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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 16, 2019 | ื™ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 50

In which case is there a debate between Israel and the Diaspora regarding the forbidden fats? Various piskeiย halacha or debates regarding who held what and what we do practically regarding different cases ofย treifotย and one about aveilut are brought. If there is a hole, how can one determine if it happenedย before or after shechita? What is the inner stomach that is mentioned in the mishna?


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

ื•ืœื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืžื™ืกืชื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืกืชื™ื

and to us, the residents of Babylonia, not only is it forbidden but it also does not seal a perforation? It cannot be that this fat is forbidden by Torah law if they permit it for consumption. Even though we are stringent with regard to its consumption, we may still maintain that it effectively seals a perforation.

ื“ืืงืฉืชื ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืกื™ืจ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืื™ื™ืชืจื

The Gemara explains: The abomasum is shaped like a bow. The side facing outward is curved like the bow itself, while the side facing inward is flat and straight like the bowstring. With regard to the fat that is on the bow, everyone agrees, even the residents of Eretz Yisrael, that it is forbidden for consumption. This fat, then, is the แธฅimtza, which does not seal a perforation according to Rav Naแธฅman. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it for consumption, while those of Babylonia prohibit it. According to Rav Naแธฅman, the residents of Babylonia should concede that it is nevertheless an effective seal. This, then, is the bar แธฅimtza.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื“ืื™ื™ืชืจื ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืงืฉืชื

There are those who say that with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring, everyone agrees that it is permitted. This, then, is the bar แธฅimtza. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bow. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it, but the residents of Babylonia prohibit it. This, then, is the แธฅimtza.

ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืžืงืžืฆื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื–ืงืŸ ืื—ื“ ืžืงืžืฆื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืงืื™ืžื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืงืžืฆื• ื•ื”ื‘ื• ืœื™ื” ื•ืื›ืœ

The Gemara adds: When it was stated that only the residents of Eretz Yisrael permit the fat on the bowstring for consumption, this means that they would eat it in a manner like that which Rav Avya says that Rabbi Ami says: One takes a handful of the fat that lies above the fat on the bowstring, since this is the fat prohibited by the verse: โ€œAnd all the fat that is upon the innardsโ€ (Leviticus 3:3), and the rest is permitted for consumption. And so says Rabbi Yannai, also a resident of Eretz Yisrael, in the name of a certain elder: One takes a handful. Rav Avya said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami. The people there took a handful of the fat on the bowstring and gave him the remaining fat, and he ate from it.

ืฉืžืขื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื”ื•ื” ืงืื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืงืžื•ืฅ ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ื“ืื™ื›ื•ืœ ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืงืžื—ืกื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืœืื” ืืช ื’ื•ื ืฉื“ื™

The Gemara relates: The attendant of Rabbi แธคanina was standing before Rabbi แธคanina, a resident of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi แธคanina said to him: Take off a handful from that fat on the bowstring and give me the rest so that I will eat from it. Rabbi แธคanina saw that the attendant was hesitating, so he said to him: You are a Babylonian and usually consider all of this fat forbidden. If so, cut off all the fat and throw it away.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ื™ ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื• ื•ืœื™ื—ื” ืกื•ืชืžืชืŸ ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืื™ ืœื™ื—ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืฉื™ืจืงื ื“ืžืขื™ื™ื ื“ื ืคื™ืง ืื’ื‘ ื“ื•ื—ืงื

ยง The mishna states that if the small intestines are perforated, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the intestines were perforated but mucus seals the perforated intestines, the animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is this mucus? Rav Kahana said: It is the mucus of the intestines that comes out under pressure, when one scrapes with a knife.

ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ื˜ืจืคื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืื‘ืœ

The Gemara relates: The colleagues of Rabbi Abba learned a tradition from Rabbi Abba. And who are they? The phrase: Colleagues of Rabbi Abba, is referring to Rabbi Zeira. And some say the colleagues of Rabbi Zeira learned it from Rabbi Zeira. And who are they? Rabbi Abba. This is the tradition: Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba, said that this is what Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the halakhot of mourning.

ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ื˜ืจืคื” ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืื‘ืœ ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืงืจื•ื‘ ืžื•ื ื” ืขืžื”ืŸ

The Gemara elaborates: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa; this is the halakha that we stated above, that mucus forms an effective seal in the intestines. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; what is this halakha? As we learned in a baraita: If one learns of the death of an immediate relative after other relatives have already begun their period of mourning, the halakha is as follows: During the entire first three days of mourning, if a mourner comes to the house of mourning from a nearby place, he counts his days of mourning with the other mourners and completes his mourning with them.

ืžืžืงื•ื ืจื—ื•ืง ืžื•ื ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืื™ืœืš ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืงืจื•ื‘ ืžื•ื ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ ื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืงืจื•ื‘ ืžื•ื ื” ืขืžื”ืŸ

The baraita continues: If he came from a distant place, he counts seven days on his own from the time that he was informed of the death. From this point forward, i.e., after the first three days, even if he comes from a nearby place, he counts seven days on his own. Rabbi Shimon says: Even on the seventh day, if he comes from a nearby place, he counts and completes his mourning with the other mourners.

ืืžืจ ืžืืŸ ื“ื”ื•ื ืื™ื–ื›ื™ ื•ืื™ืกืง ื•ืื’ืžืจื” ืœืฉืžืขืชื ืžืคื•ืžื™ื” ื“ืžืจื” ื›ื™ ืกืœื™ืง ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ื˜ืจืคื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ืืžืจื™

Someone whose name was not given said: May I merit to go up to Eretz Yisrael and learn this halakha from the mouth of its Master. When he went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba, and said to him: Is it true that the Master said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa? Rabbi Abba said to him: This is not true. Rather, I said just the opposite, that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and even if mucus seals the perforation of the intestine, the animal is a tereifa.

ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืื‘ืœ ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื“ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื”

The anonymous man asked Rabbi Abba again: What about the other ruling reported in your name, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; is this accurate? Rabbi Abba said to him: There are conflicting opinions with regard to this matter, as it was stated that Rav แธคisda says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and so says Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: That is the halakha. But Rav Naแธฅman says: That is not the halakha.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ื˜ืจืคื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืื‘ืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื™ืงืœ ื‘ืื‘ืœ

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, who says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the more lenient authority in matters relating to mourning.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืงื™ืคื™ื ื‘ื‘ื ื™ ืžืขื™ื™ื

ยง Rav Shimi bar แธคiyya says: One may compare perforations in the intestines. If one is unsure whether a perforation occurred before or after slaughter, one may make an additional perforation and compare the two. If their appearance is similar, one may conclude that the perforation occurred after slaughter, and the animal is kosher.

ื”ื ื”ื• ื‘ื ื™ ืžืขื™ื™ื ื“ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืงืคื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืœื ืื™ื“ืžื• ืืชื ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืžืฉืžืฉ ื‘ื”ื• ื•ืื™ื“ืžื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื ื ืœืš ื”ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืžื” ื™ื“ื™ ืžืžืฉืžืฉื• ื‘ื”ื ื™ ืžืงืžื™ ื“ืœื™ืชื™ ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื›ื™ื ื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื˜ืจืคื•ืช ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ

The Gemara relates: There were certain perforated intestines that came before Rava. Rava made other perforations and compared them, but they were not similar. Rav Mesharshiyya, his son, came and rubbed the new perforations, and they were similar. Rav Mesharshiyya therefore deemed the animal kosher. Rava said to him: From where did you know to do this? Rav Mesharshiyya said to him: I reasoned: How many hands rubbed these earlier perforations before they came before the Master? Therefore, I thought that if I handled the new ones, perhaps they would look similar. Rava said to him: My son is as wise in matters of tereifot as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืงื™ืคื™ื ื‘ืจื™ืื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืขืจื•ื’ื” ืื‘ืœ ืžืขืจื•ื’ื” ืœืขืจื•ื’ื” ืœื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืขืจื•ื’ื” ืœืขืจื•ื’ื” ืžื“ืงื” ืœื“ืงื” ื•ืžื’ืกื” ืœื’ืกื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžื’ืกื” ืœื“ืงื” ื•ืœื ืžื“ืงื” ืœื’ืกื”

Similarly, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: One may compare perforations in the lung to determine whether they occurred after slaughter. Rava said: We said this only when the two perforations are on the same side of the lungs. But one may not compare perforations from one side to the other side. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may compare even from one side to the other side, and even from a small animal to another small animal, or from a large animal to another large animal, but not from a large animal to a small animal, and not from a small animal to a large animal.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืงื™ืคื™ืŸ ื‘ืงื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืื•ืชื” ื—ื•ืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืžื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ื ื•ืžื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ื•ืœื ืžื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ื

Similarly, Abaye and Rava both say: One may compare severed or perforated areas in the windpipe. Rav Pappa said: We said this only when the two areas are in the same segment of the windpipe. But one may not compare from one segment to another segment. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may even compare from one segment to another segment, and from one subsegment, i.e., a thin segment between the main segments, to another subsegment, but not from a segment to a subsegment, and not from a subsegment to a segment.

ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ื—ืœื—ื•ืœืช ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื™ื ืžืขืžื™ื“ื•ืช ืื•ืชื” ื•ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืงื•ื ื”ื“ื‘ืง ื‘ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื”ื“ื‘ืง ื‘ืžืฉื”ื•

ยง Zeโ€™eiri says: If the rectum was perforated, the animal is kosher, since the hips hold it up and seal the perforation. And to how much of the rectum does this apply? Rabbi Ilai says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: If the rectum was perforated in the place where it is attached to the hips, even if it was perforated in its majority, the animal is kosher. If the perforation was not in the place where it is attached to the hips, the animal is a tereifa if it was perforated in any amount.

ืืžืจื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœืื• ืžื™ ืืžื™ื ื ืœื›ื• ืœื ืชืชืœื• ื‘ื™ื”

The Sages said this halakha before Rava in the name of Rav Naแธฅman. Rava said to them: Have I not told you not to hang on Rav Naแธฅman

ื‘ื•ืงื™ ืกืจื™ืงื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžืงื•ื ื”ื“ื‘ืง ืืคื™ืœื• ื ื™ื˜ืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ื›ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ื›ื“ื™ ืชืคื™ืกื” ื•ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ืžืœื ื‘ื˜ื“ื ื‘ืชื•ืจื

empty bottles, i.e., not to falsely attribute statements to him? So said Rav Naแธฅman: With regard to the place that the rectum is attached to the hips, even if all of it was removed, the animal is kosher. And this is the halakha only where sufficient space remains of it for a hand to grip. The Gemara asks: And how much is considered sufficient to grip? Abaye said: The width of a finger. This measure is sufficient even in the case of a large bull.

ื”ื›ืจืก ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืขื™ื“ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืœื ืจื™ืฉ ื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ื“ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื™ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื›ืจืก ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ ืกื ื™ื ื“ื™ื‘ื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืกื ื™ื ื“ื™ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืืžืจ ืื™ืกืชื•ืžื›ื ื“ื›ืจืกื

ยง The mishna states that if the internal rumen was perforated or most of the external rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Natan bar Sheila, chief butcher of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the name of Rabbi Natan: Which is the internal rumen? It is the cecum. And so said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa: It is the cecum. Rabbi Yishmael said: It is the opening [istumka] of the rumen.

ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืงื•ื ืฆืจ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื›ืจืก ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคืœ ื›ืจืกื ื‘ื‘ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืขื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ืฆืจ ื•ืœืžื˜ื”

Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: There is a narrow place in the rumen, and this is the internal rumen; all the rest is the external rumen. But I do not know which area is this narrow place. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: The rumen has fallen in a pit, i.e., since it is unknown which area is considered the narrow place, a perforation in any part of the rumen renders the animal a tereifa. Rav Aแธฅa bar Rav Ava says that Rav Asi says: The inner rumen extends from the narrow place, where the rumen begins to narrow as it approaches the gullet, and downward toward the gullet when the animal is suspended by its legs.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืžื™ืœืช ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื’ื ื™ื‘ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื˜ืคื— ื‘ื•ื•ืฉื˜ ืกืžื•ืš ืœื›ืจืก ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื›ืจืก ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ืช

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Naแธฅmani says in the name of Shmuel: The internal rumen is the place in the rumen that has no wool, i.e., downy projections on the inside of the rumen. Rabbi Avina says in the name of Geneiva, who said in the name of Rav: The handbreadth in the gullet adjacent to the rumen, this is the internal rumen.

ืืžืจื™ ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืจืก ื›ื•ืœื• ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื›ืจืก ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ืช ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื›ืจืก ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื›ืจืก ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืžืคืจืขืชื” ืžืื™ ืžืคืจืขืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืคืจืขื™ ื˜ื‘ื—ื™

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina: The entire rumen is the internal rumen. And if so, which is the external rumen? It is the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen on the underside of the animal. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: The internal rumen is the mafrata. The Gemara asks: What is the mafrata? Rav Avya said: It is the place that the butcher exposes when he opens up the animal, i.e., the underside of the stomach.

ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื›ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืืžื™ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ืฉืžืขืชืชื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืฉื™ื™ื›ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื

The Gemara recounts: In Nehardeโ€™a, they practiced in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar, one of the Sages of Nehardeโ€™a: What about all these other statements, that the internal rumen is another part of the rumen? Ameimar said to him: They are all included in the definition of the rumen according to Rabba bar Rav Huna. The cecum, the opening of the stomach, and the place with no wool all face the underside of the stomach, i.e., the mafrata.

ื•ื“ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ื‘ืจ ืคื™ืจืฉื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืขื•ื ื•ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ื ื•ื“ื‘ื ื™ ืžืขืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™

Rav Ashi replied: And what about the opinion that Rav Asi says in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, that the internal rumen is an unknown narrow area? Shouldnโ€™t the entire rumen be treated as the internal rumen? Ameimar said to him: Rav Aแธฅa bar Ava already explained that it is the area extending from the narrow place until the gullet. This area is also included in the mafrata. Rav Ashi asked further: And what of the opinion of Rabbi Avina, that the internal rumen is the handbreadth near the gullet, and of the residents of the West, Eretz Yisrael, that it is the entire rumen? Ameimar said to him: These opinions certainly disagree with that of Rabba bar Rav Huna, but we do not follow them.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืคืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœื ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžืžืฉ ื•ืœื ืงื˜ื ื” ืงื˜ื ื” ืžืžืฉ ืืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื ืงืจืข ื‘ื” ื˜ืคื— ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืจื•ื‘ื ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื‘ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื˜ืคื— ืจื•ื‘ื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืคื— ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื‘ืงื˜ื ื” ื‘ืจื•ื‘ื

ยง The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a tear in the external rumen, for a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa, while for a small animal, it is a tereifa only if most of it was torn. Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet says that Rabbi Elazar says: The word: Large, is not referring literally to a large animal, and the word: Small, is not referring literally to a small animal. Rather, concerning any animal large enough that its external rumen can be torn one handbreadth and this does not constitute most of it, this is what we learned: For a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa. And concerning any animal small enough that most of its external rumen can be torn and this does not constitute one handbreadth, this is what we learned: For a small animal, it is a tereifa only if most of it was torn. In other words, any external rumen torn either one handbreadth or in its majority renders the animal a tereifa.

ืจื•ื‘ื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืคื— ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ื˜ืคื— ื‘ืžืฉื”ื• ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืขื“ ื“ืžื™ืงืจืข ื‘ื” ื˜ืคื— ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืจืคื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: If most of the external rumen is torn but it does not constitute a handbreadth, isnโ€™t it obvious that the animal is rendered a tereifa? There is a principle that the majority of an entity is considered like all of it. The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach this for a case where the tear would constitute a handbreadth with any amount more than a majority, i.e., the external rumen is slightly smaller than two handbreadths. Lest you say that in such a case, the animal is not a tereifa until a handbreadth of it is torn, this halakha teaches us that this is not so. Rather, if the majority of the rumen is torn, the animal is a tereifa, even if this constitutes less than a handbreadth.

ืืžืจ ื’ื ื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ื ืงื“ืจื” ื›ืกืœืข ื˜ืจืคื” ืฉืื ืชืžืชื— ืชืขืžื•ื“ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ืคื— ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืคืจืฉื ืœื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื’ื ื™ื‘ื ืืžื‘ืจื ื“ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื›ืกืœืข ื›ืฉืจื” ื™ืชืจ ืžื›ืกืœืข ื˜ืจืคื” ื•ื›ืžื” ื™ืชืจ ืžื›ืกืœืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืขื™ื™ืœืŸ ืชืœืช ืงืฉื™ื™ืชื ื‘ืฆื™ืคื ื‘ื“ื•ื—ืงื ื‘ืœื ืฆื™ืคื ื‘ืจื•ื•ื—ื

Geneiva says that Rabbi Asi says: If a round hole was bored through the external rumen as large as a sela coin, the animal is a tereifa, since if a hole of such size will be stretched, it will reach the length of a handbreadth. Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba said: This matter was explained to me personally by Geneiva himself, when we were on the ferry of Nehardeโ€™a: If the hole is exactly as large as a sela, the animal is kosher. If the size of the hole is greater than a sela, it is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: And how much is considered greater than a sela? Rav Yosef said: For example, if three date pits covered in remains of the date can fit through the hole with difficulty, or if, without being covered in any remains, they can fit comfortably, this is considered a hole larger than a sela.

ื”ืžืกืก ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื—ื˜ ืฉื ืžืฆืืช ื‘ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ืžืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืฉื ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ื ื˜ืจืคื” ื ืžืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืงื•ืจื˜ ื“ื

ยง The mishna states: An animal is a tereifa if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, i.e., to the abdominal cavity. With regard to this, the Sages taught: In the case of a needle that is found in the thickness of the reticulum, if it pierced the wall from only one side, the animal is kosher. If it pierced the wall from both sides, i.e., the needle completely pierced the wall of the stomach, it is a tereifa. But even if it protrudes from both sides, it is not always a tereifa, and it may be inspected further: If a drop of congealed blood is found on top of the needle,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 50

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 50

ื•ืœื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืžื™ืกืชื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืกืชื™ื

and to us, the residents of Babylonia, not only is it forbidden but it also does not seal a perforation? It cannot be that this fat is forbidden by Torah law if they permit it for consumption. Even though we are stringent with regard to its consumption, we may still maintain that it effectively seals a perforation.

ื“ืืงืฉืชื ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืกื™ืจ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืื™ื™ืชืจื

The Gemara explains: The abomasum is shaped like a bow. The side facing outward is curved like the bow itself, while the side facing inward is flat and straight like the bowstring. With regard to the fat that is on the bow, everyone agrees, even the residents of Eretz Yisrael, that it is forbidden for consumption. This fat, then, is the แธฅimtza, which does not seal a perforation according to Rav Naแธฅman. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it for consumption, while those of Babylonia prohibit it. According to Rav Naแธฅman, the residents of Babylonia should concede that it is nevertheless an effective seal. This, then, is the bar แธฅimtza.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื“ืื™ื™ืชืจื ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืงืฉืชื

There are those who say that with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring, everyone agrees that it is permitted. This, then, is the bar แธฅimtza. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bow. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it, but the residents of Babylonia prohibit it. This, then, is the แธฅimtza.

ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืžืงืžืฆื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื–ืงืŸ ืื—ื“ ืžืงืžืฆื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ื”ื•ื” ืงืื™ืžื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืงืžืฆื• ื•ื”ื‘ื• ืœื™ื” ื•ืื›ืœ

The Gemara adds: When it was stated that only the residents of Eretz Yisrael permit the fat on the bowstring for consumption, this means that they would eat it in a manner like that which Rav Avya says that Rabbi Ami says: One takes a handful of the fat that lies above the fat on the bowstring, since this is the fat prohibited by the verse: โ€œAnd all the fat that is upon the innardsโ€ (Leviticus 3:3), and the rest is permitted for consumption. And so says Rabbi Yannai, also a resident of Eretz Yisrael, in the name of a certain elder: One takes a handful. Rav Avya said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami. The people there took a handful of the fat on the bowstring and gave him the remaining fat, and he ate from it.

ืฉืžืขื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื”ื•ื” ืงืื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืงืžื•ืฅ ื”ื‘ ืœื™ ื“ืื™ื›ื•ืœ ื—ื–ื™ื™ื” ื“ื”ื•ื™ ืงืžื—ืกื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ืœืื” ืืช ื’ื•ื ืฉื“ื™

The Gemara relates: The attendant of Rabbi แธคanina was standing before Rabbi แธคanina, a resident of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi แธคanina said to him: Take off a handful from that fat on the bowstring and give me the rest so that I will eat from it. Rabbi แธคanina saw that the attendant was hesitating, so he said to him: You are a Babylonian and usually consider all of this fat forbidden. If so, cut off all the fat and throw it away.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ื™ ืžืขื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื• ื•ืœื™ื—ื” ืกื•ืชืžืชืŸ ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืื™ ืœื™ื—ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืฉื™ืจืงื ื“ืžืขื™ื™ื ื“ื ืคื™ืง ืื’ื‘ ื“ื•ื—ืงื

ยง The mishna states that if the small intestines are perforated, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the intestines were perforated but mucus seals the perforated intestines, the animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is this mucus? Rav Kahana said: It is the mucus of the intestines that comes out under pressure, when one scrapes with a knife.

ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื—ื‘ืจื™ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื•ืžื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ื˜ืจืคื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืื‘ืœ

The Gemara relates: The colleagues of Rabbi Abba learned a tradition from Rabbi Abba. And who are they? The phrase: Colleagues of Rabbi Abba, is referring to Rabbi Zeira. And some say the colleagues of Rabbi Zeira learned it from Rabbi Zeira. And who are they? Rabbi Abba. This is the tradition: Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba, said that this is what Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the halakhot of mourning.

ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ื˜ืจืคื” ื”ื ื“ืืžืจืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืื‘ืœ ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื™ื ื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืงืจื•ื‘ ืžื•ื ื” ืขืžื”ืŸ

The Gemara elaborates: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa; this is the halakha that we stated above, that mucus forms an effective seal in the intestines. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; what is this halakha? As we learned in a baraita: If one learns of the death of an immediate relative after other relatives have already begun their period of mourning, the halakha is as follows: During the entire first three days of mourning, if a mourner comes to the house of mourning from a nearby place, he counts his days of mourning with the other mourners and completes his mourning with them.

ืžืžืงื•ื ืจื—ื•ืง ืžื•ื ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืื™ืœืš ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืงืจื•ื‘ ืžื•ื ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ ื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืงืจื•ื‘ ืžื•ื ื” ืขืžื”ืŸ

The baraita continues: If he came from a distant place, he counts seven days on his own from the time that he was informed of the death. From this point forward, i.e., after the first three days, even if he comes from a nearby place, he counts seven days on his own. Rabbi Shimon says: Even on the seventh day, if he comes from a nearby place, he counts and completes his mourning with the other mourners.

ืืžืจ ืžืืŸ ื“ื”ื•ื ืื™ื–ื›ื™ ื•ืื™ืกืง ื•ืื’ืžืจื” ืœืฉืžืขืชื ืžืคื•ืžื™ื” ื“ืžืจื” ื›ื™ ืกืœื™ืง ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ื˜ืจืคื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ืืžืจื™

Someone whose name was not given said: May I merit to go up to Eretz Yisrael and learn this halakha from the mouth of its Master. When he went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba, and said to him: Is it true that the Master said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa? Rabbi Abba said to him: This is not true. Rather, I said just the opposite, that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and even if mucus seals the perforation of the intestine, the animal is a tereifa.

ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืื‘ืœ ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื“ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื”

The anonymous man asked Rabbi Abba again: What about the other ruling reported in your name, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; is this accurate? Rabbi Abba said to him: There are conflicting opinions with regard to this matter, as it was stated that Rav แธคisda says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and so says Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: That is the halakha. But Rav Naแธฅman says: That is not the halakha.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ื˜ืจืคื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืื‘ืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžื™ืงืœ ื‘ืื‘ืœ

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, who says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the more lenient authority in matters relating to mourning.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืงื™ืคื™ื ื‘ื‘ื ื™ ืžืขื™ื™ื

ยง Rav Shimi bar แธคiyya says: One may compare perforations in the intestines. If one is unsure whether a perforation occurred before or after slaughter, one may make an additional perforation and compare the two. If their appearance is similar, one may conclude that the perforation occurred after slaughter, and the animal is kosher.

ื”ื ื”ื• ื‘ื ื™ ืžืขื™ื™ื ื“ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืืงืคื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืœื ืื™ื“ืžื• ืืชื ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ืžืžืฉืžืฉ ื‘ื”ื• ื•ืื™ื“ืžื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื ื ืœืš ื”ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ืžื” ื™ื“ื™ ืžืžืฉืžืฉื• ื‘ื”ื ื™ ืžืงืžื™ ื“ืœื™ืชื™ ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื›ื™ื ื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื˜ืจืคื•ืช ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ

The Gemara relates: There were certain perforated intestines that came before Rava. Rava made other perforations and compared them, but they were not similar. Rav Mesharshiyya, his son, came and rubbed the new perforations, and they were similar. Rav Mesharshiyya therefore deemed the animal kosher. Rava said to him: From where did you know to do this? Rav Mesharshiyya said to him: I reasoned: How many hands rubbed these earlier perforations before they came before the Master? Therefore, I thought that if I handled the new ones, perhaps they would look similar. Rava said to him: My son is as wise in matters of tereifot as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืงื™ืคื™ื ื‘ืจื™ืื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืขืจื•ื’ื” ืื‘ืœ ืžืขืจื•ื’ื” ืœืขืจื•ื’ื” ืœื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืขืจื•ื’ื” ืœืขืจื•ื’ื” ืžื“ืงื” ืœื“ืงื” ื•ืžื’ืกื” ืœื’ืกื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžื’ืกื” ืœื“ืงื” ื•ืœื ืžื“ืงื” ืœื’ืกื”

Similarly, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: One may compare perforations in the lung to determine whether they occurred after slaughter. Rava said: We said this only when the two perforations are on the same side of the lungs. But one may not compare perforations from one side to the other side. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may compare even from one side to the other side, and even from a small animal to another small animal, or from a large animal to another large animal, but not from a large animal to a small animal, and not from a small animal to a large animal.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืงื™ืคื™ืŸ ื‘ืงื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืื•ืชื” ื—ื•ืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืžื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื ื•ื”ืœื›ืชื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ื ื•ืžื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืžื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ื•ืœื ืžื‘ืจ ื—ื•ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ื

Similarly, Abaye and Rava both say: One may compare severed or perforated areas in the windpipe. Rav Pappa said: We said this only when the two areas are in the same segment of the windpipe. But one may not compare from one segment to another segment. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may even compare from one segment to another segment, and from one subsegment, i.e., a thin segment between the main segments, to another subsegment, but not from a segment to a subsegment, and not from a subsegment to a segment.

ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ื—ืœื—ื•ืœืช ืฉื ื™ืงื‘ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื™ืจื™ื›ื™ื ืžืขืžื™ื“ื•ืช ืื•ืชื” ื•ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ืœืขื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืงื•ื ื”ื“ื‘ืง ื‘ืจื•ื‘ื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ื”ื“ื‘ืง ื‘ืžืฉื”ื•

ยง Zeโ€™eiri says: If the rectum was perforated, the animal is kosher, since the hips hold it up and seal the perforation. And to how much of the rectum does this apply? Rabbi Ilai says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: If the rectum was perforated in the place where it is attached to the hips, even if it was perforated in its majority, the animal is kosher. If the perforation was not in the place where it is attached to the hips, the animal is a tereifa if it was perforated in any amount.

ืืžืจื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœืื• ืžื™ ืืžื™ื ื ืœื›ื• ืœื ืชืชืœื• ื‘ื™ื”

The Sages said this halakha before Rava in the name of Rav Naแธฅman. Rava said to them: Have I not told you not to hang on Rav Naแธฅman

ื‘ื•ืงื™ ืกืจื™ืงื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžืงื•ื ื”ื“ื‘ืง ืืคื™ืœื• ื ื™ื˜ืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ื›ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ื›ื“ื™ ืชืคื™ืกื” ื•ื›ืžื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ืžืœื ื‘ื˜ื“ื ื‘ืชื•ืจื

empty bottles, i.e., not to falsely attribute statements to him? So said Rav Naแธฅman: With regard to the place that the rectum is attached to the hips, even if all of it was removed, the animal is kosher. And this is the halakha only where sufficient space remains of it for a hand to grip. The Gemara asks: And how much is considered sufficient to grip? Abaye said: The width of a finger. This measure is sufficient even in the case of a large bull.

ื”ื›ืจืก ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืขื™ื“ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืœื ืจื™ืฉ ื˜ื‘ื—ื™ื ื“ืฆืคื•ืจื™ ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื™ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื›ืจืก ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ ืกื ื™ื ื“ื™ื‘ื™ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืกื ื™ื ื“ื™ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืืžืจ ืื™ืกืชื•ืžื›ื ื“ื›ืจืกื

ยง The mishna states that if the internal rumen was perforated or most of the external rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Natan bar Sheila, chief butcher of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the name of Rabbi Natan: Which is the internal rumen? It is the cecum. And so said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa: It is the cecum. Rabbi Yishmael said: It is the opening [istumka] of the rumen.

ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืงื•ื ืฆืจ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื›ืจืก ื•ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื ืคืœ ื›ืจืกื ื‘ื‘ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืขื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืžื™ืฆืจ ื•ืœืžื˜ื”

Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: There is a narrow place in the rumen, and this is the internal rumen; all the rest is the external rumen. But I do not know which area is this narrow place. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: The rumen has fallen in a pit, i.e., since it is unknown which area is considered the narrow place, a perforation in any part of the rumen renders the animal a tereifa. Rav Aแธฅa bar Rav Ava says that Rav Asi says: The inner rumen extends from the narrow place, where the rumen begins to narrow as it approaches the gullet, and downward toward the gullet when the animal is suspended by its legs.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืžื™ืœืช ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ื’ื ื™ื‘ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื˜ืคื— ื‘ื•ื•ืฉื˜ ืกืžื•ืš ืœื›ืจืก ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื›ืจืก ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ืช

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Naแธฅmani says in the name of Shmuel: The internal rumen is the place in the rumen that has no wool, i.e., downy projections on the inside of the rumen. Rabbi Avina says in the name of Geneiva, who said in the name of Rav: The handbreadth in the gullet adjacent to the rumen, this is the internal rumen.

ืืžืจื™ ื‘ืžืขืจื‘ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ื”ื›ืจืก ื›ื•ืœื• ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื›ืจืก ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ืช ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ื›ืจืก ื”ื—ื™ืฆื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ื—ื•ืคื” ืืช ืจื•ื‘ ื”ื›ืจืก ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืžืคืจืขืชื” ืžืื™ ืžืคืจืขืชื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืคืจืขื™ ื˜ื‘ื—ื™

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar แธคanina: The entire rumen is the internal rumen. And if so, which is the external rumen? It is the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen on the underside of the animal. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: The internal rumen is the mafrata. The Gemara asks: What is the mafrata? Rav Avya said: It is the place that the butcher exposes when he opens up the animal, i.e., the underside of the stomach.

ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื›ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืืžื™ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื™ ืฉืžืขืชืชื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืฉื™ื™ื›ืŸ ื‘ื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื

The Gemara recounts: In Nehardeโ€™a, they practiced in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar, one of the Sages of Nehardeโ€™a: What about all these other statements, that the internal rumen is another part of the rumen? Ameimar said to him: They are all included in the definition of the rumen according to Rabba bar Rav Huna. The cecum, the opening of the stomach, and the place with no wool all face the underside of the stomach, i.e., the mafrata.

ื•ื“ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื›ื‘ืจ ืคื™ืจืฉื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืขื•ื ื•ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ื ื•ื“ื‘ื ื™ ืžืขืจื‘ื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™

Rav Ashi replied: And what about the opinion that Rav Asi says in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, that the internal rumen is an unknown narrow area? Shouldnโ€™t the entire rumen be treated as the internal rumen? Ameimar said to him: Rav Aแธฅa bar Ava already explained that it is the area extending from the narrow place until the gullet. This area is also included in the mafrata. Rav Ashi asked further: And what of the opinion of Rabbi Avina, that the internal rumen is the handbreadth near the gullet, and of the residents of the West, Eretz Yisrael, that it is the entire rumen? Ameimar said to him: These opinions certainly disagree with that of Rabba bar Rav Huna, but we do not follow them.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืคืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœื ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืžืžืฉ ื•ืœื ืงื˜ื ื” ืงื˜ื ื” ืžืžืฉ ืืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื ืงืจืข ื‘ื” ื˜ืคื— ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืจื•ื‘ื ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื‘ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื˜ืคื— ืจื•ื‘ื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืคื— ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื‘ืงื˜ื ื” ื‘ืจื•ื‘ื

ยง The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a tear in the external rumen, for a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa, while for a small animal, it is a tereifa only if most of it was torn. Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet says that Rabbi Elazar says: The word: Large, is not referring literally to a large animal, and the word: Small, is not referring literally to a small animal. Rather, concerning any animal large enough that its external rumen can be torn one handbreadth and this does not constitute most of it, this is what we learned: For a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa. And concerning any animal small enough that most of its external rumen can be torn and this does not constitute one handbreadth, this is what we learned: For a small animal, it is a tereifa only if most of it was torn. In other words, any external rumen torn either one handbreadth or in its majority renders the animal a tereifa.

ืจื•ื‘ื ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืคื— ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ื˜ืคื— ื‘ืžืฉื”ื• ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืขื“ ื“ืžื™ืงืจืข ื‘ื” ื˜ืคื— ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื˜ืจืคื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: If most of the external rumen is torn but it does not constitute a handbreadth, isnโ€™t it obvious that the animal is rendered a tereifa? There is a principle that the majority of an entity is considered like all of it. The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach this for a case where the tear would constitute a handbreadth with any amount more than a majority, i.e., the external rumen is slightly smaller than two handbreadths. Lest you say that in such a case, the animal is not a tereifa until a handbreadth of it is torn, this halakha teaches us that this is not so. Rather, if the majority of the rumen is torn, the animal is a tereifa, even if this constitutes less than a handbreadth.

ืืžืจ ื’ื ื™ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ื ืงื“ืจื” ื›ืกืœืข ื˜ืจืคื” ืฉืื ืชืžืชื— ืชืขืžื•ื“ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ืคื— ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ืžืคืจืฉื ืœื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื’ื ื™ื‘ื ืืžื‘ืจื ื“ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื›ืกืœืข ื›ืฉืจื” ื™ืชืจ ืžื›ืกืœืข ื˜ืจืคื” ื•ื›ืžื” ื™ืชืจ ืžื›ืกืœืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืขื™ื™ืœืŸ ืชืœืช ืงืฉื™ื™ืชื ื‘ืฆื™ืคื ื‘ื“ื•ื—ืงื ื‘ืœื ืฆื™ืคื ื‘ืจื•ื•ื—ื

Geneiva says that Rabbi Asi says: If a round hole was bored through the external rumen as large as a sela coin, the animal is a tereifa, since if a hole of such size will be stretched, it will reach the length of a handbreadth. Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba said: This matter was explained to me personally by Geneiva himself, when we were on the ferry of Nehardeโ€™a: If the hole is exactly as large as a sela, the animal is kosher. If the size of the hole is greater than a sela, it is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: And how much is considered greater than a sela? Rav Yosef said: For example, if three date pits covered in remains of the date can fit through the hole with difficulty, or if, without being covered in any remains, they can fit comfortably, this is considered a hole larger than a sela.

ื”ืžืกืก ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื—ื˜ ืฉื ืžืฆืืช ื‘ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ืžืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืฉื ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ื ื˜ืจืคื” ื ืžืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืงื•ืจื˜ ื“ื

ยง The mishna states: An animal is a tereifa if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, i.e., to the abdominal cavity. With regard to this, the Sages taught: In the case of a needle that is found in the thickness of the reticulum, if it pierced the wall from only one side, the animal is kosher. If it pierced the wall from both sides, i.e., the needle completely pierced the wall of the stomach, it is a tereifa. But even if it protrudes from both sides, it is not always a tereifa, and it may be inspected further: If a drop of congealed blood is found on top of the needle,

Scroll To Top