In which case is there a debate between Israel and the Diaspora regarding the forbidden fats? Various piskei halacha or debates regarding who held what and what we do practically regarding different cases of treifot and one about aveilut are brought. If there is a hole, how can one determine if it happened before or after shechita? What is the inner stomach that is mentioned in the mishna?
Chullin 50
January 16, 2019 | י׳ בשבט תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 50
וּלְדִידַן מִיסְתָּם נָמֵי לָא סָתֵים.
and to us, the residents of Babylonia, not only is it forbidden but it also does not seal a perforation? It cannot be that this fat is forbidden by Torah law if they permit it for consumption. Even though we are stringent with regard to its consumption, we may still maintain that it effectively seals a perforation.
דְּאַקַּשְׁתָּא – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – דְּאַיִּיתְרָא.
The Gemara explains: The abomasum is shaped like a bow. The side facing outward is curved like the bow itself, while the side facing inward is flat and straight like the bowstring. With regard to the fat that is on the bow, everyone agrees, even the residents of Eretz Yisrael, that it is forbidden for consumption. This fat, then, is the ḥimtza, which does not seal a perforation according to Rav Naḥman. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it for consumption, while those of Babylonia prohibit it. According to Rav Naḥman, the residents of Babylonia should concede that it is nevertheless an effective seal. This, then, is the bar ḥimtza.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, דְּאַיִּיתְרָא – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – דְּאַקַּשְׁתָּא.
There are those who say that with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring, everyone agrees that it is permitted. This, then, is the bar ḥimtza. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bow. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it, but the residents of Babylonia prohibit it. This, then, is the ḥimtza.
כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב אַוְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: מְקַמְּצִין, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי מִשּׁוּם זָקֵן אֶחָד: מְקַמְּצִין. אָמַר רַב אַוְיָא: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, קְמַצוּ וְהַבוּ לֵיהּ, וַאֲכַל.
The Gemara adds: When it was stated that only the residents of Eretz Yisrael permit the fat on the bowstring for consumption, this means that they would eat it in a manner like that which Rav Avya says that Rabbi Ami says: One takes a handful of the fat that lies above the fat on the bowstring, since this is the fat prohibited by the verse: “And all the fat that is upon the innards” (Leviticus 3:3), and the rest is permitted for consumption. And so says Rabbi Yannai, also a resident of Eretz Yisrael, in the name of a certain elder: One takes a handful. Rav Avya said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami. The people there took a handful of the fat on the bowstring and gave him the remaining fat, and he ate from it.
שַׁמָּעֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא הֲוָה קָאֵי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קְמוֹץ, הַב לִי דְּאֵיכוֹל. חַזְיֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה קָמְחַסֵּם, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּבְלָאָה אַתְּ, גּוֹם שְׁדִי.
The Gemara relates: The attendant of Rabbi Ḥanina was standing before Rabbi Ḥanina, a resident of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Take off a handful from that fat on the bowstring and give me the rest so that I will eat from it. Rabbi Ḥanina saw that the attendant was hesitating, so he said to him: You are a Babylonian and usually consider all of this fat forbidden. If so, cut off all the fat and throw it away.
תַּנְיָא: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ, וְלֵיחָה סוֹתַמְתָּן – כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי לֵיחָה? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: שִׁירְקָא דִּמְעַיָּיא דְּנָפֵיק אַגַּב דּוּחְקָא.
§ The mishna states that if the small intestines are perforated, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the intestines were perforated but mucus seals the perforated intestines, the animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is this mucus? Rav Kahana said: It is the mucus of the intestines that comes out under pressure, when one scrapes with a knife.
גְּמִירִי חַבְרַיָּא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא מֵרַבִּי אַבָּא, וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי זֵירָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ חַבְרַיָּא דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא, וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי אַבָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאֵבֶל.
The Gemara relates: The colleagues of Rabbi Abba learned a tradition from Rabbi Abba. And who are they? The phrase: Colleagues of Rabbi Abba, is referring to Rabbi Zeira. And some say the colleagues of Rabbi Zeira learned it from Rabbi Zeira. And who are they? Rabbi Abba. This is the tradition: Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said that this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the halakhot of mourning.
הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאֵבֶל, מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, בָּא מִמָּקוֹם קָרוֹב – מוֹנֶה עִמָּהֶן.
The Gemara elaborates: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa; this is the halakha that we stated above, that mucus forms an effective seal in the intestines. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; what is this halakha? As we learned in a baraita: If one learns of the death of an immediate relative after other relatives have already begun their period of mourning, the halakha is as follows: During the entire first three days of mourning, if a mourner comes to the house of mourning from a nearby place, he counts his days of mourning with the other mourners and completes his mourning with them.
מִמָּקוֹם רָחוֹק – מוֹנֶה לְעַצְמוֹ. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, אֲפִילּוּ בָּא מִמָּקוֹם קָרוֹב – מוֹנֶה לְעַצְמוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בָּא מִמָּקוֹם קָרוֹב – מוֹנֶה עִמָּהֶן.
The baraita continues: If he came from a distant place, he counts seven days on his own from the time that he was informed of the death. From this point forward, i.e., after the first three days, even if he comes from a nearby place, he counts seven days on his own. Rabbi Shimon says: Even on the seventh day, if he comes from a nearby place, he counts and completes his mourning with the other mourners.
אָמַר מַאן דְּהוּא: אִיזְכֵּי וְאֶיסַּק וְאֶגְמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא מִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּמָרַהּ. כִּי סְלֵיק, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲמַר מָר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא אֵין הֲלָכָה אֲמַרִי.
Someone whose name was not given said: May I merit to go up to Eretz Yisrael and learn this halakha from the mouth of its Master. When he went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and said to him: Is it true that the Master said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa? Rabbi Abba said to him: This is not true. Rather, I said just the opposite, that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and even if mucus seals the perforation of the intestine, the animal is a tereifa.
כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאָבֵל, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלוּגָתָא נִינְהוּ, דְּאִיתְּמַר: רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר הֲלָכָה, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה, וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר אֵין הֲלָכָה.
The anonymous man asked Rabbi Abba again: What about the other ruling reported in your name, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; is this accurate? Rabbi Abba said to him: There are conflicting opinions with regard to this matter, as it was stated that Rav Ḥisda says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and so says Rabbi Yoḥanan: That is the halakha. But Rav Naḥman says: That is not the halakha.
וְאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאֵבֶל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּאֵבֶל.
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, who says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the more lenient authority in matters relating to mourning.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא: מַקִּיפִים בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים.
§ Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: One may compare perforations in the intestines. If one is unsure whether a perforation occurred before or after slaughter, one may make an additional perforation and compare the two. If their appearance is similar, one may conclude that the perforation occurred after slaughter, and the animal is kosher.
הָנְהוּ בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אַקְּפִינְהוּ וְלָא אִידְּמוֹ. אֲתָא רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ, מְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּהוּ וְאִידְּמוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנָא לָךְ הָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה יְדֵי מַשְׁמִשׁוּ בְּהָנֵי מִקַּמֵּי דְּלֵיתֵי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַכִּים בְּרִי בִּטְרֵפוֹת כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
The Gemara relates: There were certain perforated intestines that came before Rava. Rava made other perforations and compared them, but they were not similar. Rav Mesharshiyya, his son, came and rubbed the new perforations, and they were similar. Rav Mesharshiyya therefore deemed the animal kosher. Rava said to him: From where did you know to do this? Rav Mesharshiyya said to him: I reasoned: How many hands rubbed these earlier perforations before they came before the Master? Therefore, I thought that if I handled the new ones, perhaps they would look similar. Rava said to him: My son is as wise in matters of tereifot as Rabbi Yoḥanan.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מַקִּיפִים בָּרֵיאָה. אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּאוֹתָהּ עֲרוּגָה, אֲבָל מֵעֲרוּגָה לַעֲרוּגָה – לָא. וְהִלְכְתָא: אֲפִילּוּ מֵעֲרוּגָה לַעֲרוּגָה, מִדַּקָּה לְדַקָּה, וּמִגַּסָּה לְגַסָּה, אֲבָל לֹא מִגַּסָּה לְדַקָּה, וְלֹא מִדַּקָּה לְגַסָּה.
Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: One may compare perforations in the lung to determine whether they occurred after slaughter. Rava said: We said this only when the two perforations are on the same side of the lungs. But one may not compare perforations from one side to the other side. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may compare even from one side to the other side, and even from a small animal to another small animal, or from a large animal to another large animal, but not from a large animal to a small animal, and not from a small animal to a large animal.
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מַקִּיפִין בַּקָּנֶה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּאוֹתָהּ חוּלְיָא, אֲבָל מֵחוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא – לָא. וְהִלְכְתָא: אֲפִילּוּ מֵחוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא, וּמִבַּר חוּלְיָא לְבַר חוּלְיָא, אֲבָל לָא מֵחוּלְיָא לְבַר חוּלְיָא, וְלָא מִבַּר חוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא.
Similarly, Abaye and Rava both say: One may compare severed or perforated areas in the windpipe. Rav Pappa said: We said this only when the two areas are in the same segment of the windpipe. But one may not compare from one segment to another segment. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may even compare from one segment to another segment, and from one subsegment, i.e., a thin segment between the main segments, to another subsegment, but not from a segment to a subsegment, and not from a subsegment to a segment.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: חַלְחוֹלֶת שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה כְּשֵׁרָה, הוֹאִיל וִירֵיכַיִם מַעֲמִידוֹת אוֹתָהּ. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק – בְּרוּבּוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק – בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.
§ Ze’eiri says: If the rectum was perforated, the animal is kosher, since the hips hold it up and seal the perforation. And to how much of the rectum does this apply? Rabbi Ilai says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the rectum was perforated in the place where it is attached to the hips, even if it was perforated in its majority, the animal is kosher. If the perforation was not in the place where it is attached to the hips, the animal is a tereifa if it was perforated in any amount.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר: לָאו מִי אָמֵינָא לְכוּ לָא תִּתְלוֹ בֵּיהּ
The Sages said this halakha before Rava in the name of Rav Naḥman. Rava said to them: Have I not told you not to hang on Rav Naḥman
בּוּקֵי סְרִיקִי? הָכִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק, אֲפִילּוּ נִיטַּל כּוּלּוֹ – כָּשֵׁר, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר בּוֹ כְּדֵי תְּפִיסָה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּמְלֵא בַּטְדָּא בְּתוֹרָא.
empty bottles, i.e., not to falsely attribute statements to him? So said Rav Naḥman: With regard to the place that the rectum is attached to the hips, even if all of it was removed, the animal is kosher. And this is the halakha only where sufficient space remains of it for a hand to grip. The Gemara asks: And how much is considered sufficient to grip? Abaye said: The width of a finger. This measure is sufficient even in the case of a large bull.
הַכָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֵעִיד נָתָן בַּר שֵׁילָא רֵישׁ טַבָּחַיָּא דְּצִפּוֹרִי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נָתָן: אֵי זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי? סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר: אִיסְתּוּמְכָא דְּכַרְסָא.
§ The mishna states that if the internal rumen was perforated or most of the external rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Natan bar Sheila, chief butcher of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the name of Rabbi Natan: Which is the internal rumen? It is the cecum. And so said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: It is the cecum. Rabbi Yishmael said: It is the opening [istumka] of the rumen.
רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָקוֹם צַר יֵשׁ בַּכָּרֵס, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶהוּ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: נְפַל כְּרֵסָא בְּבֵירָא. אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב עַוָּא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מִן הַמֵּיצַר וּלְמַטָּה.
Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a narrow place in the rumen, and this is the internal rumen; all the rest is the external rumen. But I do not know which area is this narrow place. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The rumen has fallen in a pit, i.e., since it is unknown which area is considered the narrow place, a perforation in any part of the rumen renders the animal a tereifa. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Ava says that Rav Asi says: The inner rumen extends from the narrow place, where the rumen begins to narrow as it approaches the gullet, and downward toward the gullet when the animal is suspended by its legs.
רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מֵילָת. רַבִּי אֲבִינָא אָמַר גְּנִיבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: טֶפַח בַּוֶּושֶׁט סָמוּךְ לַכָּרֵס – זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית.
Rabbi Ya’akov bar Naḥmani says in the name of Shmuel: The internal rumen is the place in the rumen that has no wool, i.e., downy projections on the inside of the rumen. Rabbi Avina says in the name of Geneiva, who said in the name of Rav: The handbreadth in the gullet adjacent to the rumen, this is the internal rumen.
אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: כׇּל הַכָּרֵס כּוּלּוֹ – זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית, וְאֵיזֶהוּ כָּרֵס הַחִיצוֹן? בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס. רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מַפְרַעְתָּה. מַאי מַפְרַעְתָּה? אָמַר רַב אַוְיָא: הֵיכָא דְּפָרְעִי טַבָּחֵי.
In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina: The entire rumen is the internal rumen. And if so, which is the external rumen? It is the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen on the underside of the animal. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: The internal rumen is the mafrata. The Gemara asks: What is the mafrata? Rav Avya said: It is the place that the butcher exposes when he opens up the animal, i.e., the underside of the stomach.
בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא עָבְדִי כְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: כֹּל הָנֵי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כּוּלְּהוּ שָׁיְיכָן בִּדְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא.
The Gemara recounts: In Neharde’a, they practiced in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar, one of the Sages of Neharde’a: What about all these other statements, that the internal rumen is another part of the rumen? Ameimar said to him: They are all included in the definition of the rumen according to Rabba bar Rav Huna. The cecum, the opening of the stomach, and the place with no wool all face the underside of the stomach, i.e., the mafrata.
וּדְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי אֲמַר לֵיהּ? כְּבָר פֵּירְשָׁה רַב אַחָא בַּר עַוָּא. וּדְרַבִּי אֲבִינָא וְדִבְנֵי מַעְרְבָא, מַאי אֲמַר לֵיהּ? הָנֵי וַדַּאי פְּלִיגִי.
Rav Ashi replied: And what about the opinion that Rav Asi says in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the internal rumen is an unknown narrow area? Shouldn’t the entire rumen be treated as the internal rumen? Ameimar said to him: Rav Aḥa bar Ava already explained that it is the area extending from the narrow place until the gullet. This area is also included in the mafrata. Rav Ashi asked further: And what of the opinion of Rabbi Avina, that the internal rumen is the handbreadth near the gullet, and of the residents of the West, Eretz Yisrael, that it is the entire rumen? Ameimar said to him: These opinions certainly disagree with that of Rabba bar Rav Huna, but we do not follow them.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּגְדוֹלָה כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא ״גְּדוֹלָה״ – גְּדוֹלָה מַמָּשׁ, וְלֹא ״קְטַנָּה״ – קְטַנָּה מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁנִּקְרַע בָּהּ טֶפַח וְלָא הָוֵי רוּבָּא – זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: ״בִּגְדוֹלָה טֶפַח״, רוּבָּא וְלָא הָוֵי טֶפַח – זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: ״בִּקְטַנָּה בְּרוּבָּא״.
§ The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a tear in the external rumen, for a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa, while for a small animal, it is a tereifa only if most of it was torn. Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet says that Rabbi Elazar says: The word: Large, is not referring literally to a large animal, and the word: Small, is not referring literally to a small animal. Rather, concerning any animal large enough that its external rumen can be torn one handbreadth and this does not constitute most of it, this is what we learned: For a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa. And concerning any animal small enough that most of its external rumen can be torn and this does not constitute one handbreadth, this is what we learned: For a small animal, it is a tereifa only if most of it was torn. In other words, any external rumen torn either one handbreadth or in its majority renders the animal a tereifa.
רוּבָּא וְלָא הָוֵי טֶפַח, פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּהָוְיָא טֶפַח בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: עַד דְּמִיקְּרַע בַּהּ טֶפַח לָא הָוֵי טְרֵפָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: If most of the external rumen is torn but it does not constitute a handbreadth, isn’t it obvious that the animal is rendered a tereifa? There is a principle that the majority of an entity is considered like all of it. The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach this for a case where the tear would constitute a handbreadth with any amount more than a majority, i.e., the external rumen is slightly smaller than two handbreadths. Lest you say that in such a case, the animal is not a tereifa until a handbreadth of it is torn, this halakha teaches us that this is not so. Rather, if the majority of the rumen is torn, the animal is a tereifa, even if this constitutes less than a handbreadth.
אָמַר גְּנִיבָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: נִקְדְּרָה כְּסֶלַע – טְרֵפָה, שֶׁאִם תִּמָּתַח תַּעֲמוֹד עַל הַטֶּפַח. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דִּגְנִיבָא אַמַּבָּרָא דִּנְהַרְדְּעָא – כְּסֶלַע כְּשֵׁרָה, יָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע טְרֵפָה. וְכַמָּה יָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּגוֹן דְּעָיְילָן תְּלָת קַשְׁיָיתָא בְּצִיפָּא בְּדוּחְקָא, בְּלָא צִיפָּא בְּרַוְוחָא.
Geneiva says that Rabbi Asi says: If a round hole was bored through the external rumen as large as a sela coin, the animal is a tereifa, since if a hole of such size will be stretched, it will reach the length of a handbreadth. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: This matter was explained to me personally by Geneiva himself, when we were on the ferry of Neharde’a: If the hole is exactly as large as a sela, the animal is kosher. If the size of the hole is greater than a sela, it is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: And how much is considered greater than a sela? Rav Yosef said: For example, if three date pits covered in remains of the date can fit through the hole with difficulty, or if, without being covered in any remains, they can fit comfortably, this is considered a hole larger than a sela.
הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּעוֹבִי בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת מִצַּד אֶחָד – כְּשֵׁרָה, מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִים – טְרֵפָה. נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹרֶט דָּם –
§ The mishna states: An animal is a tereifa if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, i.e., to the abdominal cavity. With regard to this, the Sages taught: In the case of a needle that is found in the thickness of the reticulum, if it pierced the wall from only one side, the animal is kosher. If it pierced the wall from both sides, i.e., the needle completely pierced the wall of the stomach, it is a tereifa. But even if it protrudes from both sides, it is not always a tereifa, and it may be inspected further: If a drop of congealed blood is found on top of the needle,
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 started learning Daf Yomi because my sister, Ruth Leah Kahan, attended Michelle’s class in person and suggested I listen remotely. She always sat near Michelle and spoke up during class so that I could hear her voice. Our mom had just died unexpectedly and it made me feel connected to hear Ruth Leah’s voice, and now to know we are both listening to the same thing daily, continents apart.
Jessica Shklar
Philadelphia, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit 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 started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, 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
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
Chullin 50
וּלְדִידַן מִיסְתָּם נָמֵי לָא סָתֵים.
and to us, the residents of Babylonia, not only is it forbidden but it also does not seal a perforation? It cannot be that this fat is forbidden by Torah law if they permit it for consumption. Even though we are stringent with regard to its consumption, we may still maintain that it effectively seals a perforation.
דְּאַקַּשְׁתָּא – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – דְּאַיִּיתְרָא.
The Gemara explains: The abomasum is shaped like a bow. The side facing outward is curved like the bow itself, while the side facing inward is flat and straight like the bowstring. With regard to the fat that is on the bow, everyone agrees, even the residents of Eretz Yisrael, that it is forbidden for consumption. This fat, then, is the ḥimtza, which does not seal a perforation according to Rav Naḥman. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it for consumption, while those of Babylonia prohibit it. According to Rav Naḥman, the residents of Babylonia should concede that it is nevertheless an effective seal. This, then, is the bar ḥimtza.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, דְּאַיִּיתְרָא – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – דְּאַקַּשְׁתָּא.
There are those who say that with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring, everyone agrees that it is permitted. This, then, is the bar ḥimtza. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bow. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it, but the residents of Babylonia prohibit it. This, then, is the ḥimtza.
כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב אַוְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: מְקַמְּצִין, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי מִשּׁוּם זָקֵן אֶחָד: מְקַמְּצִין. אָמַר רַב אַוְיָא: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, קְמַצוּ וְהַבוּ לֵיהּ, וַאֲכַל.
The Gemara adds: When it was stated that only the residents of Eretz Yisrael permit the fat on the bowstring for consumption, this means that they would eat it in a manner like that which Rav Avya says that Rabbi Ami says: One takes a handful of the fat that lies above the fat on the bowstring, since this is the fat prohibited by the verse: “And all the fat that is upon the innards” (Leviticus 3:3), and the rest is permitted for consumption. And so says Rabbi Yannai, also a resident of Eretz Yisrael, in the name of a certain elder: One takes a handful. Rav Avya said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami. The people there took a handful of the fat on the bowstring and gave him the remaining fat, and he ate from it.
שַׁמָּעֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא הֲוָה קָאֵי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קְמוֹץ, הַב לִי דְּאֵיכוֹל. חַזְיֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה קָמְחַסֵּם, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּבְלָאָה אַתְּ, גּוֹם שְׁדִי.
The Gemara relates: The attendant of Rabbi Ḥanina was standing before Rabbi Ḥanina, a resident of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Take off a handful from that fat on the bowstring and give me the rest so that I will eat from it. Rabbi Ḥanina saw that the attendant was hesitating, so he said to him: You are a Babylonian and usually consider all of this fat forbidden. If so, cut off all the fat and throw it away.
תַּנְיָא: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ, וְלֵיחָה סוֹתַמְתָּן – כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי לֵיחָה? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: שִׁירְקָא דִּמְעַיָּיא דְּנָפֵיק אַגַּב דּוּחְקָא.
§ The mishna states that if the small intestines are perforated, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the intestines were perforated but mucus seals the perforated intestines, the animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is this mucus? Rav Kahana said: It is the mucus of the intestines that comes out under pressure, when one scrapes with a knife.
גְּמִירִי חַבְרַיָּא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא מֵרַבִּי אַבָּא, וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי זֵירָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ חַבְרַיָּא דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא, וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי אַבָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאֵבֶל.
The Gemara relates: The colleagues of Rabbi Abba learned a tradition from Rabbi Abba. And who are they? The phrase: Colleagues of Rabbi Abba, is referring to Rabbi Zeira. And some say the colleagues of Rabbi Zeira learned it from Rabbi Zeira. And who are they? Rabbi Abba. This is the tradition: Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said that this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the halakhot of mourning.
הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאֵבֶל, מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, בָּא מִמָּקוֹם קָרוֹב – מוֹנֶה עִמָּהֶן.
The Gemara elaborates: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa; this is the halakha that we stated above, that mucus forms an effective seal in the intestines. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; what is this halakha? As we learned in a baraita: If one learns of the death of an immediate relative after other relatives have already begun their period of mourning, the halakha is as follows: During the entire first three days of mourning, if a mourner comes to the house of mourning from a nearby place, he counts his days of mourning with the other mourners and completes his mourning with them.
מִמָּקוֹם רָחוֹק – מוֹנֶה לְעַצְמוֹ. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, אֲפִילּוּ בָּא מִמָּקוֹם קָרוֹב – מוֹנֶה לְעַצְמוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בָּא מִמָּקוֹם קָרוֹב – מוֹנֶה עִמָּהֶן.
The baraita continues: If he came from a distant place, he counts seven days on his own from the time that he was informed of the death. From this point forward, i.e., after the first three days, even if he comes from a nearby place, he counts seven days on his own. Rabbi Shimon says: Even on the seventh day, if he comes from a nearby place, he counts and completes his mourning with the other mourners.
אָמַר מַאן דְּהוּא: אִיזְכֵּי וְאֶיסַּק וְאֶגְמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא מִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּמָרַהּ. כִּי סְלֵיק, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲמַר מָר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא אֵין הֲלָכָה אֲמַרִי.
Someone whose name was not given said: May I merit to go up to Eretz Yisrael and learn this halakha from the mouth of its Master. When he went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and said to him: Is it true that the Master said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa? Rabbi Abba said to him: This is not true. Rather, I said just the opposite, that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and even if mucus seals the perforation of the intestine, the animal is a tereifa.
כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאָבֵל, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלוּגָתָא נִינְהוּ, דְּאִיתְּמַר: רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר הֲלָכָה, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה, וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר אֵין הֲלָכָה.
The anonymous man asked Rabbi Abba again: What about the other ruling reported in your name, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; is this accurate? Rabbi Abba said to him: There are conflicting opinions with regard to this matter, as it was stated that Rav Ḥisda says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and so says Rabbi Yoḥanan: That is the halakha. But Rav Naḥman says: That is not the halakha.
וְאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאֵבֶל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּאֵבֶל.
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, who says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the more lenient authority in matters relating to mourning.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא: מַקִּיפִים בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים.
§ Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: One may compare perforations in the intestines. If one is unsure whether a perforation occurred before or after slaughter, one may make an additional perforation and compare the two. If their appearance is similar, one may conclude that the perforation occurred after slaughter, and the animal is kosher.
הָנְהוּ בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אַקְּפִינְהוּ וְלָא אִידְּמוֹ. אֲתָא רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ, מְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּהוּ וְאִידְּמוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנָא לָךְ הָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה יְדֵי מַשְׁמִשׁוּ בְּהָנֵי מִקַּמֵּי דְּלֵיתֵי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַכִּים בְּרִי בִּטְרֵפוֹת כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
The Gemara relates: There were certain perforated intestines that came before Rava. Rava made other perforations and compared them, but they were not similar. Rav Mesharshiyya, his son, came and rubbed the new perforations, and they were similar. Rav Mesharshiyya therefore deemed the animal kosher. Rava said to him: From where did you know to do this? Rav Mesharshiyya said to him: I reasoned: How many hands rubbed these earlier perforations before they came before the Master? Therefore, I thought that if I handled the new ones, perhaps they would look similar. Rava said to him: My son is as wise in matters of tereifot as Rabbi Yoḥanan.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מַקִּיפִים בָּרֵיאָה. אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּאוֹתָהּ עֲרוּגָה, אֲבָל מֵעֲרוּגָה לַעֲרוּגָה – לָא. וְהִלְכְתָא: אֲפִילּוּ מֵעֲרוּגָה לַעֲרוּגָה, מִדַּקָּה לְדַקָּה, וּמִגַּסָּה לְגַסָּה, אֲבָל לֹא מִגַּסָּה לְדַקָּה, וְלֹא מִדַּקָּה לְגַסָּה.
Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: One may compare perforations in the lung to determine whether they occurred after slaughter. Rava said: We said this only when the two perforations are on the same side of the lungs. But one may not compare perforations from one side to the other side. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may compare even from one side to the other side, and even from a small animal to another small animal, or from a large animal to another large animal, but not from a large animal to a small animal, and not from a small animal to a large animal.
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מַקִּיפִין בַּקָּנֶה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּאוֹתָהּ חוּלְיָא, אֲבָל מֵחוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא – לָא. וְהִלְכְתָא: אֲפִילּוּ מֵחוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא, וּמִבַּר חוּלְיָא לְבַר חוּלְיָא, אֲבָל לָא מֵחוּלְיָא לְבַר חוּלְיָא, וְלָא מִבַּר חוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא.
Similarly, Abaye and Rava both say: One may compare severed or perforated areas in the windpipe. Rav Pappa said: We said this only when the two areas are in the same segment of the windpipe. But one may not compare from one segment to another segment. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may even compare from one segment to another segment, and from one subsegment, i.e., a thin segment between the main segments, to another subsegment, but not from a segment to a subsegment, and not from a subsegment to a segment.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: חַלְחוֹלֶת שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה כְּשֵׁרָה, הוֹאִיל וִירֵיכַיִם מַעֲמִידוֹת אוֹתָהּ. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק – בְּרוּבּוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק – בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.
§ Ze’eiri says: If the rectum was perforated, the animal is kosher, since the hips hold it up and seal the perforation. And to how much of the rectum does this apply? Rabbi Ilai says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the rectum was perforated in the place where it is attached to the hips, even if it was perforated in its majority, the animal is kosher. If the perforation was not in the place where it is attached to the hips, the animal is a tereifa if it was perforated in any amount.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר: לָאו מִי אָמֵינָא לְכוּ לָא תִּתְלוֹ בֵּיהּ
The Sages said this halakha before Rava in the name of Rav Naḥman. Rava said to them: Have I not told you not to hang on Rav Naḥman
בּוּקֵי סְרִיקִי? הָכִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק, אֲפִילּוּ נִיטַּל כּוּלּוֹ – כָּשֵׁר, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר בּוֹ כְּדֵי תְּפִיסָה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּמְלֵא בַּטְדָּא בְּתוֹרָא.
empty bottles, i.e., not to falsely attribute statements to him? So said Rav Naḥman: With regard to the place that the rectum is attached to the hips, even if all of it was removed, the animal is kosher. And this is the halakha only where sufficient space remains of it for a hand to grip. The Gemara asks: And how much is considered sufficient to grip? Abaye said: The width of a finger. This measure is sufficient even in the case of a large bull.
הַכָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֵעִיד נָתָן בַּר שֵׁילָא רֵישׁ טַבָּחַיָּא דְּצִפּוֹרִי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נָתָן: אֵי זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי? סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר: אִיסְתּוּמְכָא דְּכַרְסָא.
§ The mishna states that if the internal rumen was perforated or most of the external rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Natan bar Sheila, chief butcher of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the name of Rabbi Natan: Which is the internal rumen? It is the cecum. And so said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: It is the cecum. Rabbi Yishmael said: It is the opening [istumka] of the rumen.
רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָקוֹם צַר יֵשׁ בַּכָּרֵס, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶהוּ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: נְפַל כְּרֵסָא בְּבֵירָא. אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב עַוָּא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מִן הַמֵּיצַר וּלְמַטָּה.
Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a narrow place in the rumen, and this is the internal rumen; all the rest is the external rumen. But I do not know which area is this narrow place. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The rumen has fallen in a pit, i.e., since it is unknown which area is considered the narrow place, a perforation in any part of the rumen renders the animal a tereifa. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Ava says that Rav Asi says: The inner rumen extends from the narrow place, where the rumen begins to narrow as it approaches the gullet, and downward toward the gullet when the animal is suspended by its legs.
רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מֵילָת. רַבִּי אֲבִינָא אָמַר גְּנִיבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: טֶפַח בַּוֶּושֶׁט סָמוּךְ לַכָּרֵס – זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית.
Rabbi Ya’akov bar Naḥmani says in the name of Shmuel: The internal rumen is the place in the rumen that has no wool, i.e., downy projections on the inside of the rumen. Rabbi Avina says in the name of Geneiva, who said in the name of Rav: The handbreadth in the gullet adjacent to the rumen, this is the internal rumen.
אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: כׇּל הַכָּרֵס כּוּלּוֹ – זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית, וְאֵיזֶהוּ כָּרֵס הַחִיצוֹן? בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס. רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מַפְרַעְתָּה. מַאי מַפְרַעְתָּה? אָמַר רַב אַוְיָא: הֵיכָא דְּפָרְעִי טַבָּחֵי.
In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina: The entire rumen is the internal rumen. And if so, which is the external rumen? It is the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen on the underside of the animal. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: The internal rumen is the mafrata. The Gemara asks: What is the mafrata? Rav Avya said: It is the place that the butcher exposes when he opens up the animal, i.e., the underside of the stomach.
בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא עָבְדִי כְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: כֹּל הָנֵי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כּוּלְּהוּ שָׁיְיכָן בִּדְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא.
The Gemara recounts: In Neharde’a, they practiced in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar, one of the Sages of Neharde’a: What about all these other statements, that the internal rumen is another part of the rumen? Ameimar said to him: They are all included in the definition of the rumen according to Rabba bar Rav Huna. The cecum, the opening of the stomach, and the place with no wool all face the underside of the stomach, i.e., the mafrata.
וּדְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי אֲמַר לֵיהּ? כְּבָר פֵּירְשָׁה רַב אַחָא בַּר עַוָּא. וּדְרַבִּי אֲבִינָא וְדִבְנֵי מַעְרְבָא, מַאי אֲמַר לֵיהּ? הָנֵי וַדַּאי פְּלִיגִי.
Rav Ashi replied: And what about the opinion that Rav Asi says in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the internal rumen is an unknown narrow area? Shouldn’t the entire rumen be treated as the internal rumen? Ameimar said to him: Rav Aḥa bar Ava already explained that it is the area extending from the narrow place until the gullet. This area is also included in the mafrata. Rav Ashi asked further: And what of the opinion of Rabbi Avina, that the internal rumen is the handbreadth near the gullet, and of the residents of the West, Eretz Yisrael, that it is the entire rumen? Ameimar said to him: These opinions certainly disagree with that of Rabba bar Rav Huna, but we do not follow them.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּגְדוֹלָה כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא ״גְּדוֹלָה״ – גְּדוֹלָה מַמָּשׁ, וְלֹא ״קְטַנָּה״ – קְטַנָּה מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁנִּקְרַע בָּהּ טֶפַח וְלָא הָוֵי רוּבָּא – זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: ״בִּגְדוֹלָה טֶפַח״, רוּבָּא וְלָא הָוֵי טֶפַח – זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: ״בִּקְטַנָּה בְּרוּבָּא״.
§ The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a tear in the external rumen, for a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa, while for a small animal, it is a tereifa only if most of it was torn. Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet says that Rabbi Elazar says: The word: Large, is not referring literally to a large animal, and the word: Small, is not referring literally to a small animal. Rather, concerning any animal large enough that its external rumen can be torn one handbreadth and this does not constitute most of it, this is what we learned: For a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa. And concerning any animal small enough that most of its external rumen can be torn and this does not constitute one handbreadth, this is what we learned: For a small animal, it is a tereifa only if most of it was torn. In other words, any external rumen torn either one handbreadth or in its majority renders the animal a tereifa.
רוּבָּא וְלָא הָוֵי טֶפַח, פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּהָוְיָא טֶפַח בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: עַד דְּמִיקְּרַע בַּהּ טֶפַח לָא הָוֵי טְרֵפָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: If most of the external rumen is torn but it does not constitute a handbreadth, isn’t it obvious that the animal is rendered a tereifa? There is a principle that the majority of an entity is considered like all of it. The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach this for a case where the tear would constitute a handbreadth with any amount more than a majority, i.e., the external rumen is slightly smaller than two handbreadths. Lest you say that in such a case, the animal is not a tereifa until a handbreadth of it is torn, this halakha teaches us that this is not so. Rather, if the majority of the rumen is torn, the animal is a tereifa, even if this constitutes less than a handbreadth.
אָמַר גְּנִיבָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: נִקְדְּרָה כְּסֶלַע – טְרֵפָה, שֶׁאִם תִּמָּתַח תַּעֲמוֹד עַל הַטֶּפַח. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דִּגְנִיבָא אַמַּבָּרָא דִּנְהַרְדְּעָא – כְּסֶלַע כְּשֵׁרָה, יָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע טְרֵפָה. וְכַמָּה יָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּגוֹן דְּעָיְילָן תְּלָת קַשְׁיָיתָא בְּצִיפָּא בְּדוּחְקָא, בְּלָא צִיפָּא בְּרַוְוחָא.
Geneiva says that Rabbi Asi says: If a round hole was bored through the external rumen as large as a sela coin, the animal is a tereifa, since if a hole of such size will be stretched, it will reach the length of a handbreadth. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: This matter was explained to me personally by Geneiva himself, when we were on the ferry of Neharde’a: If the hole is exactly as large as a sela, the animal is kosher. If the size of the hole is greater than a sela, it is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: And how much is considered greater than a sela? Rav Yosef said: For example, if three date pits covered in remains of the date can fit through the hole with difficulty, or if, without being covered in any remains, they can fit comfortably, this is considered a hole larger than a sela.
הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּעוֹבִי בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת מִצַּד אֶחָד – כְּשֵׁרָה, מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִים – טְרֵפָה. נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹרֶט דָּם –
§ The mishna states: An animal is a tereifa if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, i.e., to the abdominal cavity. With regard to this, the Sages taught: In the case of a needle that is found in the thickness of the reticulum, if it pierced the wall from only one side, the animal is kosher. If it pierced the wall from both sides, i.e., the needle completely pierced the wall of the stomach, it is a tereifa. But even if it protrudes from both sides, it is not always a tereifa, and it may be inspected further: If a drop of congealed blood is found on top of the needle,
Follow
