The Eddie B. Sit Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Chullin, has been dedicated by our good friend Mr. Joey Jamal and his wife in honor of their son Jack's engagement to Shirley Sutton. Be'ezrat Hashem, they should get married b'sha'ah tovah u'mutzlachat. Through the zechut of the limmud that we will engage in over the next several months in Masechet Chullin, may they enjoy much nachat, shalom bayit, peace, prosperity, and all the brachot. Amen. Today’s daf is Daf Kuf Yud, and we study this daf in memory of l'iluy nishmat Avraham ben Esther and Rav Moshe ben Nun. May their souls be at peace in the Garden of Eden. Amen.
We begin today's daf on Kuf Yud amud rishon, starting on the second line. The Gemara now relates a few stories. When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, he always went up, as Eretz Yisrael is considered the higher ground. Upon his arrival, he encountered Zeiri and asked him if there was a tanna who taught Rav that roasting kachal without cutting it is asur. Zeiri directed him to Rabbi Yitzchak bar Abudimi, who was reputed to have taught that Rav said it is forbidden if not cut open before roasting.
Rabbi Yitzchak bar Abudimi responded, "I never discussed the subject of kachal at all." He explained that Rav lived in a certain area where people were lax regarding a specific halacha. To protect the community, Rav established a fence around the halacha. In truth, he had taught that roasting kachal without cutting it open was permissible. However, he had to be stringent due to the laxity he observed in that town.
The Gemara recounts that Rav found a valley and built a fence around it, illustrating the protective measures taken to prevent issur. In another instance, Rav visited a place called Tatlapush and overheard a woman asking how much milk was needed to cook a quarter litra of meat. This led him to realize that the locals were cooking basar be'chalav, which is forbidden. Consequently, he prohibited the kachal in that place as well, even though he had previously taught it was permissible.
The Gemara continues with a story involving Rabbi Yosi bar Abba, who had a different interpretation. He clarified that he had only taught about the kachal of a nursing animal, where there is an abundance of milk. When Rav Chiya transmitted this teaching to Rav, he failed to specify that it pertained to a nursing animal, leading to a misunderstanding. As a result, Rav thought it applied to all kachal, regardless of whether it was from a nursing animal.
Another story involves Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef and Rabin, who were invited to the home of Rav Pappa. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef ate the kachal, while Rabin abstained. Abaye questioned why Rabin, known as Rabin Tachla due to his tragic loss of children, did not partake. He noted that the dish was prepared by the wife of Rav Pappa, the daughter of a righteous man, and thus trustworthy. However, in Sura, they refrained from eating kachal altogether, while in Pumbedita, it was consumed without hesitation.
Rami bar Tamri, who was from Pumbedita, noted that Rav permitted eating kachal if it was cut. However, in Sura, the locals were more stringent, even prohibiting kachal that had been cut. When Rami bar Tamri visited Sura on Erev Yom Kippur, he observed the locals discarding kachal to avoid eating it. Seizing the opportunity, he collected and consumed the discarded kachal, thus fulfilling the mitzvah of eating on Erev Yom Kippur.
Eventually, he was brought before Rav Chisda for his actions. When questioned about his behavior, Rami bar Tamri explained that he was following his home customs. Rav Chisda reminded him that one must adhere to the stricter customs of the place they are in. Rami bar Tamri argued that he had eaten outside the city limits to avoid violating local customs. However, Rav Chisda pressed him about how he had roasted the kachal outside the city.
Rami bar Tamri explained that he had used grapevines found outside the city. Rav Chisda raised concerns that these could have been associated with yayin nesech. Rami bar Tamri countered that any potential issues had dissipated after twelve months, as the vines had dried up. Rav Chisda then questioned the ownership of the vines, to which Rami bar Tamri claimed that the owners had given up hope of retrieving them, as evidenced by the weeds growing around them.
In the midst of this discussion, Rav Chisda noticed that Rami bar Tamri was not wearing tefillin. When asked why, Rami bar Tamri cited intestinal issues that exempted him from wearing them, in accordance with Rav Yehuda's ruling. Similarly, he was not wearing tzitzit because he was using a borrowed garment, which is exempt from having strings for thirty days. As the conversation progressed, they brought forth a man who had shown disrespect towards his parents. The law dictated that he would be punished with lashes.
Rami bar Tamri intervened, arguing that such punishment was inappropriate for a mitzvat aseh that promises reward, as the Torah states that one cannot force compliance with such commandments. Rav Chisda acknowledged Rami bar Tamri's sharpness. Rami bar Tamri expressed confidence that had he been in the presence of Rav Yehuda, he would have demonstrated even greater wisdom.