Chullin 50a — the Talmud in English

But according to us:

even

does it not seal the perforation at all?!

That is: granted, we, the residents of Babylonia, do not regard this fat as permitted fat, and we do not eat it. Nevertheless, it is not reasonable to say that we disagree that it seals the perforation. It therefore follows from his statement that this fat of the stomach, concerning which the residents of Eretz Yisrael and the residents of Babylonia disagreed as to whether it is permitted to eat, is the fat called “bar ḥimtza,” concerning which Rav Naḥman said that it seals a perforation.

The stomach is shaped like a bow, and fat surrounds it on both sides. The inner side of the stomach is called “yattara,” after the bowstring, 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, referring to its outer side.

The fat found on the inner side of the stomach is called “the fat of the yattara,” meaning the fat located alongside the bowstring. The fat found on the outer side of the stomach is called “the fat of the kashta,” as it is located on the outside of the bow. The residents of Eretz Yisrael and the residents of Babylonia disagreed concerning “the fat of the yattara,” as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And the fat

of the kashta—

everyone agrees that it is prohibited.

For it is not firmly attached to the stomach, but is connected to it only at the middle of the bow.

They disagree

concerning the fat

of the yattara.

The residents of Babylonia hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, that any membrane that can be peeled away is impure fat, and this fat is a membrane that can be peeled away. The residents of Eretz Yisrael, however, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who requires the fat to be spread out like a covering and to be peelable; and this fat is not spread out like a covering.

Some say:

the fat

of the yattara—

everyone agrees that it is permitted.

For they hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: Since it is not spread out like a covering, it is permitted.

They disagree

concerning the fat

of the kashta,

which is partially attached. They disagree as to whether a partial attachment is considered to be fat spread out like a covering.

The Gemara now returns to the first version of the dispute, according to which they disagree concerning the fat of the yattara, and only the residents of Eretz Yisrael followed the practice of eating 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 yattara, they remove a small amount of fat from its surface, in order to remove any doubt that it might be fat on the rumen, which is prohibited to eat; they then eat the fat of the yattara.

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—

They removed a small amount

of the fat of the yattara from above,

and gave it to him, and he ate it!

The attendant

of

Rabbi Ḥanina was standing before Rabbi Ḥanina.

He said to him,

Rabbi Ḥanina:

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

from the fat of the yattara.

Rabbi Ḥanina saw

that he

was hesitating,

as he was reluctant to give it to him to eat.

He said to him: You are a Babylonian!

You follow the practice of prohibiting it.

Cut it off,

cutting it all the way down to its base, since according to your practice it is prohibited—

throw it away,

throw it away!

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

from inside

seals them—

the animal is fit.

And we explain:

What is this mucus?

Rav Kahana said: It is the intestines’ viscous fluid,

a sticky liquid

, which emerges

from the intestines only

as a result of pressure.

Therefore, it constitutes an effective seal.

They learned

from

the companions of Rabbi Abba from Rabbi Abba

son of Rabbi Ḥiyya,

and who was he?—

Rabbi Zeira.

And some say:

They learned

the companions 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 concerning an animal with a fatal condition, and the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon concerning mourning.

And we explain:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concerning an animal with a fatal condition—

this is what we said:

If the intestines are perforated and mucus seals them, the animal is fit.

The halakha

is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon concerning mourning—what is it?

As it was taught in a baraita:

A mourner who did not know that his relative had died: If

he comes during the first three days

of the mourning

from a nearby place

to the place where the mourners are sitting,

a journey of one day, so that he should have become aware of his relative’s mourning, then even though he did not know that he was required to mourn, he

counts

his mourning period

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 comes

from

a distant place—

he counts for himself

the seven days of mourning beginning on the day he arrives.

From that point onward,

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

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

Rabbi Shimon says:

Even if

he comes from a nearby place on the seventh day—

he counts with them.

A certain person said,

one of the students, whose name was not remembered by those who arranged the Gemara:

If I merit it,

I will merit

and ascend,

and go up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael,

and complete this teaching from the mouth of its master.

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

When he went up, 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 concerning an animal with a fatal condition”?!

He said to him: “This is not the halakha

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon concerning an animal with a fatal condition;

that is what I said!”

And they asked him again:

“Concerning Rabbi Shimon’s opinion about mourning, what is the ruling?”

Is the halakha in accordance with him concerning mourning, or not?

He said to him:

As for whether the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon concerning mourning—

it is a dispute among the Sages.

For it was stated: Rav Ḥisda said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon concerning mourning.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan likewise said: The halakha

is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon concerning mourning.

But Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon concerning mourning.

The Gemara’s conclusion is:

The halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concerning an animal with a fatal condition.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon concerning mourning.

As Shmuel said—

the halakha follows the lenient opinion in matters of mourning.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: One compares perforations in the intestines.

If the intestines are perforated, and it is unknown whether the perforations occurred before slaughter or afterward, one makes additional perforations elsewhere in the intestines and brings them close together for comparison. If they are similar, it is known that the original perforations occurred after slaughter.

The Gemara relates an incident involving

certain intestines

that were perforated

and were brought before Rava.

Rava compared them,

but

they were not similar

to the perforations that had been made.

Rav Mesharsheya, his son, came

and

handled them

the new perforations,

and they became similar,

all the perforations becoming alike.

He said to him,

Rava said to his son:

From where did you get

this wisdom,

eh?!

He said to him:

I understood it on my own, because I knew

how much handling these

earlier perforations had undergone

before I brought them before the Master.

Therefore, I handled the new perforations so as to make them comparable to the earlier ones through handling, just as the earlier ones had been handled.

He said to him,

Rava

said: “My son is wise in the laws of animals with fatal conditions—

like Rabbi Yoḥanan!”

For Rabbi Yoḥanan was wise in every matter.

Rabbi Yoḥanan

and Rabbi

Elazar both say:

One compares perforations in the lung!

Rava said: When we said

that one compares perforations in the lung,

it is only within the same section.

That is, within the same side of the lung, whether the right or the left.

But from one section to another, no,

we do not compare them.

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 section 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 section to a thick one.

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

If a windpipe is found severed or containing a hole the size of an issar coin, and it is unknown whether this occurred before slaughter or afterward, one cuts the windpipe at another location and compares the two places.

Rav Pappa said: When we said

that one compares perforations in the windpipe,

it is only within the same ring. But from one ring to another, no,

one does not compare them.

And the halakha is—

even from one ring to another

one compares them,

and from one half-ring to another half-ring. The term “half-ring” refers to the lower half of a ring of the windpipe, which is thin compared with the upper half of the windpipe, which is thick [see the illustration in the book Siḥat Ḥullin].

But one does not

compare

from a ring to a half-ring, or from a half-ring to a ring.

Ze’eiri said: The rectum,

the lower end of the large intestine, where the feces emerge from the body,

if it is perforated—

the animal is fit, since the thighs

of the animal

hold up

and seal

it.

And how much

may it be perforated and still remain fit?

Rabbi Ilai said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The place of attachment,

where the rectum is attached to the thighs, is fit until it is severed

through most of its thickness.

When it is not at the place of attachment—

if it is severed

even slightly,

it is unfit.

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

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