What makes an animal a treifa?
Chullin 42
01.08.2019 | ב׳ בשבט תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 42
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.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Rebecca Stulberg
Ottawa, Canada
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
Chullin 42
ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ: Χ Φ°Χ§ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ, Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ·ΦΌΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·, Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ, Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ·Χ§ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ§Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ. Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ΅ΦΌΧΦΈΧ, Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ‘ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ’ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ. ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ‘ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ§Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌΧ₯.
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.
Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ Χ¦Φ·ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧΧΦΈ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΅ΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ§, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ‘. ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ: Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ?! Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΉΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ΄! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ?
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? Doesnβt the Torah state explicitly: βYou shall not eat any flesh that is torn of animals [tereifa] in the fieldβ (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?
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧͺΦΉΦΌΧΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ΄, ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
It is derived from a verse, as it is written: βThese are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earthβ (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.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ? Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ΄ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧͺΦΉΦΌΧΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ β Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
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: βThese are the living things which you may eat among all the animals.β βTheseβ 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄ ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧͺΦΉΦΌΧΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ€Φ·Χ‘ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ° ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦΉΧΧͺ ΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΧΦΉΧ.
The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion, that a tereifa cannot live, what does he do with this word βtheseβ? 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: βThese are the living things which you may eat,β 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ° Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ! ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ? Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ° ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ Φ·Χ.
The Gemara objects: But the other opinion also requires the word βtheseβ 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: βTo make a differenceβ¦between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eatenβ (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.
ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧ‘ΧΧ΄Χ¨, ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ!
The Gemara questions the baraita: And are there no more cases of tereifot? But arenβt there more cases cited in the Mishna and other baraitot, for which a mnemonic is given: Beit, samekh, gimmel, reish; and arenβt there seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amoraβim?
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ¨ β ΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ Χ’ΦΆΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ? Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ.
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 arenβt 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.
ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨? ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ, ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄.
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 arenβt 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ; ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara objects: But isnβt 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.
ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ‘ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ§ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ? Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΧ¨.
The Gemara asks: But isnβt 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ¨ΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ? Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ§ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ¨ΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ.
The Gemara asks: But isnβt 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ£ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧ§Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ·ΦΌΧ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara asks: But arenβt there the seven additional halakhot, i.e., cases of tereifot, taught by amoraβim? 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: Χ ΦΆΧ’ΦΆΧ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ¦Φ΅ΧΦΈΧ’ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ‘ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ€ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara continues: And Rabba bar bar αΈ€ana 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.
Χ Φ°Χ§ΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦ·Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ§ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ§Φ΅Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¦Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ Φ°Χ§ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ!
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.
Follow
