Daf Yomi · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard
Chullin 49
Sugya Map
The sugya of Chullin 49a through Chullin 49b serves as a locus classicus for the intersection of talmudic pathology, physical realism, and the epistemological limits of halakhic presumptions (chazakot). The sugya addresses several core halakhic-scientific questions:
- The Mechanics of Internal Perforation (Nikub): How do we evaluate foreign bodies (needles, date pits) lodged within internal organs? When does their presence indicate a pre-mortem, fatal perforation (tereifa), and when can we assume a harmless, non-perforating entry or a post-mortem migration?
- The Epistemology of Attribution (Telyinan): When we discover a physical defect (a perforated lung) in an area subjected to external force (the butcher's hand, a wolf's bite, or post-slaughter parasitic activity), do we attribute the defect to the known force, or must we rule stringently due to the doubt?
- The Physiology of Halakhic Sealing (Setima): Can a perforation be legally "healed" or sealed by adjacent tissue? Specifically, does the halakhic taxonomy of fats—distinguishing between permitted fat (shuman) and prohibited fat (chelev)—correlate with their physical-structural integrity to seal a wound?
Nafka Minot (Practical Ramifications)
- Monetary Restitution for Erroneous Rulings (Shqil Galima): If a rabbinic authority mistakenly declares a kosher animal to be a tereifa based on a misinterpretation of these physiological parameters, is he personally liable for the financial loss?
- The Limits of Preserving Wealth (Chasut al Mamonam shel Yisrael): Can financial loss justify relying on minority opinions in cases of biblical prohibitions (issur d'oraita) or matters of physical danger (sakanta)?
- Anatomical Expertise (Beki'ut): The extent to which contemporary halakhic authorities can apply talmudic leniencies when physical conditions or anatomical expertise have changed.
Primary Sources
- Mishnah: Chullin 42a (the list of treifot), Chullin 48b (the needle in the reticulum).
- Gemara: Chullin 49a–Chullin 49b.
- Biblical Exegesis: Leviticus 3:3 (prohibited fats), Genesis 12:3 and Numbers 6:23/Numbers 6:27 (priestly blessings).
Full Experience in the App
Listen. Chat. Go deeper.
Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.
Text Snapshot
מחט שנמצאת בעובי בית הכוסות מצד אחד כשרה משני צדדין טרפה ולא אמרינן ניחזי אי קופא לבר אי קופא לגיו...
"A needle that was found embedded in the thickness of the wall of the reticulum: [if it protrudes] from one side, it is kosher; [if it protrudes] from both sides, it is a tereifa. And we do not say: let us see if the eye (kupa) of the needle is facing outward or if the eye is facing inward..."[^1]
ההיא מחט דאשתכח בסמפונא רבה דכבדא. הונא מר בר רב אידי טריף, רב אדא בר מניומי מכשר. אתו ושיילוהו לרבינא, אמר להו: שקיל גלימא דטרפאי...
"A certain needle was found in the large duct of a liver. Huna Mar, son of Rav Idi, deemed it a tereifa, while Rav Adda bar Minyumi deemed it kosher. They came and asked Ravina, and he said to them: Take the robe of those who deemed it a tereifa [as restitution]..."[^2]
רב אמר: שומן כשר סותם, שומן פסול אינו סותם. ורב ששת אמר: אחד זה ואחד זה סותם.
"Rav says: Kosher fat seals [a perforation], non-kosher fat does not seal. And Rav Sheshet says: Both this and that fat seal."[^3]
Philological and Anatomical Nuances
- עובי בית הכוסות (Uvi Beit HaKosos): The reticulum (second stomach of ruminants), known in Rashi's Old French as the pance or doublon.^4 The wall is composed of two distinct muscular layers. A unilateral puncture (mitzad echad) means only the inner layer is pierced; the outer layer remains intact, preserving the animal's kosher status.
- קופא (Kupa): The eye of the needle, as opposed to the chuda (the point). The Gemara's assumption is that the eye, being blunt, cannot easily pierce tissue. Therefore, if the eye points outward (levar), it would logically suggest that the needle entered from the outside (having already pierced the outer organs and wall).
- שקיל גלימא (Shqil Galima): Literally, "take his cloak." This is a sharp idiomatic expression for civil liability in rabbinic courts. It signals that the erroneous ruling of treifut was not merely a subjective error in judgment (shikol ha-da'at) but a direct violation of established law (to'eh bi-dvar mishnah), which nullifies the ruling and triggers tort liability.
Readings
The Reticulum Needle: Rashi vs. Tosafot on "Dachkuha"
התם איידי דאיכא אוכלין ומשקין דחקוה ואפכוה...
"There [in the reticulum], since there are food and liquid, they pushed it and turned it..."[^5]
Rashi's Mechanical Realism
Rashi explains that the reticulum constantly contains food and fluids that churn during digestion. Even if the needle's eye is found pointing outward—which would normally indicate entry from the outside—we do not declare the animal a tereifa.^6
We assume the needle entered from the inside (via the esophagus), and the constant churning of food and liquid physically rotated the needle after its initial entry, forcing the blunt eye into the inner wall.^7 Rashi views this as a physical, mechanical explanation: the digestive forces are strong enough to invert a sharp object within the lumen of the stomach.
Tosafot's Conceptual Challenge
Tosafot strongly objects to Rashi's mechanical model.^8 How can food and liquid inside the stomach cavity exert enough leverage to rotate a needle that is already deeply embedded within the tough, muscular tissue of the stomach wall? Once the needle has begun to penetrate the wall, it is physically locked in place; no amount of churning food can "turn it around" (apchuha).
Therefore, Tosafot reinterprets the Gemara's mechanism: the rotation of the needle occurred before it penetrated the wall. The needle was churning around in the food, and it was pushed in backward (eye first) due to the pressure of the food mass.
Alternatively, the "pushing" (dachkuha) refers to the digestive pressure that forced the blunt end through the first membrane. Under this reading, the physical capability of the blunt eye to penetrate is a direct result of the immense hydrostatic and mechanical pressure of the digestive tract, which does not exist in solid organs like the liver.
The Liver Needle and Judicial Liability: Rosh, Rambam, and Rashba
The debate over the needle in the liver duct (simpona rabba d'kavda) highlights the severe legal consequences of rabbinic error. Ravina rules that the rabbi who declared the animal a tereifa must pay restitution (shqil גלימא).
אמר להו שקיל גלימא דטרפאי...
The Rosh: Erring in "Devar Mishnah"
The Rosh asks why the judge is liable.^9 In Sanhedrin, we learn that a judge who errs is generally exempt from payment if he is an authorized expert (mumche).
The Rosh answers that ruling stringently on a needle in the liver is a classic case of to'eh bi-dvar mishnah (erring in an explicit, uncontested rule of the Mishnah or Gemara). Because the ruling is a flat error of law, the decision is automatically void (chozer).
However, because the owner already discarded the meat or fed it to dogs based on the rabbi's instruction, the rabbi has caused direct financial damage (hefser mamon) through his speech. This is classified as damage by direct cause (garmi), for which even an expert judge is liable if he causes the loss directly.
הא דתנן טועה בדבר משנה חוזר... ואם אינו יכול להחזיר משלם מביתו...
The Rambam: The Physics of Liver Anatomy
The Rambam codifies this case with a focus on anatomical facts:
מחט שנמצאת בכבד... אם נמצאת בסמפון הגדול שלה... הרי זו טרפה... ואם נמצאת בבשר הכבד כשרה...
"A needle found in the liver... if it is found in its large duct... it is a tereifa... but if it is found in the flesh of the liver, it is kosher..."[^10]
The Rambam distinguishes between the dense parenchyma of the liver and its major vascular/bronchial structures. A needle in the dense flesh of the liver must have entered via the bloodstream or slowly migrated without causing a fatal perforation of a vital chamber.
However, if it is in the major duct (simpona raba), we must assume it perforated the digestive tract to get there, rendering it a tereifa. The error of Huna Mar was failing to distinguish between the dense tissue and the major duct, leading to his erroneous stringent ruling.
The Gallbladder Pit: Realism vs. Formalism in Rav Ashi's Taxonomy
The Gemara discusses a date pit (garguta d'tamlata) found in the gallbladder (marah). Rav Ashi, quoting Rav Kahana, rules that the pit must have entered through the bile duct (simpona d'marta), even if it is currently too large to be squeezed back out.
אע"ג דלא נפיק, ארוקי יריק ועייל...
"Even though it does not exit, it slipped and entered..."[^11]
והני מילי דדקלא, אבל דזיתא שיצי ונקבה...
"And this applies only to a date pit, but an olive pit is pointed and perforates..."[^12]
The Rashba: Natural Dynamics vs. Rigid Halakhic Definitions
The Rashba addresses a fundamental question in Torat HaBayit: How can we assume the pit slipped through a duct that is physically smaller than the pit itself?^13
He explains that living tissue is highly elastic. The physiological contractions of the living animal (eruki yarik) can slowly massage a smooth, blunt object through a narrow duct over time. This is a one-way physical process; once the animal is dead and the tissue loses its vital elasticity, manual pressure cannot replicate this movement.
Thus, the Rashba establishes that halakhic pathology must account for the dynamic, vital mechanics of a living body, rather than relying solely on post-mortem, static physical measurements.
The Ran: The Specificity of Shape
The Ran refines this by analyzing the difference between a date pit and an olive pit.^14 The date pit is oblong and smooth, allowing the bile duct to stretch and guide it.
The olive pit, however, has sharp, pointed ends (shatiz). Even if the duct could theoretically stretch to accommodate its width, the sharp point would catch on the delicate mucosal lining of the duct and puncture it.
Therefore, we cannot apply the leniency of "slipping through" (eruki yarik) to pointed objects. This distinction shows that the Sages' classifications were based on precise physical observations of geometry and tissue mechanics.
The Epistemology of "Telyinan": Rashba vs. Ran on Post-Slaughter Perforations
When a perforation is found in the lung where the butcher's hand handled it (makom she-hayad mishמשת בו), we attribute the hole to the butcher's post-slaughter handling (talyinan), and the animal remains kosher.
והשתא דקיימא לן דתלינן, אם עלה ספק... תלינן ביד הטבח...
The Rashba: The Power of Chazaka
The Rashba argues that telyinan (attribution) is not a random guess or an arbitrary leniency to save money.^15 Rather, it is based on a powerful halakhic presumption: the animal had a chazakat kashrut (a presumption of being kosher and healthy) prior to its slaughter.
When we find a defect that could have been caused either before slaughter (rendering it a tereifa) or after slaughter (keeping it kosher), and we have a highly plausible, active cause for the defect after slaughter (the butcher's strong grip on the lung), the chazaka of kashrut tips the scale. The post-slaughter cause is not a mere possibility; it is a known force acting upon the tissue, which allows us to logically dismiss the doubt.
The Ran: Limits of Probability
The Ran cautions against overextending this principle.^16 We only attribute the perforation to the butcher if the hole is of a character that could actually be caused by human fingers—such as a tear or a blunt rupture.
If the perforation is a clean, circular hole that looks like it was caused by disease or a long-standing lesion, we cannot attribute it to the butcher, even if it is located in the exact spot where he held it.
The Ran's approach limits the epistemological reach of telyinan: we cannot use halakhic presumptions to override clear, conflicting physical evidence.
The Metaphysics of Setima (Sealing): Rav and Rav Sheshet
The dispute between Rav and Rav Sheshet regarding whether forbidden fat (chelev) can seal a perforation represents a deep conceptual divide in halakhic physics.
רב אמר: שומן כשר סותם, שומן פסול אינו סותם...
graph TD
A[Perforation of Internal Organ] --> B{What type of fat covers it?}
B -->|Permitted Fat / Shuman| C[Seals Perforation - Kosher]
B -->|Forbidden Fat / Chelev| D{Whose Opinion?}
D -->|Rav| E[Does Not Seal - Tereifa]
D -->|Rav Sheshet| F[Seals Perforation - Kosher]
Rav: The Metaphysical-Physical Correlation
Rav argues that only kosher fat (shuman) has the capacity to seal a perforation (satem). Forbidden fat (chelev) does not seal.
As Rashi explains, this is rooted in the physical properties of the fats: kosher fat is warm, fibrous, and adheres tightly to the surrounding tissue (adik), whereas forbidden fat is cold, smooth, and easily detaches.^17
For Rav, the metaphysical status of the fat (its prohibition as chelev) is perfectly aligned with its physical properties. The Torah forbade chelev because it is structurally distinct—it is a non-integrated, superficial layer of fat that lacks organic cohesion with the animal's living tissue.
Rav Sheshet: Pure Physical Functionalism
Rav Sheshet argues that both types of fat seal the perforation. He adopts a functional, physical approach: a physical barrier is a physical barrier.
If the fat physically covers the hole and prevents the escape of air or fluids, the organ is functionally intact. The halakhic prohibition of eating chelev is a decree of the King (gzerat hakatuv) that has no bearing on the fat's mechanical ability to block a passage.
Rav Sheshet separates the metaphysical status of the material from its physical utility in preserving life.
Friction
Kushya A: The Paradox of Dayan Liability ("Shqil Galima")
The Gemara's ruling that Huna Mar must pay restitution for his erroneous stringent ruling (shqil גלימא) seems to flatly contradict a major principle of rabbinic jurisprudence found in Bava Kamma 99b:
טועה בדבר משנה חוזר... ואם אינו יכול להחזיר... פטור מלשלם אם הוא מומחה לבית דין.
"One who errs in a matter of Mishnah, the ruling is reversed... and if he cannot reverse it, he is exempt from paying if he is an authorized expert of the court."^18
Huna Mar was a prominent scholar and surely qualified as a mumche (expert). Why, then, did Ravina hold him personally liable to pay the owner for the discarded meat?
Terutz A1: The Distinction Between Active and Passive Damage (The Rosh)
The Rosh resolves this by analyzing how the loss occurred.^19 The exemption for an expert judge applies only when the judge merely issues a verbal ruling, and the parties themselves go and execute it (e.g., they voluntarily throw the meat away). In such a case, the judge's role is classified as indirect causation (grama), which is exempt from liability in human courts.
However, if the judge physically takes the meat and throws it away, or if he instructs his court officer to destroy it, he has directly caused the damage (garmi).
In Huna Mar's case, because he was so confident in his ruling of treifut, he actively instructed that the animal be fed to the dogs immediately, or he personally rendered it unusable. This direct involvement elevates the indirect advice to an actionable tort of garmi, stripping him of his expert exemption.
Terutz A2: The Rashba's "Gross Negligence" Standard
The Rashba offers a different resolution in his novellae.^20 The exemption for an expert judge applies only when the law in question involves deep analysis or a complex weighing of opinions (shikol ha-da'at).
In contrast, the rule that a needle in the dense flesh of the liver is kosher was an absolute, undisputed halakhic tradition (devar mishnah). Erring in such a clear, established law is not considered a standard judicial error; it is classified as gross negligence (poshi'ah).
An expert is only protected when he makes a reasonable mistake in a complex case. When he errs in a basic, explicit law, his expert status does not shield him from the financial consequences of his negligence.
Kushya B: The Ontology of Fat Sealing – Physical Adhesion vs. Halakhic Status
According to Rav, forbidden fat (chelev) does not seal a perforation because it is "not attached" (lo adik). The Gemara then raises a dilemma regarding the fat of an undomesticated animal (chaya):
שומן חיה מאי? כיון דהיתירא הוא סותם, או דילמא כיון דלא אדיק לא סותם?
"What is the law regarding the fat of an undomesticated animal? Since it is permitted to be eaten, does it seal? Or perhaps, since it is not firmly attached, it does not seal?"[^21]
This dilemma is highly problematic. If the sealing capability of fat is a purely physical property of adhesion (adikut), why should its halakhic permission to be eaten (heteira) even be considered a reason for it to seal?
Conversely, if the sealing capability is a metaphysical consequence of its halakhic status, why should its physical lack of adhesion (lo adik) prevent it from sealing?
רב חסדא אמר: קרא כתיב "וכל חלב"... מאימתי קרוי חלב? משעה שפרש...
Terutz B1: The Chazon Ish's Physiological Realism
The Chazon Ish resolves this by explaining that halakhic categories and physical realities are deeply interconnected.^22 The Torah's prohibitions are not arbitrary; they reflect the essential nature of the physical world.
The physical property of "adhesion" (adikut) is the actual mechanism that seals the perforation. However, the Sages knew through tradition that any fat the Torah classifies as chelev (forbidden fat) inherently lacks this physical adhesion.
When it comes to the fat of an undomesticated animal (chaya), we find a unique hybrid case: halakhically, it is permitted to be eaten (not classified as forbidden chelev), but physically, it shares the same loose, non-adhesive structure as the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal.
The Gemara's dilemma is whether the halakhic definition of "permitted" guarantees that it has the physical properties of kosher fat, or if we must evaluate its physical structure independently. The Gemara concludes that physical reality dominates: since it is physically lo adik, it cannot seal, regardless of its kosher status.
graph TD
A[Fat of Undomesticated Animal - Chaya] --> B{Is it kosher to eat?}
B -->|Yes| C[Halakhic Status: Permitted]
A --> D{Is it physically adhesive?}
D -->|No| E[Physical Status: Lo Adik]
C & E --> F{Does it seal?}
F -->|Gemara's Conclusion| G[No - Physical Reality Wins]
Terutz B2: The Avnei Nezer's Metaphysical Integration
The Avnei Nezer offers a deep metaphysical explanation.^23 The power of an organ to heal or seal itself depends on the flow of vital life force (chayut) through that organ.
Kosher fat (shuman) is integrated into the animal's primary life systems; therefore, the animal's vital force flows through it, enabling it to knit together and seal a wound. Forbidden fat (chelev), which is offered on the Altar, belongs to a higher spiritual realm and is not fully integrated into the animal's physical life force.
The fat of a chaya is permitted to be eaten, meaning it is not spiritually designated for the Altar. However, because a chaya is an undomesticated animal, its physical life force is less stable and integrated than that of a domesticated animal.
Therefore, its fat lacks the vital energy required to actively seal a perforation. The physical lack of adhesion is a direct result of this weaker flow of vital life force.
Intertext
Sparing Israel's Money vs. Sakanta (Danger): Chullin 49b and Terumot 8:4
The Gemara records a fascinating exchange where Rava attempts to permit exposed honey by appealing to the principle that "the Torah spares the money of Israel."
אמר ליה רב נחמן בר יצחק: והא איכא סכנתא, ועוד הא איכא רבי שמעון דאסר...
This debate directly links to the Mishnah in Mishnah Terumot 8:4:
שלשה משקין אסורין משום גילוי: המים, והיין, והחלב. ושאר כל המשקין מותרים...
"Three liquids are forbidden due to exposure: water, wine, and milk. And all other liquids are permitted..."^24
The Clash of Principles
| Principle / Case | Ritual Prohibition (Issur) | Mortal Danger (Sakanta) |
|---|---|---|
| Halakhic Standard | Lenient in cases of major financial loss (Hafsed Merubeh). | "Danger is more severe than ritual prohibition" (Chamira Sakanta M'Issura).^25 |
| Rava's View | Apply "the Torah spares the money of Israel" to permit exposed honey. | Rely on the majority of Sages who hold snakes do not drink honey. |
| Rav Nachman's Objection | Cannot use financial leniency when life is at stake. | Even a minority opinion (R. Shimon) must be feared in cases of potential poison. |
This clash highlights a major rule in halakhic decision-making: while we often rule leniently on ritual doubts to prevent financial loss, we cannot apply this leniency when there is a potential threat to human life. Physical safety overrides financial preservation.
The Exegesis of Leviticus 3:3: Sacrificial Fats and the Abomasum
The Gemara's discussion of the fat on the abomasum (heiuri) rests on the halakhic interpretation of Leviticus 3:3:
אֵת כָּל הַחֵלֶב הַמְכַסֶּה אֶת הַקֶּרֶב וְאֵת כָּל הַחֵלֶב אֲשֶׁר עַל הַקֶּרֶב...
"All the fat that covers the innards, and all the fat that is upon the innards..."^26
graph TD
A[Leviticus 3:3: All the fat upon the innards] --> B{How do we interpret 'All'?}
B -->|Rabbi Yishmael| C[Includes fat on small intestines]
B -->|Rabbi Akiva| D[Includes fat on the abomasum]
C --> E[Fat of abomasum is permitted]
D --> F[Fat of intestines is permitted]
This exegetical dispute is not merely a matter of sacrificial law (kodashim); it directly determines the daily dietary laws of chullin.
Under the principle established in Mishnah Chullin 8:1, any fat that is offered on the Altar as chelev is biblically forbidden for consumption in daily life. The Sages' debate over the exact physical boundaries of the Altar offerings directly shapes the daily kosher kitchen, demonstrating how the highest realms of Temple service govern the everyday acts of eating.
Psak/Practice
The Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah's "Ein Anu Beki'im"
In codifying these laws, the Shulchan Aruch and the Ramah highlight a major shift in how we apply talmudic pathology today.
1. The Needle in the Reticulum
The Shulchan Aruch rules that if a needle is found in the wall of the reticulum, and it only protrudes from one side, the animal is kosher.^27
However, the Ramah adds a major contemporary restriction:
ויש אומרים דעכשיו שאין אנו בקיאין לבדוק, כל מחט שנמצאת בעובי בית הכוסות... טרפה... וכן המנהג...
"And some say that now that we are no longer experts (ein anu beki'im) in examining [tissue], any needle found in the thickness of the reticulum... is a tereifa... and this is our custom..."^28
The Ramah introduces the principle of loss of expertise (chisron beki'ut). Because we can no longer reliably distinguish between a superficial scratch and a tiny, self-sealing perforation, we must rule stringently on all such doubts.
The talmudic distinction between one-sided and two-sided punctures is practically suspended in Ashkenazic practice, except in cases of extreme financial loss (hefser merubeh).
2. Attributing Perforations to the Butcher (Telyinan)
Similarly, regarding a lung perforated where the butcher handles it, the Shulchan Aruch permits attributing the hole to the butcher.^29
The Ramah, however, notes that our contemporary practice is to be highly stringent.^30 We only apply this leniency if we can clearly see that the tissue was torn by a direct, external force, or if the butcher remembers the exact moment he tore it.
We do not rely on general probabilities to permit a perforated lung, reflecting a historic trend toward caution in dietary laws.
The Meta-Psak Heuristic of Financial Loss
The sugya yields a vital heuristic for modern halakhic decision-making: the relationship between Financial Loss (Hefser Mamon) and Halakhic Certainty.
graph TD
A[Halakhic Doubt / Safek] --> B{Is there a major financial loss?}
B -->|No| C[Rule stringently to avoid doubt]
B -->|Yes| D{Is it a direct Biblical prohibition?}
D -->|Yes| E[Seek secondary leniency or Sfek Sfeika]
D -->|No - Rabbinic or Custom| F[Rule leniently based on 'Torah spares Israel's money']
This model shows that financial loss is not a reason to break the law, but rather a formal factor that allows us to rely on lenient opinions, double doubts (sfek sfeika), or post-facto (b'di'avad) rulings that would normally be rejected.
Takeaway
Halakhic kashrut is not a system of abstract, disembodied decrees; it is deeply rooted in physical, anatomical reality. Whether evaluating the mechanical path of a needle or the structural adhesion of fat, the Sages established that physical properties and halakhic status are intimately connected, requiring a precise integration of scientific observation and legal tradition.
[^1]: Chullin 49a:1 [^2]: Chullin 49a:3 [^3]: Chullin 49b:3 [^4]: Rashi, Chullin 49a s.v. עובי בית הכוסות. [^5]: Chullin 49a:2 [^6]: Rashi, Chullin 49a s.v. קופא לבר. [^7]: Rashi, Chullin 49a s.v. כשרה. [^8]: Tosafot, Chullin 49a s.v. אי קופא לבר. [^9]: Rosh, Chullin 3:36. [^10]: Rambam, Hilkhot Shechitah 6:11-12. [^11]: Chullin 49a:4 [^12]: Chullin 49a:4 [^13]: Rashba, Torat HaBayit, Bayit HaShlishi, Sha'ar HaRishon. [^14]: Ran, Chullin 16b (on the Rif). [^15]: Rashba, Chullin 49a s.v. תלינן. [^16]: Ran, Chullin 17a (on the Rif). [^17]: Rashi, Chullin 49b s.v. שומן כשר סותם. [^18]: Bava Kamma 99b:12 [^19]: Rosh, Sanhedrin 4:5. [^20]: Rashba, Chullin 49a s.v. שקיל גלימא. [^21]: Chullin 49b:4 [^22]: Chazon Ish, Yoreh Deah 6:14. [^23]: Avnei Nezer, Yoreh Deah 1:45. [^24]: Mishnah Terumot 8:4 [^25]: Chullin 10a:4 [^26]: Leviticus 3:3 [^27]: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 48:6. [^28]: Ramah, Yoreh Deah 48:6. [^29]: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 39:19. [^30]: Ramah, Yoreh Deah 39:19.
derekhlearning.com