Chullin 43aחולין מ״ג א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Chullin 43a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
43aמ״ג א

אלא הנך תרתי דאפקת לא תיפוק

The Gemara responds: Rather, if one counts this way, one must say that these two cases that you removed, i.e., an animal whose hind legs were severed and one whose hide was removed, do not remove. The count will then remain eighteen.

אמר עולא ח' מיני טרפות נאמרו לו למשה בסיני נקובה ופסוקה נטולה וחסורה קרועה ודרוסה נפולה ושבורה לאפוקי לקותא דרכיש בר פפא

§ Ulla says: Eight types of tereifot were stated to Moses at Sinai, and all the cases mentioned in the Mishna and elsewhere fall into these categories: An animal whose organ was perforated or severed, removed or missing a piece, one that was torn or clawed by wild animals, or that fell or was broken. The Gemara notes: This list is compiled to the exclusion of a diseased organ, which Rakhish bar Pappa mentioned with regard to a kidney. Ulla does not deem this a tereifa.

אמר חייא בר רבא ח' טרפות יש בנקובה אם תאמר ט' מרה ר' יוסי ברבי יהודה קתני לה דתניא ניקבה הקיבה ניקבו הדקים טרפה רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אף ניקבה המרה

Ḥiyya bar Rava says: There are eight tereifot in the category of a perforated organ: A perforated gullet, brain membrane, heart, lung, abomasum, intestine, inner rumen, and reticulum or omasum that was perforated to the outside. If you say that there are nine, because a perforated gallbladder is also mentioned in the mishna, one can say that with regard to the gallbladder, only Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, teaches it, and it is the opinion of an individual. As it is taught in a baraita: If the abomasum was perforated, or the intestines were perforated, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if the gallbladder was perforated it is a tereifa.

(הלכות חבר כזית מרה וקורקבן סימן)

§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following statements of Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef: Halakhot, friend, olive-bulk, gallbladder, and gizzard.

אמר רבי יצחק בר' יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כר' יוסי בר' יהודה

Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with the statement of Ḥiyya bar Rava and says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that a perforated gallbladder renders the animal a tereifa.

ואמר רבי יצחק בר' יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן מאי אהדרו ליה חבריה לר' יוסי בר' יהודה (איוב טז, יג) ישפוך לארץ מררתי ועדיין איוב קיים אמר להם אין מזכירין מעשה נסים דאי לא תימא הכי (איוב טז, יג) יפלח כליותי ולא יחמול מי קא חיי אלא ניסא שאני דכתיב (איוב ב, ו) רק את נפשו שמור הכא נמי ניסא שאני

And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What did the friends of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, respond to him? They responded that Job said: “He pours out my gall upon the ground” (Job 16:13), and yet Job was still alive. Evidently, one with a perforated gallbladder can live. Rabbi Yosei said to them: Job was kept alive by a miracle, and one does not mention miraculous acts as proof for a general ruling. As, if you do not say so, then the other phrase in the verse: “He cleaves my kidneys asunder, and does not spare,” is problematic. Does one with cleaved kidneys live? Rather, a miracle is different, as it is written that God said to Satan with regard to Job: “Only spare his life” (Job 2:6). Under natural circumstances, Job should have died from his injuries, but in this case he was kept alive by a miracle. Here too, with regard to the gallbladder, one must say that a miracle is different, and one cannot bring proof from it.

ואמר ר' יצחק ברבי יוסף אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כדברי האומר כזית

And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that if the liver of an animal was removed but one olive-bulk of it remains, it is kosher.

ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן ניטלה הכבד ולא נשתייר הימנה כלום הא נשתייר כשרה אע"ג דלא הוי כזית אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דר' יוחנן

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna; and we learned in the mishna: If the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, the animal is a tereifa? One can infer that if any of it remained, the animal is kosher even if what remains does not constitute an olive-bulk. The Gemara responds: They are amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan as to whether he holds that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna.

דאמר ר' יצחק בר' יוסף אמר ר' יוחנן מרה שניקבה וכבד סותמתה כשרה

The Gemara brings another statement that Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the gallbladder was perforated in a place where it was adjacent to the liver, and the liver seals the hole, the animal is kosher, even though a perforated gallbladder normally renders the animal a tereifa according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.

ואמר רבי יצחק בר' יוסף אמר ר' יוחנן ניקב הקורקבן וכיס שלו קיים כשר

And Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even though the mishna on 56a teaches that if a bird’s gizzard was perforated it is a tereifa, if the gizzard was perforated but its inner lining is intact, the bird is kosher.

איבעיא להו ניקב הכיס וקורקבן קיים מאי תא שמע דאמר רב נחמן ניקב זה בלא זה כשר אמר רבא שני עורות יש לו לוושט חיצון אדום ופנימי לבן ניקב זה בלא זה כשר למה לי למימר חיצון אדום ופנימי לבן דאי חליף טרפה

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the inner lining of the gizzard was perforated, but the flesh of the gizzard is intact, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Naḥman said with regard to a perforated gullet: If both its outer and inner lining were perforated, the animal is a tereifa, but if this lining was perforated without that lining being perforated, it is kosher. Similarly, Rava says: The gullet has two linings, the outer red, and the inner white. If this lining was perforated without that lining being perforated, the animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: Why do I need for Rava to state that the outer one is red and the inner one is white? Isn’t this self-evident? The Gemara responds: This teaches that if the two were switched, i.e., the outer lining turned white and the inner red, the animal is a tereifa.

אבעיא להו ניקבו שניהם זה שלא כנגד זה מהו אמר מר זוטרא משמיה דרב פפא בוושט כשר בקורקבן פסול מתקיף לה רב אשי אדרבה וושט דאכלה ביה ופעיא ביה רווח גמדא ליה ופשטה ליה זמנין דמיהנדזין בהדי הדדי קורקבן דמינח נייח כדקאי קאי א"ל רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף לרב אשי הכי אמרינן משמיה דמר זוטרא דאמר משמיה דרב פפא כוותיך

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If both linings were perforated, but not adjacent to one another, what is the halakha? Mar Zutra says in the name of Rav Pappa: If this occurred in the gullet, the animal is kosher; but if it occurred in the gizzard, it is unfit for consumption. Rav Ashi objects to this: On the contrary, the gullet, with which the animal eats and calls, is spacious and flexible, and the animal constricts it and stretches it. Since the two linings are not connected to each other, there are times in the course of their movement that the two holes align [demihandezin] with one another, creating a fully aligned perforation. But the gizzard, which is always at rest in place, stands as it always stands. Accordingly, two such perforations will never align. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: So we say in the name of Mar Zutra, that he in fact said in the name of Rav Pappa in accordance with your objection.

ואמר רבה קרום שעלה מחמת מכה בוושט אינו קרום ואמר רבה וושט אין לו בדיקה מבחוץ אלא בפנים למאי נפקא מינה

§ And Rabba says: A membrane that appeared due to a wound in the gullet, i.e., a scab that covered a perforation, is not considered a membrane that prevents the animal from being rendered a tereifa. And Rabba says: The gullet cannot be inspected from outside to determine whether the animal is a tereifa, since the outer lining itself is red, and therefore reddening due to injury cannot be discerned in it. Rather, it must be inspected from inside, where the lining is white. The Gemara asks: What difference is there as a result of this statement, i.e., in what case must the gullet be checked from the inside?