Chullin Daf 45 (חולין דף מ״ה)
Daf: 45 | Amudim: 45a – 45b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (45a)
Segment 1
TYPE: אגדתא
Closing line of an aggadic digression about accepting honor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִתְיַיקּוֹרֵי הוּא דְּמִתְיַיקְּרוּ בִּי.
English Translation:
It is an honor for them to honor me. My attendance is not for my benefit but for theirs.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the tail end of an aggadic discussion carried over from the previous daf, in which a Sage explains why he attends a certain gathering or accepts honor: the benefit flows to those who honor him, not to himself. The line serves as a transition, closing the digression before the Gemara plunges back into the technical laws of tereifot (animals with fatal defects that may not be eaten) that dominate this chapter (Eilu Tereifot).
Key Terms:
- אִתְיַיקּוֹרֵי (ityakorei) = to be honored; here, the honor redounds to those extending it
- Aggada = the non-legal, narrative/ethical portions of the Talmud, as opposed to halacha
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא — מימרא
Rav’s ruling on a windpipe perforated like a sieve
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: נִיקְּבָה כְּנָפָה – מִצְטָרְפִים לְרוּבָּא.
English Translation:
§ With regard to the halakha that a cut windpipe renders the animal a tereifa, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If the windpipe was perforated with a series of small holes around its circumference like a sieve, the small holes join together to constitute a majority of the circumference. Therefore, if their collective size is a majority of the circumference, the windpipe is considered cut.
קלאוד על הדף:
A fully severed windpipe (pesika) renders an animal a tereifa, and the mishna’s measure for “severed” is a majority of the circumference. Rav rules on a borderline case: when the windpipe is riddled with many tiny holes “like a sieve” (kanafa), the holes do not need to be measured against the issar standard (used for missing flesh); instead, their combined span is summed and compared to a majority of the circumference. The opening move sets up the whole sugya, which will distinguish between two different measures depending on whether tissue is merely perforated or actually missing.
Key Terms:
- נִיקְּבָה כְּנָפָה (nikba ke-napa) = perforated like a sieve — many small holes
- מִצְטָרְפִים (mitztarfim) = the holes join/combine together to reach the threshold measure
- רוּבָּא (ruba) = a majority (of the circumference), the measure for a “severed” windpipe
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא — מֵתִיב
Rav Yirmeya challenges Rav from the law of a perforated skull
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב יִרְמְיָה: וּבְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ נֶקֶב אֶחָד אָרוֹךְ, אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ בָּהּ נְקָבִים הַרְבֵּה – מִצְטָרְפִים לִמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ. אַלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּשִׁיעוּרַהּ מְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ – לִמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ מִצְטָרְפִין. הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּשִׁיעוּרֵיהּ כְּאִיסָּר – לִכְאִיסָּר מִצְטָרְפִין.
English Translation:
Rav Yirmeya raises an objection: The mishna teaches (Oholot 2:3) that if a skull of a corpse has a round hole at least the size of a drill bit used for surgery, then the skull does not impart ritual impurity in a tent. With regard to this, a baraita states: And in a skull that contains one long hole, or even if it has many small holes, the areas of the holes join together to constitute the size of a drill hole. Evidently, since the requisite measure is the size of a drill hole, the small holes join together to constitute the size of a drill hole, and not another measure. If so, here, too, in the case of the windpipe, since the requisite measure of a hole to render the animal a tereifa is the size of an issar (see 54a), the small holes should join together to constitute the size of an issar. Why must they constitute the majority of the circumference?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yirmeya presses a sharp analogy from the laws of ritual impurity. The mishna in Oholot sets the measure at which a perforated skull stops conveying tumah: a hole the size of a surgical drill bit. A baraita teaches that scattered small holes in that skull combine to that very measure — the drill-bit size. The principle Rav Yirmeya extracts is that combined small holes are summed against the standard measure of that body part. Since the standing measure for a hole in the windpipe is an issar (see 54a), small holes there should likewise combine to an issar, not to a “majority of the circumference” as Rav held.
Key Terms:
- מְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ (melo makde’ach) = the volume of a drill bit — the impurity measure for a holed skull
- אִיסָּר (issar) = a small Roman coin; the diameter standard for a hole in the windpipe
- אַלְמָא (alma) = “evidently / it follows that” — introduces the inference drawn from the source
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
The Gemara resolves the challenge: two kinds of holes, two measures
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא אָמַר רַב: נְקָבִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חֶסְרוֹן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְאִיסָּר, וְשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן חֶסְרוֹן מִצְטָרְפִין לְרוּבָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: It escaped him, i.e., Rav Yirmeya, that which Rabbi Ḥelbo says that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says that Rav says: Perforations that are a deficiency, i.e., holes of significant area, join together to constitute the size of an issar, and perforations that are not a deficiency, but are as small as the holes of a sieve, must join together to constitute a majority of the circumference, which is the measure of a cut windpipe. Since the holes are not substantial in area, the windpipe cannot be said to be missing a piece, but it may be considered cut.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution dissolves the contradiction by drawing a precise distinction within Rav’s own teaching, which Rav Yirmeya had overlooked. There are two categories of holes. Holes “with chisaron” — where actual tissue is gone — represent the defect of missing flesh, and these combine to the issar measure (matching the impurity analogy of the skull). Holes “without chisaron” — bare punctures like a sieve, with no real loss of substance — cannot make the windpipe “missing a piece”; they can only render it functionally severed, so they combine to a majority of the circumference. Rav’s original sieve ruling was thus about the second category, and the skull objection — about a chisaron-type measure — never applied.
Key Terms:
- אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ (ishtemittei) = “it escaped him” — he forgot/overlooked a relevant teaching
- חֶסְרוֹן (chisaron) = a deficiency; the actual loss of bodily tissue
- נְקָבִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חֶסְרוֹן = holes involving loss of substance → combine to an issar
- נְקָבִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן חֶסְרוֹן = mere punctures with no loss → combine to a majority
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא — מימרא ובעיא
A removed strip combines to an issar; the sieve question reaffirmed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נִיטְּלָה הֵימֶנָּה רְצוּעָה – מִצְטָרֶפֶת לִכְאִיסָּר. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי מֵרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נִיקְּבָה כְּנָפָה מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: נְקָבִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חִסָּרוֹן – מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְאִיסָּר, וְשֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן חִסָּרוֹן – מִצְטָרְפִין לְרוּבָּא.
English Translation:
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If a strip of the windpipe was removed from it, its area joins to constitute the size of an issar, even if the strip itself is narrower than an issar. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: If the windpipe was perforated like a sieve, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: The Sages said with regard to this case: Perforations that are a deficiency join together to constitute the size of an issar, and perforations that are not a deficiency join together to constitute a majority of the circumference.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi confirms the chisaron category from a different angle: a strip of tissue cut away is genuine missing flesh, so even though it is narrow, its total area combines to the issar threshold. When Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani then asks the sieve question, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi answers by reciting the same two-category rule from the previous segment — deficiency-holes to an issar, non-deficiency punctures to a majority. The repetition is the Gemara’s way of establishing this distinction as settled, transmitted law before moving to its harder edge cases.
Key Terms:
- נִיטְּלָה הֵימֶנָּה רְצוּעָה (nitla heimena retzu’a) = a strip was removed from it — a clear chisaron
- בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ (be’a minei) = “he asked of him” — a formal question posed to a master
Segment 6
TYPE: בעיא
What is the measure for a perforated windpipe in a bird?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעוֹפָא מַאי?
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a question: The measure of an issar for missing flesh in the windpipe applies only to animals. In birds, this cannot be the measure, as the entire width of the windpipe is less than the diameter of an issar. What, then, is the measure with regard to a bird?
קלאוד על הדף:
The issar standard runs into a practical problem with poultry: a bird’s whole windpipe is narrower than an issar coin, so a missing-flesh defect could never reach that measure, and the standard becomes meaningless. The Gemara therefore asks what alternative measure governs a deficiency in a bird’s windpipe. This is a classic Talmudic move — testing whether a measure conceived for one creature can be scaled or replaced for another.
Key Terms:
- בְּעוֹפָא (be-ofa) = “with regard to a bird” — of / poultry
- מַאי (mai) = “what [is the law]?” — opening of a halachic inquiry
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
The bird’s measure: fold the holed tissue over the windpipe’s mouth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מְקַפְּלוֹ וּמַנִּיחוֹ עַל פִּי הַקָּנֶה, אִם חוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַקָּנֶה – טְרֵפָה, וְאִם לָאו – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְסִימָנָיךְ – נָפְיָא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani said: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Elazar: One severs the perforated tissue, folds and lays it over the opening of the windpipe. If it covers the majority of the windpipe, the animal is a tereifa; and if not, the animal is kosher. Rav Pappa said: And your mnemonic for this halakha should be a sieve. If the tissue is perforated like a sieve, one must place it over the opening of the windpipe as if it were a sieve.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar’s elegant solution converts the absolute issar measure into a relative one suited to the bird. One detaches the perforated section, folds it, and lays it across the mouth of the windpipe: if the holed tissue still covers a majority of the windpipe’s opening, the loss is significant enough to render the bird a tereifa; if not, it is kosher. Rav Pappa’s mnemonic — picturing a sieve laid over the windpipe’s mouth — fixes the striking image in memory, and quietly echoes the kanafa (sieve) language that runs through the whole sugya.
Key Terms:
- לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי (le-didi miparsha li) = “it was explained to me personally” — a firsthand transmission
- מְקַפְּלוֹ וּמַנִּיחוֹ (mekaplo u-manicho) = he folds it and lays it [over the opening]
- סִימָנָיךְ (simanaikh) = “your mnemonic” — a memory device for the ruling
- נָפְיָא (nafya) = a sieve — Rav Pappa’s mnemonic image
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — מימרות
A door-like flap; a lengthwise crack in the windpipe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִפְחֲתָה כְּדֶלֶת, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס אִיסָּר לְרׇחְבּוֹ. נִסְדְּקָה, אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בָּהּ אֶלָּא חוּלְיָא אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְחוּלְיָא אַחַת לְמַטָּה – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues: If the windpipe was missing a piece so that its appearance was like a door, where the missing flesh was partially attached as though on a hinge, Rav Naḥman said: If the missing piece is so large that an issar can enter the hole widthwise, i.e., it is wider and taller than an issar, the animal is a tereifa. If the windpipe was cracked along its length, Rav said: Even if only one undamaged segment remains in the windpipe above the crack and one segment below it, the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya now catalogues further windpipe defects. A flap of tissue hanging “like a door” on a hinge is judged by Rav Naḥman against the familiar issar measure — but here applied two-dimensionally: the gap counts as a tereifa-causing deficiency only if an issar can pass through both its width and its height. Rav then addresses a longitudinal crack running down the windpipe, which is far less dangerous than a transverse cut: so long as even one intact cartilage ring remains above the crack and one below, the windpipe still holds together and the animal is kosher.
Key Terms:
- נִפְחֲתָה כְּדֶלֶת (nifchata ke-delet) = “broken down like a door” — a hinged flap of missing tissue
- נִסְדְּקָה (nisdeka) = it cracked/split — a lengthwise fissure
- חוּלְיָא (chulya) = a segment/ring of the windpipe’s cartilage
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא — הגהה
Rabbi Yoḥanan emends Rav: any amount above and below suffices
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אָמַר: מָה חוּלְיָא וּמָה חוּלְיָא דְּקָאָמַר רַב? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בָּהּ אֶלָּא מַשֶּׁהוּ לְמַעְלָה וּמַשֶּׁהוּ לְמַטָּה – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
The Sages said this statement before Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: What is this segment and what is that segment that Rav says? Segments are immaterial to the matter. Rather, say: Even if any amount remained intact in the windpipe above the crack, and any amount below, the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
When Rav’s lengthwise-crack ruling was reported to Rabbi Yoḥanan, he objected to the very vocabulary: why speak of whole segments? The structural requirement is not that an intact cartilage ring survive, but merely that some unsplit tissue remain at each end so the windpipe is not cracked end to end. He therefore emends the law downward: any amount (mashehu) of intact tissue above the crack and any amount below renders the animal kosher. This is a recurring pattern in the chapter — the amoraim refining the precise functional threshold beneath an earlier, looser formulation.
Key Terms:
- אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ (amruha kamei) = “they said it before him” — a ruling reported to a greater authority for review
- מַשֶּׁהוּ (mashehu) = any amount, the slightest bit
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Yoḥanan delights that Rabbi Yonatan read the law as he did
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן הָכִי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: יָדְעִין חַבְרִין בַּבְלָאֵי לְפָרוֹשֵׁי כִּי הַאי טַעְמָא?
English Translation:
The Sages said this statement in Eretz Yisrael before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yonatan the Babylonian, i.e., that any amount of undamaged tissue above and below the crack renders the animal kosher. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them, excitedly: Do our Babylonian friends know how to interpret in accordance with this explanation? He was happy that Rabbi Yonatan interpreted it the same way he did.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same mashehu interpretation then arrives in Eretz Yisrael attributed to Rabbi Yonatan the Babylonian, and Rabbi Yoḥanan reacts with warm surprise: he is delighted that the Babylonian scholars independently arrived at his own reading. The vignette captures the lively cross-pollination between the Babylonian and Land-of-Israel academies and the genuine joy a master felt at finding his analysis confirmed elsewhere. It also lends extra authority to the mashehu ruling, now supported by two independent traditions.
Key Terms:
- מִשְּׁמֵיהּ (mishmei) = “in the name of” — citing a teaching’s tradent
- חַבְרִין בַּבְלָאֵי (chavrin bavla’ei) = “our Babylonian colleagues” — the scholars of Bavel
- לְפָרוֹשֵׁי (le-paroshei) = to interpret/explain
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
The full extent of the neck that is valid for ritual slaughter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנֵא רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַצַּוָּאר כּוּלּוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁחִיטָה, מִטַּבַּעַת הַגְּדוֹלָה עַד כַּנְפֵי רֵיאָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה. אָמַר רָבָא: תַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁהִיא עֶלְיוֹנָה, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר כֹּל שֶׁפּוֹשֶׁטֶת צַוָּארָהּ וְרוֹעָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא תֵּאָנֵס.
English Translation:
§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef taught before Rabbi Yoḥanan: The entire neck is fit for slaughter, from the large uppermost ring of the windpipe downward until the lower edges of the lung. Rava says that the phrase: Lower edges of the lung, is referring to an animal hung by the feet; that is, it actually denotes the upper edges nearest the head. As I say that the area fit for slaughter is all the length of the neck that an animal extends in order to graze, provided that it is not forced to extend its neck further than it wishes. Consequently, the very bottom of the neck is not a location fit for slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya pivots from tereifot of the windpipe to the geographic question of where on the neck a valid shechita may be performed. The baraita gives the range as “from the large ring down to the lower edges of the lung,” but Rava warns against a literal reading: the carcass was hung by its hind legs, so the lung’s “lower edges” actually point toward the head. Rava restates the principle naturally: the valid zone is whatever length of neck the animal extends of its own accord while grazing — the cartilage rings exposed by normal stretching — but not tissue reached only by forcibly pulling the neck.
Key Terms:
- טַבַּעַת הַגְּדוֹלָה (taba’at ha-gedola) = the large [cricoid] ring at the top of the windpipe — upper bound of slaughter
- כַּנְפֵי רֵיאָה (kanfei re’a) = the “wings”/edges of the lung — lower anatomical bound
- תַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁהִיא עֶלְיוֹנָה = “lower that is upper” — Rava’s caution about an inverted, hung carcass
- שֶׁלֹּא תֵּאָנֵס (shelo te’anes) = provided it is not forced — the neck must not be stretched beyond its natural grazing reach
Segment 12
TYPE: בעיא ותיקו
If the animal stretched its own neck; forcing the simanim; low windpipe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב חֲנִינָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב חֲנַנְיָה: אָנְסָה עַצְמָהּ מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ. יָתֵיב רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, נְפַק מִילְּתָא מִבֵּינַיְיהוּ: אָנַס בַּסִּימָנִים וְשָׁחַט – פְּסוּלָה. נִיקַּב הַקָּנֶה לְמַטָּה מִן הֶחָזֶה – נִידּוֹן כְּרֵיאָה.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥanina, and some say Rav Ḥananya, raises a dilemma: If the animal forced itself and extended its neck, what is the halakha with regard to the additional area? The Gemara responds: The question shall stand unresolved. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish sat together, and a matter emerged from between them: If the slaughterer forced the animal to extend the simanim by stretching the neck and slaughtered the animal at the lower end of the neck, the slaughter is not valid. And if the windpipe was perforated below the breast, it is considered to be like a perforated lung, which renders the animal a tereifa no matter the size of the perforation. A perforation in the upper windpipe must be the size of an issar to render the animal a tereifa (see 54a).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s qualification — “provided it is not forced” — invites a borderline question: what if the animal stretches its own neck unprompted? This dilemma is left unresolved (teiku). The Gemara then records a ruling that emerged from the joint study of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish: if the slaughterer artificially stretched the simanim (the windpipe and gullet) downward and cut at the lowered point, the slaughter is invalid — only the naturally exposed zone counts. A second ruling distinguishes a perforation below the chest, deep inside the body cavity, which is judged like a hole in the lung (a tereifa at any size), from a hole in the upper windpipe, which requires the full issar measure.
Key Terms:
- אָנְסָה עַצְמָהּ (ansa atzma) = “it forced itself” — the animal stretched its own neck
- תֵּיקוּ (teiku) = the question stands unresolved
- סִימָנִים (simanim) = the “signs” — the windpipe (kaneh) and gullet (veshet) that must be cut in shechita
- נִידּוֹן כְּרֵיאָה (nidon ke-re’a) = judged like the lung — a tereifa at the slightest perforation
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
Defining the “breast” (chazeh) given to the kohanim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ חָזֶה? זֶה הָרוֹאֶה אֶת הַקַּרְקַע, לְמַטָּה – עַד הַצַּוָּאר, לְמַעְלָה – עַד הַכָּרֵס. חוֹתֵךְ שְׁתֵּי צְלָעוֹת מִשְּׁתֵּי דְפָנוֹת אֵילָךְ וְאֵילָךְ, וְזֶהוּ חָזֶה הַנִּיתָּן לַכֹּהֲנִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: The Sages taught in a baraita: Which is the breast that must be given to the priests as a gift from every peace offering (see Leviticus 7:31)? This is the section that faces the ground, not the ribbed area on the sides. And lengthwise it extends below, when the animal is hung from the legs, until the neck, and above until the rumen. One cuts the two ribs nearest the head from the two sides of the animal from both directions, and this is the breast that is given to the priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
Because the previous segment mentioned the chazeh (breast/chest) as a landmark, the Gemara pauses to define that anatomical term precisely — its boundaries having priestly-gift significance, since the breast of every shelamim (peace-offering) is waved and given to the kohanim (Leviticus 7:31). The baraita marks the breast as the ventral panel “facing the ground,” excluding the ribbed flanks, extending from the neck to the rumen, with the two head-side ribs trimmed off on each side. This is a brief associative digression into the laws of kodashim before the sugya returns to tereifot.
Key Terms:
- חָזֶה (chazeh) = the breast/chest — the priestly portion of a peace-offering
- הָרוֹאֶה אֶת הַקַּרְקַע = “the part facing the ground” — the ventral surface, not the flanks
- כָּרֵס (keres) = the rumen / belly — the breast’s lower boundary
- שְׁלָמִים (shelamim) = peace-offering, from which the breast is given to the priests
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא — ביאור המשנה
Which membrane of the brain must be perforated — outer or inner?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: קְרָמָא עִילָּאָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: עַד דְּאִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי: וְסִימָנָיךְ חַיְיתָא דְּמִתְּנַח בֵּיהּ מוֹחָא.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If the membrane of the brain was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara cites Rav and Shmuel, who both say: The brain is covered by two membranes, a thick outer membrane adjacent to the skull and a thin inner membrane adjacent to the brain. The animal is a tereifa if the outer membrane was perforated, even if the inner membrane was not perforated. And some say that the animal is not a tereifa unless the inner membrane was perforated as well. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: And this is your mnemonic to remember the halakha: The bag in which the brain rests, i.e., the inner membrane.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s blanket statement that a perforated brain-membrane is a tereifa is ambiguous, because the brain in fact has two membranes (the dura and pia in anatomical terms): a thick outer one against the skull and a thin inner one hugging the brain. Two versions of Rav-and-Shmuel’s teaching disagree on which one is decisive: the first holds that piercing the outer membrane alone already disqualifies; the second requires the inner one to be breached. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani offers a mnemonic for the stricter (inner-membrane) view — the “bag” that actually contains the brain — the genuine protective sac whose breach is fatal.
Key Terms:
- קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ (kerum shel mo’ach) = the membrane of the brain (the meninges)
- קְרָמָא עִילָּאָה / תַּתָּאָה = the upper (outer) membrane / lower (inner) membrane
- חַיְיתָא דְּמִתְּנַח בֵּיהּ מוֹחָא = “the sac in which the brain rests” — mnemonic for the inner membrane
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא — מימרא
Where brain ends and spinal cord begins: the two “beans”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בַּבֵּיצִים נִיכָּר. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: מוֹחַ – כׇּל מַה שֶּׁבַּקְּדֵירָה נִדּוֹן כְּמוֹחַ, הִתְחִיל לִימָּשֵׁךְ נִדּוֹן כְּחוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה. וּמֵהֵיכָן מַתְחִיל לִימָּשֵׁךְ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי: לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי – כְּמִין שְׁנֵי
English Translation:
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Even though the inner membrane of the brain is very thin and not easily visible, its equivalent in the testicles, which are also enclosed in a thin membrane, is conspicuous, as it has an appearance different from the testicles themselves. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says in the name of bar Kappara: With regard to the brain, everything inside the skull is considered part of the brain. From the point where it begins to extend like a cord out of the base of the skull, it is considered the spinal cord. And from where does it begin to be extended? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani said: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself: Protrusions similar to two
קלאוד על הדף:
Two related teachings sharpen the brain discussion. First, to answer the worry that the inner membrane is too thin to identify, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi points to its visible counterpart enclosing the testicles, where the thin membrane is clearly distinguishable — proof that such delicate tissue is real and locatable. Second, since “brain” and “spinal cord” carry different legal measures (the brain’s membrane is fatal at any puncture, the spinal cord only when mostly severed), the Gemara must mark the exact boundary between them. Bar Kappara fixes the rule — everything inside the skull is “brain,” and from where it “draws out” as a cord it becomes spinal cord — and the daf breaks off mid-sentence as Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani begins to identify the landmark: two bean-shaped protrusions (completed on 45b).
Key Terms:
- כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בַּבֵּיצִים נִיכָּר = “its counterpart in the testicles is recognizable” — proof the thin membrane is identifiable
- חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה (chut ha-shidra) = the spinal cord
- הִתְחִיל לִימָּשֵׁךְ (hitchil le-immashech) = “began to be drawn out” — the point where brain becomes cord
Amud Bet (45b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — המשך
The two beans as the brain/spinal-cord boundary (continued from 45a)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פּוֹלִין יֵשׁ מוּנָּחִין עַל פִּי הַקְּדֵרָה, מִן הַפּוֹלִין וְלִפְנִים – כְּלִפְנִים, מִן הַפּוֹלִין וְלַחוּץ – כְּלַחוּץ, וּפוֹלִין עַצְמָן אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּלִפְנִים.
English Translation:
beans lie at the opening of the skull, where the spinal cord exits. From the beans inward, the nerve tissue is considered like the inside, i.e., the brain. Therefore, if its membrane is perforated, even minimally, the animal is a tereifa. From the beans outward, the nerve tissue is considered like the outside, i.e., the spinal cord. A perforation of the membrane in this area renders the animal a tereifa only if the spinal cord is mostly cut. And with regard to the area of the beans themselves, I do not know what the halakha is; but it stands to reason that it is considered like the inside.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence interrupted on 45a now completes: two bean-shaped lobes (the pons/medulla region) sit at the opening where the cord exits the skull, and they serve as the legal frontier. Inward of the beans the tissue is “brain,” so the strict measure applies — any membrane puncture is a tereifa. Outward of the beans it is “spinal cord,” governed by the lenient measure — disqualifying only if mostly severed. As for the beans themselves, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi candidly admits he does not know, but reasons (mistabra) that they should be classified with the stricter “inside.”
Key Terms:
- פּוֹלִין (polin) = beans — the paired protrusions at the skull’s exit point
- פִּי הַקְּדֵרָה (pi ha-kedeira) = “the mouth of the pot” — the opening at the base of the skull
- כְּלִפְנִים / כְּלַחוּץ = “like the inside” (brain, strict) / “like the outside” (cord, lenient)
- מִסְתַּבְּרָא (mistabra) = “it stands to reason” — a logical inference where no tradition is known
Segment 2
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Yirmeya verifies the two beans in a bird
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּדַק בְּעוֹפָא, וְאַשְׁכַּח כְּמִין שְׁנֵי פּוֹלִין מוּנָּחִין עַל פִּי הַקְּדֵרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya inspected a bird and found protrusions similar to two beans lying on the opening of the skull.
קלאוד על הדף:
A brief empirical footnote: Rabbi Yirmeya physically examined a bird and confirmed that the two beans described by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi are indeed present at the skull’s opening. The anecdote shows the Sages testing transmitted anatomical claims against observation, and establishes that the brain/spinal-cord boundary marked by the beans applies to poultry as well as to animals.
Key Terms:
- בְּדַק (badak) = he checked/examined — direct anatomical inspection
- בְּעוֹפָא (be-ofa) = in a bird
Segment 3
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Zeira: a perforated heart — to the small chamber or the large?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִיקַּב הַלֵּב לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ, בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: לְבֵית חָלָל קָטָן אוֹ לְבֵית חָלָל גָּדוֹל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ? מִי לָא תְּנַן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר ״עַד שֶׁתִּנָּקֵב לְבֵית הַסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת״, וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: עַד שֶׁתִּנָּקֵב לְסִמְפּוֹן גָּדוֹל.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If the heart was perforated to its chamber, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: Is the mishna referring to the small chamber within the heart or to the large chamber? Abaye said to him: What is your dilemma? Didn’t we learn in the mishna with regard to the lung: Rabbi Shimon says: It is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the bronchi? And Rabba bar Taḥlifa says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Rabbi Shimon means that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the large bronchus. If so, it may be presumed that the mishna is referring to the large chamber of the heart as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna says a heart “perforated to its chamber” (beit chalalo) is a tereifa, but the heart has more than one cavity, so Rabbi Zeira asks which one is meant — the small chamber or the large. Abaye challenges the very premise of the question by analogy: regarding a perforated lung, the mishna’s “to the bronchi” was explained by Rav (via Rabba bar Taḥlifa) to mean specifically the large bronchus, so by parallel the heart’s “chamber” should also mean the large chamber. Abaye is arguing that established usage already resolves the ambiguity.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית חֲלָלוֹ (beit chalalo) = its hollow / chamber — a cavity of the heart
- סִמְפּוֹנוֹת (simponot) = the bronchi of the lung
- סִמְפּוֹן גָּדוֹל (simpon gadol) = the large/main bronchus
Segment 4
TYPE: דחייה
The Gemara rejects the analogy; Rabbi Zeira’s question stands
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם לְבֵית הַסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת קָתָנֵי, לְהֵיכָא דְּשָׁפְכִי סִמְפּוֹנוֹת כּוּלְּהוּ, וְהָכָא לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ קָתָנֵי – מָה לִי חָלָל גָּדוֹל, מָה לִי חָלָל קָטָן!
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, the mishna teaches: To the bronchi [simponot], in the plural form, i.e., the one bronchus into which all the bronchi [simponot] empty out. But here, with regard to the heart, it teaches: To the chamber. What is it to me if this is a large chamber and what is it to me if it is a small chamber? The language does not indicate one or the other.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects Abaye’s analogy on a fine linguistic point. In the lung case the mishna’s plural form, “to the bronchi,” naturally points to the single trunk into which all the branches drain — i.e., the large bronchus — so the wording itself disambiguates. But the heart’s clause uses the neutral singular “to the chamber,” which gives no textual clue whether the large or small cavity is intended. Since the heart’s language does not parallel the lung’s, Rabbi Zeira’s dilemma is genuine and remains open.
Key Terms:
- הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? (hachi hashta) = “how can you compare?” — a formula rejecting a proposed analogy
- דְּשָׁפְכִי כּוּלְּהוּ = “where they all pour out” — the trunk into which the bronchi drain
Segment 5
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rav vs. Shmuel on the measure for a perforated aorta
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קְנֵה הַלֵּב, רַב אָמַר: בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּרוּבּוֹ.
English Translation:
§ With regard to the aorta, the chief artery exiting the heart, Rav says: Like the heart itself, if it is perforated in any amount the animal is a tereifa. And Shmuel says: The animal is a tereifa only if the aorta is perforated in its majority.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the keneh ha-lev, the great artery exiting the heart (the aorta). Rav treats it as an extension of the heart: since the heart is a tereifa at the slightest perforation, so too the aorta — be-mashehu, at any amount. Shmuel disagrees, classifying the aorta as an ordinary conduit that disqualifies only when perforated in its majority (be-rubo). The core of the dispute is conceptual: is the aorta legally part of the heart, or a separate vessel with its own threshold?
Key Terms:
- קְנֵה הַלֵּב (keneh ha-lev) = “the tube of the heart” — the aorta, the great artery leaving the heart
- בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ (be-mashehu) = at any amount (Rav — treated like the heart)
- בְּרוּבּוֹ (be-rubo) = in its majority (Shmuel — treated as a separate vessel)
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא — בירור
Identifying the aorta: the artery in the fat by the lung
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵי נִיהוּ קְנֵה הַלֵּב? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי דְּפָנוֹת. דְּפָנוֹת סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא: שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי דּוֹפְנֵי רֵיאָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Which blood vessel is the aorta? Rabba bar Yitzḥak says that Rav says: This is the artery found in the fat on the sides. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind to say that this is referring to the sides of the animal, i.e., the ribs, which are not adjacent to the heart? Rather, this is referring to the artery covered in fat that exits the heart and passes on the sides of the lung.
קלאוד על הדף:
Before the dispute can be applied, the Gemara must physically identify which vessel is the keneh ha-lev. Rabba bar Yitzḥak cites Rav describing it as “the artery in the fat on the defanot” — but the Gemara objects that defanot (sides/ribs) cannot be the body wall, which is nowhere near the heart. It therefore re-reads the phrase precisely: the artery sheathed in fat that exits the heart and runs along the sides of the lung. This kind of anatomical clarification is essential, since the entire tereifa ruling depends on correctly locating the organ in question.
Key Terms:
- הֵי נִיהוּ (hei nihu) = “which one is it?” — a request to identify the referent
- חֵלֶב (chelev) = fat — the sheath surrounding the artery
- דּוֹפְנֵי רֵיאָה (dofnei re’a) = the sides/walls of the lung
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — מימרא
Ameimar: three ducts — to heart, lung, and liver, each judged differently
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: תְּלָתָא קְנֵי הָווּ, חַד פָּרֵישׁ לְלִיבָּא, וְחַד פָּרֵישׁ לְרֵיאָה, וְחַד פָּרֵישׁ לְכַבְדָּא. דְּרֵיאָה – כְּרֵיאָה, דְּכַבְדָּא – כְּכַבְדָּא, דְּלִיבָּא – פְּלִיגִי.
English Translation:
Ameimar says in the name of Rav Naḥman: There are three ducts adjacent to one another in an animal’s chest. One separates to the heart, and one separates to the lung, and one separates to the liver. The duct of the lung is treated like the lung, and renders the animal a tereifa if perforated in any amount. The duct of the liver is treated like the liver, and only if it is completely missing does it render the animal a tereifa, in accordance with the mishna. As for the duct of the heart, the aorta, Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the measure of its perforation, as mentioned above.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ameimar (citing Rav Naḥman) systematizes the discussion: three great ducts branch off in the chest, one to each of the heart, lung, and liver, and each duct inherits the tereifa standard of the organ it serves. The lung’s duct disqualifies at any perforation (the lung is strict); the liver’s duct only when wholly missing (the liver is lenient, judged by chisaron, per the mishna). The heart’s duct — the aorta — is precisely the point left in dispute between Rav and Shmuel above, so Ameimar’s scheme frames their argument as the lone unsettled case.
Key Terms:
- תְּלָתָא קְנֵי (telata kanei) = three ducts/tubes
- פָּרֵישׁ (pareish) = branches off / separates toward (an organ)
- principle: each duct takes the legal status of its organ — strict (lung), lenient (liver), or disputed (heart)
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — גרסה הפוכה
Mar bar Ḥiyya transmits the lung/liver ducts in reverse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָר בַּר חִיָּיא מַתְנִי אִיפְּכָא: דְּרֵיאָה – כְּכַבְדָּא, דְּכַבְדָּא – כְּרֵיאָה, דְּלִיבָּא – פְּלִיגִי.
English Translation:
Mar bar Ḥiyya teaches the opposite: The duct of the lung is treated like the liver and renders the animal a tereifa only if it is completely missing. The duct of the liver is treated like the lung, and a perforation of any amount renders the animal a tereifa. And with regard to the duct of the heart, Rav and Shmuel disagree.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara records a competing tradition: Mar bar Ḥiyya inverts Ameimar’s assignments, treating the lung’s duct leniently (like the liver, tereifa only if missing) and the liver’s duct strictly (like the lung, tereifa at any perforation). Only the heart’s duct stays constant — still the subject of the Rav–Shmuel dispute in both versions. Such ippcha (reversed) traditions are common in the Talmud and leave the practical halacha for each duct genuinely uncertain, since the two reliable transmissions contradict each other.
Key Terms:
- מַתְנִי אִיפְּכָא (matni ippcha) = teaches it the reverse way — a transposed transmission
- note: only the heart-duct ruling is agreed across both versions (it is the disputed case either way)
Segment 9
TYPE: אגדתא — חריפות
Shmuel’s sharp dismissal of Rav’s aorta ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲזַל רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא דְרַב קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי אָמַר אַבָּא – לָא יָדַע בִּטְרֵפוֹת וְלֹא כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef went and stated the halakha of Rav, that an aorta perforated in any amount renders an animal a tereifa, before Shmuel. Shmuel said to him: If Abba, i.e., Rav, actually said so, he knows nothing at all about tereifot.
קלאוד על הדף:
When Rav’s lenient-threshold-rejecting view (aorta = tereifa at any perforation) was relayed to Shmuel, he responded with unusually sharp words: if Rav truly said this, “he knows nothing about tereifot.” Shmuel — a renowned expert in medicine and anatomy — is fully confident that the aorta is a robust vessel whose minute puncture is not fatal, so the be-rubo (majority) standard must govern. The vignette preserves the candor of the Rav–Shmuel relationship; despite his words, Shmuel deeply revered Rav, and such barbed exchanges reflect rigorous halachic debate rather than personal disrespect.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמַעְתָּא (shema’ata) = a halachic teaching/tradition
- אַבָּא (Abba) = Rav’s given name (his title “Rav” was honorific)
- לָא יָדַע בִּטְרֵפוֹת וְלֹא כְּלוּם = “he knows nothing at all about tereifot” — Shmuel’s strong rebuttal
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא — מחלוקת תנאים
A severed spinal cord: majority (Rebbi) vs. any perforation (R. Yaakov)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(נשבר) [נִשְׁבְּרָה] הַשִּׁדְרָה, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה שֶׁנִּפְסַק בְּרוּבּוֹ – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי; רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ נִיקַּב.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If the spinal column was broken and its cord was cut, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this the Sages taught: If the spinal cord was cut in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Ya’akov says: It is a tereifa even if the spinal cord was only perforated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara takes up the mishna’s clause that a broken spinal column with a cut cord is a tereifa, and a baraita preserves a tannaitic dispute over the threshold. Rebbi (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) holds the cord must be cut in its majority to disqualify; Rabbi Yaakov holds that even a mere perforation (nikuv) suffices. The disagreement turns on how delicate the spinal cord is — whether any breach is life-threatening or only a substantial severance.
Key Terms:
- נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה (nishbera ha-shidra) = the spinal column (vertebrae) was broken
- שֶׁנִּפְסַק בְּרוּבּוֹ (shenifsak be-rubo) = cut in its majority — Rebbi’s threshold
- רַבִּי (Rebbi) = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, redactor of the Mishnah
- אֲפִילּוּ נִיקַּב = “even if [merely] perforated” — Rabbi Yaakov’s stricter view
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא — פסק
Rebbi ruled like R. Yaakov; Rav Huna rejects that ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הוֹרָה רַבִּי כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov that even a small perforation of the spinal cord renders the animal a tereifa. Rav Huna says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov.
קלאוד על הדף:
There is a notable twist: although in the baraita Rebbi himself held the lenient majority view, in practice he is reported to have ruled like the stricter Rabbi Yaakov, disqualifying even on a perforation. Such gaps between a Sage’s stated opinion and his practical ruling occasionally appear and reflect added caution in matters of life-and-death fitness. Rav Huna pushes back, declaring that the halacha is not like Rabbi Yaakov — i.e., a mere perforation does not render the cord a tereifa; only a majority cut does.
Key Terms:
- הוֹרָה (hora) = he ruled (in practice) — as distinct from a theoretical opinion
- אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּ (ein halacha ke-) = “the halacha is not in accordance with” — a decisive ruling against a view
Segment 12
TYPE: מחלוקת
“Majority” of the cord — its membrane (oro) or its nerve tissue (mocho)?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכַמָּה רוּבּוֹ? רַב אָמַר: רוֹב עוֹרוֹ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רוֹב מוֹחוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And how much is considered a majority of the spinal cord to render the animal a tereifa? Rav says: A majority of the circumference of its surrounding membranes, the meninges. And some say a majority of the nerve tissue of the spinal cord itself. In other words, even if the meninges are intact, the animal is a tereifa if a majority of the nerve tissue is cut.
קלאוד על הדף:
Granting that a majority cut is the threshold, the Gemara now asks: a majority of what? Two versions of Rav’s view split on the anatomy. One reads “rov oro” — a majority of the encasing membrane (the meninges) must be severed; the other reads “rov mocho” — a majority of the inner nerve tissue itself, even if the membrane is intact. The distinction is consequential, since membrane and core can be damaged independently, and the following segments work out which is the operative measure.
Key Terms:
- רוֹב עוֹרוֹ (rov oro) = a majority of its “skin” — the surrounding membrane (meninges)
- רוֹב מוֹחוֹ (rov mocho) = a majority of its marrow — the nerve tissue of the cord itself
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — ניתוח השיטות
Framing the question between the two versions of “majority”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן דְּאָמַר רוֹב מוֹחוֹ – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן רוֹב עוֹרוֹ, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר רוֹב עוֹרוֹ – רוֹב מוֹחוֹ מַאי?
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: According to the one who says that the animal is a tereifa if a majority of the nerve tissue is severed, all the more so if a majority of the meninges is cut, since if the meninges, the protective membranes, are damaged, the nerve tissue itself will certainly be damaged soon thereafter. But according to the one who says that a tear in a majority of the meninges renders it a tereifa, what is the halakha in a case where only a majority of the nerve tissue was cut? Perhaps the intact membranes will keep the damage from spreading.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the practical difference between the two versions. The rov mocho view is automatically the stricter: if a majority of the nerve tissue is fatal, then a fortiori (kol she-ken) damage to the outer membrane is fatal, since destroying the protective sheath dooms the core. The harder question runs the other way: according to rov oro — that severing the membrane is what disqualifies — what happens when only the inner nerve tissue is mostly cut while the membrane stays whole? Perhaps the intact sheath preserves the animal. This sets up the resolution in the next segments.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן (kol she-ken) = all the more so — an a fortiori inference
- מַאן דְּאָמַר (man de-amar) = “the one who says” — citing one side of a dispute
Segment 14
TYPE: תא שמע
Proof: Nayyoli’s report — only the membrane counts, not the marrow
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר נִיוְלִי אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: רוּבּוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ – רוֹב עוֹרוֹ, מוֹחַ זֶה – לֹא מַעֲלֶה וְלֹא מוֹרִיד.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: As Nayyoli says that Rav Huna says: The majority of the spinal cord, which they said renders the animal a tereifa if cut, is the majority of the meninges. But this nerve tissue makes no difference.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings a ta shema to settle the matter. Nayyoli reports in Rav Huna’s name that the operative “majority” is specifically rov oro — a majority of the membrane — and that the inner nerve tissue “neither raises nor lowers,” i.e., is legally irrelevant. This decisively endorses the membrane-based reading: the protective sheath is the determinative structure, and cutting the marrow alone, with the membrane intact, does not render the animal a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע (ta shema) = “come and hear” — introducing a proof-text to resolve a question
- לֹא מַעֲלֶה וְלֹא מוֹרִיד = “neither raises nor lowers” — makes no legal difference
Segment 15
TYPE: מעשה
Rav corrects Rav Natan bar Avin’s redundant inspection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב נָתָן בַּר אָבִין הֲוָה יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, בְּדַק בְּרוֹב עוֹרוֹ, וְקָא בָּדֵיק בְּרוֹב מוֹחוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם רוֹב עוֹרוֹ קַיָּים, מוֹחַ זֶה אֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה וְאֵינוֹ מוֹרִיד.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Natan bar Avin was sitting before Rav. Rav Natan first checked the spinal cord to make sure that a majority of the meninges was intact, and then was checking to see that a majority of its nerve tissue was intact. Rav said to him: If a majority of the meninges is intact, this nerve tissue makes no difference.
קלאוד על הדף:
A practical illustration confirms the ruling. Rav Natan bar Avin, examining a carcass before Rav, first verified that the cord’s membrane was mostly intact and then went on to inspect the nerve tissue as well. Rav stopped him: once a majority of the membrane is sound, checking the marrow is pointless — “this nerve tissue neither raises nor lowers.” The story shows the rov oro standard applied at the slaughterhouse and serves as a teaching moment about not over-inspecting beyond the halachic criterion.
Key Terms:
- בְּדַק / בָּדֵיק (badak / badeik) = he checked / was checking — inspecting for fitness
- קַיָּים (kayyam) = intact / sound
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא — מימרא
Liquefied or softened spinal cord renders the animal unfit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נִתְמָרֵךְ – פָּסוּל, נִתְמַסְמֵס – פָּסוּל. אֵיזוֹהִי הַמְרָכָה וְאֵיזוֹהִי הֲמַסְמָסָה? הַמְרָכָה – כֹּל שֶׁנִּשְׁפָּךְ כְּקִיתוֹן, (מסמסה) [הֲמַסְמָסָה] – כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד.
English Translation:
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If the spinal cord was liquefied [nitmareikh], the animal is unfit for consumption. Even if it softened [nitmasmeis], the animal is unfit, i.e., a tereifa. What is liquefaction, and what is softening? Liquefaction is any case in which the nerve tissue becomes liquid, and if the membrane is punctured it can be poured out like water from a jug. Softening is any case in which the nerve tissue cannot stand upright on its own and sags when it is not being supported.
קלאוד על הדף:
Beyond a cut cord, the Gemara addresses degeneration of the cord’s tissue. Two conditions disqualify: himracha (liquefaction), where the marrow has dissolved to liquid and would pour out “like from a jug” if the membrane were opened; and masmasa (softening), where the marrow has lost its firmness and sags, unable to hold itself upright. Both represent functional destruction of the cord even without a clean sever, and the Gemara carefully defines each so the categories can be applied in inspection.
Key Terms:
- נִתְמָרֵךְ / הַמְרָכָה (nitmareikh / hamracha) = liquefied / liquefaction — pours out like water
- נִתְמַסְמֵס / הֲמַסְמָסָה (nitmasmeis / masmasa) = softened / softening — cannot stand upright
- כְּקִיתוֹן (ke-kiton) = “like [from] a jug” — the image for liquefied marrow
Segment 17
TYPE: בעיא, תיקו, וקושיא
Heavy-sagging cord (teiku); softened vs. emptied — a textual correction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד מִפְּנֵי כׇּבְדוֹ, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ. בֵּי רַב אָמְרִי: נִתְמַסְמֵס – פָּסוּל, נִתְמַזְמֵז – כָּשֵׁר. מֵיתִיבִי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּתְמַזְמֵז מוֹחָה – טְרֵפָה! הָהִיא נִתְמַסְמֵס אִיתְּמַר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In a case where the spinal cord became unusually heavy such that it cannot stand upright due to its weight, but not due to softening or melting, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: The question shall stand unresolved. In the study hall they say: If the spinal cord softened due to disease, the animal is unfit for consumption. But if some of its tissue softened and was emptied from the spinal cord, the animal remains kosher. The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: An animal whose nerve tissue was emptied [nitmazmez] from the spinal cord is a tereifa. The Gemara responds: That version of the baraita is incorrect. In fact, the word softened [nitmasmes] was stated, not the word emptied.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya probes the masmasa definition: what if the cord sags not because it has softened but simply from its own weight? This dilemma stands unresolved (teiku). The study hall then draws a fine line between two similar-sounding terms: nitmasmes (softened) disqualifies, but nitmazmez (the tissue merely shifted/emptied a bit) is kosher. A baraita citing Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar seems to call nitmazmez a tereifa, contradicting this — and the Gemara resolves it by emending the baraita’s text, asserting the original word was nitmasmes, not nitmazmez.
Key Terms:
- מִפְּנֵי כׇּבְדוֹ (mipnei kovdo) = on account of its weight — the unresolved sagging case
- נִתְמַזְמֵז (nitmazmez) = emptied/shifted — kosher (per the study hall)
- מֵיתִיבִי (meitivi) = “they raise an objection” — challenge from a baraita
- אִיתְּמַר (ittemar) = “[the word] that was stated” — used here to correct the baraita’s wording
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Levi in the bathhouse: “emptied marrow” — fatal, or only infertile?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִינִי, וְהָא לֵוִי הֲוָה יָתֵיב בֵּי מַסּוּתָא, חַזְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּטַרְיֵיהּ לְרֵישֵׁיהּ, אֲמַר: נִתְמַזְמֵז מוֹחֵיהּ דְּדֵין, לָאו דְּלָא חָיֵי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹלִיד.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is that so, that an animal whose nerve tissue has dissolved is kosher? But didn’t it happen that Levi was sitting in the bathhouse, where he saw a certain man who banged his head severely, whereupon he said: This man’s nerve tissue has softened and been emptied? Is it not that Levi meant that the man cannot live? If so, the softening and emptying of the nerve tissue should render an animal a tereifa. Abaye said: No, he intended to say that the man cannot reproduce, since head trauma might lead to infertility.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the claim that nitmazmez is harmless. Levi once saw a man strike his head violently in the bathhouse and declared “his marrow has nitmazmez” — apparently meaning the man would die, which would prove the condition is fatal (and thus a tereifa). Abaye deflects the proof: Levi did not mean the man would die, only that he would no longer be able to father children, since severe head trauma can cause infertility. So nitmazmez remains non-fatal and the animal stays kosher, the human prognosis being about reproduction, not survival.
Key Terms:
- אִינִי? (ini) = “is that so?” — a challenge questioning a stated ruling
- בֵּי מַסּוּתָא (bei masuta) = the bathhouse
- שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹלִיד (she-eino molid) = that he cannot procreate — Abaye’s reinterpretation of Levi’s words
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא — מימרא
How far down does the “spinal cord” extend? Up to the branches
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַד הֵיכָן חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עַד בֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara asks: Until where does the spinal cord extend downward, such that if it is cut above that point the animal is a tereifa? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Until the point between the branches of the spinal cord that split off behind the thighs.
קלאוד על הדף:
Just as the top of the spinal cord had to be demarcated (the “two beans” boundary with the brain), the Gemara now fixes its lower end — the point past which a cut no longer creates a tereifa, because that tissue is no longer “spinal cord.” Rav Yehuda in Shmuel’s name sets the limit at bein ha-parashot, the region where the cord begins to split into branches behind the thighs (toward the tail/pelvis). Below that branching point the cord has effectively ended.
Key Terms:
- עַד הֵיכָן (ad heichan) = “until where?” — defining the downward extent
- בֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת (bein ha-parashot) = “between the branchings” — where the cord divides behind the thighs
Segment 20
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Dimi asks to be shown the spot; fat and lean kids both obscure it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב דִּימִי בַּר יִצְחָק הֲוָה קָא בָּעֵי לְמֵיזַל לְבֵי חוֹזָאֵי, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לַיחְוֵי לִי מָר בֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת הֵיכָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי לִי גְּדִי וְאַחְוִי לָךְ. אַיְיתִי לֵיהּ גְּדִי שָׁמֵן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּלִיעָן טְפֵי וְלָא יְדִיעַ. אַיְיתִי לֵיהּ כָּחוּשׁ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּלִיטָן טְפֵי וְלָא יְדִיעַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: Rav Dimi bar Yitzḥak wanted to go to Bei Ḥozai. He came before Rabbi Yehuda and said to him: Master, show me, where is the area between the branches to which Shmuel referred? Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Go bring me a kid and I will show you. Rav Dimi bar Yitzḥak brought him a choice kid with much fat. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The location is buried very deep in the fat and is not recognizable. He brought Rabbi Yehuda a lean kid. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The bones jut out very far, and the location is not recognizable.
קלאוד על הדף:
About to travel to Bei Ḥozai (where he might need to rule on such cases), Rav Dimi bar Yitzḥak sensibly asks Rabbi Yehuda to physically show him the bein ha-parashot landmark. The attempt fails twice for opposite reasons: in a fat kid the spot is buried under fat and invisible; in a lean kid the protruding bones obscure it. The charming anecdote illustrates a real difficulty — that even an authoritative anatomical boundary can be hard to demonstrate on an actual carcass — and sets up Rabbi Yehuda’s switch to a verbal, count-based teaching in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- בֵּי חוֹזָאֵי (Bei Ḥozai) = a distant region (Khuzistan), where Rav Dimi was headed
- לַיחְוֵי לִי מָר (laychvei li Mar) = “let the Master show me” — a request for a hands-on demonstration
- גְּדִי שָׁמֵן / כָּחוּשׁ = a fat kid / a lean kid — both unsuitable for locating the spot
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא — מסורת
The three branchings: first = tereifa, third = kosher, second = doubt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תָּא אַגְמְרָךְ גְּמָרָא, הָכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עַד אַחַת – טְרֵפָה, שְׁלִישִׁית – כְּשֵׁרָה, שְׁנִיָּה – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Come, I will teach you a tradition without showing you: This is what Shmuel said: There are three successive points around the same bone behind the pelvis at which branches diverge from the spinal cord. If the spinal cord is cut anywhere until the first gap between these branches, the animal is a tereifa. If it is severed anywhere after the third gap, i.e., after the third branch, the animal is kosher. If it was severed within the second gap, i.e., between these areas, I do not know the halakha.
קלאוד על הדף:
Unable to point to the spot, Rabbi Yehuda transmits Shmuel’s teaching as a precise three-stage rule keyed to the branchings behind the pelvis. There are three successive points where pairs of nerves split off: a cut up to the first branching is still true spinal cord, so the animal is a tereifa; a cut after the third branching is past the cord’s end, so the animal is kosher; and a cut in the second zone, in between, is left in doubt (“I do not know”). This staged framework converts the vague “bein ha-parashot” into a workable, countable standard.
Key Terms:
- תָּא אַגְמְרָךְ גְּמָרָא (ta agmerakh gemara) = “come, I will teach you the tradition” — instruction by transmission, not demonstration
- עַד אַחַת (ad achat) = up to the first [branching] → tereifa
- שְׁלִישִׁית (shelishit) = the third [branching] → past it, kosher
- שְׁנִיָּה (sheniya) = the second [zone] → uncertain
Segment 22
TYPE: בעיא
Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua opens a new dilemma (continued on 46a)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ:
English Translation:
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raises a dilemma:
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes on an unfinished note, with Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua beginning to pose a fresh dilemma whose content carries over to 46a. This kind of mid-question break is common in the Talmud’s page divisions and is designed to draw the learner into the next daf. In context, his question continues the spinal-cord inquiry, probing the precise application of Shmuel’s three-branching rule.
Key Terms:
- בָּעֵי (ba’ei) = he raises a dilemma / inquires
- רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ = Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua — a later Babylonian amora