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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 20, 2019 | 讬状讚 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讟

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

Chullin 54

There is story highlighting the struggles of power between the rabbis of Israel and聽 Babylonia at the beginning of the time period of the Amoraim – a story with Rabbi Yochanan,聽Reish聽Lakish and a student of Rav. The mishna lists which problems do not render an animal a treifa. If there is a list聽of what is and a list of what isn’t a tereifa, what about items that are not included in either list?


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

讜讜砖讟 谞拽讜讘转讜 讘诪砖讛讜 讚专讜住转讜 讘诪砖讛讜 拽谞讛 谞拽讜讘转讜 讘讻讗讬住专 讚专讜住转讜 讘讻诪讛 讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讘诪砖讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讝讬讛专讬讛 诪拽诇讗 拽诇讬 讜讗讝讬诇

If the gullet is perforated in any amount, the animal is a tereifa, as taught in the mishna (42a). Therefore, if the gullet is clawed and any amount of its flesh reddens, the animal is a tereifa as well. But a perforation of the windpipe renders the animal a tereifa only where it is the size of an issar. If clawed, what amount of its flesh must redden in order to render it a tereifa? After he raised the dilemma he then resolved it: Both this and that render the animal a tereifa if any amount of its flesh reddened. What is the reason for this? It is because its venom burns continuously around the circumference of the hole and widens it.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讚专讜住讛 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 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讗诇讛讬诐 诪讜专讬 讘讛 专讘 诪讻驻讗 讜注讚 讗讟诪讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta sat before Rav Na岣an, and he was sitting and saying: A clawed animal, about which the Sages said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines to see that the flesh has not reddened. Rav Na岣an said to him: By God! Rav would teach that it must be inspected over its entire body, from the flesh around the hollow to that of the thigh.

诪讗讬 讻驻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻驻讗 讚讬讚讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讻谞讙讚 讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讻驻讗 讚诪讜讞讗 注讚 讗讟诪讗

The Gemara asks: What is the hollow? If we say that it is the hollow of the foreleg, i.e., its shoulder, then the area between it and the thigh is the same as the area adjacent to the intestines, and Rav Na岣an has said nothing new. Rather, Rav Na岣an referred to the area from the hollow of the brain, i.e., the skull, to the thigh.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讚专讜住讛 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 诇讛讜 讛讗诇讛讬诐 诪讜专讬 讘讛 专讘 诪讻驻讗 讜注讚 讗讟诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪谞讜 专讘 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates that when Rav 岣yya bar Yosef went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish were sitting and saying: A clawed animal, about which they said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines. Rav 岣yya bar Yosef said to them: By God! Rav would teach that it must be inspected from the flesh around the hollow to that of the thigh. Reish Lakish said to him: Who is this Rav, and who is this Rav? I do not know who he is.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 谞讛讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚 砖砖讬诪砖 讗转 专讘讬 专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讛讗诇讛讬诐 讻诇 讗讜转谉 砖谞讬诐 砖砖讬诪砖 讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚 讘讬砖讬讘讛 讗谞讬 砖诪砖转讬 讘注诪讬讚讛 讜诪讗谉 讙讘专 讛讜讗 讙讘专 讘讻讜诇讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: But don鈥檛 you remember that student who served the great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi 岣yya and studied under them? But by God! All those years that this student served in the yeshiva, he was held to be one of the most important students and was allowed to sit during study, while I held a lower status and served while standing up. And who was greater? He was greater in all things, in Torah and piety.

诪讬讚 驻转讞 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讗诪专 讘专诐 讝讻讜专 讗讜转讜 讛讗讬砖 诇讟讜讘 砖讗诪专讜 砖诪讜注讛 诪驻讬讜 砖诪讜讟讛 讜砖讞讜讟讛 讻砖专讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖诪讜讟讛 砖转讬注砖讛 砖讞讜讟讛

Immediately, Reish Lakish began to speak and said: Indeed [beram], that man, Rav, is remembered for the good, as they said this halakha in his name: If an animal鈥檚 windpipe is dislocated from the throat, and it has already been slaughtered, and it is uncertain whether it was dislocated before or after slaughter, the animal is kosher, as it is impossible for an animal with a dislocated windpipe to be slaughtered. A dislocated windpipe would have slipped away from the knife, and therefore the animal must have been slaughtered while it was still attached.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 讜讬拽讬祝

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is not certain; rather, one should bring the windpipe, make a new slit in it, and compare the two slits. If they are similar, then the first slit by the slaughtering knife was also made after the windpipe was dislocated, and the animal is a tereifa. If they are different, then the slaughter preceded the dislocation of the windpipe and the animal is kosher.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 转驻住 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 讗讘诇 转驻住 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 讜砖讞讟 讗驻砖专 诇砖诪讜讟讛 砖转讬注砖讛 砖讞讜讟讛

Rav Na岣an said: The Sages taught that it is impossible to slaughter a dislocated windpipe only in cases where he did not grip the simanim during slaughter. But if he gripped the simanim and slaughtered the animal, then it is possible for an animal with a dislocated windpipe to be slaughtered, since it will not slip away from the knife.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讘 砖诪注转转讗

搂 The mishna states: This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: What case does this principle add that was not previously mentioned? The Gemara responds: It was stated to add seven halakhot of tereifot taught by amora鈥檌m and not listed in the mishna. These cases are enumerated on 42b.

讚讘讬 讬讜住祝 专讬砖讘讗 诪讞讜 讘讙讬讚讗 谞砖讬讗 讜拽讟诇讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 诇讛讜住讬祝 注诇 讛讟专驻讜转 讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara recounts: The men of the house of Yosef the hunter would strike the sciatic nerve of an animal with an arrow and kill it that way. In other words, the animal would die from that wound. They came before Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to ask if an animal with an injured sciatic nerve is a tereifa, which is relevant if the animal was slaughtered before it died. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to them: And is it possible to add to the list of tereifot? You have only what the Sages counted, and the Sages mentioned no such tereifa.

专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 讗讘讗 专讬砖讘讗 诪讞讜 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讜拽讟诇讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 诇讛讜住讬祝 注诇 讛讟专驻讜转 讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐

Likewise, the men of Rav Pappa bar Abba the hunter would strike an animal in the kidney with an arrow and kill it that way. They came before Rabbi Abba to ask if such an animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Abba said to them: And is it possible to add to the list of tereifot? You have only what the Sages counted.

讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚拽讗 诪转讛 讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬 讘讚专讬 诇讛 住诪讗 讞讬讬讗

The Gemara objects: But we see that they die. Isn鈥檛 this an indication that the animal is a tereifa? The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that in all these cases, if one were to scatter medicine on the wound, the animal would live. An animal is not considered a tereifa unless it cannot be healed.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讻砖专讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 谞讬拽讘讛 讛讙专讙专转 讗讜 砖谞住讚拽讛 注讚 讻诪讛 转讞住专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 注讚 讻讗讬住专 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 谞驻讞转讛 讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讜诇讗 谞讬拽讘 拽专讜诐 砖诇 诪讜讞 谞讬拽讘 讛诇讘 讜诇讗 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇讜 谞砖讘专讛 讛砖讚专讛 讜诇讗 谞驻住拽 讛讞讜讟 砖诇讛 谞讬讟诇讛 讛讻讘讚 讜谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讝讬转

mishna And these, despite their condition, are kosher in an animal: If its windpipe was perforated or cracked lengthwise. How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as the Italian issar. If the skull was fractured but the membrane of the brain was not perforated, it is kosher. If the heart was perforated and the perforation did not reach its chamber, or if the spinal column was broken but its cord was not cut, or if the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher.

讛诪住住 讜讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 砖谞讬拽讘讜 讝讛 诇转讜讱 讝讛 谞讬讟诇 讛讟讞讜诇 谞讬讟诇讜 讛讻诇讬讜转 谞讬讟诇 诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讛讗诐 砖诇讛 讜讞专讜转讛 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讛讙诇讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉

Additionally, it is kosher if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated one into the other. If the spleen was removed, or the kidneys were removed, or if its lower jaw was removed, or if its womb was removed, or if its lung shriveled by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher. In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa and unfit for consumption.

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诇讜 讟专驻讜转 讚讜拽讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诇讜 讻砖专讜转 讚讜拽讗

gemara The mishna begins: And these are kosher, while the previous mishna begins: These are tereifot. With regard to this, it was stated that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The tanna intended the phrase: These are tereifot, specifically, teaching that an animal is kosher in another case. The list of kosher cases here is therefore not exhaustive. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that the tanna intended the phrase: These are kosher, specifically, teaching that an animal is a tereifa in another case. The list of tereifot at the beginning of the chapter is therefore not exhaustive.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘 诪转谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讛讗讬 讘讜拽讗 讚讗讟诪讗 讚砖祝 诪讚讜讻转讬讛 讟专驻讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诇讜 讟专驻讜转 讚讜拽讗 转谞讗 讟专驻讜转 讜转谞讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇

The Gemara explains: With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the statement of Rav Mattana, as Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that the phrase: These are tereifot, is meant specifically, the tanna taught the list of tereifot and taught afterward: This is the principle, to add cases that were not stated explicitly;

讜讞讝讬讬讛 诇讚专讘 诪转谞讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讚诪讬讗 诇谞讟讜诇讬 转谞讗 讗诇讜 讟专驻讜转 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讟专驻讛 讛讗 讚专讘 诪转谞讗 讻砖专讛

and the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana, where the end of the thigh is dislocated, ostensibly comes under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it renders the animal a tereifa as well. What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is similar to the cases of removed organs that render the animal a tereifa. Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are tereifot, at the beginning of the mishna, to emphasize that it is only these that render an animal a tereifa, but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is kosher.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诇讜 讻砖专讜转 讚讜拽讗 转谞讗 讟专驻讜转 讜转谞讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讜讞讝讬讬讛 诇讚专讘 诪转谞讗 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 讘讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诇谞拽讜讘讬 讚诪讬讗 讜诇讗 诇驻住讜拽讬 讚诪讬讗 讜诇谞讟讜诇讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 转谞讗 讗诇讜 讻砖专讜转 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讻砖专讜转 讛讗 讚专讘 诪转谞讗 讟专驻讛

And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says that the phrase: These are kosher, is meant specifically, the tanna taught the list of tereifot, and taught afterward that this is the principle. And the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana ostensibly does not come under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it does not render the animal a tereifa. What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is not similar to cases of perforated organs, and it is not similar to cases of cut organs, such as the windpipe, and it is not similar to cases of removed organs. Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are kosher, to emphasize that it is only these that are kosher, but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is a tereifa.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讛讗讬 讘讜拽讗 讚讗讟诪讗 讚砖祝 诪讚讜讻转讬讛 讟专驻讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬 讗讬驻住讬拽 谞讬讘讬讛 讟专驻讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬驻住讬拽 谞诪讬 讻砖专讛 注讚 讚诪转注讻诇讗 讗转注讻讜诇讬

The Gemara addresses the matter itself: Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. And Rava said: The animal is kosher, but if its sinew holding the bone in place is cut, it is a tereifa. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: Even if the sinew is cut, the animal is still kosher, unless the sinew decomposed, in which case the animal is a tereifa.

注讚 讻诪讛 转讞住专 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗转讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讬转讞诪讬 诇讻讜谉 砖讬注讜专讗 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讘讚讬谞专讗 拽讜专讚讬谞讗讛 讜讛讜讬 讻驻砖讬讟讗 讝讜讟专转讬 讜诪砖转讻讞讗 讘讬谞讬 驻砖讬讟讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗

搂 The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar. Ze鈥檈iri, who came from Eretz Yisrael, said with regard to this: You, who are not familiar with the measure of an Italian issar, because it is not used in Babylonia, should estimate its measure as a Kurdish dinar. And it is like a small peruta coin and can be found among the perutot of Pumbedita.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讗 驻转讜专讗讛 注讬诇讗 诪讬谞讗讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘专 谞驻讞讗 讜讘注讗 诪讬谞讬 讚讬谞专讗 拽讜专讚讬谞讗讛 诇砖注专讬 讘讬讛 讟专讬驻转讗 讜讘注讬 诇诪讬拽诐 诪拽诪讬讛 讜诇讗 砖讘拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬 砖讘 讘谞讬 砖讘 讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讗讜诪谞讬讜转 专砖讗讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 诪驻谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖注住讜拽讬谉 讘诪诇讗讻转诐

Rabbi 岣na the money changer said: Bar Nappa岣, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, was standing over me, and he requested of me a Kurdish dinar with which to measure tereifot, in accordance with the statement of Ze鈥檈iri. And I wanted to rise before him out of respect, but he did not let me. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to me: Sit, my son, sit. Tradesmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars when they are engaged in their work.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讻诇 讘注诇讬 讗讜诪谞讬讜转 注讜诪讚讬诐 诪驻谞讬讛诐 讜砖讜讗诇讬谉 讘砖诇讜诪谉 讜讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞讬谞讜 讗谞砖讬 诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讜讗讻诐 讘砖诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: And are tradesmen not permitted to stand before Torah scholars? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:3): When the pilgrims bring their first fruits to Jerusalem, all the tradesmen stand before them, and greet them, and say to them: Our brothers from such and such place, welcome?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻谞讬讛诐 注讜诪讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 讞讘讬讘讛 诪爪讜讛 讘砖注转讛 砖讛专讬 诪驻谞讬讛诐 注讜诪讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜诪讚讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Yes, they stand before those bringing first fruits, but they do not stand before Torah scholars. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: Come and see how beloved is a mitzva performed in its proper time, as the tradesmen stand before those who brought first fruits, while they do not stand before Torah scholars.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 谞诪爪讗 诪讻砖讬诇谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

The Gemara rejects the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: From where does one know that they rise out of respect? Perhaps the tradesmen stand only in order not to cause those bringing first fruits to fail and sin in the future. That is, if the tradesmen do not treat those bringing the first fruits with great respect, they may not make the effort to travel to Jerusalem in a subsequent year.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻住诇注 讻讬转专 诪讻住诇注 讻讗讬住专 讻讬转专 诪讻讗讬住专

搂 The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar. With regard to this, Rav Na岣an says: Whenever the Sages specify the measure as that of a sela, e.g., with regard to a damaged skull for purposes of tereifot, they mean that even an area exactly the size of a sela is treated as more than a sela. Likewise, when they specify the measure as that of an issar, they mean that an area exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were more than an issar.

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讚 讜诇讗 注讚 讘讻诇诇

Since Rav Na岣an holds that a perforation exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were larger than an issar, he must hold that such a perforation in the windpipe renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara therefore infers: Apparently, Rav Na岣an holds that whenever the Sages use the word: Until, it means until and not including the measure, as the mishna states that an animal with a perforated windpipe is kosher until the perforation reaches the size of an issar.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讘诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 注讚 讞诪砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讟讛讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讞诪砖讛 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗 讞诪砖讛 讻诇诪注诇讛

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from a mishna (Kelim 19:2): The end of a rope that extends from a rope bed is not susceptible to ritual impurity until it is five handbreadths long. If the bed becomes impure, the rope remains pure, because it has no use and is therefore not considered part of the bed. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly five handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that amount? If so, the word: Until, means until and including the exact measure. The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly five handbreadths long is like a rope whose length is above that amount.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讞诪砖讛 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讟诪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 注砖专讛 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗 注砖专讛 讻诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: If the end of the rope was of any length from five handbreadths until ten, it is susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that? The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated like a rope whose length is above that, and it is not susceptible to impurity.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讚拽讬谉 砖讘讻诇讬 讞专住 讛谉 讜拽专拽专讜转讬讛谉 讜讚讜驻谞讜转讬讛诐 讬讜砖讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诪住讜诪讻讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from another mishna (Kelim 2:2): With regard to the smallest of earthenware vessels, if they, or even their broken-off bases or sides, can sit, i.e., remain upright, without being supported,

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 54

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 54

讜讜砖讟 谞拽讜讘转讜 讘诪砖讛讜 讚专讜住转讜 讘诪砖讛讜 拽谞讛 谞拽讜讘转讜 讘讻讗讬住专 讚专讜住转讜 讘讻诪讛 讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讘诪砖讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讝讬讛专讬讛 诪拽诇讗 拽诇讬 讜讗讝讬诇

If the gullet is perforated in any amount, the animal is a tereifa, as taught in the mishna (42a). Therefore, if the gullet is clawed and any amount of its flesh reddens, the animal is a tereifa as well. But a perforation of the windpipe renders the animal a tereifa only where it is the size of an issar. If clawed, what amount of its flesh must redden in order to render it a tereifa? After he raised the dilemma he then resolved it: Both this and that render the animal a tereifa if any amount of its flesh reddened. What is the reason for this? It is because its venom burns continuously around the circumference of the hole and widens it.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讚专讜住讛 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 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讛讗诇讛讬诐 诪讜专讬 讘讛 专讘 诪讻驻讗 讜注讚 讗讟诪讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta sat before Rav Na岣an, and he was sitting and saying: A clawed animal, about which the Sages said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines to see that the flesh has not reddened. Rav Na岣an said to him: By God! Rav would teach that it must be inspected over its entire body, from the flesh around the hollow to that of the thigh.

诪讗讬 讻驻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻驻讗 讚讬讚讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讻谞讙讚 讘谞讬 诪注讬讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讻驻讗 讚诪讜讞讗 注讚 讗讟诪讗

The Gemara asks: What is the hollow? If we say that it is the hollow of the foreleg, i.e., its shoulder, then the area between it and the thigh is the same as the area adjacent to the intestines, and Rav Na岣an has said nothing new. Rather, Rav Na岣an referred to the area from the hollow of the brain, i.e., the skull, to the thigh.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讚专讜住讛 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 诇讛讜 讛讗诇讛讬诐 诪讜专讬 讘讛 专讘 诪讻驻讗 讜注讚 讗讟诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪谞讜 专讘 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates that when Rav 岣yya bar Yosef went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish were sitting and saying: A clawed animal, about which they said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines. Rav 岣yya bar Yosef said to them: By God! Rav would teach that it must be inspected from the flesh around the hollow to that of the thigh. Reish Lakish said to him: Who is this Rav, and who is this Rav? I do not know who he is.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诇讗 谞讛讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚 砖砖讬诪砖 讗转 专讘讬 专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讛讗诇讛讬诐 讻诇 讗讜转谉 砖谞讬诐 砖砖讬诪砖 讗讜转讜 转诇诪讬讚 讘讬砖讬讘讛 讗谞讬 砖诪砖转讬 讘注诪讬讚讛 讜诪讗谉 讙讘专 讛讜讗 讙讘专 讘讻讜诇讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: But don鈥檛 you remember that student who served the great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi 岣yya and studied under them? But by God! All those years that this student served in the yeshiva, he was held to be one of the most important students and was allowed to sit during study, while I held a lower status and served while standing up. And who was greater? He was greater in all things, in Torah and piety.

诪讬讚 驻转讞 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讗诪专 讘专诐 讝讻讜专 讗讜转讜 讛讗讬砖 诇讟讜讘 砖讗诪专讜 砖诪讜注讛 诪驻讬讜 砖诪讜讟讛 讜砖讞讜讟讛 讻砖专讛 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇砖诪讜讟讛 砖转讬注砖讛 砖讞讜讟讛

Immediately, Reish Lakish began to speak and said: Indeed [beram], that man, Rav, is remembered for the good, as they said this halakha in his name: If an animal鈥檚 windpipe is dislocated from the throat, and it has already been slaughtered, and it is uncertain whether it was dislocated before or after slaughter, the animal is kosher, as it is impossible for an animal with a dislocated windpipe to be slaughtered. A dislocated windpipe would have slipped away from the knife, and therefore the animal must have been slaughtered while it was still attached.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 讜讬拽讬祝

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is not certain; rather, one should bring the windpipe, make a new slit in it, and compare the two slits. If they are similar, then the first slit by the slaughtering knife was also made after the windpipe was dislocated, and the animal is a tereifa. If they are different, then the slaughter preceded the dislocation of the windpipe and the animal is kosher.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 转驻住 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 讗讘诇 转驻住 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 讜砖讞讟 讗驻砖专 诇砖诪讜讟讛 砖转讬注砖讛 砖讞讜讟讛

Rav Na岣an said: The Sages taught that it is impossible to slaughter a dislocated windpipe only in cases where he did not grip the simanim during slaughter. But if he gripped the simanim and slaughtered the animal, then it is possible for an animal with a dislocated windpipe to be slaughtered, since it will not slip away from the knife.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 砖讘 砖诪注转转讗

搂 The mishna states: This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: What case does this principle add that was not previously mentioned? The Gemara responds: It was stated to add seven halakhot of tereifot taught by amora鈥檌m and not listed in the mishna. These cases are enumerated on 42b.

讚讘讬 讬讜住祝 专讬砖讘讗 诪讞讜 讘讙讬讚讗 谞砖讬讗 讜拽讟诇讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 诇讛讜住讬祝 注诇 讛讟专驻讜转 讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara recounts: The men of the house of Yosef the hunter would strike the sciatic nerve of an animal with an arrow and kill it that way. In other words, the animal would die from that wound. They came before Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to ask if an animal with an injured sciatic nerve is a tereifa, which is relevant if the animal was slaughtered before it died. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to them: And is it possible to add to the list of tereifot? You have only what the Sages counted, and the Sages mentioned no such tereifa.

专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 讗讘讗 专讬砖讘讗 诪讞讜 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讜拽讟诇讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 诇讛讜住讬祝 注诇 讛讟专驻讜转 讬砖 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐

Likewise, the men of Rav Pappa bar Abba the hunter would strike an animal in the kidney with an arrow and kill it that way. They came before Rabbi Abba to ask if such an animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Abba said to them: And is it possible to add to the list of tereifot? You have only what the Sages counted.

讜讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讬谞谉 讚拽讗 诪转讛 讙诪讬专讬 讚讗讬 讘讚专讬 诇讛 住诪讗 讞讬讬讗

The Gemara objects: But we see that they die. Isn鈥檛 this an indication that the animal is a tereifa? The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that in all these cases, if one were to scatter medicine on the wound, the animal would live. An animal is not considered a tereifa unless it cannot be healed.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讻砖专讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 谞讬拽讘讛 讛讙专讙专转 讗讜 砖谞住讚拽讛 注讚 讻诪讛 转讞住专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 注讚 讻讗讬住专 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 谞驻讞转讛 讛讙讜诇讙讜诇转 讜诇讗 谞讬拽讘 拽专讜诐 砖诇 诪讜讞 谞讬拽讘 讛诇讘 讜诇讗 诇讘讬转 讞诇诇讜 谞砖讘专讛 讛砖讚专讛 讜诇讗 谞驻住拽 讛讞讜讟 砖诇讛 谞讬讟诇讛 讛讻讘讚 讜谞砖转讬讬专 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讝讬转

mishna And these, despite their condition, are kosher in an animal: If its windpipe was perforated or cracked lengthwise. How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as the Italian issar. If the skull was fractured but the membrane of the brain was not perforated, it is kosher. If the heart was perforated and the perforation did not reach its chamber, or if the spinal column was broken but its cord was not cut, or if the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher.

讛诪住住 讜讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 砖谞讬拽讘讜 讝讛 诇转讜讱 讝讛 谞讬讟诇 讛讟讞讜诇 谞讬讟诇讜 讛讻诇讬讜转 谞讬讟诇 诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讛讗诐 砖诇讛 讜讞专讜转讛 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讛讙诇讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉

Additionally, it is kosher if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated one into the other. If the spleen was removed, or the kidneys were removed, or if its lower jaw was removed, or if its womb was removed, or if its lung shriveled by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher. In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa and unfit for consumption.

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诇讜 讟专驻讜转 讚讜拽讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诇讜 讻砖专讜转 讚讜拽讗

gemara The mishna begins: And these are kosher, while the previous mishna begins: These are tereifot. With regard to this, it was stated that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The tanna intended the phrase: These are tereifot, specifically, teaching that an animal is kosher in another case. The list of kosher cases here is therefore not exhaustive. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that the tanna intended the phrase: These are kosher, specifically, teaching that an animal is a tereifa in another case. The list of tereifot at the beginning of the chapter is therefore not exhaustive.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘 诪转谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讛讗讬 讘讜拽讗 讚讗讟诪讗 讚砖祝 诪讚讜讻转讬讛 讟专驻讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诇讜 讟专驻讜转 讚讜拽讗 转谞讗 讟专驻讜转 讜转谞讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇

The Gemara explains: With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the statement of Rav Mattana, as Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that the phrase: These are tereifot, is meant specifically, the tanna taught the list of tereifot and taught afterward: This is the principle, to add cases that were not stated explicitly;

讜讞讝讬讬讛 诇讚专讘 诪转谞讗 讚讗转讬讗 讘讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讚诪讬讗 诇谞讟讜诇讬 转谞讗 讗诇讜 讟专驻讜转 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讟专驻讛 讛讗 讚专讘 诪转谞讗 讻砖专讛

and the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana, where the end of the thigh is dislocated, ostensibly comes under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it renders the animal a tereifa as well. What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is similar to the cases of removed organs that render the animal a tereifa. Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are tereifot, at the beginning of the mishna, to emphasize that it is only these that render an animal a tereifa, but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is kosher.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诇讜 讻砖专讜转 讚讜拽讗 转谞讗 讟专驻讜转 讜转谞讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讜讞讝讬讬讛 诇讚专讘 诪转谞讗 讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 讘讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诇谞拽讜讘讬 讚诪讬讗 讜诇讗 诇驻住讜拽讬 讚诪讬讗 讜诇谞讟讜诇讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 转谞讗 讗诇讜 讻砖专讜转 讛谞讬 讛讜讗 讚讻砖专讜转 讛讗 讚专讘 诪转谞讗 讟专驻讛

And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says that the phrase: These are kosher, is meant specifically, the tanna taught the list of tereifot, and taught afterward that this is the principle. And the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana ostensibly does not come under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it does not render the animal a tereifa. What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is not similar to cases of perforated organs, and it is not similar to cases of cut organs, such as the windpipe, and it is not similar to cases of removed organs. Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are kosher, to emphasize that it is only these that are kosher, but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is a tereifa.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 讛讗讬 讘讜拽讗 讚讗讟诪讗 讚砖祝 诪讚讜讻转讬讛 讟专驻讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬 讗讬驻住讬拽 谞讬讘讬讛 讟专驻讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讬驻住讬拽 谞诪讬 讻砖专讛 注讚 讚诪转注讻诇讗 讗转注讻讜诇讬

The Gemara addresses the matter itself: Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. And Rava said: The animal is kosher, but if its sinew holding the bone in place is cut, it is a tereifa. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: Even if the sinew is cut, the animal is still kosher, unless the sinew decomposed, in which case the animal is a tereifa.

注讚 讻诪讛 转讞住专 讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 讗转讜谉 讚诇讗 诪讬转讞诪讬 诇讻讜谉 砖讬注讜专讗 砖讬注讜专讬讛 讘讚讬谞专讗 拽讜专讚讬谞讗讛 讜讛讜讬 讻驻砖讬讟讗 讝讜讟专转讬 讜诪砖转讻讞讗 讘讬谞讬 驻砖讬讟讬 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗

搂 The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar. Ze鈥檈iri, who came from Eretz Yisrael, said with regard to this: You, who are not familiar with the measure of an Italian issar, because it is not used in Babylonia, should estimate its measure as a Kurdish dinar. And it is like a small peruta coin and can be found among the perutot of Pumbedita.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讗 驻转讜专讗讛 注讬诇讗 诪讬谞讗讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘专 谞驻讞讗 讜讘注讗 诪讬谞讬 讚讬谞专讗 拽讜专讚讬谞讗讛 诇砖注专讬 讘讬讛 讟专讬驻转讗 讜讘注讬 诇诪讬拽诐 诪拽诪讬讛 讜诇讗 砖讘拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬 砖讘 讘谞讬 砖讘 讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讗讜诪谞讬讜转 专砖讗讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 诪驻谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖注住讜拽讬谉 讘诪诇讗讻转诐

Rabbi 岣na the money changer said: Bar Nappa岣, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, was standing over me, and he requested of me a Kurdish dinar with which to measure tereifot, in accordance with the statement of Ze鈥檈iri. And I wanted to rise before him out of respect, but he did not let me. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to me: Sit, my son, sit. Tradesmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars when they are engaged in their work.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讻诇 讘注诇讬 讗讜诪谞讬讜转 注讜诪讚讬诐 诪驻谞讬讛诐 讜砖讜讗诇讬谉 讘砖诇讜诪谉 讜讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞讬谞讜 讗谞砖讬 诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讜讗讻诐 讘砖诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: And are tradesmen not permitted to stand before Torah scholars? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:3): When the pilgrims bring their first fruits to Jerusalem, all the tradesmen stand before them, and greet them, and say to them: Our brothers from such and such place, welcome?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻谞讬讛诐 注讜诪讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜诪讚讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 讞讘讬讘讛 诪爪讜讛 讘砖注转讛 砖讛专讬 诪驻谞讬讛诐 注讜诪讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜诪讚讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Yes, they stand before those bringing first fruits, but they do not stand before Torah scholars. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: Come and see how beloved is a mitzva performed in its proper time, as the tradesmen stand before those who brought first fruits, while they do not stand before Torah scholars.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转讛讗 谞诪爪讗 诪讻砖讬诇谉 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗

The Gemara rejects the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: From where does one know that they rise out of respect? Perhaps the tradesmen stand only in order not to cause those bringing first fruits to fail and sin in the future. That is, if the tradesmen do not treat those bringing the first fruits with great respect, they may not make the effort to travel to Jerusalem in a subsequent year.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻住诇注 讻讬转专 诪讻住诇注 讻讗讬住专 讻讬转专 诪讻讗讬住专

搂 The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar. With regard to this, Rav Na岣an says: Whenever the Sages specify the measure as that of a sela, e.g., with regard to a damaged skull for purposes of tereifot, they mean that even an area exactly the size of a sela is treated as more than a sela. Likewise, when they specify the measure as that of an issar, they mean that an area exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were more than an issar.

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注讚 讜诇讗 注讚 讘讻诇诇

Since Rav Na岣an holds that a perforation exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were larger than an issar, he must hold that such a perforation in the windpipe renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara therefore infers: Apparently, Rav Na岣an holds that whenever the Sages use the word: Until, it means until and not including the measure, as the mishna states that an animal with a perforated windpipe is kosher until the perforation reaches the size of an issar.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞讘诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛诪讟讛 注讚 讞诪砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讟讛讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讞诪砖讛 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗 讞诪砖讛 讻诇诪注诇讛

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Na岣an from a mishna (Kelim 19:2): The end of a rope that extends from a rope bed is not susceptible to ritual impurity until it is five handbreadths long. If the bed becomes impure, the rope remains pure, because it has no use and is therefore not considered part of the bed. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly five handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that amount? If so, the word: Until, means until and including the exact measure. The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly five handbreadths long is like a rope whose length is above that amount.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讞诪砖讛 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讟诪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 注砖专讛 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗 注砖专讛 讻诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: If the end of the rope was of any length from five handbreadths until ten, it is susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that? The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated like a rope whose length is above that, and it is not susceptible to impurity.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讚拽讬谉 砖讘讻诇讬 讞专住 讛谉 讜拽专拽专讜转讬讛谉 讜讚讜驻谞讜转讬讛诐 讬讜砖讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诪住讜诪讻讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from another mishna (Kelim 2:2): With regard to the smallest of earthenware vessels, if they, or even their broken-off bases or sides, can sit, i.e., remain upright, without being supported,

Scroll To Top