Chullin 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Zeira did not accept it

from

Rabbi Yaakov

that Rabban Gamliel had forbidden it entirely, but rather he held that the slaughter of a Samaritan is permitted when a Jew stands over him, what difficulty did he have: How did Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Asi eat from the slaughter of a Samaritan? Rabbi Zeira could have

said to himself: Here,

where Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Asi ate, it is referring to a case

where a Jew stands over him,

whereas

here,

where Rabban Gamliel forbade it, it is referring to a case

where no Jew stands over him.

Rather, is it not evident that Rabbi Zeira accepted it

from

Rabbi Yaakov

that Rabban Gamliel and his court forbade the slaughter of a Samaritan even when a Jew stands over him?

And we conclude:

Conclude from it!

And now the Gemara explains the reason for Rabban Gamliel and his court.

And for what reason did the Sages decree concerning them

to prohibit the slaughter of a Samaritan?

It is like that which was related concerning Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, whom Rabbi Meir sent

—he sent

Rabbi Meir to bring wine

—wine

from the house of the Samaritans.

A certain old man encountered him. He said to him

—to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar—this verse from the Book of Proverbs: “

And put a knife to your throat

if you are a man of appetite.”

That is, if you are a worthy person, put a knife to your cheeks in order to refrain from eating prohibited food [this is a parable for overcoming the evil inclination]; the wine of the Samaritans is prohibited because they pour it as an offering to idolatry.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar went and related the matter

that he had heard

before Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir decreed concerning them

that one may not drink their wine.

For what reason

did he decree concerning their wine?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They found an image of a dove

belonging to the Samaritans

at the top of Mount Gerizim, which they worshipped,

and they thereby became apostates with regard to idolatry.

And although those Samaritans from Mount Gerizim were not the majority of the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir decreed concerning all of them, for

Rabbi Meir follows his own position, as he is concerned about the minority,

and he decreed concerning the majority on account of the minority.

And Rabban Gamliel and his court,

who convened concerning the slaughter of a Samaritan and prohibited it,

also held in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

and on account of the minority who had become apostates with regard to idolatry, they decreed concerning all the Samaritans.

And now we explain this verse in the Book of Proverbs.

What is the plain meaning of the verse speaking about?

It is speaking about a student

sitting before his teacher.

As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught:

Regarding that which is written, “

When you sit to eat with a ruler

[one who is great in Torah]—

understand well what is before you. And put a knife to your throat

if you are a man of appetite.”

If a student knows of his teacher that he knows how to answer him

his question with an answer containing

reason—

understand!

He should ask him and receive his answer.

But if not,

if he does not know whether his teacher can answer him this question,

understand

on his own

what is before you

and do not ask him, so as not to embarrass him; you must overcome your inclination that desires to ask the question,

and put a knife to your throat

to restrain yourself from asking. But

if you are a man of appetite

and desire to ask and understand the fundamentals of the matter, but you cannot receive an answer from your teacher,

withdraw from him!

Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Yosef—

Rabbi Abbahu sent him to bring wine from the house of the Samaritans. A certain old man encountered him. He said to him: There are no observers of Torah here!

And therefore one may not take wine from them.

.

Rabbi Yitzḥak went and related these matters

to

Rabbi Abbahu. And Rabbi Abbahu went and related

the

matters

that he had heard from Rabbi Yitzḥak

before Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi.

And they did not move from there until

they decreed concerning the Samaritans, and

made them

like

complete gentiles.

And the Gemara asks:

For what purpose,

with regard to which matter

did they consider them complete gentiles?

If with regard to

the matter of

slaughter,

so that their slaughter is invalid like the slaughter of gentiles [for we invalidate their slaughter based on the verse “You shall slaughter and eat”—this excludes a gentile, who is not included among those qualified to slaughter],

and

with regard to

wine used for libation—

so that their ordinary wine is prohibited like the wine of gentiles,

this cannot be said.

For

from then,

already from the time of Rabbi Meir and Rabban Gamliel,

the Sages had decreed concerning them,

as Rabbi Meir decreed concerning the wine and Rabban Gamliel subsequently decreed concerning the slaughter, as stated above. Why, then, did Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi decree again?

And we answer: The reason Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi had to decree again was that

they,

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Meir,

decreed, but their decree was not accepted by them

by the people of their generation, because they were accustomed to associating with Samaritans.

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi came—

and decreed

concerning the slaughter of Samaritans and concerning their wine,

and their decree was accepted by them.

For in their generation it was possible for people to withdraw from the Samaritans.

And we further inquire:

What

is the significance of the fact

that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi used the expression “complete gentiles,”

what does the word “complete” come to teach us?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It was to make them like gentiles even with regard to the halakha of

“

relinquishing one’s rights and granting rights”

in an eruv of courtyards and a shituf of alleyways.

And as it was taught

with regard to a Jew who is an apostate regarding desecration of Shabbat, whom they made like a gentile for this law.

As it was taught:

A Jew

who is

an apostate

in that he desecrates Shabbat privately, but

observes his Shabbat in public,

meaning that he does not desecrate Shabbat openly,

may relinquish his domain and grant his domain

to the residents of the courtyard or alleyway if he forgot to participate in the eruv.

But one who does not observe his Shabbat in public,

but desecrates it openly,

may not relinquish his domain or grant his domain.

Because they said: A Jew

who forgot to participate in the eruv

grants his domain and relinquishes his domain

to the residents of the alleyway. But

with regard to a gentile

who lives in the alleyway together with the Jew, the Jew may not carry

until he rents

the gentile’s domain from him. The same applies to one who desecrates Shabbat publicly: His legal status is that of a gentile.

How

does this “relinquishing and granting of rights,” which is effective in the case of a Jew, work?

If he

said to him: My domain is acquired by you

or

My domain is relinquished to you—

the other acquires

his domain with regard to ensuring that the one granting it is not considered one of the homeowners in the courtyard or alleyway.

And he need not confer it to him

through a full act of acquisition; a mere verbal declaration suffices.

And since the matter of “the animals of the righteous” and so forth was mentioned above, the Gemara cites several additional matters concerning this subject.

Rabbi Zeira and Rav Asi happened to come to the inn of Daya [

the name of the city], which was a place inhabited by ignoramuses suspected with regard to demai.

They brought before them eggs shriveled in wine,

eggs that had been thoroughly roasted, mixed, and beaten together with wine. That wine was prohibited because of an admixture of demai.

Rabbi Zeira did not eat, but Rabbi Asi ate.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: Does the Master not have concern for an admixture of demai!?

He said to him

Rav Asi:

It did not enter my mind;

I did not pay attention, because the wine was not present as such.

.

Rav Zeira said:

And is it

possible that

the Sages

decreed

concerning an admixture of demai, and circumstances would assist Rav Asi

in forgetting this decree

so that he would come

to eat prohibited food

inadvertently?

But

now, if with regard to the animals of the righteous the Holy One, blessed be He, does not bring about a mishap through them,

as we find with the donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair,

all the more so with regard to the righteous themselves?

Rabbi Zeira went out, investigated, and found

that Rav Asi had acted correctly when he ate.

As it was taught: One who purchases wine

from an am haaretz in order

to put

it

into morais or into aluntit [

a mixture of water, wine, and balsam oil], or who purchases from an am haaretz

vetches to make tahinit from them [

a mixture of grits and spices], or who purchases

lentils to make rasissei from them,

although all of these will ultimately be mixed with other ingredients, since they came into his possession in their original state,

he is obligated

to tithe them

as demai.

And it is not necessary to say

that if the seller told him that he had not separated tithes from them, he must tithe them

as definite

untithed produce.

And

if he purchased these types of food from an am haaretz,

they themselves,

after the demai has been mixed into them,

are permitted, because they are an admixture,

and are not demai present as such.

And the Sages did not decree concerning an admixture of demai.

And we challenge this: Did they not decree concerning an admixture of demai?

But it was taught: One who gives his neighbor

who is the wife of an am haaretz

dough to bake,

and gives her leaven with it,

and

likewise, if he gives his neighbor

a pot to cook

and gives her spices with it,

need not be concerned

that she exchanged

his leaven and spices

for her own leaven or spices and put those in their place. For amei haaretz are not suspected of theft; therefore, we are not concerned

either because of

the prohibition

of the Sabbatical Year or because of

the obligation of

tithes

that applies to the produce of an am haaretz.

But if he said to her: Make it for me

the dough and the pot with leaven and spices

from your own,

then he is

concerned about the leaven and spices in it because of the Sabbatical Year and because of tithes.

But leaven is merely an admixture of demai in the dough, and nevertheless we prohibit it!?

And we answer:

There it is different, since when he says to her, “Make it for me from your own,”

it is as though he himself took the leaven from her before she mixed it into the dough. And when she mixes it at his instruction and as his agent,

it is considered as though he mixed it

himself

by hand,

and one who mixes demai by hand is obligated to tithe it.

Rafram said:

Here it is referring even to one who took a cooked pot, without her having acted as his agent. Rather,

leaven and spices are different, as they are used to impart flavor.

And

every

flavor is not nullified.

It is considered the essential component of the mixture, since it improves the entire mixture.

And we challenge the first clause of the above beraita:

And

if

for an exchange,

that the wife of an am haaretz should exchange his leaven for her own leaven,

are we not concerned?

But we learned in the Mishna: One who gives his mother-in-law,

who is the wife of an am haaretz, dough to bake,

tithes

the dough at the time

that he gives it to her,

and

he also tithes afterward

the

bread at the time

that he takes it from her, because she is suspected

of

exchanging

the bread

that deteriorates

in the oven for bread of her own, which is prohibited as demai. Evidently, we are concerned about an exchange.

And we answer:

There,

with regard to his mother-in-law, we are concerned

as she herself states the reason: Rabbi Yehuda said: She desires the welfare of her daughter, and she is embarrassed before her son-in-law!

Only in such a case does she exchange the bread if it deteriorates during baking, for she intends to benefit her daughter. But with regard to a stranger, whom she does not intend to benefit, she does not exchange it, and we are not concerned about theft.