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
The Gemara discusses what other protective materials a bird could fall upon that would successfully cushion its impact and prevent it from being rendered a treifa. Relatedly, if a bird’s wings become stuck to each other or to its body, a debate arises as to whether or not the bird will become a treifa upon falling, as its ability to break the fall is compromised. Two opinions are brought regarding the scope of this debate – specifically, whether the dispute applies to a case where only one wing is glued or if it is restricted to a case where both wings are glued.
The Mishna rules that if the majority of an animal’s ribs are broken, it is a treifa. While there are twenty-six ribs total, consisting of thirteen on each side, two of these are excluded from the halakhic count; therefore, a majority is defined as twelve ribs, which can be comprised of six on each side or any other combination totaling twelve. Rav rules that even a single rib dislocated along with its socket from the vertebra renders the animal a treifa. Rav Asi and Rav Kahana then questioned Rav regarding a case where two opposite ribs are completely removed while the vertebra remains intact, to which Rav responded that it is a neveila because the animal is essentially cut in half. Several questions are raised against this response in light of Rav’s own previous statement, wondering why they would ask about two ribs if Rav already held that even one dislocated rib is a treifa. Ultimately, the Gemara resolves this by reinterpreting the precise details of their question and explaining that they were unaware of Rav’s original ruling when they questioned him.
Three of the seven extra cases of treifot introduced by the Amoraim were authored by Shmuel and are analyzed here because one of them directly relates to uprooted ribs.
The next case in the Mishna transitions to an attack by a predator animal that emits venom (derisa), creating a treifa status. At first, a statement of Rav is brought asserting that a cat does not emit venom capable of making an animal a treifa, prompting the Gemara to question why this rule could not be inferred directly from the wording of the Mishna itself. Rav Chisda rules that a cat and a mongoose do emit venom that can kill a small kid or a baby lamb. A contradictory braita is brought against this view, and the contradiction is ultimately resolved in two possible manners.
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi for the continued health and good outcome for Talia Nechama bat Chana.
Chullin 52
חוֹל הַדַּק – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן; חוֹל הַגַּס – חָיְישִׁינַן; אֲבַק דְּרָכִים – חָיְישִׁינַן; תִּיבְנָא וַעֲבִיד בִּזְגָּא – חָיְישִׁינַן; לָא עָבֵיד בִּזְגָּא – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
If the bird fell on fine sand, we need not be concerned, because the sand slides on impact, cushioning the fall. If it fell on coarse sand, we must be concerned, because there are large stones mixed into it. If it fell on dust of the road, we must be concerned, because the dust is compact and hard. If the bird fell on bundled straw, we must be concerned, because it is compact and hard. If the straw was not bundled, we need not be concerned.
חִיטֵּי וְכֹל דְּמִינַיְיהוּ – חָיְישִׁינַן; שְׂעָרֵי וְכֹל דְּמִינַיְיהוּ – חָיְישִׁינַן; כׇּל מִינֵי קִטְנִיּוֹת – אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּקֵי אֵבָרִים, לְבַר מִן רוּבְּיָא. חִימְצֵי – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים, חִפְצֵי – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים. כְּלָלָא דְּמִלְּתָא: כֹּל מִידֵּי דְּמַשְׁרֵיק – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים, לָא מַשְׁרֵיק – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים.
If the bird fell on wheat and all similar types of grain, such as spelt or rye, whose kernels are hard, we must be concerned. If it fell on barley and all similar types of grain, such as oats, we must be concerned. With regard to all types of beans, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs if a bird fell on them, since their round shape causes the bird to slide when it hits them, except for fenugreek. With regard to peas, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs, but with regard to chickpeas, there is a concern due to possible shattered limbs. The principle of the matter is: With regard to anything that slips to the sides on impact, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs. And with regard to anything that does not slip, there is a concern due to possible shattered limbs.
דָּבוֹק – רַב אָשֵׁי שָׁרֵי, אַמֵּימָר אָסַר. בְּחַד גַּפָּא – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּתְרֵי גַּפֵּי. מַאן דְּאָסַר אָמַר לָךְ: הֵיכִי נֵיקוּם? וּמַאן דְּשָׁרֵי אָמַר לָךְ: אֶפְשָׁר דְּנֵיקוּם אַעִיקְבֵי דְּגַפֵּי.
If the bird’s wings became stuck to a davuk, a board covered with glue set as a trap, and in trying to escape it fell to the ground while stuck to the board, Rav Ashi deemed the bird permitted, while Ameimar deemed it prohibited. The Gemara explains: In a case where only one wing was stuck to the board, everyone agrees that it is permitted, because the bird flaps with the other wing, lessening the impact of the fall. They disagree when both wings are stuck to the board. The one who deemed it prohibited could have said to you: How will it stand itself up so that it might dampen the impact? And the one who deemed it permitted could have said to you: It is possible for it to stand itself up by using the tips of its wings.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בִּתְרֵי גַּפֵּי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּחַד גַּפָּא. מַאן דְּשָׁרֵי אָמַר לָךְ: אֶפְשָׁר דְּפָרַח בְּחַד גַּפָּא, וּמַאן דְּאָסַר: כֵּיוָן דִּבְהַאי לָא מָצֵי פָּרַח, בְּהַאי נָמֵי לָא מָצֵי פָּרַח. וְהִילְכְתָא: בִּתְרֵי גַּפֵּי אֲסִיר, בְּחַד גַּפָּא שְׁרֵי.
And there are those who say: In a case where two wings were stuck to the board, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, because it cannot dampen the impact. They disagree when only one wing is stuck to the board. The one who deemed it permitted could have said to you: It is possible for it to fly with one wing and dampen the fall. And the one who deemed it prohibited could say: Since it cannot fly with this wing that is stuck to the davuk, it also cannot fly with that untrapped wing. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: In a case where two wings were stuck, it is prohibited. In a case where only one wing was stuck, it is permitted.
נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רוֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן רוֹב צְלָעוֹת – שֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן וְשֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן, אוֹ אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִכָּאן.
§ The mishna states that if most of an animal’s ribs were fractured, it is a tereifa. The Sages taught: These are most of the ribs: Six from here and six from there, i.e., six on each side, or eleven from here and one from there. Twenty-two ribs are significant for matters of tereifot, eleven on each side. Twelve fractured ribs constitutes a majority.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: וּמֵחֶצְיָין כְּלַפֵּי שִׁדְרָה. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּבִצְלָעוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מוֹחַ.
Ze’eiri says: And this applies only when the ribs were fractured from the half of the rib toward the spine, but not if they were fractured on the other half. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And this applies only to fractures occurring in large ribs that contain marrow; fractures in small ribs do not render the animal a tereifa.
אָמַר עוּלָּא, בֶּן זַכַּאי אָמַר: נֶעְקְרוּ – בְּרוֹב צַד אֶחָד, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ – בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בֵּין נֶעְקְרוּ בֵּין נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ – בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין.
§ Ulla said that ben Zakkai says: If the ribs were dislocated from the spine, even a majority of one side, i.e., six dislocated ribs, is enough to render the animal a tereifa. Only if the ribs were broken is a majority of both sides necessary. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whether they were dislocated or broken, the animal is a tereifa only with a majority of both sides.
אָמַר רַב: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע וְחוּלְיָא עִמָּהּ – טְרֵפָה. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מִכָּאן וְצֵלָע מִכָּאן, וְחוּלְיָא קַיֶּימֶת, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמְרִיתוּ?!
Rav says: If a rib was dislocated and the attached vertebra was torn out with it, the animal is a tereifa, even if the spinal cord remains intact. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: If a rib was dislocated from here and another rib from there, i.e., both ribs connected to a single vertebra were dislocated, but the vertebra itself remains intact, what is the halakha? Rav said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa? This animal is considered to have been sliced and already has the status of a carcass, as it is already considered dead (see 21a).
וְהָא רַב נָמֵי גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמַר? כִּי קָאָמַר רַב – צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav also say that a sliced animal is a tereifa, since he said that if a rib was dislocated along with the attached vertebra, the animal is a tereifa? In such a case, the opposite rib is inevitably detached. If so, the animal should be considered a carcass. The Gemara responds: When Rav said that such an animal is a tereifa, he was referring to a case where the rib was dislocated without the vertebra.
וְהָא צֵלָע וְחוּלְיָא קָאָמַר? צֵלָע וַחֲצִי חוּלְיָא.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav explicitly say his statement with regard to a rib and vertebra that were dislocated? The Gemara responds: Rav meant that if a rib and half its attached vertebra were dislocated, the animal is a tereifa. The opposite rib, however, is intact and connected to the remainder of the vertebra.
מִכְּלָל דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי, צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא אָמְרִי, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: ״גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמְרִיתוּ״? וְהָאָמַר עוּלָּא: בֶּן זַכַּאי אָמַר: נֶעְקְרוּ – בְּרוֹב צַד אֶחָד, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ – בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין.
The Gemara challenges: By inference, one may conclude that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi stated their question with regard to a less serious case, i.e., where a rib from each side was torn out without the vertebra being damaged at all. And yet, Rav said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa? Rather, this animal is a carcass and is certainly prohibited. And how could Rav say this? But didn’t Ulla say that ben Zakkai says: If the ribs were dislocated, even a majority of one side is enough to render the animal a tereifa, while if the ribs were broken, a majority of both sides is necessary? If so, any animal with fewer than six dislocated ribs should be kosher, as long as the spine is undamaged.
אָמַר לָךְ: הָתָם זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה, הָכָא זֶה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה.
The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you: There, where ben Zakkai says that six dislocated ribs on one side render the animal a tereifa, this is referring only to ribs not dislocated one opposite the other. Here, where Rav says that two dislocated ribs render the animal a carcass, this is referring to ribs dislocated one opposite the other.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין, וּבְרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא קָיְימָא (חד) [חֲדָא] מִינַּיְיהוּ זֶה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה!
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say that the animal is a tereifa only if a majority of both sides was dislocated, and in a majority of both sides, it is impossible that one of them is not situated opposite another? Still, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the animal is a tereifa and not a carcass.
הָתָם – בּוּכְנָא בְּלָא אֲסִיתָא, הָכָא – בּוּכְנָא וַאֲסִיתָא.
The Gemara responds: There, Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to a case where the pestle, i.e., the end of the rib, was torn out without the mortar, the socket of the vertebra in which it sits, leaving the spine completely intact. In such a case, the animal is a tereifa only if twelve ribs were dislocated, even though this necessarily includes one rib opposite another. Here, where Rav says that two dislocated ribs opposite one another render the animal a carcass, that is referring to a case where the pestle and mortar were torn out together, damaging the spine.
אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּרַב? לָא שְׁמִיעַ לְהוּ דְּרַב.
The Gemara asks: If so, why did Rav Kahana and Rav Asi ask anything of Rav? Their case in question is identical to the statement of Rav. If Rav says that the animal is a tereifa if a rib and part of its vertebra were dislocated, that should be the halakha all the more so if ribs opposite one another were dislocated in addition to part of the attached vertebra. The Gemara responds: Rav Kahana and Rav Asi did not hear that statement of Rav.
וְלִיבְעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ כִּדְרַב? סָבְרִי: לִיבְעֵי מִינֵּיהּ חֲדָא דְּפָרֵישׁ לַן תַּרְתֵּי, דְּאִי בָּעֵינַן מִינֵּיהּ חֲדָא, הָנִיחָא אִי אֲמַר לַן ״טְרֵפָה״ – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן תַּרְתֵּי, אִי אֲמַר לַן ״כְּשֵׁרָה״ – אַכַּתִּי תַּרְתֵּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן.
The Gemara persists: But if so, let them ask about the simpler case of one dislocated rib, like that which Rav himself discussed. Why ask specifically about two ribs opposite one another? The Gemara responds: They reasoned: Let us ask him one question through which he will explain to us two different cases. As, if we ask him about only one dislocated rib, this works out well if he says to us that the animal is a tereifa, because we can infer that all the more so if two ribs opposite one another are dislocated, the animal is a tereifa. But if he says to us that it is kosher, we must still ask with regard to a case of two dislocated ribs.
אִי הָכִי, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי דְּקָא בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי, הָנִיחָא אִי אֲמַר לְהוּ ״כְּשֵׁרָה״ – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן חֲדָא; וְאִי אֲמַר לְהוּ ״טְרֵפָה״, אַכַּתִּי חֲדָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ.
The Gemara objects: If that is so, then now, too, when they ask him about two ribs, they may not receive an answer with regard to both cases. Granted, this works out well if he says to them that an animal with two dislocated ribs opposite one another is kosher, since they can infer that all the more so it is kosher if only one rib is dislocated. But if he says to them that it is a tereifa, they must still ask with regard to a case of only one dislocated rib.
סָבְרִי: אִם כֵּן מִירְתָּח קָא רָתַח. חֲדָא טְרֵפָה, תַּרְתֵּי מִיבַּעְיָא?
The Gemara responds: They reasoned that it is better to ask about a case where two ribs opposite one another were dislocated, because if it is so that Rav holds that the animal is a tereifa if even one rib is dislocated, then he would become angry and respond: If an animal with even one dislocated rib is a tereifa, is it necessary to ask about an animal with two dislocated ribs?
וְהָא קָא אָמְרִי לֵיהּ וְלָא רָתַח, כֵּיוָן דְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ ״גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמְרִיתוּ״ – הַיְינוּ רִיתְחֵיהּ.
The Gemara objects: But they did say this question to him and he did not become angry, despite the fact that he holds that even one dislocated rib renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara responds: When he said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa, this is his anger. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi understood from this response that an animal with two dislocated ribs opposite one another is a carcass, but an animal with one dislocated rib is a tereifa.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מֵעִיקָּרָהּ, וְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה בְּרוּבָּה, וּבָשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס בְּרוּבּוֹ – טְרֵפָה.
§ Rabba bar Rav Sheila says that Rav Mattana says that Shmuel says: If a rib was ripped from its root, or if the skull was crushed in its majority, or if the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was damaged in its majority, the animal is a tereifa.
נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מֵעִיקָּרָהּ טְרֵפָה? וּרְמִינְהוּ:
The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel really say that if a rib was ripped from its root, the animal is a tereifa? But raise a contradiction from a mishna (Oholot 2:3):
כַּמָּה חִסָּרוֹן בְּשִׁדְרָה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי חוּלְיוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חוּלְיָא אַחַת, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְכֵן לִטְרֵפָה.
How much is considered a deficiency in the spine of a corpse so that it will not be considered a full corpse that would render one impure in a tent? Beit Shammai say: Two missing vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: One vertebra. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa, i.e., according to Beit Hillel an animal missing only one vertebra is a tereifa. Evidently, Shmuel holds that a missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa, but a dislocated rib does not.
הָכָא – צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא, הָתָם – חוּלְיָא בְּלֹא צֵלָע.
The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, where Shmuel says that a rib ripped from its root renders the animal a tereifa, he is referring to a case where the rib was torn out without the vertebra. There, where he says that a missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa according to Beit Hillel, he is referring to a case where the vertebra was missing without the rib being dislocated. But if the rib itself was ripped from its root, the animal is a tereifa.
בִּשְׁלָמָא צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא – מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, אֶלָּא חוּלְיָא בְּלֹא צֵלָע – הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? בְּשִׁילְהֵי כַּפְלֵי.
The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a case where a rib was dislocated without the vertebra, you find this commonly. But how can you find a case of a missing vertebra without a dislocated rib? The Gemara responds: This can occur at the ends of the flanks, where there are vertebrae with no ribs attached to them.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: וְלִתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי קוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב: כִּי אִיתְּשִׁיל – לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה אִיתְּשִׁיל, דְּהָווּ לְהוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא.
Shmuel said that just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa. Rav Oshaya objects to this statement: But if that is so, then the opinion of Beit Hillel is the more stringent one, as they hold that even one missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa. Accordingly, let the tanna teach this dispute along with the list of leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel in tractate Eduyyot. Rav said to him: When the question was asked, it was asked with regard to the ritual impurity of a corpse. That is the source of the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, and on that matter, Beit Shammai constitute the stringent opinion. The parallel disagreement with regard to tereifot is not mentioned explicitly in any mishna or baraita, and it was therefore omitted from the list in tractate Eduyyot.
וְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה בְּרוּבָּהּ. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: רוֹב גּוֹבְהָהּ, אוֹ רוֹב הֶיקֵּיפָהּ? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara returns to Shmuel’s statement: Or if the skull was crushed in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Is this referring to the majority of its height or the majority of its circumference? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
וּבָשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה רוֹב הַכָּרֵס בְּרוּבּוֹ. בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּרוֹב קָרוּעַ, אוֹ בְּרוֹב נָטוּל?
Shmuel also said: Or if the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was damaged in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Is this referring even to a case where the majority of the length of the flesh was torn? Or is it referring only to a case where the majority of the flesh was removed, but if it was torn along the majority of its length the animal remains kosher?
תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדִּתְנַן: כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרַע רוֹב הַחִיצוֹנָה, וְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כׇּל הַכָּרֵס כּוּלּוֹ זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי, וְאֵי זֶהוּ כָּרֵס הַחִיצוֹנָה? בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס.
The Gemara responds: Resolve the dilemma from that which we learned in the mishna: If the internal rumen was perforated or most of the external rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa. And in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: 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. Apparently, the animal is a tereifa even if the flesh is torn in its majority.
מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא, אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מֵילָת.
The Gemara rejects the proof: This explanation is meant only to clarify the statement of Shmuel, and Shmuel does not agree with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as this is what Rabbi Ya’akov bar Naḥmani said that Shmuel said: The case of: Most of the external rumen was torn, mentioned in the mishna, where the animal is a tereifa, is not referring to where the flesh enveloping the majority of the rumen was torn, but rather where the majority of the rumen itself was torn. The internal rumen is the place in the rumen that has no wool, i.e., downy projections on the inside of the rumen. Accordingly, one cannot prove anything about the statement of Shmuel based on an explanation of the mishna offered by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.
וּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בִּבְהֵמָה – מִן הַזְּאֵב וּלְמַעְלָה, וּבְעוֹפוֹת – מִן הַנֵּץ וּלְמַעְלָה.
§ The mishna states: And an animal that was clawed by a wolf is a tereifa. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of an animal, it is a tereifa if it was clawed by any predator from the size of a wolf and upward. And with regard to birds, they are tereifot if they were clawed by any predator from the size of a hawk and upward.
לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי חָתוּל – תְּנֵינָא: ״וּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב״, וְכִי תֵּימָא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּזְאֵב בְּגַסָּה נָמֵי דָּרֵיס – וְהָא תְּנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: דְּרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב בַּדַּקָּה, וּדְרוּסַת אֲרִי בַּגַּסָּה!
The Gemara asks: What does this statement of Rav, that an animal is a tereifa if it was clawed by a predator at least as large as a wolf, serve to exclude? If we say it serves to exclude a cat that clawed an animal, since it is smaller than a wolf, we already learned in the mishna: And an animal clawed by a wolf is a tereifa. One can infer from this that cats do not render an animal a tereifa. And if you would say: This mishna teaches us that a wolf can also effectively claw a large animal, e.g., cattle, but it may still be that a cat can render a small animal a tereifa, this cannot be; didn’t we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was clawed by a wolf in the case of a small animal, or clawed by a lion in the case of a large animal, the animal is a tereifa?
וְכִי תֵּימָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִפְלָג פְּלִיג, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: לֹא בָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא לְפָרֵשׁ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים!
And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis, and they hold that a wolf can also render large livestock tereifa by clawing, this too is impossible, as doesn’t Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet say that Rabbi Ela says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna comes only to explain the statement of the Rabbis?
גַּבְרָא אַגַּבְרָא קָא רָמֵית? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם לְמַעוֹטֵי חָתוּל, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אוֹרְחָא דְּמִלְּתָא קָתָנֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara responds: Are you setting the statement of one man against the statement of another man? Even if Rabbi Ela holds that Rabbi Yehuda comes only to explain the statement of the Rabbis, Rav may still hold that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis. Or, if you wish, say instead: Actually, everyone agrees that a wolf can render only a small animal a tereifa through clawing. Nevertheless, the statement of Rav serves to exclude a cat from the ability to render even a small animal a tereifa. Lest you say that the mishna taught about a wolf only because this is the manner in which the matter typically occurs, but a cat may in fact render a small animal a tereifa, Rav teaches us that it is referring specifically to a wolf.
אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דְּרוּסַת חָתוּל וּנְמִיָּיה בִּגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים, דְּרוּסַת חוּלְדָּה בְּעוֹפוֹת. מֵיתִיבִי: דְּרוּסַת חָתוּל, נֵץ וּנְמִיָּיה עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לֶחָלָל, אֲבָל דְּרוּסָה לֵית לְהוּ!
§ Rav Amram says that Rav Ḥisda says: If an animal was clawed by a cat or a mongoose, in the case of kids or lambs, which are very small, it is a tereifa. If it was clawed by a weasel in the case of birds, it is a tereifa. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An animal clawed by a cat, hawk, or mongoose is not rendered a tereifa until one of its internal organs is perforated to its recesses. One may infer: But they, i.e., a cat, hawk, and mongoose, do not have the ability to render an animal a tereifa through the clawing itself.
וְתִסְבְּרָא נֵץ לָא דָּרֵיס? וְהָתְנַן: וּדְרוּסַת הַנֵּץ! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּעוֹפוֹת, כָּאן בִּגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים.
The Gemara questions the inference: And can you understand that a hawk does not effectively claw an animal? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And a small bird clawed by a hawk is rendered a tereifa? The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. Here, where the mishna states that a hawk can effectively claw, it is with regard to birds, while there, where the baraita states that a hawk does not effectively claw, it is with regard to kids and lambs.
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, לְרַב חִסְדָּא קַשְׁיָא, הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּרִיבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמְרוּ אֵין דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַצִּילִין – יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה.
The Gemara returns to its initial objection: In any case, the baraita poses a difficulty for Rav Ḥisda, who says that a cat may render kids and lambs tereifot through clawing. The Gemara responds: Rav Ḥisda states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is not effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are none present to save it. But in a place where there are bystanders trying to save the kid, it is effectively clawed, since the cat is angered and injects venom into the wound. Rav Ḥisda is referring specifically to the latter case.
וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין אֵין דְּרוּסָה? וְהָא הָהִיא (תרנגולת) [תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא] דַּהֲוַאי בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, דִּרְהַט חָתוּל בָּתְרַהּ, וְעָל לְאִידְּרוֹנָא, וְאִיתְּחִיד דַּשָּׁא בְּאַפֵּיהּ, וּמַחְיֵיהּ לְדַשָּׁא בְּסִיחוּפֵיהּ, וְאִשְׁתְּכַח עֲלַהּ חַמְשָׁה קוּרְטֵי דְּמָא!
The Gemara asks: And in a place where there are none to save the kid, is it not effectively clawed? But there was a certain hen that was in the house of Rav Kahana, which a cat pursued, and the cat entered after it into a small room, and the door shut in the cat’s face, and it struck the door with its paws in anger. And afterward, five drops of blood, i.e., venom, were found on the door. Apparently a cat is venomous even if no one is present to save its prey.
הַצָּלַת עַצְמָהּ נָמֵי כְּהַצָּלַת אֲחֵרִים דָּמֵי, וְרַבָּנַן – זִיהֲרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְלָא קָלֵי זִיהֲרֵיהּ.
The Gemara responds: For a cat, saving itself is also considered like saving others. Since the cat felt threatened, it acted as it would if there had been someone present to defend the hen. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who state in the baraita that a cat can never effectively claw a small animal, even when there are bystanders attempting to save its prey, how do they explain this incident? The Gemara responds: According to the Rabbis, a cat does have venom, but its venom does not burn enough to render the animal a tereifa.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא מַנִּי? בְּרִיבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּרִיבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמְרוּ יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַצִּילִין, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין – אִין דְּרוּסָה.
There are those who state the details of this exchange differently: After raising an objection to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from the baraita that states that a cat cannot effectively claw kids and lambs, the Gemara responds: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Distinguished One, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are bystanders present to save it. But in a place where there are none present to save the kid, it is not effectively clawed. The baraita, then, discusses a case where there are none present to save it. Rav Ḥisda agrees with the Rabbis that a cat can effectively claw an animal even when there are none present to save it.
וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין אֵין דְּרוּסָה? וְהָא הָהִיא (תרנגולת) [תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא] דַּהֲוַאי בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, דִּרְהַט חָתוּל בָּתְרַהּ וְעַל לְאִידְּרוֹנָא, וְאִיתְּחִיד דַּשָּׁא בְּאַפֵּיהּ, וּמַחְיֵיהּ לְדַשָּׁא בְּסִיחוּפֵיהּ, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח עֲלֵיהּ חֲמִשָּׁה קוּרְטֵי דְּמָא. הַצָּלַת עַצְמָהּ נָמֵי כְּהַצָּלַת אֲחֵרִים דָּמְיָא.
The Gemara asks: But in a place where there are none present to save the kid, is it not effectively clawed? But there was a certain hen that was in the house of Rav Kahana, which a cat pursued, and the cat entered after it into a small room, and the door shut in the cat’s face, and it struck the door with its paws in anger. And afterward, five drops of blood, i.e., venom, were found on the door. The Gemara responds: For a cat, saving itself is also considered like saving others.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא מֵרַב:
The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana asked Rav:
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 the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Bronx, United States
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
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Chullin 52
חוֹל הַדַּק – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן; חוֹל הַגַּס – חָיְישִׁינַן; אֲבַק דְּרָכִים – חָיְישִׁינַן; תִּיבְנָא וַעֲבִיד בִּזְגָּא – חָיְישִׁינַן; לָא עָבֵיד בִּזְגָּא – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
If the bird fell on fine sand, we need not be concerned, because the sand slides on impact, cushioning the fall. If it fell on coarse sand, we must be concerned, because there are large stones mixed into it. If it fell on dust of the road, we must be concerned, because the dust is compact and hard. If the bird fell on bundled straw, we must be concerned, because it is compact and hard. If the straw was not bundled, we need not be concerned.
חִיטֵּי וְכֹל דְּמִינַיְיהוּ – חָיְישִׁינַן; שְׂעָרֵי וְכֹל דְּמִינַיְיהוּ – חָיְישִׁינַן; כׇּל מִינֵי קִטְנִיּוֹת – אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּקֵי אֵבָרִים, לְבַר מִן רוּבְּיָא. חִימְצֵי – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים, חִפְצֵי – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים. כְּלָלָא דְּמִלְּתָא: כֹּל מִידֵּי דְּמַשְׁרֵיק – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים, לָא מַשְׁרֵיק – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים.
If the bird fell on wheat and all similar types of grain, such as spelt or rye, whose kernels are hard, we must be concerned. If it fell on barley and all similar types of grain, such as oats, we must be concerned. With regard to all types of beans, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs if a bird fell on them, since their round shape causes the bird to slide when it hits them, except for fenugreek. With regard to peas, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs, but with regard to chickpeas, there is a concern due to possible shattered limbs. The principle of the matter is: With regard to anything that slips to the sides on impact, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs. And with regard to anything that does not slip, there is a concern due to possible shattered limbs.
דָּבוֹק – רַב אָשֵׁי שָׁרֵי, אַמֵּימָר אָסַר. בְּחַד גַּפָּא – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּתְרֵי גַּפֵּי. מַאן דְּאָסַר אָמַר לָךְ: הֵיכִי נֵיקוּם? וּמַאן דְּשָׁרֵי אָמַר לָךְ: אֶפְשָׁר דְּנֵיקוּם אַעִיקְבֵי דְּגַפֵּי.
If the bird’s wings became stuck to a davuk, a board covered with glue set as a trap, and in trying to escape it fell to the ground while stuck to the board, Rav Ashi deemed the bird permitted, while Ameimar deemed it prohibited. The Gemara explains: In a case where only one wing was stuck to the board, everyone agrees that it is permitted, because the bird flaps with the other wing, lessening the impact of the fall. They disagree when both wings are stuck to the board. The one who deemed it prohibited could have said to you: How will it stand itself up so that it might dampen the impact? And the one who deemed it permitted could have said to you: It is possible for it to stand itself up by using the tips of its wings.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בִּתְרֵי גַּפֵּי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּחַד גַּפָּא. מַאן דְּשָׁרֵי אָמַר לָךְ: אֶפְשָׁר דְּפָרַח בְּחַד גַּפָּא, וּמַאן דְּאָסַר: כֵּיוָן דִּבְהַאי לָא מָצֵי פָּרַח, בְּהַאי נָמֵי לָא מָצֵי פָּרַח. וְהִילְכְתָא: בִּתְרֵי גַּפֵּי אֲסִיר, בְּחַד גַּפָּא שְׁרֵי.
And there are those who say: In a case where two wings were stuck to the board, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, because it cannot dampen the impact. They disagree when only one wing is stuck to the board. The one who deemed it permitted could have said to you: It is possible for it to fly with one wing and dampen the fall. And the one who deemed it prohibited could say: Since it cannot fly with this wing that is stuck to the davuk, it also cannot fly with that untrapped wing. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: In a case where two wings were stuck, it is prohibited. In a case where only one wing was stuck, it is permitted.
נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רוֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן רוֹב צְלָעוֹת – שֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן וְשֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן, אוֹ אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִכָּאן.
§ The mishna states that if most of an animal’s ribs were fractured, it is a tereifa. The Sages taught: These are most of the ribs: Six from here and six from there, i.e., six on each side, or eleven from here and one from there. Twenty-two ribs are significant for matters of tereifot, eleven on each side. Twelve fractured ribs constitutes a majority.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: וּמֵחֶצְיָין כְּלַפֵּי שִׁדְרָה. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּבִצְלָעוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מוֹחַ.
Ze’eiri says: And this applies only when the ribs were fractured from the half of the rib toward the spine, but not if they were fractured on the other half. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And this applies only to fractures occurring in large ribs that contain marrow; fractures in small ribs do not render the animal a tereifa.
אָמַר עוּלָּא, בֶּן זַכַּאי אָמַר: נֶעְקְרוּ – בְּרוֹב צַד אֶחָד, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ – בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בֵּין נֶעְקְרוּ בֵּין נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ – בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין.
§ Ulla said that ben Zakkai says: If the ribs were dislocated from the spine, even a majority of one side, i.e., six dislocated ribs, is enough to render the animal a tereifa. Only if the ribs were broken is a majority of both sides necessary. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whether they were dislocated or broken, the animal is a tereifa only with a majority of both sides.
אָמַר רַב: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע וְחוּלְיָא עִמָּהּ – טְרֵפָה. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מִכָּאן וְצֵלָע מִכָּאן, וְחוּלְיָא קַיֶּימֶת, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמְרִיתוּ?!
Rav says: If a rib was dislocated and the attached vertebra was torn out with it, the animal is a tereifa, even if the spinal cord remains intact. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: If a rib was dislocated from here and another rib from there, i.e., both ribs connected to a single vertebra were dislocated, but the vertebra itself remains intact, what is the halakha? Rav said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa? This animal is considered to have been sliced and already has the status of a carcass, as it is already considered dead (see 21a).
וְהָא רַב נָמֵי גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמַר? כִּי קָאָמַר רַב – צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav also say that a sliced animal is a tereifa, since he said that if a rib was dislocated along with the attached vertebra, the animal is a tereifa? In such a case, the opposite rib is inevitably detached. If so, the animal should be considered a carcass. The Gemara responds: When Rav said that such an animal is a tereifa, he was referring to a case where the rib was dislocated without the vertebra.
וְהָא צֵלָע וְחוּלְיָא קָאָמַר? צֵלָע וַחֲצִי חוּלְיָא.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav explicitly say his statement with regard to a rib and vertebra that were dislocated? The Gemara responds: Rav meant that if a rib and half its attached vertebra were dislocated, the animal is a tereifa. The opposite rib, however, is intact and connected to the remainder of the vertebra.
מִכְּלָל דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי, צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא אָמְרִי, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: ״גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמְרִיתוּ״? וְהָאָמַר עוּלָּא: בֶּן זַכַּאי אָמַר: נֶעְקְרוּ – בְּרוֹב צַד אֶחָד, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ – בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין.
The Gemara challenges: By inference, one may conclude that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi stated their question with regard to a less serious case, i.e., where a rib from each side was torn out without the vertebra being damaged at all. And yet, Rav said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa? Rather, this animal is a carcass and is certainly prohibited. And how could Rav say this? But didn’t Ulla say that ben Zakkai says: If the ribs were dislocated, even a majority of one side is enough to render the animal a tereifa, while if the ribs were broken, a majority of both sides is necessary? If so, any animal with fewer than six dislocated ribs should be kosher, as long as the spine is undamaged.
אָמַר לָךְ: הָתָם זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה, הָכָא זֶה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה.
The Gemara responds: Rav could have said to you: There, where ben Zakkai says that six dislocated ribs on one side render the animal a tereifa, this is referring only to ribs not dislocated one opposite the other. Here, where Rav says that two dislocated ribs render the animal a carcass, this is referring to ribs dislocated one opposite the other.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין, וּבְרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא קָיְימָא (חד) [חֲדָא] מִינַּיְיהוּ זֶה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה!
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say that the animal is a tereifa only if a majority of both sides was dislocated, and in a majority of both sides, it is impossible that one of them is not situated opposite another? Still, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the animal is a tereifa and not a carcass.
הָתָם – בּוּכְנָא בְּלָא אֲסִיתָא, הָכָא – בּוּכְנָא וַאֲסִיתָא.
The Gemara responds: There, Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to a case where the pestle, i.e., the end of the rib, was torn out without the mortar, the socket of the vertebra in which it sits, leaving the spine completely intact. In such a case, the animal is a tereifa only if twelve ribs were dislocated, even though this necessarily includes one rib opposite another. Here, where Rav says that two dislocated ribs opposite one another render the animal a carcass, that is referring to a case where the pestle and mortar were torn out together, damaging the spine.
אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּרַב? לָא שְׁמִיעַ לְהוּ דְּרַב.
The Gemara asks: If so, why did Rav Kahana and Rav Asi ask anything of Rav? Their case in question is identical to the statement of Rav. If Rav says that the animal is a tereifa if a rib and part of its vertebra were dislocated, that should be the halakha all the more so if ribs opposite one another were dislocated in addition to part of the attached vertebra. The Gemara responds: Rav Kahana and Rav Asi did not hear that statement of Rav.
וְלִיבְעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ כִּדְרַב? סָבְרִי: לִיבְעֵי מִינֵּיהּ חֲדָא דְּפָרֵישׁ לַן תַּרְתֵּי, דְּאִי בָּעֵינַן מִינֵּיהּ חֲדָא, הָנִיחָא אִי אֲמַר לַן ״טְרֵפָה״ – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן תַּרְתֵּי, אִי אֲמַר לַן ״כְּשֵׁרָה״ – אַכַּתִּי תַּרְתֵּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן.
The Gemara persists: But if so, let them ask about the simpler case of one dislocated rib, like that which Rav himself discussed. Why ask specifically about two ribs opposite one another? The Gemara responds: They reasoned: Let us ask him one question through which he will explain to us two different cases. As, if we ask him about only one dislocated rib, this works out well if he says to us that the animal is a tereifa, because we can infer that all the more so if two ribs opposite one another are dislocated, the animal is a tereifa. But if he says to us that it is kosher, we must still ask with regard to a case of two dislocated ribs.
אִי הָכִי, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי דְּקָא בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי, הָנִיחָא אִי אֲמַר לְהוּ ״כְּשֵׁרָה״ – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן חֲדָא; וְאִי אֲמַר לְהוּ ״טְרֵפָה״, אַכַּתִּי חֲדָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ.
The Gemara objects: If that is so, then now, too, when they ask him about two ribs, they may not receive an answer with regard to both cases. Granted, this works out well if he says to them that an animal with two dislocated ribs opposite one another is kosher, since they can infer that all the more so it is kosher if only one rib is dislocated. But if he says to them that it is a tereifa, they must still ask with regard to a case of only one dislocated rib.
סָבְרִי: אִם כֵּן מִירְתָּח קָא רָתַח. חֲדָא טְרֵפָה, תַּרְתֵּי מִיבַּעְיָא?
The Gemara responds: They reasoned that it is better to ask about a case where two ribs opposite one another were dislocated, because if it is so that Rav holds that the animal is a tereifa if even one rib is dislocated, then he would become angry and respond: If an animal with even one dislocated rib is a tereifa, is it necessary to ask about an animal with two dislocated ribs?
וְהָא קָא אָמְרִי לֵיהּ וְלָא רָתַח, כֵּיוָן דְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ ״גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמְרִיתוּ״ – הַיְינוּ רִיתְחֵיהּ.
The Gemara objects: But they did say this question to him and he did not become angry, despite the fact that he holds that even one dislocated rib renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara responds: When he said to them: Are you saying that an animal that was sliced in half is a tereifa, this is his anger. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi understood from this response that an animal with two dislocated ribs opposite one another is a carcass, but an animal with one dislocated rib is a tereifa.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מֵעִיקָּרָהּ, וְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה בְּרוּבָּה, וּבָשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס בְּרוּבּוֹ – טְרֵפָה.
§ Rabba bar Rav Sheila says that Rav Mattana says that Shmuel says: If a rib was ripped from its root, or if the skull was crushed in its majority, or if the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was damaged in its majority, the animal is a tereifa.
נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מֵעִיקָּרָהּ טְרֵפָה? וּרְמִינְהוּ:
The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel really say that if a rib was ripped from its root, the animal is a tereifa? But raise a contradiction from a mishna (Oholot 2:3):
כַּמָּה חִסָּרוֹן בְּשִׁדְרָה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי חוּלְיוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חוּלְיָא אַחַת, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְכֵן לִטְרֵפָה.
How much is considered a deficiency in the spine of a corpse so that it will not be considered a full corpse that would render one impure in a tent? Beit Shammai say: Two missing vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: One vertebra. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa, i.e., according to Beit Hillel an animal missing only one vertebra is a tereifa. Evidently, Shmuel holds that a missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa, but a dislocated rib does not.
הָכָא – צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא, הָתָם – חוּלְיָא בְּלֹא צֵלָע.
The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, where Shmuel says that a rib ripped from its root renders the animal a tereifa, he is referring to a case where the rib was torn out without the vertebra. There, where he says that a missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa according to Beit Hillel, he is referring to a case where the vertebra was missing without the rib being dislocated. But if the rib itself was ripped from its root, the animal is a tereifa.
בִּשְׁלָמָא צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא – מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, אֶלָּא חוּלְיָא בְּלֹא צֵלָע – הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? בְּשִׁילְהֵי כַּפְלֵי.
The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a case where a rib was dislocated without the vertebra, you find this commonly. But how can you find a case of a missing vertebra without a dislocated rib? The Gemara responds: This can occur at the ends of the flanks, where there are vertebrae with no ribs attached to them.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: וְלִתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי קוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב: כִּי אִיתְּשִׁיל – לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה אִיתְּשִׁיל, דְּהָווּ לְהוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא.
Shmuel said that just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa. Rav Oshaya objects to this statement: But if that is so, then the opinion of Beit Hillel is the more stringent one, as they hold that even one missing vertebra renders the animal a tereifa. Accordingly, let the tanna teach this dispute along with the list of leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel in tractate Eduyyot. Rav said to him: When the question was asked, it was asked with regard to the ritual impurity of a corpse. That is the source of the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, and on that matter, Beit Shammai constitute the stringent opinion. The parallel disagreement with regard to tereifot is not mentioned explicitly in any mishna or baraita, and it was therefore omitted from the list in tractate Eduyyot.
וְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה בְּרוּבָּהּ. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: רוֹב גּוֹבְהָהּ, אוֹ רוֹב הֶיקֵּיפָהּ? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara returns to Shmuel’s statement: Or if the skull was crushed in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: Is this referring to the majority of its height or the majority of its circumference? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
וּבָשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה רוֹב הַכָּרֵס בְּרוּבּוֹ. בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּרוֹב קָרוּעַ, אוֹ בְּרוֹב נָטוּל?
Shmuel also said: Or if the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was damaged in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Is this referring even to a case where the majority of the length of the flesh was torn? Or is it referring only to a case where the majority of the flesh was removed, but if it was torn along the majority of its length the animal remains kosher?
תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדִּתְנַן: כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרַע רוֹב הַחִיצוֹנָה, וְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כׇּל הַכָּרֵס כּוּלּוֹ זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי, וְאֵי זֶהוּ כָּרֵס הַחִיצוֹנָה? בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס.
The Gemara responds: Resolve the dilemma from that which we learned in the mishna: If the internal rumen was perforated or most of the external rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa. And in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: 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. Apparently, the animal is a tereifa even if the flesh is torn in its majority.
מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא, אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מֵילָת.
The Gemara rejects the proof: This explanation is meant only to clarify the statement of Shmuel, and Shmuel does not agree with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as this is what Rabbi Ya’akov bar Naḥmani said that Shmuel said: The case of: Most of the external rumen was torn, mentioned in the mishna, where the animal is a tereifa, is not referring to where the flesh enveloping the majority of the rumen was torn, but rather where the majority of the rumen itself was torn. The internal rumen is the place in the rumen that has no wool, i.e., downy projections on the inside of the rumen. Accordingly, one cannot prove anything about the statement of Shmuel based on an explanation of the mishna offered by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.
וּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בִּבְהֵמָה – מִן הַזְּאֵב וּלְמַעְלָה, וּבְעוֹפוֹת – מִן הַנֵּץ וּלְמַעְלָה.
§ The mishna states: And an animal that was clawed by a wolf is a tereifa. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of an animal, it is a tereifa if it was clawed by any predator from the size of a wolf and upward. And with regard to birds, they are tereifot if they were clawed by any predator from the size of a hawk and upward.
לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אִילֵּימָא לְמַעוֹטֵי חָתוּל – תְּנֵינָא: ״וּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב״, וְכִי תֵּימָא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּזְאֵב בְּגַסָּה נָמֵי דָּרֵיס – וְהָא תְּנַן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: דְּרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב בַּדַּקָּה, וּדְרוּסַת אֲרִי בַּגַּסָּה!
The Gemara asks: What does this statement of Rav, that an animal is a tereifa if it was clawed by a predator at least as large as a wolf, serve to exclude? If we say it serves to exclude a cat that clawed an animal, since it is smaller than a wolf, we already learned in the mishna: And an animal clawed by a wolf is a tereifa. One can infer from this that cats do not render an animal a tereifa. And if you would say: This mishna teaches us that a wolf can also effectively claw a large animal, e.g., cattle, but it may still be that a cat can render a small animal a tereifa, this cannot be; didn’t we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was clawed by a wolf in the case of a small animal, or clawed by a lion in the case of a large animal, the animal is a tereifa?
וְכִי תֵּימָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִפְלָג פְּלִיג, וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא: לֹא בָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא לְפָרֵשׁ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים!
And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis, and they hold that a wolf can also render large livestock tereifa by clawing, this too is impossible, as doesn’t Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet say that Rabbi Ela says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna comes only to explain the statement of the Rabbis?
גַּבְרָא אַגַּבְרָא קָא רָמֵית? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם לְמַעוֹטֵי חָתוּל, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אוֹרְחָא דְּמִלְּתָא קָתָנֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara responds: Are you setting the statement of one man against the statement of another man? Even if Rabbi Ela holds that Rabbi Yehuda comes only to explain the statement of the Rabbis, Rav may still hold that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis. Or, if you wish, say instead: Actually, everyone agrees that a wolf can render only a small animal a tereifa through clawing. Nevertheless, the statement of Rav serves to exclude a cat from the ability to render even a small animal a tereifa. Lest you say that the mishna taught about a wolf only because this is the manner in which the matter typically occurs, but a cat may in fact render a small animal a tereifa, Rav teaches us that it is referring specifically to a wolf.
אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דְּרוּסַת חָתוּל וּנְמִיָּיה בִּגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים, דְּרוּסַת חוּלְדָּה בְּעוֹפוֹת. מֵיתִיבִי: דְּרוּסַת חָתוּל, נֵץ וּנְמִיָּיה עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לֶחָלָל, אֲבָל דְּרוּסָה לֵית לְהוּ!
§ Rav Amram says that Rav Ḥisda says: If an animal was clawed by a cat or a mongoose, in the case of kids or lambs, which are very small, it is a tereifa. If it was clawed by a weasel in the case of birds, it is a tereifa. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An animal clawed by a cat, hawk, or mongoose is not rendered a tereifa until one of its internal organs is perforated to its recesses. One may infer: But they, i.e., a cat, hawk, and mongoose, do not have the ability to render an animal a tereifa through the clawing itself.
וְתִסְבְּרָא נֵץ לָא דָּרֵיס? וְהָתְנַן: וּדְרוּסַת הַנֵּץ! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּעוֹפוֹת, כָּאן בִּגְדָיִים וּטְלָאִים.
The Gemara questions the inference: And can you understand that a hawk does not effectively claw an animal? But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And a small bird clawed by a hawk is rendered a tereifa? The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. Here, where the mishna states that a hawk can effectively claw, it is with regard to birds, while there, where the baraita states that a hawk does not effectively claw, it is with regard to kids and lambs.
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, לְרַב חִסְדָּא קַשְׁיָא, הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּרִיבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמְרוּ אֵין דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַצִּילִין – יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה.
The Gemara returns to its initial objection: In any case, the baraita poses a difficulty for Rav Ḥisda, who says that a cat may render kids and lambs tereifot through clawing. The Gemara responds: Rav Ḥisda states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is not effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are none present to save it. But in a place where there are bystanders trying to save the kid, it is effectively clawed, since the cat is angered and injects venom into the wound. Rav Ḥisda is referring specifically to the latter case.
וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין אֵין דְּרוּסָה? וְהָא הָהִיא (תרנגולת) [תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא] דַּהֲוַאי בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, דִּרְהַט חָתוּל בָּתְרַהּ, וְעָל לְאִידְּרוֹנָא, וְאִיתְּחִיד דַּשָּׁא בְּאַפֵּיהּ, וּמַחְיֵיהּ לְדַשָּׁא בְּסִיחוּפֵיהּ, וְאִשְׁתְּכַח עֲלַהּ חַמְשָׁה קוּרְטֵי דְּמָא!
The Gemara asks: And in a place where there are none to save the kid, is it not effectively clawed? But there was a certain hen that was in the house of Rav Kahana, which a cat pursued, and the cat entered after it into a small room, and the door shut in the cat’s face, and it struck the door with its paws in anger. And afterward, five drops of blood, i.e., venom, were found on the door. Apparently a cat is venomous even if no one is present to save its prey.
הַצָּלַת עַצְמָהּ נָמֵי כְּהַצָּלַת אֲחֵרִים דָּמֵי, וְרַבָּנַן – זִיהֲרָא אִית לֵיהּ, וְלָא קָלֵי זִיהֲרֵיהּ.
The Gemara responds: For a cat, saving itself is also considered like saving others. Since the cat felt threatened, it acted as it would if there had been someone present to defend the hen. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who state in the baraita that a cat can never effectively claw a small animal, even when there are bystanders attempting to save its prey, how do they explain this incident? The Gemara responds: According to the Rabbis, a cat does have venom, but its venom does not burn enough to render the animal a tereifa.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: הָא מַנִּי? בְּרִיבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: בְּרִיבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמְרוּ יֵשׁ דְּרוּסָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַצִּילִין, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין – אִין דְּרוּסָה.
There are those who state the details of this exchange differently: After raising an objection to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from the baraita that states that a cat cannot effectively claw kids and lambs, the Gemara responds: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Distinguished One, as it is taught in a baraita: The Distinguished One says: They said that a kid is effectively clawed by a cat only in a place where there are bystanders present to save it. But in a place where there are none present to save the kid, it is not effectively clawed. The baraita, then, discusses a case where there are none present to save it. Rav Ḥisda agrees with the Rabbis that a cat can effectively claw an animal even when there are none present to save it.
וּבִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַצִּילִין אֵין דְּרוּסָה? וְהָא הָהִיא (תרנגולת) [תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא] דַּהֲוַאי בֵּי רַב כָּהֲנָא, דִּרְהַט חָתוּל בָּתְרַהּ וְעַל לְאִידְּרוֹנָא, וְאִיתְּחִיד דַּשָּׁא בְּאַפֵּיהּ, וּמַחְיֵיהּ לְדַשָּׁא בְּסִיחוּפֵיהּ, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח עֲלֵיהּ חֲמִשָּׁה קוּרְטֵי דְּמָא. הַצָּלַת עַצְמָהּ נָמֵי כְּהַצָּלַת אֲחֵרִים דָּמְיָא.
The Gemara asks: But in a place where there are none present to save the kid, is it not effectively clawed? But there was a certain hen that was in the house of Rav Kahana, which a cat pursued, and the cat entered after it into a small room, and the door shut in the cat’s face, and it struck the door with its paws in anger. And afterward, five drops of blood, i.e., venom, were found on the door. The Gemara responds: For a cat, saving itself is also considered like saving others.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא מֵרַב:
The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana asked Rav:
