חולין מג

חולין מג

אלא הנך תרתי דאפקת לא תיפוק

The Gemara responds: Rather, if one counts this way, one must say that these two cases that you removed, i.e., an animal whose hind legs were severed and one whose hide was removed, do not remove. The count will then remain eighteen.

אמר עולא ח’ מיני טרפות נאמרו לו למשה בסיני נקובה ופסוקה נטולה וחסורה קרועה ודרוסה נפולה ושבורה לאפוקי לקותא דרכיש בר פפא

§ Ulla says: Eight types of tereifot were stated to Moses at Sinai, and all the cases mentioned in the Mishna and elsewhere fall into these categories: An animal whose organ was perforated or severed, removed or missing a piece, one that was torn or clawed by wild animals, or that fell or was broken. The Gemara notes: This list is compiled to the exclusion of a diseased organ, which Rakhish bar Pappa mentioned with regard to a kidney. Ulla does not deem this a tereifa.

אמר חייא בר רבא ח’ טרפות יש בנקובה אם תאמר ט’ מרה ר’ יוסי ברבי יהודה קתני לה דתניא ניקבה הקיבה ניקבו הדקים טרפה רבי יוסי בר’ יהודה אומר אף ניקבה המרה

Ḥiyya bar Rava says: There are eight tereifot in the category of a perforated organ: A perforated gullet, brain membrane, heart, lung, abomasum, intestine, inner rumen, and reticulum or omasum that was perforated to the outside. If you say that there are nine, because a perforated gallbladder is also mentioned in the mishna, one can say that with regard to the gallbladder, only Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, teaches it, and it is the opinion of an individual. As it is taught in a baraita: If the abomasum was perforated, or the intestines were perforated, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if the gallbladder was perforated it is a tereifa.

(הלכות חבר כזית מרה וקורקבן סימן)

§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following statements of Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef: Halakhot, friend, olive-bulk, gallbladder, and gizzard.

אמר רבי יצחק בר’ יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כר’ יוסי בר’ יהודה

Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with the statement of Ḥiyya bar Rava and says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that a perforated gallbladder renders the animal a tereifa.

ואמר רבי יצחק בר’ יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן מאי אהדרו ליה חבריה לר’ יוסי בר’ יהודה (איוב טז, יג) ישפוך לארץ מררתי ועדיין איוב קיים אמר להם אין מזכירין מעשה נסים דאי לא תימא הכי (איוב טז, יג) יפלח כליותי ולא יחמול מי קא חיי אלא ניסא שאני דכתיב (איוב ב, ו) רק את נפשו שמור הכא נמי ניסא שאני

And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What did the friends of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, respond to him? They responded that Job said: “He pours out my gall upon the ground” (Job 16:13), and yet Job was still alive. Evidently, one with a perforated gallbladder can live. Rabbi Yosei said to them: Job was kept alive by a miracle, and one does not mention miraculous acts as proof for a general ruling. As, if you do not say so, then the other phrase in the verse: “He cleaves my kidneys asunder, and does not spare,” is problematic. Does one with cleaved kidneys live? Rather, a miracle is different, as it is written that God said to Satan with regard to Job: “Only spare his life” (Job 2:6). Under natural circumstances, Job should have died from his injuries, but in this case he was kept alive by a miracle. Here too, with regard to the gallbladder, one must say that a miracle is different, and one cannot bring proof from it.

ואמר ר’ יצחק ברבי יוסף אמר ר’ יוחנן הלכה כדברי האומר כזית

And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that if the liver of an animal was removed but one olive-bulk of it remains, it is kosher.

ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר’ יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן ניטלה הכבד ולא נשתייר הימנה כלום הא נשתייר כשרה אע”ג דלא הוי כזית אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דר’ יוחנן

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna; and we learned in the mishna: If the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, the animal is a tereifa? One can infer that if any of it remained, the animal is kosher even if what remains does not constitute an olive-bulk. The Gemara responds: They are amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan as to whether he holds that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna.

דאמר ר’ יצחק בר’ יוסף אמר ר’ יוחנן מרה שניקבה וכבד סותמתה כשרה

The Gemara brings another statement that Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the gallbladder was perforated in a place where it was adjacent to the liver, and the liver seals the hole, the animal is kosher, even though a perforated gallbladder normally renders the animal a tereifa according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.

ואמר רבי יצחק בר’ יוסף אמר ר’ יוחנן ניקב הקורקבן וכיס שלו קיים כשר

And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though the mishna on 56a teaches that if a bird’s gizzard was perforated it is a tereifa, if the gizzard was perforated but its inner lining is intact, the bird is kosher.

איבעיא להו ניקב הכיס וקורקבן קיים מאי תא שמע דאמר רב נחמן ניקב זה בלא זה כשר אמר רבא שני עורות יש לו לוושט חיצון אדום ופנימי לבן ניקב זה בלא זה כשר למה לי למימר חיצון אדום ופנימי לבן דאי חליף טרפה

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the inner lining of the gizzard was perforated, but the flesh of the gizzard is intact, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Naḥman said with regard to a perforated gullet: If both its outer and inner lining were perforated, the animal is a tereifa, but if this lining was perforated without that lining being perforated, it is kosher. Similarly, Rava says: The gullet has two linings, the outer red, and the inner white. If this lining was perforated without that lining being perforated, the animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: Why do I need for Rava to state that the outer one is red and the inner one is white? Isn’t this self-evident? The Gemara responds: This teaches that if the two were switched, i.e., the outer lining turned white and the inner red, the animal is a tereifa.

אבעיא להו ניקבו שניהם זה שלא כנגד זה מהו אמר מר זוטרא משמיה דרב פפא בוושט כשר בקורקבן פסול מתקיף לה רב אשי אדרבה וושט דאכלה ביה ופעיא ביה רווח גמדא ליה ופשטה ליה זמנין דמיהנדזין בהדי הדדי קורקבן דמינח נייח כדקאי קאי א”ל רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף לרב אשי הכי אמרינן משמיה דמר זוטרא דאמר משמיה דרב פפא כוותיך

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If both linings were perforated, but not adjacent to one another, what is the halakha? Mar Zutra says in the name of Rav Pappa: If this occurred in the gullet, the animal is kosher; but if it occurred in the gizzard, it is unfit for consumption. Rav Ashi objects to this: On the contrary, the gullet, with which the animal eats and calls, is spacious and flexible, and the animal constricts it and stretches it. Since the two linings are not connected to each other, there are times in the course of their movement that the two holes align [demihandezin] with one another, creating a fully aligned perforation. But the gizzard, which is always at rest in place, stands as it always stands. Accordingly, two such perforations will never align. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: So we say in the name of Mar Zutra, that he in fact said in the name of Rav Pappa in accordance with your objection.

ואמר רבה קרום שעלה מחמת מכה בוושט אינו קרום ואמר רבה וושט אין לו בדיקה מבחוץ אלא בפנים למאי נפקא מינה

§ And Rabba says: A membrane that appeared due to a wound in the gullet, i.e., a scab that covered a perforation, is not considered a membrane that prevents the animal from being rendered a tereifa. And Rabba says: The gullet cannot be inspected from outside to determine whether the animal is a tereifa, since the outer lining itself is red, and therefore reddening due to injury cannot be discerned in it. Rather, it must be inspected from inside, where the lining is white. The Gemara asks: What difference is there as a result of this statement, i.e., in what case must the gullet be checked from the inside?

לספק דרוסה

The Gemara responds: The halakha is necessary for a case in which it was uncertain whether an animal was clawed by a predator. If the animal was in fact clawed, the gullet would have become red. Since the outer lining is always red, the gullet must be checked on the inside to ascertain whether it is still white.

ההיא ספק דרוסה דאתאי לקמיה דרבה הוה קא בדיק ליה רבה לוושט מאבראי אמר ליה אביי והא מר הוא דאמר וושט אין לו בדיקה אלא מבפנים אפכיה רבה ובדקיה ואישתכח עליה תרי קורטי דמא וטרפה ורבה נמי לחדודי לאביי הוא דבעי

The Gemara recounts the case of a certain animal concerning which it was uncertain whether it was clawed by a predator, which came before Rabba. Rabba was checking its gullet from the outside. Abaye said to him: But isn’t it you, Master, who says: The gullet may be inspected only from the inside? Rabba turned over the gullet and checked it from the inside, and found on it two drops of blood, and deemed it a tereifa due to clawing. The Gemara notes: And Rabba as well desired only to sharpen Abaye by inducing him to ask. He did not forget his own statement.

אמר עולא ישב לו קוץ בוושט אין חוששין שמא הבריא

Ulla says: If a thorn sat in the animal’s gullet but did not perforate the outer lining, one need not be concerned that perhaps it perforated the outer lining beforehand and the perforation healed and a scab formed over it, in which case the animal would be a tereifa, as stated above. Rather, one assumes that the thorn never perforated the outer lining and the animal is kosher.

(דרס חתיכות בסכין טמאה סימן)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following questions with regard to Ulla’s statement: Clawed, pieces, with a knife, ritually impure.

ולעולא מ”ש מספק דרוסה קסבר עולא אין חוששין לספק דרוסה

The Gemara asks: But according to Ulla, given that this is a case of uncertainty, in what way is it different from a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed, where the animal must be checked and cannot be presumed kosher? The Gemara responds: Ulla holds that one need not be concerned with regard to an uncertainty as to whether the animal was clawed.

ומאי שנא משתי חתיכות אחת של חלב ואחת של שומן התם איתחזק איסורא

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from a case where there were two pieces of fat before a person, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, and the person ate one piece but does not know which one, where the halakha is that one must bring a provisional guilt offering due to the possibility that he consumed forbidden fat? Evidently, one may not presume that an item is permitted in a case of uncertainty. The Gemara responds: There, one finds a presumption of prohibition, since one of the pieces is certainly prohibited. Here, with regard to the thorn, there is no presumption of prohibition.

ומאי שנא מהשוחט בסכין ונמצא’ פגומה התם איתייליד לה ריעותא בסכין

The Gemara asks: And in what way is the case of the thorn different from the case of one who slaughters with a knife that was previously checked for flaws but was then found to be notched after the slaughter? In that case, it is uncertain whether the notch existed at the time of slaughter, yet the animal is prohibited. The Gemara responds: There, a deficiency was born in the knife. Accordingly, one must be concerned that it was notched beforehand as well. By contrast, the wall of the gullet is currently intact, and one may therefore presume that it was intact beforehand as well.

ומאי שנא מספק טומאה ברשות היחיד דספקו טמא וליטעמיך נידמייה לספק טומאה ברשות הרבים דספקו טהור אלא התם הלכתא גמירי לה מסוטה

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from an uncertainty with regard to ritual impurity in a private domain, whose uncertainty is presumed impure? The Gemara responds: But according to your reasoning, let us compare it instead to uncertainty with regard to impurity in a public domain, whose uncertainty is presumed pure. Rather, there, with regard to the presumption of impurity in a private domain and purity in a public domain, the Sages learned this halakha through tradition from the halakha of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]. Therefore, one cannot extend it to other cases.

יתיב ההוא מרבנן קמיה דרב כהנא ויתיב וקאמר נמצאת אתמר אבל ישב חיישינן אמר להו רב כהנא לא תציתו ליה ישב איתמר אבל נמצאת לא איצטריך ליה לעולא דכולהו חיוי ברייתא קוצי אכלן

The Gemara relates that one of the Sages was sitting before Rav Kahana, and he was sitting and saying: It was stated that one need not be concerned that the thorn perforated the linings of the gullet only if it was found loose inside the gullet. But if it sat embedded in the gullet wall, we must be concerned that the outer lining was perforated and later healed, rendering the animal a tereifa. Rav Kahana said to the other Sages: Do not listen to him. Rather, it was stated that one need not be concerned about a possible perforation if the thorn sat embedded in the gullet wall. But in a case where it was simply found there loose, it was not necessary for Ulla to say that the animal is kosher, since all animals that live outside eat thorns, and it is reasonable to expect to find them in the gullet without presuming injury.

איתמר תורבץ הוושט רב אמר במשהו ושמואל אמר ברובו רב אמר במשהו מקום שחיטה הוא ושמואל אמר ברובו לאו מקום שחיטה הוא

§ The mishna teaches that if the gullet was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. It was stated: In a case where the entrance [turbatz] of the gullet from the pharynx was perforated, Rav says: The animal is a tereifa if any part of the gullet was perforated. And Shmuel says: It is a tereifa only if its majority was perforated. Rav says: If any part was perforated, because he holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter and is therefore considered part of the gullet. And Shmuel says: If its majority was perforated, because he holds that it is not a location fit for slaughter and is not considered part of the gullet.

הי ניהו תורבץ הוושט אמר מרי בר מר עוקבא אמר שמואל כל שחותכו ומרחיב זה הוא תורבץ הוושט חותכו ועומד במקומו זהו וושט עצמו אמר להו רב פפי מר לא אמר הכי ומנו רב ביבי בר אביי אלא כל שחותכו ועומד במקומו זה תורבץ הוושט אלא איזהו וושט עצמו כל שחותכו וכויץ יונה אמר זירא מבלעתא וכמה אמר רב אויא פחות משערתא ועדיף מחיטתא

The Gemara clarifies: Which area is the entrance of the gullet? Mari bar Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: All of the area that widens outward when cut along its width, this is the entrance of the gullet; all the area that remains in place when cut, this is the gullet itself. Rav Pappi said to them: Master did not say so. And who is that Master? It is Rav Beivai bar Abaye. Rather, he said that all of the area that remains in place when cut, this is the entrance of the gullet. But which area, then, is the gullet itself? It is all of the area that constricts when cut and closes inward. The Sage Yona says in the name of Rabbi Zeira: The entrance of the gullet is only the area of the throat immediately bordering the gullet. And how much of the throat qualifies as the entrance of the gullet? Rav Avya said: Less than the length of a barley kernel and more than the length of a wheat kernel.

ההוא תורא דהוה לבני רב עוקבא דאתחיל ביה שחיטה בתורבץ הוושט וגמר בוושט אמר רבא רמינא עליה חומרי דרב וחומרי דשמואל וטריפנא ליה

The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain bull that belonged to the sons of Rav Ukva, where its slaughter began with a small incision in the entrance of the gullet and concluded in its majority in the gullet. Rava said: I impose upon it the stringencies of Rav and the stringencies of Shmuel, and deem it a tereifa.

חומרי דרב דאמר רב במשהו והאמר רב מקום שחיטה הוא כשמואל דאמר לאו מקום שחיטה הוא אי שמואל האמר ברובו כרב דאמר במשהו

I impose the stringencies of Rav, as Rav said: The animal is a tereifa if any part of the entrance of the gullet was perforated before slaughter. Such is the case here, since the incision began in the entrance of the gullet. Perhaps one will ask: But doesn’t Rav say that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, in which case the initial incision should be considered the beginning of the act of slaughter? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says that it is not a location fit for slaughter. If one asks: If I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, doesn’t he say: It is a tereifa only if it was perforated in its majority? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: If any part was perforated. Consequently, I deem the animal a tereifa.

איגלגל מילתא מטאי לקמיה דר’ אבא אמר להו תורא בין לרב בין לשמואל שרי זילו אמרו ליה לבריה דרב יוסף בר חמא דלשלים דמי תורא למריה

The Gemara relates that the matter circulated, and it came before Rabbi Abba, who said to his students: This bull is permitted for consumption, both according to Rav, who holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, and according to Shmuel, who holds that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated in its majority. Therefore, go tell the son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, i.e., Rava, that he is to pay the value of the bull to its owner, since he improperly deemed it a tereifa.

אמר מר בריה דרבינא מותבינא תיובתא כלפי סנאיה דרבא לעולם הלכתא כדברי ב”ה והרוצה לעשות כדברי בית שמאי עושה כדברי בית הלל עושה מקולי בית שמאי ומקולי ב”ה רשע

Mar, son of Ravina, said: I offer a conclusive refutation to the enemies of Rava, a euphemism for Rava himself, from a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel may do so. But if one wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person.