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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 24, 2019 | 讬状讞 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 58


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

砖讬讞诇讗 拽诪讗 讗住讬专讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讜诪讜转专

the first clutch [shi岣la] of eggs that were in its body at the time it was rendered a tereifa is prohibited for consumption, because these eggs are considered part of the bird and were therefore rendered tereifa along with it. But as for any egg fertilized from this point forward, it is a case where both this and that cause it, i.e., a tereifa female and a kosher male, and as a rule, when permitted and prohibited causes operate together, the joint result is permitted.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讘讬爪转 讟专讬驻讛 砖讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讙讚诇讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讛转诐 讘讚住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗

Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar from a mishna (Eduyyot 5:1): And all agree with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, because it grew in a state of prohibition. Evidently, even eggs created after the bird was rendered a tereifa are prohibited. Ameimar said to him: There, the mishna is dealing with a bird that is heated by the earth, i.e., that was not fertilized by a male, and the female tereifa is therefore the sole source of the egg.

讜诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘砖讬讞诇讗 拽诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚诇讛 讙诪专讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara objects: And let Ameimar answer differently, that the mishna is dealing with the first clutch of eggs, which were part of the mother鈥檚 body when it became a tereifa. The Gemara responds: If this was so, why does the mishna state: Because it grew in a state of prohibition? The mishna should have stated: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讜诇讚 讟专驻讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讘 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘砖谞讟专驻讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 注讬讘专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇讙讘讜讛 诇讬驻诇讙讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara objects: But if the offspring in the womb of an animal becomes a tereifa along with it, then that which we learned in a baraita is difficult: With regard to the offspring of a tereifa, Rabbi Eliezer says that it shall not be sacrificed on the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says that it may be sacrificed. With regard to what case do they disagree? It must be with regard to a case where the mother animal was rendered a tereifa and afterward became pregnant from a kosher male, and Rabbi Eliezer holds: In a case where this and that cause it, it is prohibited, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds: In a case where this and that cause it, it is permitted. But if so, rather than disputing whether it is permitted to sacrifice such offspring to the Most High, let them disagree concerning the more basic issue of whether the offspring is permitted to an ordinary person for consumption.

诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讙讘讜讛 谞诪讬 砖专讬

The Gemara responds: The dispute addresses the question of whether it is permitted to sacrifice the animal as an offering in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the lenient opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that such an animal is permitted even as an offering to the Most High.

讜诇讬驻诇讙讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讻讞 讚讛讬转专讗 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But let them disagree concerning whether the animal is permitted to an ordinary person in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the stringent opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that such an animal is prohibited even to an ordinary person. The Gemara responds: It is preferable for the tanna to emphasize the power of leniency.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讬爪转 讟专驻讛 砖讗住讜专讛 讘讚住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗 讚讞讚 讙讜专诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara concludes: Since Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree with regard to an offspring brought about by two causes, it follows that when the mishna states: And they concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, this is referring to a bird that is heated by the earth and was not fertilized by a male, so that there is only one cause, the tereifa mother bird.

专讘 讗讞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讜诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讚讗诪讬诪专 讻讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara notes: Rav A岣 holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, who said at the end of the previous amud that a tereifa animal can be capable of giving birth, and similarly a tereifa bird can be capable of laying eggs as well, and he therefore teaches the statement of Ameimar as we have said, that any egg fertilized after the bird became a tereifa is permitted.

专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讜诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讚讗诪讬诪专 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛谞讬 讘讬注讬 讚住驻拽 讟专驻讛 讚砖讬讞诇讗 拽诪讗 诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗讬 讛讚专讛 讜讟注谞讛 砖专讬讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗住讬专谉

But Ravina does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov. Rather, he holds that a tereifa cannot produce eggs or give birth. And he therefore teaches the statement of Ameimar in this formulation: Ameimar said that with regard to these eggs of a bird concerning which it is uncertain whether it is a tereifa, the halakha is as follows: We leave aside the first clutch of eggs. If the bird produces eggs again, the first eggs are permitted for consumption, because the bird is certainly not a tereifa. And if not, they are prohibited, because they were considered part of the bird when it was rendered a tereifa.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讬爪转 讟专驻讛 砖讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讙讚诇讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讘讚砖讬讞诇讗 拽诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚诇讛 讙诪专讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讙诪专讛

Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar from a mishna (Eduyyot 5:1): And they concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, because it grew in a state of prohibition. Evidently, a tereifa bird can produce eggs. Ameimar said to him: The mishna there deals with the first clutch of eggs, which existed before the bird became a tereifa. Rav Ashi asks: If so, why does the mishna state: Because it grew in a state of prohibition? The mishna should have stated: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition. Ameimar responded: Teach an emended version of the mishna: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讜诇讚 讟专驻讛 专壮 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 专壮 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讘 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讻砖注讬讘专讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞讟专驻讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 注讜讘专 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讜专壮 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 注讜讘专 诇讗讜 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇讙讘讜讛 诇讬驻诇讙讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟

Rav Ashi asks: But if a tereifa cannot become pregnant, that which we learned in a baraita is difficult: With regard to the offspring of a tereifa, Rabbi Eliezer says that it shall not be sacrificed on the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says that it may be sacrificed. With regard to what case do they disagree? It must be with regard to a case where the mother animal became pregnant and only afterward was rendered a tereifa. Rabbi Eliezer holds that a fetus is considered like the thigh of its mother and is rendered a tereifa as part of its body, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a fetus is not considered like the thigh of its mother. The Gemara objects: But if so, rather than disputing whether it is permitted to sacrifice such offspring to the Most High, let them dispute the more basic issue of whether the offspring is permitted to an ordinary person for consumption.

诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘讛讚讬讜讟 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讞 讚讛讬转讬专讗 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara responds: The mishna discusses the question of whether it is permitted to sacrifice the animal as an offering in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the lenient opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that such an animal is permitted even as an offering to the Most High. The Gemara suggests: But let them dispute whether the animal is permitted to an ordinary person, in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the stringent opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that such an animal is prohibited even to an ordinary person. The Gemara responds: It is preferable for the tanna to emphasize the power of leniency.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讘讘讬爪转 讟专讬驻讛 砖讗住讜专讛 讘讚砖讬讞诇讗 拽诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讜驻讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara concludes: According to this explanation, when the mishna states: And they certainly concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, it is dealing with the first clutch of eggs in the bird鈥檚 oviduct at the time it becomes a tereifa. Even Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds that the fetus of an animal is not considered like the thigh of its mother, concedes that a bird鈥檚 egg is rendered a tereifa along with it. What is the reason for this? Rabbi Yehoshua holds that an egg is a true part of its body.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讝讻专 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘谞拽讘讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转

The Gemara rules: And with regard to an animal concerning which it is uncertain whether it is a tereifa, the halakha is: In the case of a male, it is prohibited for an entire twelve-month period. After that point, the animal is certainly kosher. In the case of a female, any animal that does not give birth is prohibited. Once it has, it is certainly kosher.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 讘专讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 注爪诐 讗讬谞讜 诪转拽讬讬诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讬砖讜转 砖讛转诇讬注 讘讗讬讘讬讛 讗住讜专讛

Rav Huna says: Any creature that has no bones cannot last twelve months. Rav Pappa said: One may learn from Rav Huna鈥檚 statement about that which Shmuel says: If a serpent melon became infested by worms while attached to the ground [be鈥檌bbeha], the worm is prohibited for consumption, in accordance with the verse: 鈥淎nd every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41).

讛谞讬 转诪专讬 讚讻讚讗 诇讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬讬谉

These dates stored in a jar are permitted after remaining there for twelve months of the year. Since worms have no bones, they cannot last twelve months. Consequently, any worms found in the dates must have hatched after they were picked and are therefore permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 诇讬转 讘拽讗 讘专 讬讜诪讗 讜诇讬转 讚讬讚讘讗 讘转 砖转讗

Rav says: There is no one-day-old mosquito, since all mosquitoes die before they have lived a day. And there is no one-year-old fly.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖讘 砖谞讬 讗讬诪专讗 讘拽转讗 诪讘拽讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讞讝讬转讬讛 诇讘专 诪讞讜讝讗 讚住讞讗 讘诪讬讗 讜住诇讬拽 讜讗讬讻专讱 讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讜讗讜转讬讘转 注诇讬讛 讜诪爪转 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讚注转 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 驻专讝诇讗 转诇讜 诇讬讛 诇讘拽讗 讘拽讜专谞住讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讬 讚讬讚讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖谞讬 讚讬讚讛讜

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But isn鈥檛 there the adage that people say that the female mosquito revolted against the male mosquito seven years, since she said to him: I saw a townsman swimming in the water, and he came out and wrapped himself in sheets, and you sat on him and sucked blood from him, and you did not inform me? Apparently, some boneless creatures can survive at least seven years. Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning, what about that adage that people say: Six thousand iron dinars hang in a mosquito鈥檚 mallet, i.e., its bite is powerful? Is there really such a thing? How much does the mosquito itself weigh? Rather, the saying must be referring to hundreds of their own dinars, i.e., the mosquitoes鈥 coins. Here, too, the adage is referring to their own years, not human years.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘讛诪讛 讘注诇转 讞诪砖 专讙诇讬诐 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 砖诇砖 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞住专 讜讬转专 讘讬讚 讗讘诇 讞住专 讜讬转专 讘专讙诇 讟专驻讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讬转专 讻谞讟讜诇 讚诪讬

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Bekhorot 40a): With regard to an animal with five legs, or one that has only three, this is a blemish, and the animal may not be brought as an offering. Rav Huna said: They taught this halakha only in a case where the animal was missing or had an additional foreleg. But if it was missing or had an additional hind leg, it is also a tereifa. What is the reason? It is that any extra limb is considered like a removed limb. An animal whose foreleg was removed is kosher, but if its hind leg was removed it is a tereifa; the same applies if it had an extra leg.

讛讛讬讗 讞讬讜转讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讛 转专转讬 住谞讬讗 讚讬讘讬 讗讬讬转讜讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讟专驻讛 诪讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗讬 砖驻讻谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讻砖专讛

The Gemara recounts the case of a certain animal that had two ceca. They brought it to Ravina, and he deemed it a tereifa based on the statement of Rav Huna that an extra limb is like a missing limb. Since an animal missing a cecum is a tereifa, an animal with an extra cecum is likewise a tereifa. The Gemara adds: But if they empty into each other, such that food can move freely between them, the animal is kosher, because they are considered one organ.

讛讛讬讗 讙讜讘转讗 讚讛讜讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讘讬 讻住讬 诇讛讜讘诇讬诇讗 住讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪讬讟专驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪专 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 讛谞讬 讞讬讜讬 讘专讬讬转讗 讛讻讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜

The Gemara recounts the case of a certain tube that exited from the reticulum into the omasum. Rav Ashi thought to deem the animal a tereifa. Rav Huna Mar bar 岣yya said to Rav Ashi: All animals that dwell outside have tubes like this, and one need not be concerned.

讛讛讜讗 讙讜讘转讗 讚讛讜讛 诪注讘专讗 诪讘讬 讻住讬 诇讻专住讗 住讘专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讻砖讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讞讚讗 诪讞讬转讗 诪讞转讬谞讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讗转诪专 讗转诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗转诪专 诇讗 讗转诪专

The Gemara recounts the case of a certain tube that passed from the reticulum to the rumen. Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to deem the animal kosher, as in the above case. Rav Oshaya said to him: Is that to say all such cases are woven in one weave? Where it was stated that such an organ is normal, it was stated; where it was not stated, it was not stated. This animal is a tereifa.

讛注讬讚 谞转谉 讘专 砖讬诇讗 专讘 讟讘讞讬讗 讚爪讬驻讜专讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注诇 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讻讗讞讚 砖讛讬讗 讟专驻讛 讜讻谞讙讚谉 讘注讜祝 讻砖专讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖谞讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讻诇讬谉 注讚 讻讗爪讘注 讻砖专讛

Natan bar Sheila, head of the butchers of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about two intestines that exit the abomasum of the animal as one, that this renders the animal a tereifa. But if this phenomenon occurs likewise in a bird, it is kosher, because it is common in birds. In what case is this statement said, i.e., that two intestines render an animal a tereifa? It is said in a case where they exit at two different points. But if they exit at one point, adjacent to each other, and they end, i.e., they merge into one intestine, within a fingerbreadth, the animal is kosher.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗诪讬 讜专讘 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专讬 讜注专讘讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讚专讬 讜注专讘讬

Rav Ami and Rav Asi disagree with regard to this halakha. One says: It is kosher when the two intestines exit at one point only in a case where they subsequently merge into one intestine; and one says: It is kosher even if they do not subsequently merge.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专讬 讜注专讘讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 注讚 讻讗爪讘注 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讚专讬 讜注专讘讬 诪讗讬 注讚 讻讗爪讘注 注讚 讻讗爪讘注 诪诇诪讟讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that it is kosher only in a case where they subsequently merge, this explanation is consistent with that which the baraita teaches: Within a fingerbreadth. That is, the two intestines must merge within a fingerbreadth for the animal to be kosher. But according to the one who says: It is kosher even if they do not subsequently merge, what is the meaning of the phrase: And they end within a fingerbreadth? The Gemara responds: It means within a fingerbreadth below. As long as the intestines merge before the final fingerbreadth near the anus, the animal is kosher.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞讬讟诇讛 讛谞讜爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜爪讛 诪爪讟专驻转

搂 The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the down covering its body was removed, it is a tereifa and unfit for consumption, like an animal whose hide was removed. With regard to this, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael said the same thing. Rabbi Yehuda said that which we said here, that the removal of the feathers is like removal of the hide. Rabbi Yishmael agrees, as we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael says: The down joins the flesh to constitute an olive-bulk for purposes of piggul. If a priest pinches the nape of the neck of a bird with intent to consume a combined olive-bulk of its meat and its down beyond the permitted time, the offering is rendered piggul. Evidently, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael agree that the down of a bird is considered like the hide of an animal.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟专驻讛 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讙讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讟专驻讛 讗讙讜谞讬 诇讗 诪讙讬谉

Rava said: Perhaps it is not so, and they disagree. Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda says that the down is like the hide of an animal here only with regard to a tereifa, since when the down is removed, there is nothing that protects the bird, and its life is in danger; but with regard to piggul, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the down is not treated like the hide of an animal, because piggul applies only if one had intent to consume an item that is normally consumed. And perhaps Rabbi Yishmael says so there only with regard to piggul, since he holds that the down is in fact fit for consumption; but with regard to a tereifa, he holds that the down does not protect the bird, and its removal does not endanger it.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讜讝转 讛讚诐 讜讛诪注讜砖谞转 讜讛诪爪讜谞谞转 讜砖讗讻诇讛 讛专讚讜驻谞讬 讜砖讗讻诇讛 爪讜讗转 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讗讜 砖砖转转 诪讬诐 讛专注讬诐 讻砖专讛 讗讻诇讛 住诐 讛诪讜转 讗讜 砖讛讻讬砖讛 谞讞砖 诪讜转专转 诪砖讜诐 讟专驻讛 讜讗住讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 住讻谞转 谞驻砖讜转

MISHNA: With regard to an animal that is congested with excess blood, or that was smoked, i.e., that suffered from smoke inhalation, or that was chilled and subsequently became sick, or that ate oleander, which is poisonous, or that ate the excrement of chickens, or that drank foul water, although in all these cases the animal is in danger, it is kosher. By contrast, if the animal ate deadly poison, or if a snake bit the animal, with regard to the prohibition of tereifa, consumption of the animal would be permitted, but it is prohibited due to the threat to one鈥檚 life if he eats it.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇注讬讟讛 讞诇转讬转 讟专驻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讬谞拽讘讛 诇讛讜 诇诪注讬讬谞讛

GEMARA: Shmuel says: If one fed an animal asafoetida, a very sharp plant, it is a tereifa. What is the reason? Since it perforates its intestines.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗讞讜讝转 讛讚诐 讜讛诪注讜砖谞转 讜砖讗讻诇讛 讛专讚讜驻谞讬 讜砖讗讻诇讛 爪讜讗转 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讜砖转转 诪讬诐 讛专注讬诐 讛诇注讬讟讛 转讬注讛 讞诇转讬转 讜驻诇驻诇讬谉 讗讻诇讛 住诐 讛诪讜转 讻砖专讛 讛讻讬砖讛 谞讞砖 讗讜 砖谞砖讻讛 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 诪讜转专转 诪砖讜诐 讟专驻讛 讜讗住讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 住讻谞转 谞驻砖讜转 拽砖讬讗 讞诇转讬转 讗讞诇转讬转 拽砖讬讗 住诐 讛诪讜转 讗住诐 讛诪讜转

Rav Sheizvi raises an objection from a baraita: An animal that is congested with excess blood, or that suffered from smoke inhalation, or that ate poisonous oleander, or that ate the excrement of roosters, or that drank foul water, or if one fed it tia, asafoetida, or peppers, or if it ate deadly poison, it is kosher. But if a snake bit the animal, or if a mad dog bit it, with regard to the prohibition of tereifa its consumption is permitted, but it is nevertheless prohibited due to the threat to one鈥檚 life. The statement of the baraita concerning an animal that was fed asafoetida poses a difficulty to Shmuel鈥檚 statement that asafoetida renders the animal a tereifa, and the statement concerning deadly poison poses a difficulty to the mishna鈥檚 statement that deadly poison renders the animal prohibited due to the threat to one鈥檚 life.

讞诇转讬转 讗讞诇转讬转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬谉 讻讗谉 讘拽专讟讬谉 住诐 讛诪讜转 讗住诐 讛诪讜转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讛 讛讗 讚讗讚诐 住诐 讛诪讜转 讚讘讛诪讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讛专讚讜驻谞讬 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 住诐 讛诪讜转

The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between one statement about asafoetida and the other statement about asafoetida is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where the animal ate asafoetida leaves, which are less dangerous. There, Shmuel is referring to a case where the animal ate slivers of asafoetida, which are very sharp. Likewise, the apparent contradiction between one statement about deadly poison and the other statement about deadly poison is not difficult. This statement of the baraita that it is permitted is referring to a case where the animal consumed poison that is deadly only to itself. That statement of the mishna that it is prohibited is referring to a case where it consumed poison deadly to a person. The Gemara asks: Poison deadly to an animal is the same as oleander; why should the baraita mention both? The Gemara responds: The tanna is referring to two types of deadly poison.

诪讗讬 转讬注讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

The above baraita teaches that if an animal was fed tia, it is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is tia? Rav Yehuda said:

  • 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 58

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 58

砖讬讞诇讗 拽诪讗 讗住讬专讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讜诪讜转专

the first clutch [shi岣la] of eggs that were in its body at the time it was rendered a tereifa is prohibited for consumption, because these eggs are considered part of the bird and were therefore rendered tereifa along with it. But as for any egg fertilized from this point forward, it is a case where both this and that cause it, i.e., a tereifa female and a kosher male, and as a rule, when permitted and prohibited causes operate together, the joint result is permitted.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜砖讜讬谉 讘讘讬爪转 讟专讬驻讛 砖讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讙讚诇讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讛转诐 讘讚住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗

Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar from a mishna (Eduyyot 5:1): And all agree with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, because it grew in a state of prohibition. Evidently, even eggs created after the bird was rendered a tereifa are prohibited. Ameimar said to him: There, the mishna is dealing with a bird that is heated by the earth, i.e., that was not fertilized by a male, and the female tereifa is therefore the sole source of the egg.

讜诇讬砖谞讬 诇讬讛 讘砖讬讞诇讗 拽诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚诇讛 讙诪专讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara objects: And let Ameimar answer differently, that the mishna is dealing with the first clutch of eggs, which were part of the mother鈥檚 body when it became a tereifa. The Gemara responds: If this was so, why does the mishna state: Because it grew in a state of prohibition? The mishna should have stated: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讜诇讚 讟专驻讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讘 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘砖谞讟专驻讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 注讬讘专讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讙讜专诐 诪讜转专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇讙讘讜讛 诇讬驻诇讙讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara objects: But if the offspring in the womb of an animal becomes a tereifa along with it, then that which we learned in a baraita is difficult: With regard to the offspring of a tereifa, Rabbi Eliezer says that it shall not be sacrificed on the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says that it may be sacrificed. With regard to what case do they disagree? It must be with regard to a case where the mother animal was rendered a tereifa and afterward became pregnant from a kosher male, and Rabbi Eliezer holds: In a case where this and that cause it, it is prohibited, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds: In a case where this and that cause it, it is permitted. But if so, rather than disputing whether it is permitted to sacrifice such offspring to the Most High, let them disagree concerning the more basic issue of whether the offspring is permitted to an ordinary person for consumption.

诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讙讘讜讛 谞诪讬 砖专讬

The Gemara responds: The dispute addresses the question of whether it is permitted to sacrifice the animal as an offering in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the lenient opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that such an animal is permitted even as an offering to the Most High.

讜诇讬驻诇讙讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟 谞诪讬 讗住讜专 讻讞 讚讛讬转专讗 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But let them disagree concerning whether the animal is permitted to an ordinary person in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the stringent opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that such an animal is prohibited even to an ordinary person. The Gemara responds: It is preferable for the tanna to emphasize the power of leniency.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讬爪转 讟专驻讛 砖讗住讜专讛 讘讚住驻谞讗 诪讗专注讗 讚讞讚 讙讜专诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara concludes: Since Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree with regard to an offspring brought about by two causes, it follows that when the mishna states: And they concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, this is referring to a bird that is heated by the earth and was not fertilized by a male, so that there is only one cause, the tereifa mother bird.

专讘 讗讞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讜诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讚讗诪讬诪专 讻讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara notes: Rav A岣 holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov, who said at the end of the previous amud that a tereifa animal can be capable of giving birth, and similarly a tereifa bird can be capable of laying eggs as well, and he therefore teaches the statement of Ameimar as we have said, that any egg fertilized after the bird became a tereifa is permitted.

专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讚专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讜诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讚讗诪讬诪专 讘讛讗讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛谞讬 讘讬注讬 讚住驻拽 讟专驻讛 讚砖讬讞诇讗 拽诪讗 诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗讬 讛讚专讛 讜讟注谞讛 砖专讬讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗住讬专谉

But Ravina does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov. Rather, he holds that a tereifa cannot produce eggs or give birth. And he therefore teaches the statement of Ameimar in this formulation: Ameimar said that with regard to these eggs of a bird concerning which it is uncertain whether it is a tereifa, the halakha is as follows: We leave aside the first clutch of eggs. If the bird produces eggs again, the first eggs are permitted for consumption, because the bird is certainly not a tereifa. And if not, they are prohibited, because they were considered part of the bird when it was rendered a tereifa.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讘讘讬爪转 讟专驻讛 砖讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讙讚诇讛 讘讗讬住讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讘讚砖讬讞诇讗 拽诪讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚诇讛 讙诪专讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讙诪专讛

Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar from a mishna (Eduyyot 5:1): And they concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, because it grew in a state of prohibition. Evidently, a tereifa bird can produce eggs. Ameimar said to him: The mishna there deals with the first clutch of eggs, which existed before the bird became a tereifa. Rav Ashi asks: If so, why does the mishna state: Because it grew in a state of prohibition? The mishna should have stated: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition. Ameimar responded: Teach an emended version of the mishna: Because it was finished in a state of prohibition.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讜诇讚 讟专驻讛 专壮 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 专壮 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讘 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讻砖注讬讘专讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞讟专驻讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 注讜讘专 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讜专壮 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 注讜讘专 诇讗讜 讬专讱 讗诪讜 讛讜讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 诇讙讘讜讛 诇讬驻诇讙讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟

Rav Ashi asks: But if a tereifa cannot become pregnant, that which we learned in a baraita is difficult: With regard to the offspring of a tereifa, Rabbi Eliezer says that it shall not be sacrificed on the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says that it may be sacrificed. With regard to what case do they disagree? It must be with regard to a case where the mother animal became pregnant and only afterward was rendered a tereifa. Rabbi Eliezer holds that a fetus is considered like the thigh of its mother and is rendered a tereifa as part of its body, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a fetus is not considered like the thigh of its mother. The Gemara objects: But if so, rather than disputing whether it is permitted to sacrifice such offspring to the Most High, let them dispute the more basic issue of whether the offspring is permitted to an ordinary person for consumption.

诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘讛讚讬讜讟 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻讞 讚讛讬转讬专讗 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛

The Gemara responds: The mishna discusses the question of whether it is permitted to sacrifice the animal as an offering in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the lenient opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that such an animal is permitted even as an offering to the Most High. The Gemara suggests: But let them dispute whether the animal is permitted to an ordinary person, in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the stringent opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that such an animal is prohibited even to an ordinary person. The Gemara responds: It is preferable for the tanna to emphasize the power of leniency.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讜讚讗讬 讘讘讬爪转 讟专讬驻讛 砖讗住讜专讛 讘讚砖讬讞诇讗 拽诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讜驻讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara concludes: According to this explanation, when the mishna states: And they certainly concede with regard to the egg of a tereifa bird that it is prohibited for consumption, it is dealing with the first clutch of eggs in the bird鈥檚 oviduct at the time it becomes a tereifa. Even Rabbi Yehoshua, who holds that the fetus of an animal is not considered like the thigh of its mother, concedes that a bird鈥檚 egg is rendered a tereifa along with it. What is the reason for this? Rabbi Yehoshua holds that an egg is a true part of its body.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讝讻专 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘谞拽讘讛 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜诇讚转

The Gemara rules: And with regard to an animal concerning which it is uncertain whether it is a tereifa, the halakha is: In the case of a male, it is prohibited for an entire twelve-month period. After that point, the animal is certainly kosher. In the case of a female, any animal that does not give birth is prohibited. Once it has, it is certainly kosher.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻诇 讘专讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 注爪诐 讗讬谞讜 诪转拽讬讬诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽讬砖讜转 砖讛转诇讬注 讘讗讬讘讬讛 讗住讜专讛

Rav Huna says: Any creature that has no bones cannot last twelve months. Rav Pappa said: One may learn from Rav Huna鈥檚 statement about that which Shmuel says: If a serpent melon became infested by worms while attached to the ground [be鈥檌bbeha], the worm is prohibited for consumption, in accordance with the verse: 鈥淎nd every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41).

讛谞讬 转诪专讬 讚讻讚讗 诇讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 砖专讬讬谉

These dates stored in a jar are permitted after remaining there for twelve months of the year. Since worms have no bones, they cannot last twelve months. Consequently, any worms found in the dates must have hatched after they were picked and are therefore permitted.

讗诪专 专讘 诇讬转 讘拽讗 讘专 讬讜诪讗 讜诇讬转 讚讬讚讘讗 讘转 砖转讗

Rav says: There is no one-day-old mosquito, since all mosquitoes die before they have lived a day. And there is no one-year-old fly.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖讘 砖谞讬 讗讬诪专讗 讘拽转讗 诪讘拽讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讞讝讬转讬讛 诇讘专 诪讞讜讝讗 讚住讞讗 讘诪讬讗 讜住诇讬拽 讜讗讬讻专讱 讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讜讗讜转讬讘转 注诇讬讛 讜诪爪转 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讚注转 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖讬转讬谉 诪谞讬 驻专讝诇讗 转诇讜 诇讬讛 诇讘拽讗 讘拽讜专谞住讬讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讬 讚讬讚讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖谞讬 讚讬讚讛讜

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But isn鈥檛 there the adage that people say that the female mosquito revolted against the male mosquito seven years, since she said to him: I saw a townsman swimming in the water, and he came out and wrapped himself in sheets, and you sat on him and sucked blood from him, and you did not inform me? Apparently, some boneless creatures can survive at least seven years. Abaye said to him: And according to your reasoning, what about that adage that people say: Six thousand iron dinars hang in a mosquito鈥檚 mallet, i.e., its bite is powerful? Is there really such a thing? How much does the mosquito itself weigh? Rather, the saying must be referring to hundreds of their own dinars, i.e., the mosquitoes鈥 coins. Here, too, the adage is referring to their own years, not human years.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讘讛诪讛 讘注诇转 讞诪砖 专讙诇讬诐 讗讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 砖诇砖 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞住专 讜讬转专 讘讬讚 讗讘诇 讞住专 讜讬转专 讘专讙诇 讟专驻讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诇 讬转专 讻谞讟讜诇 讚诪讬

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Bekhorot 40a): With regard to an animal with five legs, or one that has only three, this is a blemish, and the animal may not be brought as an offering. Rav Huna said: They taught this halakha only in a case where the animal was missing or had an additional foreleg. But if it was missing or had an additional hind leg, it is also a tereifa. What is the reason? It is that any extra limb is considered like a removed limb. An animal whose foreleg was removed is kosher, but if its hind leg was removed it is a tereifa; the same applies if it had an extra leg.

讛讛讬讗 讞讬讜转讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讛 转专转讬 住谞讬讗 讚讬讘讬 讗讬讬转讜讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讟专驻讛 诪讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗讬 砖驻讻谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讻砖专讛

The Gemara recounts the case of a certain animal that had two ceca. They brought it to Ravina, and he deemed it a tereifa based on the statement of Rav Huna that an extra limb is like a missing limb. Since an animal missing a cecum is a tereifa, an animal with an extra cecum is likewise a tereifa. The Gemara adds: But if they empty into each other, such that food can move freely between them, the animal is kosher, because they are considered one organ.

讛讛讬讗 讙讜讘转讗 讚讛讜讛 谞驻拽讗 诪讘讬 讻住讬 诇讛讜讘诇讬诇讗 住讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪讬讟专驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪专 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 讛谞讬 讞讬讜讬 讘专讬讬转讗 讛讻讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜

The Gemara recounts the case of a certain tube that exited from the reticulum into the omasum. Rav Ashi thought to deem the animal a tereifa. Rav Huna Mar bar 岣yya said to Rav Ashi: All animals that dwell outside have tubes like this, and one need not be concerned.

讛讛讜讗 讙讜讘转讗 讚讛讜讛 诪注讘专讗 诪讘讬 讻住讬 诇讻专住讗 住讘专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讻砖讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讞讚讗 诪讞讬转讗 诪讞转讬谞讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讗转诪专 讗转诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗转诪专 诇讗 讗转诪专

The Gemara recounts the case of a certain tube that passed from the reticulum to the rumen. Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to deem the animal kosher, as in the above case. Rav Oshaya said to him: Is that to say all such cases are woven in one weave? Where it was stated that such an organ is normal, it was stated; where it was not stated, it was not stated. This animal is a tereifa.

讛注讬讚 谞转谉 讘专 砖讬诇讗 专讘 讟讘讞讬讗 讚爪讬驻讜专讬 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 注诇 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 诪注讬诐 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 讻讗讞讚 砖讛讬讗 讟专驻讛 讜讻谞讙讚谉 讘注讜祝 讻砖专讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘砖谞讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讻诇讬谉 注讚 讻讗爪讘注 讻砖专讛

Natan bar Sheila, head of the butchers of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about two intestines that exit the abomasum of the animal as one, that this renders the animal a tereifa. But if this phenomenon occurs likewise in a bird, it is kosher, because it is common in birds. In what case is this statement said, i.e., that two intestines render an animal a tereifa? It is said in a case where they exit at two different points. But if they exit at one point, adjacent to each other, and they end, i.e., they merge into one intestine, within a fingerbreadth, the animal is kosher.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗诪讬 讜专讘 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专讬 讜注专讘讬 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讚专讬 讜注专讘讬

Rav Ami and Rav Asi disagree with regard to this halakha. One says: It is kosher when the two intestines exit at one point only in a case where they subsequently merge into one intestine; and one says: It is kosher even if they do not subsequently merge.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专讬 讜注专讘讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 注讚 讻讗爪讘注 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讚专讬 讜注专讘讬 诪讗讬 注讚 讻讗爪讘注 注讚 讻讗爪讘注 诪诇诪讟讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that it is kosher only in a case where they subsequently merge, this explanation is consistent with that which the baraita teaches: Within a fingerbreadth. That is, the two intestines must merge within a fingerbreadth for the animal to be kosher. But according to the one who says: It is kosher even if they do not subsequently merge, what is the meaning of the phrase: And they end within a fingerbreadth? The Gemara responds: It means within a fingerbreadth below. As long as the intestines merge before the final fingerbreadth near the anus, the animal is kosher.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞讬讟诇讛 讛谞讜爪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛谞讜爪讛 诪爪讟专驻转

搂 The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the down covering its body was removed, it is a tereifa and unfit for consumption, like an animal whose hide was removed. With regard to this, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael said the same thing. Rabbi Yehuda said that which we said here, that the removal of the feathers is like removal of the hide. Rabbi Yishmael agrees, as we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael says: The down joins the flesh to constitute an olive-bulk for purposes of piggul. If a priest pinches the nape of the neck of a bird with intent to consume a combined olive-bulk of its meat and its down beyond the permitted time, the offering is rendered piggul. Evidently, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael agree that the down of a bird is considered like the hide of an animal.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟专驻讛 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讙讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讗讬驻讙讜诇讬 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讟专驻讛 讗讙讜谞讬 诇讗 诪讙讬谉

Rava said: Perhaps it is not so, and they disagree. Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda says that the down is like the hide of an animal here only with regard to a tereifa, since when the down is removed, there is nothing that protects the bird, and its life is in danger; but with regard to piggul, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the down is not treated like the hide of an animal, because piggul applies only if one had intent to consume an item that is normally consumed. And perhaps Rabbi Yishmael says so there only with regard to piggul, since he holds that the down is in fact fit for consumption; but with regard to a tereifa, he holds that the down does not protect the bird, and its removal does not endanger it.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讜讝转 讛讚诐 讜讛诪注讜砖谞转 讜讛诪爪讜谞谞转 讜砖讗讻诇讛 讛专讚讜驻谞讬 讜砖讗讻诇讛 爪讜讗转 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讗讜 砖砖转转 诪讬诐 讛专注讬诐 讻砖专讛 讗讻诇讛 住诐 讛诪讜转 讗讜 砖讛讻讬砖讛 谞讞砖 诪讜转专转 诪砖讜诐 讟专驻讛 讜讗住讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 住讻谞转 谞驻砖讜转

MISHNA: With regard to an animal that is congested with excess blood, or that was smoked, i.e., that suffered from smoke inhalation, or that was chilled and subsequently became sick, or that ate oleander, which is poisonous, or that ate the excrement of chickens, or that drank foul water, although in all these cases the animal is in danger, it is kosher. By contrast, if the animal ate deadly poison, or if a snake bit the animal, with regard to the prohibition of tereifa, consumption of the animal would be permitted, but it is prohibited due to the threat to one鈥檚 life if he eats it.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇注讬讟讛 讞诇转讬转 讟专驻讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讬谞拽讘讛 诇讛讜 诇诪注讬讬谞讛

GEMARA: Shmuel says: If one fed an animal asafoetida, a very sharp plant, it is a tereifa. What is the reason? Since it perforates its intestines.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讗讞讜讝转 讛讚诐 讜讛诪注讜砖谞转 讜砖讗讻诇讛 讛专讚讜驻谞讬 讜砖讗讻诇讛 爪讜讗转 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讜砖转转 诪讬诐 讛专注讬诐 讛诇注讬讟讛 转讬注讛 讞诇转讬转 讜驻诇驻诇讬谉 讗讻诇讛 住诐 讛诪讜转 讻砖专讛 讛讻讬砖讛 谞讞砖 讗讜 砖谞砖讻讛 讻诇讘 砖讜讟讛 诪讜转专转 诪砖讜诐 讟专驻讛 讜讗住讜专讛 诪砖讜诐 住讻谞转 谞驻砖讜转 拽砖讬讗 讞诇转讬转 讗讞诇转讬转 拽砖讬讗 住诐 讛诪讜转 讗住诐 讛诪讜转

Rav Sheizvi raises an objection from a baraita: An animal that is congested with excess blood, or that suffered from smoke inhalation, or that ate poisonous oleander, or that ate the excrement of roosters, or that drank foul water, or if one fed it tia, asafoetida, or peppers, or if it ate deadly poison, it is kosher. But if a snake bit the animal, or if a mad dog bit it, with regard to the prohibition of tereifa its consumption is permitted, but it is nevertheless prohibited due to the threat to one鈥檚 life. The statement of the baraita concerning an animal that was fed asafoetida poses a difficulty to Shmuel鈥檚 statement that asafoetida renders the animal a tereifa, and the statement concerning deadly poison poses a difficulty to the mishna鈥檚 statement that deadly poison renders the animal prohibited due to the threat to one鈥檚 life.

讞诇转讬转 讗讞诇转讬转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬谉 讻讗谉 讘拽专讟讬谉 住诐 讛诪讜转 讗住诐 讛诪讜转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讛 讛讗 讚讗讚诐 住诐 讛诪讜转 讚讘讛诪讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讛专讚讜驻谞讬 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 住诐 讛诪讜转

The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between one statement about asafoetida and the other statement about asafoetida is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to a case where the animal ate asafoetida leaves, which are less dangerous. There, Shmuel is referring to a case where the animal ate slivers of asafoetida, which are very sharp. Likewise, the apparent contradiction between one statement about deadly poison and the other statement about deadly poison is not difficult. This statement of the baraita that it is permitted is referring to a case where the animal consumed poison that is deadly only to itself. That statement of the mishna that it is prohibited is referring to a case where it consumed poison deadly to a person. The Gemara asks: Poison deadly to an animal is the same as oleander; why should the baraita mention both? The Gemara responds: The tanna is referring to two types of deadly poison.

诪讗讬 转讬注讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

The above baraita teaches that if an animal was fed tia, it is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is tia? Rav Yehuda said:

Scroll To Top