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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 21, 2019 | 讟状讜 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 55

When the mishna gave the amount of a whole the size of a coin did it mean up until the size of the coin is permitted but the exact size would be a treifa? Regarding some of the items listed as kosher in the mishna, the rabbis limit the cases somewhat. Do Rabbi Meir and the Rabbi really disagree about gluda – an animal that is missing its skin, as stated in the mishna?


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

砖讬注讜专谉 讘讻讚讬 住讬讻转 拽讟谉 讜注讚 诇讜讙 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讜讙 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗 诇讜讙 讻诇诪注诇讛

their measure in order to be susceptible to ritual impurity is that they can hold enough oil with which to anoint a small child. If they cannot hold this amount, they are considered useless and are not susceptible to impurity. And this measure applies only to vessels that held up to a log when they were whole; if they had originally held more, they must hold more when broken in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly one log it is treated as though it had held below that amount? If so, the term: Up to, means up to and including. The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly one log it is treated as though it held above that amount, and if broken it must be capable of holding a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.

转讗 砖诪注 诪诇讜讙 注讚 住讗讛 讘专讘讬注讬转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 住讗讛 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗 住讗讛 讻诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel originally held from a log up to a se鈥檃, its broken-off base or sides must hold a quarter-log in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly a se鈥檃 it is treated as though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly a se鈥檃 it is treated as though it had held above that amount, and its base or sides must hold a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讗讛 讜注讚 住讗转讬诐 讘讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 住讗转讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗 住讗转讬诐 讻诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel had originally held from a se鈥檃up to two se鈥檃, its broken-off base or sides must hold half a log to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it had originally held exactly two se鈥檃 it is treated as if though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it had held exactly two se鈥檃 it is treated as though it had held above that amount.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜讙 讻诇诪讟讛 住讗讛 讻诇诪讟讛 住讗转讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛

The Gemara asks: How can one explain the mishna in this manner? But isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: If the vessel had originally held exactly a log it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly a se鈥檃 it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly two se鈥檃 it is treated as though it had held below that amount? Evidently, the term: Up to, means up to and including the given measure, in contradiction to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion that it means up to and not including the measure.

讛转诐 诇讞讜诪专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 讞讜抓 诪讻讙专讬住 砖诇 讻转诪讬诐 诇讛拽诇

The Gemara responds: The term: Up to, is always interpreted in the more stringent manner. Accordingly, there, with regard to the impurity of vessels, the term: Up to, is interpreted as up to and including in order to rule stringently, since the vessel is then more easily susceptible to impurity. As Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: All measures of the Sages must be interpreted stringently, except for the measure of a groat as a standard for stains of blood found on a woman鈥檚 clothing, which is interpreted leniently. Even if the stain is exactly the size of a groat, the woman remains pure. Here, it is more stringent to interpret the phrase: Up to, as up to and including, because an animal is then more susceptible to being rendered a tereifa.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讞诪砖讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 注砖专讛 讻诇诪讟讛

The Gemara notes: The language is also precise, i.e., it is evident that the phrase: Up to, is always interpreted stringently, as the mishna (Kelim 19:2) states that if a rope extending from a rope bed is of any length up to five handbreadths, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, but if it is of any length from five up to ten handbreadths, it is susceptible. And a baraita teaches with regard to that mishna: If the rope was exactly five handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were above that; if the rope was exactly ten handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were below that. In both cases, the measure is interpreted stringently.

谞讬讟诇 讛讟讞讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 注讜讬专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 谞讬讟诇 讗讘诇 谞讬拽讘 讟专驻讛

搂 The mishna states: If the spleen was removed the animal remains kosher. Rav Avira says in the name of Rava: The Sages taught that it is kosher only when the spleen was removed, but if it was perforated, it is a tereifa.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 讞讜转讱 诪注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪谉 讛讟讞讜诇 讜诪谉 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗 讘讛诪讛 讙讜驻讗 砖专讬讗

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, raises an objection from a mishna in the next chapter (68a): If, prior to slaughtering an animal, one severs pieces from a fetus that is in the womb and leaves those pieces in the womb, their consumption is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal (see 69a). By contrast, if one severs pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughters it, then even if those pieces are left inside the animal their consumption is prohibited, because an organ severed from a living being is not permitted by the subsequent slaughter of the animal. One can infer from the mishna that the animal itself is permitted even when part of the spleen was severed. Evidently, such an animal is not a tereifa.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 讗住讬专讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 谞讬拽讘 诇讞讜讚 讜谞讞转讱 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara responds: The same is true of the animal, and even the animal is prohibited. But since the mishna taught in the first clause, with regard to the parts of the fetus: Their consumption is permitted, it taught in the last clause with regard to the parts of the spleen: Their consumption is prohibited, to contrast between them. Or, if you wish, say instead that a perforated spleen is a discrete case, in which the animal is a tereifa, and a cut spleen is a discrete case, in which the animal is not.

谞讬讟诇讜 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗诪专 专讻讬砖 讘专 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇拽转讛 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讟专驻讛 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诪讟讗讬 诇拽讜转讗

搂 The mishna states: If the kidneys were removed the animal remains kosher. Rakhish bar Pappa said in the name of Rav: If an animal was diseased in even one kidney, the animal is a tereifa. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: And this applies only in a case where the disease reached

诇诪拽讜诐 讞专讬抓 讜讛讬讻讗 诪拽讜诐 讞专讬抓 诇讞讬讜专讗 讚转讜转讬 诪转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞讜谞讬讗 砖讗讬诇转讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讟专讜驻讗讬 讚诪注专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讻讬砖 讘专 驻驻讗 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 注讜讬专讗

the location of the crevice. And where is the location of the crevice? This is a reference to the white matter under the loins. Rav Ne岣nya said: I asked all the authorities on tereifot of the West, and they said to me: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rakhish bar Pappa in the name of Rav that a diseased kidney renders an animal a tereifa, but the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Avira that a perforated spleen renders the animal a tereifa.

讚专讘 注讜讬专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘拽讜诇砖讬讛 讗讘诇 讘住讜诪讻讬讛 讟专驻讛 讜讗讬 讗讬砖转讬讬专 讘讬讛 讻注讜讘讬 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讻砖专讛

The Gemara adds: And even with regard to the opinion of Rav Avira, we said that the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion only if the spleen was perforated in its narrow, lower end, but if it was perforated in its thick, upper end, the animal is a tereifa. And even if it was perforated in its thick end, if it was not perforated completely and a layer of the spleen as thick as a gold dinar remains intact, the animal is kosher.

讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讻诇 讛驻讜住诇 讘专讬讗讛 讻砖专 讘讻讜诇讬讗 砖讛专讬 谞拽讘 驻住讜诇 讘专讬讗讛 讜讻砖专 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讻砖专 讘专讬讗讛 讻砖专 讘讻讜诇讬讗

They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any injury that renders an animal unfit for consumption when occurring in the lung is kosher when occurring in the kidney. For example, a perforation renders an animal unfit when occurring in the lung (see 42a), but the animal is kosher if it occurs in the kidney. And it follows that all the more so, where an animal is kosher despite an injury in the lung, it will remain kosher despite a similar injury in the kidney.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诪讗 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讛专讬 诪讜讙诇讗 讚讻砖专 讘专讬讗讛 讜驻住讜诇 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讜讛专讬 诪讬诐 讝讻讬谉 讚讻砖专讬诐 讛讻讗 讜讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讟专驻讜转 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转 诇讛讚讚讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讟专驻讜转 讝讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讝讜 砖讛专讬 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜诪转讛 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讞讬转讛

Rabbi Tan岣ma objects to this: And is this an established principle? But what about a case of pus, where the animal is kosher if it occurs in the lung and unfit for consumption if it occurs in the kidney? And what about clear fluid, which is kosher both here and there, i.e., whether occurring in the lungs or the kidney? Rather, Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing tereifot to one another? One cannot say with regard to tereifot: This is similar to that, as one cuts an animal from here, in one place, and it dies, while one cuts it from there, in another place, and it lives. Certain injuries may compromise the kidney but not the lung, or vice versa.

讜诪讬诐 讝讻讬谉 讻砖专讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚爪讬诇讬 讗讘诇 注讻讬专讬 讟专驻讛 讜讻讬 爪讬诇讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 住专讬讞 讗讘诇 住专讬讞 讟专驻讛

The Gemara notes: And with regard to clear fluid found in the lungs or kidney, which is kosher, we said so only in a case where the fluid was unclouded, but if it was clouded, the animal is a tereifa. And even when the fluid was unclouded, we said the animal is kosher only if the fluid is not fetid, but if it is fetid, the animal is a tereifa.

讛讻讜诇讬讗 砖讛拽讟讬谞讛 讘讚拽讛 注讚 讻驻讜诇 讘讙住讛 注讚 讻注谞讘讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转

The Gemara continues to discuss cases of tereifot due to the kidneys: With regard to a kidney that shrank, in small animals, such as sheep, the animal is a tereifa if it shrank until the size of a bean; in large animals, such as cattle, the animal is a tereifa if it shrank until the size of an intermediate-sized grape.

谞讬讟诇 诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讞讬讜转 注诇 讬讚讬 诇注讬讟讛 讜讛诪专讗讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讞讬讜转 注诇 讬讚讬 诇注讬讟讛 讜讛诪专讗讛 讟专驻讛

搂 The mishna states: If the animal鈥檚 lower jaw was removed, it remains kosher. With regard to this, Rabbi Zeira says: The Sages taught this only when the animal is able to live by placing food in its mouth or stuffing it down its throat. But if it cannot live by placing or stuffing food into it, it is a tereifa.

谞讬讟诇讛 讛讗诐 砖诇讛 转谞讗 讛讬讗 讛讗诐 讛讬讗 讟专驻讞转 讜讛讬讗 砖诇驻讜讞讬转

搂 The mishna states: If its womb [em] was removed, the animal remains kosher. A Sage taught: The em is synonymous with the tarpa岣t, and it is synonymous with the shalpu岣t.

讜讞专讜转讛 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讻砖专讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讜讛讬 讞专讜转讛 讻诇 砖爪诪拽讛 专讬讗讛 砖诇讛 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讻砖专讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讟专驻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讬讚讬 讻诇 讛讘专讬讜转

搂 The mishna states: Or if its lung shriveled [岣ruta] by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher. The Sages taught in a baraita: Which is a 岣ruta? It is any animal whose lung shriveled. If this occurred by the hand of Heaven, e.g., if the lung shriveled from fright of thunder and lightning, the animal is kosher. But if it happened by the hands of a person who frightened it, e.g., if it witnessed another animal being slaughtered, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if the lung shriveled by the hands of any creature, e.g., if it was frightened by a lion鈥檚 roar.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗 讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讞讜诪专讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar referring to the first clause of the baraita, in which case the statement is a leniency, and even the roar of a lion is considered by the hand of Heaven? Or perhaps it is referring to the latter clause, and the statement is a stringency, and a lung shriveled by the hand of any creature renders the animal a tereifa?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讞专讜转讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讟专驻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讬讚讬 讻诇 讛讘专讬讜转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as it is taught in the above baraita: A lung that was shriveled by the hands of a person renders the animal a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even by the hands of any creature. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is referring to the latter clause.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讘诪讚讘专讗 讗砖讻讞 讛谞讛讜 讚讬讻专讬 讚爪诪讬拽 专讬讗讛 讚讬讚讛讜 讗转讗 砖讗讬诇 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讘拽讬讬讟讗 讗讬讬转讬 诪砖讬讻诇讬 讞讬讜专讬 讜诪诇讬谞讛讜 诪讬讗 拽专讬专讬 讜讗谞讞讬谞讛讜 诪注转 诇注转 讗讬 讛讚专谉 讘专讬讬谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讻砖专讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讟专驻讛 住讬转讜讗 讗讬讬转讬 诪砖讬讻诇讬 砖讬讞讜诪讬 讜诪诇讬谞讛讜 诪讬讗 驻砖讜专讬 讜讗谞讞讬谞讛讜 诪注转 诇注转 讗讬 讛讚专讗 讘专讬讗 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讟专驻讛

The Gemara recounts: Rabba bar bar 岣na was walking in the desert, and he found certain rams whose lungs were shriveled. He came and asked in the study hall how one can determine the cause of the shriveling. The Sages said to him: In the summer, bring white vessels and fill them with cold water and set the lungs in them for a twenty-four-hour period. If they go back to appearing healthy, i.e., if they expand, one knows that it was by the hand of Heaven and the animals are kosher; but if they do not expand, the animals are tereifa. In the winter, bring dark vessels and fill them with tepid water, and set the lungs in them for a twenty-four-hour period. If they go back to appearing healthy, they are kosher; but if not, they are tereifa.

讛讙诇讜讚讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙诇讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬诐 讜讻讘专 讛注讬讚 讗诇注讝专 住驻专讗 讜讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 注诇 讛讙诇讜讚讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

搂 The mishna states: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa. With regard to this, the Sages taught: 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. And Elazar the scribe and Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda already testified before the Sages with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir retracted his statement.

诪讻诇诇 讚诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讙诇讜讚讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 讛讙诇讜讚讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 讜讻讘专 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讘砖诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 注诇 讛讙诇讜讚讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 讜讗诐 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讜 讻住诇注 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 诇讗 注诪讚 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讞诇讜拽转讜

The Gemara objects: By inference, one may conclude that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rabbi Meir initially disagreed with regard to an animal whose hide was removed. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir and the Sages did not disagree with regard to an animal whose hide was removed, and all agree that it is unfit for consumption. And Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Yehuda the spice merchant, already testified before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Tarfon with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. And if a piece of hide the same size as a sela remained intact, the animal is kosher. The Gemara explains the objection: The phrase: Did not disagree, indicates that Rabbi Meir never disagreed with the Sages. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: What is the meaning of the phrase: Did not disagree? It means that Rabbi Meir did not stand firm in his disagreement and retracted.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讜 讻住诇注 讻砖专讛 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚专讛 讻讜诇讛

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: If a piece of hide the same size as a sela remained intact in the animal, it is kosher. The Gemara asks: Where must this piece of hide be? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The piece of hide must be along the entire spine.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讚讗专讬讱 讜拽讟讬谉 讚讻讬 诪爪专祝 诇讛 讛讜讬 讻住诇注 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘专讜讞讘 住诇注 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚专讛 讻讜诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚驻专讬砖 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘专讜讞讘 讻住诇注 注诇 驻谞讬 讻诇 讛砖讚专讛 讻讜诇讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Shmuel mean that it is kosher if a long and thin strip of hide remains along the spine, such that when one combines its area, it will constitute the same size as a sela? Or perhaps it is kosher only if the remaining hide is the width of a sela along the entire spine? The Gemara responds: Come and hear proof from that which Rabbi Nehorai explained in the name of Shmuel: It must be the width of a sela along the entire spine.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讗砖讬 驻专拽讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 讟讬讘讜专讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na says: There must be a piece of hide the size of a sela on the tips of all segments of the spine and on the tips of the femur and tibia. Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yannai: The piece of hide must be the width of a sela at the place of its navel.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讬讟诇 诪拽讜诐 讛砖讚专讛 讜讻讜诇讜 拽讬讬诐 谞讬讟诇 诪拽讜诐 讟讬讘讜专讜 讜讻讜诇讜 拽讬讬诐 谞讬讟诇讜 专讗砖讬 驻专拽讬诐 讜讻讜诇讜 拽讬讬诐 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael, raises a dilemma: If all the hide covering the place of the spine was removed, but all of the remaining hide was intact, or if the hide covering the place of its navel was removed but all of the remaining hide was intact, or if the hide covering all the tips of the segments were removed but all of the remaining hide was intact, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛注讜专 讻讜诇讜 诪爪讬诇 讘讙诇讜讚讛 讞讜抓 诪注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 谞诪讬 诪爪讬诇

Rav says: Any portion of the hide that is the size of a sela saves an animal whose hide was removed from becoming a tereifa, except for the hide of the hooves, which is not considered hide. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even the hide of the hooves saves it.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讬诇 讘讙诇讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪爪讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转拽谞讬讟谞讬 砖讘诇砖讜谉 讬讞讬讚 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讗讜转讛

The Gemara recounts: Rabbi Asi asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to the hide of the hooves, what is the halakha? Does it save an animal whose hide was removed if a piece of it the size of a sela remains? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: It saves the animal. Rabbi Asi said to him: But didn鈥檛 you teach us, our teacher, the following mishna (122a): These are the entities whose hide is like their flesh in terms of halakhic status, in that it transmits ritual impurity鈥he skin of a head of a young calf, and the hide of the hooves? Evidently, the hide of the hooves is considered like flesh and not true skin. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Do not trouble me by invoking that mishna, as I teach it in the singular. Only according to one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, is the hide of the hooves not true skin; according to the Rabbis, it is considered true skin.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讝讬转 诪注讜专 砖诇 转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

As it is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering with intent to burn an olive-bulk of the hide beneath the tail outside its designated area, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for excision from the World-to-Come [karet] for one who partakes of the offering. If he had intent to burn it beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. This halakha usually applies to an offering鈥檚 flesh but not its hide. Since the hide beneath the tail is soft, it is treated like part of the flesh. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讗讬讘诇讬诐 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 注讬讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讞讚 注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 砖诇 转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讜讻诇 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉

Eliezer ben Yehuda of Evlayim said in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, and so says Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Ikos in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Whether the hide of the hooves, or the hide of the head of a young calf, or the hide beneath the tail, or any hide that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity under the heading: These are the entities whose hide is like their flesh in terms of halakhic status,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Chullin 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 55

砖讬注讜专谉 讘讻讚讬 住讬讻转 拽讟谉 讜注讚 诇讜讙 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讜讙 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗 诇讜讙 讻诇诪注诇讛

their measure in order to be susceptible to ritual impurity is that they can hold enough oil with which to anoint a small child. If they cannot hold this amount, they are considered useless and are not susceptible to impurity. And this measure applies only to vessels that held up to a log when they were whole; if they had originally held more, they must hold more when broken in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly one log it is treated as though it had held below that amount? If so, the term: Up to, means up to and including. The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly one log it is treated as though it held above that amount, and if broken it must be capable of holding a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.

转讗 砖诪注 诪诇讜讙 注讚 住讗讛 讘专讘讬注讬转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 住讗讛 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗 住讗讛 讻诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel originally held from a log up to a se鈥檃, its broken-off base or sides must hold a quarter-log in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly a se鈥檃 it is treated as though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly a se鈥檃 it is treated as though it had held above that amount, and its base or sides must hold a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讗讛 讜注讚 住讗转讬诐 讘讞爪讬 诇讜讙 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 住讗转讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛 诇讗 住讗转讬诐 讻诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel had originally held from a se鈥檃up to two se鈥檃, its broken-off base or sides must hold half a log to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it had originally held exactly two se鈥檃 it is treated as if though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it had held exactly two se鈥檃 it is treated as though it had held above that amount.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜讙 讻诇诪讟讛 住讗讛 讻诇诪讟讛 住讗转讬诐 讻诇诪讟讛

The Gemara asks: How can one explain the mishna in this manner? But isn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: If the vessel had originally held exactly a log it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly a se鈥檃 it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly two se鈥檃 it is treated as though it had held below that amount? Evidently, the term: Up to, means up to and including the given measure, in contradiction to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion that it means up to and not including the measure.

讛转诐 诇讞讜诪专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 砖讬注讜专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讛讞诪讬专 讞讜抓 诪讻讙专讬住 砖诇 讻转诪讬诐 诇讛拽诇

The Gemara responds: The term: Up to, is always interpreted in the more stringent manner. Accordingly, there, with regard to the impurity of vessels, the term: Up to, is interpreted as up to and including in order to rule stringently, since the vessel is then more easily susceptible to impurity. As Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: All measures of the Sages must be interpreted stringently, except for the measure of a groat as a standard for stains of blood found on a woman鈥檚 clothing, which is interpreted leniently. Even if the stain is exactly the size of a groat, the woman remains pure. Here, it is more stringent to interpret the phrase: Up to, as up to and including, because an animal is then more susceptible to being rendered a tereifa.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 注诇讛 讚讛讛讬讗 讞诪砖讛 讻诇诪注诇讛 注砖专讛 讻诇诪讟讛

The Gemara notes: The language is also precise, i.e., it is evident that the phrase: Up to, is always interpreted stringently, as the mishna (Kelim 19:2) states that if a rope extending from a rope bed is of any length up to five handbreadths, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, but if it is of any length from five up to ten handbreadths, it is susceptible. And a baraita teaches with regard to that mishna: If the rope was exactly five handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were above that; if the rope was exactly ten handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were below that. In both cases, the measure is interpreted stringently.

谞讬讟诇 讛讟讞讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 注讜讬专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 谞讬讟诇 讗讘诇 谞讬拽讘 讟专驻讛

搂 The mishna states: If the spleen was removed the animal remains kosher. Rav Avira says in the name of Rava: The Sages taught that it is kosher only when the spleen was removed, but if it was perforated, it is a tereifa.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 讞讜转讱 诪注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬讛 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪谉 讛讟讞讜诇 讜诪谉 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗 讘讛诪讛 讙讜驻讗 砖专讬讗

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, raises an objection from a mishna in the next chapter (68a): If, prior to slaughtering an animal, one severs pieces from a fetus that is in the womb and leaves those pieces in the womb, their consumption is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal (see 69a). By contrast, if one severs pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughters it, then even if those pieces are left inside the animal their consumption is prohibited, because an organ severed from a living being is not permitted by the subsequent slaughter of the animal. One can infer from the mishna that the animal itself is permitted even when part of the spleen was severed. Evidently, such an animal is not a tereifa.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛诪讛 谞诪讬 讗住讬专讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪讜转专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 谞讬拽讘 诇讞讜讚 讜谞讞转讱 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara responds: The same is true of the animal, and even the animal is prohibited. But since the mishna taught in the first clause, with regard to the parts of the fetus: Their consumption is permitted, it taught in the last clause with regard to the parts of the spleen: Their consumption is prohibited, to contrast between them. Or, if you wish, say instead that a perforated spleen is a discrete case, in which the animal is a tereifa, and a cut spleen is a discrete case, in which the animal is not.

谞讬讟诇讜 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗诪专 专讻讬砖 讘专 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诇拽转讛 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讗讞转 讟专驻讛 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诪讟讗讬 诇拽讜转讗

搂 The mishna states: If the kidneys were removed the animal remains kosher. Rakhish bar Pappa said in the name of Rav: If an animal was diseased in even one kidney, the animal is a tereifa. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: And this applies only in a case where the disease reached

诇诪拽讜诐 讞专讬抓 讜讛讬讻讗 诪拽讜诐 讞专讬抓 诇讞讬讜专讗 讚转讜转讬 诪转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞讜谞讬讗 砖讗讬诇转讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讟专讜驻讗讬 讚诪注专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讻讬砖 讘专 驻驻讗 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 注讜讬专讗

the location of the crevice. And where is the location of the crevice? This is a reference to the white matter under the loins. Rav Ne岣nya said: I asked all the authorities on tereifot of the West, and they said to me: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rakhish bar Pappa in the name of Rav that a diseased kidney renders an animal a tereifa, but the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Avira that a perforated spleen renders the animal a tereifa.

讚专讘 注讜讬专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘拽讜诇砖讬讛 讗讘诇 讘住讜诪讻讬讛 讟专驻讛 讜讗讬 讗讬砖转讬讬专 讘讬讛 讻注讜讘讬 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 讻砖专讛

The Gemara adds: And even with regard to the opinion of Rav Avira, we said that the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion only if the spleen was perforated in its narrow, lower end, but if it was perforated in its thick, upper end, the animal is a tereifa. And even if it was perforated in its thick end, if it was not perforated completely and a layer of the spleen as thick as a gold dinar remains intact, the animal is kosher.

讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讻诇 讛驻讜住诇 讘专讬讗讛 讻砖专 讘讻讜诇讬讗 砖讛专讬 谞拽讘 驻住讜诇 讘专讬讗讛 讜讻砖专 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讻砖专 讘专讬讗讛 讻砖专 讘讻讜诇讬讗

They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any injury that renders an animal unfit for consumption when occurring in the lung is kosher when occurring in the kidney. For example, a perforation renders an animal unfit when occurring in the lung (see 42a), but the animal is kosher if it occurs in the kidney. And it follows that all the more so, where an animal is kosher despite an injury in the lung, it will remain kosher despite a similar injury in the kidney.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 转谞讞讜诪讗 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讛专讬 诪讜讙诇讗 讚讻砖专 讘专讬讗讛 讜驻住讜诇 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讜讛专讬 诪讬诐 讝讻讬谉 讚讻砖专讬诐 讛讻讗 讜讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讟专驻讜转 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转 诇讛讚讚讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讟专驻讜转 讝讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讝讜 砖讛专讬 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜诪转讛 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讞讬转讛

Rabbi Tan岣ma objects to this: And is this an established principle? But what about a case of pus, where the animal is kosher if it occurs in the lung and unfit for consumption if it occurs in the kidney? And what about clear fluid, which is kosher both here and there, i.e., whether occurring in the lungs or the kidney? Rather, Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing tereifot to one another? One cannot say with regard to tereifot: This is similar to that, as one cuts an animal from here, in one place, and it dies, while one cuts it from there, in another place, and it lives. Certain injuries may compromise the kidney but not the lung, or vice versa.

讜诪讬诐 讝讻讬谉 讻砖专讬诐 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚爪讬诇讬 讗讘诇 注讻讬专讬 讟专驻讛 讜讻讬 爪讬诇讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 住专讬讞 讗讘诇 住专讬讞 讟专驻讛

The Gemara notes: And with regard to clear fluid found in the lungs or kidney, which is kosher, we said so only in a case where the fluid was unclouded, but if it was clouded, the animal is a tereifa. And even when the fluid was unclouded, we said the animal is kosher only if the fluid is not fetid, but if it is fetid, the animal is a tereifa.

讛讻讜诇讬讗 砖讛拽讟讬谞讛 讘讚拽讛 注讚 讻驻讜诇 讘讙住讛 注讚 讻注谞讘讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬转

The Gemara continues to discuss cases of tereifot due to the kidneys: With regard to a kidney that shrank, in small animals, such as sheep, the animal is a tereifa if it shrank until the size of a bean; in large animals, such as cattle, the animal is a tereifa if it shrank until the size of an intermediate-sized grape.

谞讬讟诇 诇讞讬 讛转讞转讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讞讬讜转 注诇 讬讚讬 诇注讬讟讛 讜讛诪专讗讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讞讬讜转 注诇 讬讚讬 诇注讬讟讛 讜讛诪专讗讛 讟专驻讛

搂 The mishna states: If the animal鈥檚 lower jaw was removed, it remains kosher. With regard to this, Rabbi Zeira says: The Sages taught this only when the animal is able to live by placing food in its mouth or stuffing it down its throat. But if it cannot live by placing or stuffing food into it, it is a tereifa.

谞讬讟诇讛 讛讗诐 砖诇讛 转谞讗 讛讬讗 讛讗诐 讛讬讗 讟专驻讞转 讜讛讬讗 砖诇驻讜讞讬转

搂 The mishna states: If its womb [em] was removed, the animal remains kosher. A Sage taught: The em is synonymous with the tarpa岣t, and it is synonymous with the shalpu岣t.

讜讞专讜转讛 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讻砖专讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讜讛讬 讞专讜转讛 讻诇 砖爪诪拽讛 专讬讗讛 砖诇讛 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讻砖专讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讟专驻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讬讚讬 讻诇 讛讘专讬讜转

搂 The mishna states: Or if its lung shriveled [岣ruta] by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher. The Sages taught in a baraita: Which is a 岣ruta? It is any animal whose lung shriveled. If this occurred by the hand of Heaven, e.g., if the lung shriveled from fright of thunder and lightning, the animal is kosher. But if it happened by the hands of a person who frightened it, e.g., if it witnessed another animal being slaughtered, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if the lung shriveled by the hands of any creature, e.g., if it was frightened by a lion鈥檚 roar.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讜诇拽讜诇讗 讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讜诇讞讜诪专讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar referring to the first clause of the baraita, in which case the statement is a leniency, and even the roar of a lion is considered by the hand of Heaven? Or perhaps it is referring to the latter clause, and the statement is a stringency, and a lung shriveled by the hand of any creature renders the animal a tereifa?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讞专讜转讛 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讟专驻讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讬讚讬 讻诇 讛讘专讬讜转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as it is taught in the above baraita: A lung that was shriveled by the hands of a person renders the animal a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even by the hands of any creature. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is referring to the latter clause.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讘诪讚讘专讗 讗砖讻讞 讛谞讛讜 讚讬讻专讬 讚爪诪讬拽 专讬讗讛 讚讬讚讛讜 讗转讗 砖讗讬诇 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讘拽讬讬讟讗 讗讬讬转讬 诪砖讬讻诇讬 讞讬讜专讬 讜诪诇讬谞讛讜 诪讬讗 拽专讬专讬 讜讗谞讞讬谞讛讜 诪注转 诇注转 讗讬 讛讚专谉 讘专讬讬谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讛讬讗 讜讻砖专讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讟专驻讛 住讬转讜讗 讗讬讬转讬 诪砖讬讻诇讬 砖讬讞讜诪讬 讜诪诇讬谞讛讜 诪讬讗 驻砖讜专讬 讜讗谞讞讬谞讛讜 诪注转 诇注转 讗讬 讛讚专讗 讘专讬讗 讻砖专讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讟专驻讛

The Gemara recounts: Rabba bar bar 岣na was walking in the desert, and he found certain rams whose lungs were shriveled. He came and asked in the study hall how one can determine the cause of the shriveling. The Sages said to him: In the summer, bring white vessels and fill them with cold water and set the lungs in them for a twenty-four-hour period. If they go back to appearing healthy, i.e., if they expand, one knows that it was by the hand of Heaven and the animals are kosher; but if they do not expand, the animals are tereifa. In the winter, bring dark vessels and fill them with tepid water, and set the lungs in them for a twenty-four-hour period. If they go back to appearing healthy, they are kosher; but if not, they are tereifa.

讛讙诇讜讚讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙诇讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬诐 讜讻讘专 讛注讬讚 讗诇注讝专 住驻专讗 讜讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 注诇 讛讙诇讜讚讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

搂 The mishna states: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa. With regard to this, the Sages taught: 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. And Elazar the scribe and Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda already testified before the Sages with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir retracted his statement.

诪讻诇诇 讚诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讙诇讜讚讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 讛讙诇讜讚讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 讜讻讘专 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讘砖诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 注诇 讛讙诇讜讚讛 砖驻住讜诇讛 讜讗诐 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讜 讻住诇注 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 诇讗 注诪讚 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诪讞诇讜拽转讜

The Gemara objects: By inference, one may conclude that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rabbi Meir initially disagreed with regard to an animal whose hide was removed. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir and the Sages did not disagree with regard to an animal whose hide was removed, and all agree that it is unfit for consumption. And Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Yehuda the spice merchant, already testified before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Tarfon with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. And if a piece of hide the same size as a sela remained intact, the animal is kosher. The Gemara explains the objection: The phrase: Did not disagree, indicates that Rabbi Meir never disagreed with the Sages. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: What is the meaning of the phrase: Did not disagree? It means that Rabbi Meir did not stand firm in his disagreement and retracted.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讜 讻住诇注 讻砖专讛 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚专讛 讻讜诇讛

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: If a piece of hide the same size as a sela remained intact in the animal, it is kosher. The Gemara asks: Where must this piece of hide be? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The piece of hide must be along the entire spine.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讚讗专讬讱 讜拽讟讬谉 讚讻讬 诪爪专祝 诇讛 讛讜讬 讻住诇注 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘专讜讞讘 住诇注 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚专讛 讻讜诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚驻专讬砖 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘专讜讞讘 讻住诇注 注诇 驻谞讬 讻诇 讛砖讚专讛 讻讜诇讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Shmuel mean that it is kosher if a long and thin strip of hide remains along the spine, such that when one combines its area, it will constitute the same size as a sela? Or perhaps it is kosher only if the remaining hide is the width of a sela along the entire spine? The Gemara responds: Come and hear proof from that which Rabbi Nehorai explained in the name of Shmuel: It must be the width of a sela along the entire spine.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讗砖讬 驻专拽讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讗谞讟讬讙谞讜住 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 讟讬讘讜专讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na says: There must be a piece of hide the size of a sela on the tips of all segments of the spine and on the tips of the femur and tibia. Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yannai: The piece of hide must be the width of a sela at the place of its navel.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讬讟诇 诪拽讜诐 讛砖讚专讛 讜讻讜诇讜 拽讬讬诐 谞讬讟诇 诪拽讜诐 讟讬讘讜专讜 讜讻讜诇讜 拽讬讬诐 谞讬讟诇讜 专讗砖讬 驻专拽讬诐 讜讻讜诇讜 拽讬讬诐 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael, raises a dilemma: If all the hide covering the place of the spine was removed, but all of the remaining hide was intact, or if the hide covering the place of its navel was removed but all of the remaining hide was intact, or if the hide covering all the tips of the segments were removed but all of the remaining hide was intact, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛注讜专 讻讜诇讜 诪爪讬诇 讘讙诇讜讚讛 讞讜抓 诪注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 谞诪讬 诪爪讬诇

Rav says: Any portion of the hide that is the size of a sela saves an animal whose hide was removed from becoming a tereifa, except for the hide of the hooves, which is not considered hide. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even the hide of the hooves saves it.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讬诇 讘讙诇讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪爪讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诪讚转谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转拽谞讬讟谞讬 砖讘诇砖讜谉 讬讞讬讚 讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讗讜转讛

The Gemara recounts: Rabbi Asi asked Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to the hide of the hooves, what is the halakha? Does it save an animal whose hide was removed if a piece of it the size of a sela remains? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: It saves the animal. Rabbi Asi said to him: But didn鈥檛 you teach us, our teacher, the following mishna (122a): These are the entities whose hide is like their flesh in terms of halakhic status, in that it transmits ritual impurity鈥he skin of a head of a young calf, and the hide of the hooves? Evidently, the hide of the hooves is considered like flesh and not true skin. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Do not trouble me by invoking that mishna, as I teach it in the singular. Only according to one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, is the hide of the hooves not true skin; according to the Rabbis, it is considered true skin.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讝讬转 诪注讜专 砖诇 转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

As it is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering with intent to burn an olive-bulk of the hide beneath the tail outside its designated area, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for excision from the World-to-Come [karet] for one who partakes of the offering. If he had intent to burn it beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. This halakha usually applies to an offering鈥檚 flesh but not its hide. Since the hide beneath the tail is soft, it is treated like part of the flesh. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讗讬讘诇讬诐 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 注讬讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讞讚 注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 砖诇 转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讜讻诇 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉

Eliezer ben Yehuda of Evlayim said in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, and so says Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Ikos in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Whether the hide of the hooves, or the hide of the head of a young calf, or the hide beneath the tail, or any hide that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity under the heading: These are the entities whose hide is like their flesh in terms of halakhic status,

Scroll To Top