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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 9, 2019 | 讙壮 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 43

Further discussions regarding treifot – what are the general categories that the treifot聽fall into according to Ulla? Questions are raised regarding cases where the inner lining of a body part if punctured but the outer is not or the reverse. What is the status of the upper part of the esophagus? Is it considered part of the esophagus for shechita purposes and for treifa laws? Rav and Shmuel disagree. Rava had a case that came before him and ruled according to the stringencies of both and Rabbi Abba ruled that Rava was not allowed to rule by the stringencies of both and therefore needed to financially compensate the owner of the animal.


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

讗诇讗 讛谞讱 转专转讬 讚讗驻拽转 诇讗 转讬驻讜拽

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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 砖诪谞讛 诪讬谞讬 讟专驻讜转 谞讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讘住讬谞讬 谞拽讜讘讛 讜驻住讜拽讛 谞讟讜诇讛 讜讞住讜专讛 拽专讜注讛 讜讚专讜住讛 谞驻讜诇讛 讜砖讘讜专讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诇拽讜转讗 讚专讻讬砖 讘专 驻驻讗

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.

讗诪专 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘讗 砖诪谞讛 讟专驻讜转 讬砖 讘谞拽讜讘讛 讗诐 转讗诪专 转砖注 诪专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 谞讬拽讘讛 讛拽讬讘讛 谞讬拽讘讜 讛讚拽讬诐 讟专驻讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 谞讬拽讘讛 讛诪专讛

岣yya 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.

(讛诇讻讜转 讞讘专 讻讝讬转 诪专讛 讜拽讜专拽讘谉 住讬诪谉)

搂 The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following statements of Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef: Halakhot, friend, olive-bulk, gallbladder, and gizzard.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees with the statement of 岣yya 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讛讚专讜 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬砖驻讱 诇讗专抓 诪专专转讬 讜注讚讬讬谉 讗讬讜讘 拽讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讬谉 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 诪注砖讛 谞住讬诐 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讬驻诇讞 讻诇讬讜转讬 讜诇讗 讬讞诪讜诇 诪讬 拽讗 讞讬讬 讗诇讗 谞讬住讗 砖讗谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 专拽 讗转 谞驻砖讜 砖诪专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬住讗 砖讗谞讬

And Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What did the friends of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, respond to him? They responded that Job said: 鈥淗e pours out my gall upon the ground鈥 (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: 鈥淗e cleaves my kidneys asunder, and does not spare,鈥 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: 鈥淥nly spare his life鈥 (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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讻讝讬转

And Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讛讻讘讚 讜诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 讻诇讜诐 讛讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讻砖专讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讻讝讬转 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yo岣nan really say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan as to whether he holds that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讛 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讜讻讘讚 住讜转诪转讛 讻砖专讛

The Gemara brings another statement that Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讬拽讘 讛拽讜专拽讘谉 讜讻讬住 砖诇讜 拽讬讬诐 讻砖专

And Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even though the mishna on 56a teaches that if a bird鈥檚 gizzard was perforated it is a tereifa, if the gizzard was perforated but its inner lining is intact, the bird is kosher.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞讬拽讘 讛讻讬住 讜拽讜专拽讘谉 拽讬讬诐 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞讬拽讘 讝讛 讘诇讗 讝讛 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖谞讬 注讜专讜转 讬砖 诇讜 诇讜讜砖讟 讞讬爪讜谉 讗讚讜诐 讜驻谞讬诪讬 诇讘谉 谞讬拽讘 讝讛 讘诇讗 讝讛 讻砖专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讞讬爪讜谉 讗讚讜诐 讜驻谞讬诪讬 诇讘谉 讚讗讬 讞诇讬祝 讟专驻讛

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 Na岣an 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鈥檛 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.

讗讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞讬拽讘讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讘讜讜砖讟 讻砖专 讘拽讜专拽讘谉 驻住讜诇 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讚专讘讛 讜讜砖讟 讚讗讻诇讛 讘讬讛 讜驻注讬讗 讘讬讛 专讜讜讞 讙诪讚讗 诇讬讛 讜驻砖讟讛 诇讬讛 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬讛谞讚讝讬谉 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讜专拽讘谉 讚诪讬谞讞 谞讬讬讞 讻讚拽讗讬 拽讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻讜讜转讬讱

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 A岣, 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 拽专讜诐 砖注诇讛 诪讞诪转 诪讻讛 讘讜讜砖讟 讗讬谞讜 拽专讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讜砖讟 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讚讬拽讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛

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?

诇住驻拽 讚专讜住讛

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.

讛讛讬讗 住驻拽 讚专讜住讛 讚讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讛讜讛 拽讗 讘讚讬拽 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇讜讜砖讟 诪讗讘专讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讜讜砖讟 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讚讬拽讛 讗诇讗 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗驻讻讬讛 专讘讛 讜讘讚拽讬讛 讜讗讬砖转讻讞 注诇讬讛 转专讬 拽讜专讟讬 讚诪讗 讜讟专驻讛 讜专讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讞讚讜讚讬 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讬砖讘 诇讜 拽讜抓 讘讜讜砖讟 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讛讘专讬讗

Ulla says: If a thorn sat in the animal鈥檚 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.

(讚专住 讞转讬讻讜转 讘住讻讬谉 讟诪讗讛 住讬诪谉)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following questions with regard to Ulla鈥檚 statement: Clawed, pieces, with a knife, ritually impure.

讜诇注讜诇讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪住驻拽 讚专讜住讛 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇住驻拽 讚专讜住讛

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讛转诐 讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬住讜专讗

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛砖讜讞讟 讘住讻讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 驻讙讜诪讛 讛转诐 讗讬转讬讬诇讬讚 诇讛 专讬注讜转讗 讘住讻讬谉

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚住驻拽讜 讟诪讗 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 谞讬讚诪讬讬讛 诇住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚住驻拽讜 讟讛讜专 讗诇讗 讛转诐 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诪住讜讟讛

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.

讬转讬讘 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 谞诪爪讗转 讗转诪专 讗讘诇 讬砖讘 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讬讛 讬砖讘 讗讬转诪专 讗讘诇 谞诪爪讗转 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讞讬讜讬 讘专讬讬转讗 拽讜爪讬 讗讻诇谉

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.

讗讬转诪专 转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 专讘 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讜 专讘 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讜 诇讗讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗

搂 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.

讛讬 谞讬讛讜 转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 讗诪专 诪专讬 讘专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讞讜转讻讜 讜诪专讞讬讘 讝讛 讛讜讗 转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 讞讜转讻讜 讜注讜诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讝讛讜 讜讜砖讟 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讬 诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讞讜转讻讜 讜注讜诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讝讛 转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 讗诇讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讜讜砖讟 注爪诪讜 讻诇 砖讞讜转讻讜 讜讻讜讬抓 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 讝讬专讗 诪讘诇注转讗 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讬讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖注专转讗 讜注讚讬祝 诪讞讬讟转讗

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.

讛讛讜讗 转讜专讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讘谞讬 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讚讗转讞讬诇 讘讬讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讘转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 讜讙诪专 讘讜讜砖讟 讗诪专 专讘讗 专诪讬谞讗 注诇讬讛 讞讜诪专讬 讚专讘 讜讞讜诪专讬 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讟专讬驻谞讗 诇讬讛

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.

讞讜诪专讬 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘诪砖讛讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗诪专 讘专讜讘讜 讻专讘 讚讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讗讬讙诇讙诇 诪讬诇转讗 诪讟讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 转讜专讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘 讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 砖专讬 讝讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讚诇砖诇讬诐 讚诪讬 转讜专讗 诇诪专讬讛

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 岣ma, i.e., Rava, that he is to pay the value of the bull to its owner, since he improperly deemed it a tereifa.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诪讜转讘讬谞讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讻诇驻讬 住谞讗讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛诇讻转讗 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛专讜爪讛 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注讜砖讛 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 注讜砖讛 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 专砖注

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.

  • 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 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 43

讗诇讗 讛谞讱 转专转讬 讚讗驻拽转 诇讗 转讬驻讜拽

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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 砖诪谞讛 诪讬谞讬 讟专驻讜转 谞讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇诪砖讛 讘住讬谞讬 谞拽讜讘讛 讜驻住讜拽讛 谞讟讜诇讛 讜讞住讜专讛 拽专讜注讛 讜讚专讜住讛 谞驻讜诇讛 讜砖讘讜专讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诇拽讜转讗 讚专讻讬砖 讘专 驻驻讗

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.

讗诪专 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘讗 砖诪谞讛 讟专驻讜转 讬砖 讘谞拽讜讘讛 讗诐 转讗诪专 转砖注 诪专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 谞讬拽讘讛 讛拽讬讘讛 谞讬拽讘讜 讛讚拽讬诐 讟专驻讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 谞讬拽讘讛 讛诪专讛

岣yya 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.

(讛诇讻讜转 讞讘专 讻讝讬转 诪专讛 讜拽讜专拽讘谉 住讬诪谉)

搂 The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following statements of Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef: Halakhot, friend, olive-bulk, gallbladder, and gizzard.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees with the statement of 岣yya 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讛讚专讜 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬砖驻讱 诇讗专抓 诪专专转讬 讜注讚讬讬谉 讗讬讜讘 拽讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讬谉 诪讝讻讬专讬谉 诪注砖讛 谞住讬诐 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讬驻诇讞 讻诇讬讜转讬 讜诇讗 讬讞诪讜诇 诪讬 拽讗 讞讬讬 讗诇讗 谞讬住讗 砖讗谞讬 讚讻转讬讘 专拽 讗转 谞驻砖讜 砖诪专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬住讗 砖讗谞讬

And Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: What did the friends of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, respond to him? They responded that Job said: 鈥淗e pours out my gall upon the ground鈥 (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: 鈥淗e cleaves my kidneys asunder, and does not spare,鈥 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: 鈥淥nly spare his life鈥 (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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讻讝讬转

And Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讛讻讘讚 讜诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 讻诇讜诐 讛讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讻砖专讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讻讝讬转 讗诪讜专讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yo岣nan really say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rabba bar bar 岣na say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan as to whether he holds that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讛 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讜讻讘讚 住讜转诪转讛 讻砖专讛

The Gemara brings another statement that Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讬拽讘 讛拽讜专拽讘谉 讜讻讬住 砖诇讜 拽讬讬诐 讻砖专

And Rabbi Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even though the mishna on 56a teaches that if a bird鈥檚 gizzard was perforated it is a tereifa, if the gizzard was perforated but its inner lining is intact, the bird is kosher.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞讬拽讘 讛讻讬住 讜拽讜专拽讘谉 拽讬讬诐 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞讬拽讘 讝讛 讘诇讗 讝讛 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖谞讬 注讜专讜转 讬砖 诇讜 诇讜讜砖讟 讞讬爪讜谉 讗讚讜诐 讜驻谞讬诪讬 诇讘谉 谞讬拽讘 讝讛 讘诇讗 讝讛 讻砖专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讞讬爪讜谉 讗讚讜诐 讜驻谞讬诪讬 诇讘谉 讚讗讬 讞诇讬祝 讟专驻讛

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 Na岣an 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鈥檛 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.

讗讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 谞讬拽讘讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讝讛 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讝讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讘讜讜砖讟 讻砖专 讘拽讜专拽讘谉 驻住讜诇 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讚专讘讛 讜讜砖讟 讚讗讻诇讛 讘讬讛 讜驻注讬讗 讘讬讛 专讜讜讞 讙诪讚讗 诇讬讛 讜驻砖讟讛 诇讬讛 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬讛谞讚讝讬谉 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讜专拽讘谉 讚诪讬谞讞 谞讬讬讞 讻讚拽讗讬 拽讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻讜讜转讬讱

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 A岣, 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 拽专讜诐 砖注诇讛 诪讞诪转 诪讻讛 讘讜讜砖讟 讗讬谞讜 拽专讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讜砖讟 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讚讬拽讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬诐 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛

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?

诇住驻拽 讚专讜住讛

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.

讛讛讬讗 住驻拽 讚专讜住讛 讚讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讛讜讛 拽讗 讘讚讬拽 诇讬讛 专讘讛 诇讜讜砖讟 诪讗讘专讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 诪专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讜讜砖讟 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讚讬拽讛 讗诇讗 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗驻讻讬讛 专讘讛 讜讘讚拽讬讛 讜讗讬砖转讻讞 注诇讬讛 转专讬 拽讜专讟讬 讚诪讗 讜讟专驻讛 讜专讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讞讚讜讚讬 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讬砖讘 诇讜 拽讜抓 讘讜讜砖讟 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 砖诪讗 讛讘专讬讗

Ulla says: If a thorn sat in the animal鈥檚 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.

(讚专住 讞转讬讻讜转 讘住讻讬谉 讟诪讗讛 住讬诪谉)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following questions with regard to Ulla鈥檚 statement: Clawed, pieces, with a knife, ritually impure.

讜诇注讜诇讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪住驻拽 讚专讜住讛 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇住驻拽 讚专讜住讛

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讛转诐 讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讬住讜专讗

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛砖讜讞讟 讘住讻讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗转 驻讙讜诪讛 讛转诐 讗讬转讬讬诇讬讚 诇讛 专讬注讜转讗 讘住讻讬谉

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚住驻拽讜 讟诪讗 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 谞讬讚诪讬讬讛 诇住驻拽 讟讜诪讗讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚住驻拽讜 讟讛讜专 讗诇讗 讛转诐 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 诪住讜讟讛

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.

讬转讬讘 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 谞诪爪讗转 讗转诪专 讗讘诇 讬砖讘 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讬讛 讬砖讘 讗讬转诪专 讗讘诇 谞诪爪讗转 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇注讜诇讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讞讬讜讬 讘专讬讬转讗 拽讜爪讬 讗讻诇谉

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.

讗讬转诪专 转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 专讘 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讜 专讘 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讜 诇讗讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗

搂 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.

讛讬 谞讬讛讜 转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 讗诪专 诪专讬 讘专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讞讜转讻讜 讜诪专讞讬讘 讝讛 讛讜讗 转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 讞讜转讻讜 讜注讜诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讝讛讜 讜讜砖讟 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讬 诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖讞讜转讻讜 讜注讜诪讚 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讝讛 转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 讗诇讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讜讜砖讟 注爪诪讜 讻诇 砖讞讜转讻讜 讜讻讜讬抓 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 讝讬专讗 诪讘诇注转讗 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讜讬讗 驻讞讜转 诪砖注专转讗 讜注讚讬祝 诪讞讬讟转讗

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.

讛讛讜讗 转讜专讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讘谞讬 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讚讗转讞讬诇 讘讬讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讘转讜专讘抓 讛讜讜砖讟 讜讙诪专 讘讜讜砖讟 讗诪专 专讘讗 专诪讬谞讗 注诇讬讛 讞讜诪专讬 讚专讘 讜讞讜诪专讬 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讟专讬驻谞讗 诇讬讛

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.

讞讜诪专讬 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘诪砖讛讜 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗诪专 讘专讜讘讜 讻专讘 讚讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讗讬讙诇讙诇 诪讬诇转讗 诪讟讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 转讜专讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘 讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 砖专讬 讝讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讚诇砖诇讬诐 讚诪讬 转讜专讗 诇诪专讬讛

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 岣ma, i.e., Rava, that he is to pay the value of the bull to its owner, since he improperly deemed it a tereifa.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诪讜转讘讬谞讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讻诇驻讬 住谞讗讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讛诇讻转讗 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛专讜爪讛 诇注砖讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注讜砖讛 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 注讜砖讛 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 专砖注

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.

Scroll To Top