B. Rather, [maintain that we deal with] a place where they publicize it [that an animal was found to be terefah]. [If so] even a whole one they should not send to him [i.e., a gentile]. For he may cut it up and sell it [to a Jew].
C. If you prefer [we can explain the case] in a place where they do publicize it. And if you prefer [we can explain the case] in a place where they do not announce.
D. If you prefer [we can explain the case] in a place where they do publicize it — cuts [of meat] made by a gentile are easy to recognize [so you could send a whole thigh to a gentile who will cut it up to sell it].
E. And if you prefer [we can explain the case] in a place where they do not publicize it — they decreed [against sending a cut thigh to a gentile] lest he give it to him in the presence of another Israelite [who may assume that the sinew was removed and that he could eat the meat].
F. And if you prefer [here is another explanation]: [they prohibit giving the thigh to a gentile] because he is misleading him [to think that he did him a favor by already removing the sinew from the thigh]. For Samuel said, “It is forbidden to mislead any person, including a gentile.”
G. And this [principle] of Samuel is not explicitly stated by him. Rather it is stated as a principle derived from the following [incident]: Samuel was traversing the river on a ferry. He said to his servant, “Tip the ferryman [who was a gentile].” He tipped him. But Samuel became angry.
H. Why did he get angry? Said Abayye, “[He tipped him with] a terefah-chicken. And he gave it to him under the pretense that is was a validly slaughtered one.” Raba said, “He told him to give [the ferryman] a drink of strong wine. Instead he gave him diluted wine.”
I. And what does it matter whether [Samuel stated the principle explicitly or] it was a principle derived [from this incident]? In accord with the view of the authority who holds that [he got angry over] the terefah-chicken, [Samuel would have] said to him, “Why do you keep prohibited food around?” In accord with the view of the authority who holds that [he got angry over] the wine, [Samuel would have] said to him, “Give him strong wine, means give it to him undiluted.” [In neither case was he angry that the servant deceived the gentile. How then do you maintain that we derive Samuel's principle from this incident?]
I.2
A. It was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Meir used to say, “A person should not implore his friend to dine with him if he knows that he will not dine with him. And one should not proffer him favors if he knows that he will not accept. And one should not open for him casks of wine [whose remains] were already sold to a merchant without apprising him of the arrangement [T. B.B. 6:14 A-E]. And one should not suggest [to his friend] that he anoint himself with oil if the flask is empty. [In each case he misleads the friend into thinking that he is willing to do something special for him]. But if [he does any of these things] as a sign of respect for him, it is permitted.”
B. Is this accurate? Lo, Ulla came to the house of R. Judah. He opened for him casks of wine [whose remains] were already sold to a merchant. He must have apprised him of the arrangement. And if you prefer you can maintain that [this incident concerning R. Judah and] Ulla is an exception. He was so beloved to R. Judah that he surely would have opened them for him even without [the arrangement with the merchant].
C. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: A person should not go to a house of mourning [or a house of rejoicing] with a wine flagon that resonates [from its emptiness] and he should not fill it with water [and go to a house of mourning] because he misleads him [i.e., the mourner or celebrant to think that he is doing something special for him]. But if there is a fellowship of the city [there], he is permitted [to do this out of respect][T. B.B. 6:13].
D. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: A person should not sell to his fellow a sandal [made from the hide] of an animal that died as if it came from a live animal that had been slaughtered for two reasons. One, because he misleads him. And the other, because of the danger [that the hide is tainted in some way].
E. A person should not send to his fellow a cask of wine with oil floating at the opening. And once a person sent his fellow a cask of wine with oil floating at its opening. And he went and invited guests [thinking it was a barrel of oil]. And they came. When he found out that it was wine he hanged himself.
F. And guests are not permitted to give from what is brought before them to the son or the daughter of the householder unless they asked for permission from the householder. And once a person invited three guests during a year of famine and he had only three eggs to serve them. The son of the household came in. One of the guests took his portion and gave it to him [i.e., the son]. And so did the second [guest] and so did the third. The father of the child came and found him with one egg gorged in his mouth and one in each hand. [Enraged] he threw him to the ground and he died. When his mother saw what happened she went up to the roof and jumped off and died. Then even he went up to the roof and jumped off and died. Said R. Eliezer b. Jacob, “On account of this matter, three souls of Israel were killed.”
G. What novel point does he [Eliezer] make? [It just tells us that] the whole story is to be attributed to R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
II.1
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority [variant of T. 7:3 A-B]: He who sends a whole hip to his fellow, he does not have to separate from it the sinew of the hip. [He who sends] a cut-up hip [to his fellow] must separate from it the sinew of the hip.
B. And [he who sends] to an idolater either a cut-up hip or a whole hip does not have to separate from it the sinew of the hip.
C. [Variant of T. 7:3 H-J]: And on account of two considerations did they say, They do not sell carrion-meat and terefah-meat to a gentile: First, because it may cause him to err. And further, lest he go and sell it to another Israelite. And for two considerations did they state: an Israelite person should not say to a gentile, “Buy me meat”: [94b] First, because of the possibility of thugs [who may not pay the butcher and may just steal the meat]. And further, lest they sell him carrion, or terefah-meat.
D. Said the master: And [he who sends] to an idolater either a cut-up hip or a whole hip does not have to separate from it the sinew of the hip. What case are we dealing with? If you maintain [that we deal with] a place where they do publicize it [in the event that an animal was found to be terefah], why does he not have to separate from it the sinew of the hip. Since they do not publicize it, they may come to buy it from him.
E. Rather it is obvious [that we deal with] a place where they do not publicize it [when a terefah-animal is on the market]. Consider then the middle text [of the Tannaite passage in C]: And on account of two considerations did they say, They do not sell carrion-meat and terefah-meat to a gentile: First, because it may cause him to err. And further, lest he go and sell it to another Israelite. But if [we deal with] a place where they do not publicize it [when a terefah-animal is on the market], they will not come to buy from him.
F. Rather it is obvious [that we deal with] a place where they do publicize it [when a terefah-animal is on the market]. Consider then the latter text [of the Tannaite passage in C]: And for two considerations did they state: an Israelite person should not say to a gentile, “Buy me meat”: First, because of the possibility of thugs [who may not pay the butcher and may just steal the meat]. And further, lest they sell him carrion, or terefah-meat. But if [we deal with] a place where they do publicize it [when a terefah-animal is on the market], if it occurs that there is a terefah-animal on the market, they will surely publicize that [and an Israelite will not come to buy it].
G. Rather it is obvious [that we deal with] a place where they do not publicize it [when a terefah-animal is on the market]. The first and last texts [of the passage refer] to a place where they do not publicize. And the middle text refers to a place where they do publicize it.
H. Said Abayye, “Yes. The first and last texts refer to a place where they do not publicize it. The middle text [refers] to a place where they do publicize it.”
I. Raba said, “The whole text refers to a place where [as a general rule] they do publicize it. The first and last texts [deal with an instance where] they publicized it. The middle text [deals with an instance where] they did not publicize it.”
J. R. Ashi said, “The whole text refers to a place where [as a general rule] they do not publicize it. The middle text [prohibits] based on a decree lest he sell it [to the gentile] in front of an Israelite [cf. above I.1, E].”
K. In what manner do they publicize it? Said R. Yitzhak b. Joseph, “[They would announce:] Meat is available for the soldiers [i.e., gentiles].”
L. And why not maintain that they announced: Terefah-meat is available for the soldiers? Then they would not buy it. But lo, then they are misleading them. [No.] They are misleading themselves.
M. As in this [incident]: Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman was going from Sikara to Mehoza. And Raba and R. Safra were going to Sikara. They met each other. He [Zutra] thought they had come out to greet him. He said to them, “Why did the rabbis go to such trouble and come this far [to greet me]?” Said to him R. Safra, “We did not even know that the master was coming. Had we known, we would have come even further [to greet you].” Said to him Raba, “Why did you tell him this? You only disillusioned him.” He said to him, “Lo, we would have misled him [if I was not honest].” [Raba said], “[No.] He would have misled himself.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.