Daf Yomi
Chullin 95
In another voice
Sugya Map
The sugya in Chullin 95a serves as the locus classicus for two foundational domains of halakhic epistemology and food-safety metaphysics: the credibility of a merchant who claims to have sold non-kosher food, and the status of basar she’nitlam min ha'ayin (meat that has been obscured from sight).
[Chullin 95a: The Market & The Unseen]
|
+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| |
[The Butcher's Declaration] [Basar She'nitlam Min Ha'ayin]
| |
- Core Issue: Market credibility vs. Vexation - Core Issue: Physical discontinuity & Swapping
- Mechanics: "It-chazek issura" vs. "Le'tza'urei" - Mechanics: Rabbinic decree vs. Empirical probability
| |
+--------+--------+ +--------+--------+
| | | |
[Lishna Kama] [Lishna Batra] [Rav: Assur] [Levi: Mutar]
(Only that (Entire market (Requires seal/ (Relies on local
shop is assur) is compromised) siman/tevi'at ayin) majority)
Core Halakhic Issues Under Review
- The Credibility of Vexation (Le'tza'urei): Does a speaker's intent to cause distress or mock his fellow undermine his credibility (ne'emanut) to establish a prohibition?
- The Metaphysics of Market Contamination (It-Chazek Issura): Does the discovery of a single non-kosher transaction within a municipal market retroactively compromise the halakhic status of all other shops in that market?
- The Decree of Basar She'nitlam Min Ha'ayin: Is the prohibition of unsupervised meat based on an empirical probability of animal/bird intervention (a chashash of swapping), or is it an absolute Rabbinic decree (gezeirah) of physical discontinuity?
- Epistemological Hierarchy of Recognition: Is objective physical marking (siman) superior to subjective holistic recognition (tevi'at ayin), or does holistic recognition possess a superior ontological validity in the realm of ritual law?
Primary Sources
- Mishnaic Foundations: Mishnah Makhshirin 2:9 (majority rules for found meat), Mishnah Shekalim 7:3 (limbs vs. pieces in Jerusalem).
- Talmudic Text: Chullin 95a–Chullin 96a.
- Halakhic Codes: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 63:1 and Yoreh Deah 110:1.
Listen to this lesson. Ask it questions.
Audio, a chevruta that cites its sources, Hebrew tools, and every daily cycle, in the app.
Text Snapshot
ההוא טבחא דאמר לחבריה: אי הוות פייסת מינאי אתמול, מי לא ספיי לך משור של פטם דעבדי אתמול? אמר ליה: אכלי משופרי שופרא. אמר ליה: מנלך? אמר ליה: דזבן לי פלוני גוי וספא לי. אמר ליה: תרי עבדי אתמול, חד כשר וחד טריפה, וההוא דאכלת טריפה הוה.
Lexical & Grammatical Analysis
- "אי הוות פייסת מינאי": Rashi interprets this as "אם היית שלם עמי"[1] (if you had made peace with me), indicating a background of active hostility (shon’im hayu zeh la-zeh). Rabbeinu Gershom renders it: "אי הוה עבדת לי ניח נפשא"[2] (if you had done that which was pleasing to my soul). The grammatical construct of pe'us (conciliation) implies that the offer of meat was a potential commodity of relational currency, not merely a commercial transaction.
- "משופרי שופרא": The double lashon of shupra (the finest of the fine) highlights the consumer's pride. In the dynamics of the narrative, this boast triggers the butcher's retaliatory claim. The linguistic escalation from "fattened bull" (shor shel fattem) to "finest of the fine" (shuprei d'shupra) sets up the psychological motive of le'tza'urei (vexation).
- "תרי עבדי": Literally, "two I made." The verb avad in the context of butchery means slaughtering and preparing. The butcher sets up a binary choice: one was kosher, one was tereifa.
Readings
The Market Contamination Debate: Rashi vs. Ritva
[How Does One Butcher Compromise the Market?]
|
+------------------------------+------------------------------+
| |
[Rashi's Approach] [Ritva's Approach]
| |
- Cause: Market-wide collusion. - Cause: Communal failure of "Hachraza".
- Mechanism: The butcher's lawlessness - Mechanism: The systemic lack of public
suggests he routinely mixes unannounced announcements creates a permanent state
tereifot into the general market. of "it-chazek issura" for all shoppers.
The Gemara presents two versions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's response to the butcher's claim. In the first version (lishna kama), Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi dismisses the butcher's claim entirely: "Because of this imbecile who acted improperly... should we forbid all of the butcher shops?" In the second version (lishna batra), Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi dismisses it because the butcher's intent was merely to vex his friend (le'tza'urei le'chavrei).
The Gemara notes that under the second version, if the butcher had not had a motive to vex, the entire market's meat supply would indeed be forbidden. The Gemara asks: why should the entire market be forbidden based on one rogue butcher, given the rule that we follow the majority of butcher shops (rubba de-tavchei)? The Gemara answers: "Shani tacha de-it-chazek issura" (It is different here, because the prohibition has been established).
How does one butcher's rogue sale of a tereifa to a gentile establish a prohibition for the entire city?
Rashi: The Theory of Market Collusion and Moral Degeneracy
Rashi explains that this incident took place in a city where they do not publicly announce (makrizin) when a tereifa is sold to a gentile:
"דכיון שזה הטבח עשה שלא כהוגן למכור שור טריפה לאינו יהודי שלא בהכרזה... חיישינן דעשה גם כן שלא כהוגן למכור ממנה או מאחרים טריפות לאינו יהודי למכור במקולין וערבב את שורת המקולין דהוי רוב חניות דאיסורא" [3]
According to Rashi, the "establishment of prohibition" (it-chazek issura) is not merely a localized event. Rather, the butcher’s willingness to sell tereifa to a gentile without publicizing it reveals a systemic breakdown of market integrity. We suspect that this butcher, and perhaps others, have routinely commingled tereifot into the general supply sold to gentiles, who then resell it in their own shops. The "majority of Jewish butchers" (rov tavchei Yisrael) can no longer be relied upon because the boundary between kosher and non-kosher distribution channels has been dissolved by this rogue actor.
Ritva: The Failure of Communal Announcement (Hachraza)
The Ritva, quoting his master, the Ra'ah, offers a different structural interpretation of the marketplace dynamic:
"אלא החשש זה היה מפני שהיה במקום שמכריזין... והיו מסופקים אם מה שקבלו עליהם חומרא לאסור יום הכרזה בהיכר זה דוקא, או כל שנודע לנו בודאי שהיתה שם טריפה דינו כאלו היתה שם הכרזה לאסור כל בשר הנמצא ביד גוי... והילכתא כלישנא בתרא לחומרא" [4]
For the Ritva, the issue is not a sudden suspicion of widespread moral degeneracy or covert collusion. Rather, it is a formal, legalistic status. In this city, there was an established communal ordinance (takkana) that on any day a tereifa was slaughtered, a public announcement (hachraza) had to be made so that Jews would know to avoid buying meat from gentile merchants that day.
If no announcement was made, citizens assumed all meat in the hands of gentiles was kosher (having originated from the kosher surplus). However, once this butcher admitted that a tereifa had indeed been sold to a gentile without the required announcement, the communal safety net failed.
The it-chazek issura is not a physical mixture; it is the realization that the market was operating under a false presumption of safety. Consequently, all meat found in the possession of gentiles on that day retroactively becomes subject to the baseline doubt of kavuah (fixed status), which is treated as a 50/50 doubt (מחצה על מחצה), thereby forbidding the meat.
The Retroactive Status of Purchased Meat: Rashba vs. Maharshal
[The Retroactive Status of Meat]
|
+----------------------------+----------------------------+
| |
[The Rashba's Thesis] [The Maharshal's Thesis]
| |
- Rule: Separation precedes doubt. - Rule: Subjective awareness dictates status.
- Mechanism: If meat was purchased - Mechanism: Even if purchased prior to the
prior to the discovery of the rogue discovery, once the market's "it-chazek"
sale, it remains permitted because it is revealed, the systemic doubt forces a
was "parish" (separated) from a retroactive evaluation of all items.
theoretically kosher majority.
If we accept the second version (lishna batra) that when there is no motive to vex, the market becomes forbidden due to it-chazek issura, what is the status of meat that had already been purchased from the gentile shops prior to the butcher's confession?
Rashba: The Temporal Mechanics of Parish and Kavuah
The Rashba, as cited by the Yam Shel Shlomo, introduces a fundamental temporal distinction in the laws of majority (rov):
"דהא דאמר דלא נאסור המקולין בשביל שוטה זה היינו מה שקנו כבר קודם שנולד זה במקולין... אבל לקנות מכאן ואילך ביום זה אסור... מיהו מה שלקחו כבר מגוי ואפילו במקולין מותר דליכא למימר כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי אלא כשנולד הספק במקולין קודם שלקח" [5]
The Rashba argues that the rule of kavuah (which dictates that an item in its fixed place of doubt is not subject to the rule of majority, but is treated as a 50/50 split) only applies if the doubt existed at the moment of purchase. If a consumer purchased meat from a gentile shop before the butcher made his confession, the purchase occurred at a time when the market was under a halakhic presumption of permissibility (chazakat heter).
At that point, the meat was "separated" (parish) from the marketplace. We apply the rule of "kol de-parish me-rubba parish" (whatever separates, separates from the majority). Since the majority of the meat in the city was kosher, the purchased meat is permitted. The subsequent confession of the butcher cannot retroactively transform a valid act of separation (parish) into a state of kavuah.
Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo): The Subjective Reality of Doubt
The Maharshal analyzes the Rashba's position and supports it by citing a parallel ruling of the Rosh regarding a non-kosher lamb that became mixed with kosher ones:
"נ"ל דמה שלקחו מן הבשר קודם שנולד הספק אפילו חתיכה הראויה להתכבד מותרת דתלינן דמרובא פריש... אבל לאחר שכבר נאסרו אי שרית ליה אותה שפירשה אתי למטעי וליקח נמי מן הקבוע" [6]
The Maharshal refines this concept. The reason we do not retroactively forbid meat purchased before the doubt arose is not merely a technicality of parish vs. kavuah. Rather, it is based on the psychological limits of Rabbinic decrees.
The Rabbis only decreed a prohibition on parish (separated items) when the source of the doubt was already known to the public, because in such cases, permitting the separated item would lead people to purchase directly from the prohibited source (kavuah).
However, when the consumer bought the meat while the market was still presumed kosher, there was no cognitive association with prohibition. Thus, there is no risk of future error, and the meat remains permitted.
The Nature of Basar She'nitlam Min Ha'ayin: Physical Doubt vs. Metaphysical Decree
The Gemara pivots to the opinion of Rav: "Once meat is obscured from sight, it is forbidden." Underpinning this statement is a classic chakira (conceptual inquiry) regarding the nature of this prohibition:
[Is Basar She'nitlam Min Ha'ayin a Chashash or a Gezeirah?]
|
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| |
[The Empirical Chashash] [The Formal Gezeirah]
| |
- Proponents: Rashba, Ran. - Proponents: Rambam (implied).
- Concept: Active concern that a raven - Concept: A Rabbinic decree governing the
physically swapped kosher meat for halakhic continuity of food. Once ocular
neveilah. Works on local probabilities. custody is broken, the meat loses its status.
The Empirical Concern Model (Rashba and Ran)
The Rashba and the Ran argue that Rav’s ruling is based on a realistic, physical concern: a raven or other animal might have carried away the kosher meat and replaced it with non-kosher meat (neveilah). This is an empirical concern of physical substitution (chashash chalipin).
The immediate consequence of this model is that if we are in an environment where non-kosher meat is physically unavailable (e.g., an island with only kosher-slaughtered animals), or if the physical circumstances make animal intervention impossible, the meat remains permitted. The requirement of a siman (distinguishing mark) or tevi'at ayin (visual recognition) is simply a practical means to resolve this physical doubt.
The Halakhic Discontinuity Model (Rambam)
A alternative reading, implicit in some formulations of the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot 8:12), suggests that basar she'nitlam min ha'ayin is a formal decree (gezeirah) regarding the halakhic custody of meat.
Once meat leaves the continuous ocular custody of a Jew, it loses its established status of permissibility (chazakat heter). It is not that we actively assume a raven swapped it; rather, the lack of supervision breaks the chain of halakhic custody required for meat. Under this model, even if the meat was left in a locked room where no ravens could enter, if it was unsupervised and lacks a siman, it is forbidden.
Friction
The Ishtetit River Paradox: Rav’s Contradictory Epistemology
The Kushya
The Gemara attempts to find the source for Rav's stringent ruling that basar she'nitlam min ha'ayin is forbidden. It relates the incident at the Ishtetit River: Rav saw a man cleaning an animal head in the river. The head fell in, and when the man cast a basket to retrieve it, he pulled out two heads. Rav forbade both.
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi challenged Rav: "Is forbidden meat common, but permitted meat not common?" (meaning, since the majority of meat in the area is kosher, why assume the second head is non-kosher?). Rav replied: "Forbidden meat is more common."
The Gemara concludes: "And this statement of Rav... was stated based on an inference from this incident."
The immediate contradiction is glaring: If Rav holds a general rule that any meat obscured from sight is forbidden (basar she'nitlam min ha'ayin assur), why did he need to justify his ruling at the Ishtetit River by claiming that "forbidden meat is more common"?
If unsupervised meat is forbidden by definition, then even if permitted meat were more common, the retrieved heads should still be forbidden because they were out of sight in the river!
Conversely, if the prohibition in the Ishtetit River was solely because "forbidden meat was more common" (due to the proximity of the gentile port), then Rav has no general ruling of basar she'nitlam min ha'ayin in places where kosher meat is the majority!
[The Ishtetit River Dilemma]
|
+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| |
[If Nitlam is a Global Rule] [If Nitlam is Majority-Based]
| |
- Then Rav's justification ("Forbidden - Then there is no global decree of
meat is more common") is redundant. "basar she'nitlam min ha'ayin".
- The meat should be forbidden regardless - It only applies in non-kosher majority
of the local market statistics. locations (like the Ishtetit port).
The Terutz of Tosafot (Structural Context)
Tosafot resolve this by restructuring the dialogue between Rav and his disciples:
"וי"ל דמעיקרא כי פריך רב כהנא ורב אסי שפיר פריכו דסברי דלא אסר רב אלא משום דנתעלם... ומשני להו רב דלעולם נתעלם לבדו לא אסר אלא היכא דאיכא למיחש שמא נחלף באיסור... והכא שפיר איכא למיחש משום דרוב בשר הנמצא שם הוא איסור" [7]
Tosafot argue that Rav’s disciples initially assumed Rav was applying a sweeping, global decree of basar she'nitlam min ha'ayin that would apply even in a majority-kosher environment. They challenged this systemic stringency: why create such a sweeping decree when we can rely on the majority (rov)?
Rav responded by clarifying his position: he does not hold a global, formal decree of nitlam min ha'ayin in all circumstances. Rather, the concern of swapping (chashash chalipin) is only active when there is a realistic probability of non-kosher meat being introduced.
At the Ishtetit River, which was a port for gentiles (rabba de-aramei), the empirical probability of retrieving a non-kosher head was high. Thus, Rav’s ruling was indeed based on the local majority, and the Gemara's subsequent "inference" was that Rav only forbids unsupervised meat when there is a localized breakdown of the kosher majority.
The Terutz of the Ran (The "Two-Headed" Retrieval)
The Ran offers a highly precise, physical resolution based on the mechanics of the river incident:
"ונראה לי דהתם היינו טעמא דאסר משום דחזא דנפיל חד ואסקי תרי, דאיכא למימר דהאי לאו האי הוא... אבל בעלמא היכא דנפיל חד ואשכח חד, לא אסר רב אלא במקום שרוב בשר אסור" [8]
The Ran distinguishes between a standard case of basar she'nitlam min ha'ayin (where one item is lost and one item is found) and the anomalous case of the Ishtetit River (where one item was lost and two were found).
If the man had retrieved only one head, Rav would indeed have permitted it because the majority of meat in the city was kosher, and we would apply the presumption that the head found was the head lost.
However, because the basket brought up two heads, it became an empirical certainty that there was already another, unrelated animal head sitting at the bottom of the river.
Since we now know that there is an extra head of unknown origin, we can no longer rely on the simple presumption of identity. We must evaluate the status of this extra head.
Since the riverbank was a gentile port where non-kosher meat was more common, the extra head was likely non-kosher. And since the two heads were identical and indistinguishable, they became mixed (ta'arovert), rendering both forbidden.
Thus, Rav's statement "forbidden meat is more common" was not explaining why unsupervised meat in general is forbidden, but rather why the second, unknown head retrieved from the riverbed was presumed to be non-kosher, which in turn prohibited the kosher head through commingling.
Intertext
Divination: Eliezer, Jonathan, and the Halakhic Boundaries of Superstition
The Gemara interrupts its analysis of kashrut to address Rav’s behavior: he did not eat the meat prepared for him at his son-in-law's house because he had "divined" (nichash) by viewing the timely arrival of the ferry as a good omen. The Gemara then defines the boundaries of forbidden divination:
"אמר רב: כל נחוש שאינו כאליעזר עבד אברהם וכיונתן בן שאול אינו נחוש."
The Scriptural Matrix
The Torah explicitly prohibits divination in Leviticus 19:26: "You shall not practice divination, nor shall you observe omens" (Lo tenachashu). Yet, we find both Eliezer Genesis 24:14 and Jonathan I Samuel 14:8 actively employing signs to determine their courses of action:
[The Anatomy of Divination]
|
+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| |
[The Eliezer / Jonathan Model] [The Permissible Sign]
| |
- Action is entirely contingent on the sign. - The sign is used merely as a psychological
- "If she says drink, then..." - encouragement, but does not dictate the
- This is forbidden "Nechash". - absolute halakhic or practical decision.
- Eliezer's Test: Eliezer declares that the woman who offers to water his camels will be the one designated for Isaac.
- Jonathan's Test: Jonathan declares that if the Philistines say, "Wait until we come to you," they will stay put; but if they say, "Come up to us," they will attack, taking it as a sign that God has delivered them into their hands.
The Halakhic Distinction: Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 179
The Shulchan Aruch codifies the distinction between permissible signs and forbidden divination based on our sugya:
"איזהו נחש? כגון אלו שאומרים: הואיל ופתו נפלה מידו... או שעבר שועל מימינו... וכן מי שמציב לו סימנים: אם יארע לי כך וכך אעשה דבר זה, ואם לא יארע לא אעשה, כדרך שעשה אליעזר... וכיונתן... כל אלו אסור" Yoreh Deah 179:3
The halakhic mechanism of forbidden nechash depends on absolute dependency. If a person makes their practical actions entirely contingent on an arbitrary external sign—meaning, they will only act if the sign occurs, and will completely abort if it does not—they have violated the biblical prohibition of nechash.
However, if a person merely uses a sign as a source of psychological encouragement or a favorable omen (siman tov), but would still proceed with their plans regardless of the outcome, it is permitted.
Why did Rav Penalize Himself?
If Rav’s checking of the ferry was not a binding divination (since he did not make his journey completely contingent on it in a superstitious manner), why did he refuse to eat the meat?
The Gemara answers: "Rather, it was an optional feast, and Rav would not derive pleasure from an optional feast."
Rav was exceptionally stringent regarding his personal conduct. He did not eat at any feast that was not a se'udat mitzvah (such as a wedding or bris).
The Gemara’s placement of this narrative here is highly deliberate: it links the metaphysical purity of the meat (ensuring it was not swapped) with the moral purity of the consumer (Rav's refusal to eat for personal pleasure or rely on omens).
Psak/Practice
The Halakhic Codification of Basar She'nitlam Min Ha'ayin
The codification of Rav's ruling regarding unsupervised meat reflects a classic debate between Sephardic and Ashkenazic authorities, centering on whether we rule like Rav (stringent) or Levi (lenient).
[Halakhic Decision Matrix: Unsupervised Meat]
|
+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| |
[Mechaber - Mechaber] [Rema - Ashkenaz]
| |
- Rules like Rav (Strict). - Rules like Levi / Lenient Rishonim.
- Any meat out of sight is forbidden - In our lands, where the majority of
unless there is a "siman" or "totev". butchers are Jewish, we are lenient bedi'avad.
Shulchan Aruch (The Mechaber): Stringency of Halakhic Presumption
The Mechaber rules strictly in accordance with Rav:
"בשר שנעלם מן העין, שנתכסה מעיני ישראל שעה אחת, אסור... כיצד? היה לו חתיכת בשר, והניחה בבית והלך לו, ושוב בא ומצאה... אסורה, שמא הניח זה ונטל עורב או שרץ אחרת" Yoreh Deah 63:1
For the Shulchan Aruch, the physical concern of animal intervention is treated as a constant halakhic reality. Any piece of meat left completely unsupervised in an open area—even for a short duration—becomes forbidden de-oraita (or at least under a severe Rabbinic prohibition) unless it possesses a clear siman or is recognized via tevi'at ayin.
The Rema: The Lenient Ashkenazic Custom
The Rema immediately limits the scope of this prohibition, reflecting the prevailing Ashkenazic leniency based on the majority of Rishonim who ruled like Levi:
"ויש אומרים דכל זה אינו אסור אלא במקום שאין רוב טבחי ישראל... אבל במקום שיש רוב טבחי ישראל... בשר הנמצא או שנעלם מן העין מותר... ועל זה נהגו להקל בכל אלו המדינות, שכל המקומות הם בחזקת רוב ישראל" (Yoreh Deah 63:1)
The Rema argues that in contemporary society, where the majority of meat production and distribution channels available to Jewish consumers are kosher, we rely on the rule of majority (rov) even if the meat was completely out of sight. The empirical concern that a raven replaced the meat with neveilah is dismissed as a low-probability event (מיעוטא דמיעוטא) that does not override the prevailing majority of kosher meat.
Modern Practical Applications
1. Kosher Deliveries via Non-Jewish Couriers (UberEats, DoorDash)
In the modern food economy, kosher food is frequently transported by non-Jewish drivers. Does this trigger the prohibition of basar she'nitlam min ha'ayin?
[Modern Delivery Security Protocol]
|
+------------------------+------------------------+
| |
[Single Seal - Chotam] [Double Seal - Chotam b'toch Chotam]
| |
- Adequate for cooked food or items - Required for raw meat, poultry, or
where the driver has no direct incentive expensive cuts where swapping is a
to swap (e.g., standard meals). commercial risk.
- The Requirement of Chotam (Seal): To prevent the meat from being considered "obscured from sight," halakha requires the food to be sealed.
- Single vs. Double Seals: Raw meat, fish, and wine require a chotam b'toch chotam (a double seal, such as a sealed bag inside a stapled and taped box with signatures across the tape).
- Cooked meat or foods that are not easily swapped can suffice with a single seal (chotam echad), as the driver has no incentive to open, eat, and replace the food with non-kosher equivalents without breaking the seal.
2. The Shared Office Refrigerator
Does leaving a kosher lunch in a shared office refrigerator where non-Jews have access constitute basar she'nitlam min ha'ayin?
- The Rema's Leniency: Since the majority of food purchased in the surrounding area is not necessarily kosher, we cannot simply rely on the "majority of butchers" leniency.
- The Solution of Tevi'at Ayin (Visual Recognition): However, the food remains permitted because the owner has clear visual recognition (tevi'at ayin) of their own container, wrapping, and food presentation.
- Furthermore, since the refrigerator is in a public office where people are constantly entering and exiting, it is considered "supervised" under the halakhic category of mirtat (fear of being caught). The non-Jewish colleagues are assumed to be afraid to tamper with or swap another person's food, removing the concern of physical substitution.
Takeaway
The ultimate lesson of Chullin 95a is that halakhic reality is a synthesis of empirical observation and formal legal status: we do not live in fear of invisible ravens when the market is stable, but once the fence of communal integrity (it-chazek issura) is breached, we must reconstruct our boundaries with absolute precision. Whether through physical seals (chotam) or internal moral vigilance, kosher status requires conscious, uninterrupted human connection.
Footnotes
- ^ Rashi, Chullin 95a:1:1 s.v. "אי הוות פייסת מינאי"
- ^ Rabbeinu Gershom, Chullin 95a:1 s.v. "אי הוה פייסת מינאי"
- ^ Rashi, Chullin 95a:1 s.v. "ההוא טבחא" (as analyzed in Ritva)
- ^ Ritva, Chullin 95a:2 s.v. "ומורי הרב הרא"ה"
- ^ Rashba, cited in Yam Shel Shlomo, Yam shel Shlomo on Chullin 7:21:2
- ^ Rosh, cited in Yam Shel Shlomo, Yam shel Shlomo on Chullin 7:21:2
- ^ Tosafot, Chullin 95a s.v. "אסור"
- ^ Ran, Chullin 95a (on the Rif, page 33b) s.v. "אמר רב"
Read this page at another depth
Tomorrow's lesson, already explained.
Today's is done. Tomorrow morning's arrives the same way: one short, source-cited email on the day's page. Every day of the cycle has one.
derekhlearning.com