dimensions
of the balls of the warp were fixed, and therefore they served as
Embroidered belt a particular measurement of size.

382 Ĥullin . perek XI . 138a . ‫חלק ףד‬. ‫א״י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

background
‫ימא ְמ ִעיל! ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת ְמרו ֶ ּּבה – ל ֹא‬ ָ ‫ ֵא‬The Gemara asks: Is the garment in question necessarily the belt?
Cap of wool…and the frontplate was placed upon
.‫ ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת מו ָּעט – ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת‬,‫ ָּת ַפ ְ ׂש ָּת‬Say that it is the robe, which is fashioned from a far greater amount
n
it – ‫יה צִ יץ‬
ָ ‫כ ּ ָיפה ׁ ֶשל צֶ ֶמר…וְ ָע ֶל‬:ִּ
of wool. The Gemara answers: This inference is based on the prin-
ciple that if you grasped a lot you did not grasp anything; if you
grasped a little, you grasped something. Since a belt meets the
condition of “to serve,” as it is one of the priestly vestments, one
cannot say that the obligation is any greater than the amount of wool
needed to fashion a belt.

‫יפה‬ָ ּ ‫ ִּכ‬:‫יפה ׁ ֶשל צֶ ֶמר! דְּ ַתנְיָ א‬ ָ ּ ‫ימא ִּכ‬ָ ‫וְ ֵא‬ But say that the garment in question is the cap of wool that the High
,‫ֹאש ּכ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול‬
ׁ ‫ׁ ֶשל צֶ ֶמר ָהיְ ָתה מו ַּּנ ַחת ְ ּבר‬ Priest wears, which is smaller than the belt. As it is taught in a Front and back view of the High Priest wearing the frontplate
baraita: A cap of wool was placed on the High Priest’s head, and
‫ ְל ַקּיֵ ים ַמה ׁ ּ ֶש ֶּנ ֱא ַמר‬,‫יה צִ יץ נָ תוּן‬ ָ ‫וְ ָע ֶל‬
the frontplate was placed upon it,bn to fulfill that which is stated halakha
!‫״וְ ַ ׂש ְמ ָּת אֹתֹו ַעל ּ ְפ ִתיל ְּת ֵכ ֶלת״‬ with regard to the frontplate: “And you shall put it on a thread of Belt of the High Priest…belt of an ordinary priest –
sky blue, and it shall be upon the mitre; upon the forefront of the ‫דֹול…א ְבנֵטֹו ׁ ֶשל ּכ ֵֹהן ֶה ְדיֹוט‬
ַ ‫א ְבנֵטֹו ׁ ֶשל ּכ ֵֹהן ָ ּג‬:
ַ The belt of the
mitre it shall be” (Exodus 28:37). The term “thread of sky blue” is High Priest was embroidered, as was the belt of ordinary
referring to the cap of sky-blue wool. priests (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Kelei HaMikdash 8:2,
and see Leĥem Mishne there).
‫ ״הוּא ו ָּבנָיו״ – דָּ ָבר ַה ׁ ּ ָשוֶ ה‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬The Gemara answers that the verse states: “To stand to serve in the
.‫ ְל ַא ֲהרֹן ו ְּל ָבנָיו‬name of the Lord, he and his sons” (Deuteronomy 18:5), which
indicates that the verse is referring to a matter, i.e., a garment, that
is equal for Aaron and for his sons. The wool given to the priest
must be of sufficient size for fashioning a garment worn both by the
High Priest and by common priests, whereas the woolen cap is worn
only by the High Priest.

‫נִיחא ְל ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ ַא ְבנֵט נַ ִמי ָלא ׁ ָשוֵ י! ָה‬The Gemara objects: But the belt is also not equal for all priests.
‫ ַא ְבנֵטֹו ׁ ֶשל ּכ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול ל ֹא זֶ ה ּו ַא ְבנֵטֹו ׁ ֶשל‬The Gemara elaborates: This works out well according to the one
who said that the linen belt of the High Priest worn on Yom Kippur
.‫ּכ ֵֹהן ֶה ְדיֹוט – ׁ ַש ּ ִפיר‬
is not the same as the belt of an ordinary priest.hn According to
this opinion, both the belt of common priests and the belt worn by
the High Priest during the rest of the year were fashioned from a
mixture of wool and linen. This belt is therefore equal for all priests,
and it works out well.

‫ ֶא ָּלא ְל ַמאן דַּ ֲא ַמר זֶ ה ּו ַא ְבנֵטֹו ׁ ֶשל ּכ ֵֹהן‬But according to the one who said that the linen belt worn by the
‫ימר? ׁ ֵשם ַא ְבנֵט‬ ַ ‫יכא ְל ֵמ‬ ָּ ‫ ֶה ְדיֹוט ַמאי ִא‬High Priest on Yom Kippur is the same as the belt of an ordinary
priest, what can be said? According to this opinion, the belt fash-
.‫עֹולם‬
ָ ‫ָ ּב‬
ioned from wool and linen is worn only by the High Priest during
the rest of the year. The Gemara answers: Although the belts are
different, the term belt in general applies to all priests, whereas no
type of cap is worn by common priests.

notes
Say that it is the robe – ‫ימא ְמ ִעיל‬
ָ ‫א‬:ֵ The principle invoked by the garment. Rather, this is referring to a High Priest who was not
Gemara here: If you grasped a lot you did not grasp anything, is performing the Temple service. Even during these periods he
necessary only at this stage of the discussion. Yet, the Gemara still wore the frontplate, during which time he would wear the
later derives that the garment is one worn by both the High cap beneath it (Barukh Ta’am).
Priest and common priests, while the robe is worn only by the
High Priest. Therefore, it is evidently not the garment in question
The linen belt of the High Priest worn on Yom Kippur is not
(Lev Arye).
the same as the belt of an ordinary priest – ‫ַא ְבנֵטֹו ׁ ֶשל ּכ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול‬
A cap of wool was placed on the High Priest’s head and the ‫ל ֹא זֶ ה ּו ַא ְבנֵטֹו ׁ ֶשל ּכ ֵֹהן ֶה ְדיֹוט‬: The Yom Kippur garments of the High
frontplate was placed upon it – ‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫ִּכ ּ ָיפה ׁ ֶשל צֶ ֶמר ָהיְ ָתה מו ַּּנ ַחת ְ ּבר‬ Priest were fashioned entirely from linen, in accordance with the
ָ ‫כ ֵֹהן ָ ּגדֹול וְ ָע ֶל‬:ּ The cap was worn beneath the frontplate
‫יה צִ יץ נָ תוּן‬ verse: “He shall put on the sacred linen tunic, and he shall have
(Rashi). Although it is prohibited for the priests to wear garments the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with the
other than the priestly vestments when performing the Temple linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired; they are
service, the cap is not considered an additional garment, nor the sacred garments; and he shall bathe his flesh in water and
does it constitute an interposition between the priest and the put them on” (Leviticus 16:4). The belt worn during the rest of
frontplate. Rather, the cap is part of the mitzva of the frontplate: the year was fashioned from a mixture of dyed wool and linen,
The Torah states that the frontplate must be placed on a thread as the Torah states: “And the girdle of fine twined linen, and
of sky blue (Exodus 28:37), and this thread was woven into the blue, and purple, and scarlet” (Exodus 39:29). The Sages (Yoma
form of a cap (Rabbi Avraham ben HaRambam). Others maintain 6a) dispute whether this verse refers to all priests, in which case
that the cap was not placed beneath the frontplate when the even common priests wear a belt of linen and wool, or whether
High Priest wore his other priestly vestments and performed the it refers only to the High Priest, whereas common priests wear
Temple service, as that would in fact be considered an additional a belt of linen (Rashi).

 ‫חלק ףד‬. ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 138a 383

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫ ָ ּגזַ ז‬,‫ית ַמר‬
ְ ‫ ִא‬.‫יתנֹו״ וכו׳‬ ְּ ‫ § ״ל ֹא ִה ְס ּ ִפיק ִל‬The mishna states: If the owner of the shearing did not man-
He sheared and sold the first sheep, etc. – ‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ָ ּגזַ ז ו ָּמ ַכר ִר‬
‫וכו׳‬: Some commentaries write that the halakha is in accor- ,‫ ַחּיָ יב‬:‫ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָא ַמר‬.‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫ ו ָּמ ַכר ִר‬age to give it to the priest until he dyed it, he is exempt from the
obligation of giving the first sheared wool. The mishna further
dance with the opinion of Rav Ĥisda, as the discussion in the .‫ ּ ָפטוּר‬:‫הֹוש ֲעיָ א ָא ַמר‬
ַ ׁ ‫ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן ַ ּבר‬
Gemara appears to follow his opinion (Ritva). Therefore, in the teaches that one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile
case discussed here one is obligated in the mitzva of the first is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool. It was
sheared wool. Yet, the Gemara states elsewhere that if there is stated that amora’im disagreed with regard to one who owned
a lenient opinion with regard to a halakha that applies in Eretz five sheep and he sheared and sold the first sheepnh before
Yisrael, then outside Eretz Yisrael the halakha is in accordance shearing the second, and in this manner sold each sheep after
with that opinion (Berakhot 36a). If so, the halakha should shearing it. When he finished shearing he owned the requisite
follow the stringent opinion of Rav Ĥisda only in Eretz Yis-
rael, whereas outside Eretz Yisrael the halakha should be in
five fleeces, to which the obligation of the first sheared wool
accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya. In applies, but he no longer owned the sheep. Rav Ĥisda says: He
any case, the accepted practice nowadays is in accordance is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool; and Rabbi
with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who holds that the mitzva of Natan bar Hoshaya says: He is exempt from the mitzva of the
the first sheared wool is not in effect outside of Eretz Yisrael. first sheared wool.
One who sells tree stalks – ‫ֹוכר ִק ְל ֵחי ִא ָילן‬ֵ ‫ה ּמ‬:ַ The phrase:
Tree stalks, is unusual, as the term stalks typically applies to ‫ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן‬.‫ ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ָא ַמר ַחּיָ יב – דְּ ָהא ָ ּגזַ ז‬The Gemara clarifies the two opinions. Rav Ĥisda says that he is
grain. Rashi explains that the mishna uses this term because ‫הֹוש ֲעיָ א ָא ַמר ּ ָפטוּר – ְ ּב ִעידָּ נָ א דְּ ָקא‬ַ ׁ ‫ ַ ּבר‬obligated, as he sheared five sheep that he owned at the time of
it is in fact discussing a field of grain in which there are also shearing, and therefore the term: “Your flock” (Deuteronomy
!‫ ָ ּב ֵעינַן ״צֹאנְ ךָ ״ – וְ ֵל ָּיכא‬,‫ְמ ֵלא ׁ ִשיעו ָּרא‬
two or three trees. Since the buyer bought only the trees, he 18:4), applies to this case. Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya says that he
gives pe’a for each tree separately. The field does not serve is exempt, as at the time that the measure of five fleeces is com-
to combine the trees into a single obligation, as it is not pleted, we require the term “your flock” to apply, since the
owned by him. The mitzva of pe’a applies to trees as well as
to grain, in accordance with the verse: “When you beat your
obligation takes effect at that stage, and in this case it does
olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall not apply.
be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow”
(Deuteronomy 24:20). ‫ ַה ּל ֵֹוק ַח ֵ ּגז צֹאנֹו ׁ ֶשל גּ ֹוי – ּ ָפטוּר‬:‫ְּתנַ ן‬ The Gemara raises a challenge: We learned in the mishna (135a):
Others explain that the mishna is referring to one who ,‫ ָהא צֹאנֹו ִלגְ זֹוז – ַחּיָ יב‬,‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵמ ֵר‬ One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is
sold several parts of his field to different buyers. Each buyer exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool, as he
‫ַא ַּמאי? ָּכל ַחד וְ ַחד ָ ּב ַתר ִ ּגיּזָ ה נָ ְפ ָקא‬
is obligated to leave pe’a from his part of the field. If the seller purchased only the fleece but not the sheep. One can infer from
initially commenced his harvesting and then sold sections of !‫יה‬
ּ ‫ָל ּה ֵמ ְר ׁשו ֵּת‬ here that if he purchased the gentile’s sheep themselves in order
his field, leaving part of it in his possession, he is obligated
to shear them and then return them to the gentile, he is obligated,
to leave pe’a for the entire field. If he first sold part of his field
and only afterward commenced harvesting, he is required
because the sheep belonged to him at the time of shearing. But
to leave pe’a only for that part of the field which he reserved why is he obligated, according to the opinion of Rabbi Natan bar
for himself (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna; Rambam Hoshaya? Each and every one of the sheep, after the shearing is
Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot Mattenot Aniyyim 3:18). completed, leaves his possession, and when he has sheared five
sheep, the term “your flock” no longer applies to them.
halakha
Sheared and sold the first sheep – ‫אשֹונָ ה‬ ׁ ‫גזַ ז ו ָּמ ַכר ִר‬:ּ ָ If one ּ ָ ‫ ִּת ְר ְ ּג ָמא ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א ַא ִּל‬Rav Ĥisda interpreted the mishna according to the opinion of
‫יבא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי נָ ָתן ַ ּבר‬
had five sheep, and he sheared one of them and sold the ‫ ְּכגֹון ׁ ֶש ִה ְקנָ ן לֹו ָּכל ׁ ְשל ׁ ִֹשים‬:‫הֹוש ֲעיָ א‬
ַׁ Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya: The mishna is referring to a case
fleece before shearing the second, and then sheared the where the gentile transferred ownership to him for the entire
.‫יֹום‬
second and sold the fleece before shearing the third, and period of thirty days during which the Jew sheared the sheep.
continued in this manner, all the fleeces combine to render Therefore, he retained ownership after he completed shearing,
him obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. This is and the term “your flock” does apply to the sheep at the time
the halakha even if the wool was shorn over the course of a
number of years. Some commentaries claim that the same
when the obligation of the first sheared wool took effect.
applies if one sold some of the sheep before he completed
all the shearing (Rema). This ruling is in accordance with the ‫ ַמאן‬.‫״הלּ ֵֹוק ַח ֵ ּגז צֹאנֹו ׁ ֶשל ֲח ֵבירֹו״ כו׳‬ ַ § The mishna teaches: With regard to one who purchases the
opinion of Rav Ĥisda, as he is considered a greater authority – ‫מֹוכר‬ ָּ ‫ ַּת ָּנא דְּ ֵה ָיכא דְּ ִא‬fleece of the sheep of another Jew, if the seller kept some of the
ֵ ‫יכא ׁ ִשּיו ָּרא ַ ּג ֵ ּבי‬
than Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya, and also because the straight- wool, then he is obligated to give the first sheared wool to the
?‫מֹוכר ָאזְ ִלינַן‬
ֵ ‫ָ ּב ַתר‬
forward meaning of the mishna is in accordance with his priest. If the seller did not keep any of the wool, the buyer is
opinion (Kesef Mishne). If one owned only one sheep, which obligated to give it. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who
he sheared before buying a second sheep, and then sheared taught that in a case where there is residual wool in the posses-
the second before buying a third, and so on, the fleece does
not combine to render him obligated in the mitzva of the first
sion of the seller, we follow the seller in determining who is
sheared wool, even if all of the fleece was in his possession at obligated in the mitzva of first sheared wool?
the conclusion of the process (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot
Bikkurim 10:15; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 333:12). :‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫ ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה ִהיא‬:‫ ֲא ַמר ַרב ִח ְסדָּ א‬Rav Ĥisda said: The tanna who taught the mishna is Rabbi
One who sells a few tree stalks within his field – ‫ַה ּמ ֵֹוכר ִק ְל ֵחי‬ ֵ – ‫ ַה ּמ ֵֹוכר ִק ְל ֵחי ִא ָילן ְ ּבתֹוךְ ָ ׂש ֵדה ּו‬Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 3:5): With regard to one
‫נֹותן‬
who sells a few fruit-bearing tree stalksn within his field,h with-
‫א ָילן ְ ּבתֹוךְ ָ ׂש ֵדה ּו‬:ִ If one sells his field, dividing it between sev- .‫ּ ֵפ ָאה ְל ָכל ֶא ָחד וְ ֶא ָחד‬
eral buyers and leaving nothing for himself, each buyer gives out selling the field itself, for the buyer to uproot them and plant
pe’a from his part of the field. If the seller first commenced them in his own field, the buyer gives separate pe’a for each and
harvesting and then sold part of his field, leaving part of it every one of the trees. The field does not combine the trees into
in his possession, he gives pe’a for the entire field, as the a single unit for pe’a, as the land is not owned by the buyer.
obligation applies to him from when he begins harvesting.
If he first sold part of his field and subsequently commenced ‫ימ ַתי – ִ ּבזְ ַמן ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא‬
ָ ‫ ֵא‬:‫ ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי יְ הו ָּדה‬Rabbi Yehuda said: When is it the buyer’s obligation to give pe’a?
harvesting, then the buyer gives pe’a for the part that he
purchased, and the seller gives pe’a for the section of the
‫ ֲא ָבל ׁ ִשּיֵ יר ַ ּב ַעל‬,‫ ׁ ִשּיֵ יר ַ ּב ַעל ַה ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה‬It is when the owner of the field did not leave any of the trees
in his possession. But if the owner of the field left some of the
field that he reserved for himself. This ruling is based on the ֵ – ‫ַה ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה‬
.‫נֹותן ּ ֵפ ָאה ַעל ַה ּכֹל‬
statements of both the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi
trees in his possession, the owner gives pe’a for all the trees. Just
Yehuda does not dispute the ruling of the first tanna but as in the case of pe’a, if the seller left trees for himself then the
merely clarifies its meaning (Rambam Sefer Zera’im, Hilkhot obligation applies to him, so too, with regard to the first sheared
Mattenot Aniyyim 3:18). wool, if the seller left some of the wool for himself, the obligation
applies to him.
384 Ĥullin . perek XI . 138a . ‫חלק ףד‬. ‫א״י קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

‫ וְ הוּא‬,‫ וְ ָהא ָמר הוּא דַּ ֲא ַמר‬:‫יה ָר ָבא‬ ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬Rava said to Rav Ĥisda: But wasn’t it you, Master, who said with
!‫ ׁ ֶש ִה ְת ִחיל ַ ּב ַעל ַה ּ ָ ׂש ֶדה ִל ְקצֹור‬regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling that the owner gives pe’a for all the
trees: This is the halakha only when the owner of the field began
to harvest the fruit before he sold the trees, as the obligation to give
pe’a had already applied to him. By contrast, with regard to the first
sheared wool, the obligation came into effect only after he sold
his sheep.

,‫ימא ָה ִכי נַ ִמי וְ הוּא ׁ ֶש ִה ְת ִחיל ִלגְ זֹוז‬ ָ ‫וְ ִכי ֵּת‬ And if you would say that so too, with regard to the first sheared
‫ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָה ָתם ״ו ְּב ֻקצְ ְר ֶכם ֶאת ְקצִ יר ַא ְרצְ ֶכם״‬ wool, this halakha that the seller gives the first sheared wool applies
only if the seller began to shear the sheep before he sold them, that
‫יחּיַ יב‬ַ ‫ְּכ ִתיב – ֵמ ִעידָּ נָ א דְּ ַא ְת ֵחיל ִל ְקצֹור ִמ‬
explanation is difficult. The Gemara elaborates: Granted, there,
‫ ֶא ָּלא ָה ָכא – ֵמ ִעידָּ נָ א דְּ ַא ְת ֵחיל‬,‫ְ ּבכו ָּּל ּה ָ ׂש ֶדה‬ with regard to pe’a, it is written: “And when you reap the harvest
!‫יה‬ ּ ‫יחּיַ יב ְ ּבכו ֵּּל‬
ּ ‫יה ֶע ְד ֵר‬ ַ ‫ְל ֵמיגַ ז ָלא ִמ‬ of your land” (Leviticus 19:9), which indicates that from the time
that he began to harvest he is obligated in the mitzva of pe’a with
regard to the entire field. But here, in the case of the first sheared
wool, he is not obligated with regard to the entire flock from the
time that he began to shear his sheep. Therefore, even if he began
shearing before he sold the sheep, the obligation to give the first
sheared wool should not apply to the seller.

‫ ָא ַמר‬:‫ דִּ ְתנַן‬,‫ ַהאי ַּת ָּנא הוּא‬:‫ֶא ָּלא ֲא ַמר ָר ָבא‬ Rather, Rava said: It is this tanna who taught the mishna, as we
‫ וְ ָהיָ ה‬,‫יה ׁ ֶשל ּ ָפ ָרה זֹו״‬ָ ‫״מכֹור ִלי ְ ּבנֵי ֵמ ֶע‬
ְ ‫לֹו‬ learned in a different mishna (132a): If one said to a butcher: Sell
me the innards of this cow, and there were gifts of the priesthood
‫ וְ ֵאין ְמנַ ֶּכה לֹו ִמן‬,‫נֹותנָן ַל ּכ ֵֹהן‬
ְ – ‫ָ ּב ֶהן ַמ ָּתנֹות‬
included in them, i.e., the maw, the purchaser must give them to
‫נֹותנָ ן ְלכ ֵֹהן‬
ְ – ‫ ָל ַקח ִמ ֶּמנּ ּו ַ ּב ִּמ ׁ ְש ָקל‬.‫ַהדָּ ִמים‬ the priest, and he may not deduct the value of the gifts from the
,‫ו ְּמנַ ֶּכה לֹו ִמן ַהדָּ ִמים‬ money that he pays the butcher, as it is assumed that the gifts were
not included in the sale. If he purchased the innards from the
butcher by weight, the buyer must give the gifts to a priest and he
may deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays
the butcher. If the priestly gifts have not yet been separated from
the animal, the price by weight includes the price of these gifts.
But since the priests had the right to their gifts from the time of
the slaughter, the buyer does not need to pay for them and may
therefore deduct their value from his payment.

Perek XI
Daf 138 Amud b

‫ ָה ָכא‬,‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫זַבין ִא‬ ּ ֵ ‫ַא ְל ָמא – ַמ ָּתנֹות דְּ כ ֵֹהן ָלא ְמ‬ Evidently, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest,
: ְ‫ ִה ְל ָּכך‬.‫ינִיש‬ ׁ ‫נַ ִמי – ַמ ָּתנֹות דְּ כ ֵֹהן ָלא ְמזַ ֵ ּבין ִא‬ and therefore they are not included in the sale of the innards unless
:‫לֹוק ַח‬ֵ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬,‫מֹוכר ַחּיָ יב‬ ֵ – ‫ׁ ִשּיֵ יר ַה ּמ ֵֹוכר‬ they were sold by weight. Here too, with regard to the first sheared
wool, a person does not sell the gifts belonging to the priest.
,‫לֹוק ַח ַחּיָ יב‬ ֵ – ‫ ָלא ׁ ִשּיֵ יר‬.‫ַמ ָּתנָ ה דְּ כ ֵֹהן ַ ּג ָ ּבךְ ִהיא‬
Therefore, if the seller left wool in his possession, the seller is
. ְ‫ ַמ ָּתנָ ה דְּ כ ֵֹהן ָלא זַ ְ ּבנֵי ָלך‬:‫מֹוכר‬
ֵ ‫יה‬ ּ ‫דַּ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬ obligated to give the first sheared wool from the remaining wool for
that which he sold, as the buyer can say to the seller: The gift of the
priest is in your possession, since you did not sell me everything.
If the seller did not leave any wool in his possession, the buyer is
obligated to give the first sheared wool and he does not deduct its
value from the price, as the seller can say to him: I did not sell the
gift of the priest to you, i.e., there was no obligation to give the gifts
to a priest when I sold the wool to you, and therefore the buyer is
required to give the gifts to the priest.
‫הדרן עלך ראשית הגז‬

 ‫חלק ףד‬: ‫ א״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XI . 138b 385

This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Summary of
Perek XI

This chapter analyzed a single topic: The mitzva to give the first sheared wool to a
priest. It continued the discussion of the previous chapter, which also dealt with one
of the gifts of the priesthood.
The Sages ruled that the mitzva of the first sheared wool is in effect everywhere and
at all times. Nevertheless, nowadays the priests are unable to claim the first sheared
wool, because they cannot prove their priestly lineage. Furthermore, the accepted
practice follows the opinion that the first sheared wool is not in effect outside of
Eretz Yisrael.
The Gemara concluded that the first sheared wool is non-sacred. There is a monetary
obligation to give it to the priest, but it has no inherent sanctity. If one neglected
to separate the first sheared wool, neither the fleece nor the animal is prohibited.
Furthermore, the mitzva applies only to sheep.
The Torah does not specify how many sheep one must own in order for the mitzva
of the first sheared wool to apply, nor does it indicate how much of the fleece one
is required to give the priest. The Sages derived that one is obligated in the mitzva
of the first sheared wool only if he owns a minimal number of sheep. According to
the Gemara’s conclusion, the mitzva applies to no fewer than five sheep. As for the
quantity one is required to give, the Sages stated that one must give the priest an
amount of significance, i.e., enough to constitute an actual gift. The mishna specified
that this is equal to the amount required for the fashioning of a small garment.
The mitzva of the first sheared wool applies to any wool detached from a sheep,
whether it was shorn in the usual manner or removed in another way. With regard
to the issue of who is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, the Gemara
concluded that partners are obligated in the first sheared wool. If one buys sheep
from another, whoever owns the sheep at the time of their shearing is obligated in
the mitzva.
If the owner did not give the first sheared wool to the priest, once he has dyed the
wool he is exempt from this obligation, as this action causes him to acquire owner-
ship of the wool. Therfeore, he is considered like one who damaged the gifts of the
priesthood, and he is not obligated to pay their value. If the wool was not dyed, then
he does not acquire ownership of the wool even if it was laundered. Consequently,
he is obligated to give the first sheared wool to the priest.

387
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

If a bird’s nest happens before you on the way, in any

tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs, and the
mother is resting upon the fledglings, or upon the eggs,
you shall not take the mother with the young; you
Introduction to
Perek XII
shall send the mother, but the young you may take for
yourself; that it may be well for you, and that you may
prolong your days.
(Deuteronomy 22:6–7)

The principles of the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest are
written and to a degree explained in the Torah. Yet various details are not clarified,
leaving room for several questions with regard to the various aspects of the mitzva
that must be resolved.
The Torah does not specify a type of bird when discussing the mitzva of sending away
the mother bird. The question therefore arises: Does this mitzva apply to all birds
that one happens upon or only to specific birds? For example, is one obligated to
send away only ownerless birds, or does the obligation extend even to those readily
available in one’s home? Additionally, does it apply only to kosher birds or to non-
kosher birds as well?
Another question: How does one fulfill the mitzva properly? Granted, the Torah
requires that one send away the mother bird and states that one may not take the
eggs or fledglings with her. But is one allowed to trap the mother bird after sending
her away, or does the mitzva entail sending away the mother such that one cannot
subsequently trap her?
The wording of the verses discussing this mitzva also raises some questions. The verse
describes a case where one finds a bird’s nest “on the way.” Does this limit the mitzva
to nests literally found on the road, or is any nest included, wherever it is found?
Similarly, the verse states that “the mother is resting upon the fledglings.” Does the
mitzva apply if a male is found resting upon the young? And since the verse describes
a case where the mother “is resting” upon the nest, what is the halakha if the mother
flew away from the nest, or is not resting directly upon it?
From the phrase “You shall not take the mother with the young,” it would appear that
one who transgresses this prohibition is liable to receive lashes by the court, as is the
halakha with regard to other prohibitions. This raises yet another question: Can the
transgressor rectify his transgression by subsequently sending away the mother, or
does he receive lashes in any case?
These issues constitute the primary focus of this chapter, which concludes tractate
Ĥullin. The chapter, and therefore the entire tractate, ends with a description of the
reward bestowed upon those who fulfill the mitzvot and the long life promised to
those who fulfill the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from the nest.

389
This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

Perek XII
Daf 138 Amud b

‫נֹוהג ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ ו ְּבחוּצָ ה‬ ֵ ‫מתני׳ ׁ ִשילּ ו ַּח ַה ֵ ּקן‬

,‫ ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת וְ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬,‫ָל ָא ֶרץ‬
mishna The mitzva of sending away the mother bird
from the nestn applies both in Eretz Yisrael
language
Orchard [pardes] – ‫פ ְרדֵּ ס‬:ַ ּ This word appears in the
Bible (Song of Songs 4:13) in reference to a pomegran-
and outside of Eretz Yisrael, and in the presence of the Temple ate grove, and the Sages used it to refer to an orchard
‫חֹומר ְ ּב ִכ ּסוּי‬ֶ .‫ַ ּבחו ִּּלין ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ַ ּב ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬ and not in the presence of the Temple. It applies to non-sacred containing any type of fruit tree. At times it may refer
‫נֹוהג ַ ּב ַחּיָה‬ֵ ‫ ׁ ֶש ִּכ ּסוּי ַהדָּ ם‬,‫ַהדָּ ם ִמ ׁ ּ ִשילּ ו ַּח ַה ֵ ּקן‬ birds, but it does not apply to sacrificial birds.h There are more to a garden used for rest and recreation.
‫ וְ ׁ ִשילּ ו ַּח ַה ֵ ּקן‬,‫ ַ ּב ְמזו ָּּמן ו ְּב ׁ ֶש ֵאין ְמזו ָּּמן‬,‫ו ָּבעֹוף‬ stringent elements in the covering of the blood than in the send-
‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ֵאינֹו‬,‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ָ ּבעֹוף‬ ֵ ‫ֵאינֹו‬ ing away of the mother bird from the nest, as the covering of the background

.‫ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמזו ָּּמן‬ blood applies to undomesticated animals and birds, to animals Domesticated pigeons [yonei hardisei’ot] – ‫יֹונֵי‬
and birds that are readily available in one’s home, and to animals ‫ה ְרדִּ ֵסיאֹות‬:ַ During the mishnaic period, most pigeons
and birds that are not readily available and are hunted in the wild; and doves were only partially domesticated. They were
and the sending of the mother bird from the nest applies only to often wild doves or pigeons that had become accus-
birds, and applies only to birds that are not readily available.h tomed to human society and nested in the protective
custody of their owners, who built dovecotes for them.
‫גֹולים‬ ִ ְ‫ֵאיזֶ ה ּו ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמזו ָּּמן? ְּכגֹון ַא ָּווזִ ין וְ ַת ְרנ‬ What are considered birds that are not readily available? They are These birds, who were accustomed to roam on their
own during the day, found food for themselves.
‫ וְ ֵכן‬,‫ ֲא ָבל ִאם ִק ְּננ ּו ַ ּב ַ ּביִ ת‬,‫ׁ ֶש ִּק ְּננ ּו ַ ּב ּ ַפ ְרדֵּ ס‬ any birds, even domesticated, that may fly away at any time, such as
Only pigeons of one specific type were completely
ּ ‫יֹונֵי ַה ְרדִּ ֵסיאֹות – ּ ָפט ּור ִמ ׁ ּ ִש‬ geese or chickens that nested in the orchard [pardes].l But if
‫ עֹוף‬.‫ילו ַּח‬ domesticated. Those pigeons, called yonei hardise’iot,
geese or chickens nested in the house, and likewise, with regard were entirely dependent on their owners for their care,
‫רֹובץ‬ ֵ ‫ עֹוף ָט ֵמא‬.‫ָט ֵמא – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ׁ ַש ֵּל ַח‬ to domesticated pigeons [yonei hardisei’ot],b one is exempt from including the provision of their food. The source of
‫רֹובץ ַעל ֵ ּביצֵ י‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָטהֹור‬,‫ַעל ֵ ּביצֵ י עֹוף ָטהֹור‬ sending away the mother bird. With regard to the nest of a non- their name is disputed in the Gemara (139b). Some
‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫קֹורא זָ ָכר‬ ֵ .‫עֹוף ָט ֵמא – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ׁ ַש ֵּל ַח‬ kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the mother bird.h explain the name as deriving from Herodes, the origi-
In a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a nal pronunciation of the name of King Herod, reput-
.‫ֹוט ִרין‬ ְ ‫ וַ ֲח ָכ ִמים ּפ‬,‫יעזֶ ר ְמ ַחּיֵ יב‬ ֶ ‫ֱא ִל‬ edly the person who first brought these birds to Eretz
kosher bird, or a kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of a non-
Yisrael. Another possibility is that they were named
kosher bird, one is exempt from sending away the bird.h With after the island of Rhodes, said to be their place of
regard to a male pheasant [korei],bh which is known to sit upon the origin.
eggs like the female of its species, Rabbi Eliezer deems one obli-
gated to send it away, and the Rabbis deem one exempt from
sending it away.

Ancient dovecote in Beit Guvrin

Pheasant [korei] – ‫קֹורא‬:
ֵ This bird is identified as the
notes sand partridge, a desert bird of the genus Ammoperdix
The mitzva of sending the mother bird from the nest – ‫ׁ ִשילּ ו ַּח‬ the animals, the Torah would prohibit their slaughter altogether in the pheasant family Phasianidae. In Eretz Yisrael
‫ה ֵ ּקן‬:ַ The early commentaries suggest various possible rationales (Ramban). A third suggestion is that the mitzva teaches that unlike these birds are found in the Jordan Valley and Dead
for this mitzva. One explanation is that it is similar to the prohi- divine providence for people, which relates to each individual, Sea areas. The korei is one of the birds mentioned in
bition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the divine providence for animals is of a general nature, simply to the Bible, and since it was known to all in those days it
same day. Since animals can also experience feelings of suffering, ensure the survival of each species. Therefore, slaughter of animals served as an example or allegory in various matters.
such as when the offspring is slaughtered in the presence of its is permitted, but acts that could herald eliminating the entire
parent, or when a mother sees its chicks or eggs taken away, the species, such as slaughter of an animal and its offspring on the
mitzva is designed to prevent that suffering (Rambam, Guide of the same day, or taking a mother bird along with its offspring, are
Perplexed). Another explanation is that the mitzva is designed to prohibited (Sefer HaĤinnukh). Yet another explanation is that this
prevent humans from developing cruel traits and does not relate mitzva evokes divine mercy for the entire world (Rabbeinu Baĥyei,
to mercy for the animals, because if the purpose were mercy for based on the Zohar).

halakha
To non-sacred birds but not to sacrificial birds – ‫ַ ּבחו ִּּלין ֲא ָבל‬ With regard to the nest of a non-kosher bird one is exempt
‫ל ֹא ַ ּב ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין‬: In a case where one consecrated a bird for Temple from sending away the mother bird – ‫עֹוף ָט ֵמא ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ׁ ַש ֵּל ַח‬‎: The
maintenance but it then flew away, if he is capable of identifying mitzva to send the mother bird away from the nest applies only to
Sand partridge, native to Eretz Yisrael
it and found it resting upon fledglings, or upon eggs, he brings a kosher bird (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 13:8; Shulĥan
everything to the Temple treasurer, as sending the mother bird Arukh, Yoreh De’a 292:1).
away from the nest does not apply to consecrated items (Rambam
In a case where a non-kosher bird is resting upon the eggs of
Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 13:20).
a kosher bird…one is exempt from sending the bird – ‫עֹוף ָט ֵמא‬
‫הֹור…פטוּר ִמ ְּל ׁ ַש ֵּל ַח‬
ָּ ‫רֹובץ ַעל ֵ ּביצֵ י עֹוף ָט‬‎
ֵ : If a non-kosher bird is resting
And applies only to birds that are not readily available – ‫וְ ֵאינֹו‬
upon the eggs of a kosher bird, one is exempt from the mitzva of
‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ְ ּב ׁ ֶש ֵאינֹו ְמזו ָּּמן‬:
ֵ Sending the mother bird away from the
sending away the bird (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita
nest applies only to a kosher bird that is not readily available, such
13:10; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 292:7).
as a pigeon that is in a dovecote or attic, or a bird that roosted in
an orchard. One is not required to send away birds that are readily Male pheasant – ‫קֹורא זָ ָכר‬:
ֵ If a male bird, even a male pheasant,
available, such as geese or chickens or pigeons that roosted in a is resting upon the nest, one is exempt from sending the bird
house (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 13:8; Shulĥan Arukh, away from the nest (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 13:10;
Yoreh De’a 292:2). Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 292:7).

 ‫חלק ףד‬: ‫ ב״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XII . 138b 391

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
Except for the mitzva of the first shearing to exclude
the opinion of Rabbi Ilai – ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז ְל ַא ּפו ֵּקי ִמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ִ ׁ ‫ְל ַבד ֵמ ֵר‬
‫ ַחד‬,‫ישא‬ ָ ׁ ָ‫גמ׳ ַר ִ ּבי ָא ִבין וְ ַר ִ ּבי ְמי‬
‫״ב ָא ֶרץ ו ְּבחוּצָ ה‬ ּ ָ ‫יכא דִּ ְתנַן‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ֵה‬:‫ֲא ַמר‬
gemara The mishna contains several phrases related
to the mitzva of sending away the mother
‫א ְל ַעאי‬:ֶ According to the opinion of Rabbi Ilai mentioned
bird from the nest that also appear in the first mishna of several other
‫אשית‬ ִ ׁ ‫ ְל ַבד ֵמ ֵר‬, ְ‫צֹורך‬ ֶ ‫ָל ָא ֶרץ״ – ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְל‬ chapters of this tractate. With regard to this, Rabbi Avin and Rabbi
earlier (136a), the mitzva of the first shearing of wool does
not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael. :‫ ְל ַא ּפו ֵּקי ִמדְּ ַר ִ ּבי ֶא ְל ַעאי דַּ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ַה ֵ ּגז‬ Meyasha made the following statements. One of them said: Any-
The early commentaries ask why the Gemara does not .‫נֹוהג ֶא ָּלא ָ ּב ָא ֶרץ‬ ֵ ‫אשית ַה ֵ ּגז ֵאינֹו‬ ִ ׁ ‫ֵר‬ where in this tractate that we learned in a mishna that a particular
mention that it is also necessary to state that the mitzva mitzva applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, it
of giving the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw of slaughtered is stated needlessly, as those mitzvot are not related to land, such that
animals to a priest applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside
there is no need to teach that they apply outside of Eretz Yisrael as
of Eretz Yisrael. In that case too, Rabbi Ilai’s opinion that
it does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael (136a) must be
well. This is true except for the mitzva of the first shearing of wool,
refuted. which one must give to a priest. It was necessary to teach that that
Some commentaries answer that that mitzva should mitzva applies even outside of Eretz Yisrael, to exclude the opinion
also have been mentioned, but the Gemara simply used of Rabbi Ilai,n who said: The first shearing is in effect only in Eretz
one of the two mitzvot as an example (Tosafot). Another Yisrael.
explanation is that the first shearing of wool is the one
about which Rabbi Ilai stated explicitly that it does not ‫״ב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬
ּ ִ ‫ ָּכל ֵה ָיכא דִּ ְתנַן‬:‫וְ ַחד ֲא ַמר‬ And the other one said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned
apply outside of Eretz Yisrael, while Rabbi Ilai’s opinion in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both in the presence of
with regard to the other mitzva is derived from it (Rashi).
ֶ ‫וְ ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ִ ּב ְפנֵי ַה ַ ּביִ ת״ – ׁ ֶש ּל ֹא ְל‬
,‫צֹור ְך‬
the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, it is stated
Alternatively, some early commentaries hold that Rabbi ְ‫ ָס ְל ָקא דַּ ְע ָּתך‬.‫ְל ַבד ֵמאֹותֹו וְ ֶאת ְ ּבנֹו‬
Ilai’s opinion is that while the mitzva of the first shearing
needlessly, as these mitzvot are requirements of the object itself, and
‫הֹואיל ו ְּב ִענְ יָ נָ א דְּ ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬
ִ ,‫ָא ִמינָ א‬ there is no need to teach that they apply even after the destruction
of wool does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael, the mitzva
of giving the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw to the priests ,‫יכא ָק ָד ׁ ִשים – נִ נְ הֹוג‬ ָּ ‫ ִ ּבזְ ַמן דְּ ִא‬,‫ְּכ ִתיב‬ of the Temple. This is true except for the prohibition against slaugh-
does apply everywhere (Ramban). ‫ ָקא‬,‫יכא ָק ָד ׁ ִשים – ָלא נִ נְ הֹוג‬ ָּ ‫ִ ּבזְ ַמן דְּ ֵל‬ tering an animal itself and its offspring on the same day. It was neces-
.‫ַמ ׁ ְש ַמע ָלן‬ sary to teach that this mitzva applies even after the destruction of the
Temple, because it might enter your mind to say: Since this prohibi-
tion is written in a passage in the Torah discussing the matter of
sacrificial animals (see Leviticus, chapter 22), at a time when there
are sacrificial animals, i.e., when the Temple is standing, we will
abide by it, but at a time when there are no sacrificial animals, after
the destruction of the Temple, we will not abide by it. Therefore, that
mishna teaches us that this is not so.

‫יכא דִּ ְתנַ ן‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ֵה‬:‫וְ ַת ְרוַ יְ יה ּו ָא ְמ ִרי‬ And both of them said: Anywhere in this tractate that we learned
‫ ְל ַבד‬, ְ‫צֹורך‬ֶ ‫״בחו ִּּלין ו ַּב ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשים״ – ְל‬ ַּ in a mishna that a particular mitzva applies both to non-sacred
animals and to sacrificial animals, it is stated necessarily. This is the
ּ ַ ‫יטא! ִמ ׁ ּשוּם דְּ ִא‬
‫יקדַּ ׁש‬ ָ ‫ ּ ְפ ׁ ִש‬.‫ִמ ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה‬
case except for the mishna discussing the sciatic nerve, as it is obvi-
?‫ֵיה‬ּ ‫יה ִא ּיסוּר ִ ּגיד ַה ּנ ׁ ֶָשה ִמ ּינ‬ ּ ‫ּ ָפ ַקע ֵל‬ ous that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals as well. Can it
enter one’s mind to say that because it was consecrated, the prohibi-
tion of eating the sciatic nerve is abrogated from the animal?

?‫ימנָ א ִ ּבוְ ָלדֹות ָק ָד ׁ ִשים‬

ְ ‫אֹוק‬
ִ ‫ וְ ָלאו‬The Gemara asks: But didn’t we establish that the mishna there
(89b) is referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Without the
mishna, one might have thought that since the offspring was already
prohibited as a sacrificial animal before its sciatic nerve was even
formed, the prohibition with regard to the latter does not take effect
where the former prohibition already exists. If so, it was in fact
necessary to teach this halakha.

‫ימנָ א? ָלאו ִמ ׁ ּשוּם‬ ְ ‫אֹוק‬

ִ ‫ו ַּמאי ַט ֲע ָמא‬ The Gemara responds: But what is the reason we interpreted that
ּ ָ ‫ ֵמ ִע‬,‫יתנֵי‬
‫יק ָרא נַ ִמי‬ ְ ‫דְּ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א ָלן ָלא ִל‬ mishna as referring to offspring of sacrificial animals? Is it not due
to the fact that the question: Let the mishna not teach that the
– ְ‫צֹורך‬ֶ ‫ ַאיְ ֵידי דִּ ְתנָ א ְל‬, ְ‫ָלא ִּת ְק ׁ ֵשי ָלך‬
prohibition applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is
ֶ ‫ְּתנָ א נַ ִמי ׁ ֶשלּ ֹא ְל‬
. ְ‫צֹורך‬ difficult for us? It is in response to this question that Rabbi Avin
and Rabbi Meyasha stated that even from the outset, this should
not pose a difficulty for you. Rather, since the phrase: Applies to
both non-sacred and sacrificial animals, is taught necessarily with
regard to the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and
its offspring, it is also taught needlessly with regard to the prohibi-
tion against eating the sciatic nerve, to parallel the formula of the
other mishna.

‫ ַא ַּמאי‬.‫״בחו ִּּלין ֲא ָבל ל ֹא ַ ּב ּמו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשים״‬ ַּ § The mishna states that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird
‫״ש ֵּל ַח ְּת ׁ ַש ַּלח ֶאת‬ ַ ׁ :‫ל ֹא? דַּ ֲא ַמר ְק ָרא‬ from the nest applies to non-sacred birds, but not to sacrificial
birds. The Gemara asks: Why does this mitzva not apply to sacrificial
,‫ָה ֵאם״ – ְ ּב ִמי ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ְל ׁ ַש ְּלחֹו‬
birds? The Gemara responds: As the verse states: “You shall send
‫יָ צָ א זֶ ה – ׁ ֶש ִאי ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ְל ׁ ַש ְּלחֹו‬ the mother” (Deuteronomy 22:7). The verse refers only to a bird
.‫ֶא ָּלא ְל ָה ִביאֹו ִל ֵידי ִ ּגזְ ָ ּבר‬ that you are commanded to send away, i.e., a non-sacred bird; that
excludes this sacrificial bird, which you are not commanded to
send away, but rather to bring it to the custody of the Temple
treasurer.
392 Ĥullin . perek XII . 138b . ‫חלק ףד‬: ‫ב״י קרפ‬
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
‫ עֹוף ָטהֹור ׁ ֶש ָה ַרג ֶאת‬, ְ‫ ִה ְל ָּכך‬:‫ָא ַמר ָר ִבינָ א‬ Ravina says: Therefore, with regard to a kosher bird that killed a
personh and must now be executed, one is exempt from sending A kosher bird that killed a person – ‫עֹוף ָטהֹור ׁ ֶש ָה ַרג‬
‫ ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא? דַּ ֲא ַמר‬.‫ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ׁ ּ ִשלּ ו ַּח‬ ‫את ַה ֶּנ ֶפ ׁש‬:
ֶ With regard to a kosher bird that killed a
it away. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states: “You
‫ ְ ּב ִמי ׁ ֶש ַא ָּתה‬,‫״ש ֵּל ַח ְּת ׁ ַש ַּלח ֶאת ָה ֵאם״‬
ַ ׁ ‫ְק ָרא‬ person, one is exempt from the mitzva of sending it
shall send the mother.” The verse is referring only to a bird that away from the nest because one is required to bring it
‫ יָ צָ א זֶ ה ׁ ֶש ִאי ַא ָּתה ְמצ ּו ֶּוה‬,‫ְמצ ּו ֶּוה ְל ׁ ַש ְּלחֹו‬ you are commanded to send away, which excludes this bird that to court for judgment (Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot
?‫יכי דָּ ֵמי‬ִ ‫ ֵה‬.‫ְל ׁ ַש ְּלחֹו ֶא ָּלא ְל ָה ִביאֹו ְל ֵבית דִּ ין‬ you are not commanded to send away, but rather to bring it to Sheĥita 13:21).
ּ ִּ‫ִאי דְּ גָ ַמר ד‬
‫ינֵיה‬ court. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case,
i.e., how is this bird that killed a person now resting on its eggs? If
this is a case where its verdict of execution was issued,

Perek XII
Daf 139 Amud a
halakha
ּ ִּ‫ ַ ּבר ְק ָט ָלא הוּא! ֶא ָּלא דְּ ָלא ָ ּג ַמר ד‬how could it be free to rest on its eggs? It is subject to being killed
‫ינֵיה ו ָּב ֵעי‬
Just as his house is in his possession so too any
‫יה ״ו ִּב ַע ְר ָּת‬
ּ ‫ וְ ַקּיו ֵּמי ֵ ּב‬,‫יה ְל ֵבי ִדינָ א‬ ּ ֵ‫ ַל ֲאתוּי‬and should have been executed. Rather, it must be a case where its item that one wishes to consecrate must be in
verdict was not yet issued, and one is required to bring it to the
.‫ָה ָרע ִמ ִּק ְר ֶ ּבךָ ״‬ his possession – ‫מה ֵ ּביתֹו ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּתֹו ַאף ּכֹל ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּתֹו‬:ַ A
court to fulfill through it the verse: “And you shall eradicate the person cannot consecrate that which is not in his
evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:6).n possession (Rambam Sefer Hafla’a, Hilkhot Arakhin
VaĤaramim 6:22).
‫יה‬
ּ ‫ימא דַּ ֲהוָ ה ֵל‬ָ ‫ § ָהנֵי מו ְּקדָּ ׁ ִשין ֵה ִיכי דָּ ֵמי? ִא ֵיל‬With regard to the statement of the mishna that sacrificial birds
If one took the offspring and then returned them
‫״כי‬
ִּ ?‫יחּיַ יב‬
ַ ‫יה – ִמי ִמ‬ ּ ‫ ֵקן ְ ּבתֹוךְ ֵ ּביתֹו וְ ַא ְקדְּ ׁ ֵש‬are not included in the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from to the nest and thereafter the mother returned
the nest, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of these
!‫יִ ָ ּק ֵרא ַקן צִ ּפֹור״ – ּ ְפ ָרט ִל ְמזו ָּּמן‬ and rested upon them – ‫נָטל ֶאת ַה ָ ּבנִים וְ ֶה ֱחזִ ָירן ַל ֵ ּקן‬ ַ
sacrificial birds discussed in the mishna? If we say that the mishna ‫יהן‬
ֶ ‫וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ָחזְ ָרה ָה ֵאם ֲע ֵל‬: If one sent the mother away
is referring to a case where one had a nest in his house and conse- and took the young, and then returned the young to
crated it, is one obligated to send away even a non-sacred bird in the nest, and the mother returned to rest upon them,
such a case? The verse states: “If a bird’s nest happens before you he is exempt from sending the mother away again
(Rambam Sefer Kedusha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 13:7; Shulĥan
on the way” (Deuteronomy 22:6), which excludes a nest readily
Arukh, Yoreh De’a 292:5).
available in one’s home.

ּ ‫ֶא ָּלא דַּ ֲחזָ א ֵקן ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא וְ ַא ְקדְּ ׁ ֵש‬

‫יה – ו ִּמי‬ Rather, perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where one merely
‫״א ׁיש ִּכי יַ ְקדִּ ׁש ֶאת ֵ ּביתֹו ק ֶֹד ׁש״‬ ִ ?‫דֹוש‬ ׁ ‫ָק‬ saw a nest that did not belong to him, and he consecrated it. But
this, too, is problematic: Is the nest consecrated in such a case? But
‫ ַאף‬,‫ ַמה ֵ ּביתֹו – ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּתֹו‬,‫ֲא ַמר ַר ֲח ָמנָ א‬
the Merciful One states: “When a man shall sanctify his house
!‫ּכֹל – ִ ּב ְר ׁשוּתֹו‬ to be holy” (Leviticus 27:14), indicating that just as his house is in
his possession when he consecrates it, so too, any item that one
wishes to consecrate must be in his possessionh when consecrating
it. If so, one cannot consecrate a nest that does not belong to him.

,ּ‫רֹוחים וְ ַא ְקדְּ ׁ ִשינְ הו‬ִ ‫ֶא ָּלא דְּ ַאגְ ְ ּב ִהינְ ה ּו ָל ֶא ְפ‬ Rather, say that the mishna is referring to a case where one lifted
‫יל ּו ְ ּבחו ִּּלין נַ ִמי‬ ּ ‫וַ ֲה ַדר ַה ְד ִרינְ ה ּו – ַהאי ֲא ִפ‬ the chicks, taking possession of them, and then consecrated them,
and then returned them to the nest. But this too cannot be, as even
‫נָטל ֶאת ַה ָ ּבנִים וְ ֶה ֱחזִ ָירן‬ַ :‫ דִּ ְתנָ א‬,‫יחּיַ יב‬ ַ ‫ָלא ִמ‬
with regard to non-sacred birds one is not obligated to send the
‫יהן – ּ ָפטוּר‬ ֶ ‫ וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ָחזְ ָרה ָה ֵאם ֲע ֵל‬,‫ַל ֵ ּקן‬ mother away in such a case, as is taught in a mishna (141a): If one
!‫ִמ ְּל ׁ ַש ֵּל ַח‬ sent the mother away and took the offspring and then returned
them to the nest, and thereafter, the mother returned and rested
upon them,h one is exempt from sending the mother bird away,
because he has acquired the offspring and they are now considered
readily available.

notes
Fulfill through it the verse: And you shall eradicate the evil from that the dilemma itself is unnecessary, since one positive mitzva
your midst – ָ‫יה ו ִּב ַע ְר ָּת ָה ָרע ִמ ִּק ְר ֶ ּבך‬
ּ ‫קּיו ֵּמי ֵ ּב‬:ַ The early commentaries never overrides another, even if one of them is accompanied by
question why the mitzva of sending away the mother bird from a prohibition.
the nest does not override the mitzva of eradicating evil from one’s The later commentaries conclude, in accordance with the first
midst. After all, sending away the mother bird includes both a posi- answer, that the mitzva of sending away the mother bird is not
tive mitzva as well as a prohibition against taking the mother with an absolute requirement. Rather, it simply devolves upon one
the offspring (see Deuteronomy 22:6), while the mitzva of eradicat- who desires to take the offspring. By contrast, one of the later
ing evil is only a positive mitzva. The Ran cites one suggestion that commentaries views this mitzva as a requirement devolving upon
the positive mitzva of eradicating evil takes precedence because anyone who happens upon a bird’s nest containing a mother and
it is an absolute mitzva and is not dependent upon the will of the her fledglings or her eggs, even if he does not desire to take the
person. By contrast, the mitzva of sending away the mother bird young (Ĥavvot Ya’ir). In fact, the early commentaries also engage
is dependent upon one’s desire to take the chicks or the eggs. If in a dispute concerning this issue: Rashi and Tosafot (on 140b) hold
one does not wish to take the chicks or the eggs, then one need that the mitzva depends upon one’s desire to take the young, while
not send away the mother bird. The Ran himself though suggests the Ramban and Rashba hold that it is an absolute requirement.

 ‫טלק ףד‬. ‫ ב״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XII . 139a 393

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

halakha
– ‫ וְ ַה ְד ָר ּה‬,‫ֶא ָּלא דְּ ַאגְ ְ ּב ָה ּה ָל ֵאם וְ ַא ְקדְּ ׁ ָש ּה‬ The Gemara suggests: Rather, say that the mishna is referring to a
If he slaughtered it and then consecrated it – case where one lifted the mother, taking possession of her, and
‫יש ּה‬
ָ ׁ ִּ‫ש ָח ָט ּה וְ ַא ַחר ָּכ ְך ִה ְקד‬:
ְ ׁ If one slaughtered an .‫יה ְ ּב ׁ ִשילּ ו ַּח ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי דְּ ַא ְקדְּ ׁ ָש ּה‬
ּ ‫יחּיַ יב ֵל‬
ַ ‫יק ָרא ִא‬ ּ ָ ‫ֵמ ִע‬
then consecrated her, and thereafter returned her to the nest. The
undomesticated animal or a bird and afterward ‫ ִה ְקדִּ ׁיש ַחּיָ ה‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ ‫יֹוחנָן ֶ ּבן‬
ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫דְּ ַתנְיָא‬
consecrated it or its blood, he is required to cover Gemara responds that this too cannot be, because he was initially
‫ ׁ ְש ָח ָט ּה וְ ַא ַחר‬,‫וְ ַא ַחר ָּכךְ ׁ ְש ָח ָט ּה – ּ ָפטוּר ִמ ְּל ַכ ּסֹות‬ obligated in the sending away of the mother bird before he conse-
the blood, in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Yosef (Rambam Sefer Kedu- ‫ ׁ ֶש ְּכ ָבר נִ ְת ַחּיֵ יב‬,‫יש ּה – ַחּיָ יב ְל ַכ ּסֹות‬ ָ ׁ ִּ‫ָּכ ְך ִה ְקד‬ crated her. Consequently, the consecration of the bird afterward
sha, Hilkhot Sheĥita 14:3). !‫קֹודם ׁ ֶשּיָ בֹא ִל ֵידי ֶה ְקדֵּ ׁש‬ ֶ ‫ְ ּב ִכ ּסוּי‬ cannot abrogate the requirement to send it away, as it is taught in a
baraita: Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Yosef says: If one consecrated an
language undomesticated animal and then slaughtered it, he is exempt
Treasury [bei gazza] – ‫בי ַ ּגּזָ א‬:ּ ֵ This phrase, mean- from covering its blood, because a consecrated animal is not subject
ing: House of treasure, derives from the Persian to the obligation of covering the blood. But if he slaughtered it and
ganz, which means treasure, with the word bei then consecrated it,h he is obligated to cover its blood, as he was
parallel to the Hebrew term beit, meaning: House
already obligated in the mitzva of covering of the blood before it
of. The words ginzakh and ganaz that appear in
the Bible (see, e.g., Esther 3:9, I Chronicles 28:11) came into the possession of the Temple treasury.
are also derivatives of this word.
,‫ ְ ּב ַמ ְקדִּ ׁיש ּ ֵפירֹות ׁש ָֹובכֹו ּו ָמ ְרד ּו‬:‫ ַרב ָא ַמר‬Rather, Rav says: The mishna is referring to a case of one who
ְ ְ‫ ְ ּב ַמ ְקדִּ ׁיש ַּת ְרנ‬:‫ ּו ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָא ַמר‬consecrates the fruit, i.e., the chicks, of his dovecote for sacrifice
‫גֹול ּתֹו ְל ֶב ֶדק‬
on the altar, and they later rebelled and fled from the dovecote and
.‫ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬
nested elsewhere. The mishna teaches that although such birds are
not considered readily available, one is exempt from sending away
the mother because they are sacrificial birds. If they were non-sacred,
one who finds them would be obligated to do so. And Shmuel says:
The mishna is referring to a case of one who consecrates his chicken
for Temple maintenance, and the chicken later rebelled and fled its
owner’s home and established a nest elsewhere.

‫מֹוקים‬
ִ ‫ ִ ּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל ָלא ֲא ַמר ְּכ ַרב – דְּ ָקא‬The Gemara objects: Granted, Shmuel did not state his explanation
‫ ֶא ָּלא ַרב ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא‬,‫ ָל ּה ְ ּב ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ֶב ֶדק ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬of the mishna in accordance with that of Rav, since he interprets
it as referring even to birds consecrated for Temple maintenance,
?‫ָלא ֲא ַמר ִּכ ׁ ְשמו ֵּאל‬
which do not have inherent sanctity. Accordingly, the mishna
teaches that all consecrated birds are not included in the mitzva of
sending away the mother bird. But what is the reason that Rav did
not state his explanation in accordance with that of Shmuel?

‫ דַּ וְ ָקא ָק ּ ָפ ְט ִרי ִמ ׁ ּ ִשילּ ו ַּח ְּכגֹון ּ ֵפירֹות‬:‫ֲא ַמר ְלךָ ַרב‬ The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you: I specifically
‫ דְּ ֵכיוָ ן דְּ ָק ְד ׁ ִשי‬,‫ׁש ָֹובכֹו דְּ ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ִמזְ ֵ ּב ַח נִינְ ה ּו‬ exempted one from sending the mother bird away in a case where
the birds are the fruit of his dovecote, as they are consecrated for
,ּ‫ְקדו ׁ ּ ַּשת ַהגּ וּף ָלא ּ ָפ ְק ָעה ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּש ַתיְ יה ּו ִמ ּינַיְ יהו‬
the altar. Since they are consecrated with inherent sanctity, their
‫ דְּ ָלאו‬,‫גֹול ּתֹו ְל ֶב ֶדק ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ ְ ְ‫ֲא ָבל ְ ּב ַמ ְקדִּ ׁיש ַּת ְרנ‬ sanctity is not abrogated from themn even when they flee from the
‫ ֵּכיוָ ן‬,‫ דִּ ְקדו ׁ ּ ַּשת דָּ ִמים ְ ּב ָע ְל ָמא הוּא‬,‫זְב ַח‬ ּ ֵ ‫ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ִמ‬ dovecote. But in a case where one consecrates his chicken for
.‫ וְ ַחּיֶ ֶיבת ְ ּב ׁ ִשילּ ו ַּח‬,ּ‫דְּ ָמ ְר ָדה – ּ ָפ ְק ָעה ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּש ַתיְ יהו‬ Temple maintenance, where the chicken is not consecrated for
the altar but merely has sanctity that inheres in its value, once it
rebels its sanctity is abrogated, and it is obligated in, i.e., subject
to, the mitzva of sending away the mother bird.

‫ ְ ּב ֵבי ַ ּגּזָ א‬,‫יה‬

ּ ‫ית‬
ֵ ‫יכא דְּ ִא‬ ָ ‫ ָּכל ֵה‬:‫ו ׁ ְּשמו ֵּאל ֲא ַמר‬ And Shmuel could have said: Though it has rebelled, the chicken
.‫לֹוא ּה״‬ ָ ‫״לה׳ ָה ָא ֶרץ ו ְּמ‬ ַ ‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יתא‬ ָ ‫דְּ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִא‬ retains its sanctity, since wherever it is, it is in the treasury [bei
gazza]l of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the
‫גֹול ּתֹו ְל ֶב ֶדק‬ְ ְ‫ ְ ּב ַמ ְקדִּ ׁיש ַּת ְרנ‬:‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫וְ ֵכן ָא ַמר ַר ִ ּבי‬
Lord’s, and its fullness thereof ” (Psalms 24:1). And so Rabbi
:‫יה ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬ּ ‫ ֲא ַמר ֵל‬.‫ַה ַ ּביִ ת ו ָּמ ְר ָדה‬ Yoĥanan says that the mishna is referring to a case where one con-
ּ ‫יה ְקדו ׁ ּ ָּש ָת ּה! ֲא ַמר ֵל‬
:‫יה‬ ּ ‫וְ ֵכיוָ ן ׁ ֶש ָּמ ְר ָדה ּ ָפ ְק ָעה ֵל‬ secrated his chicken for Temple maintenance, and the chicken
‫״לה׳ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ַ ‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יתא‬ ָ ‫ְ ּב ֵבי ַ ּגּזָ א דְּ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִא‬ then rebelled. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: But once it
.‫לֹוא ּה״‬ָ ‫ו ְּמ‬ rebels, its sanctity is abrogated. Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: Wher-
ever it is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful One, as it is written:
“The earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness thereof.”

notes
Since they are consecrated with inherent sanctity their sanctity bird, the difference is as follows: A bird consecrated to be sacrificed
is not abrogated from them – ‫דְּ ֵכיוָ ן דְּ ָק ְד ׁ ִשי ְקדו ׁ ּ ַּשת ַהגּ וּף ָלא ּ ָפ ְק ָעה‬ upon the altar retains its inherent sanctity wherever it may be. By
‫קדו ׁ ּ ָּש ַתיְ יה ּו ִמ ּינַיְ יה ּו‬:ְ According to Rav, there is a distinction in halakha contrast, a bird consecrated for Temple maintenance is consecrated
here between a bird that was consecrated to be sacrificed upon the only inasmuch as it is still in the possession of the Temple treasury.
altar and a bird that was sacrificed for Temple maintenance. This dif- Once it flees the dovecote, the Temple treasurer presumably despairs
ference is rooted in a similar distinction with regard to the halakhot of ever recovering it, and, like any lost item whose owner despairs of
of misuse of consecrated property. In that context, the prohibition recovering it, the bird becomes ownerless and is no longer conse-
against misusing an animal consecrated to be sacrificed upon the crated. Shmuel disagrees and holds that based on the principle that
altar is due to the inherent sanctity of the animal. By contrast, the wherever a consecrated item is, it is in the treasury of the Merciful
prohibition against misusing an animal consecrated for Temple One, the despair of the Temple treasurer will not take effect, just as
maintenance is essentially a prohibition against stealing from the despair of an owner of an item does not take effect if the item is still
Temple treasury. With regard to the mitzva to send away the mother in his possession, even if he is not aware of that fact (Kehillot Ya’akov).

394 Ĥullin . perek XII . 139a . ‫טלק ףד‬. ‫ב״י קרפ‬

 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

language
‫ וְ ָר ֵמי דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫יֹוחנָן ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ָ ‫ וְ ָר ֵמי דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of
ּ ָ ‫ג‬:ּ ִ This word appears in the
Treasurer [gizbar] – ‫זְבר‬
.‫ ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש‬Rabbi Yoĥanan here and that of Rabbi Yoĥanan elsewhere, and the Bible (Ezra 1:8) and derives from the Old Persian
Gemara raises a contradiction between the statement of Rabbi ganzabara. Ganz means treasure, while bara is an
Shimon ben Lakish here and that of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish element meaning bearer and is frequently used as
elsewhere. a grammatical agent. The term ganzabara therefore
means treasurer.
‫״מנֶ ה זֶ ה ְל ֶב ֶדק ַה ַ ּביִ ת״ וְ נִ גְ נְ ב ּו אֹו‬ָ :‫דְּ ִא ְּית ַמר‬ As it was stated: If one declares that these one hundred dinars
‫ ַחּיָ יב ְ ּב ַא ֲח ָריו ָּתן ַעד‬:‫יֹוחנָן ָא ַמר‬ ָ ‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,ּ‫נֶ ֶא ְבדו‬ are consecrated for Temple maintenance, and they were stolen or halakha
lost, Rabbi Yoĥanan says: He bears responsibility for them until
‫ ָּכל‬:‫ וְ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָא ַמר‬.‫ׁ ֶשּיָ בֹוא ּו ִל ֵידי ִ ּגזְ ָ ּבר‬ Which is the case of a vow offering and which is
they come into the physical possession of the Temple treasurer the case of a gift offering, etc. – ‫ֵאיזֶ ה ּו נֶ ֶדר וְ ֵאיזֹו ִהיא‬
,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יה – ְ ּב ֵבי ַ ּגּזָ א דְּ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִא ֵית‬
ּ ‫ֵה ָיכא דְּ ִא ֵית‬ [gizbar].l Consequently, he must pay one hundred dinars to the ‫נְ ָד ָבה וכו׳‬: Which is the case of a vow offering, and
‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָא דְּ ֵר ׁיש‬.‫לֹוא ּה״‬ ָ ‫״לה׳ ָה ָא ֶרץ ו ְּמ‬ ַ ‫דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬ treasury. And Reish Lakish says: One is not required to replace which is the case of a gift offering? When one says: It
‫יֹוחנָ ן‬
ָ ‫ ַק ׁ ְשיָ א דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ָל ִק ׁיש ַאדְּ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬ the lost money, since wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, or:
Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its It is incumbent upon me to bring a peace offering,
!‫יֹוחנָן‬
ָ ‫ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ or: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering,
fullness.” Accordingly, the money is considered to have entered the or: The value of this animal is incumbent upon me to
possession of the treasury. If so, this statement of Reish Lakish poses bring as a burnt offering, or: The value of this animal
a difficulty for the other statement of Reish Lakish, and this state- is incumbent upon me to bring as a peace offering,
ment of Rabbi Yoĥanan poses a difficulty for the other statement that is a case of a vow offering. But when one says:
of Rabbi Yoĥanan. This animal is a burnt offering, or: The value of this
animal shall be for a burnt offering, or: The value of
,‫ דְּ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ַאדְּ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between this this animal shall be for a peace offering, or: This tenth
of an ephah is a meal offering, that is a case of a gift
‫ ָהא‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫יֹוחנָן ַר ֵ ּב‬ ּ ‫ ָהא ִמ ַ ּק ֵּמי דִּ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵע‬statement of Reish Lakish and that statement of Reish Lakish is not
ָ ‫יה ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי‬ offering, in accordance with the mishna from trac-
difficult. This statement, that the sanctity of a consecrated chicken
.‫יה‬ ּ ‫יֹוחנָן ַר ֵ ּב‬
ָ ‫יה ֵמ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ּ ‫ְל ָב ַתר דִּ ׁ ְש ָמ ֵע‬ tate Kinnim (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh
that rebelled is abrogated, was made before he heard the statement HaKorbanot 14:4).
from Rabbi Yoĥanan, his teacher, that wherever it is, it is in God’s
treasury. That statement, that one is not liable to replace the missing And what is the difference between a vow offer-
ing and a gift offering, etc. – ‫ו ַּמה ֵ ּבין נֶ ֶדר ִל ָנְד ָבה וכו׳‬:
consecrated funds, was made after he heard that statement from What is the difference between a vow offering and
Rabbi Yoĥanan his teacher. a gift offering? If the animal one selects for a vow
offering is lost or stolen, one bears responsibility for
‫יֹוחנָן ַק ׁ ְשיָ א! דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ ָ ‫ ֶא ָּלא דְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬The Gemara objects: But still, this statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan
ָ ‫יֹוחנָן ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬ it until it, or its replacement, is sacrificed upon the
– ‫ ָהא‬,‫יֹוחנָן נַ ִמי ָלא ַק ׁ ְשיָ א‬ ָ ‫יֹוחנָן ַאדְּ ַר ִ ּבי‬
ָ poses a difficulty for that statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan. The Gemara altar. But if the animal one selects for a gift offering
responds: The apparent contradiction between this statement of is lost or stolen, one bears no responsibility for it and
.‫״ה ֵרי זֹו״‬ֲ ‫ ָהא – דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫״ע ַלי״‬ ָ ‫דַּ ֲא ַמר‬
Rabbi Yoĥanan and that statement of Rabbi Yoĥanan is also not need not replace it, in accordance with the mishna in
difficult. This statement, that one bears responsibility for the missing tractate Kinnim (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh
HaKorbanot 14:5).
consecrated funds, is referring to a case where the consecrator said:
It is incumbent upon me to bring one hundred dinars to the Temple
treasury. In such a case, one bears responsibility for the money until
it reaches the Temple treasurer. That statement, that a consecrated
chicken that rebelled remains consecrated, is referring to a case
where the consecrator said: This chicken is consecrated for Temple
maintenance. In such a case, the sanctity is not abrogated even after
the chicken flees, because wherever it is, it is in God’s treasury.

‫ ִמ ְּכ ָלל דְּ ַר ִ ּבי ׁ ִש ְמעֹון ֶ ּבן ָל ִק ׁיש ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב‬The Gemara objects: If it is so that when Rabbi Yoĥanan says that
?‫״ע ַלי״ ָלא ִמ ַחּיֵ יב‬ ָ ‫ דַּ ֲא ַמר‬one bears financial responsibility for the missing consecrated funds,
he is referring to a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me, by
inference one may conclude that according to Rabbi Shimon ben
Lakish, who says that one does not bear responsibility for the money,
one does not bear financial responsibility even though one said: It
is incumbent upon me.

– ‫ נֶ ֶדר‬,‫ ֵאיזֶ ה ּו נֶ ֶדר וְ ֵאיזֹו ִהיא ָנְד ָבה‬:‫וְ ָה ַתנְיָא‬ But isn’t it taught in a mishna (Kinnim 1:1): Which is the case of a
‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ נְ ָד ָבה – ָה‬,‫עֹולה״‬ ָ ‫״ה ֵרי ָע ַלי‬ ֲ ‫אֹומר‬
ֵ ‫ָה‬ vow offering, and which is the case of a gift offering?h A vow offering
is where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offer-
?‫ ּו ַמה ֵ ּבין נֶ ֶדר ִלנְ ָד ָבה‬.‫עֹולה״‬ ָ ‫״ה ֵרי זֹו‬ ֲ
ing. A gift offering is where one says: This animal is a burnt offering.
‫ ַחּיָ יב‬,‫נֶ ֶדר – ֵמ ָתה אֹו נִ גְ נְ ָבה אֹו ׁ ֶש ָא ְב ָדה‬ And what is the difference between a vow offering and a gift
‫ נְ ָד ָבה – ֵמ ָתה אֹו נִ גְ נְ ָבה אֹו‬.‫ְ ּב ַא ֲח ָריו ָּת ּה‬ offering?h With regard to a vow offering, if it died or was stolen or
!‫ ֵאינֹו ַחּיָ יב ְ ּב ַא ֲח ָריו ָּת ּה‬,‫ׁ ֶש ָא ְב ָדה‬ lost, one bears financial responsibility for it. With regard to a gift
offering, if it died or was stolen or lost, one does not bear financial
responsibility for it.

ּ ֵ ‫ ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ִמ‬:‫ֲא ַמר ָלךְ ֵר ׁיש ָל ִק ׁיש‬

,‫זְב ַח‬ The Gemara responds that Reish Lakish could have said to you:
,‫ ֲא ָבל ָק ְד ׁ ֵשי ֶב ֶדק ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬,‫דִּ ְמחו ַּּסר ַה ְק ָר ָבה‬ This statement, that one who says: It is incumbent upon me, bears
financial responsibility, applies only to an item consecrated for the
‫ ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דַּ ֲא ַמר‬,‫דְּ ָלאו ְמחו ַּּסר ַה ְק ָר ָבה‬
altar, since one vowed to sacrifice it as an offering and it has not
.‫״ע ַלי״ – ָלא ִמ ַחּיֵ יב‬ ָ yet been sacrificed. But with regard to an item consecrated for
Temple maintenance, which is not lacking sacrifice on the altar,
even though one said: It is incumbent upon me, one does not bear
financial responsibility for it.
 ‫טלק ףד‬. ‫ ב״י קרפ‬. Ĥullin . Perek XII . 139a 395
 This file may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without express permission from the publisher

notes
‫״ביִ ת‬
ּ ַ ,‫עֹולה״‬ ָ ‫״שֹור זֶ ה‬ ׁ ‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫ ָה‬:‫וְ ָה ְתנַן‬ The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Arakhin 20b)
This house is an offering – ‫ביִ ת זֶ ה ָק ְר ָ ּבן‬:ּ ַ In other words, this that in the case of one who says: This bull is consecrated as a burnt
house is consecrated for Temple maintenance. Rashi notes ‫ נָ ַפל ַה ַ ּביִ ת – ֵאינֹו‬,‫ ֵמת ַה ׁ ּשֹור‬.‫זֶ ה ָק ְר ָ ּבן״‬
offering, or: This house is consecrated as an offering,n and the bull
that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are also ,‫עֹולה״‬ ָ ‫״שֹור זֶ ה ָע ַלי‬ ׁ .‫ַחּיָ יב ְ ּב ַא ֲח ָריו ָּתן‬
referred to as offerings, as the verse states: “And we have died or the house collapsed, he does not bear financial responsi-
‫ ֵמת ַה ׁ ּשֹור וְ נָ ַפל‬.‫״ביִ ת זֶ ה ָע ַלי ָק ְר ָ ּבן״‬ ַּ bility for them; but in the case of one who says: It is incumbent
brought the Lord’s offering, what every man has gotten, of
jewels of gold” (Numbers 31:50). !‫ַה ַ ּביִ ת – ַחּיָ יב ְל ׁ ַש ֵּלם‬ upon me to give this bull as a burnt offering,n or: It is incumbent
It is incumbent upon me to give this bull as a burnt upon me to give this house as an offering, if the bull died or the
offering, etc. – ‫עֹולה וכו׳‬
ָ ‫שֹור זֶ ה ָע ַלי‬:ׁ Rashi explains that house collapsed,h he is obligated to pay its value? Evidently, even
although one refers to a specific bull or a specific house, with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, if one
this is not considered a gift offering, because one also says: says: It is incumbent upon me, one bears financial responsibility for
Upon me. His statement is therefore understood as an them.
acceptance of financial responsibility.
‫ָהנֵי ִמ ֵּילי ֵה ָיכא דְּ ֵמת ַה ׁ ּשֹור וְ נָ ַפל ַה ַ ּביִ ת‬ The Gemara responds: With regard to this statement, that if one
halakha ‫יכא‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ָבל ֵה‬,ּ‫יתנֵ הו‬ ְ ‫ַחּיָ יב ְל ׁ ַש ֵּלם – דְּ ֵל‬ says: It is incumbent upon me to give an item for Temple mainte-
If the bull died or the house collapsed – ‫ֵמת ַה ׁ ּשֹור וְ נָ ַפל‬ nance, he bears financial responsibility, that applies only where the
‫יה – ְ ּב ֵבי‬ ּ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫א‬ ִ ְּ‫ד‬ ‫א‬ ‫יכ‬
ָ ‫ ָּכל ֵה‬,ּ‫יתנְ הו‬ ְ ‫דְּ ִא‬
‫ה ַ ּביִ ת‬:ַ If one says: The monetary value of this bull is incum- bull died or the house collapsed. In such a case he is obligated to
bent upon me to bring as a burnt offering, or: The monetary ‫״לה׳‬ ַ ‫ דִּ ְכ ִתיב‬,‫יה‬ ּ ‫ית‬ֵ ‫ַ ּגּזָ א דְּ ַר ֲח ָמנָ א ִא‬ pay, since they no longer exist. But where they still exist, e.g., in
value of this house is incumbent upon me to bring as an .‫לֹוא ּה״‬
ָ ‫ָה ָא ֶרץ ו ְּמ‬ the case of an item or sum of money that was lost or stolen, one
offering, and the bull died or the house collapsed, he bears
financial responsibility to pay its value, in accordance with
applies the principle: Wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the
the mishna in tractate Arakhin and the explanation of the Merciful One, as it is written: “The earth is the Lord’s, and its
Gemara there (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Ma’aseh HaKor- fullness thereof.”
banot 14:6).
,‫מֹודים ַ ּב ֲע ָר ִכין‬
ִ ‫ ַה ּכֹל‬:‫ָא ַמר ַרב ַה ְמנוּנָ א‬ § The Gemara above cited a dispute between Rabbi Yoĥanan and
.‫יחּיַ יב‬
ַ ‫״ע ַלי״ – ָלא ִמ‬ ָ ‫ַאף ַעל ַ ּגב דַּ ֲא ַמר‬ Reish Lakish as to the halakha about one who says: It is incumbent
upon me to bring an item for Temple maintenance. With regard to
‫יה ְ ּב ָלא‬ ּ ‫ל‬ֵ ‫ר‬ ‫מ‬ַ ‫ית‬
ְ ‫מ‬ִ ‫א‬ ‫ַמאי ַט ֲע ָמא – דְּ ָל‬
this dispute, Rav Hamnuna says: Everyone concedes with regard
.‫״ע ַלי״‬
ָ to valuationsb that even if one said: It is incumbent upon me to
donate my own valuation, and one set aside money that was then
lost or stolen, one does not bear financial responsibility for it.
What is the reason for this? It is because it cannot be stated by
him without stating: Upon me. In other words, one cannot say:
This is my valuation, since he has yet to accept upon himself any
such obligation.

?‫״ע ְר ִּכי״ – ַא ַּמאן‬

ֶ ‫ימא‬ָ ‫ימא? ֵל‬ ִ ‫ ֵה‬Therefore, although one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate
ָ ‫יכי ֵל‬
?‫״ע ֶרךְ ּ ְפלֹונִי״ – ַא ַּמאן‬
ֶ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬my valuation, this is not considered an acceptance of financial
responsibility. After all, how shall he say it without stating: It is
incumbent upon me? Shall he say only: My own valuation, with-
out: Is incumbent upon me? If so, upon whom is the obligation
placed to pay the money? Or shall he say only: The valuation
of so-and-so? Still, upon whom is the obligation placed to pay
the money?

,‫״ה ֵרינִי ְ ּב ֶע ְר ִּכי״‬ ֲ ‫ימא‬ ָ ‫ ֵל‬:‫ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ָר ָבא‬ Rava objects to this: Let him say: I am encumbered with my own
‫ ַר ִ ּבי‬,‫ ַּתנְיָא‬,‫״ה ֵרינִי ְב ֶע ֶרךְ ּ ְפלֹונִי״! וְ עֹוד‬ ֲ valuation, or: I am encumbered with the valuation of so-and-so.
One need not say: Is incumbent upon me. Additionally, it is taught
‫ ״וְ נָ ַתן ֶאת ָה ֶע ְר ְּכךָ ַ ּבּיֹום‬:‫אֹומר‬ ֵ ‫נָ ָתן‬
in a baraita with regard to the redemption of a purchased field that
?‫לֹומר‬ ַ ‫ַההוּא ק ֶֹד ׁש ַלה׳״ – ַמה ַּת ְלמוּד‬ was consecrated that Rabbi Natan says about the verse: “Then the
– ‫ְל ִפי ׁ ֶש ָּמצִ ינ ּו ְ ּב ֶה ְק ֵד ׁשֹות ו ַּמ ַע ְ ׂשרֹות‬ priest shall reckon for him the worth of your valuation until the
‫ נִ גְ נְ ב ּו‬,‫ׁ ֶש ִּמ ְת ַח ְּל ִלין ַעל ָמעֹות ׁ ֶש ְ ּבחו ִּּלין‬ Jubilee Year, and he shall give your valuation on that day, as a
,‫אֹו ׁ ֶש ָא ְבד ּו – ֵאינָן ַחּיָ ִיבין ְ ּב ַא ֲח ָריו ָּתן‬ consecrated thing to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:23): Why must the
verse state: “And he shall give your valuation”? It could have stated
simply: And he shall give it. It is necessary because we have found