חולין מב

חולין מב

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִם אִיתָא דְּיָלְדָה – קָלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֵימַר אַפּוֹלֵי אַפִּיל.

The Gemara answers: Lest you say: If it is so that his wife gave birth, it would have generated publicity and been common knowledge; therefore, one might conclude that the slaughter is valid even if he declared that the slaughter is for the sake of the burnt offering of his wife after childbirth, as in fact she did not give birth. To counter this, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that the slaughter is not valid. Say that his wife miscarried and is liable to bring an offering, but it is not common knowledge, because the baby was not born alive.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת בַּבְּהֵמָה: נְקוּבַת הַוֶּושֶׁט, וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ, נִיקַּב הַלֵּב לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וְנִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁלָּהּ, נִיטַּל הַכָּבֵד וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנּוּ כְּלוּם.

MISHNA: These wounds constitute tereifot in an animal, rendering them prohibited for consumption: A perforated gullet, where the perforation goes through the wall of the gullet, or a cut windpipe. If the membrane of the brain was perforated, or if the heart was perforated to its chamber; if the spinal column was broken and its cord was cut; if the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, any of these render the animal a tereifa.

הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁתִּינָּקֵב לְבֵית הַסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת. נִיקְּבָה הַקֵּבָה, נִיקְּבָה הַמָּרָה, נִיקְּבוּ הַדַּקִּין, הַכָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרַע רוֹב הַחִיצוֹנָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַגְּדוֹלָה טֶפַח, וְהַקְּטַנָּה בְּרוּבָּהּ. הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ לַחוּץ.

Additionally, a lung that was perforated or that was missing a piece renders the animal a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon says: It is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the bronchi. If the abomasum was perforated, or the gallbladder was perforated, or the small intestines were perforated, it is a tereifa. It is also a tereifa in a case where the internal rumen was perforated or where the majority of the external rumen was torn. Rabbi Yehuda says: For a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa, while for a small animal, it is a tereifa only if the majority of it was torn. And it is a tereifa where the omasum [hemses] or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, i.e., to the abdominal cavity, but not if the perforation was between the two.

נָפְלָה מִן הַגָּג, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רוֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ, וּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: דְּרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב בַּדַּקָּה, וּדְרוּסַת אֲרִי בַּגַּסָּה, דְּרוּסַת הַנֵּץ בְּעוֹף הַדַּק, וּדְרוּסַת הַגַּס בְּעוֹף הַגַּס. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה – טְרֵפָה.

Likewise, if an animal fell from the roof, or if the majority of its ribs were fractured, or if it was clawed by a wolf, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was clawed by a wolf in the case of a small animal, i.e., a sheep or goat; or clawed by a lion in the case of a large animal, i.e., cattle; or if it was clawed by a hawk in the case of a small bird; or if it was clawed by a large bird of prey in the case of a large bird, then it is a tereifa. 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 consumption of which is forbidden by Torah law.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: רֶמֶז לִטְרֵפָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? מִנַּיִן?! ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״! אֶלָּא, רֶמֶז לִטְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיָּה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן? דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה – טְרֵפָה, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה, מְנָא לַן?

GEMARA: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the prohibition of a tereifa? The Gemara interjects: Where is there an allusion? Doesn’t the Torah state explicitly: “You shall not eat any flesh that is torn of animals [tereifa] in the field” (Exodus 22:30)? Rather, the question is: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the principle that a tereifa cannot live? As the mishna teaches in the last clause: 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; one learns by inference that a tereifa cannot live. If so, from where do we derive this?

דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״, חַיָּה – אֱכוֹל, שֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיָּה – לָא תֵּיכוּל, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה לֹא חַיָּה.

It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth” (Leviticus 11:2). The verse indicates that you may eat a living animal, i.e., one that can survive, but you may not eat an animal that is not living, i.e., one that cannot survive. One learns by inference that a tereifa cannot live.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״זֹּאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״ – ״זֹאת הַחַיָּה״ אֱכוֹל, חַיָּה אַחֶרֶת לָא תֵּיכוֹל, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה חַיָּה.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that a tereifa can live, from where does he derive this? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the same verse: “These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals.” “These” indicates that you may eat only these living things, but you may not eat other living things, i.e., tereifot. One learns by inference that a tereifa can live.

וְאִידַּךְ, הַאי ״זֹאת״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁתָּפַס הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִכׇּל מִין וּמִין וְהֶרְאָה לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה, וְאָמַר לוֹ: זֹאת אֱכוֹל, וְזֹאת לָא תֵּיכוֹל.

The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion, that a tereifa cannot live, what does he do with this word “these”? The Gemara responds: He requires it for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the verse: “These are the living things which you may eat,” teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, seized one of each and every species of animal and showed it to Moses, and said to him: These you may eat, and these you may not eat.

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא טְרֵפָה חַיָּה מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵאִידַּךְ תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״בֵּין הַחַיָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת וּבֵין הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵאָכֵל״ – אֵלּוּ שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה טְרֵפוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.

The Gemara objects: But the other opinion also requires the word “these” for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. The Gemara replies: Yes, it is indeed so. Rather, from where does he derive the principle that a tereifa can live? He derives it from the other baraita that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “To make a difference…between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:47). These living things that may not be eaten are the eighteen tereifot that were stated to Moses at Sinai and enumerated in the mishna. The verse, then, makes reference to a tereifa as a living thing.

וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא אִיכָּא בסג״ר, וְשַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא!

The Gemara questions the baraita: And are there no more cases of tereifot? But aren’t there more cases cited in the Mishna and other baraitot, for which a mnemonic is given: Beit, samekh, gimmel, reish; and aren’t there seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amora’im?

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְתַנָּא דִּידַן, דִּתְנָא, תְּנָא וּדְשַׁיַּיר – אָתְיָא בְּזֶה הַכְּלָל, אֶלָּא לְתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּאָמַר: שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה טְרֵפוֹת וְתוּ לֵיכָּא, וְהָא אִיכָּא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה טְרֵפָה? סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: יְכוֹלָה הִיא לִיכּוֹוֹת וְלִחְיוֹת.

Granted, with regard to the tanna of our mishna, one can say that the cases of tereifot that he taught explicitly in the mishna, he taught, and that any case that he omitted comes under the general statement beginning: This is the principle. But with regard to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who said: Eighteen tereifot, one must ask: And are there no more cases of tereifot? But aren’t there the four cases represented by the mnemonic beit, samekh, gimmel, reish, the first of which is taught in a mishna (76a): An animal whose hind legs were severed from the leg joint and above is a tereifa? The Gemara responds: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says: The severed leg can be cauterized and the animal will live. Therefore, such a wound does not render the animal a tereifa.

אַף עַל גַּב דִּיכוֹלָה לִיכּוֹוֹת וְלִחְיוֹת, לְמַאן קָאָמַר? לְתַנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל טְרֵפָה חַיָּה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: ״כְּשֵׁרָה הִיא״.

The Gemara objects: But even if one holds that the severed leg can be cauterized and the animal will live, this does not mean that the animal is not a tereifa. According to whom is the question: But aren’t there the cases of beit, samekh, gimmel, reish, stated? It is stated according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that there are only eighteen tereifot. But the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael maintains that a tereifa can live. If so, the fact that the animal can live if the stump of its severed limb is cauterized is immaterial to whether it is a tereifa. Rather, say that the tanna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar insofar as he says that an animal with a severed leg is kosher. Yet, he disagrees with the claim that the reason is because the animal can survive.

וְהָאִיכָּא חִסָּרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה, דִּתְנַן: כַּמָּה חִסָּרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי חוּלְיוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חוּלְיָא אַחַת; וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְכֵן לִטְרֵפָה.

The Gemara objects: But isn’t there the case of a deficiency in the spine? As we learned in a mishna (Oholot 2:3): How much is considered a deficiency in the spine of a corpse so that it will not be considered a full corpse to impart impurity in a tent? Beit Shammai say: Two missing vertebrae, and Beit Hillel say: One vertebra. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Just as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to ritual impurity, so too they disagree with regard to a tereifa, i.e., according to Beit Hillel an animal missing only one vertebra is a tereifa. This is not included in the count of Rabbi Yishmael.

הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת, דְּקָא חָשְׁבַתְּ לְהוּ בְּתַרְתֵּי, חַשְׁבִינְהוּ בַּחֲדָא, אַפֵּיק חֲדָא וְעַיֵּיל חֲדָא.

The Gemara responds: The omasum or the reticulum that were perforated on their outer walls, which you count as two separate cases, should be counted as one case. Accordingly, one case has been removed from the count of eighteen tereifot and one case has been inserted, i.e., the case of a deficiency in the spine, and there are still only eighteen cases.

וְהָאִיכָּא גְּלוּדָה? סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּמַכְשַׁיר.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the case of the tereifa mentioned in the mishna on 54a of an animal whose hide was removed? The Gemara responds: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who deems such an animal kosher.

וְהָא אִיכָּא חֲרוּתָא? מָרָה – מַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אַפֵּיק מָרָה, וְעַיֵּיל חֲרוּתָא.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there also the case of an animal that is a tereifa because of a shriveled lung? The Gemara responds: The mishna states that a perforated gallbladder renders the animal a tereifa; but who teaches this? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, teaches this. Therefore, the tanna removed the gallbladder from the list, since it is only the opinion of an individual, and inserted a shriveled lung.

וְהָאִיכָּא שַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא, דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: הַאי בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא דְּשַׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ – טְרֵפָה, וְאָמַר רָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: לָקְתָה בְּכוּלְיָא אַחַת – טְרֵפָה, וּתְנַן: נִיטַּל הַטְּחוֹל – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאָמַר רַב עַוִּירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא נִיטַּל, אֲבָל נִיקַּב – טְרֵפָה.

The Gemara asks: But aren’t there the seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amora’im? The Gemara enumerates the seven halakhot: As Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. And Rakhish bar Pappa says in the name of Rav: If the animal was diseased even in one kidney, it is a tereifa. And we learned in a mishna (54a) that if the spleen was removed the animal is kosher, and with regard to this mishna, Rav Avira says in the name of Rava: They taught this only when the spleen was removed; but if it was perforated, the animal is a tereifa.

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרוּבָּן – טְרֵפָה. וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מֵעִיקָּרָהּ – טְרֵפָה, וְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה בְּרוּבָּה, וּבָשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס בְּרוּבּוֹ – טְרֵפָה.

The Gemara continues: And Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Shmuel says: If the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet, were mostly detached, the animal is a tereifa. And Rabba bar Rav Sheila says that Rav Mattana says that Shmuel says: If a rib was torn out from its root, along with half of the attached vertebra, the animal is a tereifa; and a skull that was mostly crushed, even if the membranes are intact, renders the animal a tereifa; and if a majority of the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa.

נְקוּבֵי תְּמָנְיָא הָווּ, חַשְׁבִינְהוּ בְּחַד, אַפֵּיק שַׁב, וְעַיֵּיל שַׁב.

The Gemara responds: There are eight cases of perforated organs mentioned in the mishna that render an animal a tereifa. The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael counts them all as one case. Accordingly, he removed seven cases from the count of eighteen and inserted these seven halakhot.

אִי הָכִי, פְּסוּקֵי נָמֵי תְּרֵי הָווּ, חַשְּׁבִינְהוּ בְּחַד, בָּצַר לְהוּ חֲדָא, וְעוֹד, דְּרַב עַוִּירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא נָמֵי נְקוּבָה הִיא!

The Gemara challenges: If so, since there are also two cases of cut organs in the mishna, the spinal cord and the windpipe, let the tanna count them as one. The count of tereifot then falls one short of eighteen. And furthermore, if all the cases of perforated organs are counted as one, then one cannot insert the case taught by Rav Avira in the name of Rava, i.e., that of a perforated spleen, since it is also a case of a perforated organ. If so, the count falls two short of eighteen.