חולין נח

חולין נח

שִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא אֲסִירָא, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – הָוֵה לֵיהּ זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם, וּמוּתָּר.

the first clutch [shiḥala] 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.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: וְשָׁוִין בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵיפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגָּדְלָה בְּאִיסּוּר! הָתָם בִּדְסָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא.

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.

וְלִישַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ בְּשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא? אִם כֵּן, ״גָּדְלָה״? ״גָּמְרָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ.

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’s 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.

אֶלָּא, הָא דִּתְנַן: וְלַד טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יִקְרַב. בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? בְּשֶׁנִּטְרְפָה וּלְבַסּוֹף עִיבְּרָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: זֶה וָזֶה גּוֹרֵם מוּתָּר. אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי לְגָבוֹהַּ, לִיפַּלְגוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט?

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.

לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְגָבוֹהַּ נָמֵי שָׁרֵי.

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.

וְלִיפַּלְגוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט נָמֵי אָסַור! כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּרָא עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.

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.

וּמוֹדִים בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, בִּדְסָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא, דְּחַד גּוֹרֵם הוּא.

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.

רַב אַחָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, וּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לִדְאַמֵּימָר כְּדַאֲמַרַן.

The Gemara notes: Rav Aḥa holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, 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.

רָבִינָא לָא סָבַר לַהּ כִּדְרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, וּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לִדְאַמֵּימָר בְּהַאי לִישָּׁנָא: אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הָנֵי בֵּיעֵי דִּסְפֵק טְרֵפָה, דְּשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא מְשַׁהֵינַן לְהוּ, אִי הָדְרָה וְטָעֲנָה – שַׁרְיָין, וְאִי לָא – אֲסִירָן.

But Ravina does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov. 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.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: וּמוֹדִים בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגָּדְלָה בְּאִיסּוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם בִּדְשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא. אִם כֵּן, ״גָּדְלָה״? ״גָּמְרָה״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי: גָּמְרָה.

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.

אֶלָּא, הָא דִּתְנַן: וְלַד טְרֵפָה, ר׳ אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, ר׳ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יִקְרַב, בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? כְּשֶׁעִיבְּרָה וּלְבַסּוֹף נִטְרְפָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: עוּבָּר יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר: עוּבָּר לָאו יֶרֶךְ אִמּוֹ הוּא. אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי לְגָבוֹהַּ, לִיפַּלְגוּ לְהֶדְיוֹט!

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.

לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְלִיפַּלְגוּ בְּהֶדְיוֹט לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּירָא עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.

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.

וּמוֹדִים וַדַּאי בְּבֵיצַת טְרֵיפָה שֶׁאֲסוּרָה, בִּדְשִׁיחְלָא קַמָּא, מַאי טַעְמָא? גּוּפַהּ הִיא.

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’s 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’s 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.

וְהִלְכְתָא בְּזָכָר – כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, בִּנְקֵבָה – כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת.

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.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כֹּל (בְּרִיָּה) שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם אֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא, הָא דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קִישּׁוּת (שהתליע) [שֶׁהִתְלִיעָה] בְּאִיבֶּיהָ אֲסוּרָה.

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

הָנֵי תַּמְרֵי דְּכַדָּא לְבָתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא שַׁרְיָין.

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.

אָמַר רַב: לֵית בָּקָא בַּר יוֹמָא, וְלֵית דִּידְבָא בַּת שַׁתָּא.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְהָא אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: שַׁב שְׁנֵי אִימְּרַאי בָּקְתָּא מִבָּקָא. דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ: חֲזִיתֵיהּ לְבַר מָחוֹזָא דִּסְחָא בְּמַיָּא, וּסְלֵיק וְאִיכְּרֵךְ בִּסְדִינִין, וְאִיתֵּיבְתְּ עֲלֵיהּ וּמְצֵת מִינֵּיהּ, וְלָא הוֹדַעְתְּ לִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי ״שִׁיתִּין מָנֵי פַּרְזְלָא תְּלוּ לֵיהּ לְבָקָא בְּקוּרְנָסֵיהּ״, מִי אִיכָּא? אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ כַּמָּה הָוֵי? אֶלָּא בְּמָנֵי דִּידְהוּ, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּשְׁנֵי דִּידְהוּ.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But isn’t 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’s 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’ coins. Here, too, the adage is referring to their own years, not human years.

תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָסֵר וְיָתֵר בַּיָּד, אֲבָל חָסֵר וְיָתֵר בָּרֶגֶל – טְרֵפָה נָמֵי הָוְיָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כׇּל יָתֵר כְּנָטוּל דָּמֵי.

§ 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.

הָהִיא חֵיוְתָא דַּהֲוָה לַהּ תַּרְתֵּי סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי, אַיְיתוּהָ לְרָבִינָא, וְטַרְפַהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא. וְאִי שָׁפְכָן לַהֲדָדֵי – כְּשֵׁרָה.

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.

הָהִיא גּוּבְתָּא דַּהֲוָה נָפְקָא מִבֵּי כָסֵי לְהוּבְלִילָא, סָבַר רַב אָשֵׁי לְמִיטְרְפַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא מָר בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּל הָנֵי חֵיוֵי בָּרָיָיתָא הָכִי אִית לְהוּ.

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 Ḥiyya said to Rav Ashi: All animals that dwell outside have tubes like this, and one need not be concerned.

הָהוּא גּוּבְתָּא דַּהֲוָה מְעַבְּרָא מִבֵּי כָסֵי לִכְרֵסָא, סְבַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַכְשׁוֹרַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ בַּחֲדָא מְחִיתָא מַחֵתִינְהוּ? הֵיכָא דְּאִתְּמַר – אִתְּמַר, הֵיכָא דְּלָא אִתְּמַר – לָא אִתְּמַר.

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.

הֵעִיד נָתָן בַּר שֵׁילָא רַב טַבָּחַיָּא דְּצִיפּוֹרִי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, עַל שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם הַיּוֹצְאִין מִן הַבְּהֵמָה כְּאֶחָד, שֶׁהִיא טְרֵפָה, וּכְנֶגְדָּן בָּעוֹף – כְּשֵׁרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁיּוֹצְאִין בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת, אֲבָל יוֹצְאִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְכָלִין עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע – כְּשֵׁרָה.

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.

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַמֵּי וְרַב אַסִּי, חַד אָמַר: הוּא דְּהָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, וְחַד אָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי.

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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הוּא דְּהָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, מַאי ״עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע״? עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע מִלְּמַטָּה.

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.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם נִיטְּלָה הַנּוֹצָה – פְּסוּלָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹצָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת.

§ 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 Yoḥanan 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.

אָמַר רָבָא: דִּילְמָא לָא הִיא, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָכָא אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה, דְּלֵיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמַגֵּין עֲלֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אִיפַּגּוֹלֵי – כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָתָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן אִיפַּגּוֹלֵי, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה – אַגּוֹנֵי לָא מַגֵּין.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ אֲחוּזַת הַדָּם, וְהַמְעוּשֶּׁנֶת, וְהַמְצוּנֶּנֶת, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה הַרְדּוּפְנֵי, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה צוֹאַת תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתָת מַיִם הָרָעִים – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָכְלָה סַם הַמָּוֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהִכִּישָׁהּ נָחָשׁ – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת.

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’s life if he eats it.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הִלְעִיטָהּ חִלְתִּית – טְרֵפָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּמְינַקְּבָה לְהוּ לְמַעְיָינַהּ.

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.

מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אֲחוּזַת הַדָּם, וְהַמְעוּשֶּׁנֶת, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה הַרְדּוּפְנֵי, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה צוֹאַת תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, וְשָׁתָת מַיִם הָרָעִים, הִלְעִיטָהּ תִּיעָה, חִלְתִּית וּפִלְפְּלִין, אָכְלָה סַם הַמָּוֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה. הִכִּישָׁהּ נָחָשׁ, אוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׁכָהּ כֶּלֶב שׁוֹטֶה – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת. קַשְׁיָא חִלְתִּית אַחִלְתִּית, קַשְׁיָא סַם הַמָּוֶת אַסַּם הַמָּוֶת!

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’s life. The statement of the baraita concerning an animal that was fed asafoetida poses a difficulty to Shmuel’s statement that asafoetida renders the animal a tereifa, and the statement concerning deadly poison poses a difficulty to the mishna’s statement that deadly poison renders the animal prohibited due to the threat to one’s life.

חִלְתִּית אַחִלְתִּית לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּעָלִין, כָּאן בִּקְרָטִין. סַם הַמָּוֶת אַסַּם הַמָּוֶת לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּידַהּ, הָא דְּאָדָם. סַם הַמָּוֶת דִּבְהֵמָה הַיְינוּ הַרְדּוּפְנֵי? תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי סַם הַמָּוֶת.

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.

מַאי תִּיעָה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה:

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