1If you would have made peace with me yesterday, wouldn’t I have given you a cut from the fattened bull that I prepared yesterday? The other individual said to him: Nevertheless I ate from the finest of the fine of that bull that you prepared. The butcher said to him: From where did you get a piece? The other said to him: So-and-so the gentile bought it and fed it to me. The butcher said to him: I prepared two bulls yesterday. One was kosher, but that one you ate was a tereifa , which is why I sold it to a gentile.
2Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said when he heard of this incident: Because of this imbecile who acted improperly and sold non-kosher meat to the gentile butcher without publicizing that he did so, should we forbid all of the meat from gentile butcher shops in the city?
3The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile, i.e., in a gentile’s butcher shop, is permitted. There is no concern that the meat is from an animal that was a tereifa , because the Jewish butcher would not have sold it to a gentile to sell in his butcher shop.
4The Gemara presents an alternate version of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s reaction to the incident cited above: There are those who say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Because of this imbecile, who intended only to cause distress to his fellow, should we forbid all of the meat from gentile butcher shops? That butcher was presumably lying about the meat having been from a tereifa .
5The Gemara notes that the reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi considers the meat to be kosher is that the butcher intended only to cause distress to his fellow. This indicates that if that were not so, all the meat in the gentile butcher shops would be forbidden. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted? The Gemara answers: It is different here because it has been established that there is forbidden meat being sold in the butcher shops. Since it is known that a Jewish butcher sold non-kosher meat to a gentile proprietor of a butcher shop, one must be concerned that this was not an isolated incident.
6§ Apropos meat in the possession of a gentile, the Gemara cites a related discussion. Rav says: Once meat is obscured from sight and unsupervised, it is forbidden, as one must be concerned that it was exchanged for non-kosher meat. The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted. The Gemara answers: Meat found in the possession of a gentile is different, because the meat was not left unsupervised.
7The Gemara raises another objection to the statement of Rav. Come and hear the following baraita : With regard to nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and an individual purchased meat from one of the stores and he does not know from which store he purchased the meat, in this case of uncertainty, the meat is forbidden. But in the case of meat found outside, follow the majority. Consequently, since most of the stores sell kosher meat, it may be assumed that the meat found outside is kosher, which contradicts Rav’s statement that meat that was left unsupervised is forbidden. The Gemara answers: Here also the baraita is referring to a case where the meat was not unsupervised but rather was found in the possession of a gentile.
8The Gemara cites another challenge to the opinion of Rav: Come and hear the following mishna ( Makhshirin 2:9): If one found meat in a city inhabited by both Jews and gentiles, if the meat is raw, follow the majority of butchers, so that if the majority of the butchers are Jewish, the meat is presumed to be kosher. And if the meat is cooked, follow the majority of meat eaters, because even if the majority of the butchers are Jewish, if the meat was cooked by a gentile it is forbidden. This mishna indicates that there are circumstances when the meat is permitted even though it was obscured from sight.
9And if you would say that here also it is referring to a case where the meat is found in the possession of a gentile, why does the baraita state that if the meat is cooked, one should follow the majority of meat eaters? Let us see whether a gentile is holding it or a Jew is holding it. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the meat was on the ground but someone was standing and watching it from the time it was dropped on the ground, so that it was never left unsupervised. Yet, the person watching does not know whether it was dropped by a Jew or a gentile, and therefore a determination must be made based upon the majority of the people in the city.
10The Gemara cites another challenge to the opinion of Rav from a mishna ( Shekalim 19a). Come and hear: With regard to meat found in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, if it is found as whole limbs, the meat presumably comes from carcasses of animals that were not properly slaughtered, as carcasses were generally cut up into full limbs and fed to dogs or sold to gentiles. But if it is in small pieces, it is presumably kosher and permitted to be eaten, as kosher meat was ordinarily cut up into small pieces. This mishna indicates that even though the meat was obscured from sight, it remains permitted. And if you would say that here also it is referring to a case where someone was standing and watching it, why is it assumed to be from a carcass if it is cut into whole limbs?
11The Gemara answers: This mishna requires explanation only according to Rav, but wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna: Rav says that the correct version of the mishna is that the small pieces of meat are permitted, in that they are not considered impure and that one who eats them is not liable to be flogged, as would be the case if it were meat from a carcass. But it is not actually permitted to eat the meat, due to the fact that it was obscured from sight. And Levi says: The mishna means to say that the small pieces of meat are even permitted to be eaten.
12The Gemara comments: And this statement of Rav, that meat that was obscured from sight is forbidden, was not stated explicitly by Rav. Rather, it was stated that he held this opinion based on an inference from a different statement of Rav. As, Rav was once sitting on the ford of the Ishtetit River. He saw a certain man who was