Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
What is the minimal remnant required to remain of the liver to keep the animal kosher when it is damaged or partially missing? Although our Mishna implies that any minimal amount is sufficient, another Mishna explicitly requires an olive-bulk. Rav Yosef resolves the contradiction by explaining that each Mishna reflects a different Tannaitic position. The established halakha dictates that a size of an olive-bulk is required, and the Amoraim dispute whether this piece must remain specifically where the gallbladder is located, or where the liver attaches to its lifelines; Rav Papa rules that an olive-bulk is required in both locations.
Regarding perforations of the lung, the Gemara explains that the lung is surrounded by two membranes, an outer membrane and an inner membrane. If only one membrane is punctured, the second membrane that remains intact protects it, and the lung remains kosher. To diagnose a lung that is suspected of leaking air, Rav Yosef suggests one test involving a feather and a second involving water. In the water test, the lung is placed inside a bowl of lukewarm water and inflated. If the water bubbles, this proves that it contains a disqualifying perforation; if no bubbling appears, the sound is attributed only to air trapped between the membranes, and the lung remains kosher.
Rava establishes rules regarding various changes in the appearance and structure of the lung. External peelings, multiple changes in color, or spots of different shades generally do not disqualify the animal. Conversely, if a part of the lung is dry to the extent that it crumbles under a fingernail, the animal is disqualified as a treifa. The Gemara discusses the laws of lung adhesions (sirchot). An adhesion between two lobes that occurs out of their natural anatomical order constitutes an absolute defect that cannot be tested, while an adhesion occurring in their normal order is considered a natural growth and remains kosher.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah who is undergoing surgery today.
Today’s daf is dedicated in memory of one of Hadran’s most dedicated learners, Phyllis Hecht, who inspired so many other women to commit to daily Torah learning. She will be sorely missed.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Micki Kadosh in loving memory of Yehudit bat Boaz Chaim.
Chullin 46
עַד וְעַד בִּכְלָל, אוֹ דִּלְמָא עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל?
When Shmuel says that the animal is certainly a tereifa if the spinal cord is cut anywhere until the first gap, does he mean until and including the first gap, in which case if it is cut within the first gap the animal is a tereifa? Or perhaps he means until and not including the length of the gap itself?
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל, פִּי פָרָשָׁה מַהוּ?
Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If you say that Shmuel means until and not including the length of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the halakha is unknown, then if the spinal cord was cut in the mouth of the first branch, exactly where it branches off, what is the halakha? Is it considered to be within the first gap, in which case the halakha is unknown? Or is it considered before the gap, in which case a tear in the mouth renders the animal a tereifa?
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, עַד וְעַד בִּכְלָל, פָּרָשָׁה עַצְמָהּ מַהוּ?
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If you say that Shmuel means until and including the measure of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the animal is a tereifa, then if the first branch itself, i.e., the first pair of branching nerves, was cut from the spinal cord, what is the halakha?
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפָּרָשָׁה תִּידּוֹן כְּבָשָׂר. מַאי לָאו פָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה? לָא, שְׁלִישִׁית.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: The branch of the spine that was cut shall be considered as normal flesh, not as the spine. Therefore, it does not render the animal a tereifa, unlike the spinal cord itself. What, is it not referring even to the first or second branch? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita is referring only to the third branch. But if either of the first two pairs of nerves that branch off from the spinal cord are cut, the animal is a tereifa.
בְּעוֹפָא, רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: לְמַטָּה מִן הָאֲגַפַּיִם, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם.
With regard to a bird, the Sages disagreed as to the lower boundary of the spinal cord, above which if it is cut, the bird will be rendered a tereifa. Rabbi Yannai says: The spinal cord extends until below the level of the wings. And Reish Lakish says: Until the point between the wings, not below them.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּבֶן פַּזִּי, וְאַיְיתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ עוֹפָא, וּבְדַק עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם, וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה וְקָם וַאֲזַל, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לְמִבְדַּק טְפֵי, אִי מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד נְשִׂיאָה.
Ulla says: I was standing before Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and they brought before him a bird whose spine had been injured, and he checked until the point between the wings. And at that point a messenger of the house of the Nasi sent for him, and he got up and went, and I do not know if he left because one does not need to check beyond that point, or if due to the honor of the Nasi he left without completing the inspection.
נִיטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וְכוּ׳. הָא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּלוּם – כְּשֵׁרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָוֵי כְּזַיִת, וְהָתְנַן: נִיטַּל הַכָּבֵד וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּזַיִת – כְּשֵׁרָה!
§ The mishna states: If the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: It follows, therefore, that if anything remained of it, the animal is kosher, even if the remaining piece does not constitute an olive-bulk. But didn’t we learn in a mishna on 54a: If the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher? One can infer that if less remained, it is a tereifa.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי, כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא זָרֵיק לַהּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי מְטַבֵּיל לַהּ, וְסִימָנָיךְ: ״עֲשִׁירִין מְקַמְּצִין״.
Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, while that mishna later in the chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. This is like that incident in which an amount smaller than an olive-bulk remained of the liver, and Rabbi Ḥiyya discarded it, as he holds that the animal is a tereifa, but Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, dipped it in a seasoning and ate it. And your mnemonic to remember which Sage maintained which opinion is: The rich are stingy. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, was wealthy, but he nevertheless did not allow the meat to go to waste.
הָהוּא פּוּלְמוּסָא דַּאֲתָא לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, עֲרַקוּ רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף, פְּגַע בְּהוּ רַבִּי זֵירָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: עָרוֹקָאֵי, כְּזַיִת שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ, בָּעֵינַן כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה, וּבָעֵינַן כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה.
The Gemara relates that a certain royal army came to Pumbedita, and Rabba and Rav Yosef fled the city, whereupon Rabbi Zeira met them. Rabbi Zeira said to them: Refugees, hear this halakha: The olive-bulk that the Sages said must remain of the liver so the animal will remain kosher must be in the place where the liver connects to the gallbladder. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The olive-bulk must be in the place that the liver lives, i.e., is connected to the other organs, under the right kidney. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, in order to satisfy both opinions, we require an olive-bulk in the place of the gallbladder, and we also require an olive-bulk in the place that it lives. Otherwise, the animal is a tereifa.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִתְלַקֵּט, מַהוּ? כִּרְצוּעָה, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּזַיִת מְרוּדָּד, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If the olive-bulk that remained was not all in one piece, but rather small pieces that could be gathered together to form the requisite measure, what is the halakha? Alternatively, if it was long and thin like a strip, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If the olive-bulk was flat, broad but thinner than an olive, what is the halakha? To all these questions the Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זְרִיקָא מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי: נִדַּלְדְּלָה כָּבֵד וּמְעוֹרָה בְּטַרְפְּשֶׁיהָ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְדּוּל זֶה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה – הָא אִיכָּא, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה – הָא אִיכָּא.
Rabbi Zerika asked Rabbi Ami: If the liver was detached from the other organs in numerous places and was attached only to its membranes [betarpasheha], but the liver itself remained intact, what is the halakha? Rabbi Ami said to him: With regard to the halakha, I do not know what the significance is of this detachment that you mentioned. If you rule according to the one who says that an olive-bulk must remain in the place of the gallbladder, that is the case here. And if you rule according to the one who says that it must be in the place that it lives, that is the case here as well. Consequently, there is no doubt that the animal is kosher.
הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב אַסִּי דְאָמְרִי: קְרָמָא עִילָּאָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: קְרָמָא תַּתָּאָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וְסִימָנָיךְ כִּיתּוּנָא דְּוַרְדָּא דְּמַנְּחָא בֵּיהּ רֵיאָה.
§ The mishna states: The lung that was perforated renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara quotes Rav and Shmuel and Rav Asi, who all say: The mishna is referring specifically to the outer membrane. And some say that they said that the mishna is referring specifically to the inner membrane. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: And your mnemonic should be: The red robe in which the lung rests. The inner membrane is red, while the outer membrane is white, and according to Rav Naḥman, the mishna is referring to the inner membrane.
פְּשִׁיטָא: אִי אִינְּקִיב עִילָּאָה וְלָא אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה – תַּתָּאָה מֵגֵין, כִּדְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאִגְּלִיד
The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the outer membrane is perforated but the inner membrane is not perforated, the inner membrane protects the lung, and the animal is kosher. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: This animal with a lung whose outer membrane was removed,
כַּאֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה וְלָא אִינְּקִיב עִילָּאָה – מַגֵּין אוֹ לָא מַגֵּין?
so that it looks like a red date, is kosher; all the more so is that the case if it was only perforated. But if the inner membrane was perforated but the outer membrane was not perforated, does the outer membrane protect the lung? Or does it not protect it, in which case the animal is a tereifa?
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לָא מַגֵּין, וְחַד אָמַר: מַגֵּין. וְהִלְכְתָא מַגֵּין, כִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף, דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאָוְושָׁא, אִי יָדְעִינַן הֵיכָא אָוְושָׁא – מוֹתְבִינַן עֲלַהּ גַּדְפָּא אוֹ רוּקָּא אוֹ גִילָא, אִי מְבַצְבְּצָא – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי לָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִי לָא יָדְעִינַן הֵיכָא אָוְושָׁא – מַיְיתִינַן מְשִׁיכְלְתָא דְּמַיָּא פָּשׁוֹרֵי וּמוֹתְבִינַן לַהּ בְּגַוַּהּ.
Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to this question. One says: It does not protect the lung; and one says: It protects the lung. And the halakha is that it protects the lung, in accordance with the statement of Rav Yosef. As Rav Yosef says: With regard to this lung that emits a sound when inflated, if we know from where it emits a sound, we set a feather, or saliva, or straw on that point. If the saliva bubbles when the lung is inflated, the animal is a tereifa, since this proves that the lung is perforated through both membranes. And if not, the animal is kosher. And if we do not know from where it emits a sound, we bring a basin of tepid water and set the lung inside it.
בְּחַמִּימֵי לָא – דְּכָוְוצִי, בְּקָרִירֵי לָא – דִּמְטָרְשִׁי, אֶלָּא מוֹתְבִינַן בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי וְנָפְחִינַן לַהּ. אִי מְבַצְבְּצָא – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי לָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. תַּתָּאָה אִינְּקִיב, עִילָּאָה לָא אִינְּקִיב, וְהַאי דְּאָוְושָׁא – זִיקָא דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי הוּא.
One cannot place it in hot water, as it causes the lung to contract, closing the perforation. And one cannot place it in cold water, as it hardens the lung and may cause it to crack. Rather, we set it in tepid water and inflate it. If the water bubbles, the animal is a tereifa. And if not, the animal is kosher, since it is apparent that only the inner membrane is perforated and the outer membrane is not perforated, and the fact that it emits a sound is due to the air moving in the space between the two membranes. Evidently, Rav Yosef holds that if only the inner membrane is perforated, the animal is kosher.
(אֲהִינֵי סוּמָּקָא דִּיבַשׁ גִּילְדֵי, סִימָן).
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic to remember the following statements of Rava with regard to the lung: Dates, red, that dried, scabbed.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאִיגְּלִיד כַּאֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאָמַר רָבָא: רֵיאָה שֶׁהֶאֱדִימָה מִקְצָתָהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה, כּוּלָּהּ – טְרֵפָה.
The Gemara turns to the matter itself mentioned above: Rava says: This animal with a lung whose outer membrane was removed so that it looks like a red date is kosher. And Rava says: With regard to a lung whose outer membrane reddened due to bleeding of the lung, if only part of it turned red, then the animal is kosher, but if all of it turned red, the animal is a tereifa.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: מִקְצָתָהּ מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָדְרָא בָּרְיָא, כּוּלָּהּ נָמֵי הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מֵהֶם דָּם.
Ravina said to Rava: What is the reason that the animal is kosher if only part of the outer membrane reddened? Presumably, it is because the animal eventually recovers from the wound. But even if all of it turned red as well, the animal recovers. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one injures one of the eight impure creeping creatures mentioned in the Torah, one is liable for desecrating Shabbat; but if one injures other repugnant creatures and creeping animals, one is not liable until blood leaves their body as a result of the injury, even if their skin reddens as a result of internal bleeding?
וְכִי תֵּימָא: לִשְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים מְדַמֵּינַן לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: נִצְרַר הַדָּם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָתָהּ נָמֵי! אֶלָּא, לָא שְׁנָא.
And if you would say: We compare the lung to one of the eight creeping creatures, as it is taught in a baraita: If the blood collected under the skin of one of the eight creeping creatures, even if it did not leave the body, one is liable for desecrating Shabbat, because the blood will not be reabsorbed into the body and the wound is permanent; that is difficult: If so, then there is still no reason to distinguish between part of the lung and all of it, and even if only part of the lung turned red, the animal should be rendered a tereifa as well, because the blood will not be reabsorbed into the body. Rather, there is no difference between the reddening of part or all of the lung.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: רֵיאָה שֶׁיָּבְשָׁה מִקְצָתָהּ – טְרֵפָה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כְּדַי שֶׁתִּפָּרֵךְ בְּצִפּוֹרֶן.
And Rava says: If part of the lung was dried, the animal is a tereifa. And how much must the lung be dried so as to render the animal a tereifa? Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava: It must be so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail.
כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם? דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזוֹ הִיא יְבֵשָׁה – שֶׁאִם תִּינָּקֵב וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה טִיפַּת דָּם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר: יְבֵשָׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נִפְרֶכֶת בְּצִפּוֹרֶן.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam? As it is taught in a mishna (Bekhorot 37a): If a kosher firstborn animal has a blemish, such as a dried ear, it may be slaughtered outside the Temple. What is a dried ear? It is any ear that if perforated does not bleed a drop. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: It must be so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, גַּבֵּי אוֹזֶן בְּכוֹר דְּקָא שָׁלֵיט בֵּיהּ זִיקָא – לָא הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא, אֲבָל רֵיאָה דְּלָא קָא שָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא – הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא. וְאָמַר רָבָא: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּקָיְימָא גִּילְדֵּי גִּילְדֵּי, אוּכָּמֵי אוּכָּמֵי, חֶזְוָותָא חֶזְוָותָא – כְּשֵׁרָה.
The Gemara responds: You may even say that the statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. With regard to the ear of a firstborn, which is exposed to the wind, the Rabbis hold that the animal would not recover if it is so dry that it does not bleed. But with regard to the lung, which is not exposed to the wind, the animal would recover unless it is so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail. And Rava says: This lung that stands before us covered in scabs, or covered in black marks, or covered in sores with different appearances, is nevertheless kosher.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אֵין מַקִּיפִין בְּבוּעֵי.
§ Ameimar says in the name of Rava: One may not compare cysts of the lungs. If one finds a perforated cyst on the lung, but does not know whether it was perforated before or after slaughter, he may not perform a test by perforating another cyst in order to compare their appearances.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי אוּנֵּי דִּסְרִיכָן לַהֲדָדֵי, לֵית לְהוּ בְּדִיקָה. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן, אֲבָל כְּסִדְרָן – הַיְינוּ רְבִיתַיְיהוּ.
And Rava says: These two lobes of the lung that adhere to one another by thin strands have no need for inspection, since it is certain that these adhesions arose due to a perforation of the lung, rendering the animal a tereifa. The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only with regard to adhesions that are out of order, where a lobe adhered to a non-adjacent lobe. But with regard to adhesions that are in order, that is their normal manner of growth, and the animal is kosher.
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 on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Minnesota, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Chullin 46
עַד וְעַד בִּכְלָל, אוֹ דִּלְמָא עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל?
When Shmuel says that the animal is certainly a tereifa if the spinal cord is cut anywhere until the first gap, does he mean until and including the first gap, in which case if it is cut within the first gap the animal is a tereifa? Or perhaps he means until and not including the length of the gap itself?
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל, פִּי פָרָשָׁה מַהוּ?
Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If you say that Shmuel means until and not including the length of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the halakha is unknown, then if the spinal cord was cut in the mouth of the first branch, exactly where it branches off, what is the halakha? Is it considered to be within the first gap, in which case the halakha is unknown? Or is it considered before the gap, in which case a tear in the mouth renders the animal a tereifa?
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, עַד וְעַד בִּכְלָל, פָּרָשָׁה עַצְמָהּ מַהוּ?
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If you say that Shmuel means until and including the measure of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the animal is a tereifa, then if the first branch itself, i.e., the first pair of branching nerves, was cut from the spinal cord, what is the halakha?
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפָּרָשָׁה תִּידּוֹן כְּבָשָׂר. מַאי לָאו פָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה? לָא, שְׁלִישִׁית.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: The branch of the spine that was cut shall be considered as normal flesh, not as the spine. Therefore, it does not render the animal a tereifa, unlike the spinal cord itself. What, is it not referring even to the first or second branch? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita is referring only to the third branch. But if either of the first two pairs of nerves that branch off from the spinal cord are cut, the animal is a tereifa.
בְּעוֹפָא, רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: לְמַטָּה מִן הָאֲגַפַּיִם, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם.
With regard to a bird, the Sages disagreed as to the lower boundary of the spinal cord, above which if it is cut, the bird will be rendered a tereifa. Rabbi Yannai says: The spinal cord extends until below the level of the wings. And Reish Lakish says: Until the point between the wings, not below them.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּבֶן פַּזִּי, וְאַיְיתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ עוֹפָא, וּבְדַק עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם, וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה וְקָם וַאֲזַל, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לְמִבְדַּק טְפֵי, אִי מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד נְשִׂיאָה.
Ulla says: I was standing before Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and they brought before him a bird whose spine had been injured, and he checked until the point between the wings. And at that point a messenger of the house of the Nasi sent for him, and he got up and went, and I do not know if he left because one does not need to check beyond that point, or if due to the honor of the Nasi he left without completing the inspection.
נִיטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וְכוּ׳. הָא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּלוּם – כְּשֵׁרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָוֵי כְּזַיִת, וְהָתְנַן: נִיטַּל הַכָּבֵד וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּזַיִת – כְּשֵׁרָה!
§ The mishna states: If the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: It follows, therefore, that if anything remained of it, the animal is kosher, even if the remaining piece does not constitute an olive-bulk. But didn’t we learn in a mishna on 54a: If the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher? One can infer that if less remained, it is a tereifa.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי, כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא זָרֵיק לַהּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי מְטַבֵּיל לַהּ, וְסִימָנָיךְ: ״עֲשִׁירִין מְקַמְּצִין״.
Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, while that mishna later in the chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. This is like that incident in which an amount smaller than an olive-bulk remained of the liver, and Rabbi Ḥiyya discarded it, as he holds that the animal is a tereifa, but Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, dipped it in a seasoning and ate it. And your mnemonic to remember which Sage maintained which opinion is: The rich are stingy. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, was wealthy, but he nevertheless did not allow the meat to go to waste.
הָהוּא פּוּלְמוּסָא דַּאֲתָא לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, עֲרַקוּ רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף, פְּגַע בְּהוּ רַבִּי זֵירָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: עָרוֹקָאֵי, כְּזַיִת שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ, בָּעֵינַן כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה, וּבָעֵינַן כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה.
The Gemara relates that a certain royal army came to Pumbedita, and Rabba and Rav Yosef fled the city, whereupon Rabbi Zeira met them. Rabbi Zeira said to them: Refugees, hear this halakha: The olive-bulk that the Sages said must remain of the liver so the animal will remain kosher must be in the place where the liver connects to the gallbladder. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The olive-bulk must be in the place that the liver lives, i.e., is connected to the other organs, under the right kidney. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, in order to satisfy both opinions, we require an olive-bulk in the place of the gallbladder, and we also require an olive-bulk in the place that it lives. Otherwise, the animal is a tereifa.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִתְלַקֵּט, מַהוּ? כִּרְצוּעָה, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּזַיִת מְרוּדָּד, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If the olive-bulk that remained was not all in one piece, but rather small pieces that could be gathered together to form the requisite measure, what is the halakha? Alternatively, if it was long and thin like a strip, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If the olive-bulk was flat, broad but thinner than an olive, what is the halakha? To all these questions the Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זְרִיקָא מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי: נִדַּלְדְּלָה כָּבֵד וּמְעוֹרָה בְּטַרְפְּשֶׁיהָ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְדּוּל זֶה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה – הָא אִיכָּא, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה – הָא אִיכָּא.
Rabbi Zerika asked Rabbi Ami: If the liver was detached from the other organs in numerous places and was attached only to its membranes [betarpasheha], but the liver itself remained intact, what is the halakha? Rabbi Ami said to him: With regard to the halakha, I do not know what the significance is of this detachment that you mentioned. If you rule according to the one who says that an olive-bulk must remain in the place of the gallbladder, that is the case here. And if you rule according to the one who says that it must be in the place that it lives, that is the case here as well. Consequently, there is no doubt that the animal is kosher.
הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב אַסִּי דְאָמְרִי: קְרָמָא עִילָּאָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: קְרָמָא תַּתָּאָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וְסִימָנָיךְ כִּיתּוּנָא דְּוַרְדָּא דְּמַנְּחָא בֵּיהּ רֵיאָה.
§ The mishna states: The lung that was perforated renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara quotes Rav and Shmuel and Rav Asi, who all say: The mishna is referring specifically to the outer membrane. And some say that they said that the mishna is referring specifically to the inner membrane. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: And your mnemonic should be: The red robe in which the lung rests. The inner membrane is red, while the outer membrane is white, and according to Rav Naḥman, the mishna is referring to the inner membrane.
פְּשִׁיטָא: אִי אִינְּקִיב עִילָּאָה וְלָא אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה – תַּתָּאָה מֵגֵין, כִּדְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאִגְּלִיד
The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the outer membrane is perforated but the inner membrane is not perforated, the inner membrane protects the lung, and the animal is kosher. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: This animal with a lung whose outer membrane was removed,
כַּאֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה וְלָא אִינְּקִיב עִילָּאָה – מַגֵּין אוֹ לָא מַגֵּין?
so that it looks like a red date, is kosher; all the more so is that the case if it was only perforated. But if the inner membrane was perforated but the outer membrane was not perforated, does the outer membrane protect the lung? Or does it not protect it, in which case the animal is a tereifa?
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לָא מַגֵּין, וְחַד אָמַר: מַגֵּין. וְהִלְכְתָא מַגֵּין, כִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף, דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאָוְושָׁא, אִי יָדְעִינַן הֵיכָא אָוְושָׁא – מוֹתְבִינַן עֲלַהּ גַּדְפָּא אוֹ רוּקָּא אוֹ גִילָא, אִי מְבַצְבְּצָא – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי לָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִי לָא יָדְעִינַן הֵיכָא אָוְושָׁא – מַיְיתִינַן מְשִׁיכְלְתָא דְּמַיָּא פָּשׁוֹרֵי וּמוֹתְבִינַן לַהּ בְּגַוַּהּ.
Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to this question. One says: It does not protect the lung; and one says: It protects the lung. And the halakha is that it protects the lung, in accordance with the statement of Rav Yosef. As Rav Yosef says: With regard to this lung that emits a sound when inflated, if we know from where it emits a sound, we set a feather, or saliva, or straw on that point. If the saliva bubbles when the lung is inflated, the animal is a tereifa, since this proves that the lung is perforated through both membranes. And if not, the animal is kosher. And if we do not know from where it emits a sound, we bring a basin of tepid water and set the lung inside it.
בְּחַמִּימֵי לָא – דְּכָוְוצִי, בְּקָרִירֵי לָא – דִּמְטָרְשִׁי, אֶלָּא מוֹתְבִינַן בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי וְנָפְחִינַן לַהּ. אִי מְבַצְבְּצָא – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי לָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. תַּתָּאָה אִינְּקִיב, עִילָּאָה לָא אִינְּקִיב, וְהַאי דְּאָוְושָׁא – זִיקָא דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי הוּא.
One cannot place it in hot water, as it causes the lung to contract, closing the perforation. And one cannot place it in cold water, as it hardens the lung and may cause it to crack. Rather, we set it in tepid water and inflate it. If the water bubbles, the animal is a tereifa. And if not, the animal is kosher, since it is apparent that only the inner membrane is perforated and the outer membrane is not perforated, and the fact that it emits a sound is due to the air moving in the space between the two membranes. Evidently, Rav Yosef holds that if only the inner membrane is perforated, the animal is kosher.
(אֲהִינֵי סוּמָּקָא דִּיבַשׁ גִּילְדֵי, סִימָן).
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic to remember the following statements of Rava with regard to the lung: Dates, red, that dried, scabbed.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאִיגְּלִיד כַּאֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאָמַר רָבָא: רֵיאָה שֶׁהֶאֱדִימָה מִקְצָתָהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה, כּוּלָּהּ – טְרֵפָה.
The Gemara turns to the matter itself mentioned above: Rava says: This animal with a lung whose outer membrane was removed so that it looks like a red date is kosher. And Rava says: With regard to a lung whose outer membrane reddened due to bleeding of the lung, if only part of it turned red, then the animal is kosher, but if all of it turned red, the animal is a tereifa.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: מִקְצָתָהּ מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָדְרָא בָּרְיָא, כּוּלָּהּ נָמֵי הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מֵהֶם דָּם.
Ravina said to Rava: What is the reason that the animal is kosher if only part of the outer membrane reddened? Presumably, it is because the animal eventually recovers from the wound. But even if all of it turned red as well, the animal recovers. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one injures one of the eight impure creeping creatures mentioned in the Torah, one is liable for desecrating Shabbat; but if one injures other repugnant creatures and creeping animals, one is not liable until blood leaves their body as a result of the injury, even if their skin reddens as a result of internal bleeding?
וְכִי תֵּימָא: לִשְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים מְדַמֵּינַן לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: נִצְרַר הַדָּם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָתָהּ נָמֵי! אֶלָּא, לָא שְׁנָא.
And if you would say: We compare the lung to one of the eight creeping creatures, as it is taught in a baraita: If the blood collected under the skin of one of the eight creeping creatures, even if it did not leave the body, one is liable for desecrating Shabbat, because the blood will not be reabsorbed into the body and the wound is permanent; that is difficult: If so, then there is still no reason to distinguish between part of the lung and all of it, and even if only part of the lung turned red, the animal should be rendered a tereifa as well, because the blood will not be reabsorbed into the body. Rather, there is no difference between the reddening of part or all of the lung.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: רֵיאָה שֶׁיָּבְשָׁה מִקְצָתָהּ – טְרֵפָה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כְּדַי שֶׁתִּפָּרֵךְ בְּצִפּוֹרֶן.
And Rava says: If part of the lung was dried, the animal is a tereifa. And how much must the lung be dried so as to render the animal a tereifa? Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava: It must be so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail.
כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם? דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזוֹ הִיא יְבֵשָׁה – שֶׁאִם תִּינָּקֵב וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה טִיפַּת דָּם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר: יְבֵשָׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נִפְרֶכֶת בְּצִפּוֹרֶן.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam? As it is taught in a mishna (Bekhorot 37a): If a kosher firstborn animal has a blemish, such as a dried ear, it may be slaughtered outside the Temple. What is a dried ear? It is any ear that if perforated does not bleed a drop. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: It must be so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, גַּבֵּי אוֹזֶן בְּכוֹר דְּקָא שָׁלֵיט בֵּיהּ זִיקָא – לָא הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא, אֲבָל רֵיאָה דְּלָא קָא שָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא – הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא. וְאָמַר רָבָא: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּקָיְימָא גִּילְדֵּי גִּילְדֵּי, אוּכָּמֵי אוּכָּמֵי, חֶזְוָותָא חֶזְוָותָא – כְּשֵׁרָה.
The Gemara responds: You may even say that the statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. With regard to the ear of a firstborn, which is exposed to the wind, the Rabbis hold that the animal would not recover if it is so dry that it does not bleed. But with regard to the lung, which is not exposed to the wind, the animal would recover unless it is so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail. And Rava says: This lung that stands before us covered in scabs, or covered in black marks, or covered in sores with different appearances, is nevertheless kosher.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אֵין מַקִּיפִין בְּבוּעֵי.
§ Ameimar says in the name of Rava: One may not compare cysts of the lungs. If one finds a perforated cyst on the lung, but does not know whether it was perforated before or after slaughter, he may not perform a test by perforating another cyst in order to compare their appearances.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי אוּנֵּי דִּסְרִיכָן לַהֲדָדֵי, לֵית לְהוּ בְּדִיקָה. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן, אֲבָל כְּסִדְרָן – הַיְינוּ רְבִיתַיְיהוּ.
And Rava says: These two lobes of the lung that adhere to one another by thin strands have no need for inspection, since it is certain that these adhesions arose due to a perforation of the lung, rendering the animal a tereifa. The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only with regard to adhesions that are out of order, where a lobe adhered to a non-adjacent lobe. But with regard to adhesions that are in order, that is their normal manner of growth, and the animal is kosher.
