Chullin Daf 43 (חולין דף מ״ג)
Daf: 43 | Amudim: 43a – 43b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (43a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Resolution of the count: keep the two excluded cases in, restoring the number eighteen
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא הָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי דְּאַפֵּקְתְּ, לָא תַּפֵּיק.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment closes the elaborate bookkeeping from Daf 42 about how to arrive at exactly eighteen tereifot. The Gemara resolves the running tally by reversing two earlier exclusions: the severed-leg animal and the flayed animal (גלודה) should not be removed from the count after all. With those two reinstated, the total returns to the canonical eighteen, salvaging the tradition that “eighteen tereifot were stated to Moshe at Sinai.”
Key Terms:
- אַפֵּיק / תַּפֵּיק (apeik / tapeik) = “remove” — the running technique of adding and subtracting cases to maintain a fixed count of eighteen
- הָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי (hanakh tartei) = “those two” — the severed-leg and flayed (גלודה) animals reinstated to the list
Segment 2
TYPE: שיטת אמורא
Ulla: there are eight CATEGORIES of tereifa from Sinai, excluding a diseased organ
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר עוּלָּא: שְׁמֹנָה מִינֵי טְרֵפוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה בְּסִינַי – נְקוּבָה, וּפְסוּקָה, נְטוּלָה, וַחֲסוּרָה, קְרוּעָה, וּדְרוּסָה, נְפוּלָה, וּשְׁבוּרָה. לְאַפּוֹקֵי לָקוּתָא דְּרָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla reframes the entire discussion: rather than counting eighteen specific cases, he teaches that there are eight categories (מינים) of tereifa given at Sinai — perforated, severed, removed, missing, torn, clawed, fallen, and broken. Every individual tereifa in the Mishna and the amoraic additions sorts into one of these eight headings. The Gemara observes that Ulla’s scheme deliberately excludes the “diseased organ” (לקותא) that Rakhish bar Pappa applied to a kidney, since disease fits none of the eight categories — so Ulla does not deem a diseased kidney a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמֹנָה מִינֵי טְרֵפוֹת (shemonah minei tereifot) = the eight categories of tereifa transmitted at Sinai (as opposed to eighteen specific cases)
- לְאַפּוֹקֵי (le’apukei) = “to the exclusion of” — to rule out a case that does not fit
- לָקוּתָא (lakuta) = a diseased/stricken organ, which Ulla holds does not render an animal a tereifa
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Chiyya bar Rava enumerates the eight perforation-tereifot; the gallbladder is only an individual view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר חִיָּיא בַּר רָבָא: שְׁמֹנָה טְרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ בִּנְקוּבָה, אִם תֹּאמַר תֵּשַׁע – מָרָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קָתָנֵי לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: נִיקְּבָה הַקֵּיבָה, נִיקְּבוּ הַדַּקִּים – טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף נִיקְּבָה הַמָּרָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Chiyya bar Rava itemizes the eight perforation-tereifot within Ulla’s single “perforated” category, accounting for the consensus count. To pre-empt the objection that the Mishna seems to list nine perforations (including the gallbladder), he points out that the perforated gallbladder is taught only by Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda — an individual opinion, not the anonymous consensus — and so does not enter the count. This connects directly to the earlier discussion on Daf 42 where the gallbladder was dropped as a lone view.
Key Terms:
- נְקוּבָה (nekuva) = the “perforated” category of tereifa, encompassing eight specific organs
- קֵיבָה (keiva) = the abomasum (fourth stomach chamber)
- מָרָה (mara) = the gallbladder, whose perforation is a tereifa only per Rabbi Yosei b’Rabbi Yehuda
Segment 4
TYPE: סימן
A mnemonic for the coming statements of Rabbi Yitzchak son of Rabbi Yosef
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(הִלְכוֹת חָבֵר כְּזַיִת מָרָה וְקוּרְקְבָן – סִימָן).
English Translation:
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following statements of Rabbi Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef: Halakhot, friend, olive-bulk, gallbladder, and gizzard.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a סימן — a memory device the Gemara inserts to help students retain the sequence of upcoming teachings. Each word hooks one of the five statements Rabbi Yitzchak son of Rabbi Yosef will report in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: the halakha rulings, the friends’ response to Rabbi Yosei (חָבֵר), the olive-bulk (kezayit) of liver, the gallbladder (mara), and the gizzard (kurkevan). Such mnemonics are common in the Talmud, where the text was transmitted orally and precise ordering mattered.
Key Terms:
- סִימָן (siman) = a mnemonic device cuing the order of a series of statements
- קוּרְקְבָן (kurkevan) = the gizzard (of a bird)
Segment 5
TYPE: פסק הלכה
Rabbi Yochanan rules that a perforated gallbladder IS a tereifa, against Chiyya bar Rava
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first of the five mnemonic-cued rulings: Rabbi Yochanan, against Chiyya bar Rava, paskens like Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda — a perforated gallbladder does render the animal a tereifa. This is the practical halakha that becomes codified later. The next segments will defend this ruling against an apparent counterexample and refine its scope.
Key Terms:
- הֲלָכָה כְּ… (halakha ke…) = “the halakha follows [the opinion of]” — a formula stating the binding ruling
- רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן (Rabbi Yochanan) = the leading Eretz Yisrael Amora whose rulings are frequently authoritative
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
The Job objection: a perforated gallbladder seems survivable; answered as a miracle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי אַהְדַּרוּ לֵיהּ חַבְרֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? ״יִשְׁפּוֹךְ לָאָרֶץ מֵרָרָתִי״, וַעֲדַיִין אִיּוֹב קַיָּים. אָמַר לָהֶם: אֵין מַזְכִּירִין מַעֲשֵׂה נִסִּים, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי ״יְפַלַּח כִּלְיוֹתַי וְלֹא יַחְמוֹל״ – מִי קָא חָיֵי? אֶלָּא נִיסָּא שָׁאנֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״רַק אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ שְׁמֹר״. הָכָא נָמֵי נִיסָּא שָׁאנֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara records the original debate behind the ruling. Rabbi Yosei’s colleagues challenged him from a verse in Iyov (Job 16:13) — “He pours out my gall upon the ground” — yet Iyov lived, seeming to prove that a pierced gallbladder is survivable. Rabbi Yosei deflects: one cannot derive halakha from miracles (אֵין מַזְכִּירִין מַעֲשֵׂה נִסִּים), for the same verse says God “cleaves my kidneys” — and cleaved kidneys are certainly fatal. Since God told the Satan “only spare his life” (Job 2:6), Iyov’s survival was openly miraculous and therefore proves nothing about the natural rule.
Key Terms:
- אֵין מַזְכִּירִין מַעֲשֵׂה נִסִּים (ein mazkirin ma’aseh nissim) = “one does not cite miraculous events” as a basis for normative halakha
- מֵרָרָתִי (mereirati) = “my gall/gallbladder” (Iyov 16:13)
- רַק אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ שְׁמֹר (rak et nafsho shemor) = “only spare his life” (Iyov 2:6) — proof that Iyov’s survival was a miracle
Segment 7
TYPE: פסק הלכה
Rabbi Yochanan: a removed liver leaving an olive-bulk is kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר כְּזַיִת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third ruling addresses the Mishna’s “removed liver” tereifa. The Mishna disqualifies an animal whose liver was removed and “nothing remained.” Rabbi Yochanan rules like the view that a kezayit (olive-bulk) of liver remaining is enough to keep the animal kosher — i.e., the disqualification requires losing essentially the entire liver, not merely most of it. The next segment will challenge this from the Mishna’s own wording.
Key Terms:
- כְּזַיִת (kezayit) = an olive-bulk; the minimum residual liver that keeps the animal kosher
- כָּבֵד (kaved) = the liver
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A contradiction from “halakha follows the anonymous mishna”; resolved as a dispute among Amoraim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה, וּתְנַן: נִיטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּלוּם – הָא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר כְּשֵׁרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָוֵי כְּזַיִת! אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara spots a tension within Rabbi Yochanan’s own positions. Rabba bar bar Chana reports Rabbi Yochanan’s general principle that “the halakha follows an anonymous mishna” (סְתַם מִשְׁנָה). But our anonymous Mishna disqualifies only when “nothing remained” of the liver — implying that any remnant, even less than an olive-bulk, keeps it kosher, contradicting the olive-bulk ruling just cited. The resolution: these are two Amoraim (Rabbi Yitzchak b’Rabbi Yosef vs. Rabba bar bar Chana) who disagree about what Rabbi Yochanan actually held — a reminder that amoraic traditions about an earlier master can conflict.
Key Terms:
- סְתַם מִשְׁנָה (setam mishna) = an unattributed/anonymous mishna, whose ruling Rabbi Yochanan generally treats as authoritative
- אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּ… (amora’ei ninhu ve’aliba de…) = “they are Amoraim [disputing] according to [the view of]” — two traditions clash over what an earlier Sage held
Segment 9
TYPE: פסק הלכה
Rabbi Yochanan: a perforated gallbladder sealed by the liver is kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָרָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, וְכָבֵד סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The fourth ruling refines the gallbladder halakha just established. Although Rabbi Yochanan holds a perforated gallbladder is a tereifa, here he qualifies: if the perforation is against the liver and the liver tissue itself seals (סוֹתַמְתָּהּ) the hole, the animal remains kosher. The principle is that an adjacent organ plugging a perforation neutralizes the defect — a recurring theme in the laws of tereifot, where a sealed hole is not treated as an open perforation.
Key Terms:
- סוֹתַמְתָּהּ (sotamtah) = “seals it” — adjacent liver tissue closing the gallbladder’s perforation
- סְתִימָה (setima) = a seal/plug that neutralizes a perforation and keeps the animal kosher
Segment 10
TYPE: פסק הלכה
Rabbi Yochanan: a perforated gizzard is kosher if its inner lining (sac) is intact
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נִיקַּב הַקּוּרְקְבָן וְכִיס שֶׁלּוֹ קַיָּים – כָּשֵׁר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The fifth ruling introduces a key anatomical principle: the gizzard (קוּרְקְבָן) of a bird has two layers — an outer muscular wall and an inner membranous sac (כִּיס). Rabbi Yochanan rules that even though a perforated gizzard is normally a tereifa, if only the outer wall is pierced while the inner sac remains intact, the bird is kosher. The two-layered structure means each layer can independently protect the organ — a concept the Gemara now explores further with the parallel two-layered gullet.
Key Terms:
- קוּרְקְבָן (kurkevan) = the gizzard, the muscular grinding stomach of a bird
- כִּיס (kis) = the inner membranous sac/lining of the gizzard; if intact, an outer perforation does not disqualify
Segment 11
TYPE: בעיא
The inverse question (inner sac pierced, outer wall intact); the two layers of the gullet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נִיקַּב הַכִּיס וְקוּרְקְבָן קַיָּים, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: נִיקַּב זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה – כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁנֵי עוֹרוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ לַוֶּושֶׁט, חִיצוֹן אָדוֹם וּפְנִימִי לָבָן, נִיקַּב זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה – כָּשֵׁר. לְמָה לִי לְמֵימַר חִיצוֹן אָדוֹם וּפְנִימִי לָבָן? דְּאִי חַלֵּיף – טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks the inverse: what if the inner sac is pierced while the outer gizzard wall stays intact? It seeks a proof from Rav Nachman’s parallel rule for the gullet (וֶושֶׁט), which likewise has two linings — only when both are perforated is the animal a tereifa; one alone is kosher. Rava adds the diagnostic detail that the gullet’s outer lining is red and the inner white, which serves a practical purpose: if the colors are switched (the outer turned white, the inner red), that abnormal coloring itself signals injury and the animal is a tereifa. This two-layer principle governs the rest of the gullet discussion on the daf.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵי עוֹרוֹת (shenei orot) = the two linings/layers of the gullet (and gizzard): outer red, inner white
- נִיקַּב זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה (nikav ze belo ze) = “one was perforated without the other” — a single-layer perforation, which keeps the animal kosher
- דְּאִי חַלֵּיף (de’i challeif) = “if they were switched” — abnormal coloring of the linings indicates a disqualifying injury
Segment 12
TYPE: בעיא
Both layers pierced but not aligned: gullet vs. gizzard, and Rav Ashi’s reversal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נִיקְּבוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה, מַהוּ? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: בַּוֶּושֶׁט – כָּשֵׁר, בַּקּוּרְקְבָן – פָּסוּל. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אַדְּרַבָּה, וֶושֶׁט דְּאָכְלָה בֵּיהּ וּפָעְיָא בֵּיהּ רָוַוח, גָּמְדָא לֵיהּ וּפָשְׁטָה לֵיהּ, זִמְנִין דְּמִיהַנְדְּזִין בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי; קוּרְקְבָן דְּמֵינָח נָיַיח, כִּדְקָאֵי קָאֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּמָר זוּטְרָא, דְּאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא כְּוָותָיךְ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A deeper question: if both layers are pierced but the two holes are not aligned, does the organ count as fully perforated? Mar Zutra (citing Rav Pappa) first rules the gullet kosher but the gizzard disqualified. Rav Ashi reverses the logic with a physiological argument: the gullet constantly moves (eating, lowing), so its mobile layers can shift until the two holes momentarily align — making it a tereifa; the gizzard is stationary, so its misaligned holes never meet — keeping it kosher. Rav Acha then confirms that Mar Zutra’s tradition of Rav Pappa actually matches Rav Ashi’s reasoning, vindicating his objection.
Key Terms:
- זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה (ze shelo keneged ze) = “one not opposite the other” — the two layer-perforations are offset, not aligned
- מִיהַנְדְּזִין (mihandezin) = “they align/line up” — the holes coinciding due to the organ’s movement
- דְּמֵינָח נָיַיח (demeinach nayach) = “it rests at rest” — the gizzard’s immobility, which keeps offset holes from ever aligning
Segment 13
TYPE: שיטת אמורא
Rabba: a scab does not seal a gullet perforation; the gullet must be inspected from inside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: קְרוּם שֶׁעָלָה מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה בַּוֶּושֶׁט, אֵינוֹ קְרוּם. וְאָמַר רַבָּה: וֶושֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה מִבַּחוּץ, אֶלָּא בִּפְנִים. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ?
English Translation:
§ 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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba offers two related rulings about the gullet. First, a scab-membrane (קרום) that grows over a wound does not count as a genuine sealing membrane — the perforation it covers still renders the animal a tereifa, because such regrowth is not original healthy tissue. Second, because the gullet’s outer lining is naturally red, injury-redness cannot be detected from the outside; it must be inspected from the inside, where the white lining will reveal any bloody discoloration. The Gemara then asks for the practical case in which such inside-inspection matters — answered at the top of amud bet.
Key Terms:
- קְרוּם שֶׁעָלָה מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה (kerum she’ala mechamat maka) = a scab-membrane that grew over a wound; not a valid seal against tereifa status
- בְּדִיקָה מִבִּפְנִים (bedika mibifnim) = inspection from the inside, since the outer red lining hides injury
Amud Bet (43b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The practical case for inside-inspection: an animal uncertainly clawed (sefek derusa)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The halakha is necessary for a case in which it was uncertain whether an animal was clawed by a predator. If the animal was in fact clawed, the gullet would have become red. Since the outer lining is always red, the gullet must be checked on the inside to ascertain whether it is still white.
קלאוד על הדף:
This answers the question that closed amud aleph: when does inside-inspection of the gullet actually matter? In a case of sefek derusa — uncertainty whether a predator clawed the animal. A predator’s venomous clawing reddens the flesh, but since the gullet’s outer lining is already red, the telltale reddening would be invisible there. One must therefore turn the gullet inside-out and inspect the normally-white inner lining, where abnormal redness would betray the clawing.
Key Terms:
- סְפֵק דְּרוּסָה (sefek derusa) = uncertainty whether an animal was clawed by a predator; requires inspection
- דְּרוּסָה (derusa) = the venomous claw-strike of a predator, one of the eight categories of tereifa
Segment 2
TYPE: מעשה
A case before Rabba: Abaye catches an apparent inconsistency, but Rabba was only sharpening him
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהִיא סְפֵק דְּרוּסָה דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, הֲוָה קָא בָּדֵיק לֵיהּ רַבָּה לְוֶושֶׁט מֵאַבָּרַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מָר הוּא דְּאָמַר: וֶושֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה אֶלָּא מִבִּפְנִים! אַפְכֵיהּ רַבָּה וּבַדְקֵיהּ, וְאִישְׁתְּכַח עֲלֵיהּ תְּרֵי קוּרְטֵי דְּמָא, וְטַרְפַהּ. וְרַבָּה נָמֵי לְחַדּוֹדֵי לְאַבָּיֵי הוּא דְּבָעֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts the case of a certain animal concerning which it was uncertain whether it was clawed by a predator, which came before Rabba. Rabba was checking its gullet from the outside. Abaye said to him: But isn’t it you, Master, who says: The gullet may be inspected only from the inside? Rabba turned over the gullet and checked it from the inside, and found on it two drops of blood, and deemed it a tereifa due to clawing. The Gemara notes: And Rabba as well desired only to sharpen Abaye by inducing him to ask. He did not forget his own statement.
קלאוד על הדף:
A vivid illustration of the previous ruling in action — and a glimpse of the famous Rabba-Abaye relationship. When a sefek derusa animal comes before Rabba, he begins inspecting the gullet from the outside, prompting his young student Abaye to challenge him with Rabba’s own teaching. Rabba then turns the gullet inside-out, finds two drops of blood, and declares it a tereifa. The Gemara reassures us that Rabba had not forgotten his own ruling; he deliberately erred to sharpen (לְחַדּוֹדֵי) Abaye — a recognized pedagogic technique of provoking a sharp student to think and object.
Key Terms:
- לְחַדּוֹדֵי (lechaddudei) = “to sharpen” — a teacher’s deliberate provocation to stimulate a student’s critical thinking
- תְּרֵי קוּרְטֵי דְּמָא (terei kurtei dema) = “two drops of blood” — the sign of clawing found on the inner gullet lining
Segment 3
TYPE: שיטת אמורא
Ulla: a thorn lodged in the gullet raises no concern that it once perforated and healed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר עוּלָּא: יָשַׁב לוֹ קוֹץ בַּוֶּושֶׁט, אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא הִבְרִיא.
English Translation:
Ulla says: If a thorn sat in the animal’s gullet but did not perforate the outer lining, one need not be concerned that perhaps it perforated the outer lining beforehand and the perforation healed and a scab formed over it, in which case the animal would be a tereifa, as stated above. Rather, one assumes that the thorn never perforated the outer lining and the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla applies the principle of presumption (חזקה) to a practical worry: a thorn found lodged in the gullet, with the outer lining currently intact. Given Rabba’s rule that a healed scab does not redeem a perforation, one might fear the thorn had earlier pierced the lining and the hole then scabbed over invisibly. Ulla rules we do not presume such a hidden history — the lining looks whole, so we treat it as having always been whole, and the animal is kosher. This launches a series of four challenges (cued by the next segment’s mnemonic) probing why uncertainty is resolved leniently here.
Key Terms:
- יָשַׁב לוֹ קוֹץ (yashav lo kotz) = “a thorn sat [lodged]” in the gullet
- אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין (ein chosheshin) = “we are not concerned” — we do not entertain a remote, unproven possibility
- שֶׁמָּא הִבְרִיא (shema hivri) = “lest it healed” — the worry that a prior perforation scabbed over
Segment 4
TYPE: סימן
A mnemonic for the four upcoming challenges to Ulla’s lenient presumption
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(דָּרַס חֲתִיכוֹת בְּסַכִּין טְמֵאָה, סִימָן)
English Translation:
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following questions with regard to Ulla’s statement: Clawed, pieces, with a knife, ritually impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another memory device, cuing the four parallel cases the Gemara will raise against Ulla’s leniency. Each word flags one challenge: clawed (the sefek derusa, where we are concerned), pieces (the two pieces of fat, one forbidden), with a knife (a knife found notched after slaughter), and ritually impure (uncertainty about impurity in a private domain). In each, uncertainty is resolved stringently — so why is Ulla’s thorn-case treated leniently? The next four segments answer that question.
Key Terms:
- סִימָן (siman) = a mnemonic cuing a series of related discussions
- דָּרַס / חֲתִיכוֹת / סַכִּין / טְמֵאָה (daras / chatikhot / sakin / temei’a) = “clawed / pieces / knife / impure” — the four challenge-cases
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge 1 (clawing): why is the thorn different? Ulla simply isn’t concerned for sefek derusa either
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְעוּלָּא, מַאי שְׁנָא מִסְּפֵק דְּרוּסָה? קָסָבַר עוּלָּא אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But according to Ulla, given that this is a case of uncertainty, in what way is it different from a case of uncertainty as to whether an animal was clawed, where the animal must be checked and cannot be presumed kosher? The Gemara responds: Ulla holds that one need not be concerned with regard to an uncertainty as to whether the animal was clawed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first challenge: doesn’t a sefek derusa require investigation (as in Rabba’s case above) — so why is Ulla lenient about the thorn? The Gemara answers consistently: Ulla himself maintains that one need not be concerned about a mere uncertainty of clawing (אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה). For Ulla there is no contradiction, because he applies the same lenient presumption across the board — uncertainty alone does not generate a prohibition.
Key Terms:
- מַאי שְׁנָא (mai shna) = “what is the difference?” — a formula challenging an apparent inconsistency
- אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִסְפֵק דְּרוּסָה (ein chosheshin lisefek derusa) = Ulla’s view that mere uncertainty of clawing does not require concern
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge 2 (two pieces of fat): there, a prohibition was established; here, none was
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִשְּׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב וְאַחַת שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן? הָתָם אִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from a case where there were two pieces of fat before a person, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, and the person ate one piece but does not know which one, where the halakha is that one must bring a provisional guilt offering due to the possibility that he consumed forbidden fat? Evidently, one may not presume that an item is permitted in a case of uncertainty. The Gemara responds: There, one finds a presumption of prohibition, since one of the pieces is certainly prohibited. Here, with regard to the thorn, there is no presumption of prohibition.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second challenge invokes the classic case of two pieces — one forbidden cheilev (forbidden fat), one permitted shuman — where eating one of unknown identity obligates a provisional guilt offering. There, uncertainty is treated stringently. The Gemara distinguishes: in the fat case a prohibition was established (אִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא) — one piece is definitely forbidden, so the doubt arises against a backdrop of real prohibition. With the thorn, no prohibition was ever established; the gullet is presumed intact, so there is nothing to override the lenient presumption.
Key Terms:
- חֵלֶב / שׁוּמָּן (cheilev / shuman) = forbidden fat (punishable by karet) vs. permitted fat
- אִיתַּחְזַק אִיסּוּרָא (itchazak issura) = “a prohibition was established” — a known forbidden item is in the mix, so doubt is treated stringently
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge 3 (notched knife): there, a defect was born in the knife; here, the wall is presently intact
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין, וְנִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה? הָתָם אִיתְיְילִיד לַהּ רֵיעוּתָא בְּסַכִּין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And in what way is the case of the thorn different from the case of one who slaughters with a knife that was previously checked for flaws but was then found to be notched after the slaughter? In that case, it is uncertain whether the notch existed at the time of slaughter, yet the animal is prohibited. The Gemara responds: There, a deficiency was born in the knife. Accordingly, one must be concerned that it was notched beforehand as well. By contrast, the wall of the gullet is currently intact, and one may therefore presume that it was intact beforehand as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third challenge: a knife found notched (פְּגוּמָה) after slaughter retroactively invalidates the slaughter, even though the notch might have formed afterward — so why not be similarly stringent with the thorn? The Gemara distinguishes on the basis of present evidence: in the knife case a defect is now visibly present (אִיתְיְילִיד רֵיעוּתָא), so one reasonably fears it predated the act. With the thorn, the gullet wall is presently intact — there is no current flaw to project backward — so the presumption of wholeness stands.
Key Terms:
- נִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה (nimtzeit peguma) = “found notched” — a slaughtering knife discovered defective afterward, invalidating the slaughter
- אִיתְיְילִיד לַהּ רֵיעוּתָא (ityelid lah ri’uta) = “a flaw was born to it” — a presently-visible defect that warrants retroactive concern
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge 4 (doubtful impurity): the private-domain rule is a unique tradition learned from sota
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִסְּפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, דִּסְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, נִידַמְּיֵיהּ לִסְפֵק טוּמְאָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, דִּסְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר! אֶלָּא הָתָם, הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ מִסּוֹטָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from an uncertainty with regard to ritual impurity in a private domain, whose uncertainty is presumed impure? The Gemara responds: But according to your reasoning, let us compare it instead to uncertainty with regard to impurity in a public domain, whose uncertainty is presumed pure. Rather, there, with regard to the presumption of impurity in a private domain and purity in a public domain, the Sages learned this halakha through tradition from the halakha of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]. Therefore, one cannot extend it to other cases.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final challenge: doubtful impurity in a private domain is ruled impure — stringent. The Gemara first parries that, by that logic, one could equally compare the thorn to doubtful impurity in a public domain, which is ruled pure — lenient. So this case proves nothing either way. The real point: the private/public impurity rules are a gezeira shava-type tradition derived from sota (the suspected wife), a sui generis halakha that cannot be exported to govern other uncertainties. Ulla’s lenient presumption about the thorn therefore stands unchallenged.
Key Terms:
- סְפֵק טוּמְאָה (sefek tum’a) = doubtful ritual impurity; impure in a private domain (רשות היחיד), pure in a public domain (רשות הרבים)
- הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ מִסּוֹטָה (hilkheta gemiri lah misota) = “they learned this halakha by tradition from sota” — a unique derivation that cannot be generalized to other doubts
Segment 9
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Kahana corrects a student on the precise scope of Ulla’s thorn ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: ״נִמְצֵאת״ אִתְּמַר, אֲבָל יָשַׁב – חָיְישִׁינַן. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב כָּהֲנָא: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, ״יָשַׁב״ אִיתְּמַר, אֲבָל נִמְצֵאת – לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְעוּלָּא, דְּכוּלְּהוּ חֵיוֵי בָּרָיָיתָא קוֹצֵי אָכְלָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that one of the Sages was sitting before Rav Kahana, and he was sitting and saying: It was stated that one need not be concerned that the thorn perforated the linings of the gullet only if it was found loose inside the gullet. But if it sat embedded in the gullet wall, we must be concerned that the outer lining was perforated and later healed, rendering the animal a tereifa. Rav Kahana said to the other Sages: Do not listen to him. Rather, it was stated that one need not be concerned about a possible perforation if the thorn sat embedded in the gullet wall. But in a case where it was simply found there loose, it was not necessary for Ulla to say that the animal is kosher, since all animals that live outside eat thorns, and it is reasonable to expect to find them in the gullet without presuming injury.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara fixes the precise scope of Ulla’s ruling against a misreading. A student claimed the leniency applies only to a thorn found loose in the gullet, but a thorn embedded in the wall should raise concern. Rav Kahana reverses this: Ulla’s novel teaching is specifically about the embedded thorn (where there is genuine reason to suspect it pierced), whereas a merely loose thorn needs no ruling at all — animals routinely swallow thorns while grazing, so finding one loose is utterly unremarkable. The chiddush lies precisely where the worry is greatest.
Key Terms:
- יָשַׁב vs. נִמְצֵאת (yashav / nimtzeit) = a thorn “embedded/seated” in the wall vs. one merely “found” loose in the cavity
- כּוּלְּהוּ חֵיוֵי בָּרָיָיתָא קוֹצֵי אָכְלָן (kulhu cheivei barayata kotzei akhlan) = “all wild/grazing animals eat thorns” — so a loose thorn is expected and raises no suspicion
Segment 10
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Rav vs. Shmuel on a perforated entrance of the gullet (turbatz havesht)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר: תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט – רַב אָמַר: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּרוּבּוֹ. רַב אָמַר בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ: מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בְּרוּבּוֹ: לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if the gullet was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. It was stated: In a case where the entrance [turbatz] of the gullet from the pharynx was perforated, Rav says: The animal is a tereifa if any part of the gullet was perforated. And Shmuel says: It is a tereifa only if its majority was perforated. Rav says: If any part was perforated, because he holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter and is therefore considered part of the gullet. And Shmuel says: If its majority was perforated, because he holds that it is not a location fit for slaughter and is not considered part of the gullet.
קלאוד על הדף:
Returning to the Mishna’s “perforated gullet,” the Gemara opens a Rav-Shmuel dispute about the turbatz — the upper entrance of the gullet near the pharynx. Rav rules that even the slightest (בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ) perforation there makes a tereifa, because he considers the turbatz a valid place of slaughter and thus full-fledged gullet. Shmuel requires perforation of its majority (בְּרוּבּוֹ), because he holds the turbatz is not a valid slaughter-site and so is not true gullet. The dispute over its status will be tested in the bull case that follows.
Key Terms:
- תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט (turbatz havesht) = the upper entrance/vestibule of the gullet, bordering the pharynx
- בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ / בְּרוּבּוֹ (bemashehu / berubo) = “the slightest amount” vs. “its majority” — the threshold of disqualifying perforation
- מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה (mekom shechita) = a location valid for ritual slaughter; whether the turbatz qualifies is the crux of the dispute
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Defining the boundaries of the turbatz: the cut-and-widen vs. cut-and-constrict tests
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵי נִיהוּ תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט? אָמַר מָרִי בַּר מָר עוּקְבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וּמַרְחִיב – זֶה הוּא תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, חוֹתְכוֹ וְעוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ – זֶהוּ וֶושֶׁט עַצְמוֹ. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פַּפֵּי: מָר לָא אָמַר הָכִי, וּמַנּוּ? רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי. אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וְעוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ – זֶה תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, אֶלָּא אֵיזֶהוּ וֶושֶׁט עַצְמוֹ? כֹּל שֶׁחוֹתְכוֹ וְכָוֵיץ. יוֹנָה אָמַר זֵירָא: מַבְלַעְתָּא, וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב אַוְיָא: פָּחוּת מִשְּׂעָרְתָּא וַעֲדִיף מֵחִיטְּתָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: Which area is the entrance of the gullet? Mari bar Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: All of the area that widens outward when cut along its width, this is the entrance of the gullet; all the area that remains in place when cut, this is the gullet itself. Rav Pappi said to them: Master did not say so. And who is that Master? It is Rav Beivai bar Abaye. Rather, he said that all of the area that remains in place when cut, this is the entrance of the gullet. But which area, then, is the gullet itself? It is all of the area that constricts when cut and closes inward. The Sage Yona says in the name of Rabbi Zeira: The entrance of the gullet is only the area of the throat immediately bordering the gullet. And how much of the throat qualifies as the entrance of the gullet? Rav Avya said: Less than the length of a barley kernel and more than the length of a wheat kernel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Since the Rav-Shmuel dispute hinges on what counts as turbatz, the Gemara seeks anatomical criteria. Two accounts (Mari bar Mar Ukva vs. Rav Beivai bar Abaye) offer opposite “cut tests”: the area that widens when cut versus the area that stays in place versus the area that constricts inward — each demarcating turbatz from true gullet by how the tissue behaves under the knife. Yona, citing Rabbi Zeira, gives a measure: the turbatz is a tiny band of throat bordering the gullet, between the length of a wheat kernel and a barley kernel. These precise definitions matter because they determine which perforations fall under Rav’s strict “any amount” rule.
Key Terms:
- חוֹתְכוֹ וּמַרְחִיב / וְעוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ / וְכָוֵיץ (chotkho umarchiv / ve’omed bimkomo / vekhavetz) = the diagnostic behaviors when cut — widening, staying in place, or constricting — used to identify the turbatz
- פָּחוּת מִשְּׂעָרְתָּא וַעֲדִיף מֵחִיטְּתָא (pachot mise’arta va’adif mechitta) = “less than a barley-length and more than a wheat-length” — Rav Avya’s measure of the turbatz band
Segment 12
TYPE: מעשה
The bull of Rav Ukva’s sons: Rava imposes both stringencies and rules it a tereifa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא תּוֹרָא דַּהֲוָה לִבְנֵי רַב עוּקְבָא, דְּאַתְחֵיל בֵּיהּ שְׁחִיטָה בְּתוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט, וּגְמַר בְּוֶושֶׁט. אָמַר רָבָא: רָמֵינָא עֲלֵיהּ חוּמְרֵי דְּרַב וְחוּמְרֵי דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְטָרֵיפְנָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain bull that belonged to the sons of Rav Ukva, where its slaughter began with a small incision in the entrance of the gullet and concluded in its majority in the gullet. Rava said: I impose upon it the stringencies of Rav and the stringencies of Shmuel, and deem it a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
A real case tests the dispute: a bull whose slaughter began in the turbatz (a small incision) and was completed in the gullet proper. The status is genuinely uncertain — depending on whether the turbatz is a valid slaughter-site, the act might be valid or not. Rava takes the stringent path of both authorities at once (חוּמְרֵי דְּרַב וְחוּמְרֵי דִּשְׁמוּאֵל), ruling the bull a tereifa. The next segment unpacks how he combines the two views — and a later segment will challenge whether this double-stringency is legitimate.
Key Terms:
- אַתְחֵיל בֵּיהּ שְׁחִיטָה (atcheil beih shechita) = “the slaughter began” in the turbatz and concluded in the gullet
- חוּמְרֵי דְּרַב וְחוּמְרֵי דִּשְׁמוּאֵל (chumrei deRav vechumrei diShmuel) = imposing the stringencies of both Rav and Shmuel simultaneously
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
How Rava combines the two views to deem the bull a tereifa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוּמְרֵי דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. וְהָאָמַר רַב: מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא! כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא. אִי שְׁמוּאֵל, הָאָמַר: בְּרוּבּוֹ! כְּרַב, דְּאָמַר: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.
English Translation:
I impose the stringencies of Rav, as Rav said: The animal is a tereifa if any part of the entrance of the gullet was perforated before slaughter. Such is the case here, since the incision began in the entrance of the gullet. Perhaps one will ask: But doesn’t Rav say that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, in which case the initial incision should be considered the beginning of the act of slaughter? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says that it is not a location fit for slaughter. If one asks: If I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, doesn’t he say: It is a tereifa only if it was perforated in its majority? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: If any part was perforated. Consequently, I deem the animal a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava spells out his hybrid reasoning, taking each authority’s stringent half. From Rav he adopts “any amount in the turbatz disqualifies” (so the small initial incision counts as a perforation). But to avoid Rav’s lenient corollary that the turbatz is a valid slaughter-site (which would make the incision the start of a kosher slaughter), he borrows Shmuel’s view that the turbatz is not a slaughter-site. And to avoid Shmuel’s lenient “only a majority disqualifies,” he reverts to Rav’s “any amount.” By cherry-picking the strict element of each, Rava deems the bull a tereifa — a move the daf will soon call into question.
Key Terms:
- רָמֵינָא עֲלֵיהּ (raminna alei) = “I impose upon it” — applying a stringency
- combining חומרות (chumrot) = adopting the stringent element of two conflicting opinions, even where they rest on opposite reasoning
Segment 14
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Abba overrules Rava: the bull is kosher either way, and Rava must repay its value
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיגַּלְגַּל מִילְּתָא, מְטַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: תּוֹרָא, בֵּין לְרַב בֵּין לִשְׁמוּאֵל שְׁרֵי. זִילוּ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא, דִּלְשַׁלֵּים דְּמֵי תוֹרָא לְמָרֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that the matter circulated, and it came before Rabbi Abba, who said to his students: This bull is permitted for consumption, both according to Rav, who holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, and according to Shmuel, who holds that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated in its majority. Therefore, go tell the son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, i.e., Rava, that he is to pay the value of the bull to its owner, since he improperly deemed it a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba reverses Rava with the opposite logic — taking each authority’s lenient coherent position. According to Rav (turbatz is a slaughter-site), the initial incision began a valid slaughter, so the bull is kosher. According to Shmuel (only a majority perforation disqualifies), a tiny incision in the turbatz does nothing, so it is kosher. Either way the bull is permitted; Rava had no coherent authority for his ruling. Rabbi Abba therefore holds Rava financially liable — a striking instance of a judge who wrongly declared an animal a tereifa being made to pay its owner (דִּלְשַׁלֵּים דְּמֵי תוֹרָא).
Key Terms:
- אִיגַּלְגַּל מִילְּתָא (igalgal milta) = “the matter rolled on/circulated” until it reached a higher authority
- דִּלְשַׁלֵּים דְּמֵי תוֹרָא (dilshallem demei tora) = “that he should pay the value of the bull” — a judge’s liability for an erroneous tereifa ruling that caused loss
- בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא (breih deRav Yosef bar Chama) = Rava, identified by his patronym
Segment 15
TYPE: דרשה / מימרא
Mar son of Ravina refutes Rava: combining the leniencies of two schools makes one wicked — so too combining their stringencies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא: מוֹתְבִינָא תְּיוּבְתָּא כְּלַפֵּי סָנְאֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, לְעוֹלָם הִלְכְתָא כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וְהָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי – עוֹשֶׂה, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל – עוֹשֶׂה. מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית הִלֵּל – רָשָׁע.
English Translation:
Mar, son of Ravina, said: I offer a conclusive refutation to the enemies of Rava, a euphemism for Rava himself, from a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel may do so. But if one wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes by grounding Rabbi Abba’s critique in a famous principle. Mar son of Ravina cites the baraita on Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: one may follow either school consistently, but one who picks the leniencies of both is a “wicked person” (רָשָׁע) — an incoherent cherry-picker. Out of respect, the refutation is aimed at “the enemies of Rava” (a euphemism for Rava himself). The implication: just as combining both schools’ leniencies is illegitimate, so too Rava’s combining both Rav’s and Shmuel’s stringencies — taking incompatible halves of opposing views — is methodologically improper, confirming that the bull was wrongly condemned.
Key Terms:
- סָנְאֵיהּ דְּרָבָא (sanei deRava) = “the enemies of Rava” — a respectful euphemism for criticizing Rava himself
- מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית הִלֵּל – רָשָׁע (mikulei Beit Shammai umikulei Beit Hillel – rasha) = “one who takes the leniencies of both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is wicked” — one must follow a single coherent position, not cherry-pick