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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 17, 2019 | 讬状讗 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 51

What are the details regarding a needle in the lining of the stomach called the beit聽hakosot? What are the details regarding the case of an animal that fell – what kind of fall? What should one look out for? In which cases is there no concern?


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

讘讬讚讜注 砖诇驻谞讬 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讛 拽讜专讟 讚诐 讘讬讚讜注 砖诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛

it is certain that the perforation was created before the slaughter of the animal, and it is therefore a tereifa. If a drop of blood is not found on it, it is certain that it occurred after the slaughter, when the blood of the animal had stopped flowing. The animal is therefore kosher.

讛讙诇讬讚 驻讬 讛诪讻讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 讛讙诇讬讚 驻讬 讛诪讻讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

If a scab covered the opening of the wound, i.e., the perforation, it is certain that the perforation occurred three days before the slaughter. Consequently, if the animal was sold less than three days before the slaughter, the buyer can claim that the transaction was performed in error, as he did not intend to purchase a tereifa animal, and the seller must refund the buyer. If a scab did not cover the opening of the wound, and it is uncertain whether the perforation occurred before or after the animal was purchased, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Accordingly, the buyer must furnish proof that the perforation occurred before the purchase in order to demand a refund.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讻诇 谞拽讜讘讬 讚注诇诪讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 讚诐 讟专讬祝 诪专 讛转诐 诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 诇诪讬住专讱 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讞讟 讗讬 讗讬转讗 讚拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 诪讬住专讱 讛讜讛 住专讬讱

The Gemara asks: But in what way is this case different from all other perforations, where even though there is no blood on the wound the Master deems the animal a tereifa? The Gemara responds: There, in all other cases, there is nothing to which the blood can attach. Even if the wound had bled, the blood would be reabsorbed into the flesh. Here, since there is a needle, it follows that if it is the case that the perforation occurred before slaughter, blood from the wound would have attached to the needle. Accordingly, if there is no blood on the needle, it is certain that the perforation occurred after slaughter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗转讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 注讜讬专讗 砖诪谞讬 讜讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讟专驻讛 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗转讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讗讝诇 讛讜讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讗讗讬讙专讗 讗诪专 谞讬讞讜转 诪专 讜谞讬转讬 诇讗 谞讞讬转 住诇讬拽 讛讜讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛

The Gemara relates that Rav Safra said to Abaye: Did the Master see a Torah scholar who came from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and said: My name is Rav Avira? He said that there was an incident that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi involving a needle that was found in the thickness of the reticulum protruding from only one side, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. Abaye sent a message to Rav Avira calling for him to come and explain the matter, since this contradicts the baraita that states that the animal is a tereifa only if the needle protrudes from both sides. Rav Avira did not come before him, so Abaye went before Rav Avira. Rav Avira was standing on the roof. Abaye said to him: Let Master descend and come, but Rav Avira did not descend. Abaye ascended to him and said to him: Say to me, what were the circumstances of the incident itself?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻讟讬专 讻谞住讬讜转 讗谞讗 诇注讬诇讗 诪专讘讬 专讘讛 讜讛讜讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 爪讬驻讜专讗讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讚讗讛 讬讜砖讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讛驻讻讛 专讘讬 讜诪爪讗 注诇讬讛 拽讜专讟 讚诐 讜讟专驻讛 讜讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 诪讻讛 拽讜专讟 讚诐 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟专讞 讟专讬讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛诪住住 讜讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 砖谞讬拽讘讜 诇讞讜抓

Rav Avira said to him: I am a director of assemblies in the study hall. I was standing above the Great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rav Huna of Tzippori and Rabbi Yosei of Medea were sitting before him, and a needle came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that was found in the thickness of the reticulum protruding from one side, i.e., the inside, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi turned the reticulum over and found a drop of blood on the outside, parallel to the wound on the inside, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. And he said: If there is no wound on the outside there as well, from where is this drop of blood? Abaye said to Rav Avira: He caused that man trouble needlessly, i.e., you troubled me for no reason. This is nothing more than the mishna, which states that an animal is a tereifa if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated to the outside.

谞驻诇讛 诪谉 讛讙讙 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬讞 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐

搂 The mishna states: An animal that fell from the roof is a tereifa, since its limbs may have been shattered. Rav Huna says: If one left an animal above, on the roof, and he came back and found it below, but did not see it fall, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. One may presume that it jumped intentionally and was not injured.

讛讛讜讗 讙讚讬讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讚讞讝讗 讞讜砖诇讗 讘讗讬驻讜诪讗 讚讙专 谞驻诇 诪讗讬讙专讗 诇讗专注讗 讗转讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬讞 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讬讚讬 诇诪住专讱 讜讛讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 诇诪住专讱 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪讚讛 谞驻砖讛 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诪讚讛 谞驻砖讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain kid belonging to Ravina that saw barley groats through an open skylight. It jumped down through the skylight and fell from the roof to the ground. The case came before Rav Ashi, and Ravina said to him: What is the rationale for this statement that Rav Huna says, that if one left an animal above and he came back and found it below, one need not be concerned about the possible shattering of limbs? Is it because the animal usually has something to grab hold of? If so, since this kid jumped through a skylight, it did not have something to grab hold of, and one must be concerned. Or perhaps it is because the animal evaluates itself and determines that it can jump without injury. If so, this kid also evaluated itself before jumping, and one need not be concerned.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪讚讛 谞驻砖讛 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诪讚讛 谞驻砖讛

Rav Ashi said to him: It is because the animal evaluates itself before jumping, and this kid also evaluated itself before jumping. Therefore, one need not be concerned about the possible shattering of limbs.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬诪专转讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讚讛讜讜 砖讚专谉 讻专注讬讛 讘转专讬讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讬诪专 讛讗讬 砖讬讙专讜谞讗 谞拽讟讬讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讜讚诇诪讗 讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 讗讬驻住讬拽 讘讚拽讜讛 讗砖讻讞讜讛 讻专讘讬谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讬诪专 砖讙专讜谞讗 砖讻讬讞 讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara relates that there was a certain ewe that was in the house of Rav 岣viva, whose hind legs would drag. Rav Yeimar said: This ewe suffers from rheumatism [shigrona], and this is why she drags her legs. Ravina objects to this: But perhaps the spinal cord was cut, and this is why the ewe dragged her legs, and the animal is a tereifa. They inspected her and found that the spinal cord was cut, as Ravina said. The Gemara notes: And even so, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yeimar, since rheumatism is common, but a cut spinal cord is not common. Accordingly, one need not be concerned about the possibility of a cut spinal cord.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝讻专讬诐 讛诪谞讙讞讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬讚讜讜 讜拽讬讬诪讬 爪讬诪专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讟 诇讛讜 讗讬 谞驻讜诇 诇讗专注讗 讜讚讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rav Huna also says: With regard to rams that butt one another, one need not be concerned with regard to shattering of limbs. Even though they are in pain and stand still, it is only a fever that afflicts them; one need not be concerned about the possibility of severe injuries. But if they fall to the ground due to the impact, we certainly must be concerned that their limbs may have been shattered.

讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬 讛谞讬 讚讻专讬 讚讙谞讘讬 讙谞讘讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽 讗讘专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬 砖讚讜 诇讛讜 讗诪转谞讬讬讛讜 砖讚讜 诇讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬专讛讟讬 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 讜讚讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 讗讘诇 诪讞诪转 转砖讜讘讛 转砖讜讘讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚讬

Rav Menashei says: With regard to these rams that thieves steal and throw over the fence, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. What is the reason for this? When the thieves throw them over the fence, they throw them so that they land on their hips, where they will not be injured, so that they will be able to run before them. But if the thieves returned them to the owner, we certainly must be concerned that their limbs may have been shattered, since thieves do not throw them carefully when returning them. And this statement applies only when they return them due to fear of being caught, or are otherwise forced to return them. But if they return them due to repentance, they have performed full-fledged repentance and will take care to return them without injury.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讛 注诇 专讗砖讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 讻诇驻讬 讝谞讘讛 注诇 讝谞讘讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 讻诇驻讬 专讗砖讛 讻谞讙讚 讻诇 讛砖讚专讛 讻讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 讜讗讬 砖诇讬诐 讞讜讟专讗 讗驻诇讙讬 讚讙讘讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讗讬 讗讬转 讘讛 拽讬讟专讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讗讬 诪讞讬讬 讗驻住拽讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one hit an animal on its head with a stick, and the length of the stick continued toward its back; or if one hit the animal on its tail and the length of the stick continued toward its head, such that in either case the blow extended along the entire spine, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. But if the length of the stick concluded at the middle of the back, we must be concerned that the strike caused an injury to the spine. And if there are knots, i.e., protrusions, on the stick, we must be concerned that it injured the spine, even if the stick fell across the entire back. And if he struck it like a slash across the width of the back, we must be concerned that it injured the spine.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讬讗 讚诪住讬讬注 诇讱 转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Rav Na岣an says: The womb is not subject to concern about possible shattered limbs. In other words, one need not be concerned that the limbs of a newborn calf may have been shattered by the narrow birth canal. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion: A one-day-old infant

诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 诪讘砖专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞诪转 讗讜谞住讜

becomes ritually impure if he experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva]. And if it should enter your mind that a newborn is subject to concern about possible shattered limbs, read here the ruling stated with regard to ziva, that one鈥檚 discharge renders one impure only when it issues 鈥渙ut of his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 15:2), but not when it issues due to circumstances beyond his control, e.g., due to illness. Therefore, if one must be concerned that a newborn鈥檚 limbs may have shattered during birth, his discharge would not render him impure.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉

The Gemara responds: One cannot bring a proof from this baraita, since here we are dealing with a case where the infant left the womb by caesarean section and did not exit through the narrow birth canal. By contrast, after normal births, a newborn鈥檚 discharge does not render it impure, since one is concerned about the possibility of shattered limbs.

转讗 砖诪注 注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: If a calf was born on a Festival, one may slaughter it and eat it on the Festival. One need not wait twenty-four hours before deeming the animal kosher, as one does for an animal that fell from a roof. Apparently, one need not be concerned that its limbs were shattered during the birth. The Gemara responds: Here, too, the baraita is referring to a case where the calf left the womb by caesarean section. But after normal births, one must wait twenty-four hours before slaughtering the calf.

转讗 砖诪注 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讬爪讗 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 诪讬 拽讚讜砖 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from another baraita: And all agree that if a firstborn animal was born on a Festival and its blemish was born with it, i.e., if it was born with a blemish that removes its sanctity and renders it permitted for consumption, it is considered to be prepared for the Festival and may be eaten. Evidently, one need not wait twenty-four hours before deeming it kosher. And if you would say that here too, the baraita deals with a case where the animal left the womb by caesarean section, one might respond: Is a firstborn animal born by caesarean section sanctified? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Rabbi Shimon would concede with regard to sacrificial animals, e.g., a firstborn, that an animal born by caesarean section is not sanctified? Therefore, the baraita must be referring to an animal born naturally.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛驻专讬住 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注

The Gemara responds: Here we are dealing with a firstborn that spread out its legs on the ground and stood up immediately after birth. In such a case the animal is certainly not a tereifa on account of shattered limbs.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讬转 讛诪讟讘讞讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐

And Rav Na岣an says: If an animal was thrown to the ground in the slaughterhouse in preparation for slaughter, it is not subject to concern for shattered limbs.

讛讛讜讗 转讜专讗 讚谞驻诇 讜讗讬砖转诪注 拽诇 谞讙讬讞讜转讬讛 注诇 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 砖拽诇 诪砖讜驻专讬 砖讜驻专讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诪谞讗 诇讱 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 爪驻专谞讬讜 谞讜注抓 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讗专抓

The Gemara relates: A certain bull fell in the slaughterhouse, and its bellowing was audible due to the blow. Still, Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta entered and took from the very best portions of the bull and was not concerned that it may have been a tereifa. The Sages said to him: From where did you learn this? Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta said to them: This is what Rav said: When falling, the bull digs in its hooves until it reaches the earth. Therefore, one need not be concerned that it fell roughly.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诪讚讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪注转 诇注转 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讛诇讻讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If an animal fell and stood up again, it does not require a twenty-four-hour period mentioned in the mishna (56b) to determine if it may be slaughtered. Nevertheless, it certainly requires inspection after slaughter to determine whether it was injured by the fall and rendered a tereifa. But if it both stood up and walked after the fall, it does not even require inspection after slaughter. Rav 岣yya bar Ashi says: Both in this case and in that case, i.e., even if it walked after the fall, it requires inspection.

讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻砖讟讛 讬讚讛 诇注诪讜讚 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 注诪讚讛 注拽专讛 专讙诇讛 诇讛诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 谞讬注专讛 诇注诪讜讚 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 注诪讚讛

Rav Yirmeya bar A岣 says that Rav says: If the animal stretched out its foreleg to stand, even if it did not actually stand, it is considered to have stood and does not require a twenty-four-hour waiting period. If it raised its leg to walk, even if it did not actually walk, it is considered to have walked and does not require inspection according to Rav. And Rav 岣sda says: Even if it did not stretch out its foreleg, but simply struggled to stand, even if it did not stand, it is considered to have stood and may be slaughtered that day.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻诇讛 诪谉 讛讙讙 讘讚诇讗 讬讚注讛 讜注诪讚讛 讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜讗诐 讛诇讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讬拽讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: In any case where an animal fell from the roof unawares, i.e., unintentionally, and stood but did not walk, it requires inspection after slaughter but does not require a twenty-four-hour period before slaughter. And if it walked, it does not even require an inspection.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 谞驻讜诇讛 砖讗诪专讜 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讻谞讙讚 讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛讞诇诇 讻讜诇讜

Ameimar said in the name of Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃: A fallen animal that the Sages said requires inspection must be inspected around the intestines to see whether the organs there have been perforated or torn, rendering the animal a tereifa. Mar Zutra said to him: This is what we say in the name of Rav Pappa: Such an animal requires inspection around the entire space of the body cavity, in case the ribs or spine have been damaged.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜谞讗 诪专 讘专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讬诪谞讬谉 拽砖讬谉 讛谉 讗爪诇 谞驻讬诇讛

Huna Mar, grandson of Rav Ne岣mya, said to Rav Ashi: What about the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet? Do they require inspection as well? Rav Ashi said to him: The simanim are hard and resistant to damage in falling. Therefore, one need not inspect them.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜祝 砖谞讞讘讟 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讟 诪诇讗 拽讜诪转讜 讚讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 诪讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讗砖驻诇讜 讜讗讬 诪讬讗 拽讬讬诪讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讗讬 砖讚讗 爪讬讘讬 讜拽讚诪讬讛 讛讗 拽讚诪讬讛

搂 With regard to birds that have fallen, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If a bird fell and hit the surface of the water, once it swims the full length of its body, this is sufficient to indicate that its limbs have not been shattered, similar to an animal that walks after falling. And we said this only in cases where it swam from below to above, i.e., upstream. But if it swam from above to below, i.e., downstream, it is only the water that carried it down, and it must be inspected. And if the water is standing, e.g., in a pond, we have no problem with it, as it is clear that the bird is swimming on its own strength, and it need not be inspected. And even if the bird swims downstream, if straw was scattered in front of it and the bird overtook it with its swimming, then the bird overtook it on its own strength and need not be inspected.

讙诇讬诪讗 诪转讬讞 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇讗 诪转讬讞 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 注讜祝 讜诪注讜驻祝 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗讬讝诇讗 讜诪拽专讘讬 拽讬讟专讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讗 诪拽专讘讬 拽讬讟专讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

If the bird fell on a garment spread out taut over poles, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact. If it fell on a garment that was not taut, we need not be concerned. In any event, if the garment was folded, we need not be concerned, since it presumably was not taut enough to injure the bird. If the bird fell on a net whose knots were woven closely together, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact. If the knots were not close together, we need not be concerned.

讻讬转谞讗 讚注讘讬讚 讘讟讜谞讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗住讜专讬讬转讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讻讬转谞讗 讚讚讬讬拽 讜谞驻讬抓 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讬讬拽 讜诇讗 谞驻讬抓 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚注讘讬讚 讘讬讝专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬讛 拽讟专讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚拽转讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚拽讚拽转讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

If the bird fell directly on to flax arranged into bundles, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact, because the bundles are hard. If it fell on this side or that side of the bundles, we need not be concerned, because it did not fall directly onto the bundles and the impact was dampened. If it fell on bundles of reeds, we must be concerned. If it fell on beaten and combed flax, with the impurities removed, we need not be concerned, since it is soft. If it fell on flax that was beaten but not combed, we must be concerned due to the residue of flax stalks in the bundles. If it fell on flax that was bundled after it was beaten and combed, since it has knots in it we must be concerned. If the bird fell on flax tow, a coarse bundle of unspun fiber, we must be concerned. If it fell on fine tow, we need not be concerned, because it is soft.

谞讘专讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 转讬诪讞转讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 拽讬讟诪讗 谞讛讬诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讗 谞讛讬诇讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

If the bird fell on nevara, the fibers that grow around a palm tree, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered. If it fell on tima岣a, palm bark cut into strips, we need not be concerned. If it fell on sifted ashes, we must be concerned, because the ashes harden. If it fell on unsifted ashes, we need not be concerned, because they are soft and scatter on impact.

  • 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 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 51

讘讬讚讜注 砖诇驻谞讬 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 谞诪爪讗 注诇讬讛 拽讜专讟 讚诐 讘讬讚讜注 砖诇讗讞专 砖讞讬讟讛

it is certain that the perforation was created before the slaughter of the animal, and it is therefore a tereifa. If a drop of blood is not found on it, it is certain that it occurred after the slaughter, when the blood of the animal had stopped flowing. The animal is therefore kosher.

讛讙诇讬讚 驻讬 讛诪讻讛 讘讬讚讜注 砖砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 讛讙诇讬讚 驻讬 讛诪讻讛 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛

If a scab covered the opening of the wound, i.e., the perforation, it is certain that the perforation occurred three days before the slaughter. Consequently, if the animal was sold less than three days before the slaughter, the buyer can claim that the transaction was performed in error, as he did not intend to purchase a tereifa animal, and the seller must refund the buyer. If a scab did not cover the opening of the wound, and it is uncertain whether the perforation occurred before or after the animal was purchased, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Accordingly, the buyer must furnish proof that the perforation occurred before the purchase in order to demand a refund.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讻诇 谞拽讜讘讬 讚注诇诪讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 讚诐 讟专讬祝 诪专 讛转诐 诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 诇诪讬住专讱 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讞讟 讗讬 讗讬转讗 讚拽讜讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讗 诪讬住专讱 讛讜讛 住专讬讱

The Gemara asks: But in what way is this case different from all other perforations, where even though there is no blood on the wound the Master deems the animal a tereifa? The Gemara responds: There, in all other cases, there is nothing to which the blood can attach. Even if the wound had bled, the blood would be reabsorbed into the flesh. Here, since there is a needle, it follows that if it is the case that the perforation occurred before slaughter, blood from the wound would have attached to the needle. Accordingly, if there is no blood on the needle, it is certain that the perforation occurred after slaughter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讞讝讬 诪专 讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗转讗 诪诪注专讘讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 注讜讬专讗 砖诪谞讬 讜讗诪专 诪注砖讛 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讟专驻讛 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗转讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讗讝诇 讛讜讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讗讗讬讙专讗 讗诪专 谞讬讞讜转 诪专 讜谞讬转讬 诇讗 谞讞讬转 住诇讬拽 讛讜讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛

The Gemara relates that Rav Safra said to Abaye: Did the Master see a Torah scholar who came from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and said: My name is Rav Avira? He said that there was an incident that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi involving a needle that was found in the thickness of the reticulum protruding from only one side, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. Abaye sent a message to Rav Avira calling for him to come and explain the matter, since this contradicts the baraita that states that the animal is a tereifa only if the needle protrudes from both sides. Rav Avira did not come before him, so Abaye went before Rav Avira. Rav Avira was standing on the roof. Abaye said to him: Let Master descend and come, but Rav Avira did not descend. Abaye ascended to him and said to him: Say to me, what were the circumstances of the incident itself?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻讟讬专 讻谞住讬讜转 讗谞讗 诇注讬诇讗 诪专讘讬 专讘讛 讜讛讜讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 爪讬驻讜专讗讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讚讗讛 讬讜砖讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讜讘讗转 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 诪爪讚 讗讞讚 讜讛驻讻讛 专讘讬 讜诪爪讗 注诇讬讛 拽讜专讟 讚诐 讜讟专驻讛 讜讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 诪讻讛 拽讜专讟 讚诐 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟专讞 讟专讬讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛诪住住 讜讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 砖谞讬拽讘讜 诇讞讜抓

Rav Avira said to him: I am a director of assemblies in the study hall. I was standing above the Great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rav Huna of Tzippori and Rabbi Yosei of Medea were sitting before him, and a needle came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that was found in the thickness of the reticulum protruding from one side, i.e., the inside, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi turned the reticulum over and found a drop of blood on the outside, parallel to the wound on the inside, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. And he said: If there is no wound on the outside there as well, from where is this drop of blood? Abaye said to Rav Avira: He caused that man trouble needlessly, i.e., you troubled me for no reason. This is nothing more than the mishna, which states that an animal is a tereifa if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated to the outside.

谞驻诇讛 诪谉 讛讙讙 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬讞 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐

搂 The mishna states: An animal that fell from the roof is a tereifa, since its limbs may have been shattered. Rav Huna says: If one left an animal above, on the roof, and he came back and found it below, but did not see it fall, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. One may presume that it jumped intentionally and was not injured.

讛讛讜讗 讙讚讬讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讚讞讝讗 讞讜砖诇讗 讘讗讬驻讜诪讗 讚讙专 谞驻诇 诪讗讬讙专讗 诇讗专注讗 讗转讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛谞讬讞 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讘讗 讜诪爪讗讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讬讚讬 诇诪住专讱 讜讛讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 诇诪住专讱 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪讚讛 谞驻砖讛 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诪讚讛 谞驻砖讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain kid belonging to Ravina that saw barley groats through an open skylight. It jumped down through the skylight and fell from the roof to the ground. The case came before Rav Ashi, and Ravina said to him: What is the rationale for this statement that Rav Huna says, that if one left an animal above and he came back and found it below, one need not be concerned about the possible shattering of limbs? Is it because the animal usually has something to grab hold of? If so, since this kid jumped through a skylight, it did not have something to grab hold of, and one must be concerned. Or perhaps it is because the animal evaluates itself and determines that it can jump without injury. If so, this kid also evaluated itself before jumping, and one need not be concerned.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪讚讛 谞驻砖讛 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诪讚讛 谞驻砖讛

Rav Ashi said to him: It is because the animal evaluates itself before jumping, and this kid also evaluated itself before jumping. Therefore, one need not be concerned about the possible shattering of limbs.

讛讛讬讗 讗讬诪专转讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讚讛讜讜 砖讚专谉 讻专注讬讛 讘转专讬讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讬诪专 讛讗讬 砖讬讙专讜谞讗 谞拽讟讬讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讜讚诇诪讗 讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 讗讬驻住讬拽 讘讚拽讜讛 讗砖讻讞讜讛 讻专讘讬谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讬诪专 砖讙专讜谞讗 砖讻讬讞 讞讜讟 讛砖讚专讛 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

The Gemara relates that there was a certain ewe that was in the house of Rav 岣viva, whose hind legs would drag. Rav Yeimar said: This ewe suffers from rheumatism [shigrona], and this is why she drags her legs. Ravina objects to this: But perhaps the spinal cord was cut, and this is why the ewe dragged her legs, and the animal is a tereifa. They inspected her and found that the spinal cord was cut, as Ravina said. The Gemara notes: And even so, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yeimar, since rheumatism is common, but a cut spinal cord is not common. Accordingly, one need not be concerned about the possibility of a cut spinal cord.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝讻专讬诐 讛诪谞讙讞讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讬讚讜讜 讜拽讬讬诪讬 爪讬诪专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讟 诇讛讜 讗讬 谞驻讜诇 诇讗专注讗 讜讚讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rav Huna also says: With regard to rams that butt one another, one need not be concerned with regard to shattering of limbs. Even though they are in pain and stand still, it is only a fever that afflicts them; one need not be concerned about the possibility of severe injuries. But if they fall to the ground due to the impact, we certainly must be concerned that their limbs may have been shattered.

讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬 讛谞讬 讚讻专讬 讚讙谞讘讬 讙谞讘讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽 讗讘专讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬 砖讚讜 诇讛讜 讗诪转谞讬讬讛讜 砖讚讜 诇讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬专讛讟讬 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 讜讚讗讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诪讞诪转 讬专讗讛 讗讘诇 诪讞诪转 转砖讜讘讛 转砖讜讘讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚讬

Rav Menashei says: With regard to these rams that thieves steal and throw over the fence, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. What is the reason for this? When the thieves throw them over the fence, they throw them so that they land on their hips, where they will not be injured, so that they will be able to run before them. But if the thieves returned them to the owner, we certainly must be concerned that their limbs may have been shattered, since thieves do not throw them carefully when returning them. And this statement applies only when they return them due to fear of being caught, or are otherwise forced to return them. But if they return them due to repentance, they have performed full-fledged repentance and will take care to return them without injury.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讛 注诇 专讗砖讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 讻诇驻讬 讝谞讘讛 注诇 讝谞讘讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 讻诇驻讬 专讗砖讛 讻谞讙讚 讻诇 讛砖讚专讛 讻讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 讜讗讬 砖诇讬诐 讞讜讟专讗 讗驻诇讙讬 讚讙讘讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讗讬 讗讬转 讘讛 拽讬讟专讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讗讬 诪讞讬讬 讗驻住拽讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one hit an animal on its head with a stick, and the length of the stick continued toward its back; or if one hit the animal on its tail and the length of the stick continued toward its head, such that in either case the blow extended along the entire spine, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. But if the length of the stick concluded at the middle of the back, we must be concerned that the strike caused an injury to the spine. And if there are knots, i.e., protrusions, on the stick, we must be concerned that it injured the spine, even if the stick fell across the entire back. And if he struck it like a slash across the width of the back, we must be concerned that it injured the spine.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讬转 讛专讞诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讬讗 讚诪住讬讬注 诇讱 转讬谞讜拽 讘谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

Rav Na岣an says: The womb is not subject to concern about possible shattered limbs. In other words, one need not be concerned that the limbs of a newborn calf may have been shattered by the narrow birth canal. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion: A one-day-old infant

诪讟诪讗 讘讝讬讘讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬砖 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐 讗讬拽专讬 讻讗谉 诪讘砖专讜 讜诇讗 诪讞诪转 讗讜谞住讜

becomes ritually impure if he experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva]. And if it should enter your mind that a newborn is subject to concern about possible shattered limbs, read here the ruling stated with regard to ziva, that one鈥檚 discharge renders one impure only when it issues 鈥渙ut of his flesh鈥 (Leviticus 15:2), but not when it issues due to circumstances beyond his control, e.g., due to illness. Therefore, if one must be concerned that a newborn鈥檚 limbs may have shattered during birth, his discharge would not render him impure.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉

The Gemara responds: One cannot bring a proof from this baraita, since here we are dealing with a case where the infant left the womb by caesarean section and did not exit through the narrow birth canal. By contrast, after normal births, a newborn鈥檚 discharge does not render it impure, since one is concerned about the possibility of shattered limbs.

转讗 砖诪注 注讙诇 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: If a calf was born on a Festival, one may slaughter it and eat it on the Festival. One need not wait twenty-four hours before deeming the animal kosher, as one does for an animal that fell from a roof. Apparently, one need not be concerned that its limbs were shattered during the birth. The Gemara responds: Here, too, the baraita is referring to a case where the calf left the womb by caesarean section. But after normal births, one must wait twenty-four hours before slaughtering the calf.

转讗 砖诪注 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讜诪讜诪讜 注诪讜 砖讝讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讬爪讗 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 诪讬 拽讚讜砖 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇注谞讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from another baraita: And all agree that if a firstborn animal was born on a Festival and its blemish was born with it, i.e., if it was born with a blemish that removes its sanctity and renders it permitted for consumption, it is considered to be prepared for the Festival and may be eaten. Evidently, one need not wait twenty-four hours before deeming it kosher. And if you would say that here too, the baraita deals with a case where the animal left the womb by caesarean section, one might respond: Is a firstborn animal born by caesarean section sanctified? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Rabbi Shimon would concede with regard to sacrificial animals, e.g., a firstborn, that an animal born by caesarean section is not sanctified? Therefore, the baraita must be referring to an animal born naturally.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讛驻专讬住 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注

The Gemara responds: Here we are dealing with a firstborn that spread out its legs on the ground and stood up immediately after birth. In such a case the animal is certainly not a tereifa on account of shattered limbs.

讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讬转 讛诪讟讘讞讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讬住讜拽讬 讗讘专讬诐

And Rav Na岣an says: If an animal was thrown to the ground in the slaughterhouse in preparation for slaughter, it is not subject to concern for shattered limbs.

讛讛讜讗 转讜专讗 讚谞驻诇 讜讗讬砖转诪注 拽诇 谞讙讬讞讜转讬讛 注诇 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 砖拽诇 诪砖讜驻专讬 砖讜驻专讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诪谞讗 诇讱 讛讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 爪驻专谞讬讜 谞讜注抓 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讗专抓

The Gemara relates: A certain bull fell in the slaughterhouse, and its bellowing was audible due to the blow. Still, Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta entered and took from the very best portions of the bull and was not concerned that it may have been a tereifa. The Sages said to him: From where did you learn this? Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta said to them: This is what Rav said: When falling, the bull digs in its hooves until it reaches the earth. Therefore, one need not be concerned that it fell roughly.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诪讚讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪注转 诇注转 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讛诇讻讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If an animal fell and stood up again, it does not require a twenty-four-hour period mentioned in the mishna (56b) to determine if it may be slaughtered. Nevertheless, it certainly requires inspection after slaughter to determine whether it was injured by the fall and rendered a tereifa. But if it both stood up and walked after the fall, it does not even require inspection after slaughter. Rav 岣yya bar Ashi says: Both in this case and in that case, i.e., even if it walked after the fall, it requires inspection.

讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻砖讟讛 讬讚讛 诇注诪讜讚 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 注诪讚讛 注拽专讛 专讙诇讛 诇讛诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 谞讬注专讛 诇注诪讜讚 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 注诪讚讛

Rav Yirmeya bar A岣 says that Rav says: If the animal stretched out its foreleg to stand, even if it did not actually stand, it is considered to have stood and does not require a twenty-four-hour waiting period. If it raised its leg to walk, even if it did not actually walk, it is considered to have walked and does not require inspection according to Rav. And Rav 岣sda says: Even if it did not stretch out its foreleg, but simply struggled to stand, even if it did not stand, it is considered to have stood and may be slaughtered that day.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻诇讛 诪谉 讛讙讙 讘讚诇讗 讬讚注讛 讜注诪讚讛 讜诇讗 讛诇讻讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讜讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜讗诐 讛诇讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讬拽讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: In any case where an animal fell from the roof unawares, i.e., unintentionally, and stood but did not walk, it requires inspection after slaughter but does not require a twenty-four-hour period before slaughter. And if it walked, it does not even require an inspection.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 谞驻讜诇讛 砖讗诪专讜 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讻谞讙讚 讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛 讻谞讙讚 讘讬转 讛讞诇诇 讻讜诇讜

Ameimar said in the name of Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃: A fallen animal that the Sages said requires inspection must be inspected around the intestines to see whether the organs there have been perforated or torn, rendering the animal a tereifa. Mar Zutra said to him: This is what we say in the name of Rav Pappa: Such an animal requires inspection around the entire space of the body cavity, in case the ribs or spine have been damaged.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜谞讗 诪专 讘专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讬诪谞讬谉 拽砖讬谉 讛谉 讗爪诇 谞驻讬诇讛

Huna Mar, grandson of Rav Ne岣mya, said to Rav Ashi: What about the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet? Do they require inspection as well? Rav Ashi said to him: The simanim are hard and resistant to damage in falling. Therefore, one need not inspect them.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讜祝 砖谞讞讘讟 注诇 驻谞讬 讛诪讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖砖讟 诪诇讗 拽讜诪转讜 讚讬讜 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 诪讬讗 讛讜讗 讚讗砖驻诇讜 讜讗讬 诪讬讗 拽讬讬诪讬 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛 讜讗讬 砖讚讗 爪讬讘讬 讜拽讚诪讬讛 讛讗 拽讚诪讬讛

搂 With regard to birds that have fallen, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If a bird fell and hit the surface of the water, once it swims the full length of its body, this is sufficient to indicate that its limbs have not been shattered, similar to an animal that walks after falling. And we said this only in cases where it swam from below to above, i.e., upstream. But if it swam from above to below, i.e., downstream, it is only the water that carried it down, and it must be inspected. And if the water is standing, e.g., in a pond, we have no problem with it, as it is clear that the bird is swimming on its own strength, and it need not be inspected. And even if the bird swims downstream, if straw was scattered in front of it and the bird overtook it with its swimming, then the bird overtook it on its own strength and need not be inspected.

讙诇讬诪讗 诪转讬讞 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇讗 诪转讬讞 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 注讜祝 讜诪注讜驻祝 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗讬讝诇讗 讜诪拽专讘讬 拽讬讟专讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讗 诪拽专讘讬 拽讬讟专讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

If the bird fell on a garment spread out taut over poles, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact. If it fell on a garment that was not taut, we need not be concerned. In any event, if the garment was folded, we need not be concerned, since it presumably was not taut enough to injure the bird. If the bird fell on a net whose knots were woven closely together, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact. If the knots were not close together, we need not be concerned.

讻讬转谞讗 讚注讘讬讚 讘讟讜谞讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 讜讚讛讗讬 讙讬住讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讗住讜专讬讬转讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讻讬转谞讗 讚讚讬讬拽 讜谞驻讬抓 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讬讬拽 讜诇讗 谞驻讬抓 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚注讘讬讚 讘讬讝专讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬讛 拽讟专讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚拽转讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚拽讚拽转讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

If the bird fell directly on to flax arranged into bundles, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact, because the bundles are hard. If it fell on this side or that side of the bundles, we need not be concerned, because it did not fall directly onto the bundles and the impact was dampened. If it fell on bundles of reeds, we must be concerned. If it fell on beaten and combed flax, with the impurities removed, we need not be concerned, since it is soft. If it fell on flax that was beaten but not combed, we must be concerned due to the residue of flax stalks in the bundles. If it fell on flax that was bundled after it was beaten and combed, since it has knots in it we must be concerned. If the bird fell on flax tow, a coarse bundle of unspun fiber, we must be concerned. If it fell on fine tow, we need not be concerned, because it is soft.

谞讘专讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 转讬诪讞转讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 拽讬讟诪讗 谞讛讬诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讗 谞讛讬诇讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

If the bird fell on nevara, the fibers that grow around a palm tree, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered. If it fell on tima岣a, palm bark cut into strips, we need not be concerned. If it fell on sifted ashes, we must be concerned, because the ashes harden. If it fell on unsifted ashes, we need not be concerned, because they are soft and scatter on impact.

Scroll To Top