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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 11, 2019 | 讛壮 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 45

Because each body part has its own definition regarding how much of a perforation renders it a treifa, the gemara聽demarcates the boundaries of some of the body parts.


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

讗转讬讬拽讜专讬 讛讜讗 讚诪转讬讬拽专讜 讘讬

It is an honor for them to honor me. My attendance is not for my benefit but for theirs.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讬拽讘讛 讻谞驻讛 诪爪讟专驻讬诐 诇专讜讘讗

搂 With regard to the halakha that a cut windpipe renders the animal a tereifa, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If the windpipe was perforated with a series of small holes around its circumference like a sieve, the small holes join together to constitute a majority of the circumference. Therefore, if their collective size is a majority of the circumference, the windpipe is considered cut.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讜讘讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖讬砖 讘讛 谞拽讘 讗讞讚 讗专讜讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 讘讛 谞拽讘讬诐 讛专讘讛 诪爪讟专驻讬诐 诇诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讬注讜专讛 诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 诇诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讗讬住专 诇讻讗讬住专 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

Rav Yirmeya raises an objection: The mishna teaches (Oholot 2:3) that if a skull of a corpse has a round hole at least the size of a drill bit used for surgery, then the skull does not impart ritual impurity in a tent. With regard to this, a baraita states: And in a skull that contains one long hole, or even if it has many small holes, the areas of the holes join together to constitute the size of a drill hole. Evidently, since the requisite measure is the size of a drill hole, the small holes join together to constitute the size of a drill hole, and not another measure. If so, here, too, in the case of the windpipe, since the requisite measure of a hole to render the animal a tereifa is the size of an issar (see 54a), the small holes should join together to constitute the size of an issar. Why must they constitute the majority of the circumference?

讗讬砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞拽讘讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讞住专讜谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讻讗讬住专 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讞住专讜谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇专讜讘讗

The Gemara notes: It escaped him, i.e., Rav Yirmeya, that which Rabbi 岣lbo says that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya says that Rav says: Perforations that are a deficiency, i.e., holes of significant area, join together to constitute the size of an issar, and perforations that are not a deficiency, but are as small as the holes of a sieve, must join together to constitute a majority of the circumference, which is the measure of a cut windpipe. Since the holes are not substantial in area, the windpipe cannot be said to be missing a piece, but it may be considered cut.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讬讟诇讛 讛讬诪谞讛 专爪讜注讛 诪爪讟专驻转 诇讻讗讬住专 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 诪专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讬拽讘讛 讻谞驻讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 谞拽讘讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讞住专讜谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讻讗讬住专 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讞住专讜谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇专讜讘讗

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If a strip of the windpipe was removed from it, its area joins to constitute the size of an issar, even if the strip itself is narrower than an issar. Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: If the windpipe was perforated like a sieve, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: The Sages said with regard to this case: Perforations that are a deficiency join together to constitute the size of an issar, and perforations that are not a deficiency join together to constitute a majority of the circumference.

讘注讜驻讗 诪讗讬

The Gemara raises a question: The measure of an issar for missing flesh in the windpipe applies only to animals. In birds, this cannot be the measure, as the entire width of the windpipe is less than the diameter of an issar. What, then, is the measure with regard to a bird?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪拽驻诇讜 讜诪谞讬讞讜 注诇 驻讬 讛拽谞讛 讗诐 讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讛拽谞讛 讟专驻讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 谞驻讬讗

Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani said: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Elazar: One severs the perforated tissue, folds and lays it over the opening of the windpipe. If it covers the majority of the windpipe, the animal is a tereifa; and if not, the animal is kosher. Rav Pappa said: And your mnemonic for this halakha should be a sieve. If the tissue is perforated like a sieve, one must place it over the opening of the windpipe as if it were a sieve.

谞驻讞转讛 讻讚诇转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讚讬 砖讬讻谞住 讗讬住专 诇专讞讘讜 谞住讚拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讛 讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讛

The Gemara continues: If the windpipe was missing a piece so that its appearance was like a door, where the missing flesh was partially attached as though on a hinge, Rav Na岣an said: If the missing piece is so large that an issar can enter the hole widthwise, i.e., it is wider and taller than an issar, the animal is a tereifa. If the windpipe was cracked along its length, Rav said: Even if only one undamaged segment remains in the windpipe above the crack and one segment below it, the animal is kosher.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讛 讞讜诇讬讗 讜诪讛 讞讜诇讬讗 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讛讜 诇诪注诇讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讛

The Sages said this statement before Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: What is this segment and what is that segment that Rav says? Segments are immaterial to the matter. Rather, say: Even if any amount remained intact in the windpipe above the crack, and any amount below, the animal is kosher.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讚注讬谉 讞讘专讬谉 讘讘诇讗讬 诇驻专讜砖讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Sages said this statement in Eretz Yisrael before Rabbi Yo岣nan in the name of Rabbi Yonatan the Babylonian, i.e., that any amount of undamaged tissue above and below the crack renders the animal kosher. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to them, excitedly: Do our Babylonian friends know how to interpret in accordance with this explanation? He was happy that Rabbi Yonatan interpreted it the same way he did.

转谞讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛爪讜讗专 讻讜诇讜 讻砖专 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪讟讘注转 讛讙讚讜诇讛 注讚 讻谞驻讬 专讬讗讛 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讞转讜谞讛 砖讛讬讗 注诇讬讜谞讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖驻讜砖讟转 爪讜讗专讛 讜专讜注讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讗谞住

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef taught before Rabbi Yo岣nan: The entire neck is fit for slaughter, from the large uppermost ring of the windpipe downward until the lower edges of the lung. Rava says that the phrase: Lower edges of the lung, is referring to an animal hung by the feet; that is, it actually denotes the upper edges nearest the head. As I say that the area fit for slaughter is all the length of the neck that an animal extends in order to graze, provided that it is not forced to extend its neck further than it wishes. Consequently, the very bottom of the neck is not a location fit for slaughter.

讘注讬 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讗谞住讛 注爪诪讛 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 谞驻拽 诪讬诇转讗 诪讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗谞住 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 讜砖讞讟 驻住讜诇讛 谞讬拽讘 讛拽谞讛 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛讞讝讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讻专讬讗讛

Rav 岣nina, and some say Rav 岣nanya, raises a dilemma: If the animal forced itself and extended its neck, what is the halakha with regard to the additional area? The Gemara responds: The question shall stand unresolved. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish sat together, and a matter emerged from between them: If the slaughterer forced the animal to extend the simanim by stretching the neck and slaughtered the animal at the lower end of the neck, the slaughter is not valid. And if the windpipe was perforated below the breast, it is considered to be like a perforated lung, which renders the animal a tereifa no matter the size of the perforation. A perforation in the upper windpipe must be the size of an issar to render the animal a tereifa (see 54a).

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讞讝讛 讝讛 讛专讜讗讛 讗转 讛拽专拽注 诇诪讟讛 注讚 讛爪讜讗专 诇诪注诇讛 注讚 讛讻专住 讞讜转讱 砖转讬 爪诇注讜转 诪砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 讜讝讛讜 讞讝讛 讛谞讬转谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: The Sages taught in a baraita: Which is the breast that must be given to the priests as a gift from every peace offering (see Leviticus 7:31)? This is the section that faces the ground, not the ribbed area on the sides. And lengthwise it extends below, when the animal is hung from the legs, until the neck, and above until the rumen. One cuts the two ribs nearest the head from the two sides of the animal from both directions, and this is the breast that is given to the priests.

谞讬拽讘 拽专讜诐 砖诇 诪讜讞 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽专诪讗 注讬诇讗讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讬谞拽讬讘 转转讗讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 注讚 讚讗讬谞拽讬讘 转转讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讞讬讬转讗 讚诪转谞讞 讘讬讛 诪讜讞讗

搂 The mishna states: If the membrane of the brain was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara cites Rav and Shmuel, who both say: The brain is covered by two membranes, a thick outer membrane adjacent to the skull and a thin inner membrane adjacent to the brain. The animal is a tereifa if the outer membrane was perforated, even if the inner membrane was not perforated. And some say that the animal is not a tereifa unless the inner membrane was perforated as well. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says: And this is your mnemonic to remember the halakha: The bag in which the brain rests, i.e., the inner membrane.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻谞讙讚讜 讘讘讬爪讬诐 谞讬讻专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讜讞 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘拽讚讬专讛 谞讚讜谉 讻诪讜讞 讛转讞讬诇 诇诪砖讜讱 谞讚讜谉 讻讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 讜诪讛讬讻谉 诪转讞讬诇 诇讬诪砖讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诪讬谉 砖谞讬

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Even though the inner membrane of the brain is very thin and not easily visible, its equivalent in the testicles, which are also enclosed in a thin membrane, is conspicuous, as it has an appearance different from the testicles themselves. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: With regard to the brain, everything inside the skull is considered part of the brain. From the point where it begins to extend like a cord out of the base of the skull, it is considered the spinal cord. And from where does it begin to be extended? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani said: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself: Protrusions similar to two

驻讜诇讬谉 讬砖 诪讜谞讞讬谉 注诇 驻讬 讛拽讚专讛 诪谉 讛驻讜诇讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讻诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛驻讜诇讬谉 讜诇讞讜抓 讻诇讞讜抓 讜驻讜诇讬谉 注爪诪谉 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讜诪住转讘专讗 讻诇驻谞讬诐

beans lie at the opening of the skull, where the spinal cord exits. From the beans inward, the nerve tissue is considered like the inside, i.e., the brain. Therefore, if its membrane is perforated, even minimally, the animal is a tereifa. From the beans outward, the nerve tissue is considered like the outside, i.e., the spinal cord. A perforation of the membrane in this area renders the animal a tereifa only if the spinal cord is mostly cut. And with regard to the area of the beans themselves, I do not know what the halakha is; but it stands to reason that it is considered like the inside.

专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讚拽 讘注讜驻讗 讜讗砖讻讞 讻诪讬谉 砖谞讬 驻讜诇讬谉 诪讜谞讞讬谉 注诇 驻讬 讛拽讚专讛

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya inspected a bird and found protrusions similar to two beans lying on the opening of the skull.

谞讬拽讘 讛诇讘 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇讜 讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇 拽讟谉 讗讜 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇 讙讚讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖转谞拽讘 诇讘讬转 讛住诪驻讜谞讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 注讚 砖转谞拽讘 诇住诪驻讜谉 讙讚讜诇

搂 The mishna states: If the heart was perforated to its chamber, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: Is the mishna referring to the small chamber within the heart or to the large chamber? Abaye said to him: What is your dilemma? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna with regard to the lung: Rabbi Shimon says: It is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the bronchi? And Rabba bar Ta岣ifa says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Rabbi Shimon means that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the large bronchus. If so, it may be presumed that the mishna is referring to the large chamber of the heart as well.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诇讘讬转 讛住诪驻讜谞讜转 拽转谞讬 诇讛讬讻讗 讚砖驻讻讬 住诪驻讜谞讜转 讻讜诇讛讜 讜讛讻讗 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇讜 拽转谞讬 诪讛 诇讬 讞诇诇 讙讚讜诇 诪讛 诇讬 讞诇诇 拽讟谉

The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, the mishna teaches: To the bronchi [simponot], in the plural form, i.e., the one bronchus into which all the bronchi [simponot] empty out. But here, with regard to the heart, it teaches: To the chamber. What is it to me if this is a large chamber and what is it to me if it is a small chamber? The language does not indicate one or the other.

拽谞讛 讛诇讘 专讘 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讜

搂 With regard to the aorta, the chief artery exiting the heart, Rav says: Like the heart itself, if it is perforated in any amount the animal is a tereifa. And Shmuel says: The animal is a tereifa only if the aorta is perforated in its majority.

讛讬 谞讬讛讜 拽谞讛 讛诇讘 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讚驻谞讜转 讚驻谞讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讚讜驻谞讬 专讬讗讛

The Gemara asks: Which blood vessel is the aorta? Rabba bar Yitz岣k says that Rav says: This is the artery found in the fat on the sides. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind to say that this is referring to the sides of the animal, i.e., the ribs, which are not adjacent to the heart? Rather, this is referring to the artery covered in fat that exits the heart and passes on the sides of the lung.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转诇转讗 拽谞讬 讛讜讜 讞讚 驻专讬砖 诇诇讬讘讗 讜讞讚 驻专讬砖 诇专讬讗讛 讜讞讚 驻专讬砖 诇讻讘讚讗 讚专讬讗讛 讻专讬讗讛 讚讻讘讚讗 讻讻讘讚讗 讚诇讬讘讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Ameimar says in the name of Rav Na岣an: There are three ducts adjacent to one another in an animal鈥檚 chest. One separates to the heart, and one separates to the lung, and one separates to the liver. The duct of the lung is treated like the lung, and renders the animal a tereifa if perforated in any amount. The duct of the liver is treated like the liver, and only if it is completely missing does it render the animal a tereifa, in accordance with the mishna. As for the duct of the heart, the aorta, Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the measure of its perforation, as mentioned above.

诪专 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪转谞讬 讗讬驻讻讗 讚专讬讗讛 讻讻讘讚讗 讚讻讘讚讗 讻专讬讗讛 讚诇讬讘讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Mar bar 岣yya teaches the opposite: The duct of the lung is treated like the liver and renders the animal a tereifa only if it is completely missing. The duct of the liver is treated like the lung, and a perforation of any amount renders the animal a tereifa. And with regard to the duct of the heart, Rav and Shmuel disagree.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诇讗 讬讚注 讘讟专驻讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara relates that Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef went and stated the halakha of Rav, that an aorta perforated in any amount renders an animal a tereifa, before Shmuel. Shmuel said to him: If Abba, i.e., Rav, actually said so, he knows nothing at all about tereifot.

谞砖讘专 讛砖讚专讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 砖谞驻住拽 讘专讜讘讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讬拽讘

搂 The mishna states: If the spinal column was broken and its cord was cut, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this the Sages taught: If the spinal cord was cut in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: It is a tereifa even if the spinal cord was only perforated.

讛讜专讛 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘

The Gemara notes: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov that even a small perforation of the spinal cord renders the animal a tereifa. Rav Huna says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov.

讜讻诪讛 专讜讘讜 专讘 讗诪专 专讜讘 注讜专讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讜讘 诪讜讞讜

The Gemara asks: And how much is considered a majority of the spinal cord to render the animal a tereifa? Rav says: A majority of the circumference of its surrounding membranes, the meninges. And some say a majority of the nerve tissue of the spinal cord itself. In other words, even if the meninges are intact, the animal is a tereifa if a majority of the nerve tissue is cut.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜讘 诪讜讞讜 讻诇 砖讻谉 专讜讘 注讜专讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜讘 注讜专讜 专讜讘 诪讜讞讜 诪讗讬

The Gemara notes: According to the one who says that the animal is a tereifa if a majority of the nerve tissue is severed, all the more so if a majority of the meninges is cut, since if the meninges, the protective membranes, are damaged, the nerve tissue itself will certainly be damaged soon thereafter. But according to the one who says that a tear in a majority of the meninges renders it a tereifa, what is the halakha in a case where only a majority of the nerve tissue was cut? Perhaps the intact membranes will keep the damage from spreading.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 谞讬讜诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 专讜讘讜 砖讗诪专讜 专讜讘 注讜专讜 诪讜讞 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇讛 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: As Nayyoli says that Rav Huna says: The majority of the spinal cord, which they said renders the animal a tereifa if cut, is the majority of the meninges. But this nerve tissue makes no difference.

专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讚拽 讘专讜讘 注讜专讜 讜拽讗 讘讚讬拽 讘专讜讘 诪讜讞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 专讜讘 注讜专讜 拽讬讬诐 诪讜讞 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诪注诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜专讬讚

The Gemara relates that Rav Natan bar Avin was sitting before Rav. Rav Natan first checked the spinal cord to make sure that a majority of the meninges was intact, and then was checking to see that a majority of its nerve tissue was intact. Rav said to him: If a majority of the meninges is intact, this nerve tissue makes no difference.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞转诪专讱 驻住讜诇 谞转诪住诪住 驻住讜诇 讗讬讝讜讛讬 讛诪专讻讛 讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 讛诪住诪住讛 讛诪专讻讛 讻诇 砖谞砖驻讱 讻拽讬转讜谉 诪住诪住讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If the spinal cord was liquefied [nitmareikh], the animal is unfit for consumption. Even if it softened [nitmasmeis], the animal is unfit, i.e., a tereifa. What is liquefaction, and what is softening? Liquefaction is any case in which the nerve tissue becomes liquid, and if the membrane is punctured it can be poured out like water from a jug. Softening is any case in which the nerve tissue cannot stand upright on its own and sags when it is not being supported.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讚讜 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜 讘讬 专讘 讗诪专讬 谞转诪住诪住 驻住讜诇 谞转诪讝诪讝 讻砖专 诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 砖谞转诪讝诪讝 诪讜讞讛 讟专驻讛 讛讛讬讗 谞转诪住诪住 讗讬转诪专

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In a case where the spinal cord became unusually heavy such that it cannot stand upright due to its weight, but not due to softening or melting, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: The question shall stand unresolved. In the study hall they say: If the spinal cord softened due to disease, the animal is unfit for consumption. But if some of its tissue softened and was emptied from the spinal cord, the animal remains kosher. The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: An animal whose nerve tissue was emptied [nitmazmez] from the spinal cord is a tereifa. The Gemara responds: That version of the baraita is incorrect. In fact, the word softened [nitmasmes] was stated, not the word emptied.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 诇讜讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬 诪住讜转讗 讞讝讬讬讗 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讟专讬讬讛 诇专讬砖讬讛 讗诪专 谞转诪讝诪讝 诪讜讞讬讛 讚讚讬谉 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讞讬讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诇讬讚

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that an animal whose nerve tissue has dissolved is kosher? But didn鈥檛 it happen that Levi was sitting in the bathhouse, where he saw a certain man who banged his head severely, whereupon he said: This man鈥檚 nerve tissue has softened and been emptied? Is it not that Levi meant that the man cannot live? If so, the softening and emptying of the nerve tissue should render an animal a tereifa. Abaye said: No, he intended to say that the man cannot reproduce, since head trauma might lead to infertility.

注讚 讛讬讻谉 讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 讘讬谉 讛驻专砖讜转

搂 The Gemara asks: Until where does the spinal cord extend downward, such that if it is cut above that point the animal is a tereifa? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Until the point between the branches of the spinal cord that split off behind the thighs.

专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讜讛 拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬讝诇 诇讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬讞讜讬 诇讬 诪专 讘讬谉 讛驻专砖讜转 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讙讚讬 讜讗讞讜讬 诇讱 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讙讚讬 砖诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诇讬注讛 讟驻讬 讜诇讗 讬讚讬注 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讻讞讜砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诇讬讟谉 讟驻讬 讜诇讗 讬讚讬注

The Gemara recounts: Rav Dimi bar Yitz岣k wanted to go to Bei 岣zai. He came before Rabbi Yehuda and said to him: Master, show me, where is the area between the branches to which Shmuel referred? Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Go bring me a kid and I will show you. Rav Dimi bar Yitz岣k brought him a choice kid with much fat. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The location is buried very deep in the fat and is not recognizable. He brought Rabbi Yehuda a lean kid. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The bones jut out very far, and the location is not recognizable.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讗 讗讙诪专讱 讙诪专讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 讗讞转 讟专驻讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 讻砖专讛 砖谞讬讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Come, I will teach you a tradition without showing you: This is what Shmuel said: There are three successive points around the same bone behind the pelvis at which branches diverge from the spinal cord. If the spinal cord is cut anywhere until the first gap between these branches, the animal is a tereifa. If it is severed anywhere after the third gap, i.e., after the third branch, the animal is kosher. If it was severed within the second gap, i.e., between these areas, I do not know the halakha.

讘注讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raises a dilemma:

  • 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 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 45

讗转讬讬拽讜专讬 讛讜讗 讚诪转讬讬拽专讜 讘讬

It is an honor for them to honor me. My attendance is not for my benefit but for theirs.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讬拽讘讛 讻谞驻讛 诪爪讟专驻讬诐 诇专讜讘讗

搂 With regard to the halakha that a cut windpipe renders the animal a tereifa, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If the windpipe was perforated with a series of small holes around its circumference like a sieve, the small holes join together to constitute a majority of the circumference. Therefore, if their collective size is a majority of the circumference, the windpipe is considered cut.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讜讘讙讜诇讙讜诇转 砖讬砖 讘讛 谞拽讘 讗讞讚 讗专讜讱 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 讘讛 谞拽讘讬诐 讛专讘讛 诪爪讟专驻讬诐 诇诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讬注讜专讛 诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 诇诪诇讗 诪拽讚讞 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讬注讜专讬讛 讻讗讬住专 诇讻讗讬住专 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

Rav Yirmeya raises an objection: The mishna teaches (Oholot 2:3) that if a skull of a corpse has a round hole at least the size of a drill bit used for surgery, then the skull does not impart ritual impurity in a tent. With regard to this, a baraita states: And in a skull that contains one long hole, or even if it has many small holes, the areas of the holes join together to constitute the size of a drill hole. Evidently, since the requisite measure is the size of a drill hole, the small holes join together to constitute the size of a drill hole, and not another measure. If so, here, too, in the case of the windpipe, since the requisite measure of a hole to render the animal a tereifa is the size of an issar (see 54a), the small holes should join together to constitute the size of an issar. Why must they constitute the majority of the circumference?

讗讬砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞拽讘讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讞住专讜谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讻讗讬住专 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讞住专讜谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇专讜讘讗

The Gemara notes: It escaped him, i.e., Rav Yirmeya, that which Rabbi 岣lbo says that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya says that Rav says: Perforations that are a deficiency, i.e., holes of significant area, join together to constitute the size of an issar, and perforations that are not a deficiency, but are as small as the holes of a sieve, must join together to constitute a majority of the circumference, which is the measure of a cut windpipe. Since the holes are not substantial in area, the windpipe cannot be said to be missing a piece, but it may be considered cut.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讬讟诇讛 讛讬诪谞讛 专爪讜注讛 诪爪讟专驻转 诇讻讗讬住专 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 诪专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讬拽讘讛 讻谞驻讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 谞拽讘讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讞住专讜谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讻讗讬住专 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讞住专讜谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇专讜讘讗

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If a strip of the windpipe was removed from it, its area joins to constitute the size of an issar, even if the strip itself is narrower than an issar. Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: If the windpipe was perforated like a sieve, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: The Sages said with regard to this case: Perforations that are a deficiency join together to constitute the size of an issar, and perforations that are not a deficiency join together to constitute a majority of the circumference.

讘注讜驻讗 诪讗讬

The Gemara raises a question: The measure of an issar for missing flesh in the windpipe applies only to animals. In birds, this cannot be the measure, as the entire width of the windpipe is less than the diameter of an issar. What, then, is the measure with regard to a bird?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诪驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪拽驻诇讜 讜诪谞讬讞讜 注诇 驻讬 讛拽谞讛 讗诐 讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 讛拽谞讛 讟专驻讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 谞驻讬讗

Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani said: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Elazar: One severs the perforated tissue, folds and lays it over the opening of the windpipe. If it covers the majority of the windpipe, the animal is a tereifa; and if not, the animal is kosher. Rav Pappa said: And your mnemonic for this halakha should be a sieve. If the tissue is perforated like a sieve, one must place it over the opening of the windpipe as if it were a sieve.

谞驻讞转讛 讻讚诇转 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻讚讬 砖讬讻谞住 讗讬住专 诇专讞讘讜 谞住讚拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讛 讗诇讗 讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜讞讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讛

The Gemara continues: If the windpipe was missing a piece so that its appearance was like a door, where the missing flesh was partially attached as though on a hinge, Rav Na岣an said: If the missing piece is so large that an issar can enter the hole widthwise, i.e., it is wider and taller than an issar, the animal is a tereifa. If the windpipe was cracked along its length, Rav said: Even if only one undamaged segment remains in the windpipe above the crack and one segment below it, the animal is kosher.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讛 讞讜诇讬讗 讜诪讛 讞讜诇讬讗 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讛讜 诇诪注诇讛 讜诪砖讛讜 诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讛

The Sages said this statement before Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: What is this segment and what is that segment that Rav says? Segments are immaterial to the matter. Rather, say: Even if any amount remained intact in the windpipe above the crack, and any amount below, the animal is kosher.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讚注讬谉 讞讘专讬谉 讘讘诇讗讬 诇驻专讜砖讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Sages said this statement in Eretz Yisrael before Rabbi Yo岣nan in the name of Rabbi Yonatan the Babylonian, i.e., that any amount of undamaged tissue above and below the crack renders the animal kosher. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to them, excitedly: Do our Babylonian friends know how to interpret in accordance with this explanation? He was happy that Rabbi Yonatan interpreted it the same way he did.

转谞讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛爪讜讗专 讻讜诇讜 讻砖专 诇砖讞讬讟讛 诪讟讘注转 讛讙讚讜诇讛 注讚 讻谞驻讬 专讬讗讛 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讞转讜谞讛 砖讛讬讗 注诇讬讜谞讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖驻讜砖讟转 爪讜讗专讛 讜专讜注讛 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 转讗谞住

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef taught before Rabbi Yo岣nan: The entire neck is fit for slaughter, from the large uppermost ring of the windpipe downward until the lower edges of the lung. Rava says that the phrase: Lower edges of the lung, is referring to an animal hung by the feet; that is, it actually denotes the upper edges nearest the head. As I say that the area fit for slaughter is all the length of the neck that an animal extends in order to graze, provided that it is not forced to extend its neck further than it wishes. Consequently, the very bottom of the neck is not a location fit for slaughter.

讘注讬 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 讗谞住讛 注爪诪讛 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 谞驻拽 诪讬诇转讗 诪讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗谞住 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 讜砖讞讟 驻住讜诇讛 谞讬拽讘 讛拽谞讛 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛讞讝讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讻专讬讗讛

Rav 岣nina, and some say Rav 岣nanya, raises a dilemma: If the animal forced itself and extended its neck, what is the halakha with regard to the additional area? The Gemara responds: The question shall stand unresolved. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish sat together, and a matter emerged from between them: If the slaughterer forced the animal to extend the simanim by stretching the neck and slaughtered the animal at the lower end of the neck, the slaughter is not valid. And if the windpipe was perforated below the breast, it is considered to be like a perforated lung, which renders the animal a tereifa no matter the size of the perforation. A perforation in the upper windpipe must be the size of an issar to render the animal a tereifa (see 54a).

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 讞讝讛 讝讛 讛专讜讗讛 讗转 讛拽专拽注 诇诪讟讛 注讚 讛爪讜讗专 诇诪注诇讛 注讚 讛讻专住 讞讜转讱 砖转讬 爪诇注讜转 诪砖转讬 讚驻谞讜转 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 讜讝讛讜 讞讝讛 讛谞讬转谉 诇讻讛谞讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: The Sages taught in a baraita: Which is the breast that must be given to the priests as a gift from every peace offering (see Leviticus 7:31)? This is the section that faces the ground, not the ribbed area on the sides. And lengthwise it extends below, when the animal is hung from the legs, until the neck, and above until the rumen. One cuts the two ribs nearest the head from the two sides of the animal from both directions, and this is the breast that is given to the priests.

谞讬拽讘 拽专讜诐 砖诇 诪讜讞 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽专诪讗 注讬诇讗讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗讬谞拽讬讘 转转讗讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 注讚 讚讗讬谞拽讬讘 转转讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讞讬讬转讗 讚诪转谞讞 讘讬讛 诪讜讞讗

搂 The mishna states: If the membrane of the brain was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara cites Rav and Shmuel, who both say: The brain is covered by two membranes, a thick outer membrane adjacent to the skull and a thin inner membrane adjacent to the brain. The animal is a tereifa if the outer membrane was perforated, even if the inner membrane was not perforated. And some say that the animal is not a tereifa unless the inner membrane was perforated as well. Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says: And this is your mnemonic to remember the halakha: The bag in which the brain rests, i.e., the inner membrane.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻谞讙讚讜 讘讘讬爪讬诐 谞讬讻专 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讜讞 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘拽讚讬专讛 谞讚讜谉 讻诪讜讞 讛转讞讬诇 诇诪砖讜讱 谞讚讜谉 讻讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 讜诪讛讬讻谉 诪转讞讬诇 诇讬诪砖讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讻诪讬谉 砖谞讬

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Even though the inner membrane of the brain is very thin and not easily visible, its equivalent in the testicles, which are also enclosed in a thin membrane, is conspicuous, as it has an appearance different from the testicles themselves. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: With regard to the brain, everything inside the skull is considered part of the brain. From the point where it begins to extend like a cord out of the base of the skull, it is considered the spinal cord. And from where does it begin to be extended? Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani said: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself: Protrusions similar to two

驻讜诇讬谉 讬砖 诪讜谞讞讬谉 注诇 驻讬 讛拽讚专讛 诪谉 讛驻讜诇讬谉 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讻诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛驻讜诇讬谉 讜诇讞讜抓 讻诇讞讜抓 讜驻讜诇讬谉 注爪诪谉 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讜诪住转讘专讗 讻诇驻谞讬诐

beans lie at the opening of the skull, where the spinal cord exits. From the beans inward, the nerve tissue is considered like the inside, i.e., the brain. Therefore, if its membrane is perforated, even minimally, the animal is a tereifa. From the beans outward, the nerve tissue is considered like the outside, i.e., the spinal cord. A perforation of the membrane in this area renders the animal a tereifa only if the spinal cord is mostly cut. And with regard to the area of the beans themselves, I do not know what the halakha is; but it stands to reason that it is considered like the inside.

专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讚拽 讘注讜驻讗 讜讗砖讻讞 讻诪讬谉 砖谞讬 驻讜诇讬谉 诪讜谞讞讬谉 注诇 驻讬 讛拽讚专讛

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya inspected a bird and found protrusions similar to two beans lying on the opening of the skull.

谞讬拽讘 讛诇讘 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇讜 讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇 拽讟谉 讗讜 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇 讙讚讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖转谞拽讘 诇讘讬转 讛住诪驻讜谞讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 注讚 砖转谞拽讘 诇住诪驻讜谉 讙讚讜诇

搂 The mishna states: If the heart was perforated to its chamber, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: Is the mishna referring to the small chamber within the heart or to the large chamber? Abaye said to him: What is your dilemma? Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna with regard to the lung: Rabbi Shimon says: It is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the bronchi? And Rabba bar Ta岣ifa says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Rabbi Shimon means that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the large bronchus. If so, it may be presumed that the mishna is referring to the large chamber of the heart as well.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诇讘讬转 讛住诪驻讜谞讜转 拽转谞讬 诇讛讬讻讗 讚砖驻讻讬 住诪驻讜谞讜转 讻讜诇讛讜 讜讛讻讗 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇讜 拽转谞讬 诪讛 诇讬 讞诇诇 讙讚讜诇 诪讛 诇讬 讞诇诇 拽讟谉

The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, the mishna teaches: To the bronchi [simponot], in the plural form, i.e., the one bronchus into which all the bronchi [simponot] empty out. But here, with regard to the heart, it teaches: To the chamber. What is it to me if this is a large chamber and what is it to me if it is a small chamber? The language does not indicate one or the other.

拽谞讛 讛诇讘 专讘 讗诪专 讘诪砖讛讜 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘专讜讘讜

搂 With regard to the aorta, the chief artery exiting the heart, Rav says: Like the heart itself, if it is perforated in any amount the animal is a tereifa. And Shmuel says: The animal is a tereifa only if the aorta is perforated in its majority.

讛讬 谞讬讛讜 拽谞讛 讛诇讘 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讚驻谞讜转 讚驻谞讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讚讜驻谞讬 专讬讗讛

The Gemara asks: Which blood vessel is the aorta? Rabba bar Yitz岣k says that Rav says: This is the artery found in the fat on the sides. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind to say that this is referring to the sides of the animal, i.e., the ribs, which are not adjacent to the heart? Rather, this is referring to the artery covered in fat that exits the heart and passes on the sides of the lung.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 转诇转讗 拽谞讬 讛讜讜 讞讚 驻专讬砖 诇诇讬讘讗 讜讞讚 驻专讬砖 诇专讬讗讛 讜讞讚 驻专讬砖 诇讻讘讚讗 讚专讬讗讛 讻专讬讗讛 讚讻讘讚讗 讻讻讘讚讗 讚诇讬讘讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Ameimar says in the name of Rav Na岣an: There are three ducts adjacent to one another in an animal鈥檚 chest. One separates to the heart, and one separates to the lung, and one separates to the liver. The duct of the lung is treated like the lung, and renders the animal a tereifa if perforated in any amount. The duct of the liver is treated like the liver, and only if it is completely missing does it render the animal a tereifa, in accordance with the mishna. As for the duct of the heart, the aorta, Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the measure of its perforation, as mentioned above.

诪专 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪转谞讬 讗讬驻讻讗 讚专讬讗讛 讻讻讘讚讗 讚讻讘讚讗 讻专讬讗讛 讚诇讬讘讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Mar bar 岣yya teaches the opposite: The duct of the lung is treated like the liver and renders the animal a tereifa only if it is completely missing. The duct of the liver is treated like the lung, and a perforation of any amount renders the animal a tereifa. And with regard to the duct of the heart, Rav and Shmuel disagree.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诇讗 讬讚注 讘讟专驻讜转 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara relates that Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef went and stated the halakha of Rav, that an aorta perforated in any amount renders an animal a tereifa, before Shmuel. Shmuel said to him: If Abba, i.e., Rav, actually said so, he knows nothing at all about tereifot.

谞砖讘专 讛砖讚专讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 砖谞驻住拽 讘专讜讘讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讬拽讘

搂 The mishna states: If the spinal column was broken and its cord was cut, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this the Sages taught: If the spinal cord was cut in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says: It is a tereifa even if the spinal cord was only perforated.

讛讜专讛 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘

The Gemara notes: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov that even a small perforation of the spinal cord renders the animal a tereifa. Rav Huna says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov.

讜讻诪讛 专讜讘讜 专讘 讗诪专 专讜讘 注讜专讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讜讘 诪讜讞讜

The Gemara asks: And how much is considered a majority of the spinal cord to render the animal a tereifa? Rav says: A majority of the circumference of its surrounding membranes, the meninges. And some say a majority of the nerve tissue of the spinal cord itself. In other words, even if the meninges are intact, the animal is a tereifa if a majority of the nerve tissue is cut.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜讘 诪讜讞讜 讻诇 砖讻谉 专讜讘 注讜专讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讜讘 注讜专讜 专讜讘 诪讜讞讜 诪讗讬

The Gemara notes: According to the one who says that the animal is a tereifa if a majority of the nerve tissue is severed, all the more so if a majority of the meninges is cut, since if the meninges, the protective membranes, are damaged, the nerve tissue itself will certainly be damaged soon thereafter. But according to the one who says that a tear in a majority of the meninges renders it a tereifa, what is the halakha in a case where only a majority of the nerve tissue was cut? Perhaps the intact membranes will keep the damage from spreading.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 谞讬讜诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 专讜讘讜 砖讗诪专讜 专讜讘 注讜专讜 诪讜讞 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇讛 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: As Nayyoli says that Rav Huna says: The majority of the spinal cord, which they said renders the animal a tereifa if cut, is the majority of the meninges. But this nerve tissue makes no difference.

专讘 谞转谉 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘讚拽 讘专讜讘 注讜专讜 讜拽讗 讘讚讬拽 讘专讜讘 诪讜讞讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诐 专讜讘 注讜专讜 拽讬讬诐 诪讜讞 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 诪注诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜专讬讚

The Gemara relates that Rav Natan bar Avin was sitting before Rav. Rav Natan first checked the spinal cord to make sure that a majority of the meninges was intact, and then was checking to see that a majority of its nerve tissue was intact. Rav said to him: If a majority of the meninges is intact, this nerve tissue makes no difference.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞转诪专讱 驻住讜诇 谞转诪住诪住 驻住讜诇 讗讬讝讜讛讬 讛诪专讻讛 讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 讛诪住诪住讛 讛诪专讻讛 讻诇 砖谞砖驻讱 讻拽讬转讜谉 诪住诪住讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If the spinal cord was liquefied [nitmareikh], the animal is unfit for consumption. Even if it softened [nitmasmeis], the animal is unfit, i.e., a tereifa. What is liquefaction, and what is softening? Liquefaction is any case in which the nerve tissue becomes liquid, and if the membrane is punctured it can be poured out like water from a jug. Softening is any case in which the nerve tissue cannot stand upright on its own and sags when it is not being supported.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诪讜讚 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讚讜 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜 讘讬 专讘 讗诪专讬 谞转诪住诪住 驻住讜诇 谞转诪讝诪讝 讻砖专 诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讛诪讛 砖谞转诪讝诪讝 诪讜讞讛 讟专驻讛 讛讛讬讗 谞转诪住诪住 讗讬转诪专

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In a case where the spinal cord became unusually heavy such that it cannot stand upright due to its weight, but not due to softening or melting, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: The question shall stand unresolved. In the study hall they say: If the spinal cord softened due to disease, the animal is unfit for consumption. But if some of its tissue softened and was emptied from the spinal cord, the animal remains kosher. The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: An animal whose nerve tissue was emptied [nitmazmez] from the spinal cord is a tereifa. The Gemara responds: That version of the baraita is incorrect. In fact, the word softened [nitmasmes] was stated, not the word emptied.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 诇讜讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讘讬 诪住讜转讗 讞讝讬讬讗 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讟专讬讬讛 诇专讬砖讬讛 讗诪专 谞转诪讝诪讝 诪讜讞讬讛 讚讚讬谉 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讞讬讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜诇讬讚

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that an animal whose nerve tissue has dissolved is kosher? But didn鈥檛 it happen that Levi was sitting in the bathhouse, where he saw a certain man who banged his head severely, whereupon he said: This man鈥檚 nerve tissue has softened and been emptied? Is it not that Levi meant that the man cannot live? If so, the softening and emptying of the nerve tissue should render an animal a tereifa. Abaye said: No, he intended to say that the man cannot reproduce, since head trauma might lead to infertility.

注讚 讛讬讻谉 讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 讘讬谉 讛驻专砖讜转

搂 The Gemara asks: Until where does the spinal cord extend downward, such that if it is cut above that point the animal is a tereifa? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Until the point between the branches of the spinal cord that split off behind the thighs.

专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讜讛 拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬讝诇 诇讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬讞讜讬 诇讬 诪专 讘讬谉 讛驻专砖讜转 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讙讚讬 讜讗讞讜讬 诇讱 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讙讚讬 砖诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诇讬注讛 讟驻讬 讜诇讗 讬讚讬注 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讻讞讜砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘诇讬讟谉 讟驻讬 讜诇讗 讬讚讬注

The Gemara recounts: Rav Dimi bar Yitz岣k wanted to go to Bei 岣zai. He came before Rabbi Yehuda and said to him: Master, show me, where is the area between the branches to which Shmuel referred? Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Go bring me a kid and I will show you. Rav Dimi bar Yitz岣k brought him a choice kid with much fat. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The location is buried very deep in the fat and is not recognizable. He brought Rabbi Yehuda a lean kid. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The bones jut out very far, and the location is not recognizable.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讗 讗讙诪专讱 讙诪专讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 讗讞转 讟专驻讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 讻砖专讛 砖谞讬讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Come, I will teach you a tradition without showing you: This is what Shmuel said: There are three successive points around the same bone behind the pelvis at which branches diverge from the spinal cord. If the spinal cord is cut anywhere until the first gap between these branches, the animal is a tereifa. If it is severed anywhere after the third gap, i.e., after the third branch, the animal is kosher. If it was severed within the second gap, i.e., between these areas, I do not know the halakha.

讘注讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raises a dilemma:

Scroll To Top