Chullin 50a (נ.) — the Talmud in English

And according to us

even

is it not completely occluded?!

That is, although we, the residents of Babylonia, do not regard this fat as ritually pure fat and do not eat it, it is nevertheless unreasonable to say that we disagree that it occludes the perforation. And it is evident from his statement that this stomach fat, concerning which the residents of Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia disagreed as to whether it is permitted to eat it, is the fat called “bar ḥimtza,” concerning which Rav Naḥman said that it occludes the perforation.

The stomach is shaped like a bow and is surrounded on both sides by fat. The inner side of the stomach is called “yatra,” after the string of the bow, which is the cord stretched between the two ends of the bow on its inner side. The outer side is called “kashta,” after the bow on its outer side.

The fat found on the inner side of the stomach is called “ḥelev de-yatra,” that is, the fat located beside the string. The fat found on the outer side of the stomach is called “ḥelev de-kashta,” as it is located on the outside of the bow. The residents of Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia disagreed concerning the “ḥelev de-yatra,” as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And the fat

of the kashta—

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

As it is not tightly attached and is connected to the stomach only at the middle of the bow.

When they disagree

concerning the fat

of the yatra.

The residents of Babylonia maintain in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael, that any fat that is a membrane and can be peeled away is forbidden fat, and this fat is a membrane that can be peeled away. The residents of Eretz Yisrael, however, maintain in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who requires that it be spread out and peelable, whereas this is not spread out.

Some say: The fat

of the

yatra—

everyone agrees that it is permitted.

As they maintain in accordance with Rabbi Akiva: Since it is not spread out, it is permitted.

When they disagree concerning the fat

of the

kashta,

which is partially attached. And they disagree whether partial attachment is considered being spread out.

The Gemara now returns to the first formulation, according to which they disagree concerning the fat of the yatra, and only the residents of Eretz Yisrael customarily ate it—

As Rav Avya said in the name of Rabbi Ami,

who was one of the residents of Eretz Yisrael:

They remove a small amount,

that is, when they come to eat the fat of the yatra, they remove a little fat from its surface, in order to remove the possibility that it is fat on the rumen, which is forbidden to eat, and then they eat the fat of the yatra.

And Rabbi Yannai likewise said in the name of a certain elder—

They remove a small amount.

Rav Avya said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami— -

Remove a small amount

from the top of the fat of the yatra

and give it to him, and he ate it!

His attendant,

who served him,

of Rabbi Ḥanina, was standing before Rabbi Ḥanina.

He said to him,

Rabbi Ḥanina:

Remove a small amount and give it to me, so that I may eat

from the fat of the yatra.

Rabbi Ḥanina saw

that he

was hesitating,

hesitating to give it to him to eat.

He said to him: You are a Babylonian!

As you practice the prohibition of this fat.

Cut it off,

cut it all the way down to its root, in accordance with your view that it is forbidden—

throw it away,

throw it away.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the intestines were perforated, and mucus

from within

occludes them—

the animal is kosher.

And we explain:

What is the mucus?

Rav Kahana said: The viscous fluid of the intestines,

a sticky liquid

, which emerges

from the intestines only

through pressure.

Therefore, it constitutes an effective occlusion.

They received a tradition

from

the colleagues of Rabbi Abba from Rabbi Abba

son of Rabbi Ḥiyya,

and who was he?—

Rabbi Zeira.

And some say:

They received a tradition from

the colleagues of Rabbi Zeira from Rabbi Zeira, and who was he?—

Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said—

The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning.

And we explain:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa—

this is what we said:

If the intestines were perforated and mucus occludes them, the animal is kosher.

The halakha

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning—what is it?

As it was taught in a baraita:

A mourner who did not know that a relative had died: if

he comes during the first three days

of mourning

from a nearby place

to the place where the mourners are sitting,

,

a journey of one day, such that he should have learned of the mourning, then even though he did not know that he was required to mourn, he

counts

his mourning

with them,

together with his relatives who had already begun mourning on the first day, and he completes his mourning together with them.

But if he came

from a distant place—

he counts for himself

the seven days of mourning from the day he arrived.

From that point onward,

if he comes after three days from the beginning of the mourning,

even if he came from a nearby place, he counts for himself.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Even if

he came from a nearby place on the seventh day—

he counts with them.

A certain individual said,

one of the students, whose name was not remembered by the compilers of the Gemara:

May I merit,

may I merit

and ascend,

and travel from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael,

and complete the discussion from the mouth of its master.

From the master of this teaching, Rabbi Abba, and clarify whether he indeed said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

When he ascended, he found Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba.

He said to him:

But

did the Master say: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa?!

He said to him: This is not the halakha

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to a tereifa,

I said!

And he asked him again:

With regard to Rabbi Shimon and mourning, what is the ruling?

Is the halakha in accordance with him with regard to mourning or not?

He said to him:

Whether the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning—

it is a dispute among them.

As it was stated: Rav Ḥisda said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan likewise said: The halakha

is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning.

And Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning.

The conclusion of the Gemara is:

And the halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning.

As Shmuel said—

The halakha follows the more lenient opinion in matters of mourning.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: One compares perforations in the intestines. If the intestines were perforated, and it is unknown whether they were perforated before slaughter or afterward, one makes additional perforations elsewhere and brings them close together and compares them; if they are similar, it is certain that the original perforations occurred after slaughter.

The Gemara relates an incident involving

some

intestines

that were perforated

and came before Rava.

Rava compared them,

but

they were not similar

the perforations that had been present to the perforations that had been made.

Rav Mesharsheya, his son, came

of Rava,

felt them

the new perforations,

and they became similar,

all the perforations became alike.

He said to him,

Rava to his son:

From where did you acquire

this wisdom,

this?!

He said to him:

I understood it on my own, for I knew

how much my hands had felt these

original perforations

before I brought them before the Master.

Therefore, I felt the new perforations in order to make them comparable to the original ones through the touch of my hands, just as the original ones had been felt.

He said to him,

Rava:

My son is wise in matters of tereifot—

like Rabbi Yoḥanan!

As he was wise in every matter.

Rabbi Yoḥanan

and Rabbi

Elazar both say:

One compares perforations in the lung!

Rava said: We said

that one compares perforations in the lung

only within the same section.

That is, on the same wall of the lung, whether the right or the left.

But one does not compare from one section to another

one.

And the halakha is: One compares

even from one section to another,

from one thin section to another, from one lobe to another,

which is the thin part of the lung,

and from one thick section to another, and from one large lobe to another,

which is the thick part of the lung.

But one does not

compare

from a thick section to a thin one, or from a thin one to a thick one.

Abaye and Rava both say: One compares perforations in the trachea.

If the trachea is found severed or has a hole the size of an issar, and it is unknown whether this occurred before slaughter or afterward, one cuts it in another place and compares the two sites.

Rav Pappa said: We said

that one compares perforations in the trachea

only within the same ring. But from one ring to another, one does not

compare them.

And the halakha is—

even from one ring to another

one compares them.

And from the thin half of one ring to the thin half of another ring. “

A thin half of a ring” is the lower half of a ring of the trachea, which is thin in comparison with the upper half of the trachea, which is thick [see the illustration in the book Siḥat Ḥullin].

But one does not

compare

from a ring to the thin half of a ring, or from the thin half of a ring to a ring.

Ze'eiri said: If the rectum,

the lower bowel, which is the final part of the large intestine, through which the feces exit,

was perforated—

it is kosher, since the thighs

of the animal

support

and occlude

it.

And how much

may it be perforated and still remain kosher?

Rabbi Ila'i said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The place of adhesion,

where the rectum is attached to the thighs, remains kosher until it is severed

through most of it.

Where there is no adhesion—

if it is severed

even slightly,

it is disqualified.

The Rabbis said before Rava in the name of Rav Naḥman: