Chullin 95b (צה:) — the Talmud in English

Rav was sitting on the bank of the Ishtatit River,

at the bridge of the river called Ishtatit.

He saw a certain man who was

washing a head,

as he was rinsing the head of an animal in the river water.

It fell from him

into the river.

He went and brought a basket,

a basket,

and threw it

lowering it into the river.

He brought up two

animal heads.

Rav said: “Should I do this as well?!”

Is this the way a person loses one object and finds two? That is, neither of the two heads was the one that had fallen; rather, they were other heads that had previously been in the river. Therefore,

he forbade them to him. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:

Why did you forbid them? Even if they were other heads, was it only

forbidden meat that is commonly found

in the river, whereas

permitted meat is not commonly found?!

Why should we not say that they were kosher?

Rav said to them: “Forbidden meat is more commonly found!”

There was concern that perhaps ravens had brought them from other places, where nevela is more commonly found [according to Tosafot]. This proves that Rav forbids meat that was left unattended and is concerned that ravens may have exchanged the meat.

And we challenge this:

“What does one infer from this?”

What difference is there whether Rav stated this explicitly or not? For from the fact that he forbade the heads, it is implied that his view was indeed to forbid meat that had been left unattended.

And we answer: The proof from the incident is not conclusive. One could say that if most of the slaughterers in that place had been Jews, Rav would not have been concerned that ravens had brought the heads from elsewhere. Rather,

it was a ferry-port,

a port

of gentiles,

and most of the slaughterers in that place were gentiles; therefore Rav forbade them.

Know

that this was Rav’s reason.

For he said to them

Rav:

“Forbidden meat is more commonly found!”

This implies that in that place the majority was forbidden.

And we consider the matter:

But Rav,

who forbids meat even if it was hidden from view for only a moment,

how did he eat meat?

And we answer:

At the time it was slaughtered!

Immediately after it was slaughtered,

for he did not remove his eyes from it

from the moment of slaughter.

And if you wish, say: He ate it

when it was tied and sealed,

or alternatively,

with a distinguishing mark!

He would make a mark in the meat.

As in the case of Rabba bar Rav Huna,

who

would cut it into three corners,

when he sent meat to his wife by means of a gentile and was concerned that the gentile might exchange it, he would make a mark by cutting the meat into the shape of a triangle.

Rav was going to the house of Rav Hanan, his son-in-law. He saw a ferry coming toward him.

It was coming toward him from the opposite side of the river.

He said:

Since

the ferry is coming toward me,

it is a sign that

there is a good day ahead!

For people would say that if a ferry came toward them without their having summoned it, this was a sign that they would have a pleasant day at the inn where they would arrive that night.

He went and stood at the entrance.

He stood at the doorway of the inn.

He peered through a crack in the door,

and saw through a gap in the door.

He saw meat hanging there.

He saw that meat was hanging there.

He knocked on the door.

He knocked on the door.

They came out; everyone came toward him!

They all came out of the inn to greet him.

The butchers also came out,

the butchers who dealt with the meat also came out,

but Rav had not removed his eyes from it,

from the meat.

He said to them,

to the butchers:

“If only now

the matter had depended on your watching the meat,

you would have fed forbidden meat to the sons of my daughter,”

you would have caused my grandsons who live in this city to eat forbidden meat, since you had removed your eyes from it.

Rav did not eat from that meat!

And we consider the matter:

What was the reason? If it was because it had been left unattended, it had not been left unattended?!

For Rav had not removed his eyes from the meat.

And we answer:

Rather,

it was because

he had practiced divination,

for initially he had divined that he would have a pleasant day at the inn, and since it is forbidden to practice divination, he did not wish to benefit from the meat.

And we challenge this:

But Rav said: “Any divination that is not like that of Eliezer, servant of Abraham,

who relied on the omen in practice: if Rebecca would give him water, he would take her for Isaac, and if not, he would not take her,

or like that of Jonathan, son of Saul,

who likewise relied entirely on the omen,

is not divination” [Tosafot explain how it was permitted for Eliezer and Jonathan to practice divination]—and Rav’s divination was not of this kind?

And we answer:

Rather,

it was an optional feast, and Rav did not derive benefit from an optional feast!

Rav

would

test the ferry:

if he found the ferry readily, he would sail with it, but if it was difficult to arrange, he would not sail [and this was not divination, since he did not state this explicitly—Maharsha].

And Shmuel

would

test with a book:

he would act according to the verse that happened to appear before him.

Rabbi Yohanan

would

test with a child:

he would say to a child, “Recite your verse for me.”

Throughout Rav’s lifetime,

all his days,

Rabbi Yohanan would write to him

when he sent him a written question from the Land of Israel to Babylonia, he would begin:

“To the honor of our master in Babylonia.” When Rav passed away,

Rav,

he would write

Rabbi Yohanan

to Shmuel

and would begin:

“To the honor of our colleague in Babylonia.”

Shmuel

said:

“Do I know no teachings

that I am more expert in than he,

so that I am his teacher?!”

He wrote and sent him

a calculation of the intercalation for sixty years,

Shmuel sent Rabbi Yohanan

the intercalation for sixty years,

a calculation of the intercalated years for the next sixty years.

Rabbi Yohanan

said:

“Now he knows merely a calculation,”

and that is not sufficient for me to call him “our master.”

He wrote and sent him

Shmuel

thirteen camels

loaded with

cases of tereifa questions,

various questions concerning tereifot.

Rabbi Yohanan

said:

“I have a master in Babylonia! I will go and see him!”

I will go to greet him.

He said to a child: “Recite your verse for me.” The child said to him

the following verse:

“And Shmuel died.”

Rabbi Yohanan

said: “We may infer from this that he has passed away,”

Shmuel.

But this is not so; Shmuel did not die. Rather,

Heaven arranged matters in this way

so that Rabbi Yohanan would not have to trouble himself

to travel to Babylonia.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: “A house, a child, and a wife—

if one built a house, a son was born to him, or he married a wife,

although this is not divination,

for it is forbidden to practice divination and rely on it,

there is a sign

in the matter: if he succeeded in his first business venture after building a house and so forth, it is a sign that from then on he will continue to prosper; but if not, he should not continue in business, lest he fail.

Rabbi Elazar said: And this is only when it has been established three times,

that he succeeded or failed three times; only then is it a sign.

As it is written: “Joseph is gone, and Simeon is gone, and now you would take away Benjamin;

all these things have befallen me.” If these three troubles happen to him, from then on all troubles will come upon him.

Rav Huna asked Rav: “What is the ruling with regard to meat arranged in a string?”

If one made a string from pieces of meat and did not watch it, is this considered a distinguishing mark, so that it is not included in the category of meat left unattended?

He said to him,

Rav

said: “Do not be foolish

with this question, for

meat arranged in a string is certainly a distinguishing mark.”

Some say:

Rav Huna did not ask Rav; rather,

Rav Huna said that Rav said: “Meat arranged in a string is certainly a distinguishing mark!”

Rav Naḥman of Nehardea happened to come to Rav Kahana in Pum-Nahara

on the eve of

the evening before

Yom Kippur. Ravens came and threw down

discarded

livers and lungs. He said to him

Rav Kahana said to Rav Naḥman:

“Take and eat today.

Today it is permitted to eat what the ravens throw down,

for permitted meat is more commonly found,”

since most of the meat came from Jewish slaughter, as much meat was prepared for the eve-of-Yom-Kippur meal.

Rav Hiyya bar Avin lost a kurkasha

the intestines of an animal

among the barrels,

between the barrels, and later found it.

He came before Rav Huna

to ask about the meat.

He said to him

Rav Huna

said to him: “Do you have a distinguishing mark on it?”

so that it would not be included among meat left unattended.

He said to him

Rav Hiyya bar Avin

said: “No!”

Rav Huna asked him:

“Do you have visual recognition of it?” He said to him: “Yes!” He said to him

Rav Huna

said to him: “If so, go and take it!”

Rabbi Hanina the Judean lost a piece of meat. He came before Rav Naḥman, who said to him: “Does it have a distinguishing mark on it?” He said to him

Rabbi Hanina

said: “No!”

Rav Naḥman asked him:

“Do you have visual recognition of it?” He said to him: “Yes!”

Rav Naḥman

said to him: “If so, go and take it!”

Rav Natan bar Abaye lost a ball of tekhelet wool,

a bundle of wool dyed tekhelet, and later found it.

He came before Rav Hisda

to ask, since there was concern that it might not be the one he had lost, and might not be tekhelet at all, but rather kala ilan dye, which resembles tekhelet and is not valid for tzitzit.

He said to him,

Rav Hisda

said to him: “Do you have a distinguishing mark on it?” He said to him: “No!”

Rav Hisda asked him:

“Do you have visual recognition of it?” He said to him: “Yes!”

Rav Hisda

said to him: “If so, go and take it!”