"עבירות שבין אדם למקום, יום הכיפורים מכפר; שבינו לבין חברו - אין יום הכיפורים מכפר, עד שירצה את חברו" (משנה, יומא, ח, ז).

The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom.

of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked together with the milk it contains is prohibited. There, even if one roasted it he may not eat it after the fact. To preserve symmetry, the tanna of the baraita taught in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted. § The Gemara above cited a second version of Rav’s opinion, according to which an udder that was roasted without being torn is prohibited for consumption. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Ze’eiri and said to him: Is there a tanna who taught Rav that an udder roasted without first being torn is prohibited? Ze’eiri showed him Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to Rabbi Elazar: I did not teach Rav that an udder is prohibited at all; rather, Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in. Rav taught this stringent ruling as an additional safeguard in Babylonia, where Jews were not careful about the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently, these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and prohibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi replied to Rabbi Elazar in that manner described above. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar Abba teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said: I taught Rav only that the udder of an animal nursing offspring is prohibited, as its udder contains much milk. And due to the sharp mind of Rav Ḥiyya, Rav’s teacher, he assumed that Rav too would understand this without his saying so explicitly. Therefore, he taught this halakha to Rav with regard to an unspecified udder. Rav mistakenly thought that the ruling applies to all animals. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef arrived at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a dish made of udder. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin, why do you not eat? After all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was a master of good deeds, who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted, she would not have made it. The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom. The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura. Rav Ḥisda further asked Rami bar Tamrei: And with what did you roast the udders? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: I roasted them with grape seeds [purtzenei] I found in the vines there. Rav Ḥisda objected: But how could you roast the udders with grape seeds, as perhaps they were from wine used for a libation to idolatry, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: These were old seeds that still lay there after twelve months had passed since the grapes were used, and any prohibition had expired, as by that point they are assumed to have lost any prohibited liquid that previously remained inside (see Avoda Zara 34a). Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said:

of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked together with the milk it contains is prohibited. There, even if one roasted it he may not eat it after the fact. To preserve symmetry, the tanna of the baraita taught in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted. § The Gemara above cited a second version of Rav’s opinion, according to which an udder that was roasted without being torn is prohibited for consumption. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Ze’eiri and said to him: Is there a tanna who taught Rav that an udder roasted without first being torn is prohibited? Ze’eiri showed him Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to Rabbi Elazar: I did not teach Rav that an udder is prohibited at all; rather, Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in. Rav taught this stringent ruling as an additional safeguard in Babylonia, where Jews were not careful about the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently, these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and prohibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi replied to Rabbi Elazar in that manner described above. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar Abba teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said: I taught Rav only that the udder of an animal nursing offspring is prohibited, as its udder contains much milk. And due to the sharp mind of Rav Ḥiyya, Rav’s teacher, he assumed that Rav too would understand this without his saying so explicitly. Therefore, he taught this halakha to Rav with regard to an unspecified udder. Rav mistakenly thought that the ruling applies to all animals. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef arrived at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a dish made of udder. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin, why do you not eat? After all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was a master of good deeds, who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted, she would not have made it. The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom. The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura. Rav Ḥisda further asked Rami bar Tamrei: And with what did you roast the udders? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: I roasted them with grape seeds [purtzenei] I found in the vines there. Rav Ḥisda objected: But how could you roast the udders with grape seeds, as perhaps they were from wine used for a libation to idolatry, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: These were old seeds that still lay there after twelve months had passed since the grapes were used, and any prohibition had expired, as by that point they are assumed to have lost any prohibited liquid that previously remained inside (see Avoda Zara 34a). Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said:

of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked together with the milk it contains is prohibited. There, even if one roasted it he may not eat it after the fact. To preserve symmetry, the tanna of the baraita taught in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted. § The Gemara above cited a second version of Rav’s opinion, according to which an udder that was roasted without being torn is prohibited for consumption. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Ze’eiri and said to him: Is there a tanna who taught Rav that an udder roasted without first being torn is prohibited? Ze’eiri showed him Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to Rabbi Elazar: I did not teach Rav that an udder is prohibited at all; rather, Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in. Rav taught this stringent ruling as an additional safeguard in Babylonia, where Jews were not careful about the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently, these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and prohibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi replied to Rabbi Elazar in that manner described above. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar Abba teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said: I taught Rav only that the udder of an animal nursing offspring is prohibited, as its udder contains much milk. And due to the sharp mind of Rav Ḥiyya, Rav’s teacher, he assumed that Rav too would understand this without his saying so explicitly. Therefore, he taught this halakha to Rav with regard to an unspecified udder. Rav mistakenly thought that the ruling applies to all animals. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef arrived at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a dish made of udder. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin, why do you not eat? After all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was a master of good deeds, who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted, she would not have made it. The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom. The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura. Rav Ḥisda further asked Rami bar Tamrei: And with what did you roast the udders? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: I roasted them with grape seeds [purtzenei] I found in the vines there. Rav Ḥisda objected: But how could you roast the udders with grape seeds, as perhaps they were from wine used for a libation to idolatry, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: These were old seeds that still lay there after twelve months had passed since the grapes were used, and any prohibition had expired, as by that point they are assumed to have lost any prohibited liquid that previously remained inside (see Avoda Zara 34a). Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said:

The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura.

of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked together with the milk it contains is prohibited. There, even if one roasted it he may not eat it after the fact. To preserve symmetry, the tanna of the baraita taught in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted. § The Gemara above cited a second version of Rav’s opinion, according to which an udder that was roasted without being torn is prohibited for consumption. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Ze’eiri and said to him: Is there a tanna who taught Rav that an udder roasted without first being torn is prohibited? Ze’eiri showed him Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to Rabbi Elazar: I did not teach Rav that an udder is prohibited at all; rather, Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in. Rav taught this stringent ruling as an additional safeguard in Babylonia, where Jews were not careful about the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently, these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and prohibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi replied to Rabbi Elazar in that manner described above. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar Abba teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said: I taught Rav only that the udder of an animal nursing offspring is prohibited, as its udder contains much milk. And due to the sharp mind of Rav Ḥiyya, Rav’s teacher, he assumed that Rav too would understand this without his saying so explicitly. Therefore, he taught this halakha to Rav with regard to an unspecified udder. Rav mistakenly thought that the ruling applies to all animals. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef arrived at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a dish made of udder. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin, why do you not eat? After all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was a master of good deeds, who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted, she would not have made it. The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom. The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura. Rav Ḥisda further asked Rami bar Tamrei: And with what did you roast the udders? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: I roasted them with grape seeds [purtzenei] I found in the vines there. Rav Ḥisda objected: But how could you roast the udders with grape seeds, as perhaps they were from wine used for a libation to idolatry, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: These were old seeds that still lay there after twelve months had passed since the grapes were used, and any prohibition had expired, as by that point they are assumed to have lost any prohibited liquid that previously remained inside (see Avoda Zara 34a). Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said:

Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate.

of a suckling lamb or calf that one cooked together with the milk it contains is prohibited. There, even if one roasted it he may not eat it after the fact. To preserve symmetry, the tanna of the baraita taught in the first clause in this manner as well, stating: An udder that one cooked in its milk is permitted. § The Gemara above cited a second version of Rav’s opinion, according to which an udder that was roasted without being torn is prohibited for consumption. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Elazar ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael he found Ze’eiri and said to him: Is there a tanna who taught Rav that an udder roasted without first being torn is prohibited? Ze’eiri showed him Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said to Rabbi Elazar: I did not teach Rav that an udder is prohibited at all; rather, Rav found an unguarded valley and fenced it in. Rav taught this stringent ruling as an additional safeguard in Babylonia, where Jews were not careful about the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. The Gemara elaborates: As when Rav arrived in Tatlefush, he heard a certain woman saying to another: How much milk does it require to cook a quarter weight of meat? Rav said: Evidently, these people are not learned enough in halakha to know that meat cooked in milk is prohibited. Rav tarried in that place, and prohibited even udders to them, so that they would not come to violate the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Rav Kahana teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi replied to Rabbi Elazar in that manner described above. By contrast, Rabbi Yosei bar Abba teaches that Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said: I taught Rav only that the udder of an animal nursing offspring is prohibited, as its udder contains much milk. And due to the sharp mind of Rav Ḥiyya, Rav’s teacher, he assumed that Rav too would understand this without his saying so explicitly. Therefore, he taught this halakha to Rav with regard to an unspecified udder. Rav mistakenly thought that the ruling applies to all animals. The Gemara relates that Ravin and Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef arrived at the house of Rav Pappi. The servants brought before them a dish made of udder. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef ate of it, but Ravin did not eat. Abaye said: Bereaved Ravin, why do you not eat? After all, Rav Pappi’s wife is the daughter of Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa was a master of good deeds, who was meticulous in his performance of mitzvot. Had Rav Pappi’s wife not heard in her father’s house that such a dish is permitted, she would not have made it. The Gemara relates: In Sura they would not eat udders at all, even torn and roasted. But in Pumbedita they would eat udders. Rami bar Tamrei, who is also called Rami bar Dikulei, from Pumbedita, arrived in Sura on the eve of Yom Kippur. Since it is a mitzva to eat and drink then, large quantities of meat were cooked, and everyone brought out their udders from the animals they had slaughtered and threw them away. Rami bar Tamrei went and gathered the udders, roasted them, and ate them, in accordance with his custom. The residents of Sura brought Rami bar Tamrei before Rav Ḥisda, who said to him: Why did you do this? Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: I am from the place of Rav Yehuda, who eats udders, and this is the accepted custom in Pumbedita. Rav Ḥisda said to him: And do you not hold by the principle that the Sages impose upon a traveler the stringencies of the place that he left and also the stringencies of the place to which he went? You should have accepted the stringency of Sura and not eaten the udders. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: That principle applies only to one who remains in the place he is visiting, but I ate the udders outside the boundaries of Sura. Rav Ḥisda further asked Rami bar Tamrei: And with what did you roast the udders? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: I roasted them with grape seeds [purtzenei] I found in the vines there. Rav Ḥisda objected: But how could you roast the udders with grape seeds, as perhaps they were from wine used for a libation to idolatry, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: These were old seeds that still lay there after twelve months had passed since the grapes were used, and any prohibition had expired, as by that point they are assumed to have lost any prohibited liquid that previously remained inside (see Avoda Zara 34a). Rav Ḥisda further objected: But perhaps these seeds were from stolen property, i.e., they belonged to someone and it was prohibited for you to take them. Rami bar Tamrei said to him: Even so, in this case there was certainly despair of the owners of recovering them, as grass was growing among them. Since the owners had allowed them to lie there for so long, they had clearly given up all hope of retrieving them. Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said:

Rav Ḥisda saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not donned phylacteries, and said to him: What is the reason that you have not donned phylacteries? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: He, i.e., I, am suffering from intestinal illness, and Rav Yehuda said that one who has intestinal illness is exempt from the mitzva of phylacteries, which require a clean body, because he would have to remove them constantly to defecate. Rav Ḥisda further saw that Rami bar Tamrei had not placed the threads of ritual fringes on his garment and said to him: What is the reason that you do not have the threads of ritual fringes? Rami bar Tamrei said to him: It is a borrowed robe, and Rav Yehuda said: With regard to a borrowed robe, during all of the first thirty days that one borrows it, one is exempt from performing the mitzva of ritual fringes with it.

With regard to a borrowed robe, during all of the first thirty days that one borrows it, one is exempt from performing the mitzva of ritual fringes with it. Meanwhile, as Rav Ḥisda and Rami bar Tamrei were talking, the attendants brought in a certain man to Rav Ḥisda’s court who would not honor his father and mother, and they tied him to a pillar in order to flog him. Rami bar Tamrei said to them: Leave him alone, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to any positive mitzva whose reward is stated alongside it in the Torah, the earthly court below is not warned to enforce it through punishments such as flogging. And it is stated after the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother: “That your days may be long, and that it go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). Rav Ḥisda said to Rami bar Tamrei: I see that you are very sharp. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: If you were in the place where Rav Yehuda resides, I would be able to show you my sharpness of mind far better than here. § Pursuant to the discussion of different local customs, Abaye said to Rav Safra: When you ascend there, to Eretz Yisrael, ask the Sages there: With regard to liver, how do you treat it? When Rav Safra ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rav Zerika and asked him this question. Rav Zerika said to him: I cooked liver for Rabbi Ami and he ate it. When Rav Safra returned to Babylonia and came before Abaye and reported what Rav Zerika had said, Abaye said to him: I do not raise the dilemma as to whether liver renders itself prohibited if cooked alone. It is clear to me that the blood that diffuses out of the liver is not absorbed again while it cooks. When I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to whether liver renders prohibited another piece of meat cooked with it. Rav Zerika’s statement therefore has no bearing on my question. Rav Safra asked Abaye: What is different about the issue of the liver rendering itself prohibited, that you did not raise the dilemma with regard to this case? It is presumably because the answer is obvious to you, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:11) that liver is not rendered prohibited by its own cooking. But if so, you should not raise the dilemma with regard to whether it renders the other piece of meat prohibited either, as we learned in that same mishna: Liver renders food cooked with it in the same pot prohibited but is not prohibited itself, because while it does expel blood as it cooks, it does not absorb this blood again, since the blood diffuses only outward. Abaye said to Rav Safra: That mishna does not answer my question, as perhaps there it is referring specifically to forbidden liver, e.g., the liver of a non-kosher animal.

With regard to a borrowed robe, during all of the first thirty days that one borrows it, one is exempt from performing the mitzva of ritual fringes with it. Meanwhile, as Rav Ḥisda and Rami bar Tamrei were talking, the attendants brought in a certain man to Rav Ḥisda’s court who would not honor his father and mother, and they tied him to a pillar in order to flog him. Rami bar Tamrei said to them: Leave him alone, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to any positive mitzva whose reward is stated alongside it in the Torah, the earthly court below is not warned to enforce it through punishments such as flogging. And it is stated after the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother: “That your days may be long, and that it go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). Rav Ḥisda said to Rami bar Tamrei: I see that you are very sharp. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: If you were in the place where Rav Yehuda resides, I would be able to show you my sharpness of mind far better than here. § Pursuant to the discussion of different local customs, Abaye said to Rav Safra: When you ascend there, to Eretz Yisrael, ask the Sages there: With regard to liver, how do you treat it? When Rav Safra ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rav Zerika and asked him this question. Rav Zerika said to him: I cooked liver for Rabbi Ami and he ate it. When Rav Safra returned to Babylonia and came before Abaye and reported what Rav Zerika had said, Abaye said to him: I do not raise the dilemma as to whether liver renders itself prohibited if cooked alone. It is clear to me that the blood that diffuses out of the liver is not absorbed again while it cooks. When I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to whether liver renders prohibited another piece of meat cooked with it. Rav Zerika’s statement therefore has no bearing on my question. Rav Safra asked Abaye: What is different about the issue of the liver rendering itself prohibited, that you did not raise the dilemma with regard to this case? It is presumably because the answer is obvious to you, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:11) that liver is not rendered prohibited by its own cooking. But if so, you should not raise the dilemma with regard to whether it renders the other piece of meat prohibited either, as we learned in that same mishna: Liver renders food cooked with it in the same pot prohibited but is not prohibited itself, because while it does expel blood as it cooks, it does not absorb this blood again, since the blood diffuses only outward. Abaye said to Rav Safra: That mishna does not answer my question, as perhaps there it is referring specifically to forbidden liver, e.g., the liver of a non-kosher animal.

With regard to a borrowed robe, during all of the first thirty days that one borrows it, one is exempt from performing the mitzva of ritual fringes with it. Meanwhile, as Rav Ḥisda and Rami bar Tamrei were talking, the attendants brought in a certain man to Rav Ḥisda’s court who would not honor his father and mother, and they tied him to a pillar in order to flog him. Rami bar Tamrei said to them: Leave him alone, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to any positive mitzva whose reward is stated alongside it in the Torah, the earthly court below is not warned to enforce it through punishments such as flogging. And it is stated after the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother: “That your days may be long, and that it go well with you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). Rav Ḥisda said to Rami bar Tamrei: I see that you are very sharp. Rami bar Tamrei said to Rav Ḥisda: If you were in the place where Rav Yehuda resides, I would be able to show you my sharpness of mind far better than here. § Pursuant to the discussion of different local customs, Abaye said to Rav Safra: When you ascend there, to Eretz Yisrael, ask the Sages there: With regard to liver, how do you treat it? When Rav Safra ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rav Zerika and asked him this question. Rav Zerika said to him: I cooked liver for Rabbi Ami and he ate it. When Rav Safra returned to Babylonia and came before Abaye and reported what Rav Zerika had said, Abaye said to him: I do not raise the dilemma as to whether liver renders itself prohibited if cooked alone. It is clear to me that the blood that diffuses out of the liver is not absorbed again while it cooks. When I raise the dilemma, it is with regard to whether liver renders prohibited another piece of meat cooked with it. Rav Zerika’s statement therefore has no bearing on my question. Rav Safra asked Abaye: What is different about the issue of the liver rendering itself prohibited, that you did not raise the dilemma with regard to this case? It is presumably because the answer is obvious to you, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 10:11) that liver is not rendered prohibited by its own cooking. But if so, you should not raise the dilemma with regard to whether it renders the other piece of meat prohibited either, as we learned in that same mishna: Liver renders food cooked with it in the same pot prohibited but is not prohibited itself, because while it does expel blood as it cooks, it does not absorb this blood again, since the blood diffuses only outward. Abaye said to Rav Safra: That mishna does not answer my question, as perhaps there it is referring specifically to forbidden liver, e.g., the liver of a non-kosher animal.