Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 8, 2019 | 讘壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 42

What makes an animal a treifa?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讬诇讚讛 拽诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诪专 讗驻讜诇讬 讗驻讬诇

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛砖讜讞讟

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讟专驻讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 谞拽讜讘转 讛讜讜砖讟 讜驻住讜拽转 讛讙专讙专转 谞讬拽讘 拽专讜诐 砖诇 诪讜讞 谞讬拽讘 讛诇讘 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇讜 谞砖讘专讛 讛砖讚专讛 讜谞驻住拽 讛讞讜讟 砖诇讛 谞讬讟诇 讛讻讘讚 讜诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讜 讻诇讜诐

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.

讛专讬讗讛 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讗讜 砖讞住专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖转讬谞拽讘 诇讘讬转 讛住诪驻讜谞讜转 谞讬拽讘讛 讛拽讘讛 谞讬拽讘讛 讛诪专讛 谞讬拽讘讜 讛讚拽讬谉 讛讻专住 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讗讜 砖谞拽专注 专讜讘 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讟驻讞 讜讛拽讟谞讛 讘专讜讘讛 讛诪住住 讜讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 砖谞讬拽讘讜 诇讞讜抓

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.

谞驻诇讛 诪谉 讛讙讙 谞砖转讘专讜 专讜讘 爪诇注讜转讬讛 讜讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 讘讚拽讛 讜讚专讜住转 讗专讬 讘讙住讛 讚专讜住转 讛谞抓 讘注讜祝 讛讚拽 讜讚专讜住转 讛讙住 讘注讜祝 讛讙住 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讻诪讜讛 讞讬讛 讟专驻讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 专诪讝 诇讟专驻讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 诪谞讬谉 讜讘砖专 讘砖讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讗诇讗 专诪讝 诇讟专驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讻诪讜讛 讞讬讛 讟专驻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讟专驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诪谞讗 诇谉

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鈥檛 the Torah state explicitly: 鈥淵ou shall not eat any flesh that is torn of animals [tereifa] in the field鈥 (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?

讚讻转讬讘 讜讝讗转 讛讞讬讛 讗砖专 转讗讻诇讜 讞讬讛 讗讻讜诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讟专驻讛 诇讗 讞讬讛

It is derived from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淭hese are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth鈥 (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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讝讗转 讛讞讬讛 讗砖专 转讗讻诇讜 讝讗转 讛讞讬讛 讗讻讜诇 讞讬讛 讗讞专转 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讟专驻讛 讞讬讛

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: 鈥淭hese are the living things which you may eat among all the animals.鈥 鈥淭hese鈥 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 讝讗转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讝讗转 讛讞讬讛 讗砖专 转讗讻诇讜 诪诇诪讚 砖转驻住 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谉 讜讛专讗讛 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讝讗转 讗讻讜诇 讜讝讗转 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇

The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion, that a tereifa cannot live, what does he do with this word 鈥渢hese鈥? 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: 鈥淭hese are the living things which you may eat,鈥 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讬谉 讛讞讬讛 讛谞讗讻诇转 讜讘讬谉 讛讞讬讛 讗砖专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讗诇讜 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讟专驻讜转 砖谞讗诪专讜 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

The Gemara objects: But the other opinion also requires the word 鈥渢hese鈥 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: 鈥淭o make a difference鈥between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten鈥 (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.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘住讙专 讜砖讘 砖诪注转转讗

The Gemara questions the baraita: And are there no more cases of tereifot? But aren鈥檛 there more cases cited in the Mishna and other baraitot, for which a mnemonic is given: Beit, samekh, gimmel, reish; and aren鈥檛 there seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amora鈥檌m?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚转谞讗 转谞讗 讜讚砖讬讬专 讗转讬讗 讘讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讟专驻讜转 讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讛诪讛 砖谞讞转讻讜 专讙诇讬讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 讟专驻讛 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诇讬讻讜讜转 讜诇讞讬讜转

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鈥檛 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.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讻讜讜转 讜诇讞讬讜转 诇诪讗谉 拽讗诪专 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讛讬讗

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鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讞住专讜谉 讘砖讚专讛 讚转谞谉 讻诪讛 讞住专讜谉 讘砖讚专讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 诇讟专驻讛

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 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.

讛诪住住 讜讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 讚拽讗 讞砖讘转 诇讛讜 讘转专转讬 讞砖讘讬谞讛讜 讘讞讚讗 讗驻讬拽 讞讚讗 讜注讬讬诇 讞讚讗

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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讙诇讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞专讜转讗 诪专讛 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬拽 诪专讛 讜注讬讬诇 讞专讜转讗

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讘 砖诪注转转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讛讗讬 讘讜拽讗 讚讗讟诪讗 讚砖祝 诪讚讜讻转讬讛 讟专驻讛 讜讗诪专 专讻讬砖 讘专 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇拽转讛 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讟专驻讛 讜转谞谉 谞讬讟诇 讛讟讞讜诇 讻砖专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 注讜讬专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 谞讬讟诇 讗讘诇 谞讬拽讘 讟专驻讛

The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there the seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amora鈥檌m? 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 住讬诪谞讬诐 砖谞讚诇讚诇讜 讘专讜讘谉 讟专驻讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞注拽专讛 爪诇注 诪注讬拽专讛 讟专驻讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖谞讞讘住讛 讘专讜讘讛 讜讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讛讻专住 讘专讜讘讜 讟专驻讛

The Gemara continues: And Rabba bar bar 岣na 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.

谞拽讜讘讬 转诪谞讬讗 讛讜讜 讞砖讘讬谞讛讜 讘讞讚 讗驻讬拽 砖讘 讜注讬讬诇 砖讘

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 驻住讜拽讬 谞诪讬 转专讬 讛讜讜 讞砖讘讬谞讛讜 讘讞讚 讘爪专 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 讚专讘 注讜讬专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 谞诪讬 谞拽讜讘讛 讛讬讗

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 42

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 42

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讬诇讚讛 拽诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诪专 讗驻讜诇讬 讗驻讬诇

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛砖讜讞讟

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讟专驻讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 谞拽讜讘转 讛讜讜砖讟 讜驻住讜拽转 讛讙专讙专转 谞讬拽讘 拽专讜诐 砖诇 诪讜讞 谞讬拽讘 讛诇讘 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇讜 谞砖讘专讛 讛砖讚专讛 讜谞驻住拽 讛讞讜讟 砖诇讛 谞讬讟诇 讛讻讘讚 讜诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讜 讻诇讜诐

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.

讛专讬讗讛 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讗讜 砖讞住专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖转讬谞拽讘 诇讘讬转 讛住诪驻讜谞讜转 谞讬拽讘讛 讛拽讘讛 谞讬拽讘讛 讛诪专讛 谞讬拽讘讜 讛讚拽讬谉 讛讻专住 讛驻谞讬诪讬转 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讗讜 砖谞拽专注 专讜讘 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讙讚讜诇讛 讟驻讞 讜讛拽讟谞讛 讘专讜讘讛 讛诪住住 讜讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 砖谞讬拽讘讜 诇讞讜抓

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.

谞驻诇讛 诪谉 讛讙讙 谞砖转讘专讜 专讜讘 爪诇注讜转讬讛 讜讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 讘讚拽讛 讜讚专讜住转 讗专讬 讘讙住讛 讚专讜住转 讛谞抓 讘注讜祝 讛讚拽 讜讚专讜住转 讛讙住 讘注讜祝 讛讙住 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讻诪讜讛 讞讬讛 讟专驻讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 专诪讝 诇讟专驻讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 诪谞讬谉 讜讘砖专 讘砖讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讗诇讗 专诪讝 诇讟专驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 诪谞讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讻诪讜讛 讞讬讛 讟专驻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讟专驻讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诪谞讗 诇谉

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鈥檛 the Torah state explicitly: 鈥淵ou shall not eat any flesh that is torn of animals [tereifa] in the field鈥 (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?

讚讻转讬讘 讜讝讗转 讛讞讬讛 讗砖专 转讗讻诇讜 讞讬讛 讗讻讜诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讬讛 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讟专驻讛 诇讗 讞讬讛

It is derived from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淭hese are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth鈥 (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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讝讗转 讛讞讬讛 讗砖专 转讗讻诇讜 讝讗转 讛讞讬讛 讗讻讜诇 讞讬讛 讗讞专转 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讟专驻讛 讞讬讛

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: 鈥淭hese are the living things which you may eat among all the animals.鈥 鈥淭hese鈥 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 讝讗转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讝讗转 讛讞讬讛 讗砖专 转讗讻诇讜 诪诇诪讚 砖转驻住 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谉 讜讛专讗讛 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讝讗转 讗讻讜诇 讜讝讗转 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇

The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion, that a tereifa cannot live, what does he do with this word 鈥渢hese鈥? 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: 鈥淭hese are the living things which you may eat,鈥 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讬谉 讛讞讬讛 讛谞讗讻诇转 讜讘讬谉 讛讞讬讛 讗砖专 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讗诇讜 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讟专驻讜转 砖谞讗诪专讜 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

The Gemara objects: But the other opinion also requires the word 鈥渢hese鈥 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: 鈥淭o make a difference鈥between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten鈥 (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.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘住讙专 讜砖讘 砖诪注转转讗

The Gemara questions the baraita: And are there no more cases of tereifot? But aren鈥檛 there more cases cited in the Mishna and other baraitot, for which a mnemonic is given: Beit, samekh, gimmel, reish; and aren鈥檛 there seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amora鈥檌m?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 讚转谞讗 转谞讗 讜讚砖讬讬专 讗转讬讗 讘讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜谞讛 注砖专讛 讟专驻讜转 讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讛诪讛 砖谞讞转讻讜 专讙诇讬讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 讟专驻讛 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诇讬讻讜讜转 讜诇讞讬讜转

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鈥檛 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.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讻讜讜转 讜诇讞讬讜转 诇诪讗谉 拽讗诪专 诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讟专驻讛 讞讬讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讛讬讗

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鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讞住专讜谉 讘砖讚专讛 讚转谞谉 讻诪讛 讞住专讜谉 讘砖讚专讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 讞讜诇讬讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻谉 诇讟专驻讛

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 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.

讛诪住住 讜讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 讚拽讗 讞砖讘转 诇讛讜 讘转专转讬 讞砖讘讬谞讛讜 讘讞讚讗 讗驻讬拽 讞讚讗 讜注讬讬诇 讞讚讗

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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讙诇讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讞专讜转讗 诪专讛 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬拽 诪专讛 讜注讬讬诇 讞专讜转讗

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讘 砖诪注转转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讛讗讬 讘讜拽讗 讚讗讟诪讗 讚砖祝 诪讚讜讻转讬讛 讟专驻讛 讜讗诪专 专讻讬砖 讘专 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇拽转讛 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讟专驻讛 讜转谞谉 谞讬讟诇 讛讟讞讜诇 讻砖专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 注讜讬专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 谞讬讟诇 讗讘诇 谞讬拽讘 讟专驻讛

The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there the seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amora鈥檌m? 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 住讬诪谞讬诐 砖谞讚诇讚诇讜 讘专讜讘谉 讟专驻讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞注拽专讛 爪诇注 诪注讬拽专讛 讟专驻讛 讜讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖谞讞讘住讛 讘专讜讘讛 讜讘砖专 讛讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讛讻专住 讘专讜讘讜 讟专驻讛

The Gemara continues: And Rabba bar bar 岣na 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.

谞拽讜讘讬 转诪谞讬讗 讛讜讜 讞砖讘讬谞讛讜 讘讞讚 讗驻讬拽 砖讘 讜注讬讬诇 砖讘

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 驻住讜拽讬 谞诪讬 转专讬 讛讜讜 讞砖讘讬谞讛讜 讘讞讚 讘爪专 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 讚专讘 注讜讬专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 谞诪讬 谞拽讜讘讛 讛讬讗

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.

Scroll To Top