The Gemara has been systematically working through the mishnah’s list of defects that render an animal a treifa — unkosher even if it comes from a permitted species and is slaughtered according to Jewish law. One of the conditions explored on today’s daf is a missing liver:
The mishnah states: “If the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, the animal is a treifa.” It follows, therefore, that if anything remained of it, the animal is kosher, even if the remaining piece does not constitute an olive-bulk. But didn’t we learn in a mishnah (on Chullin 54a): “If the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher?”
The Gemara points out a seeming contradiction between our mishnah and one later in the chapter. As is often the case, this contradiction does not come from the explicit wording, but from inference. Our mishnah at the beginning of the chapter stated that “if the liver was removed and nothing remained of it,” the animal is a treifa, implying that even the tiniest bit remaining protects an animal from treifa status. By contrast, the later mishnah states that if an animal’s liver was removed “and an olive-bulk of it remained,” it is kosher. The implication would seem to be that if anything less than an olive-bulk remains, the animal is a treifa. How do we reconcile these two?
Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Hiyya, while that mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. This is like that incident in which an amount smaller than an olive-bulk remained of the liver, and Rabbi Hiyya discarded it, but Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, dipped it in a seasoning and ate it. And your mnemonic to remember the opinions is: The rich are stingy.
Rav Yosef provides a classic resolution: These mishnahs are in fact contradictory and that’s because they represent the opinions of different sages. Neither mishnah names names, so how do we know whose opinions are represented? From an incident in which there was an animal with only a tiny amount of liver, less than an olive-bulk. Rabbi Hiyya refused to eat it, whereas Rabbi Shimon happily consumed it. Therefore, the first, which implies that so long as any liver remains, however slight, the animal is kosher, must be in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. Similarly, the later mishnah must be in accordance with Rabbi Hiyya. Rav Yosef provides a rather funny mnemonic for remembering how each party rules: Rabbi Shimon, the son of a nasi, is privileged and wealthy. But we might also say that he’s “stingy,” insofar as he offers a more permissive ruling that ultimately saves him money, perhaps at the cost of being too lenient with halakhah. Hence the mnemonic: The rich are stingy.
Today’s daf gives us another story related to this debate:
A certain royal army came to Pumbedita, and Rabba and Rav Yosef fled the city, but Rabbi Zeira met them. Rabbi Zeira said to them: Refugees, hear this halakhah: The olive-bulk that the sages mentioned must be in the place where the liver connects to the gallbladder. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: It must be in the place that the liver lives. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, in order to satisfy both opinions, we require an olive-bulk in the place of the gallbladder, and we also require an olive-bulk in the place that it lives.
The rabbis assume Rabbi Hiyya is correct, and an olive-bulk of liver must remain for the animal to be kosher. But where does it have to be located? Rabbi Zeira says it should be connected to the gallbladder, whereas Rav Adda bar Ahava says it must remain “in the place that the liver lives,” which most commentators understand to mean the place that the liver is connected to other organs, under the right kidney. Since we’re uncertain whom to follow, Rav Pappa requires an olive-bulk in both locations — to be safe.
This dispute is introduced nonchalantly via a narrative of Rabba and Rav Yosef fleeing their city before an oncoming army. This vignette is in many ways a great snapshot of the Talmud as literature, and how it narrates rabbinic life: Even in the most dramatic of situations, the rabbis are still primarily focused on their halakhic discussions.
The Tosafot point out that Rabbi Zeira does not flee, and they make a fascinating connection. In Tractate Sanhedrin, when discussing the ruling that tax collectors cannot be kosher witnesses (because they are assumed to oppress the community by collecting excessive taxes and collaborating with the government), the Gemara mentions that Rabbi Zeira’s father was a tax collector. But contrary to the stereotype, Rabbi Zeira’s father would encourage residents of the city to hide before the head tax collector arrived, so that he’d assume the population was minimal and only impose a small tax. The Tosafot suggest that Rabbi Zeira didn’t need to flee an oncoming army because his father was one of the king’s tax collectors, which offered him a measure of protection.
This is an interesting anecdote within the larger discussion about Jewish proximity to power and relationship to the government. Jews were often suspicious of those who chose to position themselves proximate to power, since those working for the ruler would often align themselves with the ruler’s aims — sometimes to the detriment of the broader Jewish community — so long as it offered them privilege and protection. By contrast, Rabbi Zeira’s father used his proximity to undermine the government’s repressive policies.
Read all of Chullin 46 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on June 15, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world. With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
