Chullin Daf 51 (חולין דף נ״א)
Daf: 51 | Amudim: 51a – 51b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (51a)
Segment 1
TYPE: המשך הברייתא
The blood test concluded: blood on the needle — before slaughter; no blood — after
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלִּפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה, לֹא נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹרֶט דָּם – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלְּאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
it is certain that the perforation was created before the slaughter of the animal, and it is therefore a tereifa. If a drop of blood is not found on it, it is certain that it occurred after the slaughter, when the blood of the animal had stopped flowing. The animal is therefore kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the baraita that began at the end of 50b. A needle that pierced both sides of the reticulum wall is inspected: if a speck of congealed blood is found on it, it is certain the perforation occurred before slaughter and the animal is a tereifa; if no blood is found, it is certain the perforation occurred after slaughter — when the blood had already stopped flowing — and the animal is kosher. The needle thus carries its own forensic record.
Key Terms:
- קוֹרֶט דָּם (koret dam) = a speck of congealed blood
- בְּיָדוּעַ (beyadua) = it is known with certainty
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
The scab test — and who bears the burden of proof in a disputed sale
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִגְלִיד פִּי הַמַּכָּה – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה. לֹא הִגְלִיד פִּי הַמַּכָּה – הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.
English Translation:
If a scab covered the opening of the wound, i.e., the perforation, it is certain that the perforation occurred three days before the slaughter. Consequently, if the animal was sold less than three days before the slaughter, the buyer can claim that the transaction was performed in error, as he did not intend to purchase a tereifa animal, and the seller must refund the buyer. If a scab did not cover the opening of the wound, and it is uncertain whether the perforation occurred before or after the animal was purchased, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Accordingly, the buyer must furnish proof that the perforation occurred before the purchase in order to demand a refund.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita adds a dating tool with monetary consequences: if a scab covers the mouth of the wound, the perforation is certainly at least three days old. A buyer who purchased the animal within those three days can void the sale as a mistaken transaction and demand a refund. If there is no scab, the timing is genuinely uncertain, and the general rule of monetary law governs: the burden of proof rests on the claimant (hamotzi mechaveiro alav hare’aya) — the buyer must prove the defect preceded the sale.
Key Terms:
- הִגְלִיד פִּי הַמַּכָּה (higlid pi hamakka) = the mouth of the wound scabbed over
- הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה (hamotzi mechaveiro alav hare’aya) = the burden of proof rests on the claimant
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why does the absence of blood prove anything here?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִכֹּל נְקוּבֵי דְּעָלְמָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיכָּא דָּם טָרֵיף מָר? הָתָם לֵיכָּא מִידֵּי לְמִיסְרַךְ, הָכָא כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא מַחַט, אִי אִיתָא דְּקוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא – מִיסְרָךְ הֲוָה סָרֵיךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But in what way is this case different from all other perforations, where even though there is no blood on the wound the Master deems the animal a tereifa? The Gemara responds: There, in all other cases, there is nothing to which the blood can attach. Even if the wound had bled, the blood would be reabsorbed into the flesh. Here, since there is a needle, it follows that if it is the case that the perforation occurred before slaughter, blood from the wound would have attached to the needle. Accordingly, if there is no blood on the needle, it is certain that the perforation occurred after slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks: in all other perforations we deem the animal a tereifa even when no blood is found at the wound — so why is the absence of blood probative here? The answer turns on the needle: in ordinary wounds there is nothing for blood to attach to, and any bleeding is reabsorbed into the flesh. Here, had the perforation occurred in life, blood would necessarily have clung to the needle. A clean needle is therefore positive evidence of a post-slaughter perforation.
Key Terms:
- לְמִיסְרַךְ (lemisrach) = to cling, attach
- מִיסְרָךְ הֲוָה סָרֵיךְ (misrach hava sarich) = it would certainly have clung
Segment 4
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Avira’s puzzling report — and Abaye climbs to the roof
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְאַבָּיֵי: חֲזִי מָר הַאי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן דַּאֲתָא מִמַּעְרְבָא, וְאָמַר: רַב עַוִּירָא שְׁמֵנִי, וְאָמַר: מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּעוֹבִי בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת מִצַּד אֶחָד, וּטְרָפָהּ. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ לָא אֲתָא לְגַבֵּיהּ, אֲזַל הוּא לְגַבֵּיהּ. הֲוָה קָאֵי אַאִיגָּרָא, אָמַר: נֵיחוֹת מָר וְנֵיתֵי. לָא נָחֵית, סָלֵיק הוּא לְגַבֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימָא לִי גּוּפָא דְעוֹבָדָא הֵיכִי הֲוָה?
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Safra said to Abaye: Did the Master see a Torah scholar who came from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and said: My name is Rav Avira? He said that there was an incident that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi involving a needle that was found in the thickness of the reticulum protruding from only one side, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. Abaye sent a message to Rav Avira calling for him to come and explain the matter, since this contradicts the baraita that states that the animal is a tereifa only if the needle protrudes from both sides. Rav Avira did not come before him, so Abaye went before Rav Avira. Rav Avira was standing on the roof. Abaye said to him: Let Master descend and come, but Rav Avira did not descend. Abaye ascended to him and said to him: Say to me, what were the circumstances of the incident itself?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Safra alerted Abaye to a scholar from Eretz Yisrael, Rav Avira, who reported that Rebbi (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) declared an animal a tereifa over a needle lodged in the reticulum wall on one side only — flatly against the baraita, which requires penetration of both sides. Abaye summoned him; Rav Avira did not come. Abaye went to him; Rav Avira, standing on the roof, would not come down — so Abaye climbed up and demanded the facts of the case themselves. The pursuit dramatizes the lesson of the last two dapim: a troubling report must be checked against the original facts.
Key Terms:
- צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן (tzurva merabbanan) = a (young) Torah scholar
- גּוּפָא דְעוֹבָדָא (gufa de’uvda) = the body of the incident — the actual facts
Segment 5
TYPE: המשך המעשה
The eyewitness account: Rebbi found a drop of blood on the outside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַפְטִיר כְּנֵסִיּוֹת אֲנָא, לְעֵילָּא מֵרַבִּי רַבָּה. וַהֲוָה רַב הוּנָא צִיפּוֹרָאָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מָדָאָה יוֹשְׁבִין לְפָנָיו, וּבָאת לִפְנֵי רַבִּי מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּעוֹבִי בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת מִצַּד אֶחָד, וַהֲפָכָהּ רַבִּי וּמָצָא עָלֶיהָ קוֹרֶט דָּם וּטְרָפָהּ, וְאָמַר: אִם אֵין שָׁם מַכָּה, קוֹרֶט דָּם מִנַּיִן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טְרָא טַרְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא! מַתְנִיתִין הִיא: הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ לַחוּץ.
English Translation:
Rav Avira said to him: I am a director of assemblies in the study hall. I was standing above the Great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rav Huna of Tzippori and Rabbi Yosei of Media were sitting before him, and a needle came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that was found in the thickness of the reticulum protruding from one side, i.e., the inside, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi turned the reticulum over and found a drop of blood on the outside, parallel to the wound on the inside, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. And he said: If there is no wound on the outside there as well, from where is this drop of blood? Abaye said to Rav Avira: He caused that man trouble needlessly, i.e., you troubled me for no reason. This is nothing more than the mishna, which states that an animal is a tereifa if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated to the outside.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Avira, a director of assemblies who stood beside Rebbi, supplies the missing detail: Rebbi turned the reticulum over and found a speck of blood on the outer side opposite the needle, and only then declared it a tereifa, reasoning — if there is no wound on the outside, where did this blood come from? Abaye deflates the mystery with mild exasperation: you have troubled this man for nothing, for that is simply our mishna — the reticulum perforated to the outside is a tereifa. The ‘novel’ ruling was the mishna itself, properly applied to forensic evidence.
Key Terms:
- מַפְטִיר כְּנֵסִיּוֹת (maftir kenesiyot) = director of assemblies in the study hall
- טְרָא טַרְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא (tera taryei lehahu gavra) = he has troubled that man (i.e., me) needlessly
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה ומימרא
Nefula: an animal found below need not have fallen
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נָפְלָה מִן הַגָּג, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הִנִּיחַ בְּהֵמָה לְמַעְלָה, וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ לְמַטָּה – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּקֵי אֵבָרִים.
English Translation:
The mishna states: An animal that fell from the roof is a tereifa, since its limbs may have been shattered. Rav Huna says: If one left an animal above, on the roof, and he came back and found it below, but did not see it fall, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. One may presume that it jumped intentionally and was not injured.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s next tereifa is the fallen animal (nefula) — a fall from a roof may shatter its limbs (rissukei evarim). Rav Huna limits the concern: if one left an animal on the roof and later found it below without seeing a fall, one need not be concerned. The animal is presumed to have descended deliberately — jumping animals protect themselves; falling ones may not.
Key Terms:
- נְפוּלָה (nefula) = a fallen animal
- רִיסּוּקֵי אֵבָרִים (rissukei evarim) = shattering of the limbs/internal organs
- אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין (ein chosheshin) = we are not concerned
Segment 7
TYPE: מעשה ובעיא
Ravina’s kid jumps through the skylight: what drives Rav Huna’s leniency?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא גַּדְיָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרָבִינָא, דַּחֲזָא חוּשְׁלָא בְּאִיפּוּמָא דְּגַר, נְפַל מֵאִיגָּרָא לְאַרְעָא, אַתְיוּהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא ״הִנִּיחַ בְּהֵמָה לְמַעְלָה וּבָא וּמְצָאָהּ לְמַטָּה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּקֵי אֵבָרִים״, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית לַהּ מִידֵּי לְמִסְרַךְ, וְהַאי לֵית לֵיהּ מִידֵּי לְמִסְרַךְ? אוֹ דִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְדָה נַפְשָׁהּ, וְהַאי נָמֵי אָמֵדה נַפְשֵׁהּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: There was a certain kid belonging to Ravina that saw barley groats through an open skylight. It jumped down through the skylight and fell from the roof to the ground. The case came before Rav Ashi, and Ravina said to him: What is the rationale for this statement that Rav Huna says, that if one left an animal above and he came back and found it below, one need not be concerned about the possible shattering of limbs? Is it because the animal usually has something to grab hold of? If so, since this kid jumped through a skylight, it did not have something to grab hold of, and one must be concerned. Or perhaps it is because the animal evaluates itself and determines that it can jump without injury. If so, this kid also evaluated itself before jumping, and one need not be concerned.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina’s young goat saw barley groats through an open skylight and leapt down through it. Ravina asked Rav Ashi to define the rationale of Rav Huna’s ruling: is the animal presumed safe because it ordinarily has something to grip on the way down — absent here, since it dropped through an open skylight — or because an animal evaluates itself (amda nafsha) before jumping, which applies equally here? The case isolates the two possible rationales perfectly.
Key Terms:
- גַּדְיָא (gadya) = a kid, young goat
- חוּשְׁלָא (chushla) = barley groats
- אִיפּוּמָא (ipuma) = skylight
- אָמְדָה נַפְשָׁהּ (amda nafsha) = it evaluates itself
Segment 8
TYPE: תשובה
Rav Ashi: the animal evaluates itself — the kid is kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְדָה נַפְשָׁהּ, וְהַאי נָמֵי אָמֵדה נַפְשֵׁהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said to him: It is because the animal evaluates itself before jumping, and this kid also evaluated itself before jumping. Therefore, one need not be concerned about the possible shattering of limbs.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi rules that Rav Huna’s leniency rests on the animal’s self-evaluation: a beast does not leap unless it judges the jump within its power. Ravina’s kid likewise sized up the drop before jumping for the groats, so there is no concern of shattered limbs. The rationale chosen has broad consequences: any deliberate descent, even without handholds, is safe.
Key Terms:
- וְהַאי נָמֵי (vehai nami) = and this one too
Segment 9
TYPE: מעשה ופסק
The ewe that dragged her hind legs: rule by the common cause
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהִיא אִימַּרְתָּא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רַב חֲבִיבָא, דַּהֲווֹ שָׁדְרָן כַּרְעַיהּ בָּתְרָיָיתָא. אָמַר רַב יֵימַר: הַאי שִׁיגְרוֹנָא נַקְטַיהּ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: וְדִלְמָא חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה אִיפְּסִיק? בַּדְקוּהָ, אַשְׁכְּחוּהָ כְּרָבִינָא. וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב יֵימַר, שִׁגְרוֹנָא שְׁכִיחַ, חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה לָא שְׁכִיחַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that there was a certain ewe that was in the house of Rav Ḥaviva, whose hind legs would drag. Rav Yeimar said: This ewe suffers from rheumatism [shigrona], and this is why she drags her legs. Ravina objects to this: But perhaps the spinal cord was cut, and this is why the ewe dragged her legs, and the animal is a tereifa. They inspected her and found that the spinal cord was cut, as Ravina said. The Gemara notes: And even so, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yeimar, since rheumatism is common, but a cut spinal cord is not common. Accordingly, one need not be concerned about the possibility of a cut spinal cord.
קלאוד על הדף:
A ewe in Rav Chaviva’s house dragged her hind legs. Rav Yeimar diagnosed rheumatism (shigrona); Ravina objected that perhaps the spinal cord was severed — a tereifa. They inspected, and Ravina proved right. Yet the Gemara rules like Rav Yeimar: rheumatism is common, a severed spinal cord is rare, and halakha follows the probable cause rather than the worst case — even though in this very instance the rare cause was the true one.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיגְרוֹנָא (shigrona) = rheumatism, a leg ailment
- חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה (chut hashidra) = the spinal cord
- שְׁכִיחַ / לָא שְׁכִיחַ (shechiach / la shechiach) = common / uncommon
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא
Butting rams: pain and fever, not shattered limbs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: זְכָרִים הַמְנַגְּחִין זֶה אֶת זֶה – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּקֵי אֵבָרִים, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִידְּווּ וְקָיְימִי – צִימְרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּנָקֵט לְהוּ; אִי נְפוּל לְאַרְעָא – וַדַּאי חָיְישִׁינַן.
English Translation:
Rav Huna also says: With regard to rams that butt one another, one need not be concerned with regard to shattering of limbs. Even though they are in pain and stand still, it is only a fever that afflicts them; one need not be concerned about the possibility of severe injuries. But if they fall to the ground due to the impact, we certainly must be concerned that their limbs may have been shattered.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna rules that rams that butt one another need not raise concern for shattered limbs: even if they are in evident pain and stand frozen, it is mere feverish affliction (tzimra) from the blow, not internal shattering. But if the impact knocks them to the ground, we are certainly concerned — collapse is the marker that elevates a hard knock into a suspected fall.
Key Terms:
- זְכָרִים הַמְנַגְּחִין (zecharim hamenagchin) = rams that butt one another
- צִימְרָא (tzimra) = fever, feverish pain
Segment 11
TYPE: מימרא
Stolen rams: thieves throw them carefully — usually
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב מְנַשֵּׁי: הָנֵי דִּכְרֵי דְּגָנְבִי גַּנָּבֵי – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים, מַאי טַעְמָא? כִּי שָׁדוּ לְהוּ אַמׇּתְנַיְיהוּ שָׁדוּ לְהוּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִירְהֲטוּ קַמַּיְיהוּ. אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ – וַדַּאי חָיְישִׁינַן; וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַהְדְּרִינְהוּ מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה, אֲבָל מֵחֲמַת תְּשׁוּבָה – תְּשׁוּבָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הוּא דְּעָבְדִי.
English Translation:
Rav Menashei says: With regard to these rams that thieves steal and throw over the fence, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. What is the reason for this? When the thieves throw them over the fence, they throw them so that they land on their hips, where they will not be injured, so that they will be able to run before them. But if the thieves returned them to the owner, we certainly must be concerned that their limbs may have been shattered, since thieves do not throw them carefully when returning them. And this statement applies only when they return them due to fear of being caught, or are otherwise forced to return them. But if they return them due to repentance, they have performed full-fledged repentance and will take care to return them without injury.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Menashei applies the same realism to stolen animals: rams that thieves fling over a fence are not suspect, because thieves throw them onto their haunches deliberately, so the animals can run ahead of them — damaged goods cannot flee. But animals the thieves returned are suspect, since one returning under fear of capture throws carelessly. And if they returned the animals out of genuine repentance, they are again trusted: true penitents complete their repentance properly and take care not to cause damage.
Key Terms:
- דִּכְרֵי דְּגָנְבִי גַּנָּבֵי (dichrei degnavei ganavei) = rams that thieves steal
- מֵחֲמַת יִרְאָה (machamat yir’a) = out of fear
- תְּשׁוּבָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא (teshuva ma’alyata) = full-fledged repentance
Segment 12
TYPE: מימרא
A blow along the spine: when a stick strike raises concern
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הִכָּהּ עַל רֹאשָׁהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ כְּלַפֵּי זְנָבָהּ, עַל זְנָבָהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ כְּלַפֵּי רֹאשָׁהּ, כְּנֶגֶד כׇּל הַשִּׁדְרָה כּוּלָּהּ – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּקֵי אֵבָרִים, וְאִי שְׁלֵים חוּטְרָא אַפַּלְגֵי דְּגַבָּא – חָיְישִׁינַן; וְאִי אִית בַּהּ קִיטְרֵי – חָיְישִׁינַן; וְאִי מַחְיַיהּ אַפַּסְקִית – חָיְישִׁינַן.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one hit an animal on its head with a stick, and the length of the stick continued toward its back; or if one hit the animal on its tail and the length of the stick continued toward its head, such that in either case the blow extended along the entire spine, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. But if the length of the stick concluded at the middle of the back, we must be concerned that the strike caused an injury to the spine. And if there are knots, i.e., protrusions, on the stick, we must be concerned that it injured the spine, even if the stick fell across the entire back. And if he struck it like a slash across the width of the back, we must be concerned that it injured the spine.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav, cited by Rav Yehuda, maps the danger of a stick blow to the back. If the stick landed along the length of the spine — from head toward tail or tail toward head — there is no concern, for the force was distributed. But if the stick’s length ended mid-back, concentrating its tip on one point of the spine, we are concerned; likewise if the stick had knots, or if the blow fell crosswise (apaskit) over the spine. The criterion throughout is concentrated versus distributed impact.
Key Terms:
- חוּטְרָא (chutra) = a stick, staff
- קִיטְרֵי (kitrei) = knots, protrusions
- אַפַּסְקִית (apaskit) = crosswise, like a slash across the back
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Nachman: the womb does not shatter limbs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בֵּית הָרֶחֶם אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּקֵי אֵבָרִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּיע לָךְ, תִּינוֹק בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman says: The womb is not subject to concern about possible shattered limbs. In other words, one need not be concerned that the limbs of a newborn calf may have been shattered by the narrow birth canal. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion: A one-day-old infant
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman rules that the birth canal (beit harechem) is not subject to the concern of shattered limbs: a newborn calf is not suspect merely because it was compressed in the narrow passage of birth. Rava begins to adduce support from a baraita about a one-day-old infant — the citation breaks off here and is completed at the top of 51b.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית הָרֶחֶם (beit harechem) = the womb, the birth canal
- תִּינוֹק בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד (tinok ben yom echad) = a one-day-old infant
Amud Bet (51b)
Segment 1
TYPE: המשך וסיוע
A one-day-old infant is rendered impure by ziva — proof birth does not shatter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְטַמֵּא בְּזִיבָה, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּקֵי אֵבָרִים, אִיקְרִי כָּאן ״מִבְּשָׂרוֹ״ וְלֹא מֵחֲמַת אוֹנְסוֹ.
English Translation:
becomes ritually impure if he experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva]. And if it should enter your mind that a newborn is subject to concern about possible shattered limbs, read here the ruling stated with regard to ziva, that one’s discharge renders one impure only when it issues “out of his flesh” (Leviticus 15:2), but not when it issues due to circumstances beyond his control, e.g., due to illness. Therefore, if one must be concerned that a newborn’s limbs may have shattered during birth, his discharge would not render him impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s proof concludes: a one-day-old infant becomes ritually impure through a gonorrhea-like discharge (ziva). The Torah renders such discharge impure only when it issues ‘out of his flesh’ (Leviticus 15:2) — naturally, and not due to outside compulsion such as illness or injury. If every newborn were suspected of shattered limbs from the birth canal, his discharge would be attributed to that trauma and never render him impure. Since the baraita does declare him impure, birth evidently raises no such concern — supporting Rav Nachman.
Key Terms:
- זִיבָה (ziva) = an impure genital discharge
- מִבְּשָׂרוֹ (mibesaro) = ‘out of his flesh’ (Leviticus 15:2)
- מֵחֲמַת אוֹנְסוֹ (machamat onso) = due to circumstances beyond his control
Segment 2
TYPE: דחייה
The deflection: that infant was born by caesarean section
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: One cannot bring a proof from this baraita, since here we are dealing with a case where the infant left the womb by caesarean section and did not exit through the narrow birth canal. By contrast, after normal births, a newborn’s discharge does not render it impure, since one is concerned about the possibility of shattered limbs.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara deflects the proof: the baraita may deal with an infant delivered through the abdominal wall (yotzei derech dofen — caesarean section), who never passed through the narrow birth canal at all. For such a child the discharge is certainly natural. On this reading, after an ordinary birth one would indeed be concerned for shattered limbs — so the baraita cannot settle Rav Nachman’s question.
Key Terms:
- יָצָא דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן (yatza derech dofen) = it emerged through the (abdominal) wall — caesarean birth
Segment 3
TYPE: תא שמע ודחייה
A calf born on the Festival may be slaughtered that day — same deflection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: עֵגֶל שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּיוֹם טוֹב – שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. הָכָא נָמֵי, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: If a calf was born on a Festival, one may slaughter it and eat it on the Festival. One need not wait twenty-four hours before deeming the animal kosher, as one does for an animal that fell from a roof. Apparently, one need not be concerned that its limbs were shattered during the birth. The Gemara responds: Here, too, the baraita is referring to a case where the calf left the womb by caesarean section. But after normal births, one must wait twenty-four hours before slaughtering the calf.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second proof: a calf born on a Festival may be slaughtered and eaten that very day, with no twenty-four-hour wait of the kind imposed on an animal that fell from a roof — evidently birth raises no concern of shattered limbs. The Gemara deflects identically: that baraita too may concern a calf delivered by caesarean section, while a naturally born calf would indeed wait twenty-four hours.
Key Terms:
- עֵגֶל שֶׁנּוֹלַד בְּיוֹם טוֹב (egel shenolad beyom tov) = a calf born on a Festival
- מֵעֵת לְעֵת (me’et le’et) = a twenty-four-hour period
Segment 4
TYPE: תא שמע
The firstborn with its blemish — caesarean section cannot save this one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם נוֹלַד הוּא וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ, שֶׁזֶּה מִן הַמּוּכָן. וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי שֶׁיָּצָא דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן – דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן מִי קָדוֹשׁ? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְעִנְיַן קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ!
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from another baraita: And all agree that if a firstborn animal was born on a Festival and its blemish was born with it, i.e., if it was born with a blemish that removes its sanctity and renders it permitted for consumption, it is considered to be prepared for the Festival and may be eaten. Evidently, one need not wait twenty-four hours before deeming it kosher. And if you would say that here too, the baraita deals with a case where the animal left the womb by caesarean section, one might respond: Is a firstborn animal born by caesarean section sanctified? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Rabbi Shimon would concede with regard to sacrificial animals, e.g., a firstborn, that an animal born by caesarean section is not sanctified? Therefore, the baraita must be referring to an animal born naturally.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third proof from a baraita: all agree that a firstborn animal born on a Festival with its disqualifying blemish already upon it is considered prepared (min hamuchan) and may be eaten that day. Here the caesarean deflection fails: an animal born by caesarean section is not sanctified as a firstborn at all — as Rabbi Yochanan said, even Rabbi Shimon concedes regarding sacrificial animals that one born through the wall is not holy. The baraita must therefore concern a natural birth, and yet it permits eating the newborn immediately.
Key Terms:
- נוֹלַד הוּא וּמוּמוֹ עִמּוֹ (nolad hu umumo immo) = it was born with its blemish upon it
- מִן הַמּוּכָן (min hamuchan) = among that which is prepared (for the Festival)
- בְּכוֹר (bechor) = a firstborn animal, sanctified from birth
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
The resolution: the firstborn stood on the ground immediately
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, שֶׁהִפְרִיס עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Here we are dealing with a firstborn that spread out its legs on the ground and stood up immediately after birth. In such a case the animal is certainly not a tereifa on account of shattered limbs.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers: the firstborn baraita deals with a newborn that spread out its legs and stood on the ground (hifris al gabbei karka) right after birth. Standing firmly is itself the proof that its limbs are sound — just as walking clears a fallen animal, as the sugya will soon spell out. The question of an ordinary newborn that has not yet stood remains where Rav Nachman left it: the womb raises no concern.
Key Terms:
- הִפְרִיס עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע (hifris al gabbei karka) = it spread its legs out on the ground (and stood)
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Nachman: the slaughterhouse floor raises no concern
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בֵּית הַמִּטְבָּחַיִם אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּקֵי אֵבָרִים.
English Translation:
And Rav Naḥman says: If an animal was thrown to the ground in the slaughterhouse in preparation for slaughter, it is not subject to concern for shattered limbs.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman adds a second institutional leniency: an animal thrown to the ground in the slaughterhouse (beit hamitbachayim) in preparation for slaughter is not suspect for shattered limbs. The handlers fell it in a controlled, practiced way, and the animal itself braces — as the next story illustrates.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית הַמִּטְבָּחַיִם (beit hamitbachayim) = the slaughterhouse
Segment 7
TYPE: מעשה
The bellowing bull: it digs in its hooves as it falls
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא תּוֹרָא דִּנְפַל, וְאִישְׁתְּמַע קָל גְּנִיחוֹתֵיהּ, עָל רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא שְׁקַל מִשּׁוּפְרֵי שׁוּפְרֵי. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן: מְנָא לָךְ הָא? אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב: צִפׇּרְנָיו נוֹעֵץ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לָאָרֶץ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: A certain bull fell in the slaughterhouse, and its bellowing was audible due to the blow. Still, Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta entered and took from the very best portions of the bull and was not concerned that it may have been a tereifa. The Sages said to him: From where did you learn this? Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said to them: This is what Rav said: When falling, the bull digs in its hooves until it reaches the earth. Therefore, one need not be concerned that it fell roughly.
קלאוד על הדף:
A bull crashed down in the slaughterhouse so hard that its groans were heard — yet Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta walked in and took meat from its choicest portions without hesitation. Challenged by the Sages, he cited Rav: a falling bull digs its hooves into the ground until it lands, breaking its own fall. The noise of the impact is no evidence of injury; the animal’s instinctive bracing is assumed.
Key Terms:
- קָל גְּנִיחוֹתֵיהּ (kal genichotei) = the sound of its groans
- מִשּׁוּפְרֵי שׁוּפְרֵי (mishuprei shuprei) = from the very best portions
- צִפׇּרְנָיו נוֹעֵץ (tzipornav no’etz) = it digs in its hooves
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת
After a fall: standing ends the wait, walking ends the inspection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: עָמְדָה – אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, בְּדִיקָה – וַדַּאי בָּעֲיָא, הָלְכָה – אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If an animal fell and stood up again, it does not require a twenty-four-hour period mentioned in the mishna (56b) to determine if it may be slaughtered. Nevertheless, it certainly requires inspection after slaughter to determine whether it was injured by the fall and rendered a tereifa. But if it both stood up and walked after the fall, it does not even require inspection after slaughter. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says: Both in this case and in that case, i.e., even if it walked after the fall, it requires inspection.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav, cited by Rav Yehuda, builds a graded protocol for an animal that actually fell: if it stood up, it no longer needs the twenty-four-hour wait before slaughter (taught in the mishna on 56b), but it certainly still requires inspection of its organs after slaughter; if it walked, it does not even require inspection. Rav Chiyya bar Ashi is more stringent: whether it stood or walked, inspection is still required.
Key Terms:
- עָמְדָה (amda) = it stood up
- הָלְכָה (halcha) = it walked
- בְּדִיקָה (bedika) = inspection (of the internal organs after slaughter)
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרות
Gestures count: stretching a leg is standing; struggling to rise is standing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַחָא אָמַר רַב: פָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ לַעֲמוֹד, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָמְדָה. עָקְרָה רַגְלָהּ לְהַלֵּךְ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָלְכָה. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: נִנְעֲרָה לַעֲמוֹד, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָמְדָה.
English Translation:
Rav Yirmeya bar Aḥa says that Rav says: If the animal stretched out its foreleg to stand, even if it did not actually stand, it is considered to have stood and does not require a twenty-four-hour waiting period. If it raised its leg to walk, even if it did not actually walk, it is considered to have walked and does not require inspection according to Rav. And Rav Ḥisda says: Even if it did not stretch out its foreleg, but simply struggled to stand, even if it did not stand, it is considered to have stood and may be slaughtered that day.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yirmeya bar Acha in the name of Rav extends the categories to attempted movements: an animal that stretched out its foreleg to stand is treated as having stood even if it never rose, and one that lifted its leg to walk is treated as having walked even if it never stepped. Rav Chisda goes further still: even merely shaking itself in a struggle to rise (nin’ara la’amod) counts as standing. The diagnostic point is muscular control, not completed locomotion.
Key Terms:
- פָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ (pashta yadah) = it stretched out its foreleg
- עָקְרָה רַגְלָהּ (akra ragla) = it lifted its leg
- נִנְעֲרָה לַעֲמוֹד (nin’ara la’amod) = it stirred/shook itself to stand
Segment 10
TYPE: פסק
The halakha: stood — inspect; walked — nothing at all
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהִלְכְתָא: הֵיכָא דְּנָפְלָה מִן הַגָּג בִּדְלָא יָדְעָה, וְעָמְדָה וְלֹא הָלְכָה – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה, וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְאִם הָלְכָה – אֲפִילּוּ בְּדִיקָה נָמֵי לָא צְרִיכָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: In any case where an animal fell from the roof unawares, i.e., unintentionally, and stood but did not walk, it requires inspection after slaughter but does not require a twenty-four-hour period before slaughter. And if it walked, it does not even require an inspection.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara fixes the rule: where an animal fell from a roof unawares — a true accidental fall — and stood but did not walk, it requires inspection after slaughter but not the twenty-four-hour wait; and if it walked, it requires not even an inspection. The earlier leniencies (deliberate jumps, the slaughterhouse, the birth canal) remain outside the concern entirely.
Key Terms:
- בִּדְלָא יָדְעָה (bidla yad’a) = unawares, without intending (to descend)
Segment 11
TYPE: מחלוקת
What does the inspection cover? The intestines, or the whole cavity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: נְפוּלָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא: הָכִי אָמְרִינַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הֶחָלָל כּוּלּוֹ.
English Translation:
Ameimar said in the name of Rav Dimi of Neharde’a: A fallen animal that the Sages said requires inspection must be inspected around the intestines to see whether the organs there have been perforated or torn, rendering the animal a tereifa. Mar Zutra said to him: This is what we say in the name of Rav Pappa: Such an animal requires inspection around the entire space of the body cavity, in case the ribs or spine have been damaged.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two formulations of the required inspection: Ameimar in the name of Rav Dimi of Neharde’a — a fallen animal is inspected opposite the intestines, where perforation or tearing would render it a tereifa; Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Pappa — it requires inspection over the entire body cavity (beit hechalal), including ribs and spine. The second, broader formulation is the operative one for practice.
Key Terms:
- כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים (keneged benei me’ayim) = opposite (around) the intestines
- בֵּית הֶחָלָל (beit hechalal) = the body cavity
Segment 12
TYPE: שאלה ותשובה
Must the windpipe and gullet be inspected? No — they are hard
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הוּנָא מָר בַּר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נְחֶמְיָה לְרַב אָשֵׁי: סִימָנִין מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סִימָנִין קָשִׁין הֵן אֵצֶל נְפִילָה.
English Translation:
Huna Mar, grandson of Rav Neḥemya, said to Rav Ashi: What about the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet? Do they require inspection as well? Rav Ashi said to him: The simanim are hard and resistant to damage in falling. Therefore, one need not inspect them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Huna Mar, grandson of Rav Nechemya, asked Rav Ashi whether the simanim — the windpipe and gullet severed in shechita — require inspection after a fall. Rav Ashi answered that the simanim are hard and resistant to damage by falling (kashin hen etzel nefila); the inspection need not include them. Elastic, firm structures absorb a fall that soft viscera may not.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנִין (simanim) = the windpipe and gullet, the organs cut in shechita
- קָשִׁין הֵן אֵצֶל נְפִילָה (kashin hen etzel nefila) = they are hard (resistant) with respect to falling
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
A bird that hit the water: swimming its own length clears it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עוֹף שֶׁנֶּחְבַּט עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁט מְלֹא קוֹמָתוֹ – דַּיּוֹ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה – מַיָּא הוּא דְּאַשְׁפִּלוּ. וְאִי מַיָּא קָיְימִי – לֵית לַן בַּהּ, וְאִי שְׁדָא צִיבֵי וְקַדְמֵיהּ – הָא קַדְמֵיהּ.
English Translation:
With regard to birds that have fallen, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If a bird fell and hit the surface of the water, once it swims the full length of its body, this is sufficient to indicate that its limbs have not been shattered, similar to an animal that walks after falling. And we said this only in cases where it swam from below to above, i.e., upstream. But if it swam from above to below, i.e., downstream, it is only the water that carried it down, and it must be inspected. And if the water is standing, e.g., in a pond, we have no problem with it, as it is clear that the bird is swimming on its own strength, and it need not be inspected. And even if the bird swims downstream, if straw was scattered in front of it and the bird overtook it with its swimming, then the bird overtook it on its own strength and need not be inspected.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel, cited by Rav Yehuda, turns to birds: a bird that struck the surface of the water is cleared once it swims the full length of its body — the avian equivalent of walking after a fall. The qualifications are precise: this is so only swimming upstream; downstream, the current may be carrying it, unless the water is standing, or it overtakes straw thrown ahead of it — in which case its own power is proven.
Key Terms:
- נֶחְבַּט (nechbat) = struck, was dashed against
- מְלֹא קוֹמָתוֹ (melo komato) = the full length of its body
- שְׁדָא צִיבֵי וְקַדְמֵיהּ (sheda tzivei vekadmei) = straw was thrown and it overtook it
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Falls onto cloth and nets: taut surfaces injure, slack ones do not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּלִימָא מְתִיחַ – חָיְישִׁינַן; דְּלָא מְתִיחַ – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן; עוּף וּמְעוּפָּף – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן; אִיזְלָא וּמְקָרְבִי קִיטְרֵי – חָיְישִׁינַן; לָא מְקָרְבִי קִיטְרֵי – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
English Translation:
If the bird fell on a garment spread out taut over poles, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact. If it fell on a garment that was not taut, we need not be concerned. In any event, if the garment was folded, we need not be concerned, since it presumably was not taut enough to injure the bird. If the bird fell on a net whose knots were woven closely together, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact. If the knots were not close together, we need not be concerned.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins a catalogue of landing surfaces for a fallen bird. A garment stretched taut — we are concerned; not taut — we are not; folded — we are not. A net with knots woven close together — concerned; knots spaced apart — not. The principle: a hard or tensed surface transmits the impact; a slack, yielding one absorbs it.
Key Terms:
- גְּלִימָא מְתִיחַ (gelima metiach) = a garment stretched taut
- אִיזְלָא (izla) = a net
- מְקָרְבִי קִיטְרֵי (mekarvei kitrei) = its knots are close together
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Falls onto flax: bundles and knots are hard, combed flax is soft
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּיתָּנָא דַּעֲבִיד בְּטוּנֵי – חָיְישִׁינַן; דְּהַאי גִּיסָא וּדְהַאי גִּיסָא – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן; אִסּוּרְיָיתָא – חָיְישִׁינַן; כִּיתָּנָא דִּדְיִיק וּנְפִיץ – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן; דְּיִיק וְלָא נְפִיץ – חָיְישִׁינַן; דַּעֲבִיד בִּיזְרֵי כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא בֵּיהּ קִטְרֵי – חָיְישִׁינַן; דַּקְתָּא – חָיְישִׁינַן; דַּקְדַּקְתָּא – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
English Translation:
If the bird fell directly on to flax arranged into bundles, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact, because the bundles are hard. If it fell on this side or that side of the bundles, we need not be concerned, because it did not fall directly onto the bundles and the impact was dampened. If it fell on bundles of reeds, we must be concerned. If it fell on beaten and combed flax, with the impurities removed, we need not be concerned, since it is soft. If it fell on flax that was beaten but not combed, we must be concerned due to the residue of flax stalks in the bundles. If it fell on flax that was bundled after it was beaten and combed, since it has knots in it we must be concerned. If the bird fell on flax tow, a coarse bundle of unspun fiber, we must be concerned. If it fell on fine tow, we need not be concerned, because it is soft.
קלאוד על הדף:
The catalogue continues with flax in its stages of processing. Onto bundles of flax directly — concerned; off to either side — not. Bundles of reeds — concerned. Flax beaten and combed clean — not concerned, it is soft; beaten but not combed — concerned, stalk residue remains; combed flax retied into bundles — concerned, for the knots. Coarse tow — concerned; fine tow — not. Each ruling reads the physics of the surface.
Key Terms:
- כִּיתָּנָא (kittana) = flax
- טוּנֵי (tunei) = bundles
- דְּיִיק וּנְפִיץ (deyik unefitz) = beaten and combed
- דַּקְתָּא / דַּקְדַּקְתָּא (dakta / dakdakta) = coarse tow / fine tow
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Palm fiber and ashes: the catalogue concludes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נַבְרָא – חָיְישִׁינַן; תִּימַחְתָא – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן; קִיטְמָא נְהִילָא – חָיְישִׁינַן; לָא נְהִילָא – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
English Translation:
If the bird fell on nevara, the fibers that grow around a palm tree, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered. If it fell on timaḥta, palm bark cut into strips, we need not be concerned. If it fell on sifted ashes, we must be concerned, because the ashes harden. If it fell on unsifted ashes, we need not be concerned, because they are soft and scatter on impact.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final entries: nevara, the coarse fiber that grows around the palm tree — we are concerned; timachta, palm bark cut into soft strips — we are not. Sifted ashes, which pack hard — concerned; unsifted ashes, loose and yielding, which scatter on impact — not concerned. The entire catalogue trains the examiner to judge a fall by the surface it ended on, with the discussion continuing onto the next daf.
Key Terms:
- נַבְרָא (nevara) = the fibrous growth around a palm tree
- תִּימַחְתָא (timachta) = palm bark strips
- קִיטְמָא נְהִילָא (kitma nehila) = sifted ashes