Further discussions regarding treifot – what are the general categories that the treifot 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.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
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.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
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.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
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.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
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.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
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.
Follow
