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 month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
What are the primary categories of treifot? Ulla states that eight categories that were transmitted as halakha to Moshe from Sinai: perforated (nekuva), severed (pesuka), removed (netula), deficient (chasura), torn (kru’a), clawed (drusa), fallen (nefula), and broken (shevura). Chiya bar Rav said there are eight cases in the category of perforated, and this excludes the gall bladder, which is considered a treifa only by Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehuda. However, Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the ruling is like Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehuda. He brings a proof for Rabbi Yosi’s position from a verse in Iyov 16:13, in which Iyov explains that his gall bladder was poured on the ground, and yet, he still lived. The rabbis’ retort to that is that Iyov’s situation was miraculous and we cannot derive halakha from a miracle.
Another ruling of Rabbi Yochanan was brought by Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef regarding the liver – if the liver is reduced to less than an olive bulk, the animal is a treifa. If, according to Rabba bar bar Hanna, Rabbi Yochanan holds like an unattributed Mishna, there is a contradiction as our Mishna rules it is a treifa only if the liver is completely removed. This is resolved by explaining there is a debate between the two amoraim what Rabbi Yochanan held.
Two other rulings are brought by Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef in the name of Rabbi Yochanan regarding treifot. A gall bladder that was perforated but the liver covered up the hole, or a bird’s gizzard that was perforated, but the inner lining was not, both are kosher.
Raba notes that the gullet consists of two distinct linings – an outer red membrane and an inner white membrane. If only one layer is punctured while the other remains intact, the animal remains kosher. What happens if both layers of an organ are punctured, but the holes do not align? Rav Ashi rules that in a stationary organ like the gizzard, non-aligned punctures are kosher because the layers do not shift. However, in a dynamic organ like the gullet, which constantly expands, contracts, and moves during feeding, the holes are liable to realign; therefore, non-aligned punctures render the animal a treifa. In one version, Mar Zutra quotes Rav Papa saying the opposite; in another, he agrees.
Raba notes that the gullet cannot be evaluated for predatory clawing (safek drusa) from the outside, as the outside is red and blood would not be noticeable. It must be inverted and inspected from the inside. If a thorn is found lodged inside the gullet with a perforation on the inside, but no noticeable perforation on the outside, Ulla rules that we do not fear it caused a perforation which healed, as free-roaming livestock regularly consume thorny vegetation without injury.
Is the turbatz haveshet, the uppermost part of the gullet, legally treated as part of the gullet? Rav and Shmuel disagree on its status. Rav maintains it is a valid location for slaughter; thus, any extraneous puncture of even a minimal size renders it a treifa. Shmuel argues it is not a valid location for slaughter, meaning it is only rendered a treifa if the majority of it is severed. This dispute culminated in a practical case involving an ox belonging to the sons of Rav Ukva, where the slaughter began in the turbatz haveshet and finished in the gullet. Rava applied the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel, declaring the animal a treifa. Rabbi Abba reversed Rava’s decision, demonstrating that the ox was completely kosher under either authority individually. If one followed Rav, the slaughter location was valid; if one followed Shmuel, the minor cut in the turbatz haveshet did not render it a treifa before the slaughter was completed. Because Rava’s logically contradictory ruling caused an impermissible destruction of kosher property, Rabbi Abba ordered Rava to financially compensate the owner of the ox.
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 month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rochie Sommer in loving memory of Ronnie Sommer, Zecharya Yitchak Ben Avraham, on his 20th yahrzeit. “He continues to inspire his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be kind, curious, and loving. His love for his family brought him tremendous nachat. May his neshama have an Aliyah.”
Chullin 43
אֶלָּא הָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי דְּאַפֵּקְתְּ, לָא תַּפֵּיק.
The Gemara responds: Rather, if one counts this way, one must say that these two cases that you removed, i.e., an animal whose hind legs were severed and one whose hide was removed, do not remove. The count will then remain eighteen.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: שְׁמֹנָה מִינֵי טְרֵפוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה בְּסִינַי – נְקוּבָה, וּפְסוּקָה, נְטוּלָה, וַחֲסוּרָה, קְרוּעָה, וּדְרוּסָה, נְפוּלָה, וּשְׁבוּרָה. לְאַפּוֹקֵי לָקוּתָא דְּרָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא.
§ Ulla says: Eight types of tereifot were stated to Moses at Sinai, and all the cases mentioned in the Mishna and elsewhere fall into these categories: An animal whose organ was perforated or severed, removed or missing a piece, one that was torn or clawed by wild animals, or that fell or was broken. The Gemara notes: This list is compiled to the exclusion of a diseased organ, which Rakhish bar Pappa mentioned with regard to a kidney. Ulla does not deem this a tereifa.
אָמַר חִיָּיא בַּר רָבָא: שְׁמֹנָה טְרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ בִּנְקוּבָה, אִם תֹּאמַר תֵּשַׁע – מָרָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: נִיקְּבָה הַקֵּיבָה, נִיקְּבוּ הַדַּקִּים – טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף נִיקְּבָה הַמָּרָה.
Ḥiyya bar Rava says: There are eight tereifot in the category of a perforated organ: A perforated gullet, brain membrane, heart, lung, abomasum, intestine, inner rumen, and reticulum or omasum that was perforated to the outside. If you say that there are nine, because a perforated gallbladder is also mentioned in the mishna, one can say that with regard to the gallbladder, only Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, teaches it, and it is the opinion of an individual. As it is taught in a baraita: If the abomasum was perforated, or the intestines were perforated, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if the gallbladder was perforated it is a tereifa.
(הִלְכוֹת חָבֵר כְּזַיִת מָרָה וְקוּרְקְבָן – סִימָן).
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following statements of Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef: Halakhot, friend, olive-bulk, gallbladder, and gizzard.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with the statement of Ḥiyya bar Rava and says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that a perforated gallbladder renders the animal a tereifa.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי אַהְדַּרוּ לֵיהּ חַבְרֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? ״יִשְׁפּוֹךְ לָאָרֶץ מֵרָרָתִי״, וַעֲדַיִין אִיּוֹב קַיָּים. אָמַר לָהֶם: אֵין מַזְכִּירִין מַעֲשֵׂה נִסִּים, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי ״יְפַלַּח כִּלְיוֹתַי וְלֹא יַחְמוֹל״ – מִי קָא חָיֵי? אֶלָּא נִיסָּא שָׁאנֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״רַק אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ שְׁמֹר״. הָכָא נָמֵי נִיסָּא שָׁאנֵי.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What did the friends of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, respond to him? They responded that Job said: “He pours out my gall upon the ground” (Job 16:13), and yet Job was still alive. Evidently, one with a perforated gallbladder can live. Rabbi Yosei said to them: Job was kept alive by a miracle, and one does not mention miraculous acts as proof for a general ruling. As, if you do not say so, then the other phrase in the verse: “He cleaves my kidneys asunder, and does not spare,” is problematic. Does one with cleaved kidneys live? Rather, a miracle is different, as it is written that God said to Satan with regard to Job: “Only spare his life” (Job 2:6). Under natural circumstances, Job should have died from his injuries, but in this case he was kept alive by a miracle. Here too, with regard to the gallbladder, one must say that a miracle is different, and one cannot bring proof from it.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר כְּזַיִת.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that if the liver of an animal was removed but one olive-bulk of it remains, it is kosher.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה, וּתְנַן: נִיטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּלוּם – הָא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר כְּשֵׁרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָוֵי כְּזַיִת! אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna; and we learned in the mishna: If the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, the animal is a tereifa? One can infer that if any of it remained, the animal is kosher even if what remains does not constitute an olive-bulk. The Gemara responds: They are amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan as to whether he holds that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָרָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, וְכָבֵד סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה.
The Gemara brings another statement that Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the gallbladder was perforated in a place where it was adjacent to the liver, and the liver seals the hole, the animal is kosher, even though a perforated gallbladder normally renders the animal a tereifa according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נִיקַּב הַקּוּרְקְבָן וְכִיס שֶׁלּוֹ קַיָּים – כָּשֵׁר.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though the mishna on 56a teaches that if a bird’s gizzard was perforated it is a tereifa, if the gizzard was perforated but its inner lining is intact, the bird is kosher.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נִיקַּב הַכִּיס וְקוּרְקְבָן קַיָּים, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: נִיקַּב זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה – כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁנֵי עוֹרוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ לַוֶּושֶׁט, חִיצוֹן אָדוֹם וּפְנִימִי לָבָן, נִיקַּב זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה – כָּשֵׁר. לְמָה לִי לְמֵימַר חִיצוֹן אָדוֹם וּפְנִימִי לָבָן? דְּאִי חַלֵּיף – טְרֵפָה.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the inner lining of the gizzard was perforated, but the flesh of the gizzard is intact, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Naḥman said with regard to a perforated gullet: If both its outer and inner lining were perforated, the animal is a tereifa, but if this lining was perforated without that lining being perforated, it is kosher. Similarly, Rava says: The gullet has two linings, the outer red, and the inner white. If this lining was perforated without that lining being perforated, the animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: Why do I need for Rava to state that the outer one is red and the inner one is white? Isn’t this self-evident? The Gemara responds: This teaches that if the two were switched, i.e., the outer lining turned white and the inner red, the animal is a tereifa.
אִבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נִיקְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה, מַהוּ? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: בַּוֶּושֶׁט – כָּשֵׁר, בַּקּוּרְקְבָן – פָּסוּל. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אַדְּרַבָּה, וֶושֶׁט דְּאָכְלָה בֵּיהּ וּפָעְיָא בֵּיהּ רָוַוח, גָּמְדָא לֵיהּ וּפָשְׁטָה לֵיהּ, זִמְנִין דְּמִיהַנְדְּזִין בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי; קוּרְקְבָן דְּמֵינָח נָיַיח, כִּדְקָאֵי קָאֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָר זוּטְרָא, דְּאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא כְּוָותָיךְ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If both linings were perforated, but not adjacent to one another, what is the halakha? Mar Zutra says in the name of Rav Pappa: If this occurred in the gullet, the animal is kosher; but if it occurred in the gizzard, it is unfit for consumption. Rav Ashi objects to this: On the contrary, the gullet, with which the animal eats and calls, is spacious and flexible, and the animal constricts it and stretches it. Since the two linings are not connected to each other, there are times in the course of their movement that the two holes align [demihandezin] with one another, creating a fully aligned perforation. But the gizzard, which is always at rest in place, stands as it always stands. Accordingly, two such perforations will never align. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: So we say in the name of Mar Zutra, that he in fact said in the name of Rav Pappa in accordance with your objection.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: קְרוּם שֶׁעָלָה מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה בַּוֶּושֶׁט, אֵינוֹ קְרוּם. וְאָמַר רַבָּה: וֶושֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה מִבַּחוּץ, אֶלָּא בִּפְנִים. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ?
§ And Rabba says: A membrane that appeared due to a wound in the gullet, i.e., a scab that covered a perforation, is not considered a membrane that prevents the animal from being rendered a tereifa. And Rabba says: The gullet cannot be inspected from outside to determine whether the animal is a tereifa, since the outer lining itself is red, and therefore reddening due to injury cannot be discerned in it. Rather, it must be inspected from inside, where the lining is white. The Gemara asks: What difference is there as a result of this statement, i.e., in what case must the gullet be checked from the inside?
לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
The Gemara responds: The halakha is necessary for a case in which it was uncertain whether an animal was clawed by a predator. If the animal was in fact clawed, the gullet would have become red. Since the outer lining is always red, the gullet must be checked on the inside to ascertain whether it is still white.
הָהִיא סְפֵק דְּרוּסָה דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, הֲוָה קָא בָּדֵיק לֵיהּ רַבָּה לְוֶושֶׁט מֵאַבָּרַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר: וֶושֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה אֶלָּא מִבִּפְנִים! אַפְכֵיהּ רַבָּה וּבַדְקֵיהּ, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח עֲלֵיהּ תְּרֵי קוּרְטֵי דְּמָא, וְטַרְפַהּ. וְרַבָּה נָמֵי לְחַדּוֹדֵי לְאַבָּיֵי הוּא דְּבָעֵי.
The Gemara recounts the case of a certain animal concerning which it was uncertain whether it was clawed by a predator, which came before Rabba. Rabba was checking its gullet from the outside. Abaye said to him: But isn’t it you, Master, who says: The gullet may be inspected only from the inside? Rabba turned over the gullet and checked it from the inside, and found on it two drops of blood, and deemed it a tereifa due to clawing. The Gemara notes: And Rabba as well desired only to sharpen Abaye by inducing him to ask. He did not forget his own statement.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: יָשַׁב לוֹ קוֹץ בַּוֶּושֶׁט, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא הִבְרִיא.
Ulla says: If a thorn sat in the animal’s gullet but did not perforate the outer lining, one need not be concerned that perhaps it perforated the outer lining beforehand and the perforation healed and a scab formed over it, in which case the animal would be a tereifa, as stated above. Rather, one assumes that the thorn never perforated the outer lining and the animal is kosher.
(דָּרַס חֲתִיכוֹת בְּסַכִּין טְמֵאָה, סִימָן)
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following questions with regard to Ulla’s statement: Clawed, pieces, with a knife, ritually impure.
וּלְעוּלָּא, מַאי שְׁנָא מִסְּפֵק דְּרוּסָה? קָסָבַר עוּלָּא אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
The Gemara asks: But according to Ulla, given that this is a case of uncertainty, in what way is it different from a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed, where the animal must be checked and cannot be presumed kosher? The Gemara responds: Ulla holds that one need not be concerned with regard to an uncertainty as to whether the animal was clawed.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִשְּׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב וְאַחַת שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן? הָתָם אִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא.
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from a case where there were two pieces of fat before a person, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, and the person ate one piece but does not know which one, where the halakha is that one must bring a provisional guilt offering due to the possibility that he consumed forbidden fat? Evidently, one may not presume that an item is permitted in a case of uncertainty. The Gemara responds: There, one finds a presumption of prohibition, since one of the pieces is certainly prohibited. Here, with regard to the thorn, there is no presumption of prohibition.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין, וְנִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה? הָתָם אִיתְיְילִיד לַהּ רֵיעוּתָא בְּסַכִּין.
The Gemara asks: And in what way is the case of the thorn different from the case of one who slaughters with a knife that was previously checked for flaws but was then found to be notched after the slaughter? In that case, it is uncertain whether the notch existed at the time of slaughter, yet the animal is prohibited. The Gemara responds: There, a deficiency was born in the knife. Accordingly, one must be concerned that it was notched beforehand as well. By contrast, the wall of the gullet is currently intact, and one may therefore presume that it was intact beforehand as well.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִסְּפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, דִּסְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, נִידַמְּיֵיהּ לִסְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, דִּסְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר! אֶלָּא הָתָם, הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ מִסּוֹטָה.
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from an uncertainty with regard to ritual impurity in a private domain, whose uncertainty is presumed impure? The Gemara responds: But according to your reasoning, let us compare it instead to uncertainty with regard to impurity in a public domain, whose uncertainty is presumed pure. Rather, there, with regard to the presumption of impurity in a private domain and purity in a public domain, the Sages learned this halakha through tradition from the halakha of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]. Therefore, one cannot extend it to other cases.
יָתֵיב הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: ״נִמְצֵאת״ אִתְּמַר, אֲבָל יָשַׁב – חָיְישִׁינַן. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, ״יָשַׁב״ אִיתְּמַר, אֲבָל נִמְצֵאת – לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְעוּלָּא, דְּכוּלְּהוּ חֵיוֵי בָּרָיָיתָא קוֹצֵי אָכְלָן.
The Gemara relates that one of the Sages was sitting before Rav Kahana, and he was sitting and saying: It was stated that one need not be concerned that the thorn perforated the linings of the gullet only if it was found loose inside the gullet. But if it sat embedded in the gullet wall, we must be concerned that the outer lining was perforated and later healed, rendering the animal a tereifa. Rav Kahana said to the other Sages: Do not listen to him. Rather, it was stated that one need not be concerned about a possible perforation if the thorn sat embedded in the gullet wall. But in a case where it was simply found there loose, it was not necessary for Ulla to say that the animal is kosher, since all animals that live outside eat thorns, and it is reasonable to expect to find them in the gullet without presuming injury.
אִיתְּמַר: תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט – רַב אָמַר: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּרוּבּוֹ. רַב אָמַר בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ: מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בְּרוּבּוֹ: לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא.
§ The mishna teaches that if the gullet was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. It was stated: In a case where the entrance [turbatz] of the gullet from the pharynx was perforated, Rav says: The animal is a tereifa if any part of the gullet was perforated. And Shmuel says: It is a tereifa only if its majority was perforated. Rav says: If any part was perforated, because he holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter and is therefore considered part of the gullet. And Shmuel says: If its majority was perforated, because he holds that it is not a location fit for slaughter and is not considered part of the gullet.
הֵי נִיהוּ תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט? אָמַר מָרִי בַּר מָר עוּקְבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וּמַרְחִיב – זֶה הוּא תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, חוֹתְכוֹ וְעוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ – זֶהוּ וֶושֶׁט עַצְמוֹ. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פַּפֵּי: מָר לָא אָמַר הָכִי, וּמַנּוּ? רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי. אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וְעוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ – זֶה תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, אֶלָּא אֵיזֶהוּ וֶושֶׁט עַצְמוֹ? כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וְכָוֵיץ. יוֹנָה אָמַר זֵירָא: מַבְלַעְתָּא, וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב אַוְיָא: פָּחוּת מִשְּׂעָרְתָּא וַעֲדִיף מֵחִיטְּתָא.
The Gemara clarifies: Which area is the entrance of the gullet? Mari bar Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: All of the area that widens outward when cut along its width, this is the entrance of the gullet; all the area that remains in place when cut, this is the gullet itself. Rav Pappi said to them: Master did not say so. And who is that Master? It is Rav Beivai bar Abaye. Rather, he said that all of the area that remains in place when cut, this is the entrance of the gullet. But which area, then, is the gullet itself? It is all of the area that constricts when cut and closes inward. The Sage Yona says in the name of Rabbi Zeira: The entrance of the gullet is only the area of the throat immediately bordering the gullet. And how much of the throat qualifies as the entrance of the gullet? Rav Avya said: Less than the length of a barley kernel and more than the length of a wheat kernel.
הָהוּא תּוֹרָא דַּהֲוָה לִבְנֵי רַב עוּקְבָא, דְּאַתְחֵיל בֵּיהּ שְׁחִיטָה בְּתוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, וּגְמַר בְּוֶושֶׁט. אָמַר רָבָא: רָמֵינָא עֲלֵיהּ חוּמְרֵי דְּרַב וְחוּמְרֵי דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְטָרֵיפְנָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain bull that belonged to the sons of Rav Ukva, where its slaughter began with a small incision in the entrance of the gullet and concluded in its majority in the gullet. Rava said: I impose upon it the stringencies of Rav and the stringencies of Shmuel, and deem it a tereifa.
חוּמְרֵי דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. וְהָאָמַר רַב: מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא! כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא. אִי שְׁמוּאֵל, הָאָמַר: בְּרוּבּוֹ! כְּרַב, דְּאָמַר: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.
I impose the stringencies of Rav, as Rav said: The animal is a tereifa if any part of the entrance of the gullet was perforated before slaughter. Such is the case here, since the incision began in the entrance of the gullet. Perhaps one will ask: But doesn’t Rav say that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, in which case the initial incision should be considered the beginning of the act of slaughter? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says that it is not a location fit for slaughter. If one asks: If I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, doesn’t he say: It is a tereifa only if it was perforated in its majority? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: If any part was perforated. Consequently, I deem the animal a tereifa.
אִיגַּלְגַּל מִילְּתָא, מְטַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: תּוֹרָא, בֵּין לְרַב בֵּין לִשְׁמוּאֵל שְׁרֵי. זִילוּ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא, דִּלְשַׁלֵּים דְּמֵי תוֹרָא לְמָרֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates that the matter circulated, and it came before Rabbi Abba, who said to his students: This bull is permitted for consumption, both according to Rav, who holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, and according to Shmuel, who holds that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated in its majority. Therefore, go tell the son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, i.e., Rava, that he is to pay the value of the bull to its owner, since he improperly deemed it a tereifa.
אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא: מוֹתְבִינָא תְּיוּבְתָּא כְּלַפֵּי סָנְאֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, לְעוֹלָם הִלְכְתָא כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וְהָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי – עוֹשֶׂה, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל – עוֹשֶׂה. מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית הִלֵּל – רָשָׁע.
Mar, son of Ravina, said: I offer a conclusive refutation to the enemies of Rava, a euphemism for Rava himself, from a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel may do so. But if one wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person.
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.
Hullin 43: Even for Unusual Healing, Don’t Rely on Miracles
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.
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, 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
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Richmond, CA, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
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
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
Bronx, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
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
Richmond, CA, United States
Chullin 43
אֶלָּא הָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי דְּאַפֵּקְתְּ, לָא תַּפֵּיק.
The Gemara responds: Rather, if one counts this way, one must say that these two cases that you removed, i.e., an animal whose hind legs were severed and one whose hide was removed, do not remove. The count will then remain eighteen.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: שְׁמֹנָה מִינֵי טְרֵפוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה בְּסִינַי – נְקוּבָה, וּפְסוּקָה, נְטוּלָה, וַחֲסוּרָה, קְרוּעָה, וּדְרוּסָה, נְפוּלָה, וּשְׁבוּרָה. לְאַפּוֹקֵי לָקוּתָא דְּרָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא.
§ Ulla says: Eight types of tereifot were stated to Moses at Sinai, and all the cases mentioned in the Mishna and elsewhere fall into these categories: An animal whose organ was perforated or severed, removed or missing a piece, one that was torn or clawed by wild animals, or that fell or was broken. The Gemara notes: This list is compiled to the exclusion of a diseased organ, which Rakhish bar Pappa mentioned with regard to a kidney. Ulla does not deem this a tereifa.
אָמַר חִיָּיא בַּר רָבָא: שְׁמֹנָה טְרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ בִּנְקוּבָה, אִם תֹּאמַר תֵּשַׁע – מָרָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: נִיקְּבָה הַקֵּיבָה, נִיקְּבוּ הַדַּקִּים – טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף נִיקְּבָה הַמָּרָה.
Ḥiyya bar Rava says: There are eight tereifot in the category of a perforated organ: A perforated gullet, brain membrane, heart, lung, abomasum, intestine, inner rumen, and reticulum or omasum that was perforated to the outside. If you say that there are nine, because a perforated gallbladder is also mentioned in the mishna, one can say that with regard to the gallbladder, only Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, teaches it, and it is the opinion of an individual. As it is taught in a baraita: If the abomasum was perforated, or the intestines were perforated, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if the gallbladder was perforated it is a tereifa.
(הִלְכוֹת חָבֵר כְּזַיִת מָרָה וְקוּרְקְבָן – סִימָן).
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following statements of Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef: Halakhot, friend, olive-bulk, gallbladder, and gizzard.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with the statement of Ḥiyya bar Rava and says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that a perforated gallbladder renders the animal a tereifa.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי אַהְדַּרוּ לֵיהּ חַבְרֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? ״יִשְׁפּוֹךְ לָאָרֶץ מֵרָרָתִי״, וַעֲדַיִין אִיּוֹב קַיָּים. אָמַר לָהֶם: אֵין מַזְכִּירִין מַעֲשֵׂה נִסִּים, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי ״יְפַלַּח כִּלְיוֹתַי וְלֹא יַחְמוֹל״ – מִי קָא חָיֵי? אֶלָּא נִיסָּא שָׁאנֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״רַק אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ שְׁמֹר״. הָכָא נָמֵי נִיסָּא שָׁאנֵי.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What did the friends of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, respond to him? They responded that Job said: “He pours out my gall upon the ground” (Job 16:13), and yet Job was still alive. Evidently, one with a perforated gallbladder can live. Rabbi Yosei said to them: Job was kept alive by a miracle, and one does not mention miraculous acts as proof for a general ruling. As, if you do not say so, then the other phrase in the verse: “He cleaves my kidneys asunder, and does not spare,” is problematic. Does one with cleaved kidneys live? Rather, a miracle is different, as it is written that God said to Satan with regard to Job: “Only spare his life” (Job 2:6). Under natural circumstances, Job should have died from his injuries, but in this case he was kept alive by a miracle. Here too, with regard to the gallbladder, one must say that a miracle is different, and one cannot bring proof from it.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר כְּזַיִת.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that if the liver of an animal was removed but one olive-bulk of it remains, it is kosher.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה, וּתְנַן: נִיטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּלוּם – הָא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר כְּשֵׁרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָוֵי כְּזַיִת! אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna; and we learned in the mishna: If the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, the animal is a tereifa? One can infer that if any of it remained, the animal is kosher even if what remains does not constitute an olive-bulk. The Gemara responds: They are amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan as to whether he holds that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna.
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָרָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, וְכָבֵד סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה.
The Gemara brings another statement that Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the gallbladder was perforated in a place where it was adjacent to the liver, and the liver seals the hole, the animal is kosher, even though a perforated gallbladder normally renders the animal a tereifa according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נִיקַּב הַקּוּרְקְבָן וְכִיס שֶׁלּוֹ קַיָּים – כָּשֵׁר.
And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though the mishna on 56a teaches that if a bird’s gizzard was perforated it is a tereifa, if the gizzard was perforated but its inner lining is intact, the bird is kosher.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נִיקַּב הַכִּיס וְקוּרְקְבָן קַיָּים, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: נִיקַּב זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה – כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁנֵי עוֹרוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ לַוֶּושֶׁט, חִיצוֹן אָדוֹם וּפְנִימִי לָבָן, נִיקַּב זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה – כָּשֵׁר. לְמָה לִי לְמֵימַר חִיצוֹן אָדוֹם וּפְנִימִי לָבָן? דְּאִי חַלֵּיף – טְרֵפָה.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the inner lining of the gizzard was perforated, but the flesh of the gizzard is intact, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Naḥman said with regard to a perforated gullet: If both its outer and inner lining were perforated, the animal is a tereifa, but if this lining was perforated without that lining being perforated, it is kosher. Similarly, Rava says: The gullet has two linings, the outer red, and the inner white. If this lining was perforated without that lining being perforated, the animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: Why do I need for Rava to state that the outer one is red and the inner one is white? Isn’t this self-evident? The Gemara responds: This teaches that if the two were switched, i.e., the outer lining turned white and the inner red, the animal is a tereifa.
אִבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נִיקְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה, מַהוּ? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: בַּוֶּושֶׁט – כָּשֵׁר, בַּקּוּרְקְבָן – פָּסוּל. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אַדְּרַבָּה, וֶושֶׁט דְּאָכְלָה בֵּיהּ וּפָעְיָא בֵּיהּ רָוַוח, גָּמְדָא לֵיהּ וּפָשְׁטָה לֵיהּ, זִמְנִין דְּמִיהַנְדְּזִין בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי; קוּרְקְבָן דְּמֵינָח נָיַיח, כִּדְקָאֵי קָאֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָר זוּטְרָא, דְּאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא כְּוָותָיךְ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If both linings were perforated, but not adjacent to one another, what is the halakha? Mar Zutra says in the name of Rav Pappa: If this occurred in the gullet, the animal is kosher; but if it occurred in the gizzard, it is unfit for consumption. Rav Ashi objects to this: On the contrary, the gullet, with which the animal eats and calls, is spacious and flexible, and the animal constricts it and stretches it. Since the two linings are not connected to each other, there are times in the course of their movement that the two holes align [demihandezin] with one another, creating a fully aligned perforation. But the gizzard, which is always at rest in place, stands as it always stands. Accordingly, two such perforations will never align. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: So we say in the name of Mar Zutra, that he in fact said in the name of Rav Pappa in accordance with your objection.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: קְרוּם שֶׁעָלָה מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה בַּוֶּושֶׁט, אֵינוֹ קְרוּם. וְאָמַר רַבָּה: וֶושֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה מִבַּחוּץ, אֶלָּא בִּפְנִים. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ?
§ And Rabba says: A membrane that appeared due to a wound in the gullet, i.e., a scab that covered a perforation, is not considered a membrane that prevents the animal from being rendered a tereifa. And Rabba says: The gullet cannot be inspected from outside to determine whether the animal is a tereifa, since the outer lining itself is red, and therefore reddening due to injury cannot be discerned in it. Rather, it must be inspected from inside, where the lining is white. The Gemara asks: What difference is there as a result of this statement, i.e., in what case must the gullet be checked from the inside?
לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
The Gemara responds: The halakha is necessary for a case in which it was uncertain whether an animal was clawed by a predator. If the animal was in fact clawed, the gullet would have become red. Since the outer lining is always red, the gullet must be checked on the inside to ascertain whether it is still white.
הָהִיא סְפֵק דְּרוּסָה דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, הֲוָה קָא בָּדֵיק לֵיהּ רַבָּה לְוֶושֶׁט מֵאַבָּרַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר: וֶושֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה אֶלָּא מִבִּפְנִים! אַפְכֵיהּ רַבָּה וּבַדְקֵיהּ, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח עֲלֵיהּ תְּרֵי קוּרְטֵי דְּמָא, וְטַרְפַהּ. וְרַבָּה נָמֵי לְחַדּוֹדֵי לְאַבָּיֵי הוּא דְּבָעֵי.
The Gemara recounts the case of a certain animal concerning which it was uncertain whether it was clawed by a predator, which came before Rabba. Rabba was checking its gullet from the outside. Abaye said to him: But isn’t it you, Master, who says: The gullet may be inspected only from the inside? Rabba turned over the gullet and checked it from the inside, and found on it two drops of blood, and deemed it a tereifa due to clawing. The Gemara notes: And Rabba as well desired only to sharpen Abaye by inducing him to ask. He did not forget his own statement.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: יָשַׁב לוֹ קוֹץ בַּוֶּושֶׁט, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא הִבְרִיא.
Ulla says: If a thorn sat in the animal’s gullet but did not perforate the outer lining, one need not be concerned that perhaps it perforated the outer lining beforehand and the perforation healed and a scab formed over it, in which case the animal would be a tereifa, as stated above. Rather, one assumes that the thorn never perforated the outer lining and the animal is kosher.
(דָּרַס חֲתִיכוֹת בְּסַכִּין טְמֵאָה, סִימָן)
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following questions with regard to Ulla’s statement: Clawed, pieces, with a knife, ritually impure.
וּלְעוּלָּא, מַאי שְׁנָא מִסְּפֵק דְּרוּסָה? קָסָבַר עוּלָּא אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
The Gemara asks: But according to Ulla, given that this is a case of uncertainty, in what way is it different from a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed, where the animal must be checked and cannot be presumed kosher? The Gemara responds: Ulla holds that one need not be concerned with regard to an uncertainty as to whether the animal was clawed.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִשְּׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב וְאַחַת שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן? הָתָם אִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא.
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from a case where there were two pieces of fat before a person, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, and the person ate one piece but does not know which one, where the halakha is that one must bring a provisional guilt offering due to the possibility that he consumed forbidden fat? Evidently, one may not presume that an item is permitted in a case of uncertainty. The Gemara responds: There, one finds a presumption of prohibition, since one of the pieces is certainly prohibited. Here, with regard to the thorn, there is no presumption of prohibition.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין, וְנִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה? הָתָם אִיתְיְילִיד לַהּ רֵיעוּתָא בְּסַכִּין.
The Gemara asks: And in what way is the case of the thorn different from the case of one who slaughters with a knife that was previously checked for flaws but was then found to be notched after the slaughter? In that case, it is uncertain whether the notch existed at the time of slaughter, yet the animal is prohibited. The Gemara responds: There, a deficiency was born in the knife. Accordingly, one must be concerned that it was notched beforehand as well. By contrast, the wall of the gullet is currently intact, and one may therefore presume that it was intact beforehand as well.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִסְּפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, דִּסְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, נִידַמְּיֵיהּ לִסְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, דִּסְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר! אֶלָּא הָתָם, הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ מִסּוֹטָה.
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from an uncertainty with regard to ritual impurity in a private domain, whose uncertainty is presumed impure? The Gemara responds: But according to your reasoning, let us compare it instead to uncertainty with regard to impurity in a public domain, whose uncertainty is presumed pure. Rather, there, with regard to the presumption of impurity in a private domain and purity in a public domain, the Sages learned this halakha through tradition from the halakha of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]. Therefore, one cannot extend it to other cases.
יָתֵיב הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: ״נִמְצֵאת״ אִתְּמַר, אֲבָל יָשַׁב – חָיְישִׁינַן. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, ״יָשַׁב״ אִיתְּמַר, אֲבָל נִמְצֵאת – לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְעוּלָּא, דְּכוּלְּהוּ חֵיוֵי בָּרָיָיתָא קוֹצֵי אָכְלָן.
The Gemara relates that one of the Sages was sitting before Rav Kahana, and he was sitting and saying: It was stated that one need not be concerned that the thorn perforated the linings of the gullet only if it was found loose inside the gullet. But if it sat embedded in the gullet wall, we must be concerned that the outer lining was perforated and later healed, rendering the animal a tereifa. Rav Kahana said to the other Sages: Do not listen to him. Rather, it was stated that one need not be concerned about a possible perforation if the thorn sat embedded in the gullet wall. But in a case where it was simply found there loose, it was not necessary for Ulla to say that the animal is kosher, since all animals that live outside eat thorns, and it is reasonable to expect to find them in the gullet without presuming injury.
אִיתְּמַר: תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט – רַב אָמַר: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּרוּבּוֹ. רַב אָמַר בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ: מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בְּרוּבּוֹ: לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא.
§ The mishna teaches that if the gullet was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. It was stated: In a case where the entrance [turbatz] of the gullet from the pharynx was perforated, Rav says: The animal is a tereifa if any part of the gullet was perforated. And Shmuel says: It is a tereifa only if its majority was perforated. Rav says: If any part was perforated, because he holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter and is therefore considered part of the gullet. And Shmuel says: If its majority was perforated, because he holds that it is not a location fit for slaughter and is not considered part of the gullet.
הֵי נִיהוּ תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט? אָמַר מָרִי בַּר מָר עוּקְבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וּמַרְחִיב – זֶה הוּא תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, חוֹתְכוֹ וְעוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ – זֶהוּ וֶושֶׁט עַצְמוֹ. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פַּפֵּי: מָר לָא אָמַר הָכִי, וּמַנּוּ? רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי. אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וְעוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ – זֶה תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, אֶלָּא אֵיזֶהוּ וֶושֶׁט עַצְמוֹ? כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וְכָוֵיץ. יוֹנָה אָמַר זֵירָא: מַבְלַעְתָּא, וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב אַוְיָא: פָּחוּת מִשְּׂעָרְתָּא וַעֲדִיף מֵחִיטְּתָא.
The Gemara clarifies: Which area is the entrance of the gullet? Mari bar Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: All of the area that widens outward when cut along its width, this is the entrance of the gullet; all the area that remains in place when cut, this is the gullet itself. Rav Pappi said to them: Master did not say so. And who is that Master? It is Rav Beivai bar Abaye. Rather, he said that all of the area that remains in place when cut, this is the entrance of the gullet. But which area, then, is the gullet itself? It is all of the area that constricts when cut and closes inward. The Sage Yona says in the name of Rabbi Zeira: The entrance of the gullet is only the area of the throat immediately bordering the gullet. And how much of the throat qualifies as the entrance of the gullet? Rav Avya said: Less than the length of a barley kernel and more than the length of a wheat kernel.
הָהוּא תּוֹרָא דַּהֲוָה לִבְנֵי רַב עוּקְבָא, דְּאַתְחֵיל בֵּיהּ שְׁחִיטָה בְּתוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, וּגְמַר בְּוֶושֶׁט. אָמַר רָבָא: רָמֵינָא עֲלֵיהּ חוּמְרֵי דְּרַב וְחוּמְרֵי דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְטָרֵיפְנָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain bull that belonged to the sons of Rav Ukva, where its slaughter began with a small incision in the entrance of the gullet and concluded in its majority in the gullet. Rava said: I impose upon it the stringencies of Rav and the stringencies of Shmuel, and deem it a tereifa.
חוּמְרֵי דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. וְהָאָמַר רַב: מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא! כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא. אִי שְׁמוּאֵל, הָאָמַר: בְּרוּבּוֹ! כְּרַב, דְּאָמַר: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.
I impose the stringencies of Rav, as Rav said: The animal is a tereifa if any part of the entrance of the gullet was perforated before slaughter. Such is the case here, since the incision began in the entrance of the gullet. Perhaps one will ask: But doesn’t Rav say that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, in which case the initial incision should be considered the beginning of the act of slaughter? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says that it is not a location fit for slaughter. If one asks: If I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, doesn’t he say: It is a tereifa only if it was perforated in its majority? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: If any part was perforated. Consequently, I deem the animal a tereifa.
אִיגַּלְגַּל מִילְּתָא, מְטַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: תּוֹרָא, בֵּין לְרַב בֵּין לִשְׁמוּאֵל שְׁרֵי. זִילוּ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא, דִּלְשַׁלֵּים דְּמֵי תוֹרָא לְמָרֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates that the matter circulated, and it came before Rabbi Abba, who said to his students: This bull is permitted for consumption, both according to Rav, who holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, and according to Shmuel, who holds that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated in its majority. Therefore, go tell the son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, i.e., Rava, that he is to pay the value of the bull to its owner, since he improperly deemed it a tereifa.
אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא: מוֹתְבִינָא תְּיוּבְתָּא כְּלַפֵּי סָנְאֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, לְעוֹלָם הִלְכְתָא כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וְהָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי – עוֹשֶׂה, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל – עוֹשֶׂה. מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית הִלֵּל – רָשָׁע.
Mar, son of Ravina, said: I offer a conclusive refutation to the enemies of Rava, a euphemism for Rava himself, from a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel may do so. But if one wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person.
