חולין מו

חולין מו

עַד וְעַד בַּכְּלָל, אוֹ דִּלְמָא עַד וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל?

When Shmuel says that the animal is certainly a tereifa if the spinal cord is cut anywhere until the first gap, does he mean until and including the first gap, in which case if it is cut within the first gap the animal is a tereifa? Or perhaps he means until and not including the length of the gap itself?

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, עַד וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל, פִּי פָרָשָׁה מַהוּ?

Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If you say that Shmuel means until and not including the length of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the halakha is unknown, then if the spinal cord was cut in the mouth of the first branch, exactly where it branches off, what is the halakha? Is it considered to be within the first gap, in which case the halakha is unknown? Or is it considered before the gap, in which case a tear in the mouth renders the animal a tereifa?

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, עַד וְעַד בַּכְּלָל, פָּרָשָׁה עַצְמָהּ מַהוּ?

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If you say that Shmuel means until and including the measure of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the animal is a tereifa, then if the first branch itself, i.e., the first pair of branching nerves, was cut from the spinal cord, what is the halakha?

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפָּרָשָׁה תִּידּוֹן כְּבָשָׂר. מַאי לָאו פָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה? לָא, שְׁלִישִׁית.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: The branch of the spine that was cut shall be considered as normal flesh, not as the spine. Therefore, it does not render the animal a tereifa, unlike the spinal cord itself. What, is it not referring even to the first or second branch? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita is referring only to the third branch. But if either of the first two pairs of nerves that branch off from the spinal cord are cut, the animal is a tereifa.

בְּעוֹפָא, רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: לְמַטָּה מִן הָאֲגַפַּיִם, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם.

With regard to a bird, the Sages disagreed as to the lower boundary of the spinal cord, above which if it is cut, the bird will be rendered a tereifa. Rabbi Yannai says: The spinal cord extends until below the level of the wings. And Reish Lakish says: Until the point between the wings, not below them.

אָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּבֶן פַּזִּי, וְאַיְיתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ עוֹפָא, וּבְדַק עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם, וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה וְקָם וַאֲזַל, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לְמִבְדַּק טְפֵי, אִי מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד נְשִׂיאָה.

Ulla says: I was standing before Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and they brought before him a bird whose spine had been injured, and he checked until the point between the wings. And at that point a messenger of the house of the Nasi sent for him, and he got up and went, and I do not know if he left because one does not need to check beyond that point, or if due to the honor of the Nasi he left without completing the inspection.

נִיטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וְכוּ׳. הָא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּלוּם – כְּשֵׁרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָוֵי כְּזַיִת, וְהָתְנַן: נִיטַּל הַכָּבֵד וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּזַיִת – כְּשֵׁרָה!

§ The mishna states: If the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: It follows, therefore, that if anything remained of it, the animal is kosher, even if the remaining piece does not constitute an olive-bulk. But didn’t we learn in a mishna on 54a: If the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher? One can infer that if less remained, it is a tereifa.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי, כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא זָרֵיק לַהּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי מְטַבֵּיל לַהּ, וְסִימָנָיךְ: ״עֲשִׁירִין מְקַמְּצִין״.

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, while that mishna later in the chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. This is like that incident in which an amount smaller than an olive-bulk remained of the liver, and Rabbi Ḥiyya discarded it, as he holds that the animal is a tereifa, but Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, dipped it in a seasoning and ate it. And your mnemonic to remember which Sage maintained which opinion is: The rich are stingy. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, was wealthy, but he nevertheless did not allow the meat to go to waste.

הָהוּא פּוּלְמוּסָא דַּאֲתָא לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, עֲרַקוּ רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף, פְּגַע בְּהוּ רַבִּי זֵירָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: עָרוֹקָאֵי, כְּזַיִת שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ, בָּעֵינַן כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה, וּבָעֵינַן כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה.

The Gemara relates that a certain royal army came to Pumbedita, and Rabba and Rav Yosef fled the city, whereupon Rabbi Zeira met them. Rabbi Zeira said to them: Refugees, hear this halakha: The olive-bulk that the Sages said must remain of the liver so the animal will remain kosher must be in the place where the liver connects to the gallbladder. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The olive-bulk must be in the place that the liver lives, i.e., is connected to the other organs, under the right kidney. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, in order to satisfy both opinions, we require an olive-bulk in the place of the gallbladder, and we also require an olive-bulk in the place that it lives. Otherwise, the animal is a tereifa.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִתְלַקֵּט, מַהוּ? כִּרְצוּעָה, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּזַיִת מְרוּדָּד, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If the olive-bulk that remained was not all in one piece, but rather small pieces that could be gathered together to form the requisite measure, what is the halakha? Alternatively, if it was long and thin like a strip, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If the olive-bulk was flat, broad but thinner than an olive, what is the halakha? To all these questions the Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זְרִיקָא מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי: נִדַּלְדְּלָה כָּבֵד וּמְעוֹרָה בְּטַרְפְּשֶׁיהָ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְדּוּל זֶה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה – הָא אִיכָּא, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה – הָא אִיכָּא.

Rabbi Zerika asked Rabbi Ami: If the liver was detached from the other organs in numerous places and was attached only to its membranes [betarpasheha], but the liver itself remained intact, what is the halakha? Rabbi Ami said to him: With regard to the halakha, I do not know what the significance is of this detachment that you mentioned. If you rule according to the one who says that an olive-bulk must remain in the place of the gallbladder, that is the case here. And if you rule according to the one who says that it must be in the place that it lives, that is the case here as well. Consequently, there is no doubt that the animal is kosher.

הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב אַסִּי דְאָמְרִי: קְרָמָא עִילָּאָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: קְרָמָא תַּתָּאָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וְסִימָנָיךְ כִּיתּוּנָא דְּוַרְדָּא דְּמַנְּחָא בֵּיהּ רֵיאָה.

§ The mishna states: The lung that was perforated renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara quotes Rav and Shmuel and Rav Asi, who all say: The mishna is referring specifically to the outer membrane. And some say that they said that the mishna is referring specifically to the inner membrane. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: And your mnemonic should be: The red robe in which the lung rests. The inner membrane is red, while the outer membrane is white, and according to Rav Naḥman, the mishna is referring to the inner membrane.

פְּשִׁיטָא: אִי אִינְּקִיב עִילָּאָה וְלָא אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה – תַּתָּאָה מֵגֵין, כִּדְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאִגְּלִיד

The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the outer membrane is perforated but the inner membrane is not perforated, the inner membrane protects the lung, and the animal is kosher. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: This animal with a lung whose outer membrane was removed,

כַּאֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה וְלָא אִינְּקִיב עִילָּאָה – מַגֵּין אוֹ לָא מַגֵּין?

so that it looks like a red date, is kosher; all the more so is that the case if it was only perforated. But if the inner membrane was perforated but the outer membrane was not perforated, does the outer membrane protect the lung? Or does it not protect it, in which case the animal is a tereifa?

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לָא מַגֵּין, וְחַד אָמַר: מַגֵּין. וְהִלְכְתָא מַגֵּין, כִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף, דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאָוְושָׁא, אִי יָדְעִינַן הֵיכָא אָוְושָׁא – מוֹתְבִינַן עֲלַהּ גַּדְפָּא אוֹ רוּקָּא אוֹ גִילָא, אִי מְבַצְבְּצָא – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי לָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִי לָא יָדְעִינַן הֵיכָא אָוְושָׁא – מַיְיתִינַן מְשִׁיכְלְתָא דְּמַיָּא פָּשׁוֹרֵי וּמוֹתְבִינַן לַהּ בְּגַוַּהּ.

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to this question. One says: It does not protect the lung; and one says: It protects the lung. And the halakha is that it protects the lung, in accordance with the statement of Rav Yosef. As Rav Yosef says: With regard to this lung that emits a sound when inflated, if we know from where it emits a sound, we set a feather, or saliva, or straw on that point. If the saliva bubbles when the lung is inflated, the animal is a tereifa, since this proves that the lung is perforated through both membranes. And if not, the animal is kosher. And if we do not know from where it emits a sound, we bring a basin of tepid water and set the lung inside it.

בְּחַמִּימֵי לָא – דְּכָוְוצִי, בְּקָרִירֵי לָא – דִּמְטָרְשִׁי, אֶלָּא מוֹתְבִינַן בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי וְנָפְחִינַן לַהּ. אִי מְבַצְבְּצָא – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי לָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. תַּתָּאָה אִינְּקִיב, עִילָּאָה לָא אִינְּקִיב, וְהַאי דְּאָוְושָׁא – זִיקָא דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי הוּא.

One cannot place it in hot water, as it causes the lung to contract, closing the perforation. And one cannot place it in cold water, as it hardens the lung and may cause it to crack. Rather, we set it in tepid water and inflate it. If the water bubbles, the animal is a tereifa. And if not, the animal is kosher, since it is apparent that only the inner membrane is perforated and the outer membrane is not perforated, and the fact that it emits a sound is due to the air moving in the space between the two membranes. Evidently, Rav Yosef holds that if only the inner membrane is perforated, the animal is kosher.

(אֲהִינֵי סוּמָּקָא דִּיבַשׁ גִּילְדֵי, סִימָן).

§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic to remember the following statements of Rava with regard to the lung: Dates, red, that dried, scabbed.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאִיגְּלִיד כַּאֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאָמַר רָבָא: רֵיאָה שֶׁהֶאֱדִימָה מִקְצָתָהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה, כּוּלָּהּ – טְרֵפָה.

The Gemara turns to the matter itself mentioned above: Rava says: This animal with a lung whose outer membrane was removed so that it looks like a red date is kosher. And Rava says: With regard to a lung whose outer membrane reddened due to bleeding of the lung, if only part of it turned red, then the animal is kosher, but if all of it turned red, the animal is a tereifa.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: מִקְצָתָהּ מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָדְרָא בָּרְיָא, כּוּלָּהּ נָמֵי הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מֵהֶם דָּם.

Ravina said to Rava: What is the reason that the animal is kosher if only part of the outer membrane reddened? Presumably, it is because the animal eventually recovers from the wound. But even if all of it turned red as well, the animal recovers. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one injures one of the eight impure creeping creatures mentioned in the Torah, one is liable for desecrating Shabbat; but if one injures other repugnant creatures and creeping animals, one is not liable until blood leaves their body as a result of the injury, even if their skin reddens as a result of internal bleeding?

וְכִי תֵּימָא: לִשְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים מְדַמֵּינַן לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: נִצְרַר הַדָּם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָתָהּ נָמֵי! אֶלָּא, לָא שְׁנָא.

And if you would say: We compare the lung to one of the eight creeping creatures, as it is taught in a baraita: If the blood collected under the skin of one of the eight creeping creatures, even if it did not leave the body, one is liable for desecrating Shabbat, because the blood will not be reabsorbed into the body and the wound is permanent; that is difficult: If so, then there is still no reason to distinguish between part of the lung and all of it, and even if only part of the lung turned red, the animal should be rendered a tereifa as well, because the blood will not be reabsorbed into the body. Rather, there is no difference between the reddening of part or all of the lung.

וְאָמַר רָבָא: רֵיאָה שֶׁיָּבְשָׁה מִקְצָתָהּ – טְרֵפָה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כְּדַי שֶׁתִּפָּרֵךְ בְּצִפּוֹרֶן.

And Rava says: If part of the lung was dried, the animal is a tereifa. And how much must the lung be dried so as to render the animal a tereifa? Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava: It must be so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail.

כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם? דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזוֹ הִיא יְבֵשָׁה – שֶׁאִם תִּינָּקֵב וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה טִיפַּת דָּם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר: יְבֵשָׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נִפְרֶכֶת בְּצִפּוֹרֶן.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam? As it is taught in a mishna (Bekhorot 37a): If a kosher firstborn animal has a blemish, such as a dried ear, it may be slaughtered outside the Temple. What is a dried ear? It is any ear that if perforated does not bleed a drop. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: It must be so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, גַּבֵּי אוֹזֶן בְּכוֹר דְּקָא שָׁלֵיט בֵּיהּ זִיקָא – לָא הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא, אֲבָל רֵיאָה דְּלָא קָא שָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא – הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא. וְאָמַר רָבָא: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּקָיְימָא גִּילְדֵּי גִּילְדֵּי, אוּכָּמֵי אוּכָּמֵי, חֶזְוָותָא חֶזְוָותָא – כְּשֵׁרָה.

The Gemara responds: You may even say that the statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. With regard to the ear of a firstborn, which is exposed to the wind, the Rabbis hold that the animal would not recover if it is so dry that it does not bleed. But with regard to the lung, which is not exposed to the wind, the animal would recover unless it is so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail. And Rava says: This lung that stands before us covered in scabs, or covered in black marks, or covered in sores with different appearances, is nevertheless kosher.

אָמַר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אֵין מַקִּיפִין בְּבוּעֵי.

§ Ameimar says in the name of Rava: One may not compare cysts of the lungs. If one finds a perforated cyst on the lung, but does not know whether it was perforated before or after slaughter, he may not perform a test by perforating another cyst in order to compare their appearances.

וְאָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי אוּנֵּי דִּסְרִיכָן לַהֲדָדֵי, לֵית לְהוּ בְּדִיקָה. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן, אֲבָל כְּסִדְרָן – הַיְינוּ רְבִיתַיְיהוּ.

And Rava says: These two lobes of the lung that adhere to one another by thin strands have no need for inspection, since it is certain that these adhesions arose due to a perforation of the lung, rendering the animal a tereifa. The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only with regard to adhesions that are out of order, where a lobe adhered to a non-adjacent lobe. But with regard to adhesions that are in order, that is their normal manner of growth, and the animal is kosher.