Chullin 6a — the Talmud in English

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

Rabbi Zeira

from him,

that Rabbi Yaakov [said] that Rabban Gamliel completely prohibited it, rather, he holds that the slaughter of a Kuti is permitted when a Jew is standing over him, what difficulty was there for him: How did Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Asi eat from the slaughter of a Kuti? After all, Rabbi Zeira could have

said to himself, here,

the case in which Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Asi ate speaks

when a Jew is standing over him,

whereas

here,

the case in which Rabban Gamliel prohibited speaks

when a Jew is not standing over him.

Rather, is it not that you may learn from this that he accepted it,

Rabbi Zeira

from him,

that Rabbi Yaakov [said] that Rabban Gamliel and his court prohibited the slaughter of a Kuti even when a Jew is standing over him.

And we conclude:

Learn from this!

And now we explain the reason of Rabban Gamliel and his court.

And for what reason did the Rabbis decree concerning them

to prohibit the slaughter of a Kuti?

Like this [incident] involving Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: he sent

they sent

Rabbi Meir to bring wine

wine

from the house of the Kutim.

A certain elder encountered him. He said to him

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

“And place a knife in your throat —

if you are a man of character.”

That is, if you are a proper person, place a knife in your cheeks in order to refrain from eating what is prohibited [and it is a metaphor for how to overcome the inclination], for the wine of the Kutim is prohibited because they pour it as an offering to idolatry.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar went and related the words

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 for them an image of a dove

for the Kutim

at the top of Mount Gerizim, which they worshipped,

and they became apostates with regard to idolatry.

And even though those Kutim from Mount Gerizim were not the majority of the Kutim, Rabbi Meir decreed concerning all of them, for

Rabbi Meir follows his own reasoning, that he is concerned for 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 Kuti and prohibited it,

also hold like Rabbi Meir,

for, on account of the minority who were apostates with regard to idolatry, they decreed concerning all the Kutim.

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

With regard to the plain meaning of the verse, what is it written about?

About a student

who sits before his teacher.

For Rabbi Ḥiyya taught:

that which is written:

“When you sit to eat with a ruler [

the one who is great in Torah] —

understand well what is before you. And place a knife in your throat —

if you are a man of character.”

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

to his question an answer that contains

reason —

understand!

Let him ask him and receive his answer.

But if not,

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

understand

by yourself

what is before you,

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

and place a knife in your throat

to restrain yourself from asking. But

if you are a man of character

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

separate yourself from him!

Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Yosef —

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

And therefore one should not take wine from them.

.

Rabbi Yitzḥak went and related these words

these

before Rabbi Abbahu. And Rabbi Abbahu went and related

the

words

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 Kutim, and

made them

like

complete gentiles.

And the Gemara asks:

For what purpose,

for what matter

did they regard them as gentiles?

If for

the matter of

slaughter,

for their slaughter is invalid like the slaughter of gentiles [for we invalidate their slaughter from the verse “And you shall slaughter and eat” — a gentile, who is not included in slaughter, is excluded],

or

for the matter of

wine used for idolatrous libation —

for their ordinary wine is prohibited like gentile wine,

this cannot be said.

For

from there,

already from the days of Rabbi Meir and Rabban Gamliel

the Rabbis decreed concerning them,

for Rabbi Meir decreed concerning the wine and Rabban Gamliel decreed after him concerning slaughter, as brought above. And for what purpose did Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi decree again?

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

they,

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Meir,

decreed, and their generation did not accept it from them,

the people of their generation, because they were accustomed to the Kutim.

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi came —

they decreed

concerning the slaughter of the Kutim and concerning their wine,

and they accepted it from them.

Because in their generation it was possible for them to separate from the Kutim.

And furthermore we consider this:

What is

this

that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi took in their wording “complete gentiles”,

what did “complete” come to teach us?”

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

to make them like gentiles even with regard to the law of

“relinquishing one’s domain and granting a domain”

in the joining of courtyards and the joining of alleyways.

And as it was taught in a beraita

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

For it was taught:

A Jew

who is

an apostate

in that he desecrates Shabbat in private, but he

observes his Shabbat in public,

for in public he does not desecrate Shabbat, he

relinquishes a domain and grants a domain,

to the members of the courtyard or alleyway if he forgot to participate in the joining.

But one who does not observe his Shabbat in public,

but desecrates it in public,

does not relinquish a domain or grant a domain.

Because they said: A Jew

who forgot to participate in the joining

grants a domain and relinquishes his domain

his own to the members of the alleyway. But

with regard to a gentile

who resides in the alleyway with the Jew, the Jew is not permitted to carry

until he rents

the gentile’s domain from him. And one who desecrates Shabbat in public—his law is like that of a gentile.

How

is this “relinquishing and granting of a domain,” which is effective with a Jew?

If

he said to him: My domain is acquired by you

or

my domain is relinquished to you —

the other acquires

the other his domain, so that the grantor is not considered one of the householders in the courtyard or alleyway.

And he does not need to acquire

from him through a complete acquisition; rather, a mere statement suffices.

And since the matter of “the animals of the righteous” and so on was brought above, the Gemara brings several further matters concerning this subject.

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

the name of the city, which was a place of ignoramuses suspected concerning demai].

They brought before them eggs shriveled in wine,

eggs roasted extensively, which they mixed and beaten with wine. And that wine was prohibited because of a mixture of demai.

Rabbi Zeira did not eat, and Rabbi Asi ate.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi: Is the Master not concerned for a mixture of demai!?

He said to him,

Rav Asi:

It was not in my awareness,

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

.

Rav Zeira said:

And is it

possible

that

the Sages decreed

the Sages

concerning a mixture of demai, and Rav Asi’s circumstances assisted

that he would forget this decree and come

to eat a prohibition

unintentionally?

But

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

as we find with the donkey of Rabbi Pinḥas ben Yair

, all the more so the righteous themselves?

Rabbi Zeira went out, investigated, and found

that Rav Asi had acted properly when he ate.

For it was taught in a beraita: One who purchases wine

from an ignoramus, in order

to put

it

into fish sauce or into aluntit [

a mixture of water, wine, and balsam oil], or who purchased from an ignoramus

vetches to make from them tahinin [

a mixture of groats and spices], or purchased

lentils to make from them resisin,

even though the end of all these is to mix them, since they came into his possession in their original state,

he is obligated

to tithe them

because of demai.

And it is not necessary to say

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

because of definite

tevel.

And

if he purchased these types of food from an ignoramus,

they themselves,

after the demai became mixed into them,

are permitted, because they are a mixture,

and are not demai present as such.

And they did not decree concerning a mixture of demai.

And we object: Did they not decree concerning a mixture of demai?

But it was taught in a beraita: One who gives his neighbor

who is the wife of an ignoramus

dough to bake,

and gives her leaven along with it,

and

likewise if he gave his neighbor

a pot to cook

and gave her spices along with it —

he is not concerned

lest she exchanged

the leaven and spices

that were with it and put in their place leaven or spices of her own. For ignoramuses are not suspected of theft; therefore, we are not concerned

either on account of

the prohibition of

the Sabbatical year, nor on account of

the obligation of

tithing

that exists in the produce of an ignoramus.

And if he said to her: Make for me

the dough and the pot with leaven and spices

from what you have,

then he

is concerned for the leaven and spices in it on account of the Sabbatical year and on account of tithing.

But leaven is merely a mixture of demai in the dough, and even so we prohibit it!?

And we answer:

There it is different, for since he said to her, “Make for me from what you have”,

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

he

with his hands,

and one who mixes demai with his hands is obligated to tithe it.

Rafram said:

Here it speaks even when he took a cooked pot and she did not become his agent. Rather,

leaven and spices are different, for they are made for flavor.

And

every

flavor is not nullified.

And it is considered the principal part of the mixture, since it improves everything.

And we object concerning the first clause of the beraita above:

And

is it that

with regard to exchanges,

that the wife of an ignoramus should exchange his leaven for her leaven,

we are not concerned?

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

who is the wife of an ignoramus, dough to bake,

he 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 becomes spoiled

in the oven for bread of her own, which is prohibited because of demai. Evidently, we are concerned for exchanges.

And we answer:

There,

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

as the reason is taught: Rabbi Yehuda said: She desires the benefit of her daughter, and she is ashamed before her son-in-law!

For it is only in such a case that she exchanges the bread if it becomes spoiled during baking, for she intends for the benefit of her daughter. But for a stranger, when she does not intend to benefit him, she does not exchange it, and we are not concerned for theft.