חולין נד

חולין נד

וֶושֶׁט נְקוּבָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, דְּרוּסָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. קָנֶה נְקוּבָתוֹ בִּכְאִיסָּר, דְּרוּסָתוֹ בְּכַמָּה? בָּתַר דְּבַעְיָא הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? זִיהֲרֵיהּ מִקְלָא קָלֵי וְאָזֵיל.

If the gullet is perforated in any amount, the animal is a tereifa, as taught in the mishna (42a). Therefore, if the gullet is clawed and any amount of its flesh reddens, the animal is a tereifa as well. But a perforation of the windpipe renders the animal a tereifa only where it is the size of an issar. If clawed, what amount of its flesh must redden in order to render it a tereifa? After he raised the dilemma he then resolved it: Both this and that render the animal a tereifa if any amount of its flesh reddened. What is the reason for this? It is because its venom burns continuously around the circumference of the hole and widens it.

יָתֵיב רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הָאֱלֹהִים! מוֹרֵי בַּהּ רַב מִכַּפָּא וְעַד אַטְמָא.

The Gemara relates: Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta sat before Rav Naḥman, and he was sitting and saying: A clawed animal, about which the Sages said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines to see that the flesh has not reddened. Rav Naḥman said to him: By God! Rav would teach that it must be inspected over its entire body, from the flesh around the hollow to that of the thigh.

מַאי כַּפָּא? אִילֵּימָא כַּפָּא דִּידָא – הַיְינוּ כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים, אֶלָּא מִכַּפָּא דְּמוֹחָא עַד אַטְמָא.

The Gemara asks: What is the hollow? If we say that it is the hollow of the foreleg, i.e., its shoulder, then the area between it and the thigh is the same as the area adjacent to the intestines, and Rav Naḥman has said nothing new. Rather, Rav Naḥman referred to the area from the hollow of the brain, i.e., the skull, to the thigh.

כִּי סְלֵיק רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף, אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים. אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָאֱלֹהִים! מוֹרֵי בַּהּ רַב מִכַּפָּא וְעַד אַטְמָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַנּוּ רַב וּמַנּוּ רַב? וְלָא יָדַעְנָא לֵיהּ!

The Gemara relates that when Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish were sitting and saying: A clawed animal, about which they said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines. Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said to them: By God! Rav would teach that it must be inspected from the flesh around the hollow to that of the thigh. Reish Lakish said to him: Who is this Rav, and who is this Rav? I do not know who he is.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְלָא נְהִירָא לֵיהּ לְאוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ אֶת רַבִּי רַבָּה, וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא? וְהָאֱלֹהִים! כׇּל אוֹתָן שָׁנִים שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ אוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד בִּישִׁיבָה, אֲנִי שִׁמַּשְׁתִּי בַּעֲמִידָה, וּמַאן גְּבַר? הוּא גְּבַר בְּכוֹלָּא.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: But don’t you remember that student who served the great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya and studied under them? But by God! All those years that this student served in the yeshiva, he was held to be one of the most important students and was allowed to sit during study, while I held a lower status and served while standing up. And who was greater? He was greater in all things, in Torah and piety.

מִיָּד פָּתַח רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וַאֲמַר: בְּרַם זָכוּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ לַטּוֹב, שֶׁאָמְרוּ שְׁמוּעָה מִפִּיו: שְׁמוּטָה וּשְׁחוּטָה – כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַשְּׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּיעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה.

Immediately, Reish Lakish began to speak and said: Indeed [beram], that man, Rav, is remembered for the good, as they said this halakha in his name: If an animal’s windpipe is dislocated from the throat, and it has already been slaughtered, and it is uncertain whether it was dislocated before or after slaughter, the animal is kosher, as it is impossible for an animal with a dislocated windpipe to be slaughtered. A dislocated windpipe would have slipped away from the knife, and therefore the animal must have been slaughtered while it was still attached.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא וְיַקִּיף.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is not certain; rather, one should bring the windpipe, make a new slit in it, and compare the two slits. If they are similar, then the first slit by the slaughtering knife was also made after the windpipe was dislocated, and the animal is a tereifa. If they are different, then the slaughter preceded the dislocation of the windpipe and the animal is kosher.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא תָּפַס בְּסִימָנִים, אֲבָל תָּפַס בְּסִימָנִים וְשָׁחַט – אֶפְשָׁר לַשְּׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּיעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה.

Rav Naḥman said: The Sages taught that it is impossible to slaughter a dislocated windpipe only in cases where he did not grip the simanim during slaughter. But if he gripped the simanim and slaughtered the animal, then it is possible for an animal with a dislocated windpipe to be slaughtered, since it will not slip away from the knife.

זֶה הַכְּלָל, לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי שַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא.

§ The mishna states: 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 Gemara asks: What case does this principle add that was not previously mentioned? The Gemara responds: It was stated to add seven halakhot of tereifot taught by amora’im and not listed in the mishna. These cases are enumerated on 42b.

דְּבֵי יוֹסֵף רִישְׁבָּא מָחוּ בְּגִידָא נַשְׁיָא וְקָטְלִי, אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְכִי לְהוֹסִיף עַל הַטְּרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ? אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים!

The Gemara recounts: The men of the house of Yosef the hunter would strike the sciatic nerve of an animal with an arrow and kill it that way. In other words, the animal would die from that wound. They came before Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to ask if an animal with an injured sciatic nerve is a tereifa, which is relevant if the animal was slaughtered before it died. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to them: And is it possible to add to the list of tereifot? You have only what the Sages counted, and the Sages mentioned no such tereifa.

רַב פָּפָּא בַּר אַבָּא רִישְׁבָּא, מָחוּ בְּכוּלְיָא וְקָטְלִי. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְכִי לְהוֹסִיף עַל הַטְּרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ? אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים!

Likewise, the men of Rav Pappa bar Abba the hunter would strike an animal in the kidney with an arrow and kill it that way. They came before Rabbi Abba to ask if such an animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Abba said to them: And is it possible to add to the list of tereifot? You have only what the Sages counted.

וְהָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּקָא מֵתָה! גְּמִירִי דְּאִי בָּדְרִי לַהּ סַמָּא, חַיָּיא.

The Gemara objects: But we see that they die. Isn’t this an indication that the animal is a tereifa? The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that in all these cases, if one were to scatter medicine on the wound, the animal would live. An animal is not considered a tereifa unless it cannot be healed.

מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת בַּבְּהֵמָה, נִיקְּבָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת אוֹ שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה. עַד כַּמָּה תֶּחְסַר? רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: עַד כְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. נִפְחֲתָה הַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת וְלֹא נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ, נִיקַּב הַלֵּב וְלֹא לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וְלֹא נִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁלָּהּ, נִיטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּזַיִת.

MISHNA: And these, despite their condition, are kosher in an animal: If its windpipe was perforated or cracked lengthwise. How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as the Italian issar. If the skull was fractured but the membrane of the brain was not perforated, it is kosher. If the heart was perforated and the perforation did not reach its chamber, or if the spinal column was broken but its cord was not cut, or if the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher.

הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת, שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ זֶה לְתוֹךְ זֶה. נִיטַּל הַטְּחוֹל, נִיטְּלוּ הַכְּלָיוֹת, נִיטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן, נִיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, וַחֲרוּתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. הַגְּלוּדָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין.

Additionally, it is kosher if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated one into the other. If the spleen was removed, or the kidneys were removed, or if its lower jaw was removed, or if its womb was removed, or if its lung shriveled by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher. 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.

גְּמָ׳ אִתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת״ דַּוְקָא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת״ דַּוְקָא.

GEMARA: The mishna begins: And these are kosher, while the previous mishna begins: These are tereifot. With regard to this, it was stated that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The tanna intended the phrase: These are tereifot, specifically, teaching that an animal is kosher in another case. The list of kosher cases here is therefore not exhaustive. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that the tanna intended the phrase: These are kosher, specifically, teaching that an animal is a tereifa in another case. The list of tereifot at the beginning of the chapter is therefore not exhaustive.

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? בִּדְרַב מַתְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: הַאי בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא דְּשָׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ – טְרֵפָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת״ דַּוְקָא, תְּנָא טְרֵפוֹת, וּתְנָא ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״,

The Gemara explains: With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the statement of Rav Mattana, as Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that the phrase: These are tereifot, is meant specifically, the tanna taught the list of tereifot and taught afterward: This is the principle, to add cases that were not stated explicitly;

וְחַזְיַיהּ לִדְרַב מַתְנָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּזֶה הַכְּלָל, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּדָמְיָא לִנְטוּלֵי. תְּנָא ״אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת״ – הָנֵי הוּא דִּטְרֵפָה, הָא דְּרַב מַתְנָא כְּשֵׁרָה.

and the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana, where the end of the thigh is dislocated, ostensibly comes under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it renders the animal a tereifa as well. What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is similar to the cases of removed organs that render the animal a tereifa. Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are tereifot, at the beginning of the mishna, to emphasize that it is only these that render an animal a tereifa, but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is kosher.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת דַּוְקָא, תְּנָא טְרֵפוֹת, וּתְנָא ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״, וְחַזְיַיהּ לִדְרַב מַתְנָא דְּלָא אָתְיָא בְּ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״, מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו לִנְקוּבֵי דָּמְיָא, וְלָא לִפְסוּקֵי דָּמְיָא, וְלִנְטוּלֵי נָמֵי לָא דָּמְיָא, תְּנָא ״אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת״ – הָנֵי הוּא דִּכְשֵׁרוֹת, הָא דְּרַב מַתְנָא טְרֵפָה.

And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says that the phrase: These are kosher, is meant specifically, the tanna taught the list of tereifot, and taught afterward that this is the principle. And the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana ostensibly does not come under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it does not render the animal a tereifa. What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is not similar to cases of perforated organs, and it is not similar to cases of cut organs, such as the windpipe, and it is not similar to cases of removed organs. Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are kosher, to emphasize that it is only these that are kosher, but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is a tereifa.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: הַאי בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא דְּשָׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ – טְרֵפָה, וְרָבָא אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִי אִיפְּסִיק נִיבֵיהּ – טְרֵפָה. וְהִלְכְתָא: אִיפְּסִיק נָמֵי כְּשֵׁרָה, עַד דְּמִתְעַכְלָא אִתְעֲכוֹלֵי.

The Gemara addresses the matter itself: Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. And Rava said: The animal is kosher, but if its sinew holding the bone in place is cut, it is a tereifa. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: Even if the sinew is cut, the animal is still kosher, unless the sinew decomposed, in which case the animal is a tereifa.

עַד כַּמָּה תֶּחְסַר? אָמַר זְעֵירִי: אַתּוּן דְּלָא מִיתְחֲמֵי לְכוֹן שִׁיעוּרָא, שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ בְּדִינָרָא קוּרְדִּינָאָה, וְהָוֵי כִּפְשִׁיטָא זוּטַרְתִּי, וּמִשְׁתַּכְחָא בֵּינֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא.

§ The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar. Ze’eiri, who came from Eretz Yisrael, said with regard to this: You, who are not familiar with the measure of an Italian issar, because it is not used in Babylonia, should estimate its measure as a Kurdish dinar. And it is like a small peruta coin and can be found among the perutot of Pumbedita.

אָמַר רַבִּי חָנָא פָּתוּרָאָה: עִילָּא מִינַּאי הֲוָה קָאֵי בַּר נַפָּחָא, וּבְעָא מִינַּי דִּינָרָא קוּרְדִּינָאָה לְשַׁעוֹרֵי בֵּיהּ טְרֵיפְתָא, וּבְעַי לְמֵיקָם מִקַּמֵּיהּ וְלָא שְׁבַקְנִי. אָמַר לִי: שֵׁב בְּנִי שֵׁב, אֵין בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲמוֹד מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֲסוּקִין בִּמְלַאכְתָּם.

Rabbi Ḥana the money changer said: Bar Nappaḥa, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, was standing over me, and he requested of me a Kurdish dinar with which to measure tereifot, in accordance with the statement of Ze’eiri. And I wanted to rise before him out of respect, but he did not let me. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to me: Sit, my son, sit. Tradesmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars when they are engaged in their work.

וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת עוֹמְדִים מִפְּנֵיהֶם, וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן, וְאוֹמְרִין לָהֶם: אַחֵינוּ אַנְשֵׁי מְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בּוֹאֲכֶם בְּשָׁלוֹם!

The Gemara asks: And are tradesmen not permitted to stand before Torah scholars? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:3): When the pilgrims bring their first fruits to Jerusalem, all the tradesmen stand before them, and greet them, and say to them: Our brothers from such and such place, welcome?

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִין, מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין עוֹמְדִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה חֲבִיבָה מִצְוָה בִּשְׁעָתָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי מִפְּנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִין, מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין עוֹמְדִין.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Yes, they stand before those bringing first fruits, but they do not stand before Torah scholars. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: Come and see how beloved is a mitzva performed in its proper time, as the tradesmen stand before those who brought first fruits, while they do not stand before Torah scholars.

מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נִמְצָא מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא.

The Gemara rejects the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: From where does one know that they rise out of respect? Perhaps the tradesmen stand only in order not to cause those bringing first fruits to fail and sin in the future. That is, if the tradesmen do not treat those bringing the first fruits with great respect, they may not make the effort to travel to Jerusalem in a subsequent year.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּסֶלַע – כְּיָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע, כְּאִיסָּר – כְּיָתֵר מִכְּאִיסָּר.

§ The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar. With regard to this, Rav Naḥman says: Whenever the Sages specify the measure as that of a sela, e.g., with regard to a damaged skull for purposes of tereifot, they mean that even an area exactly the size of a sela is treated as more than a sela. Likewise, when they specify the measure as that of an issar, they mean that an area exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were more than an issar.

אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַב נַחְמָן: ״עַד״, וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל.

Since Rav Naḥman holds that a perforation exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were larger than an issar, he must hold that such a perforation in the windpipe renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara therefore infers: Apparently, Rav Naḥman holds that whenever the Sages use the word: Until, it means until and not including the measure, as the mishna states that an animal with a perforated windpipe is kosher until the perforation reaches the size of an issar.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: חֶבֶל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּטָּה עַד חֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים – טָהוֹר. מַאי לָאו חֲמִשָּׁה כִּלְמַטָּה? לֹא, חֲמִשָּׁה כִּלְמַעְלָה.

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a mishna (Kelim 19:2): The end of a rope that extends from a rope bed is not susceptible to ritual impurity until it is five handbreadths long. If the bed becomes impure, the rope remains pure, because it has no use and is therefore not considered part of the bed. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly five handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that amount? If so, the word: Until, means until and including the exact measure. The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly five handbreadths long is like a rope whose length is above that amount.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מֵחֲמִשָּׁה וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה – טָמֵא. מַאי לָאו עֲשָׂרָה כִּלְמַטָּה? לָא, עֲשָׂרָה כִּלְמַעְלָה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: If the end of the rope was of any length from five handbreadths until ten, it is susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that? The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated like a rope whose length is above that, and it is not susceptible to impurity.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַדַּקִּין שֶׁבִּכְלִי חֶרֶס, הֵן וְקַרְקְרוֹתֵיהֶן וְדוֹפְנוֹתֵיהֶם, יוֹשְׁבִין שֶׁלֹּא מְסוּמָּכִין –

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from another mishna (Kelim 2:2): With regard to the smallest of earthenware vessels, if they, or even their broken-off bases or sides, can sit, i.e., remain upright, without being supported,