Chullin Daf 50 (חולין דף נ׳)
Daf: 50 | Amudim: 50a – 50b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (50a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא
Completion of the question from 49b: for Babylonians it does not even seal?!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְדִידַן מִיסְתָּם נָמֵי לָא סָתֵים.
English Translation:
and to us, the residents of Babylonia, not only is it forbidden but it also does not seal a perforation? It cannot be that this fat is forbidden by Torah law if they permit it for consumption. Even though we are stringent with regard to its consumption, we may still maintain that it effectively seals a perforation.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the question that broke off at the end of 49b. Rav Nachman contrasted the residents of Eretz Yisrael, who eat a certain fat of the abomasum, with us, the residents of Bavel — for whom it not only is forbidden to eat but does not even seal a perforation. The Gemara finds this untenable: if the people of Eretz Yisrael permit it for consumption, it cannot be forbidden fat by Torah law, and even a community that is stringent about eating it should concede that it seals.
Key Terms:
- וּלְדִידַן (uledidan) = and for us, the Babylonians
- מִיסְתָּם נָמֵי לָא סָתֵים (mistam nami la satim) = it does not even seal
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
The bow and the bowstring: identifying the chimtza and the bar chimtza
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאַקַּשְׁתָּא – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – דְּאַיִּיתְרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: The abomasum is shaped like a bow. The side facing outward is curved like the bow itself, while the side facing inward is flat and straight like the bowstring. With regard to the fat that is on the bow, everyone agrees, even the residents of Eretz Yisrael, that it is forbidden for consumption. This fat, then, is the ḥimtza, which does not seal a perforation according to Rav Naḥman. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it for consumption, while those of Babylonia prohibit it. According to Rav Naḥman, the residents of Babylonia should concede that it is nevertheless an effective seal. This, then, is the bar ḥimtza.
קלאוד על הדף:
The abomasum is shaped like a bow: its outer side curves like the bow itself (akashta) and its inner side runs straight like the bowstring (ayitra). The Gemara resolves: the fat on the bow is forbidden by universal agreement — that is the chimtza, which does not seal. The dispute concerns the fat on the bowstring, which Eretz Yisrael permits and Bavel prohibits; even Bavel should concede that it seals — that is the bar chimtza. The mnemonic of 49b now makes sense: the son’s power (to seal) exceeds the father’s.
Key Terms:
- אַקַּשְׁתָּא (akashta) = the bow — the curved outer side of the abomasum
- אַיִּיתְרָא (ayitra) = the bowstring — the straight inner side
- כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי (kulei alma la peligi) = everyone agrees
Segment 3
TYPE: איכא דאמרי
A second version: all agree the bowstring fat is permitted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, דְּאַיִּיתְרָא – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – דְּאַקַּשְׁתָּא.
English Translation:
There are those who say that with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring, everyone agrees that it is permitted. This, then, is the bar ḥimtza. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bow. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it, but the residents of Babylonia prohibit it. This, then, is the ḥimtza.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative tradition reverses the mapping: regarding the fat on the bowstring, everyone agrees that it is permitted — that is the bar chimtza — and the dispute concerns the fat on the bow, which Eretz Yisrael permits and Bavel prohibits — that is the chimtza. On both versions the practical bottom line is the same: bow-fat does not seal, bowstring-fat does; the versions differ over how far the communities’ eating customs diverged.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי (ika de’amri) = there are those who say — an alternative version
- דִּשְׁרֵי (dishrei) = that it is permitted
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא ומעשה
Mekamtzin: remove a handful from the top, and the rest may be eaten
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב אַוְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: מְקַמְּצִין, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי מִשּׁוּם זָקֵן אֶחָד: מְקַמְּצִין. אָמַר רַב אַוְיָא: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, קְמַצוּ וְהַבוּ לֵיהּ, וַאֲכַל.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: When it was stated that only the residents of Eretz Yisrael permit the fat on the bowstring for consumption, this means that they would eat it in a manner like that which Rav Avya says that Rabbi Ami says: One takes a handful of the fat that lies above the fat on the bowstring, since this is the fat prohibited by the verse: “And all the fat that is upon the innards” (Leviticus 3:3), and the rest is permitted for consumption. And so says Rabbi Yannai, also a resident of Eretz Yisrael, in the name of a certain elder: One takes a handful. Rav Avya said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami. The people there took a handful of the fat on the bowstring and gave him the remaining fat, and he ate from it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Even in Eretz Yisrael the leniency was qualified: Rav Avya in the name of Rabbi Ami, and Rabbi Yannai in the name of a certain elder, taught mekamtzin — one removes a handful of the uppermost layer of the bowstring fat, which is the portion the verse ‘all the fat that is upon the innards’ (Leviticus 3:3) forbids, and the remainder is permitted. Rav Avya testifies that he saw this done in practice: they took off a handful and gave the rest to Rabbi Ami, and he ate it.
Key Terms:
- מְקַמְּצִין (mekamtzin) = one takes off a handful (of the top layer)
- זָקֵן אֶחָד (zaken echad) = a certain elder
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Chanina and his hesitant Babylonian attendant: cut it all off and throw it away
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שַׁמָּעֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא הֲוָה קָאֵי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קְמוֹץ, הַב לִי דְּאֵיכוֹל. חַזְיֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה קָמְחַסֵּם, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּבְלָאָה אַתְּ, גּוֹם שְׁדִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: The attendant of Rabbi Ḥanina was standing before Rabbi Ḥanina, a resident of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Take off a handful from that fat on the bowstring and give me the rest so that I will eat from it. Rabbi Ḥanina saw that the attendant was hesitating, so he said to him: You are a Babylonian and usually consider all of this fat forbidden. If so, cut off all the fat and throw it away.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chanina, in Eretz Yisrael, asked his attendant to remove the handful and serve him the remaining fat. Seeing the attendant hesitate, he diagnosed the problem at once: you are a Babylonian, for whom all this fat is forbidden — so cut it all off and throw it away (gom shedi). The vignette captures real halakhic pluralism: Rabbi Chanina does not impose his community’s leniency on a man bound by the stringency of his home community.
Key Terms:
- שַׁמָּעֵיהּ (shamma’ei) = his attendant
- קָמְחַסֵּם (kamchasseim) = hesitating
- גּוֹם שְׁדִי (gom shedi) = cut (it all) off and throw (it) away
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: mucus seals a perforated intestine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ, וְלֵיחָה סוֹתַמְתָּן – כְּשֵׁרָה. מַאי לֵיחָה? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: שִׁירְקָא דִּמְעַיָּיא דְּנָפֵיק אַגַּב דּוּחְקָא.
English Translation:
The mishna states that if the small intestines are perforated, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the intestines were perforated but mucus seals the perforated intestines, the animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is this mucus? Rav Kahana said: It is the mucus of the intestines that comes out under pressure, when one scrapes with a knife.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna lists perforated small intestines as a tereifa. A baraita records Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s lenient view: if mucus (leicha) seals the perforation, the animal is kosher. Rav Kahana identifies the substance: the intestinal secretion (shirka demai’a) that oozes out under pressure when one scrapes the intestine. The question — is such a natural secretion a genuine seal like fat, or mere residue? — drives the rest of the sugya.
Key Terms:
- לֵיחָה (leicha) = mucus, moisture
- שִׁירְקָא דִּמְעַיָּיא (shirka demai’a) = the slimy secretion of the intestines
- אַגַּב דּוּחְקָא (agav duchka) = under pressure
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
A tangled chain of transmission: halakha like RSBG in tereifa, like R’ Shimon in mourning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמִירִי חַבְרַיָּא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא מֵרַבִּי אַבָּא, וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי זֵירָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ חַבְרַיָּא דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא, וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי אַבָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאֵבֶל.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: The colleagues of Rabbi Abba learned a tradition from Rabbi Abba. And who are they? The phrase: Colleagues of Rabbi Abba, is referring to Rabbi Zeira. And some say the colleagues of Rabbi Zeira learned it from Rabbi Zeira. And who are they? Rabbi Abba. This is the tradition: Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said that this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the halakhot of mourning.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a tradition with an unusually self-conscious chain: the colleagues of Rabbi Abba — namely Rabbi Zeira — learned it from Rabbi Abba, or perhaps the reverse. The content: Rabbi Abba son of Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba reported that his father said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding a tereifa (mucus seals) and follows Rabbi Shimon regarding mourning. The pairing of the two rulings is itself the mnemonic that holds the tradition together — and, as we shall see, half of it is wrong.
Key Terms:
- חַבְרַיָּא (chavraya) = the colleagues
- וּמַנּוּ (umannu) = and who are they?
Segment 8
TYPE: ביאור וברייתא
Explaining the mourning ruling: one who arrives within the first three days counts with the others
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאֵבֶל, מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, בָּא מִמָּקוֹם קָרוֹב – מוֹנֶה עִמָּהֶן.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa; this is the halakha that we stated above, that mucus forms an effective seal in the intestines. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; what is this halakha? As we learned in a baraita: If one learns of the death of an immediate relative after other relatives have already begun their period of mourning, the halakha is as follows: During the entire first three days of mourning, if a mourner comes to the house of mourning from a nearby place, he counts his days of mourning with the other mourners and completes his mourning with them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The tereifa half of the tradition is the mucus ruling just cited. The mourning half refers to a baraita about a relative who joins mourning late: during the first three days, one who comes from a nearby place counts his shiva with the mourners already counting, and completes his mourning with them. The underlying idea is that within three days the mourning is still considered to be at its beginning, and proximity lets the latecomer fold into the household’s count.
Key Terms:
- אֵבֶל (evel) = mourning
- מָקוֹם קָרוֹב (makom karov) = a nearby place
- מוֹנֶה עִמָּהֶן (moneh imahen) = he counts with them
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Shimon: even one who arrives on the seventh day counts with them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִמָּקוֹם רָחוֹק – מוֹנֶה לְעַצְמוֹ. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, אֲפִילּוּ בָּא מִמָּקוֹם קָרוֹב – מוֹנֶה לְעַצְמוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, בָּא מִמָּקוֹם קָרוֹב – מוֹנֶה עִמָּהֶן.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: If he came from a distant place, he counts seven days on his own from the time that he was informed of the death. From this point forward, i.e., after the first three days, even if he comes from a nearby place, he counts seven days on his own. Rabbi Shimon says: Even on the seventh day, if he comes from a nearby place, he counts and completes his mourning with the other mourners.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues: one who comes from a distant place counts seven days on his own from when he learned of the death, and after the first three days even one from a nearby place counts on his own. Rabbi Shimon extends the leniency: even arriving on the seventh day, one who comes from a nearby place still counts and completes the shiva with the other mourners — as long as the household’s mourning has not concluded, the latecomer can join its count.
Key Terms:
- מָקוֹם רָחוֹק (makom rachok) = a distant place
- מוֹנֶה לְעַצְמוֹ (moneh le’atzmo) = he counts on his own
- יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי (yom hashevi’i) = the seventh day
Segment 10
TYPE: מעשה
The pilgrimage to verify the tradition — and the master denies it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מַאן דְּהוּא: אִיזְכֵּי וְאֶיסַּק וְאֶגְמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא מִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּמָרַהּ. כִּי סְלֵיק, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲמַר מָר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא אֵין הֲלָכָה אֲמַרִי.
English Translation:
Someone whose name was not given said: May I merit to go up to Eretz Yisrael and learn this halakha from the mouth of its Master. When he went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and said to him: Is it true that the Master said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa? Rabbi Abba said to him: This is not true. Rather, I said just the opposite, that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and even if mucus seals the perforation of the intestine, the animal is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
An unnamed scholar vowed: may I merit to go up to Eretz Yisrael and learn this teaching from the mouth of its master. When he arrived, he asked Rabbi Abba son of Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba directly: did the Master say the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding a tereifa? The answer overturned the tradition: I said the opposite — the halakha is not like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and an intestinal perforation sealed by mucus still renders the animal a tereifa. Like the Rabbi Malokh episode on 49a, the journey shows how seriously the Amoraim took verifying attributions at the source.
Key Terms:
- מַאן דְּהוּא (man dehu) = someone, an unnamed person
- אִיזְכֵּי וְאֶיסַּק (izkei ve’eisak) = may I merit to go up
- מָרַהּ (marah) = its master — the originator of the teaching
Segment 11
TYPE: המשך המעשה
And the mourning ruling? That is a genuine dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאָבֵל, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלוּגְתָא נִינְהוּ, דְּאִיתְּמַר: רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר הֲלָכָה, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה, וְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר אֵין הֲלָכָה.
English Translation:
The anonymous man asked Rabbi Abba again: What about the other ruling reported in your name, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; is this accurate? Rabbi Abba said to him: There are conflicting opinions with regard to this matter, as it was stated that Rav Ḥisda says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and so says Rabbi Yoḥanan: That is the halakha. But Rav Naḥman says: That is not the halakha.
קלאוד על הדף:
The visitor pressed on: what of the second half of the tradition, that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon in mourning? Rabbi Abba answered that this is a matter of dispute: Rav Chisda says it is the halakha, and so says Rabbi Yochanan, but Rav Nachman says it is not the halakha. So of the paired tradition, the tereifa half was misreported outright and the mourning half was contested.
Key Terms:
- פְּלוּגְתָא נִינְהוּ (pelugta ninhu) = it is a dispute
- אִיתְּמַר (ittemar) = it was stated (introducing an Amoraic dispute)
Segment 12
TYPE: פסק
The rulings: not like RSBG in tereifa; like Rabbi Shimon in mourning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּטְרֵפָה, וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאֵבֶל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּאֵבֶל.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, who says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the more lenient authority in matters relating to mourning.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara concludes both questions. The halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: intestinal mucus is not a seal, and the perforated intestine renders the animal a tereifa. But the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon regarding mourning, on the strength of Shmuel’s famous principle: the halakha follows the more lenient authority in matters of mourning (halakha kedivrei hameikel be’evel).
Key Terms:
- הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי הַמֵּיקֵל בְּאֵבֶל (halakha kedivrei hameikel be’evel) = the halakha follows the more lenient authority in mourning
- מֵיקֵל (meikel) = the lenient one
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
Makifin: one may compare perforations in the intestines
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא: מַקִּיפִים בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים.
English Translation:
Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: One may compare perforations in the intestines. If one is unsure whether a perforation occurred before or after slaughter, one may make an additional perforation and compare the two. If their appearance is similar, one may conclude that the perforation occurred after slaughter, and the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Shimi bar Chiyya introduces the diagnostic technique of hakafa — comparison. When it is unknown whether a perforation in the intestines occurred before slaughter (tereifa) or after (kosher), one makes a fresh perforation nearby after slaughter and compares the two. If the questionable hole looks like the fresh one — in color, texture, and the state of its edges — it too is presumed post-slaughter, and the animal is kosher.
Key Terms:
- מַקִּיפִים (makifin) = one may compare (literally, set side by side)
- בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים (benei me’ayim) = the intestines
Segment 14
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Mesharshiyya outwits his father: as wise in tereifot as Rabbi Yochanan
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנְהוּ בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אַקְּפִינְהוּ וְלָא אִידְּמוֹ. אֲתָא רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ, מְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּהוּ וְאִידְּמוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנָא לָךְ הָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה יְדֵי מַשְׁמִשׁוּ בְּהָנֵי מִקַּמֵּי דְּלֵיתֵי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַכִּים בְּרִי בִּטְרֵפוֹת כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: There were certain perforated intestines that came before Rava. Rava made other perforations and compared them, but they were not similar. Rav Mesharshiyya, his son, came and rubbed the new perforations, and they were similar. Rav Mesharshiyya therefore deemed the animal kosher. Rava said to him: From where did you know to do this? Rav Mesharshiyya said to him: I reasoned: How many hands rubbed these earlier perforations before they came before the Master? Therefore, I thought that if I handled the new ones, perhaps they would look similar. Rava said to him: My son is as wise in matters of tereifot as Rabbi Yoḥanan.
קלאוד על הדף:
Perforated intestines came before Rava; he punctured a fresh control hole, compared, and the two did not match — implying tereifa. His son Rav Mesharshiyya rubbed and handled the fresh perforation, and then the two matched, and he ruled the animal kosher. His reasoning: the original holes had passed through many hands before reaching the Master, so a fair comparison requires subjecting the control hole to the same handling. Rava’s accolade — my son is as wise in tereifot as Rabbi Yochanan — crowns the methodological insight: a valid comparison must equalize conditions.
Key Terms:
- אַקְּפִינְהוּ וְלָא אִידְּמוֹ (akpinhu vela iddemu) = he compared them and they were not similar
- מְמַשְׁמֵשׁ (memashmeish) = rubbed, handled
- חַכִּים בְּרִי (chakkim beri) = my son is wise
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא ופסק
Comparing perforations in the lung: which comparisons are valid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מַקִּיפִים בָּרֵיאָה. אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּאוֹתָהּ עֲרוּגָה, אֲבָל מֵעֲרוּגָה לַעֲרוּגָה – לָא. וְהִלְכְתָא: אֲפִילּוּ מֵעֲרוּגָה לַעֲרוּגָה, מִדַּקָּה לְדַקָּה, וּמִגַּסָּה לְגַסָּה, אֲבָל לֹא מִגַּסָּה לְדַקָּה, וְלֹא מִדַּקָּה לְגַסָּה.
English Translation:
Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: One may compare perforations in the lung to determine whether they occurred after slaughter. Rava said: We said this only when the two perforations are on the same side of the lungs. But one may not compare perforations from one side to the other side. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may compare even from one side to the other side, and even from a small animal to another small animal, or from a large animal to another large animal, but not from a large animal to a small animal, and not from a small animal to a large animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar both permit hakafa on the lung. Rava limited it to two perforations in the same row (aruga) of the lung, but the Gemara’s ruling is broader: one may compare even from one row to another, and from a small animal to another small animal or a large one to another large one — but not across sizes, from large to small or small to large, since the tissues differ too much for the comparison to be probative.
Key Terms:
- עֲרוּגָה (aruga) = a row or bed — a section of the lung
- מִדַּקָּה לְדַקָּה (midakka ledakka) = from a small (animal) to a small (animal)
- מִגַּסָּה לְגַסָּה (migassa legassa) = from a large (animal) to a large (animal)
Segment 16
TYPE: מימרא ופסק
Comparing in the windpipe: segment to segment, ring to ring
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מַקִּיפִין בַּקָּנֶה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּאוֹתָהּ חוּלְיָא, אֲבָל מֵחוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא – לָא. וְהִלְכְתָא: אֲפִילּוּ מֵחוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא, וּמִבַּר חוּלְיָא לְבַר חוּלְיָא, אֲבָל לָא מֵחוּלְיָא לְבַר חוּלְיָא, וְלָא מִבַּר חוּלְיָא לְחוּלְיָא.
English Translation:
Similarly, Abaye and Rava both say: One may compare severed or perforated areas in the windpipe. Rav Pappa said: We said this only when the two areas are in the same segment of the windpipe. But one may not compare from one segment to another segment. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may even compare from one segment to another segment, and from one subsegment, i.e., a thin segment between the main segments, to another subsegment, but not from a segment to a subsegment, and not from a subsegment to a segment.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye and Rava both permit hakafa on the windpipe. Rav Pappa limited it to the same segment (chulya), but the halakha again extends the tool: one may compare from one segment to another and from one subsegment — the thin band between the main rings — to another subsegment, but not between a segment and a subsegment in either direction. The principle is consistent: compare like with like.
Key Terms:
- קָנֶה (kaneh) = windpipe, trachea
- חוּלְיָא (chulya) = a segment, a ring of the windpipe
- בַּר חוּלְיָא (bar chulya) = a subsegment — the thin band between rings
Segment 17
TYPE: מימרא
Ze’eiri: a perforated rectum is kosher where the thighs hold it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: חַלְחוֹלֶת שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה כְּשֵׁרָה, הוֹאִיל וִירֵיכַיִם מַעֲמִידוֹת אוֹתָהּ. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעַי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק – בְּרוּבּוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק – בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.
English Translation:
Ze’eiri says: If the rectum was perforated, the animal is kosher, since the hips hold it up and seal the perforation. And to how much of the rectum does this apply? Rabbi Ilai says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the rectum was perforated in the place where it is attached to the hips, even if it was perforated in its majority, the animal is kosher. If the perforation was not in the place where it is attached to the hips, the animal is a tereifa if it was perforated in any amount.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ze’eiri rules that a perforation in the rectum (chalcholet) does not render the animal a tereifa, because the thighs press against it and hold the perforation sealed. Rabbi Ilai in the name of Rabbi Yochanan delimits the leniency: at the place where the rectum is attached between the thighs, even a perforation of its majority is kosher; away from the attachment, a perforation of any size makes the animal a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- חַלְחוֹלֶת (chalcholet) = the rectum
- יְרֵיכַיִם מַעֲמִידוֹת אוֹתָהּ (yereichayim ma’amidot otah) = the thighs hold it up
- מְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק (mekom hadevek) = the place of attachment
- בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ (bemashehu) = with any amount
Segment 18
TYPE: מעשה
Rava protests a misattribution: do not hang on Rav Nachman…
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר: לָאו מִי אָמֵינָא לְכוּ לָא תִּתְלוֹ בֵּיהּ
English Translation:
The Sages said this halakha before Rava in the name of Rav Naḥman. Rava said to them: Have I not told you not to hang on Rav Naḥman
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages repeated Rabbi Yochanan’s delimitation before Rava in the name of Rav Nachman. Rava objected: have I not told you not to hang on Rav Nachman — the sentence completes on 50b — empty bottles, i.e., not to attribute to him statements he never made. The rebuke introduces Rav Nachman’s actual, even more lenient formulation, stated at the top of the next amud.
Key Terms:
- לָא תִּתְלוֹ בֵּיהּ (la titlu bei) = do not hang upon him
Amud Bet (50b)
Segment 1
TYPE: המשך ומימרא
Rav Nachman’s true ruling: even fully removed at the attachment — kosher, if a grip remains
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בּוּקֵי סְרִיקִי? הָכִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְקוֹם הַדֶּבֶק, אֲפִילּוּ נִיטַּל כּוּלּוֹ – כָּשֵׁר, וְהוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר בּוֹ כְּדֵי תְּפִיסָה. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּמְלֵא בַּטְדָּא בְּתוֹרָא.
English Translation:
empty bottles, i.e., not to falsely attribute statements to him? So said Rav Naḥman: With regard to the place that the rectum is attached to the hips, even if all of it was removed, the animal is kosher. And this is the halakha only where sufficient space remains of it for a hand to grip. The Gemara asks: And how much is considered sufficient to grip? Abaye said: The width of a finger. This measure is sufficient even in the case of a large bull.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava completes his rebuke — do not hang empty bottles (bukei serikei) on Rav Nachman — and reports what Rav Nachman actually said, a greater leniency than the misquote: at the place of attachment, even if the entire rectum wall was removed, the animal is kosher, provided enough remains for a hand to grip (kedei tefisa). Abaye quantifies the grip: the width of a finger, a measure that suffices even for a large bull.
Key Terms:
- בּוּקֵי סְרִיקִי (bukei serikei) = empty bottles — baseless statements falsely attributed
- כְּדֵי תְּפִיסָה (kedei tefisa) = enough to grip
- כִּמְלֵא בַּטְדָּא בְּתוֹרָא (kimlei batda betora) = the width of a finger, even in a bull
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה ועדות
Which is the internal rumen? The butcher of Tzippori testifies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַכָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הֵעִיד נָתָן בַּר שֵׁילָא רֵישׁ טַבָּחַיָּא דְּצִפּוֹרִי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נָתָן: אֵי זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי? סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר: אִיסְתּוּמְכָא דְּכַרְסָא.
English Translation:
The mishna states that if the internal rumen was perforated or most of the external rumen was torn, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Natan bar Sheila, chief butcher of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the name of Rabbi Natan: Which is the internal rumen? It is the cecum. And so said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: It is the cecum. Rabbi Yishmael said: It is the opening [istumka] of the rumen.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna rules that a perforated internal rumen, or an external rumen torn in its majority, renders the animal a tereifa — so everything depends on identifying the internal rumen (keres hapenimi). Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav cites a formal testimony: Natan bar Sheila, chief butcher of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the name of Rabbi Natan that it is the sanya devei (the cecum), and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha concurred. Rabbi Yishmael identified it instead as the istumka, the opening of the rumen. A professional slaughterer’s expert testimony enters the halakhic record alongside the Sages’ definitions.
Key Terms:
- כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי (keres hapenimi) = the internal rumen
- סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי (sanya devei) = the cecum
- אִיסְתּוּמְכָא דְּכַרְסָא (istumka decharsa) = the opening of the rumen
- רֵישׁ טַבָּחַיָּא (reish tabbachaya) = chief butcher
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרות
A narrow place I cannot identify — and the rumen falls into a pit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָקוֹם צַר יֵשׁ בַּכָּרֵס, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶהוּ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: נְפַל כְּרֵסָא בְּבֵירָא. אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב עַוָּא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מִן הַמֵּיצַר וּלְמַטָּה.
English Translation:
Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a narrow place in the rumen, and this is the internal rumen; all the rest is the external rumen. But I do not know which area is this narrow place. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The rumen has fallen in a pit, i.e., since it is unknown which area is considered the narrow place, a perforation in any part of the rumen renders the animal a tereifa. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Ava says that Rav Asi says: The inner rumen extends from the narrow place, where the rumen begins to narrow as it approaches the gullet, and downward toward the gullet when the animal is suspended by its legs.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Asi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan offered a third definition: there is a narrow place in the rumen which is the internal rumen — but I do not know which area it is. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak drew the practical conclusion in a memorable idiom: the rumen has fallen into a pit — since the stringent zone cannot be located, a perforation anywhere in the rumen must be treated as a tereifa. Rav Acha bar Rav Ava then rescued the definition in Rav Asi’s name: the internal rumen extends from where the rumen narrows toward the gullet and downward.
Key Terms:
- מָקוֹם צַר (makom tzar) = a narrow place
- נְפַל כְּרֵסָא בְּבֵירָא (nefal kereisa beveira) = the rumen has fallen into a pit — the matter is irresolvably stringent
- מִן הַמֵּיצַר וּלְמַטָּה (min hameitzar ulematta) = from the narrow point and downward
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרות
Two more definitions: the place without wool; a handbreadth of the gullet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מֵילָת. רַבִּי אֲבִינָא אָמַר גְּנִיבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: טֶפַח בַּוֶּושֶׁט סָמוּךְ לַכָּרֵס – זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית.
English Translation:
Rabbi Ya’akov bar Naḥmani says in the name of Shmuel: The internal rumen is the place in the rumen that has no wool, i.e., downy projections on the inside of the rumen. Rabbi Avina says in the name of Geneiva, who said in the name of Rav: The handbreadth in the gullet adjacent to the rumen, this is the internal rumen.
קלאוד על הדף:
The list of definitions continues. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Nachmani in the name of Shmuel: the internal rumen is the place inside the rumen that has no wool — lacking the downy, villous projections that line the rest of it. Rabbi Avina in the name of Geneiva in the name of Rav moves the boundary entirely: the handbreadth of the gullet adjacent to the rumen is the internal rumen.
Key Terms:
- מֵילָת (meilat) = wool — the downy lining of the rumen
- טֶפַח בַּוֶּושֶׁט (tefach baveshet) = a handbreadth of the gullet
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרות
The West: the whole rumen is internal; Rabba bar Rav Huna: the mafrata
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: כׇּל הַכָּרֵס כּוּלּוֹ – זוֹ הִיא כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִית, וְאֵיזֶהוּ כָּרֵס הַחִיצוֹן? בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס. רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: מַפְרַעְתָּה. מַאי מַפְרַעְתָּה? אָמַר רַב אַוְיָא: הֵיכָא דְּפָרְעִי טַבָּחֵי.
English Translation:
In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina: The entire rumen is the internal rumen. And if so, which is the external rumen? It is the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen on the underside of the animal. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: The internal rumen is the mafrata. The Gemara asks: What is the mafrata? Rav Avya said: It is the place that the butcher exposes when he opens up the animal, i.e., the underside of the stomach.
קלאוד על הדף:
In Eretz Yisrael they said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Chanina that the entire rumen is the internal rumen, and the external rumen of the mishna is the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen on the animal’s underside. Rabba bar Rav Huna gave the definition that would prevail in practice: the mafrata — explained by Rav Avya as the place the butchers expose (par’i) when they open the animal, the underside of the stomach.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַעְרְבָא (bema’arva) = in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael
- בָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס (basar hachofeh et rov hakeres) = the flesh that covers the majority of the rumen
- מַפְרַעְתָּה (mafrata) = the part the butcher exposes on opening the animal
Segment 6
TYPE: מעשה ושקלא וטריא
Nehardea follows Rabba bar Rav Huna — and the other views are absorbed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא עָבְדִי כְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: כֹּל הָנֵי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כּוּלְּהוּ שָׁיְיכָן בִּדְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: In Neharde’a, they practiced in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar, one of the Sages of Neharde’a: What about all these other statements, that the internal rumen is another part of the rumen? Ameimar said to him: They are all included in the definition of the rumen according to Rabba bar Rav Huna. The cecum, the opening of the stomach, and the place with no wool all face the underside of the stomach, i.e., the mafrata.
קלאוד על הדף:
In Nehardea the practice followed Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rav Ashi pressed Ameimar, a Sage of Nehardea: what becomes of all the other definitions? Ameimar answered that they are all included within Rabba bar Rav Huna’s: the cecum, the rumen’s opening, and the wool-less place all face the underside that the butcher exposes — the mafrata — so the competing definitions converge on the same zone.
Key Terms:
- עָבְדִי כְּ־ (avdi ke-) = they practiced in accordance with
- שָׁיְיכָן (shayechan) = they are included, subsumed
Segment 7
TYPE: המשך השקלא וטריא
Which opinions truly disagree — and are not followed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּדְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי אֲמַר לֵיהּ? כְּבָר פֵּירְשָׁה רַב אַחָא בַּר עַוָּא. וּדְרַבִּי אֲבִינָא וְדִבְנֵי מַעְרְבָא, מַאי אֲמַר לֵיהּ? הָנֵי וַדַּאי פְּלִיגִי.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi replied: And what about the opinion that Rav Asi says in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the internal rumen is an unknown narrow area? Shouldn’t the entire rumen be treated as the internal rumen? Ameimar said to him: Rav Aḥa bar Ava already explained that it is the area extending from the narrow place until the gullet. This area is also included in the mafrata. Rav Ashi asked further: And what of the opinion of Rabbi Avina, that the internal rumen is the handbreadth near the gullet, and of the residents of the West, Eretz Yisrael, that it is the entire rumen? Ameimar said to him: These opinions certainly disagree with that of Rabba bar Rav Huna, but we do not follow them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi continued the audit: what of Rav Asi’s narrow place? Ameimar: Rav Acha bar Ava already explained it as the area from the narrows toward the gullet, which also falls within the mafrata. And the views of Rabbi Avina (a handbreadth of the gullet) and of the West (the entire rumen)? Those, Ameimar conceded, certainly disagree with Rabba bar Rav Huna — and the practice does not follow them. The sugya ends with a clean halakhic map: one operative definition, most others harmonized, two acknowledged dissents set aside.
Key Terms:
- כְּבָר פֵּירְשָׁה (kevar peirsha) = it has already been explained
- הָנֵי וַדַּאי פְּלִיגִי (hanei vadai peligi) = these certainly disagree
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה וביאור
Rabbi Yehuda’s ‘large’ and ‘small’ animals are not literal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּגְדוֹלָה כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא ״גְּדוֹלָה״ – גְּדוֹלָה מַמָּשׁ, וְלֹא ״קְטַנָּה״ – קְטַנָּה מַמָּשׁ, אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁנִּקְרַע בָּהּ טֶפַח וְלָא הָוֵי רוּבָּא – זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: ״בִּגְדוֹלָה טֶפַח״, רוּבָּא וְלָא הָוֵי טֶפַח – זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: ״בִּקְטַנָּה בְּרוּבָּא״.
English Translation:
The mishna states: Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a tear in the external rumen, for a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa, while for a small animal, it is a tereifa only if most of it was torn. Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet says that Rabbi Elazar says: The word: Large, is not referring literally to a large animal, and the word: Small, is not referring literally to a small animal. Rather, concerning any animal large enough that its external rumen can be torn one handbreadth and this does not constitute most of it, this is what we learned: For a large animal, a tear of one handbreadth renders it a tereifa. And concerning any animal small enough that most of its external rumen can be torn and this does not constitute one handbreadth, this is what we learned: For a small animal, it is a tereifa only if most of it was torn. In other words, any external rumen torn either one handbreadth or in its majority renders the animal a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna cites Rabbi Yehuda: a tear in the external rumen of a large animal must be a handbreadth (tefach) to render it a tereifa, and in a small animal, its majority. Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet in the name of Rabbi Elazar reinterprets: large and small are not literal categories. An animal in which a tefach-tear is less than the majority is the mishna’s ‘large’ — for it a tefach suffices; one in which a majority-tear is less than a tefach is the ‘small’ — for it the majority suffices. The operative rule: whichever threshold is reached first, a tefach or a majority, renders the animal a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- טֶפַח (tefach) = a handbreadth
- מַמָּשׁ (mamash) = literal, actual
- רוּבָּא (rubba) = the majority
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Is a majority smaller than a tefach not obvious?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רוּבָּא וְלָא הָוֵי טֶפַח, פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּהָוְיָא טֶפַח בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: עַד דְּמִיקְּרַע בַּהּ טֶפַח לָא הָוֵי טְרֵפָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If most of the external rumen is torn but it does not constitute a handbreadth, isn’t it obvious that the animal is rendered a tereifa? There is a principle that the majority of an entity is considered like all of it. The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to teach this for a case where the tear would constitute a handbreadth with any amount more than a majority, i.e., the external rumen is slightly smaller than two handbreadths. Lest you say that in such a case, the animal is not a tereifa until a handbreadth of it is torn, this halakha teaches us that this is not so. Rather, if the majority of the rumen is torn, the animal is a tereifa, even if this constitutes less than a handbreadth.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects: if the majority of the external rumen is torn but measures less than a tefach, is it not obvious that the animal is a tereifa? The majority of an entity is reckoned as the whole. The answer: the teaching is needed for a rumen just under two handbreadths, where barely more than the majority would already equal a tefach. One might have thought that in such a case the tear must actually reach a full tefach; the ruling teaches that the majority alone suffices, even when it falls short of a tefach.
Key Terms:
- פְּשִׁיטָא (peshita) = it is obvious
- מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא (mahu deteima) = lest you say
- קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן (ka mashma lan) = it teaches us (otherwise)
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא
A round hole the size of a sela — and the three-date-pit test
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר גְּנִיבָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: נִקְדְּרָה כְּסֶלַע – טְרֵפָה, שֶׁאִם תִּמָּתַח תַּעֲמוֹד עַל הַטֶּפַח. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: לְדִידִי מִפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דִּגְנִיבָא אַמַּבָּרָא דִּנְהַרְדְּעָא – כְּסֶלַע כְּשֵׁרָה, יָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע טְרֵפָה. וְכַמָּה יָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּגוֹן דְּעָיְילָן תְּלָת קַשְׁיָיתָא בְּצִיפָּא בְּדוּחְקָא, בְּלָא צִיפָּא בְּרַוְוחָא.
English Translation:
Geneiva says that Rabbi Asi says: If a round hole was bored through the external rumen as large as a sela coin, the animal is a tereifa, since if a hole of such size will be stretched, it will reach the length of a handbreadth. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: This matter was explained to me personally by Geneiva himself, when we were on the ferry of Neharde’a: If the hole is exactly as large as a sela, the animal is kosher. If the size of the hole is greater than a sela, it is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: And how much is considered greater than a sela? Rav Yosef said: For example, if three date pits covered in remains of the date can fit through the hole with difficulty, or if, without being covered in any remains, they can fit comfortably, this is considered a hole larger than a sela.
קלאוד על הדף:
Geneiva in the name of Rabbi Asi addressed a round bored hole (as opposed to a tear): a hole the size of a sela coin renders the animal a tereifa, since if stretched it would extend to a tefach. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba reports a personal clarification from Geneiva on the Nehardea ferry: exactly a sela — kosher; more than a sela — tereifa. Rav Yosef supplies the field test for ‘more than a sela’: three date pits fit through the hole snugly with their date residue still on them, or comfortably without it.
Key Terms:
- נִקְדְּרָה (nikdera) = was bored through in a circle
- סֶלַע (sela) = a sela coin
- תְּלָת קַשְׁיָיתָא (telat kashyata) = three date pits
- בְּצִיפָּא / בְּלָא צִיפָּא (betzipa / bela tzipa) = with / without the date residue covering them
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
The needle in the reticulum wall, revisited: the blood test
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּעוֹבִי בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת מִצַּד אֶחָד – כְּשֵׁרָה, מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִים – טְרֵפָה. נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹרֶט דָּם –
English Translation:
The mishna states: An animal is a tereifa if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, i.e., to the abdominal cavity. With regard to this, the Sages taught: In the case of a needle that is found in the thickness of the reticulum, if it pierced the wall from only one side, the animal is kosher. If it pierced the wall from both sides, i.e., the needle completely pierced the wall of the stomach, it is a tereifa. But even if it protrudes from both sides, it is not always a tereifa, and it may be inspected further: If a drop of congealed blood is found on top of the needle,
קלאוד על הדף:
Returning to the mishna’s ruling on the omasum (hemses) and reticulum (beit hakosot), a baraita restates the rule from 49a: a needle found in the thickness of the reticulum wall — from one side, kosher; through both sides, a tereifa. But the baraita adds a refinement that carries onto 51a: even a needle protruding from both sides may be inspected further — if a speck of congealed blood is found upon it, the perforation preceded the slaughter; the conclusion of the test follows on the next daf.
Key Terms:
- הֶמְסֵס (hemses) = the omasum, the third stomach
- בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת (beit hakosot) = the reticulum, the second stomach
- קוֹרֶט דָּם (koret dam) = a speck of congealed blood