Chullin Daf 46 (חולין דף מ״ו)
Daf: 46 | Amudim: 46a – 46b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (46a)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא
Completing Rav Huna’s dilemma: is the first gap inclusive?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַד וְעַד בַּכְּלָל, אוֹ דִּלְמָא עַד וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל?
English Translation:
When Shmuel says that the animal is certainly a tereifa if the spinal cord is cut anywhere until the first gap, does he mean until and including the first gap, in which case if it is cut within the first gap the animal is a tereifa? Or perhaps he means until and not including the length of the gap itself?
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the dilemma Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua began at the very end of 45b. Shmuel had ruled that a spinal cord cut “until the first” branching is a tereifa (45b), and the question is the precise meaning of “until” (ad): does it include the first gap itself (ad ve-ad bichlal), so that a cut within that gap is fatal, or does it stop before the gap (ad ve-lo ad bichlal), leaving a cut inside the gap undecided? This is the classic Talmudic ambiguity of boundary words, here with life-and-death kashrut consequences.
Key Terms:
- עַד וְעַד בַּכְּלָל (ad ve-ad bichlal) = “until and including” — the endpoint is part of the disqualifying zone
- עַד וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל (ad ve-lo ad bichlal) = “until but not including” — the endpoint is excluded
- פָּרָשָׁה (parasha) = a branching point / gap where nerves split off the spinal cord
Segment 2
TYPE: בעיא — אם תמצי לומר
Rav Pappa: what about a cut at the very mouth of the first branch?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, עַד וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל, פִּי פָרָשָׁה מַהוּ?
English Translation:
Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If you say that Shmuel means until and not including the length of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the halakha is unknown, then if the spinal cord was cut in the mouth of the first branch, exactly where it branches off, what is the halakha? Is it considered to be within the first gap, in which case the halakha is unknown? Or is it considered before the gap, in which case a tear in the mouth renders the animal a tereifa?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa builds a finer question on top of one horn of the dilemma, using the device im timtzi lomar (“if you should say”). Granting the lenient reading — that the gap is excluded and a cut inside it is undecided — he asks about the razor-thin boundary case: a cut precisely at the mouth (pi parasha) where the branch begins. Does that count as already “inside” the gap (hence undecided), or still “before” it (hence a clear tereifa)? This is layered hairsplitting characteristic of the latest amoraim probing the exact edges of a measure.
Key Terms:
- אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר (im timtzi lomar) = “if you should say” — a sub-question conditioned on one resolution of a prior dilemma
- פִּי פָרָשָׁה (pi parasha) = “the mouth of the branch” — the exact point where a nerve splits off
Segment 3
TYPE: בעיא — אם תמצי לומר
Rabbi Yirmeya: what about cutting the first branch itself?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, עַד וְעַד בַּכְּלָל, פָּרָשָׁה עַצְמָהּ מַהוּ?
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If you say that Shmuel means until and including the measure of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the animal is a tereifa, then if the first branch itself, i.e., the first pair of branching nerves, was cut from the spinal cord, what is the halakha?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya poses the mirror-image im timtzi lomar, granting the other horn — the strict reading that the gap is included and a cut there is a tereifa. He then asks about the parasha atzma, the branch itself: if the pair of nerves that diverges at the first branching is severed, is that still “spinal cord” (a tereifa), or is the branch already a separate structure no longer governed by the cord’s law? Together segments 1–3 map out the complete grid of possibilities at the cord’s lower boundary, setting up the proof that follows.
Key Terms:
- פָּרָשָׁה עַצְמָהּ (parasha atzma) = “the branch itself” — the diverging nerve pair, as opposed to the gap before it
Segment 4
TYPE: תא שמע
A baraita: the branch is “like flesh” — but only the third
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפָּרָשָׁה תִּידּוֹן כְּבָשָׂר. מַאי לָאו פָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה? לָא, שְׁלִישִׁית.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: The branch of the spine that was cut shall be considered as normal flesh, not as the spine. Therefore, it does not render the animal a tereifa, unlike the spinal cord itself. What, is it not referring even to the first or second branch? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita is referring only to the third branch. But if either of the first two pairs of nerves that branch off from the spinal cord are cut, the animal is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings a baraita to resolve Rabbi Yirmeya’s question: “the branch is judged like flesh” — i.e., a severed branch is ordinary tissue, not spinal cord, and does not make the animal a tereifa. The Gemara first proposes this applies even to the first and second branches (which would answer Rabbi Yirmeya: the branch itself is kosher). But it rejects that: the baraita speaks only of the third branch, which lies past the cord’s end; the first two branches are still within the disqualifying zone and a cut there is a tereifa. The dilemmas thus remain technically open, but the practical landscape is clarified.
Key Terms:
- תִּידּוֹן כְּבָשָׂר (tidon ke-vasar) = “is judged like flesh” — treated as ordinary tissue, not as cord
- שְׁלִישִׁית (shelishit) = the third [branch] — beyond the cord proper, hence kosher when cut
Segment 5
TYPE: מחלוקת
The cord’s lower boundary in a bird: below the wings or between them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעוֹפָא, רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: לְמַטָּה מִן הָאֲגַפַּיִם, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם.
English Translation:
With regard to a bird, the Sages disagreed as to the lower boundary of the spinal cord, above which if it is cut, the bird will be rendered a tereifa. Rabbi Yannai says: The spinal cord extends until below the level of the wings. And Reish Lakish says: Until the point between the wings, not below them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having fixed the cord’s lower limit in animals (the bein ha-parashot / three branchings, 45b), the Gemara now sets it for birds, whose anatomy is marked by the wings rather than the thighs. Rabbi Yannai extends the “spinal cord” zone below the level of the wings, while Reish Lakish ends it at the point between the wings. The dispute determines how far down an injury still renders a bird a tereifa — the more downward the boundary, the larger the dangerous zone.
Key Terms:
- בְּעוֹפָא (be-ofa) = with regard to a bird
- לְמַטָּה מִן הָאֲגַפַּיִם = below the wings (Rabbi Yannai — larger zone)
- עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם = up to between the wings (Reish Lakish — smaller zone)
Segment 6
TYPE: מעשה
Ulla’s ambiguous observation of ben Pazi’s inspection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּבֶן פַּזִּי, וְאַיְיתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ עוֹפָא, וּבְדַק עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם, וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה וְקָם וַאֲזַל, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לְמִבְדַּק טְפֵי, אִי מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד נְשִׂיאָה.
English Translation:
Ulla says: I was standing before Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and they brought before him a bird whose spine had been injured, and he checked until the point between the wings. And at that point a messenger of the house of the Nasi sent for him, and he got up and went, and I do not know if he left because one does not need to check beyond that point, or if due to the honor of the Nasi he left without completing the inspection.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla relates a firsthand observation that almost settles the dispute but ultimately cannot. He watched ben Pazi inspect an injured bird’s spine only “up to between the wings” — seemingly supporting Reish Lakish — but at that exact moment a summons arrived from the house of the Nasi (the Patriarch), and ben Pazi rose and left. Ulla candidly admits he cannot tell whether ben Pazi stopped because no further inspection was needed (proving Reish Lakish) or merely because the Patriarch’s honor required him to leave at once. The anecdote teaches intellectual honesty: an inconclusive observation must not be pressed into a halachic proof.
Key Terms:
- דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה (devei nesi’a) = the house of the Nasi — the office of the Patriarch in Eretz Yisrael
- כְּבוֹד נְשִׂיאָה (kevod nesi’a) = the honor due the Nasi — which may have prompted the abrupt departure
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — קושיא מסתירת משניות
A removed liver: “nothing remained” vs. “an olive-bulk remained”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִיטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וְכוּ׳. הָא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּלוּם – כְּשֵׁרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָוֵי כְּזַיִת, וְהָתְנַן: נִיטַּל הַכָּבֵד וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּזַיִת – כְּשֵׁרָה!
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: It follows, therefore, that if anything remained of it, the animal is kosher, even if the remaining piece does not constitute an olive-bulk. But didn’t we learn in a mishna on 54a: If the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher? One can infer that if less remained, it is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara moves to the liver clause and exposes a contradiction between two mishnayot. Our mishna says the animal is a tereifa only if nothing of the liver remained — implying that any remnant, even less than an olive-bulk (kezayit), keeps it kosher. But the mishna on 54a sets the threshold at a full kezayit remaining — implying that less than that is a tereifa. The two measures squarely conflict, and the Gemara must reconcile them.
Key Terms:
- כָּבֵד (kaved) = the liver
- כְּזַיִת (kezayit) = an olive-bulk — a standard halachic minimum volume
- נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר (nishtayer) = remained / was left over
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Yosef: two tannaitic views (R. Chiyya vs. R. Shimon b. Rebbi)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי, כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא זָרֵיק לַהּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי מְטַבֵּיל לַהּ, וְסִימָנָיךְ: ״עֲשִׁירִין מְקַמְּצִין״.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, while that mishna later in the chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. This is like that incident in which an amount smaller than an olive-bulk remained of the liver, and Rabbi Ḥiyya discarded it, as he holds that the animal is a tereifa, but Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, dipped it in a seasoning and ate it. And your mnemonic to remember which Sage maintained which opinion is: The rich are stingy. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, was wealthy, but he nevertheless did not allow the meat to go to waste.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef resolves the contradiction by assigning each mishna to a different tanna. Our mishna (any remnant suffices) follows Rabbi Shimon son of Rebbi, while the 54a mishna (a full kezayit required) follows Rabbi Ḥiyya. He grounds this in a recorded incident: when less than a kezayit of liver remained, Rabbi Ḥiyya discarded the meat as tereifa, whereas Rabbi Shimon son of Rebbi seasoned and ate it, treating it as kosher. The mnemonic “the rich are stingy” (ashirin mekamtzin) is a memory aid with a twist: Rabbi Shimon was the wealthy one, yet here it was he who refused to waste the meat — the irony fixing the attribution in mind.
Key Terms:
- לָא קַשְׁיָא (la kashya) = “it is not difficult” — the contradiction dissolves once two sources are distinguished
- רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי = Rabbi Shimon son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (lenient — any remnant)
- רַבִּי חִיָּיא = Rabbi Ḥiyya (strict — requires a full kezayit)
- עֲשִׁירִין מְקַמְּצִין (ashirin mekamtzin) = “the rich are stingy” — the (ironic) mnemonic for the attribution
Segment 9
TYPE: מעשה ומימרא
Where the olive-bulk must remain: gallbladder vs. living-place
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא פּוּלְמוּסָא דַּאֲתָא לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, עֲרַקוּ רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף, פְּגַע בְּהוּ רַבִּי זֵירָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: עָרוֹקָאֵי, כְּזַיִת שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ, בָּעֵינַן כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה, וּבָעֵינַן כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that a certain royal army came to Pumbedita, and Rabba and Rav Yosef fled the city, whereupon Rabbi Zeira met them. Rabbi Zeira said to them: Refugees, hear this halakha: The olive-bulk that the Sages said must remain of the liver so the animal will remain kosher must be in the place where the liver connects to the gallbladder. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The olive-bulk must be in the place that the liver lives, i.e., is connected to the other organs, under the right kidney. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, in order to satisfy both opinions, we require an olive-bulk in the place of the gallbladder, and we also require an olive-bulk in the place that it lives. Otherwise, the animal is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Against the colorful backdrop of Rabba and Rav Yosef fleeing a marauding army, Rabbi Zeira (hailing them as “refugees”) delivers a crucial refinement: the surviving kezayit of liver is not enough wherever it sits — it must be at a specific anatomical location. Rabbi Zeira requires it near the gallbladder (bimkom mara); Rav Adda bar Ahava requires it in the place where the liver “lives” — its main attachment under the right kidney (bimkom she-hi chaya). Rav Pappa rules stringently to satisfy both: a full kezayit must remain at each location, or the animal is a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- פּוּלְמוּסָא (pulmusa) = a (royal) army / military campaign
- עָרוֹקָאֵי (arokaei) = “refugees / fugitives” — Rabbi Zeira’s playful address
- בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה (bimkom mara) = at the place of the gallbladder
- בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה (bimkom she-hi chaya) = at the place the liver “lives” — its vital attachment under the right kidney
Segment 10
TYPE: בעיא ותיקו
Does a scattered, strip-like, or flattened olive-bulk count?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִתְלַקֵּט, מַהוּ? כִּרְצוּעָה, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּזַיִת מְרוּדָּד, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If the olive-bulk that remained was not all in one piece, but rather small pieces that could be gathered together to form the requisite measure, what is the halakha? Alternatively, if it was long and thin like a strip, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If the olive-bulk was flat, broad but thinner than an olive, what is the halakha? To all these questions the Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established that a kezayit must remain, the Gemara probes whether the form of that remnant matters. Rabbi Yirmeya asks about a kezayit that is scattered in crumbs that could be gathered (mitlakket), or one drawn out like a strip (ki-retzu’a); Rav Ashi asks about a kezayit spread thin and flattened (meruddad). In each case the volume equals an olive-bulk, but the shape is abnormal — does an olive-bulk require a coherent piece? All three questions are left teiku, unresolved.
Key Terms:
- מִתְלַקֵּט (mitlakket) = gathered from scattered crumbs
- כִּרְצוּעָה (ki-retzu’a) = like a strip — long and thin
- כְּזַיִת מְרוּדָּד (kezayit meruddad) = a flattened olive-bulk — broad but thin
- תֵּיקוּ (teiku) = the dilemma stands unresolved
Segment 11
TYPE: בעיא ופשיטא
A liver detached but hanging by its membrane — kosher either way
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זְרִיקָא מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי: נִדַּלְדְּלָה כָּבֵד וּמְעוֹרָה בְּטַרְפְּשֶׁיהָ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְדּוּל זֶה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה – הָא אִיכָּא, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה – הָא אִיכָּא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zerika asked Rabbi Ami: If the liver was detached from the other organs in numerous places and was attached only to its membranes [betarpasheha], but the liver itself remained intact, what is the halakha? Rabbi Ami said to him: With regard to the halakha, I do not know what the significance is of this detachment that you mentioned. If you rule according to the one who says that an olive-bulk must remain in the place of the gallbladder, that is the case here. And if you rule according to the one who says that it must be in the place that it lives, that is the case here as well. Consequently, there is no doubt that the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zerika asks about a liver that has come loose from its surroundings yet still dangles by its membrane (betarpasheha), the organ itself fully intact. Rabbi Ami dismisses the premise: this “detachment” raises no problem at all. Since the liver is whole, a full kezayit is obviously present at both contested locations — near the gallbladder and at its living-place — so it is kosher under either opinion. The exchange shows that the kezayit rule concerns missing liver tissue, not mere loosening of an otherwise complete liver.
Key Terms:
- נִדַּלְדְּלָה (nidaldela) = it was loosened / detached from its surroundings
- מְעוֹרָה בְּטַרְפְּשֶׁיהָ (me’ora betarpasheha) = attached [only] by its membrane/diaphragm
- הָא אִיכָּא (ha ika) = “it is present here” — the required measure exists under either view
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא — ביאור המשנה
A perforated lung: which of its two membranes is decisive?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב אַסִּי דְאָמְרִי: קְרָמָא עִילָּאָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: קְרָמָא תַּתָּאָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וְסִימָנָיךְ כִּיתּוּנָא דְּוַרְדָּא דְּמַנְּחָא בֵּיהּ רֵיאָה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: The lung that was perforated renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara quotes Rav and Shmuel and Rav Asi, who all say: The mishna is referring specifically to the outer membrane. And some say that they said that the mishna is referring specifically to the inner membrane. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: And your mnemonic should be: The red robe in which the lung rests. The inner membrane is red, while the outer membrane is white, and according to Rav Naḥman, the mishna is referring to the inner membrane.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the lung, which (like the brain) is wrapped in two membranes, and asks which one the mishna means when it says a “perforated lung” is a tereifa. One version of Rav, Shmuel, and Rav Asi says the decisive layer is the outer membrane; another version says the inner one. Rav Naḥman (via Rav Yosef bar Minyumi) supplies a mnemonic for the inner-membrane view — the “red robe” in which the lung rests — since the inner membrane is reddish and the outer one whitish. This parallels the two-membrane analysis of the brain on the previous daf.
Key Terms:
- רֵיאָה (re’a) = the lung
- קְרָמָא עִילָּאָה / תַּתָּאָה = the upper/outer membrane / the lower/inner membrane
- כִּיתּוּנָא דְּוַרְדָּא (kitzuna de-varda) = “the rose-colored robe” — mnemonic for the red inner membrane
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — פשיטא (המשך לעמוד ב)
Obvious: inner membrane intact protects even if outer is pierced
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּשִׁיטָא: אִי אִינְּקִיב עִילָּאָה וְלָא אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה – תַּתָּאָה מֵגֵין, כִּדְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאִגְּלִיד
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the outer membrane is perforated but the inner membrane is not perforated, the inner membrane protects the lung, and the animal is kosher. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: This animal with a lung whose outer membrane was removed,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes one clear case: if only the outer membrane is pierced while the inner one stays intact, the inner membrane “protects” (megin) the lung and the animal is kosher — this much is obvious (peshita). It cites Rabba’s even stronger ruling: a lung whose entire outer membrane was peeled away (not merely punctured) is still kosher, as the daf will complete on 46b (“looks like a red date”). The truly hard question — the reverse case, where the inner membrane is pierced but the outer is intact — opens the next amud.
Key Terms:
- פְּשִׁיטָא (peshita) = “it is obvious” — a case needing no argument
- מֵגֵין (megin) = protects / shields (the lung from disqualification)
- דְּאִגְּלִיד (de-iglid) = that was peeled / stripped (of its membrane)
Amud Bet (46b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — בעיא (המשך מ-46a)
The reverse case: does the outer membrane protect a pierced inner one?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כַּאֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה וְלָא אִינְּקִיב עִילָּאָה – מַגֵּין אוֹ לָא מַגֵּין?
English Translation:
so that it looks like a red date, is kosher; all the more so is that the case if it was only perforated. But if the inner membrane was perforated but the outer membrane was not perforated, does the outer membrane protect the lung? Or does it not protect it, in which case the animal is a tereifa?
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence interrupted on 46a completes: Rabba held that a lung stripped of its outer membrane, so it appears like a peeled “red date” (ahina sumaka), is kosher — and a fortiori a merely punctured outer membrane is kosher, since the inner one still shields the lung. Now the Gemara poses the genuinely open question: in the reverse situation, where the inner membrane is pierced but the outer one is intact, does the outer membrane “protect” (megin) the lung and keep it kosher, or not? Everything hinges on whether the thinner outer membrane is strong enough to substitute for the breached inner one.
Key Terms:
- אֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא (ahina sumaka) = a red date — the appearance of a lung stripped of its white outer membrane
- מַגֵּין אוֹ לָא מַגֵּין? = “does it protect or not?” — the central dilemma of the sugya
Segment 2
TYPE: מחלוקת והלכה
Halacha: the outer membrane protects; Rav Yosef’s inflation test
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לָא מַגֵּין, וְחַד אָמַר: מַגֵּין. וְהִלְכְתָא מַגֵּין, כִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף, דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאָוְושָׁא, אִי יָדְעִינַן הֵיכָא אָוְושָׁא – מוֹתְבִינַן עֲלַהּ גַּדְפָּא אוֹ רוּקָּא אוֹ גִילָא, אִי מְבַצְבְּצָא – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי לָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאִי לָא יָדְעִינַן הֵיכָא אָוְושָׁא – מַיְיתִינַן מְשִׁיכְלְתָא דְּמַיָּא פָּשׁוֹרֵי וּמוֹתְבִינַן לַהּ בְּגַוַּהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to this question. One says: It does not protect the lung; and one says: It protects the lung. And the halakha is that it protects the lung, in accordance with the statement of Rav Yosef. As Rav Yosef says: With regard to this lung that emits a sound when inflated, if we know from where it emits a sound, we set a feather, or saliva, or straw on that point. If the saliva bubbles when the lung is inflated, the animal is a tereifa, since this proves that the lung is perforated through both membranes. And if not, the animal is kosher. And if we do not know from where it emits a sound, we bring a basin of tepid water and set the lung inside it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Aḥa and Ravina split on the dilemma — one says the outer membrane does not protect, one says it does — and the Gemara rules (ve-hilkheta) that it does protect: an intact outer membrane keeps the animal kosher even if the inner one is pierced. The proof is Rav Yosef’s practical inspection test. If a suspect lung hisses when inflated and the source is known, one places a feather, saliva, or straw there and inflates: if it bubbles, both membranes are pierced and the animal is a tereifa; if not, it is kosher. If the source is unknown, the whole lung is submerged in lukewarm water to watch for escaping bubbles.
Key Terms:
- וְהִלְכְתָא מַגֵּין (ve-hilkheta megin) = “the halacha is that it protects” — the decisive ruling
- דְּאָוְושָׁא (de-avsha) = that emits a sound/hiss when inflated — a sign of a possible perforation
- מְבַצְבְּצָא (mevatzbetza) = bubbles up — proof that air escapes through both membranes → tereifa
- מְשִׁיכְלְתָא דְּמַיָּא פָּשׁוֹרֵי = a basin of lukewarm (tepid) water — the immersion test medium
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא — פרטי הבדיקה
Why tepid water; a hiss with no bubbles = only the inner pierced
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּחַמִּימֵי לָא – דְּכָוְוצִי, בְּקָרִירֵי לָא – דִּמְטָרְשִׁי, אֶלָּא מוֹתְבִינַן בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי וְנָפְחִינַן לַהּ. אִי מְבַצְבְּצָא – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי לָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. תַּתָּאָה אִינְּקִיב, עִילָּאָה לָא אִינְּקִיב, וְהַאי דְּאָוְושָׁא – זִיקָא דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי הוּא.
English Translation:
One cannot place it in hot water, as it causes the lung to contract, closing the perforation. And one cannot place it in cold water, as it hardens the lung and may cause it to crack. Rather, we set it in tepid water and inflate it. If the water bubbles, the animal is a tereifa. And if not, the animal is kosher, since it is apparent that only the inner membrane is perforated and the outer membrane is not perforated, and the fact that it emits a sound is due to the air moving in the space between the two membranes. Evidently, Rav Yosef holds that if only the inner membrane is perforated, the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the precise temperature requirement, revealing a sophisticated grasp of how tissue behaves. Hot water is barred because it makes the lung contract and seal a real hole (a false negative); cold water is barred because it stiffens the tissue and could crack it (a false positive). Only lukewarm water gives a true reading. The conclusion confirms the ruling: if the lung hisses but produces no bubbles in the water, only the inner membrane is breached while the outer is whole — the hiss is merely air trapped between the two membranes — and the animal is kosher. This proves Rav Yosef holds the outer membrane protects.
Key Terms:
- בְּחַמִּימֵי… דְּכָוְוצִי = in hot water [no], because it contracts and seals the hole
- בְּקָרִירֵי… דִּמְטָרְשִׁי = in cold water [no], because it hardens and may crack
- זִיקָא דְּבֵינֵי בֵּינֵי = “the air in between” — wind trapped between the two membranes, explaining a hiss without a true through-perforation
Segment 4
TYPE: סימן
A mnemonic for Rava’s four lung rulings to follow
Hebrew/Aramaic:
(אֲהִינֵי סוּמָּקָא דִּיבַשׁ גִּילְדֵי, סִימָן).
English Translation:
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic to remember the following statements of Rava with regard to the lung: Dates, red, that dried, scabbed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara inserts a siman, a mnemonic catchword string, to help the learner retain the series of Rava’s lung rulings that immediately follow. The four cue-words — “dates” (peeled outer membrane like a red date), “red” (a reddened lung), “dried” (a dried lung), and “scabbed” (a scabbed/black-marked lung) — each tag one upcoming statement. Such simanim are an oral-transmission technology embedded in the text, reflecting the era when the Talmud was memorized rather than read.
Key Terms:
- סִימָן (siman) = a mnemonic — catchwords ordering a list of teachings
- אֲהִינֵי / סוּמָּקָא / דִּיבַשׁ / גִּילְדֵי = dates / red / dried / scabbed — the four cue-words for Rava’s coming rulings
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא — מימרות רבא
Rava: peeled outer membrane kosher; reddening — partial kosher, full treif
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאִיגְּלִיד כַּאֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא – כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאָמַר רָבָא: רֵיאָה שֶׁהֶאֱדִימָה מִקְצָתָהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה, כּוּלָּהּ – טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara turns to the matter itself mentioned above: Rava says: This animal with a lung whose outer membrane was removed so that it looks like a red date is kosher. And Rava says: With regard to a lung whose outer membrane reddened due to bleeding of the lung, if only part of it turned red, then the animal is kosher, but if all of it turned red, the animal is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now treats Rava’s rulings gufa (“the matter itself”), quoting them in full. First (cue “dates”): a lung whose outer membrane has peeled off, leaving it looking like a “red date,” is kosher — the inner membrane still seals it. Second (cue “red”): a lung that has reddened from internal bleeding is kosher if only part reddened, but a tereifa if the whole lung reddened. Partial reddening can heal, whereas total reddening signals irreversible damage — a distinction Ravina will immediately challenge.
Key Terms:
- גּוּפָא (gufa) = “the matter itself” — returning to quote a teaching in full
- שֶׁהֶאֱדִימָה (she-he’edima) = that reddened — discoloration from internal bleeding
- מִקְצָתָהּ / כּוּלָּהּ = part of it (kosher) / all of it (tereifa)
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Ravina challenges: if partial heals, why not the whole?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: מִקְצָתָהּ מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָדְרָא בָּרְיָא, כּוּלָּהּ נָמֵי הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: וּשְׁאָר שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מֵהֶם דָּם.
English Translation:
Ravina said to Rava: What is the reason that the animal is kosher if only part of the outer membrane reddened? Presumably, it is because the animal eventually recovers from the wound. But even if all of it turned red as well, the animal recovers. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one injures one of the eight impure creeping creatures mentioned in the Torah, one is liable for desecrating Shabbat; but if one injures other repugnant creatures and creeping animals, one is not liable until blood leaves their body as a result of the injury, even if their skin reddens as a result of internal bleeding?
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina presses Rava on the rationale for the partial/total split. If partial reddening is kosher because the lung heals (hadra barya), then total reddening should heal too — so why is it a tereifa? He supports the premise that internal reddening is reversible from a Shabbat baraita: one who wounds most “repugnant creatures” (shekatzim u-remasim) is not liable for the melacha of taking a life-blood unless blood actually exits the body — mere internal reddening doesn’t count, implying such blood reabsorbs and the creature recovers. By analogy, a reddened lung should always heal.
Key Terms:
- מַאי טַעְמָא? (mai ta’ama) = “what is the reason?” — demanding the logic behind a ruling
- הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא (hadra barya) = it returns to health / heals — the assumed reason partial reddening is kosher
- שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים (shekatzim u-remasim) = repugnant creatures and creeping things — the Shabbat baraita’s subject
Segment 7
TYPE: דחייה ומסקנה
Rejecting the eight-sheratzim analogy; conclusion: no difference
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי תֵּימָא: לִשְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים מְדַמֵּינַן לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: נִצְרַר הַדָּם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָתָהּ נָמֵי! אֶלָּא, לָא שְׁנָא.
English Translation:
And if you would say: We compare the lung to one of the eight creeping creatures, as it is taught in a baraita: If the blood collected under the skin of one of the eight creeping creatures, even if it did not leave the body, one is liable for desecrating Shabbat, because the blood will not be reabsorbed into the body and the wound is permanent; that is difficult: If so, then there is still no reason to distinguish between part of the lung and all of it, and even if only part of the lung turned red, the animal should be rendered a tereifa as well, because the blood will not be reabsorbed into the body. Rather, there is no difference between the reddening of part or all of the lung.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests the opposite analogy and finds it equally unworkable. One might compare the lung to the eight sheratzim of the Torah, where even trapped internal blood (nitzrar ha-dam) creates liability because it does not reabsorb — implying reddening is permanent and disqualifying. But then even partial reddening should be a tereifa, contradicting Rava’s leniency for the partial case. Since neither analogy preserves Rava’s split, the Gemara concludes lo shna — there is in fact no difference between the categories on this account, leaving Rava’s distinction to rest on other grounds rather than the heal/no-heal reasoning.
Key Terms:
- נִצְרַר הַדָּם (nitzrar ha-dam) = the blood collected/clotted [under the skin] without exiting
- לָא שְׁנָא (lo shna) = “there is no difference” — the proposed distinguishing logic collapses
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — מימרא
Rava: a partly dried lung is treif — crumbles under a fingernail
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רָבָא: רֵיאָה שֶׁיָּבְשָׁה מִקְצָתָהּ – טְרֵפָה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כְּדַי שֶׁתִּפָּרֵךְ בְּצִפּוֹרֶן.
English Translation:
And Rava says: If part of the lung was dried, the animal is a tereifa. And how much must the lung be dried so as to render the animal a tereifa? Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava: It must be so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third of Rava’s rulings (cue “dried”): a lung that has dried out even in part is a tereifa, since dead, desiccated tissue cannot recover. Rav Pappi, citing Rava, supplies the operational test for “dried” — the tissue must be so far gone that it crumbles when rubbed with a fingernail (tiparekh be-tziporen). This concrete, physical criterion is the kind of hands-on standard a bodek (inspector) can apply at the slaughterhouse.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁיָּבְשָׁה (she-yavsha) = that dried out — irreversible desiccation
- תִּפָּרֵךְ בְּצִפּוֹרֶן (tiparekh be-tziporen) = crumbles under a fingernail — the test for fatal dryness
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא — כמאן
Whose view? R. Yosei ben HaMeshullam’s “crumbles under a fingernail”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם? דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזוֹ הִיא יְבֵשָׁה – שֶׁאִם תִּינָּקֵב וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה טִיפַּת דָּם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם אוֹמֵר: יְבֵשָׁה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נִפְרֶכֶת בְּצִפּוֹרֶן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam? As it is taught in a mishna (Bekhorot 37a): If a kosher firstborn animal has a blemish, such as a dried ear, it may be slaughtered outside the Temple. What is a dried ear? It is any ear that if perforated does not bleed a drop. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: It must be so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the source of Rava’s “fingernail” criterion (ke-man — “according to whom?”). It resembles a dispute over a blemished firstborn (Bekhorot 37a): to count as a “dried ear” blemish, the Rabbis say it suffices that a puncture draws no blood, while Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam requires that it crumble under a fingernail — exactly Rava’s wording. The implication is that Rava must follow the stricter Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam, since by the Rabbis’ looser definition a no-bleed lung would already be a tereifa. The next segment resists pinning Rava to a minority view.
Key Terms:
- כְּמַאן (ke-man) = “according to whom?” — locating a statement’s tannaitic source
- אוֹזֶן בְּכוֹר (ozen bekhor) = the ear of a firstborn — the blemish-context for the dryness definition
- אֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה טִיפַּת דָּם = “yields no drop of blood” — the Rabbis’ looser test for “dried”
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ ומימרא
Even the Rabbis agree: a lung isn’t wind-exposed like an ear; scabs kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, גַּבֵּי אוֹזֶן בְּכוֹר דְּקָא שָׁלֵיט בֵּיהּ זִיקָא – לָא הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא, אֲבָל רֵיאָה דְּלָא קָא שָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא – הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא. וְאָמַר רָבָא: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּקָיְימָא גִּילְדֵּי גִּילְדֵּי, אוּכָּמֵי אוּכָּמֵי, חֶזְוָותָא חֶזְוָותָא – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: You may even say that the statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. With regard to the ear of a firstborn, which is exposed to the wind, the Rabbis hold that the animal would not recover if it is so dry that it does not bleed. But with regard to the lung, which is not exposed to the wind, the animal would recover unless it is so dry that it can be crumbled with a fingernail. And Rava says: This lung that stands before us covered in scabs, or covered in black marks, or covered in sores with different appearances, is nevertheless kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reconciles Rava even with the Rabbis. The ear and the lung differ in exposure: an ear is buffeted by wind (zika), so once it no longer bleeds it is too far gone to heal — hence the Rabbis’ lenient definition there. But the lung, sealed inside the chest and not wind-exposed, can still recover, so it counts as fatally “dried” only at the stricter fingernail-crumble stage. Thus Rava’s criterion fits all opinions. The Gemara then adds the fourth Rava ruling (cue “scabbed”): a lung merely covered with scabs, black marks, or assorted sores is still kosher — surface blemishes do not disqualify.
Key Terms:
- דְּקָא שָׁלֵיט בֵּיהּ זִיקָא = “exposed to the wind” — why the ear cannot heal once it stops bleeding
- הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא (hadra barya) = recovers / heals — possible for the sheltered lung
- גִּילְדֵּי / אוּכָּמֵי / חֶזְוָותָא = scabs / black marks / [varied] sores — surface blemishes that leave the lung kosher
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא — מימרא
One may not compare lung cysts to settle a doubtful perforation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אֵין מַקִּיפִין בְּבוּעֵי.
English Translation:
§ Ameimar says in the name of Rava: One may not compare cysts of the lungs. If one finds a perforated cyst on the lung, but does not know whether it was perforated before or after slaughter, he may not perform a test by perforating another cyst in order to compare their appearances.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ameimar, citing Rava, lays down a principle of inspection method: ein makkifin be-vu’ei — one may not “compare” cysts. When a lung bears a perforated cyst (bu’a) of uncertain timing — did it burst before shechita (a tereifa) or only after (kosher)? — the inspector is forbidden to deliberately puncture a different cyst on the same lung to compare how the two look. The reasoning is that cysts vary too much for such a comparison to be reliable, so it cannot resolve the doubt. This caution against pseudo-empirical “matching” guards the integrity of bedika.
Key Terms:
- אֵין מַקִּיפִין (ein makkifin) = “one does not compare/juxtapose” — a barred inspection method
- בּוּעֵי / בּוּעָא (bu’ei / bu’a) = cysts / a cyst (a fluid-filled blister) on the lung
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא — מימרא
Adhesions between two lobes: out-of-order treif, in-order kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי אוּנֵּי דִּסְרִיכָן לַהֲדָדֵי, לֵית לְהוּ בְּדִיקָה. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן, אֲבָל כְּסִדְרָן – הַיְינוּ רְבִיתַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
And Rava says: These two lobes of the lung that adhere to one another by thin strands have no need for inspection, since it is certain that these adhesions arose due to a perforation of the lung, rendering the animal a tereifa. The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only with regard to adhesions that are out of order, where a lobe adhered to a non-adjacent lobe. But with regard to adhesions that are in order, that is their normal manner of growth, and the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes with the foundational law of serachot (lung adhesions), a topic of immense practical importance in later kashrut (and the basis of glatt meat). Rava rules that two lobes joined by thin strands (serichan) need no inspection — the adhesion is presumed to stem from a perforation, so the animal is a tereifa. But this applies only to adhesions that are out of order (shelo ke-sidran), linking non-adjacent lobes. Adhesions in order (ke-sidran), between naturally neighboring lobes, are simply the lung’s normal manner of growth (revitayhu) and the animal is kosher.
Key Terms:
- אוּנֵּי (unei) = the lobes of the lung
- דִּסְרִיכָן לַהֲדָדֵי (de-serichan la-hadadei) = that adhere to one another — serachot, lung adhesions
- שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן / כְּסִדְרָן = out of order (non-adjacent lobes → tereifa) / in order (adjacent lobes → kosher)
- רְבִיתַיְיהוּ (revitayhu) = their [normal] manner of growth