Chullin 49b — the Talmud in English

For it was taught

Leviticus 3], “

all the fat that is

upon the entrails” ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

and so forth—

to include the fat that is upon the intestines

bowels],

the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: To include the fat that is upon the maw. And we raise a contradiction

to this, from that which was taught:

“And all the fat that is upon the entrails,” Rabbi Shimon says: Just as the fat that covers the entrails has a membrane

upon it

and it can be peeled off

the membrane from upon the fat, for it is not attached to it.

So, too, every

fat upon which there is a

membrane that can be peeled off

and this is also the fat that is upon the maw.

Rabbi Akiva says: Just as the fat that covers the entrails

is

a cover,

for it is spread over the entrails like a spread garment, and there is upon it

a membrane that can be peeled off; so, too, every fat

that is

a cover

and upon it there is

a membrane, and it can be peeled off.

To exclude the fat that is upon the maw, for it is attached to the maw.

And let it be challenged: Here Rabbi Akiva said that only the fat upon the entrails is forbidden, but not the fat upon the maw, whereas in the first beraita he said the opposite, that the fat upon the maw is forbidden!?

Rabin sent word in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: This is the arrangement of the Mishna,

that is, you are correct in what you refuted,

and reverse the first one.

And say: To include the fat that is upon the intestines, the words of Rabbi Akiva.

And we considered it:

What did you see that you reversed the first one?! Reverse the latter one?!

And we answer:

Here it is different,

in the latter beraita,

since it teaches

in it,

“just as

zhir», a imenno: poskol'ku my tolkuem stikh, i tan­nai barayty dolzhen byl ochen' tochno vyrazit'sya, skazav — po mneniyu odnogo, «plenka, kotoraya snimaetsya», a po mneniyu drugogo, «rasprostert, s plen­koi, kotoraya snimaetsya», tan­nai

specifically

to yest' eto «tochnyi tan­nai», kotoryi vnimatel'no podbiraet slova; poetomu ne sleduet izmenyat' ego slova iz-za drugoi barayty.

And we challenge:

If so,

since you reversed it, what is this that we said above, that they were accustomed to permit the fat of the maw

in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael!?

But now, since you reversed it and said that Rabbi Akiva is the one who permits the fat of the maw, and not Rabbi Ishmael—

is it in accordance with Rabbi Akiva?!

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The intention is Rabbi Ishmael

who said in the name of his fathers

that the fat of the maw is permitted [and in accordance with Rabbi Akiva].

But as for him,

Rabbi Ishmael himself,

he does not hold this opinion!

Rav said: Pure fat,

which is attached to the thing found next to it, such as the fat of the ḥalḥalta, which is very tightly attached to the intestines,

seals

the perforation, and it is therefore fit. But

impure fat,

which is not tightly attached,

does not

seal.

And Rav Sheshet says: Both this one,

pure fat,

and that one,

impure fat—

seal.

Rabbi Zeira raised a question: The fat of an animal

that covers the entrails, which is pure fat, for the fat of an animal is not forbidden for consumption—

what

is the law?

Did the Merciful One say specifically

“pure fat seals,” and this too

is also

fat

that is pure.

Or perhaps, because it is tightly attached

it seals,

and this,

the fat of an animal that covers the entrails,

is not tightly attached,

and if so, it does not seal!?

Abaye said: Why should he raise this question?! Granted that it is permitted,

even though the fat of an animal is permitted

for consumption,

but

it is not tightly attached.

And this is the entire basis of the permission: that it seals the perforation, whereas this fat does not seal.

A certain perforation, which impure fat had sealed, came

which was brought to be asked about

before Rava.

Rava said: Why should we be concerned about it? First, for Rav Sheshet said—

impure fat also seals! And furthermore

there is a reason for us to be lenient, for

the Torah spared the money of Israel,

as is demonstrated from the verse concerning the affliction of houses, that the koen is commanded to empty the house before he renders it impure, so that the earthenware vessels should not become impure, despite their low monetary value, and come to be broken.

Rav Pappa said to Rava:

This

Rav

said above that impure fat does not seal,

and the prohibition

of a torn animal

is from the Torah

—

and you say, “The Torah spared the money of Israel”?!

But in prohibitions of the Torah, we ought to follow the stringent position!?

Minyomin, the potter,

a seller of jugs.

It was revealed to him in the sitka,

a jug

of honey.

That is, it had remained without a cover.

He came before Rava

to ask whether there was reason to be concerned about it on account of an uncovered liquid.

Rava said: Why should we be concerned about it?

First, for we learned: Three liquids are forbidden because of uncovering—

wine, water, and milk. And all other liquids—

are permitted.

And furthermore, the Torah spared the money of Israel.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: Rabbi Shimon

forbids it because of uncovering, as we shall explain below,

and

uncovering is

a danger to life, and we ought to follow the stringent position,

and you say, “The Torah spared the money of Israel”?!

And the Gemara explains: What is Rabbi Shimon?

For it was taught: Five

liquids

do not have

a concern

because of uncovering: brine, vinegar, oil, honey, and murya.

Rabbi Shimon says: They too have a concern because of uncovering.

And Rabbi Shimon said: I saw a snake that drank brine in Sidon.

They said to him:

A snake

was a fool, and one does not bring proof from fools!

He said to him

Rava to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

At least concede to me with regard to brine,

for we need not be concerned about uncovering in its case, since we do not establish the law according to Rabbi Shimon. And the proof is

that Rav Pappa, Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, and the Sages, when they had an uncovered liquid,

when they had water or wine that had become uncovered,

they cast it into brine,

they would dip it into brine, because the brine burns the venom!

And just as with brine the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, so too with honey the halakha is not in accordance with him.

He said to him

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

At least concede to me with regard to honey,

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, since

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stands in agreement with him

Rabbi Shimon, and is concerned about uncovering in its case.

For it was taught: Likewise,

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Shimon,

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would forbid honey

that was uncovered.

Rav Naḥman said: Fat made like a cap—

does not seal.

And we explain:

Where

is there such fat?

Some say

that it is

the ḥitei de-karkesha,

the fat found upon the rectum, which is made in round layers, like a cap; and if it was perforated, and that fat sealed it, its sealing is not effective, and it is a torn animal.

And some say

that it is

the tarpsha de-liba.

The fat of the heart, which is made like a cap. If the heart, or the lung adjacent to it, was perforated, this fat does not seal the perforation.

Rava said: I heard two traditions from Rav Naḥman

concerning the law of the fat upon the maw.

One,

one fat is called

ḥimtza, and one

one fat is called

bar ḥimtza.

One

of them

seals,

seals a perforation,

and one does not seal, and I do not know which of them seals.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana and Rav Huna son of Rav Naḥman said: Bar ḥimtza—

seals; ḥimtza—

does not seal.

Rav Tavot said: And your mnemonic is: The power of the son is greater

“bar ḥimtza,” which seals,

than the power of the father

“ḥimtza,” which does not seal.

And the Gemara explains:

Which is ḥimtza, and which is bar ḥimtza?

Come and hear: For Rav Naḥman said: They,

the residents of the Land of Israel,

eat

it, for they hold that it is pure fat.