Chullin 95a — the Talmud in English

Had you been reconciled with me,

had there been peace between us,

who would not have given

you—I would have given you

from a fattened ox that I had slaughtered,

which I slaughtered

yesterday.

He said to him:

Although you did not give me—

eat of the choicest of the choicest!

He said to him: From where did you have it?

From where was it yours?

He said to him: So-and-so, a gentile, bought it

from you,

and gave me a piece. He said to him: I slaughtered two,

I slaughtered two,

and that one

which you ate—

was a tereifa!

Rabbi said: Because of this fool who acted improperly

who sold a tereifa to a gentile [for this occurred in a place where they made an announcement, and for some reason they did not announce it, although there was a tereifa that day, and on that day it was forbidden to sell to a gentile, lest a Jew buy it from him, since they had not announced it that day]],

shall we forbid all the meat shops?!

For one should not forbid buying meat from the other shops, even those belonging to gentiles [apart from that gentile’s shop, in whose possession the tereifa was], as he proceeds to explain.

Rabbi follows his own reasoning, as he said:

If there were

meat shops,

the shops selling meat in the city,

and the slaughterers—

Israelites,

that is, the slaughterers [who are also the sellers of meat to the shops] were Israelites, since gentiles do not slaughter, then

meat found in the possession of a gentile

in a gentile’s shop

is permitted!

Since this meat was certainly slaughtered by an Israelite. And there is also no concern that it might be a tereifa, since the slaughterers would not sell a tereifa to a gentile on a day when they had not announced it. And even now, when this slaughterer acted improperly and sold a tereifa to a gentile, the presumption of kashrut of all the shops has not thereby been undermined.

Some say: Rabbi said: Because of this fool, who intended to cause his fellow distress, shall we forbid all the meat shops?!

For he is not to be believed that a tereifa actually occurred at his place yesterday. He said this only in order to distress his fellow. Therefore, it is permitted to buy meat in the city, since they did not announce a tereifa today.

We raise an objection concerning this:

The reason

that Rabbi permitted it is that

he intended only to distress his fellow. But if not,

it would have been

forbidden

to buy from all the shops?!

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi says:

If there were

meat shops and Israelite slaughterers—

meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted!

And since all the shops stand under a presumption of kashrut, why should we forbid them because of one shop belonging to that gentile who bought a tereifa?

We answer:

Here it is different, for a prohibition has been established!

For a tereifa was sold to one shop, and there is concern that that slaughterer sold to many shops.

Rav said: Meat

that is kosher—

once it has been hidden from the eye,

meaning that it was for one moment without supervision, it is

forbidden!

Perhaps the meat was exchanged, and this meat is different and is not kosher.

An objection was raised: Rabbi says: [If there are] meat shops and Israelite slaughterers—

meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted!

But this meat was hidden from an Israelite’s eye, and nevertheless it is permitted?

We answer:

When it is found in the possession of a gentile, it is different!

For the entire concern applies only to meat that was not guarded at all, since we are concerned that ravens may have come and exchanged it for meat from another place. But if it is guarded in the possession of a gentile, there is no such concern [and on account of the gentile himself there is also no concern, as explained above].

Come and hear:

for it was taught:

There are nine shops, all of them selling slaughtered meat, and one selling meat of an animal carcass; and he took from one of them, but he does not know from which one he took—

his uncertainty is forbidden!

That is, the meat is forbidden because of the uncertainty, for we do not follow the majority, since he took the meat from the shop, which is a place of “fixed status”; and we have the rule: “Anything fixed is considered as half against half,” meaning that even if there is a majority and a minority there, we judge it as though it were half against half.

And when it is found

the meat is cast in the street, and we do not know from which shop it came—

follow the majority!

Since this person did not take the meat from the place of fixed status, therefore we say: “Anything that separates, separates from the majority,” and it is permitted.

It follows that meat found in the street and hidden from the eye is permitted, which is difficult for Rav?

We answer:

Here too

it is speaking

of [meat] found in the possession of a gentile!

For the gentile took the meat from a shop, and we do not know from which shop [we follow the majority, since the uncertainty arose for us after it was already in the gentile’s possession, and not in the shop, which is the place of fixed status].

Come and hear:

for we learned in the Mishna: A city in which gentiles and Israelites dwell, and

he found meat in it—

follow the majority of slaughterers!

For if the majority of slaughterers in the city are Israelites, the meat is kosher.

And if he found meat

that was cooked—

follow the majority of meat-eaters!

For if the majority of meat-eaters are gentiles, the meat is forbidden. And even if the majority of slaughterers are Israelites and we know that it was properly slaughtered, nevertheless, since the meat is cooked, there is an additional concern of gentile cooking; and since the majority of meat-eaters are gentiles, there is a majority indicating that the gentile cooked it.

It follows that it is permitted to eat meat found in the street, even though it was hidden from the eye?

And if you would say

to answer that

here too

it is speaking

of [meat] found in the possession of a gentile,

this cannot be said.

For it teaches:

“cooked”—

“follow the majority of meat-eaters!”

And if it is speaking of meat not found in the street but in a person’s possession, it is difficult: why should we follow the majority?

Let us see: if a gentile is holding it,

he certainly cooked it, and it is forbidden.

If an Israelite is holding it,

then it is permitted. Rather, certainly the Mishna is speaking of meat found in the city street, and nevertheless it is permitted when the majority of slaughterers are Israelites?!

We answer:

With what are we dealing here? With one standing and watching it!

For the finder saw the meat fall from a person’s hand, but does not know whether he is an Israelite or a gentile. And from the moment it fell, the finder did not remove his eye from the meat; thus this is not meat hidden from the eye [for even if the one who lost it is a gentile, it is not meat hidden from the eye so long as the meat is in his possession, as explained above].

Come and hear:

for we learned in the Mishna: Meat that

is found in the outlying areas

in all the cities of Israel [and not in Jerusalem, where the law is different], if it was cut into

limbs,

they have the presumption of being

carcasses!

For this is the manner of cutting a carcass into limbs and throwing it into the garbage.

And if the meat was cut into

pieces

small ones—

they are permitted

For a person does not take the trouble to cut meat into pieces except meat that is kosher and fit to eat [and this is speaking where the majority of slaughterers in the city are Israelites].

It follows that found meat is permitted, even though it was hidden from the eye?

And if you would say

that

here too

it is speaking

of one standing and watching it,

then, as for what it teaches,

“limbs”—

“carcasses,”

it is difficult,

why?!

For the finder saw that the limbs fell from a person’s hand and were not deliberately thrown away, and there is no concern that they are carcasses.

And necessarily, this is speaking where the finder did not see the meat at the time it fell, and nevertheless it is permitted when it is found cut into pieces; this proves that we are not concerned on account of meat hidden from the eye!?

We answer:

Is this the reason?!

For the entire difficulty is

only according to Rav,

who said that meat hidden from the eye is forbidden.

But it was stated concerning it

concerning the Mishna that teaches, “the pieces are permitted”:

Rav said: They are permitted with regard to [the laws of] carcass,

for they do not impart impurity like a carcass, and one is not liable to lashes for eating them on account of [eating] a carcass. But with regard to eating them, they are forbidden because they are meat hidden from the eye. Nevertheless, since it is only an uncertainty, perhaps the meat was exchanged, their law is not that of an actual carcass [but when limbs are found, it is certainly a carcass in every respect].

And Levi said: They are permitted

even

for eating.

And this statement of Rav,

that he forbids meat hidden from the eye,

was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference.

From the incident that occurred, it was possible to learn that this was Rav’s opinion.