Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
What are the defects and traumas that render an animal a treifa? The Mishna lists various categories, such as a perforated gullet, a severed windpipe, a perforated brain membrane, a perforated heart chamber, a broken spine and a severed spinal cord, a completely removed liver, as well as various perforations or tears to the lungs, stomach, gallbladder, small intestines, and rumen. The list also includes severe external trauma, such as falling from a roof, having a majority of the ribs broken, or being clawed by specific predators. The Mishna establishes the overarching rule: any animal afflicted with a defect or injury such that a similar animal cannot survive is deemed a treifa.
Resh Lakish derives the principle that a treifa cannot survive from the verse, “These are the living things which you may eat,” teaching that only an animal capable of living is permitted for consumption, whereas one that cannot live is forbidden. Conversely, the opposing view holds that a treifa can survive, deriving from the same verse that a specific type of animal that is capable of living is permitted for consumption, while another animal that is capable of living (the treifa) is forbidden. However, after the Gemara rejects this proof from the verse, it brings another verse to support the opinion that a treifa can survive: “Between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten.”
The Mishna’s list does not include all cases, as there are additional cases of treifot—four that are referenced by the acronym BSGR, and another seven Amoraic traditions known as the “shev (seven) shematata.” Although these cases are not explicitly mentioned in the Mishna, they can be derived from the rule stated at its end, according to which any animal that is incapable of living is considered a treifa. However, how can the tannaitic tradition of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, which limits the list of treifot to exactly eighteen, be reconciled? After a failed attempt, the Gemara settles the count according to Rabbi Yishmael by grouping all types of perforations into one broad category and all types of severed parts into another single category, thereby reconciling the calculated total with all the treifot appearing in the various lists.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
Chullin 42
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִם אִיתָא דְּיָלְדָה – קָלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֵימַר אַפּוֹלֵי אַפִּיל.
The Gemara answers: Lest you say: If it is so that his wife gave birth, it would have generated publicity and been common knowledge; therefore, one might conclude that the slaughter is valid even if he declared that the slaughter is for the sake of the burnt offering of his wife after childbirth, as in fact she did not give birth. To counter this, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that the slaughter is not valid. Say that his wife miscarried and is liable to bring an offering, but it is not common knowledge, because the baby was not born alive.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת בַּבְּהֵמָה: נְקוּבַת הַוֶּושֶׁט, וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ, נִיקַּב הַלֵּב לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וְנִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁלָּהּ, נִיטַּל הַכָּבֵד וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנּוּ כְּלוּם.
MISHNA: These wounds constitute tereifot in an animal, rendering them prohibited for consumption: A perforated gullet, where the perforation goes through the wall of the gullet, or a cut windpipe. If the membrane of the brain was perforated, or if the heart was perforated to its chamber; if the spinal column was broken and its cord was cut; if the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, any of these render the animal a tereifa.
הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לְבֵית הַסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת. נִיקְּבָה הַקֵּבָה, נִיקְּבָה הַמָּרָה, נִיקְּבוּ הַדַּקִּין, הַכָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרַע רוֹב הַחִיצוֹנָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַגְּדוֹלָה טֶפַח, וְהַקְּטַנָּה בְּרוּבָּהּ. הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ לַחוּץ.
Additionally, a lung that was perforated or that was missing a piece renders the animal a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon says: It is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the bronchi. If the abomasum was perforated, or the gallbladder was perforated, or the small intestines were perforated, it is a tereifa. It is also a tereifa in a case where the internal rumen was perforated or where the majority of the external rumen was torn. Rabbi Yehuda says: For a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa, while for a small animal, it is a tereifa only if the majority of it was torn. And it is a tereifa where the omasum [hemses] or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, i.e., to the abdominal cavity, but not if the perforation was between the two.
נָפְלָה מִן הַגָּג, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רוֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ, וּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: דְּרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב בַּדַּקָּה, וּדְרוּסַת אֲרִי בַּגַּסָּה, דְּרוּסַת הַנֵּץ בְּעוֹף הַדַּק, וּדְרוּסַת הַגַּס בְּעוֹף הַגַּס. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה – טְרֵפָה.
Likewise, if an animal fell from the roof, or if the majority of its ribs were fractured, or if it was clawed by a wolf, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was clawed by a wolf in the case of a small animal, i.e., a sheep or goat; or clawed by a lion in the case of a large animal, i.e., cattle; or if it was clawed by a hawk in the case of a small bird; or if it was clawed by a large bird of prey in the case of a large bird, then it is a tereifa. This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a tereifa, the consumption of which is forbidden by Torah law.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: רֶמֶז לִטְרֵפָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? מִנַּיִן?! ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״! אֶלָּא, רֶמֶז לִטְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיָּה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה – טְרֵפָה, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, מְנָא לַן?
GEMARA: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the prohibition of a tereifa? The Gemara interjects: Where is there an allusion? Doesn’t the Torah state explicitly: “You shall not eat any flesh that is torn of animals [tereifa] in the field” (Exodus 22:30)? Rather, the question is: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the principle that a tereifa cannot live? As the mishna teaches in the last clause: This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a tereifa; one learns by inference that a tereifa cannot live. If so, from where do we derive this?
דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״, חַיָּה – אֱכוֹל, שֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיָּה – לָא תֵּיכוּל, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה לֹא חַיָּה.
It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth” (Leviticus 11:2). The verse indicates that you may eat a living animal, i.e., one that can survive, but you may not eat an animal that is not living, i.e., one that cannot survive. One learns by inference that a tereifa cannot live.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״זֹּאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״ – ״זֹאת הַחַיָּה״ אֱכוֹל, חַיָּה אַחֶרֶת לָא תֵּיכוֹל, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה חַיָּה.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that a tereifa can live, from where does he derive this? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the same verse: “These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals.” “These” indicates that you may eat only these living things, but you may not eat other living things, i.e., tereifot. One learns by inference that a tereifa can live.
וְאִידַּךְ, הַאי ״זֹאת״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁתָּפַס הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִכׇּל מִין וּמִין וְהֶרְאָה לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה, וְאָמַר לוֹ: זֹאת אֱכוֹל, וְזֹאת לָא תֵּיכוֹל.
The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion, that a tereifa cannot live, what does he do with this word “these”? The Gemara responds: He requires it for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: “These are the living things which you may eat,” teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, seized one of each and every species of animal and showed it to Moses, and said to him: These you may eat, and these you may not eat.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא טְרֵפָה חַיָּה מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵאִידַּךְ תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״בֵּין הַחַיָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת וּבֵין הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵאָכֵל״ – אֵלּוּ שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה טְרֵפוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.
The Gemara objects: But the other opinion also requires the word “these” for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. The Gemara replies: Yes, it is indeed so. Rather, from where does he derive the principle that a tereifa can live? He derives it from the other baraita that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “To make a difference…between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:47). These living things that may not be eaten are the eighteen tereifot that were stated to Moses at Sinai and enumerated in the mishna. The verse, then, makes reference to a tereifa as a living thing.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא אִיכָּא בסג״ר, וְשַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא!
The Gemara questions the baraita: And are there no more cases of tereifot? But aren’t there more cases cited in the Mishna and other baraitot, for which a mnemonic is given: Beit, samekh, gimmel, reish; and aren’t there seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amora’im?
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְתַנָּא דִּידַן, דִּתְנָא, תְּנָא וּדְשַׁיַּיר – אָתְיָא בְּזֶה הַכְּלָל, אֶלָּא לְתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר: שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה טְרֵפוֹת וְתוּ לֵיכָּא, וְהָא אִיכָּא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה טְרֵפָה? סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: יְכוֹלָה הִיא לִיכּוֹוֹת וְלִחְיוֹת.
Granted, with regard to the tanna of our mishna, one can say that the cases of tereifot that he taught explicitly in the mishna, he taught, and that any case that he omitted comes under the general statement beginning: This is the principle. But with regard to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who said: Eighteen tereifot, one must ask: And are there no more cases of tereifot? But aren’t there the four cases represented by the mnemonic beit, samekh, gimmel, reish, the first of which is taught in a mishna (76a): An animal whose hind legs were severed from the leg joint and above is a tereifa? The Gemara responds: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says: The severed leg can be cauterized and the animal will live. Therefore, such a wound does not render the animal a tereifa.
אַף עַל גַּב דִּיכוֹלָה לִיכּוֹוֹת וְלִחְיוֹת, לְמַאן קָאָמַר? לְתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל טְרֵפָה חַיָּה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: ״כְּשֵׁרָה הִיא״.
The Gemara objects: But even if one holds that the severed leg can be cauterized and the animal will live, this does not mean that the animal is not a tereifa. According to whom is the question: But aren’t there the cases of beit, samekh, gimmel, reish, stated? It is stated according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that there are only eighteen tereifot. But the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael maintains that a tereifa can live. If so, the fact that the animal can live if the stump of its severed limb is cauterized is immaterial to whether it is a tereifa. Rather, say that the tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar insofar as he says that an animal with a severed leg is kosher. Yet, he disagrees with the claim that the reason is because the animal can survive.
וְהָאִיכָּא חִסָּרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה, דִּתְנַן: כַּמָּה חִסָּרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי חוּלְיוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חוּלְיָא אַחַת; וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְכֵן לִטְרֵפָה.
The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the case of a deficiency in the spine? As we learned in a mishna (Oholot 2:3): How much is considered a deficiency in the spine of a corpse so that it will not be considered a full corpse to impart impurity in a tent? Beit Shammai say: Two missing vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: One vertebra. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa, i.e., according to Beit Hillel an animal missing only one vertebra is a tereifa. This is not included in the count of Rabbi Yishmael.
הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת, דְּקָא חָשְׁבַתְּ לְהוּ בְּתַרְתֵּי, חַשְׁבִינְהוּ בַּחֲדָא, אַפֵּיק חֲדָא וְעַיֵּיל חֲדָא.
The Gemara responds: The omasum or the reticulum that were perforated on their outer walls, which you count as two separate cases, should be counted as one case. Accordingly, one case has been removed from the count of eighteen tereifot and one case has been inserted, i.e., the case of a deficiency in the spine, and there are still only eighteen cases.
וְהָאִיכָּא גְּלוּדָה? סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּמַכְשַׁיר.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the case of the tereifa mentioned in the mishna on 54a of an animal whose hide was removed? The Gemara responds: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who deems such an animal kosher.
וְהָא אִיכָּא חֲרוּתָא? מָרָה – מַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אַפֵּיק מָרָה, וְעַיֵּיל חֲרוּתָא.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there also the case of an animal that is a tereifa because of a shriveled lung? The Gemara responds: The mishna states that a perforated gallbladder renders the animal a tereifa; but who teaches this? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, teaches this. Therefore, the tanna removed the gallbladder from the list, since it is only the opinion of an individual, and inserted a shriveled lung.
וְהָאִיכָּא שַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא, דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: הַאי בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא דְּשַׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ – טְרֵפָה, וְאָמַר רָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: לָקְתָה בְּכוּלְיָא אַחַת – טְרֵפָה, וּתְנַן: נִיטַּל הַטְּחוֹל – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאָמַר רַב עַוִּירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא נִיטַּל, אֲבָל נִיקַּב – טְרֵפָה.
The Gemara asks: But aren’t there the seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amora’im? The Gemara enumerates the seven halakhot: As Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. And Rakhish bar Pappa says in the name of Rav: If the animal was diseased even in one kidney, it is a tereifa. And we learned in a mishna (54a) that if the spleen was removed the animal is kosher, and with regard to this mishna, Rav Avira says in the name of Rava: They taught this only when the spleen was removed; but if it was perforated, the animal is a tereifa.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרוּבָּן – טְרֵפָה. וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מֵעִיקָּרָהּ – טְרֵפָה, וְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה בְּרוּבָּה, וּבָשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס בְּרוּבּוֹ – טְרֵפָה.
The Gemara continues: And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Shmuel says: If the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, were mostly detached, the animal is a tereifa. And Rabba bar Rav Sheila says that Rav Mattana says that Shmuel says: If a rib was torn out from its root, along with half of the attached vertebra, the animal is a tereifa; and a skull that was mostly crushed, even if the membranes are intact, renders the animal a tereifa; and if a majority of the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa.
נְקוּבֵי תְּמָנְיָא הָווּ, חַשְׁבִינְהוּ בְּחַד, אַפֵּיק שַׁב, וְעַיֵּיל שַׁב.
The Gemara responds: There are eight cases of perforated organs mentioned in the mishna that render an animal a tereifa. The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael counts them all as one case. Accordingly, he removed seven cases from the count of eighteen and inserted these seven halakhot.
אִי הָכִי, פְּסוּקֵי נָמֵי תְּרֵי הָווּ, חַשְּׁבִינְהוּ בְּחַד, בָּצַר לְהוּ חֲדָא, וְעוֹד, דְּרַב עַוִּירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא נָמֵי נְקוּבָה הִיא!
The Gemara challenges: If so, since there are also two cases of cut organs in the mishna, the spinal cord and the windpipe, let the tanna count them as one. The count of tereifot then falls one short of eighteen. And furthermore, if all the cases of perforated organs are counted as one, then one cannot insert the case taught by Rav Avira in the name of Rava, i.e., that of a perforated spleen, since it is also a case of a perforated organ. If so, the count falls two short of eighteen.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
See video
Raanana, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Ontario, Canada
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning the daf during Covid. I’d always wanted to learn Talmud but that wasn’t an option for girls in the small town I grew up in and I struggled to help my younger kids with Hebrew homework let alone read a Hebrew text. I decided to start small by listening to the daf podcast on the way to work each morning. Then I joined the Long Island WhatsApp group. Now I go to the siyyums.
Long Island, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Chullin 42
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִם אִיתָא דְּיָלְדָה – קָלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֵימַר אַפּוֹלֵי אַפִּיל.
The Gemara answers: Lest you say: If it is so that his wife gave birth, it would have generated publicity and been common knowledge; therefore, one might conclude that the slaughter is valid even if he declared that the slaughter is for the sake of the burnt offering of his wife after childbirth, as in fact she did not give birth. To counter this, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that the slaughter is not valid. Say that his wife miscarried and is liable to bring an offering, but it is not common knowledge, because the baby was not born alive.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת בַּבְּהֵמָה: נְקוּבַת הַוֶּושֶׁט, וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ, נִיקַּב הַלֵּב לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וְנִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁלָּהּ, נִיטַּל הַכָּבֵד וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנּוּ כְּלוּם.
MISHNA: These wounds constitute tereifot in an animal, rendering them prohibited for consumption: A perforated gullet, where the perforation goes through the wall of the gullet, or a cut windpipe. If the membrane of the brain was perforated, or if the heart was perforated to its chamber; if the spinal column was broken and its cord was cut; if the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, any of these render the animal a tereifa.
הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לְבֵית הַסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת. נִיקְּבָה הַקֵּבָה, נִיקְּבָה הַמָּרָה, נִיקְּבוּ הַדַּקִּין, הַכָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרַע רוֹב הַחִיצוֹנָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַגְּדוֹלָה טֶפַח, וְהַקְּטַנָּה בְּרוּבָּהּ. הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ לַחוּץ.
Additionally, a lung that was perforated or that was missing a piece renders the animal a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon says: It is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the bronchi. If the abomasum was perforated, or the gallbladder was perforated, or the small intestines were perforated, it is a tereifa. It is also a tereifa in a case where the internal rumen was perforated or where the majority of the external rumen was torn. Rabbi Yehuda says: For a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa, while for a small animal, it is a tereifa only if the majority of it was torn. And it is a tereifa where the omasum [hemses] or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, i.e., to the abdominal cavity, but not if the perforation was between the two.
נָפְלָה מִן הַגָּג, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רוֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ, וּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: דְּרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב בַּדַּקָּה, וּדְרוּסַת אֲרִי בַּגַּסָּה, דְּרוּסַת הַנֵּץ בְּעוֹף הַדַּק, וּדְרוּסַת הַגַּס בְּעוֹף הַגַּס. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה – טְרֵפָה.
Likewise, if an animal fell from the roof, or if the majority of its ribs were fractured, or if it was clawed by a wolf, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was clawed by a wolf in the case of a small animal, i.e., a sheep or goat; or clawed by a lion in the case of a large animal, i.e., cattle; or if it was clawed by a hawk in the case of a small bird; or if it was clawed by a large bird of prey in the case of a large bird, then it is a tereifa. This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a tereifa, the consumption of which is forbidden by Torah law.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: רֶמֶז לִטְרֵפָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? מִנַּיִן?! ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״! אֶלָּא, רֶמֶז לִטְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיָּה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה – טְרֵפָה, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, מְנָא לַן?
GEMARA: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the prohibition of a tereifa? The Gemara interjects: Where is there an allusion? Doesn’t the Torah state explicitly: “You shall not eat any flesh that is torn of animals [tereifa] in the field” (Exodus 22:30)? Rather, the question is: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the principle that a tereifa cannot live? As the mishna teaches in the last clause: This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a tereifa; one learns by inference that a tereifa cannot live. If so, from where do we derive this?
דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״, חַיָּה – אֱכוֹל, שֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיָּה – לָא תֵּיכוּל, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה לֹא חַיָּה.
It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth” (Leviticus 11:2). The verse indicates that you may eat a living animal, i.e., one that can survive, but you may not eat an animal that is not living, i.e., one that cannot survive. One learns by inference that a tereifa cannot live.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״זֹּאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״ – ״זֹאת הַחַיָּה״ אֱכוֹל, חַיָּה אַחֶרֶת לָא תֵּיכוֹל, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה חַיָּה.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that a tereifa can live, from where does he derive this? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the same verse: “These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals.” “These” indicates that you may eat only these living things, but you may not eat other living things, i.e., tereifot. One learns by inference that a tereifa can live.
וְאִידַּךְ, הַאי ״זֹאת״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁתָּפַס הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִכׇּל מִין וּמִין וְהֶרְאָה לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה, וְאָמַר לוֹ: זֹאת אֱכוֹל, וְזֹאת לָא תֵּיכוֹל.
The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion, that a tereifa cannot live, what does he do with this word “these”? The Gemara responds: He requires it for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: “These are the living things which you may eat,” teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, seized one of each and every species of animal and showed it to Moses, and said to him: These you may eat, and these you may not eat.
וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא טְרֵפָה חַיָּה מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵאִידַּךְ תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״בֵּין הַחַיָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת וּבֵין הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵאָכֵל״ – אֵלּוּ שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה טְרֵפוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.
The Gemara objects: But the other opinion also requires the word “these” for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. The Gemara replies: Yes, it is indeed so. Rather, from where does he derive the principle that a tereifa can live? He derives it from the other baraita that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “To make a difference…between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:47). These living things that may not be eaten are the eighteen tereifot that were stated to Moses at Sinai and enumerated in the mishna. The verse, then, makes reference to a tereifa as a living thing.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא אִיכָּא בסג״ר, וְשַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא!
The Gemara questions the baraita: And are there no more cases of tereifot? But aren’t there more cases cited in the Mishna and other baraitot, for which a mnemonic is given: Beit, samekh, gimmel, reish; and aren’t there seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amora’im?
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְתַנָּא דִּידַן, דִּתְנָא, תְּנָא וּדְשַׁיַּיר – אָתְיָא בְּזֶה הַכְּלָל, אֶלָּא לְתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר: שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה טְרֵפוֹת וְתוּ לֵיכָּא, וְהָא אִיכָּא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה טְרֵפָה? סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: יְכוֹלָה הִיא לִיכּוֹוֹת וְלִחְיוֹת.
Granted, with regard to the tanna of our mishna, one can say that the cases of tereifot that he taught explicitly in the mishna, he taught, and that any case that he omitted comes under the general statement beginning: This is the principle. But with regard to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who said: Eighteen tereifot, one must ask: And are there no more cases of tereifot? But aren’t there the four cases represented by the mnemonic beit, samekh, gimmel, reish, the first of which is taught in a mishna (76a): An animal whose hind legs were severed from the leg joint and above is a tereifa? The Gemara responds: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says: The severed leg can be cauterized and the animal will live. Therefore, such a wound does not render the animal a tereifa.
אַף עַל גַּב דִּיכוֹלָה לִיכּוֹוֹת וְלִחְיוֹת, לְמַאן קָאָמַר? לְתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל טְרֵפָה חַיָּה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: ״כְּשֵׁרָה הִיא״.
The Gemara objects: But even if one holds that the severed leg can be cauterized and the animal will live, this does not mean that the animal is not a tereifa. According to whom is the question: But aren’t there the cases of beit, samekh, gimmel, reish, stated? It is stated according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that there are only eighteen tereifot. But the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael maintains that a tereifa can live. If so, the fact that the animal can live if the stump of its severed limb is cauterized is immaterial to whether it is a tereifa. Rather, say that the tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar insofar as he says that an animal with a severed leg is kosher. Yet, he disagrees with the claim that the reason is because the animal can survive.
וְהָאִיכָּא חִסָּרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה, דִּתְנַן: כַּמָּה חִסָּרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי חוּלְיוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חוּלְיָא אַחַת; וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְכֵן לִטְרֵפָה.
The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the case of a deficiency in the spine? As we learned in a mishna (Oholot 2:3): How much is considered a deficiency in the spine of a corpse so that it will not be considered a full corpse to impart impurity in a tent? Beit Shammai say: Two missing vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: One vertebra. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa, i.e., according to Beit Hillel an animal missing only one vertebra is a tereifa. This is not included in the count of Rabbi Yishmael.
הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת, דְּקָא חָשְׁבַתְּ לְהוּ בְּתַרְתֵּי, חַשְׁבִינְהוּ בַּחֲדָא, אַפֵּיק חֲדָא וְעַיֵּיל חֲדָא.
The Gemara responds: The omasum or the reticulum that were perforated on their outer walls, which you count as two separate cases, should be counted as one case. Accordingly, one case has been removed from the count of eighteen tereifot and one case has been inserted, i.e., the case of a deficiency in the spine, and there are still only eighteen cases.
וְהָאִיכָּא גְּלוּדָה? סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּמַכְשַׁיר.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the case of the tereifa mentioned in the mishna on 54a of an animal whose hide was removed? The Gemara responds: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who deems such an animal kosher.
וְהָא אִיכָּא חֲרוּתָא? מָרָה – מַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אַפֵּיק מָרָה, וְעַיֵּיל חֲרוּתָא.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there also the case of an animal that is a tereifa because of a shriveled lung? The Gemara responds: The mishna states that a perforated gallbladder renders the animal a tereifa; but who teaches this? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, teaches this. Therefore, the tanna removed the gallbladder from the list, since it is only the opinion of an individual, and inserted a shriveled lung.
וְהָאִיכָּא שַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא, דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: הַאי בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא דְּשַׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ – טְרֵפָה, וְאָמַר רָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: לָקְתָה בְּכוּלְיָא אַחַת – טְרֵפָה, וּתְנַן: נִיטַּל הַטְּחוֹל – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאָמַר רַב עַוִּירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא נִיטַּל, אֲבָל נִיקַּב – טְרֵפָה.
The Gemara asks: But aren’t there the seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amora’im? The Gemara enumerates the seven halakhot: As Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. And Rakhish bar Pappa says in the name of Rav: If the animal was diseased even in one kidney, it is a tereifa. And we learned in a mishna (54a) that if the spleen was removed the animal is kosher, and with regard to this mishna, Rav Avira says in the name of Rava: They taught this only when the spleen was removed; but if it was perforated, the animal is a tereifa.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרוּבָּן – טְרֵפָה. וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מֵעִיקָּרָהּ – טְרֵפָה, וְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה בְּרוּבָּה, וּבָשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס בְּרוּבּוֹ – טְרֵפָה.
The Gemara continues: And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Shmuel says: If the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, were mostly detached, the animal is a tereifa. And Rabba bar Rav Sheila says that Rav Mattana says that Shmuel says: If a rib was torn out from its root, along with half of the attached vertebra, the animal is a tereifa; and a skull that was mostly crushed, even if the membranes are intact, renders the animal a tereifa; and if a majority of the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa.
נְקוּבֵי תְּמָנְיָא הָווּ, חַשְׁבִינְהוּ בְּחַד, אַפֵּיק שַׁב, וְעַיֵּיל שַׁב.
The Gemara responds: There are eight cases of perforated organs mentioned in the mishna that render an animal a tereifa. The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael counts them all as one case. Accordingly, he removed seven cases from the count of eighteen and inserted these seven halakhot.
אִי הָכִי, פְּסוּקֵי נָמֵי תְּרֵי הָווּ, חַשְּׁבִינְהוּ בְּחַד, בָּצַר לְהוּ חֲדָא, וְעוֹד, דְּרַב עַוִּירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא נָמֵי נְקוּבָה הִיא!
The Gemara challenges: If so, since there are also two cases of cut organs in the mishna, the spinal cord and the windpipe, let the tanna count them as one. The count of tereifot then falls one short of eighteen. And furthermore, if all the cases of perforated organs are counted as one, then one cannot insert the case taught by Rav Avira in the name of Rava, i.e., that of a perforated spleen, since it is also a case of a perforated organ. If so, the count falls two short of eighteen.
