Chullin 44bחולין מ״ד ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Chullin 44b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
44bמ״ד ב

רוב עוביה ואמרי לה רוב חללה

The majority of its width, counting the width of the wall of the windpipe itself, the thickness of which is uneven. And some say that Rav says: The majority of its space, the inner area of the cross section of the windpipe, not counting the width of the windpipe wall.

ההיא פסוקת הגרגרת דאתאי לקמיה דרב יתיב וקא בדיק לה ברוב עוביה אמרו ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב לימדתנו רבינו ברוב חללה שדריה לקמיה דרבה בר בר חנה בדקה ברוב חללה ואכשרה וזבן מינה בתליסר איסתירי פשיטי בישרא

The Gemara recounts: There was a certain animal with a cut windpipe that came before Rav, i.e., it was brought for inspection to decide whether it was kosher. Rav was sitting and checking it to see if the windpipe had been cut in the majority of its width. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Didn’t you teach us, our teacher, that a cut windpipe is measured by the majority of its space? Rav sent the animal before Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who checked it in the majority of its space and deemed it kosher, and purchased meat from it at the price of thirteen plain istera coins.

והיכי עביד הכי והתניא חכם שטימא אין חבירו רשאי לטהר אסר אין חבירו רשאי להתיר שאני הכא דרב לא אסר מיסר

The Gemara asks: And how could Rabba bar bar Ḥana do this, i.e., deem permitted an animal that Rav was going to deem prohibited? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a halakhic authority deemed an item impure, another halakhic authority is not allowed to deem it pure; likewise, if he prohibited it, another authority is not allowed to permit it? The Gemara responds: It is different here, since Rav did not actually prohibit the animal. He merely considered doing so, but he sent it to Rabba bar bar Ḥana before issuing a formal ruling.

וכיון דאורי בה חכם היכי אכל מינה והא כתיב (יחזקאל ד, יד) ואומר אהה ה' אלהים הנה נפשי לא מטומאה ונבלה וטרפה לא אכלתי מנעורי ועד עתה ולא בא בפי בשר פגול

The Gemara asks: And once a halakhic authority has ruled with regard to the animal, even to permit it, how could Rabba bar bar Ḥana eat from it? But isn’t it written: “Then I said: Alas, Lord God, my soul has not become impure; and from my youth until now I have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass, or a tereifa; and no piggul flesh came into my mouth” (Ezekiel 4:14).

הנה נפשי לא מטומאה שלא הרהרתי ביום לבא לידי טומאה בלילה ונבלה וטרפה לא אכלתי שלא אכלתי בשר כוס כוס מעולם ולא בא בפי בשר פגול שלא אכלתי מבהמה שהורה בה חכם משום ר' נתן אמרו שלא אכלתי מבהמה שלא הורמו מתנותיה

The Sages interpreted the verse as follows: “My soul has not been become impure” means that I did not think of sexual thoughts during the day so as to come to the impurity of a seminal emission at night. “I have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass, or a tereifa means that I never ate the flesh of an animal that was in danger of imminent death, leading one to say: Slaughter it, slaughter it quickly, before it dies. “And no piggul flesh came into my mouth,” means that I never ate from an animal with regard to which there was uncertainty whether it is prohibited and a Sage issued a ruling to permit it. The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Natan: The phrase means that I never ate from an animal from which the gifts of the priesthood, the foreleg, jaw, and abomasum, were not separated. The above acts are technically permitted but unseemly. How, then, could Rabba bar bar Ḥana consume the meat of this animal?

הני מילי מילתא דתליא בסברא רבה בר בר חנה אגמריה סמך

The Gemara responds: This statement, that it is unseemly for a halakhic authority to rely on his own ruling to permit the meat, applies only to a matter that depends on reasoning. Rabba bar bar Ḥana relied on his learning, i.e., a received tradition. There is nothing unseemly about relying upon a received tradition.

ותיפוק ליה משום חשדא דתניא דן את הדין זיכה וחייב טימא וטיהר אסר והתיר וכן העדים שהעידו כולן רשאין ליקח אבל אמרו חכמים הרחק מן הכיעור ומן הדומה לו

The Gemara objects: But let one derive that Rabba bar bar Ḥana should not have purchased the meat due to suspicion, as it is taught in a baraita: If one issued a judgment, acquitted or convicted, deemed impure or pure, prohibited or permitted; or if witnesses testified with regard to a case, in all of these instances the judges or witnesses are allowed to purchase the item that they deemed permitted. But the Sages said: Distance yourself from unseemliness and from things similar to it. If so, Rabba bar bar Ḥana should not have purchased the meat that he himself permitted.

ה"מ מידי דמזבין משומא הכא מתקלא מוכח כי הא דרבה שרא טרפתא וזבן מינה בישרא אמרה ליה בת רב חסדא אבא שרי בוכרא ולא זבן מיניה בישרא

The Gemara responds: This statement applies only to an item that is sold based on an appraisal of its value and not by standard measure. In such cases onlookers might suspect that the judge is receiving a favorable price in return for his judgment. But here, the weight of the meat proves that the judge is not receiving a discount, but is paying the standard price. This is like that incident where Rabba permitted a possible tereifa for consumption and bought meat from it. His wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda, said to him: Father permitted a firstborn animal, declaring that it possessed a blemish that renders it permitted for consumption, but did not buy meat from it. Why are you acting differently?

אמר לה ה"מ בוכרא דאשומא מזדבן הכא מתקלא מוכח מאי איכא משום אומצא מעלייתא כל יומא אומצא מעלייתא זבנו לי

Rabba said to her: That matter applies to a firstborn, which is sold based on appraisal of its value. Here, the weight of the meat proves that I am paying the standard price and not unfairly deriving benefit from my judgment. What suspicion is there in this case? Will people suspect me because I received a superior piece of meat? Every day they sell me a superior piece of meat.

אמר רב חסדא איזהו תלמיד חכם זה הרואה טרפה לעצמו ואמר רב חסדא איזהו (משלי טו, כז) שונא מתנות יחיה זה הרואה טרפה לעצמו

The Gemara cites an aphorism: Rav Ḥisda says: Who is a Torah scholar? This is one who sees his own tereifa. In other words, when the status of his own animal is uncertain, he deems it prohibited without concern for his own monetary loss. And Rav Ḥisda says: Who is referred to by the verse: “He that hates gifts shall live” (Proverbs 15:27)? This is one who sees his own tereifa. He is careful to avoid deriving benefit from that which is not his own, and even from items that are his concerning which it is questionable whether or not they are permitted.

דרש מר זוטרא משמיה דרב חסדא כל מי שקורא ושונה ורואה טרפה לעצמו ושימש תלמידי חכמים עליו הכתוב אומר (תהלים קכח, ב) יגיע כפיך כי תאכל אשריך וטוב לך רב זביד אמר זוכה ונוחל שני עולמות העולם הזה והעולם הבא אשריך בעולם הזה וטוב לך לעולם הבא

Mar Zutra taught in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Anyone who reads the Torah and studies the Mishna, and sees his own tereifa, and has served Torah scholars to learn the ways of halakhic judgment, about him the verse states: “When you eat the labor of your hands, happy shall you be, and it shall be well with you” (Psalms 128:2). Rav Zevid says: Such a person merits inheriting two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come. When the verse states: “Happy shall you be,” it means in this world, and when it states: “And it shall be well with you,” it is referring to the World-to-Come.

ר' אלעזר כי הוו משדרי ליה מבי נשיאה מידי לא שקיל וכי הוו מזמני ליה לא אזיל אמר לא קא בעי מר דאיחי דכתיב ושונא מתנות יחיה רבי זירא כי משדרי ליה לא שקיל כי הוו מזמנין ליה אזיל אמר

With regard to the verse: “He that hates gifts shall live,” the Gemara relates that when they would send Rabbi Elazar some gift from the house of the Nasi, he would not take it. And when they would invite him, he would not go there. When declining these offers, he said to them: Does Master not desire that I live? As it is written: “He that hates gifts shall live.” By contrast, when they would send a gift to Rabbi Zeira, he would not take it, but when they would invite him he would go. He said in explanation: