Chullin Daf 42 (חולין דף מ״ב)
Daf: 42 | Amudim: 42a – 42b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (42a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Resolving the “peshita” objection from Daf 41: why Rabbi Elazar’s wife-yoledet ruling is not self-evident
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִם אִיתָא דְּיָלְדָה – קָלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֵימַר אַפּוֹלֵי אַפִּיל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment closes the discussion from the end of Daf 41, answering the objection “peshita?” — wasn’t Rabbi Elazar’s ruling obvious? The answer: one might have thought that a real childbirth would be public knowledge, so absent any rumor we could assume no offering is owed and validate the slaughter. Rabbi Elazar teaches otherwise, because the wife might have miscarried (אַפּוֹלֵי אַפִּיל) — which still obligates a yoledet offering but generates no publicity, since no living child was born. The novelty is the silent, unreported obligation.
Key Terms:
- מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא (mahu deteima) = “lest you say” — a formula introducing the mistaken assumption a ruling comes to refute
- קָלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ (kala havah leih) = “it would have a report/publicity” — the event would be widely known
- אַפּוֹלֵי אַפִּיל (apolei apil) = “she miscarried” — a stillbirth that still obligates the purification offering but creates no public awareness
Segment 2
TYPE: הדרן (סיום פרק)
The conclusion formula for the second perek, “HaShochet”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט.
English Translation:
We will return to you, “The one who slaughters.”
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the traditional הֲדַרַן formula marking the completion of the second chapter of Chullin, “HaShochet” (“The one who slaughters”), which spanned dafim 27–42 and dealt with the laws of valid slaughter, its location, and improper intent. The phrase expresses the hope to “return” to the material — reflecting the value of review. The next segment opens the famous third perek, “Eilu Tereifot.”
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ (hadran alakh) = “we will return to you” — the Aramaic formula recited upon completing a chapter or tractate, expressing the wish to revisit the learning
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
The opening of Perek “Eilu Tereifot”: the first set of disqualifying injuries (head, heart, spine, liver)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This celebrated mishna opens the third chapter by enumerating the classic list of tereifot — fatal organic defects that render an otherwise-kosher animal forbidden even after valid slaughter. The tereifa here is not the biblical “torn by a beast” but a halakhic category: a defect that means the animal could not have survived. The first cases concern vital systems: the gullet (ושט) and windpipe (גרגרת), the brain membrane (קרום של מוח), the heart’s chamber, the spinal cord (חוט השדרה), and a totally removed liver. The Gemara will work to establish the count and the Scriptural basis of the whole category.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה (tereifa) = an animal with a defect that will cause it to die; forbidden to eat by Torah law even if properly slaughtered
- וֶשֶׁט (veshet) = the gullet/esophagus; one of the two simanim severed in shechita
- גַּרְגֶּרֶת (gargeret) = the windpipe/trachea; the other siman
- קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ (kerum shel moach) = the membrane covering the brain
- חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה (chut hashidra) = the spinal cord
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Tereifot of the lung and the digestive organs; disputes of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues with the lung (ריאה) — perforated or missing tissue — and the organs of digestion. Two tannaitic refinements appear: Rabbi Shimon holds a perforated lung is a tereifa only if the hole reaches the bronchi (סמפונות), and Rabbi Yehuda gives size-thresholds for a torn external rumen (a handbreadth in a large animal, majority in a small one). The ruminant’s four-chambered stomach figures prominently here: the abomasum (קבה), rumen (כרס), omasum (המסס), and reticulum (בית הכוסות). The Gemara on amud bet will treat several of these cases when counting the eighteen tereifot.
Key Terms:
- רֵיאָה (rei’a) = the lung
- סִמְפּוֹנוֹת (simponot) = the bronchi/bronchial tubes within the lung
- קֵבָה (keiva) = the abomasum (fourth stomach chamber)
- כָּרֵס (kares) = the rumen (largest stomach chamber); internal (פנימית) and external (חיצונה)
- הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת (hemses uveit hakosot) = the omasum and the reticulum (the third and second stomach chambers)
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
Tereifot from external trauma; predator clawing; and the governing principle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna concludes with tereifot from trauma — a fall from a height, a majority of fractured ribs — and from דְּרוּסָה, the venomous clawing of a predator (matching predator to prey by size). It then states the unifying principle (זֶה הַכְּלָל): any injury under which an animal of that kind could not survive renders it a tereifa. This principle is what makes the list open-ended rather than a closed eighteen, and it becomes the focal point of the Gemara’s analysis: does a tereifa, by definition, die?
Key Terms:
- דְּרוּסָה (derusa) = the clawing/striking of a predator, whose venom or trauma kills the prey; matched by size (wolf-sheep, lion-cattle, hawk-small bird)
- זֶה הַכְּלָל (ze hakelal) = “this is the principle” — the open-ended rule: any non-survivable injury is a tereifa
- כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה (kol she’ein kamoha chaya) = “any [animal] in whose condition [an animal] cannot live” — the survivability criterion
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Reish Lakish seeks the Scriptural hint that a tereifa cannot survive
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara refines Reish Lakish’s question. The prohibition of eating a tereifa is explicit in Exodus 22:30, so that needs no hint. His real question is the mishna’s premise — that a tereifa is, by definition, an animal that cannot survive (rather than merely a torn animal that might recover). Since the mishna’s closing principle assumes “any non-survivable injury is a tereifa,” the Gemara seeks the Scriptural basis for tying tereifa-status to imminent death. This launches the central halakhic debate of the sugya.
Key Terms:
- רֶמֶז (remez) = a Scriptural hint or allusion, as opposed to an explicit verse
- רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ / רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ (Reish Lakish) = the Amora who poses the question
- טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה (tereifa einah chaya) = “a tereifa cannot live” — the view that a tereifa’s defect is necessarily fatal
Segment 7
TYPE: דרשה
The derivation that “a tereifa cannot live” from “the living thing which you may eat”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״, חַיָּה – אֱכוֹל, שֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיָּה – לָא תֵּיכוּל, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה לֹא חַיָּה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer comes from Leviticus 11:2, “וְזֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ” — read midrashically as “the living one you may eat.” The word חַיָּה (“living thing”) is reread as “viable”: you may eat what can live, not what cannot. By inference, a tereifa — which cannot live — is excluded. This elegant wordplay anchors the mishna’s survivability principle in the Torah, supporting the view that a tereifa’s defect is inherently fatal.
Key Terms:
- וְזֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ (vezot hachaya asher tochelu) = “and this is the living thing which you may eat” (Lev. 11:2), reread as permitting only viable animals
- חַיָּה (chaya) = “living thing/animal,” here interpreted as “one that can live”
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
The opposing view (a tereifa CAN live) derives its position from the same verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵפָה חַיָּה, מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״זֹּאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ״ – ״זֹאת הַחַיָּה״ אֱכוֹל, חַיָּה אַחֶרֶת לָא תֵּיכוֹל, מִכְּלָל דִּטְרֵפָה חַיָּה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces the dissenting school — those who hold a tereifa can live (its defect is not necessarily fatal; the prohibition is a divine decree, not a medical prognosis). Remarkably, they read the same verse differently: stressing the word “זֹאת” (“this living thing you may eat”), they exclude another living thing — a tereifa — which is therefore itself called a “living thing.” The same phrase thus yields opposite inferences depending on which word is emphasized — a classic example of how a single verse grounds two opposing positions.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה חַיָּה (tereifa chaya) = “a tereifa can live” — the view that a tereifa’s defect is not inherently fatal; its prohibition is a Torah decree
- מַאן דְּאָמַר (man de’amar) = “the one who says” — a formula introducing an alternative opinion
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
How the first view uses the word “zot” — the aggadah of God showing Moshe each species
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the first view (tereifa cannot live): if it reads the word חַיָּה for viability, what does it do with the demonstrative זֹאת (“this”)? It answers that the word is needed for a teaching of the school of Rabbi Yishmael — a vivid aggadah that the Holy One literally grasped a specimen of each species, displayed it to Moshe, and said “this you may eat, and this you may not.” The midrash underscores both the precision of the kosher signs and Moshe’s direct, almost visual transmission of the law at Sinai.
Key Terms:
- דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל (devei Rabbi Yishmael) = “the school of Rabbi Yishmael” — a tannaitic academy whose teachings are frequently cited
- שֶׁתָּפַס הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא (shetafas HaKadosh Barukh Hu) = “that the Holy One grasped” — the aggadic image of God showing Moshe each species
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
The second view derives “tereifa can live” from a different baraita; the eighteen tereifot from Sinai
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes that the second view also needs the word זֹאת for the Rabbi Yishmael aggadah — so where does it get “tereifa can live”? From yet another verse (Lev. 11:47), which contrasts “the living thing that may be eaten” with “the living thing that may not be eaten.” Because the verse still calls the forbidden category a חַיָּה (“living thing”), a tereifa is implied to be alive. The baraita identifies that forbidden category as the eighteen tereifot stated to Moshe at Sinai — establishing the canonical count that the rest of the sugya works to reconcile with the mishna and the amoraic additions.
Key Terms:
- בֵּין הַחַיָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת וּבֵין הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵאָכֵל (bein hachaya hane’echelet…) = “between the living thing that may be eaten and the one that may not” (Lev. 11:47), calling even the forbidden one “living”
- שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה טְרֵפוֹת (shemoneh esrei tereifot) = the eighteen tereifot transmitted to Moshe at Sinai — the traditional enumerated list
- הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי (halacha leMoshe miSinai) = a law given orally to Moshe at Sinai, here the tereifot list
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Are there really only eighteen? The mnemonic BeSaGaR and seven amoraic cases
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא אִיכָּא בסג״ר, וְשַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא!
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the figure of eighteen: there are clearly more tereifot than that. It cites four additional cases captured by the mnemonic בסג״ר (beit-samekh-gimmel-reish, standing for four cases discussed later in the masechet) plus “seven halakhot” (שַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא) taught by Amoraim. If these exist, how can the baraita insist on exactly eighteen? This sets up the intricate bookkeeping of amud bet, where the Gemara repeatedly “removes one and inserts one” (אַפֵּיק חֲדָא וְעַיֵּיל חֲדָא) to keep the total at eighteen.
Key Terms:
- וְתוּ לֵיכָּא (vetu leika) = “and are there no more?” — challenging whether a list is exhaustive
- בסג״ר (BeSaGaR) = a mnemonic for four additional tereifa cases (beit, samekh, gimmel, reish)
- שַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא (shav shemaatata) = “seven teachings” — seven additional tereifot stated by Amoraim
Amud Bet (42b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The mishna’s “this is the principle” allows omissions, but Rabbi Yishmael’s fixed eighteen must account for the severed-leg case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the objection for our mishna easily: its “this is the principle” clause absorbs any omitted case (תְּנָא וּדְשַׁיַּיר — “he taught some and left others out”). But the school of Rabbi Yishmael, which insists on exactly eighteen, must explain each “extra” case. Starting with the severed-leg case (an animal whose hind legs were cut above the joint), the Gemara suggests Rabbi Yishmael follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds the stump can be cauterized and the animal survives — so it is not a tereifa at all, and need not be counted.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא (bishlama) = “granted/it is well” — accepting one side of a problem before pressing the other
- תְּנָא וּדְשַׁיַּיר (tana ude-shayyer) = “he taught [some] and omitted [others]” — a list is illustrative, not exhaustive
- אַרְכּוּבָּה (arkuva) = the leg joint; a leg severed above it is at issue
- לִיכּוֹוֹת וְלִחְיוֹת (likhvot velichyot) = “to be cauterized and live” — Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s claim that the wound is survivable
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Refining the answer: Rabbi Yishmael holds the leg-severed animal is kosher, but not because it can survive
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara catches an internal tension. The previous answer relied on survivability (“it can be cauterized and live”), but the school of Rabbi Yishmael itself holds that “a tereifa can live” — so survivability cannot be its criterion for excluding a case. The Gemara therefore restates the answer: Rabbi Yishmael agrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s conclusion (the leg-severed animal is kosher) but not with his reasoning (survivability). For Rabbi Yishmael, it is kosher simply because it is not one of the eighteen Sinaitic tereifot.
Key Terms:
- אַף עַל גַּב (af al gav) = “even though” — introducing a counter-consideration
- כְּשֵׁרָה הִיא (kesheira hi) = “it is kosher” — Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s bottom-line ruling, which Rabbi Yishmael adopts independent of the survivability rationale
- סְבִירָא לֵיהּ (sevira leih) = “he holds the opinion that” — indicating a Sage’s view
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
A further missing case: a deficiency in the spine (Beit Shammai vs. Beit Hillel)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאִיכָּא חִסָּרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה, דִּתְנַן: כַּמָּה חִסָּרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי חוּלְיוֹת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חוּלְיָא אַחַת; וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְכֵן לִטְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents another case that seems to exceed eighteen: a deficiency (missing vertebrae) in the spine. It draws on a mishna in Oholot about how much spinal loss prevents a corpse from imparting tent-impurity (Beit Shammai: two vertebrae; Beit Hillel: one), to which Shmuel applies the same thresholds to tereifa-status. Since this case is not among the eighteen, Rabbi Yishmael must somehow accommodate it — which the next segment does by re-counting the stomach cases.
Key Terms:
- חִסָּרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה (chissaron bashidra) = a deficiency (missing vertebrae) in the spinal column
- חוּלְיָא (chulya) = a vertebra
- טוּמְאַת אֹהֶל (tum’at ohel) = “tent impurity” — the ritual impurity a corpse imparts to everything under the same roof; the Oholot context for the vertebra count
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Counting omasum and reticulum as one case opens a slot for the spinal deficiency
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת, דְּקָא חָשְׁבַתְּ לְהוּ בְּתַרְתֵּי, חַשְׁבִינְהוּ בַּחֲדָא, אַפֵּיק חֲדָא וְעַיֵּיל חֲדָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Here the Gemara’s accounting method appears: to preserve the total of eighteen, it combines the omasum (המסס) and the reticulum (בית הכוסות) — adjacent stomach chambers — into a single case. That frees one slot, into which it inserts the spinal-deficiency tereifa. This “remove one, insert one” (אַפֵּיק חֲדָא וְעַיֵּיל חֲדָא) bookkeeping recurs throughout the amud, showing that the number eighteen is maintained by flexibly grouping or splitting the enumerated cases.
Key Terms:
- אַפֵּיק חֲדָא וְעַיֵּיל חֲדָא (apeik chada ve’ayyel chada) = “remove one and insert one” — the technique of keeping the count at eighteen by trading cases
- בְּתַרְתֵּי / בַּחֲדָא (betartei / bachada) = “as two / as one” — whether to count related cases separately or together
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The case of a flayed animal (geluda) excluded via Rabbi Meir’s lenient view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאִיכָּא גְּלוּדָה? סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּמַכְשַׁיר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another candidate beyond eighteen is the גְּלוּדָה — an animal whose entire hide has been removed (later in the masechet a tereifa per the Sages). The Gemara excludes it differently: rather than re-counting, it says Rabbi Yishmael follows Rabbi Meir, who deems a flayed animal kosher. Since for Rabbi Meir this is not a tereifa at all, it never threatens the count of eighteen.
Key Terms:
- גְּלוּדָה (geluda) = an animal whose entire hide has been flayed off; a disputed tereifa
- דְּמַכְשַׁיר (demakhshir) = “who deems kosher/valid” — Rabbi Meir’s lenient ruling on the flayed animal
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Swapping out the gallbladder (an individual’s view) for the shriveled lung
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא אִיכָּא חֲרוּתָא? מָרָה – מַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אַפֵּיק מָרָה, וְעַיֵּיל חֲרוּתָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
To accommodate the case of a shriveled lung (חֲרוּתָא), the Gemara again trades cases — but this time on the basis of authority. The perforated gallbladder (מָרָה) in the mishna reflects only the individual view of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda; since it is not a consensus tereifa, Rabbi Yishmael can drop it and insert the universally-accepted shriveled lung. The principle: a case taught by a single Sage is more dispensable from the canonical eighteen than a generally-accepted one.
Key Terms:
- חֲרוּתָא (charuta) = a shriveled/dried-out lung, a tereifa
- מָרָה (mara) = the gallbladder
- מַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ (man katanei lah) = “who teaches it?” — identifying whether a case is consensus or an individual opinion (here Rabbi Yosei b’Rabbi Yehuda)
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
The seven amoraic tereifot (part 1): dislocated femur, diseased kidney, perforated spleen
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now lists the “seven teachings” (שַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא) of amoraic tereifot — beginning with three: a completely dislocated femoral head (בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא); a diseased kidney; and a perforated spleen (even though a fully removed spleen is kosher). These amoraic additions far exceed the count, intensifying the challenge to “eighteen and no more.” The Gemara will answer in segment 9 by collapsing all the mishna’s perforation cases into one slot.
Key Terms:
- בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא (buka de’atma) = the head/ball of the femur (hip joint); a tereifa if fully dislocated (שַׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ)
- לָקְתָה בְּכוּלְיָא (lakta bekhulya) = “stricken/diseased in a kidney”
- טְחוֹל (techol) = the spleen — kosher if removed, but a tereifa if perforated (per Rav Avira in Rava’s name)
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
The seven amoraic tereifot (part 2): detached simanim, uprooted rib, crushed skull, torn rumen-flesh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara completes the seven amoraic tereifot: mostly-detached simanim (the windpipe and gullet loosened from their attachments); a rib uprooted with half its vertebra; a mostly-crushed skull (even with intact membranes); and a tear in the majority of the flesh covering the rumen. Together with the three from the previous segment, these are the שַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא — seven post-mishnaic additions. The sheer number forces the Gemara’s next move: counting all the mishna’s perforations as a single case to make room.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ (simanim shenidaldelu) = the windpipe and gullet that became loosened/detached from their moorings
- נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מֵעִיקָּרָהּ (ne’ekra tzela me’ikara) = “a rib uprooted from its root” (with half the vertebra)
- גּוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה (gulgolet shenechbesa) = a skull that was mostly crushed/stove in
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Counting all eight perforation-cases as one frees seven slots for the amoraic tereifot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נְקוּבֵי תְּמָנְיָא הָווּ, חַשְׁבִינְהוּ בְּחַד, אַפֵּיק שַׁב, וְעַיֵּיל שַׁב.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s boldest accounting move: the mishna lists eight separate “perforation” tereifot (gullet, brain-membrane, heart, lung, abomasum, gallbladder, intestines, rumen), but since they share the single category of נְקוּבָה (perforation), Rabbi Yishmael counts them all as one. This collapses eight cases into one, freeing seven slots — exactly enough to insert the seven amoraic teachings. The eighteen is preserved by treating “perforation” as a unified type rather than eight discrete cases.
Key Terms:
- נְקוּבֵי תְּמָנְיָא (nekuvei temanya) = “eight perforations” — the eight perforation-tereifot of the mishna, grouped as one category
- אַפֵּיק שַׁב וְעַיֵּיל שַׁב (apeik shav ve’ayyel shav) = “remove seven and insert seven” — the large-scale version of the trade, balancing the count
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
A two-pronged challenge to the “count perforations as one” answer (continued on Daf 43)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, פְּסוּקֵי נָמֵי תְּרֵי הָווּ, חַשְּׁבִינְהוּ בְּחַד, בָּצַר לְהוּ חֲדָא, וְעוֹד, דְּרַב עַוִּירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא נָמֵי נְקוּבָה הִיא!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf ends with a sharp two-part challenge to the “count-perforations-as-one” logic. First: by the same reasoning, the two cut cases (the spinal cord and windpipe, both פְּסוּקָה) should also collapse into one, dropping the count to seventeen. Second: if all perforations are a single category, then a perforated spleen (Rav Avira’s tereifa) is itself a perforation and cannot be added as a new case — leaving the count two short. This unresolved tension propels the discussion into Daf 43.
Key Terms:
- פְּסוּקֵי (pesukei) = “cut [cases]” — the two severance-tereifot (spinal cord and windpipe)
- בָּצַר לְהוּ (batzar lehu) = “they fall short” — the count drops below eighteen
- וְעוֹד (ve’od) = “and furthermore” — introducing a second, independent objection