Chullin 44b — the Talmud in English

Rav said: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

the majority of its thickness.

This means that the thickness of the wall joins the hollow, even if only a minority of the hollow was cut, to form the measure of the majority of the windpipe that was severed.

And some say that

some say that this is what Rav said:

the majority of its hollow.

The thickness of the wall that was cut is not taken into consideration; only the severing of the majority of the hollow of the windpipe matters.

There was a case of a severed windpipe that came before Rav.

Rav sat and examined it according to the majority of its thickness.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:

Look,

our teacher, you taught us

that it must be examined

according to the majority of its hollow?!

He sent it

to

Rav

that severed windpipe, which had been brought before him and which he had examined according to the majority of its thickness,

to Rabba bar bar Ḥana.

He examined it

Rabba bar bar Ḥana

according to the majority of its hollow,

and found that the majority of the hollow had not been severed,

and he declared it fit!

And he bought from it

Rabba bar bar Ḥana

meat for thirteen plain isṭera

[thirteen ordinary state coins, which were simple and low-value coins]

of meat.

That is, Rabba bar bar Ḥana bought meat from this animal in order to eat it himself.

The Gemara wonders:

How did

Rabba bar bar Ḥana

act in this way?

But it was taught in a beraita: If a Sage declared an item impure—

his colleague is not permitted to declare it pure.

And if one Sage

forbade an item, his colleague is not permitted to permit it.

And we answer:

Here it is different, because Rav did not actually forbid it;

rather, he wanted to examine it according to the majority of its thickness, but his students did not allow him to perform that examination and instead sent it to Rabba bar bar Ḥana. Therefore, Rabba bar bar Ḥana was permitted to declare it fit.

But we are still dealing with this matter: And since a Sage had issued a ruling concerning it,

meaning that this question had reached the point where a Sage was needed to issue a ruling,

how did Rabba bar bar Ḥana eat from it,

even though he had declared it fit?

But it is written

[Ezekiel 4]:

“

And I said: Please, Lord God, behold, my soul has never been defiled, and from my youth until now I have never eaten an animal that died without slaughter or an animal rendered terefa, and no repulsive meat has ever entered my mouth.”

And earlier we expounded this verse as follows:

“Behold, my soul has never been defiled”—

for I never entertained a sinful thought during the day

that could lead

to impurity at night.

“And an animal that died without slaughter or an animal rendered terefa I have never eaten”—

for I have never eaten meat while saying, “Hurry, hurry,”

meaning that I never ate meat from an animal in danger of dying, whose slaughterer people urged to slaughter quickly, saying to him, “Slaughter, slaughter!”

“And no repulsive meat has ever entered my mouth”—

for I have never eaten from an animal concerning which a Sage issued a ruling.

In the name of Rabbi Natan they said: “For I have never eaten from an animal whose required portions had not been removed,”

meaning the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach, and I treated its meat as though it were forbidden, even though the meat is not forbidden before the portions designated for the kohen have been removed.

If so, how did Rabba bar bar Ḥana eat from an animal concerning which a Sage had issued a ruling!?

And we answer:

This statement

applies when there is a pious practice not to eat the animal after a Sage has issued a ruling concerning it,

when the Sage ruled on

a matter that depends on reasoning,

such as a case in which one must compare one matter with another, because there is reason to doubt whether his reasoning was sound. But

Rabba bar bar Ḥana

did not issue this ruling on the basis of his own reasoning; rather,

he relied on what he had been taught!

For he had received from his teacher that a severed windpipe must be examined according to the majority of its hollow, and not according to the majority of its thickness.

But the Gemara still discusses why Rabba bar bar Ḥana bought meat from this animal:

And let us derive from this

that he should have been forbidden to buy meat from this animal

because of suspicion,

as it might appear that he was receiving payment for his ruling. Perhaps people would say that the seller lowered the price of the meat for him because he had permitted it!?

For it was taught:

A judge who

judged a case

between two litigants,

acquitted one and found the other liable; declared an item impure and declared another item pure; forbade an item and permitted another item.

And likewise, witnesses who testified concerning a field or a garment that it belonged to a particular person.

All of them,

both the judges and the witnesses,

are permitted to purchase

from the party who won the case the very object that had been disputed in court.

But the Sages said: Keep far from anything disgraceful and from anything resembling it!

This is so that people should not say that the judge acquitted him, or that the witnesses testified in his favor, so that they could later purchase the object from him cheaply.

And we answer:

This statement

applies when the matter appears disgraceful, if it is

an item sold by appraisal,

whose value is assessed at the time of purchase and for which there is no fixed market price. In that case, there is reason to fear that people will say that the price was lowered for him. But

here,

where he bought meat at the price at which meat is sold,

the weighing,

the weight of the meat,

demonstrates

that this was its price and that the price was not lowered for him. Therefore, there is no further suspicion.

It is like the case of Rava, who permitted an animal rendered terefa,

meaning that he issued a ruling concerning a question of an animal rendered terefa and declared it fit,

and bought meat from it.

His wife

who was

the daughter of Rav Hisda, said to him: “My father

would permit firstborn animals,

and Rav Hisda, my father, would examine firstborn animals that the kohanim brought before him to determine whether they had a blemish and were therefore permitted to be eaten,

but he would not buy meat from them,

and he would not buy meat from the firstborn animals that he had permitted to be eaten.”

He said to her,

Rava:

This statement

that your father, Rav Hisda, adopted the stringency of not purchasing an item concerning which he had issued a ruling permitting it, applies to

a firstborn animal,

a firstborn animal, because

it is sold by appraisal.

The meat of a firstborn animal is not sold by weight, but only by estimation. The reason is that since a firstborn animal becomes permitted without redemption—once a blemish occurs in it, it is permitted to be eaten—the Sages were more stringent concerning its honor than concerning other consecrated animals disqualified from sacrifice, and said that it should be sold only by estimation, rather than having its meat weighed as ordinary, unconsecrated meat is weighed.

And since the meat of a firstborn animal is sold by estimation, it is inappropriate for the Sage who permitted it to purchase from it, lest people say that the price was lowered for him because he permitted it.

But

here,

when I issued a ruling concerning an animal rendered terefa,

the weighing demonstrates

that everyone sees that I take the meat by weight, pay its full price according to the weight, and give the money directly to the seller.

Rather,

what is there

that people could suspect me of? Only

because of a choice cut of meat.

Even regarding this, I have no reason for concern, because

every day they sell me a choice cut of meat,

out of respect for me. They will not suspect me today of having permitted their animal and therefore receiving the best meat.

Rav Hisda said: Who is a Torah scholar? One who declares an animal rendered terefa

when it belongs to him!

When a possible defect rendering his animal terefa arises, and there is a basis for forbidding it as well as a basis for permitting it, he does not take pity on it and declares it forbidden.

And Rav Hisda said: Who is

[Proverbs 15]

“One who hates gifts shall live”?

One who declares an animal rendered terefa when it belongs to him.

For if, when the animal is his own, he does not desire to rule in favor of permitting it, then certainly he hates receiving gifts from others.

Mar Zutra taught in the name of Rav Hisda: Whoever reads and studies, declares an animal rendered terefa when it belongs to him, and serves Torah scholars, concerning him the verse says

[Psalms 128]:

“When you eat the labor of your hands, you are fortunate, and it is good for you.”

That is, when a person declares his own animal terefa and does not desire it in order to permit it, we know that he will enjoy the labor of his own hands and will not covet the possessions of others.

Rav Zevid said: He merits and inherits two worlds—

this world and the World-to-Come.

And this is how we expound the verse:

“You are fortunate”—in this world; “and it is good for you”—

in the World-to-Come.

When gifts were sent to Rabbi Elazar from the house of the prince,

meaning that they sent him a gift from the prince’s household,

he did not accept them. When they invited him

to eat with them,

he did not go.

He said

Rabbi Elazar, explaining his reason to the prince:

“Does my master not want me to live!?”

Do you not want me to live,

as it is written, ‘One who hates gifts shall live’?”

When gifts were sent to Rabbi Zeira,

meaning, when they would send him a gift,

he did not accept it.

But

when they invited him

to eat with them,

he went.

He said