Chullin 49b (מט:) — the Talmud in English

As it was taught

Leviticus 3], "

"

all the fat that is

upon the innards"!

etc. —

to include the fat that is upon the intestines

intestines],

the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

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

to this from that which was taught:

"And all the fat that is upon the innards," Rabbi Shimon says: Just as the fat that covers the innards has a membrane

over it

that can be peeled away

the membrane can be peeled off the fat, as it is not firmly attached to it.

So too, all

fat over which there is a

membrane that can be peeled away

which also includes the fat upon the abomasum.

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

is

a covering,

for it is spread over the innards like a garment spread out, and over it there is

a membrane that can be peeled away; so too, all fat

that is

a covering

and over which there is

a membrane that can be peeled away.

This excludes the fat upon the abomasum, which is firmly attached to the abomasum.

But this is difficult: Here Rabbi Akiva said that only the fat upon the innards is forbidden, but not the fat upon the abomasum, whereas in the first beraita he said the opposite—that the fat upon the abomasum is forbidden!?

Ravin sent word in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: This is the formulation of the Mishna

that is, you are correct in your objection,

and reverse the first one.

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

And we inquire:

What did you see that led you to reverse the first one?! Reverse the latter one?!

And we answer:

Here

in the latter beraita,

since it teaches

in it,

“just as

fat,” since, once we have come to expound the verse, the tanna of the beraita had to be precise in his wording and say—in the opinion of one, “a membrane that can be peeled away,” and in the opinion of the other, “a covering, a membrane that can be peeled away”—the tanna taught

specifically

that is, he is a meticulous tanna, one who is precise in his words, and you should not alter his words on account of the tanna of another beraita.

And we ask:

If so,

that you reversed it, what is the meaning of what we said earlier, that they were accustomed to permit the fat of the abomasum

in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael?!

But now that you have reversed it and said that Rabbi Akiva is the one who permits the fat of the abomasum, and not Rabbi Yishmael, is it

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva?!

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The reference is to Rabbi Yishmael

who said in the name of his ancestors

that the fat of the abomasum is permitted [as is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva].

But as for him,

Rabbi Yishmael himself,

he does not hold accordingly!

Rav said: Permitted fat,

which is firmly attached to something found next to it, such as the fat of the kanta, which is very tightly attached to the intestines,

seals

the puncture, and the animal is therefore kosher. But

forbidden fat,

which is not tightly attached,

does not

seal it.

And Rav Sheshet says: Both this one,

permitted fat,

and that one,

forbidden fat,

seal the puncture.

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma: What is the status of the fat of an undomesticated animal

that covers the innards, which is permitted fat, since the fat of an undomesticated animal is not forbidden to eat—

what is its status?

Is it that

the Torah specifically said

that the

permitted fat seals, and this too

is fat that is

permitted.

Or perhaps, it seals because it is firmly attached,

and this

one,

the fat of an undomesticated animal that covers the innards,

is not firmly attached,

and if so, it does not seal the puncture!?

Abaye said: Why should he raise this dilemma?! Although it is permitted

to eat the fat of an undomesticated animal,

for consumption,

nevertheless,

it is not firmly attached.

But this is the entire basis of the permission: that the fat seals the puncture, and this fat does not seal it.

There was a certain puncture that had been sealed by forbidden fat, and it came

it was brought for inquiry

before Rava.

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

forbidden fat also seals!

And there is an additional reason for leniency, for

the Torah has consideration for the money of the Jewish people,

as is demonstrated by the verse concerning the plague of houses, which commands the koen to clear out the house before declaring it impure, so that the earthenware vessels will not become impure and be broken, even though they have little monetary value.

Rav Pappa said to Rava:

But

Rav

said above that forbidden fat does not seal,

and the prohibition

of a tereifa

is by Torah law

—

and you say, “The Torah has consideration for the money of the Jewish people”?!

But in matters prohibited by the Torah, we should follow the stricter position!?

Minyomin the potter,

a seller of pots,

had revealed to him in a vessel

a pot

of honey

that is, it had stood uncovered.

He came before Rava

to ask whether there was reason to be concerned because of an uncovered liquid.

Rava said: Why should we be concerned about it?

First, we learned in a Mishna: Three liquids are prohibited because of exposure—

wine, water, and milk. And all other liquids

are permitted.

And furthermore, the Torah has consideration for the money of the Jewish people.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: Rabbi Shimon

prohibits it because of exposure, as will be explained below,

and

exposure is

a danger to life,

and we should follow the stricter position,

yet you say, “The Torah has consideration for the money of the Jewish people”?!

And the Gemara explains:

What is the statement of Rabbi Shimon?

As it was taught: Five

liquids

do not have

a concern

of exposure: brine, vinegar, oil, honey, and muryas.

Rabbi Shimon says: They too do have a concern of exposure.

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

They said to him:

The snake

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

He said to him

Rava said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

At least concede to me concerning brine,

for there is no concern of exposure with it, as we do not rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon in this matter. The proof is

that when Rav Pappa, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and the Rabbis had an exposed liquid,

when they had water or wine that had become exposed,

they would put it into brine,

for brine burns up the venom!

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

He said to him

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava:

At least concede to me concerning honey,

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, since

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar agrees with him

Rabbi Shimon and is concerned about exposure in the case of honey.

As it was taught: Likewise,

in accordance with the words of Rabbi Shimon,

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar prohibited exposed honey

as a result of exposure.

Rav Naḥman said: Fat that is made like a cap—

does not seal a puncture.

And we explain:

Where

is there such fat?

Some say

that it is

the ḥittei de-karkeshta,

the fat found on the rectum, which is formed in rounded layers like a cap. If the rectum is punctured and this fat seals it, the sealing is ineffective, and the animal is a tereifa.

And some say

that it is

the tarfeshta de-liba.

The fat of the heart, which is shaped like a cap. If the heart or the lung adjacent to it is punctured, this fat does not seal the puncture.

Rava said: I heard two traditions from Rav Naḥman

concerning the law of the fat upon the abomasum.

One

type of fat is called

ḥimtza, and one

type of fat is called

bar ḥimtza.

One

of them

seals,

sealing a puncture,

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

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

seals; ḥimtza—

does not seal.

Rav Tavot said: And your mnemonic is: “The son’s power is superior

to that of bar ḥimtza, which seals,

to the father’s power,”

that of 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 people of Eretz Yisrael,

eat

it, as they hold that it is permitted fat.