Chullin Daf 54 (חולין דף נ״ד)
Daf: 54 | Amudim: 54a – 54b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (54a)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא ופשיטותא (Dilemma and Resolution)
Continuing the discussion of derisa (clawing by a predator), the Gemara measures the threshold of damage for the windpipe.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וֶושֶׁט נְקוּבָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, דְּרוּסָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. קָנֶה נְקוּבָתוֹ בִּכְאִיסָּר, דְּרוּסָתוֹ בְּכַמָּה? בָּתַר דְּבַעְיָא הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? זִיהֲרֵיהּ מִקְלָא קָלֵי וְאָזֵיל.
English Translation:
If the gullet is perforated in any amount, the animal is a tereifa, as taught in the mishna (42a). Therefore, if the gullet is clawed and any amount of its flesh reddens, the animal is a tereifa as well. But a perforation of the windpipe renders the animal a tereifa only where it is the size of an issar. If clawed, what amount of its flesh must redden in order to render it a tereifa? After he raised the dilemma he then resolved it: Both this and that render the animal a tereifa if any amount of its flesh reddened. What is the reason for this? It is because its venom burns continuously around the circumference of the hole and widens it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara contrasts perforation (nekiva) with clawing (derisa). A natural perforation of the windpipe must reach the size of an issar before the animal is a tereifa, whereas a perforation of the gullet renders it a tereifa at any size. The dilemma is whether derisa of the windpipe follows the lenient issar-sized threshold of windpipe perforation or the strict any-amount threshold of the gullet. The resolution is that derisa is always strict — any reddening renders it a tereifa — because the predator’s venom (zihara) does not stay confined to the original wound but continuously burns outward and enlarges it, so even a tiny mark will grow to a fatal size.
Key Terms:
- דְּרוּסָה (derisa) = an animal clawed or struck by a predator, whose venom may have entered the body
- זִיהֲרָא (zihara) = the venom or poison injected by the predator’s claw, which spreads through the flesh
- כְּאִיסָּר (ke-issar) = the size of an issar, a small Roman coin, used as the threshold measure for windpipe perforation
Segment 2
TYPE: מימרא (Amoraic Statement)
A dispute over how far a clawed animal must be inspected: only near the intestines, or over the whole body.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הָאֱלֹהִים! מוֹרֵי בַּהּ רַב מִכַּפָּא וְעַד אַטְמָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates: Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta sat before Rav Naḥman, and he was sitting and saying: A clawed animal, about which the Sages said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines to see that the flesh has not reddened. Rav Naḥman said to him: By God! Rav would teach that it must be inspected over its entire body, from the flesh around the hollow to that of the thigh.
קלאוד על הדף:
Because the venom of a predator spreads through the body, a clawed animal that is slaughtered must be inspected to confirm the flesh has not reddened. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta limits the inspection to the area near the intestines (the soft inner cavity where the predator’s claw would most readily reach). Rav Naḥman swears by God that he received a stricter tradition from Rav: the inspection must span the entire body, “from the kappa to the thigh.” The clause sets up the next segment, which clarifies exactly what kappa means.
Key Terms:
- כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים (keneged benei me’ayim) = the area of flesh adjacent to the intestines, in the soft belly cavity
- כַּפָּא (kappa) = a “hollow” — the precise referent is debated in the next segment (foreleg socket vs. skull)
- אַטְמָא (atma) = the thigh; here marking the far end of the required inspection
Segment 3
TYPE: הוה אמינא ומסקנא (Inquiry and Resolution)
The Gemara pins down which “hollow” Rav Naḥman meant, to establish how broad the inspection truly is.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי כַּפָּא? אִילֵּימָא כַּפָּא דִּידָא – הַיְינוּ כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים, אֶלָּא מִכַּפָּא דְּמוֹחָא עַד אַטְמָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the hollow? If we say that it is the hollow of the foreleg, i.e., its shoulder, then the area between it and the thigh is the same as the area adjacent to the intestines, and Rav Naḥman has said nothing new. Rather, Rav Naḥman referred to the area from the hollow of the brain, i.e., the skull, to the thigh.
קלאוד על הדף:
If kappa meant the foreleg socket (the shoulder), then Rav Naḥman’s “from the kappa to the thigh” would be roughly the same span as “adjacent to the intestines,” making his stringency over Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta meaningless. To give his statement real content, the Gemara concludes that kappa here means the hollow of the skull — the brain cavity. Rav Naḥman therefore requires inspection of the entire animal, head to thigh, because the predator’s venom can travel that far.
Key Terms:
- כַּפָּא דִּידָא (kappa de-yada) = the socket/hollow of the foreleg, i.e., the shoulder
- כַּפָּא דְּמוֹחָא (kappa de-mocha) = the hollow of the brain, i.e., the skull cavity
Segment 4
TYPE: מעשה (Narrative)
The same dispute reappears in Eretz Yisrael, but now Reish Lakish dismisses the unnamed “Rav” — setting up the famous exchange that follows.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי סְלֵיק רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף, אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים. אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָאֱלֹהִים! מוֹרֵי בַּהּ רַב מִכַּפָּא וְעַד אַטְמָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַנּוּ רַב וּמַנּוּ רַב? וְלָא יָדַעְנָא לֵיהּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that when Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish were sitting and saying: A clawed animal, about which they said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines. Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef said to them: By God! Rav would teach that it must be inspected from the flesh around the hollow to that of the thigh. Reish Lakish said to him: Who is this Rav, and who is this Rav? I do not know who he is.
קלאוד על הדף:
When Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef emigrates from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he finds Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish holding the lenient position (inspection only near the intestines) and reports Rav’s stringent tradition (head to thigh). Reish Lakish, not recognizing the authority of the great Babylonian master, dismissively asks “Who is this Rav?” — he does not know him. This sets up the dramatic rejoinder of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who personally knew Rav as a fellow student in the academy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
Key Terms:
- כִּי סְלֵיק (ki selik) = “when he went up,” the standard idiom for emigrating from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael
- מַנּוּ רַב (mannu Rav) = “Who is Rav?” — Reish Lakish’s dismissal of an authority unfamiliar to him
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה (Narrative)
Rabbi Yoḥanan rebuffs Reish Lakish by recalling Rav’s greatness from their shared student days.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְלָא נְהִירָא לֵיהּ לְאוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ אֶת רַבִּי רַבָּה, וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא? וְהָאֱלֹהִים! כׇּל אוֹתָן שָׁנִים שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ אוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד בִּישִׁיבָה, אֲנִי שִׁמַּשְׁתִּי בַּעֲמִידָה, וּמַאן גְּבַר? הוּא גְּבַר בְּכוֹלָּא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: But don’t you remember that student who served the great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya and studied under them? But by God! All those years that this student served in the yeshiva, he was held to be one of the most important students and was allowed to sit during study, while I held a lower status and served while standing up. And who was greater? He was greater in all things, in Torah and piety.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan, who himself studied in the academy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, sets the record straight: the “Rav” Reish Lakish dismisses is none other than the towering student who served Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya. So distinguished was he that he was granted the honor of sitting during the lessons, while Rabbi Yoḥanan, of lower rank at the time, had to stand. The rhetorical question “And who was greater?” answers itself: Rav was greater in everything. This vivid personal testimony establishes Rav’s authority and shames the dismissal — and prompts Reish Lakish’s immediate retraction in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- בִּישִׁיבָה / בַּעֲמִידָה (bi-yeshiva / ba-amida) = sitting vs. standing during study; sitting was a mark of higher rank
- הוּא גְּבַר בְּכוֹלָּא (hu gevar be-kola) = “he was greater in everything” — Rabbi Yoḥanan’s verdict on Rav
Segment 6
TYPE: מעשה ומימרא (Narrative and Halakhic Tradition)
Reish Lakish recants and honors Rav by citing one of his rulings — the dislocated-then-slaughtered windpipe.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיָּד פָּתַח רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וַאֲמַר: בְּרַם זָכוּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ לַטּוֹב, שֶׁאָמְרוּ שְׁמוּעָה מִפִּיו: שְׁמוּטָה וּשְׁחוּטָה – כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַשְּׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּיעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה.
English Translation:
Immediately, Reish Lakish began to speak and said: Indeed [beram], that man, Rav, is remembered for the good, as they said this halakha in his name: If an animal’s windpipe is dislocated from the throat, and it has already been slaughtered, and it is uncertain whether it was dislocated before or after slaughter, the animal is kosher, as it is impossible for an animal with a dislocated windpipe to be slaughtered. A dislocated windpipe would have slipped away from the knife, and therefore the animal must have been slaughtered while it was still attached.
קלאוד על הדף:
Properly chastened, Reish Lakish immediately retracts and praises Rav, “remembered for the good,” by quoting a teaching in his name. The case: a windpipe found dislocated (shemuta) from the throat after the animal was already slaughtered, with uncertainty about the sequence. Rav rules the animal kosher, reasoning that a dislocated windpipe is loose and would slip away from the slaughtering knife — so a valid slit could only have been made while the windpipe was still attached. The dislocation must therefore have happened after slaughter. This launches a new sugya on shemuta and its interaction with valid shechita.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמוּטָה (shemuta) = a windpipe (or simanim) dislocated/torn loose from its natural attachment to the throat
- בְּרַם (beram) = “indeed, however” — Reish Lakish’s conceding word as he reverses himself
- שְׁחוּטָה (shechuta) = properly slaughtered; the claim is that a shemuta cannot become shechuta
Segment 7
TYPE: מחלוקת (Dispute)
Rabbi Yoḥanan disputes Rav’s certainty and demands an empirical test.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא וְיַקִּיף.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is not certain; rather, one should bring the windpipe, make a new slit in it, and compare the two slits. If they are similar, then the first slit by the slaughtering knife was also made after the windpipe was dislocated, and the animal is a tereifa. If they are different, then the slaughter preceded the dislocation of the windpipe and the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan rejects Rav’s blanket assumption that a dislocated windpipe cannot be slit. He proposes an empirical comparison (yavi ve-yakif): make a fresh slit in the now-dislocated windpipe and compare it to the original slaughtering slit. If the two slits look alike, the original was also made on an already-dislocated windpipe — so the dislocation preceded slaughter and the animal is a tereifa. If they differ, the slaughter came first and the animal is kosher. This converts Rav’s logical certainty into a testable question of fact.
Key Terms:
- יָבִיא וְיַקִּיף (yavi ve-yakif) = “bring and compare” — make a fresh cut and compare it to the slaughtering slit
- מַקִּיף (makif) = the comparative-inspection method, judging one cut against another
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא (Amoraic Qualification)
Rav Naḥman limits Rav’s rule: gripping the simanim makes slaughter of a dislocated windpipe possible after all.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא תָּפַס בְּסִימָנִים, אֲבָל תָּפַס בְּסִימָנִים וְשָׁחַט – אֶפְשָׁר לַשְּׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּיעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman said: The Sages taught that it is impossible to slaughter a dislocated windpipe only in cases where he did not grip the simanim during slaughter. But if he gripped the simanim and slaughtered the animal, then it is possible for an animal with a dislocated windpipe to be slaughtered, since it will not slip away from the knife.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman narrows the scope of Rav’s ruling. Rav’s logic — that a loose windpipe slips away from the knife and cannot be slit — holds only when the slaughterer did not grasp the simanim. But if he gripped the simanim firmly during the act, even a dislocated windpipe can be held in place and validly slaughtered. In that scenario the “impossible to slaughter a shemuta” reasoning fails, and the leniency that the animal must have been intact at slaughter no longer applies.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנִים (simanim) = the two organs of slaughter — the windpipe (kaneh) and gullet (veshet)
- תָּפַס בְּסִימָנִים (tafas be-simanim) = gripped/held the simanim during slaughter, preventing them from slipping
Segment 9
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (Analysis of the Mishna)
The Gemara asks what the closing principle “zeh ha-kelal” of the earlier mishna adds.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זֶה הַכְּלָל, לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי שַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: What case does this principle add that was not previously mentioned? The Gemara responds: It was stated to add seven halakhot of tereifot taught by amora’im and not listed in the mishna. These cases are enumerated on 42b.
קלאוד על הדף:
Returning to the mishna’s summary clause “this is the principle” (zeh ha-kelal), the Gemara asks what additional cases the catch-all phrase is meant to include beyond the explicitly listed tereifot. The answer: it gathers in the “seven traditions” (shav shemaytata) — seven categories of tereifa transmitted by amora’im that the mishna did not name explicitly (catalogued earlier on 42b). The principle thus functions as an open clause for injuries that are necessarily fatal even though they are not on the enumerated list.
Key Terms:
- זֶה הַכְּלָל (zeh ha-kelal) = “this is the principle” — a mishnaic catch-all clause that extends a rule beyond the listed cases
- שַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא (shav shemaytata) = the “seven traditions,” seven additional tereifot taught by amora’im (see 42b)
Segment 10
TYPE: מעשה (Precedent Case)
A ruling that the list of tereifot is closed — the sciatic-nerve case.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּבֵי יוֹסֵף רִישְׁבָּא מָחוּ בְּגִידָא נַשְׁיָא וְקָטְלִי, אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְכִי לְהוֹסִיף עַל הַטְּרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ? אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים!
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: The men of the house of Yosef the hunter would strike the sciatic nerve of an animal with an arrow and kill it that way. In other words, the animal would die from that wound. They came before Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to ask if an animal with an injured sciatic nerve is a tereifa, which is relevant if the animal was slaughtered before it died. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to them: And is it possible to add to the list of tereifot? You have only what the Sages counted, and the Sages mentioned no such tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
This case appears to stand in tension with the prior segment’s idea that “this is the principle” extends the list. Hunters who killed game by an arrow to the sciatic nerve asked whether such a wound is a tereifa. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira responds with the closed-list principle: “You have only what the Sages counted.” Even though the animal demonstrably dies, an injury not on the Sages’ enumerated list does not make it a tereifa. The Gemara will reconcile this with the resolving point in segment 12.
Key Terms:
- רִישְׁבָּא (rishba) = a hunter or trapper
- גִּידָא נַשְׁיָא (gida nashya) = the sciatic nerve (gid ha-nasheh)
- אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים = “you have only what the Sages counted” — the principle that the tereifa list is fixed
Segment 11
TYPE: מעשה (Parallel Precedent)
A second, identical ruling — the kidney case — reinforces the closed-list principle.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב פָּפָּא בַּר אַבָּא רִישְׁבָּא, מָחוּ בְּכוּלְיָא וְקָטְלִי. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְכִי לְהוֹסִיף עַל הַטְּרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ? אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים!
English Translation:
Likewise, the men of Rav Pappa bar Abba the hunter would strike an animal in the kidney with an arrow and kill it that way. They came before Rabbi Abba to ask if such an animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Abba said to them: And is it possible to add to the list of tereifot? You have only what the Sages counted.
קלאוד על הדף:
A parallel case strengthens the rule. Hunters of Rav Pappa bar Abba killed game by an arrow to the kidney, and Rabbi Abba gives the identical ruling: the list of tereifot cannot be expanded, so a kidney wound — though fatal — does not make the animal a tereifa. Both this and the sciatic-nerve case establish that the empirical fact of death is not by itself the criterion for tereifa status. The next segment confronts that paradox directly.
Key Terms:
- כּוּלְיָא (kulya) = the kidney
- מָחוּ בְּ… וְקָטְלִי (machu be… ve-katli) = “they struck in the [organ] and killed” — the hunters’ lethal arrow technique
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (Objection and Resolution)
The Gemara resolves the paradox: these wounds are fatal only because untreated, but they are healable — so not tereifot.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּקָא מֵתָה! גְּמִירִי דְּאִי בָּדְרִי לַהּ סַמָּא, חַיָּיא.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But we see that they die. Isn’t this an indication that the animal is a tereifa? The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that in all these cases, if one were to scatter medicine on the wound, the animal would live. An animal is not considered a tereifa unless it cannot be healed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses the obvious objection: these animals visibly die from the wound — surely that proves they are tereifot. The resolution defines tereifa precisely: it is not merely an injury that leads to death, but one that is incurable. The tradition (gemiri) teaches that the sciatic-nerve and kidney wounds would heal if medicine were applied; the animals die only because they are left untreated in the field. Since the injury is fundamentally curable, it is not a tereifa, which both vindicates the closed-list rulings and clarifies the defining criterion of tereifa.
Key Terms:
- גְּמִירִי (gemiri) = “it is learned as a received tradition”
- בָּדְרִי לַהּ סַמָּא (badri lah sama) = “scatter medicine on it”; a wound that medicine could heal is not a tereifa
- טְרֵפָה (tereifa) = an animal with a defect that makes it unable to survive — defined here as incurable
Segment 13
TYPE: משנה (Mishna)
The opening of the chapter’s mishna listing injuries that do NOT render an animal a tereifa — the “kosher” list (first half).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת בַּבְּהֵמָה, נִיקְּבָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת אוֹ שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה. עַד כַּמָּה תֶּחְסַר? רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: עַד כְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. נִפְחֲתָה הַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת וְלֹא נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ, נִיקַּב הַלֵּב וְלֹא לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וְלֹא נִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁלָּהּ, נִיטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּזַיִת.
English Translation:
MISHNA: And these, despite their condition, are kosher in an animal: If its windpipe was perforated or cracked lengthwise. How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as the Italian issar. If the skull was fractured but the membrane of the brain was not perforated, it is kosher. If the heart was perforated and the perforation did not reach its chamber, or if the spinal column was broken but its cord was not cut, or if the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
This new mishna is the mirror image of the chapter’s opening “these are tereifot”: a list of injuries that, despite their severity, leave the animal kosher. The unifying logic is that each damaged the organ short of the fatal threshold — the windpipe perforated but within the issar limit (Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s measure), the skull fractured but the brain membrane intact, the heart pierced but not into its chamber, the spine broken but the cord uncut, the liver removed but an olive-bulk remaining. Each case pairs with a corresponding tereifa from the opening mishna, marking exactly where the line between fatal and survivable falls.
Key Terms:
- גַּרְגֶּרֶת (gargeret) = the windpipe (trachea), also called the kaneh
- כְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי (ke-issar ha-italki) = the size of an Italian issar coin — the windpipe perforation threshold
- קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ (kerum shel mocha) = the membrane of the brain; the skull may fracture so long as it stays intact
- בֵּית חֲלָלוֹ (beit chalalo) = the chamber/cavity of the heart
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה (Mishna)
The second half of the “kosher” list, ending with the dispute over a flayed animal (ha-geluda).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת, שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ זֶה לְתוֹךְ זֶה. נִיטַּל הַטְּחוֹל, נִיטְּלוּ הַכְּלָיוֹת, נִיטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן, נִיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, וַחֲרוּתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. הַגְּלוּדָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין.
English Translation:
Additionally, it is kosher if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated one into the other. If the spleen was removed, or the kidneys were removed, or if its lower jaw was removed, or if its womb was removed, or if its lung shriveled by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher. In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa and unfit for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues the kosher list with organs whose loss or damage the animal survives: the omasum and reticulum perforated into one another (so the contents do not leak out of the digestive tract), and the removal of the spleen, kidneys, lower jaw, or womb. The lung that shriveled “by the hand of Heaven” (a natural cause, contrasted with fright at a human-caused noise) is also kosher. The mishna closes with the lone dispute: a fully flayed animal (ha-geluda) is kosher per Rabbi Meir but a tereifa per the Rabbis — a debate the Gemara will pursue on the following dapim.
Key Terms:
- הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת (hemses u-veit ha-kosot) = the omasum and reticulum, two of the ruminant’s stomach chambers
- חֲרוּתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם (charuta bi-ydei shamayim) = a lung shriveled by a natural (“Heaven-sent”) cause, which is kosher
- הָאֵם (ha-em) = the womb (uterus)
- הַגְּלוּדָה (ha-geluda) = an animal whose entire hide has been flayed off — kosher per R. Meir, tereifa per the Rabbis
Segment 15
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים (Amoraic Dispute)
Which mishnaic list is exhaustive — the tereifot or the kesherot?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אִתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת״ דַּוְקָא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת״ דַּוְקָא.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna begins: And these are kosher, while the previous mishna begins: These are tereifot. With regard to this, it was stated that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The tanna intended the phrase: These are tereifot, specifically, teaching that an animal is kosher in another case. The list of kosher cases here is therefore not exhaustive. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that the tanna intended the phrase: These are kosher, specifically, teaching that an animal is a tereifa in another case. The list of tereifot at the beginning of the chapter is therefore not exhaustive.
קלאוד על הדף:
The chapter has two parallel lists: “these are tereifot” (the opening) and “these are kosher” (our mishna). The Gemara asks which framing the tanna meant as exhaustive (davka). Rabbi Yoḥanan holds “these are tereifot” is davka — only the listed cases are tereifot, and an unlisted borderline case defaults to kosher. Reish Lakish holds “these are kosher” is davka — only the listed cases are kosher, and an unlisted borderline case defaults to tereifa. The two amora’im are reading the same mishnayot in opposite directions, and the next segment identifies the concrete case that hinges on the dispute.
Key Terms:
- דַּוְקָא (davka) = “specifically / precisely” — that a list is exhaustive and its members exclusive
- אִתְּמַר (itmar) = “it was stated” — the formula introducing a recorded amoraic dispute
Segment 16
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (Clarifying the Dispute)
The practical case underlying the dispute: Rav Mattana’s dislocated femur, and how Rabbi Yoḥanan reads the mishna.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? בִּדְרַב מַתְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: הַאי בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא דְּשָׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ – טְרֵפָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת״ דַּוְקָא, תְּנָא טְרֵפוֹת, וּתְנָא ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״,
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the statement of Rav Mattana, as Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that the phrase: These are tereifot, is meant specifically, the tanna taught the list of tereifot and taught afterward: This is the principle, to add cases that were not stated explicitly;
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the live case behind the abstract dispute: Rav Mattana’s ruling that a head of the femur completely dislocated from its socket (buka de-atma de-shaf mi-dukteh) renders the animal a tereifa. Rabbi Yoḥanan, who reads “these are tereifot” as davka, faces a problem: the femur case is not on the explicit tereifa list. He answers that the tanna first taught the list and then added “zeh ha-kelal” to sweep in unlisted cases — and the reasoning continues into amud bet, where the femur is shown to fall under that principle. (The clause breaks off here and resumes on 54b.)
Key Terms:
- בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא (buka de-atma) = the ball/head of the femur (thigh bone)
- דְּשָׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ (de-shaf mi-dukteh) = “that slipped from its place,” i.e., fully dislocated from the hip socket
- רַב מַתְנָא (Rav Mattana) = the amora whose ruling on the dislocated femur is the focus of the dispute
Amud Bet (54b)
Segment 1
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (Completion of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s Reasoning)
Continuing from 54a: why Rabbi Yoḥanan’s reading makes the femur case kosher.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְחַזְיַיהּ לִדְרַב מַתְנָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּזֶה הַכְּלָל, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּדָמְיָא לִנְטוּלֵי. תְּנָא ״אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת״ – הָנֵי הוּא דִּטְרֵפָה, הָא דְּרַב מַתְנָא כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
and the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana, where the end of the thigh is dislocated, ostensibly comes under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it renders the animal a tereifa as well. What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is similar to the cases of removed organs that render the animal a tereifa. Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are tereifot, at the beginning of the mishna, to emphasize that it is only these that render an animal a tereifa, but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes Rabbi Yoḥanan’s reasoning. The danger was that “zeh ha-kelal” would sweep the dislocated femur into the tereifa category, since it resembles the “removed organ” (netulei) cases that are tereifot. To block that, the tanna prefaced the list with the exclusive word “these are tereifot” — only these listed (and clearly-analogous) cases are tereifot. The femur, though it superficially resembles a removed organ, is therefore kosher according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, against Rav Mattana’s ruling.
Key Terms:
- דְּדָמְיָא לִנְטוּלֵי (de-damya li-netulei) = “it resembles the removed-organ cases,” which would suggest it is a tereifa
- הָנֵי הוּא דִּטְרֵפָה (hanei hu di-tereifa) = “it is these [listed cases] that are tereifa” — the exclusivity of the davka reading
Segment 2
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (Reish Lakish’s Reasoning)
The flip side: why Reish Lakish’s reading makes the femur case a tereifa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת דַּוְקָא, תְּנָא טְרֵפוֹת, וּתְנָא ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״, וְחַזְיַיהּ לִדְרַב מַתְנָא דְּלָא אָתְיָא בְּ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״, מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו לִנְקוּבֵי דָּמְיָא, וְלָא לִפְסוּקֵי דָּמְיָא, וְלִנְטוּלֵי נָמֵי לָא דָּמְיָא, תְּנָא ״אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת״ – הָנֵי הוּא דִּכְשֵׁרוֹת, הָא דְּרַב מַתְנָא טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says that the phrase: These are kosher, is meant specifically, the tanna taught the list of tereifot, and taught afterward that this is the principle. And the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana ostensibly does not come under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it does not render the animal a tereifa. What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is not similar to cases of perforated organs, and it is not similar to cases of cut organs, such as the windpipe, and it is not similar to cases of removed organs. Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are kosher, to emphasize that it is only these that are kosher, but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish reads the mishna in the opposite direction. He concedes that the femur case does not naturally fall under “zeh ha-kelal,” because a dislocated femur does not resemble any of the three classic tereifa categories — perforated (nekuvei), cut (pesukei), or removed (netulei) organs. One might therefore conclude it is kosher. To preempt that, the tanna added the exclusive phrase “these are kosher” — only the listed cases are kosher, and the unlisted femur defaults to tereifa, upholding Rav Mattana. The two amora’im thus deploy the same davka logic to reach opposite halakhot on the femur.
Key Terms:
- לִנְקוּבֵי / לִפְסוּקֵי / לִנְטוּלֵי (nekuvei / pesukei / netulei) = the three classic tereifa archetypes: perforated, severed, and removed organs
- הָנֵי הוּא דִּכְשֵׁרוֹת (hanei hu di-ksheirot) = “it is these [listed cases] that are kosher” — exclusivity per Reish Lakish
Segment 3
TYPE: גופא והלכתא (The Matter Itself and Ruling)
The Gemara examines Rav Mattana’s statement directly, records Rava’s dissent, and fixes the halakha.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: הַאי בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא דְּשָׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ – טְרֵפָה, וְרָבָא אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִי אִיפְּסִיק נִיבֵיהּ – טְרֵפָה. וְהִלְכְתָא: אִיפְּסִיק נָמֵי כְּשֵׁרָה, עַד דְּמִתְעַכְלָא אִתְעֲכוֹלֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara addresses the matter itself: Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. And Rava said: The animal is kosher, but if its sinew holding the bone in place is cut, it is a tereifa. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: Even if the sinew is cut, the animal is still kosher, unless the sinew decomposed, in which case the animal is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having used Rav Mattana’s ruling to frame the davka dispute, the Gemara now treats it on its own terms (gufa). Rav Mattana holds the dislocated femur is a tereifa outright. Rava disagrees: mere dislocation leaves the animal kosher, and only if the sinew (niv) that anchors the bone is severed does it become a tereifa. The final ruling (hilkheta) is more lenient still: even a cut sinew leaves the animal kosher — it is a tereifa only if the sinew has actually decomposed (mit’akla). This is a definitive practical halakha, layering three positions from strict to lenient.
Key Terms:
- גּוּפָא (gufa) = “the matter itself” — the Gemara revisits a quoted statement to analyze it independently
- נִיבֵיהּ (niveih) = the sinew/ligament holding the femur head in its socket
- עַד דְּמִתְעַכְלָא (ad de-mit’akla) = “until it decomposes” — only a decomposed sinew renders the animal a tereifa
- וְהִלְכְתָא (ve-hilkheta) = “and the halakha is” — the binding practical conclusion
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא (Practical Clarification)
Ze’eiri translates the unfamiliar “Italian issar” into a Babylonian coin so the measure can actually be applied.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַד כַּמָּה תֶּחְסַר? אָמַר זְעֵירִי: אַתּוּן דְּלָא מִיתְחֲמֵי לְכוֹן שִׁיעוּרָא, שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ בְּדִינָרָא קוּרְדִּינָאָה, וְהָוֵי כִּפְשִׁיטָא זוּטַרְתִּי, וּמִשְׁתַּכְחָא בֵּינֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar. Ze’eiri, who came from Eretz Yisrael, said with regard to this: You, who are not familiar with the measure of an Italian issar, because it is not used in Babylonia, should estimate its measure as a Kurdish dinar. And it is like a small peruta coin and can be found among the perutot of Pumbedita.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna fixed the windpipe-perforation threshold at the size of an Italian issar — a coin that circulated in Eretz Yisrael but not in Babylonia, so Babylonian scholars had no concrete reference. Ze’eiri, who knew both regions, bridges the gap: the Italian issar equals a Kurdish dinar, which is like a small peruta and can be found among the common perutot of Pumbedita. This is a practical lesson in how halakhic measures had to be re-anchored in locally available coinage to be usable.
Key Terms:
- דִּינָרָא קוּרְדִּינָאָה (dinara kurdina’a) = a Kurdish dinar, the local equivalent of the Italian issar
- פְּשִׁיטָא זוּטַרְתִּי (peshita zutarti) = a small peruta coin, used as a relatable everyday reference
- זְעֵירִי (Ze’eiri) = an amora who transmitted Eretz Yisrael teachings to Babylonia
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה (Narrative)
A story illustrating Ze’eiri’s measure in practice — and a striking ruling about respect owed to working tradesmen.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי חָנָא פָּתוּרָאָה: עִילָּא מִינַּאי הֲוָה קָאֵי בַּר נַפָּחָא, וּבְעָא מִינַּי דִּינָרָא קוּרְדִּינָאָה לְשַׁעוֹרֵי בֵּיהּ טְרֵיפְתָא, וּבְעַי לְמֵיקָם מִקַּמֵּיהּ וְלָא שְׁבַקְנִי. אָמַר לִי: שֵׁב בְּנִי שֵׁב, אֵין בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲמוֹד מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֲסוּקִין בִּמְלַאכְתָּם.
English Translation:
Rabbi Ḥana the money changer said: Bar Nappaḥa, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, was standing over me, and he requested of me a Kurdish dinar with which to measure tereifot, in accordance with the statement of Ze’eiri. And I wanted to rise before him out of respect, but he did not let me. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to me: Sit, my son, sit. Tradesmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars when they are engaged in their work.
קלאוד על הדף:
This anecdote confirms Ze’eiri’s measure in action: Rabbi Yoḥanan (Bar Nappaḥa) himself came to Rabbi Ḥana the money changer to obtain a Kurdish dinar to use as the tereifa gauge. When Rabbi Ḥana tried to rise out of respect, Rabbi Yoḥanan stopped him with a remarkable halakhic ruling: a tradesman is not permitted to interrupt his work to stand for a Torah scholar. The dignity of honest labor and the obligation not to cause a worker financial loss override the honor normally due a scholar. This launches a short digression (segments 6-8) testing the principle against a mishna in Bikkurim.
Key Terms:
- בַּר נַפָּחָא (Bar Nappaḥa) = “son of the smith,” an epithet of Rabbi Yoḥanan
- פָּתוּרָאָה (paturaa) = a money changer / banker
- בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת (ba’alei umaniyot) = craftsmen / tradesmen
- שֵׁב בְּנִי שֵׁב (shev beni shev) = “sit, my son, sit” — Rabbi Yoḥanan releasing him from the obligation to rise
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא (Objection)
A mishna in Bikkurim seems to contradict Rabbi Yoḥanan: tradesmen DO stand for those bringing first fruits.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת עוֹמְדִים מִפְּנֵיהֶם, וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן, וְאוֹמְרִין לָהֶם: אַחֵינוּ אַנְשֵׁי מְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בּוֹאֲכֶם בְּשָׁלוֹם!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And are tradesmen not permitted to stand before Torah scholars? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:3): When the pilgrims bring their first fruits to Jerusalem, all the tradesmen stand before them, and greet them, and say to them: Our brothers from such and such place, welcome?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna in Bikkurim: when pilgrims arrived in Jerusalem with their first fruits, the craftsmen of the city would rise before them, greet them, and welcome them warmly as “our brothers.” If tradesmen interrupt their work to honor those bringing bikkurim, why may they not rise for a Torah scholar — who would seem to deserve at least as much respect? The objection sets up the resolution that the two cases are genuinely different.
Key Terms:
- בִּכּוּרִים (bikkurim) = the first fruits brought to the Temple in Jerusalem
- וְהָתְנַן (ve-hatnan) = “but did we not learn in a mishna” — the standard formula introducing a challenge from a mishna
- בּוֹאֲכֶם בְּשָׁלוֹם (bo’achem be-shalom) = “welcome” / “may your coming be in peace”
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ ודרשה (Resolution and Homily)
Rabbi Yoḥanan distinguishes the cases, and Rabbi Yosei bar Avin draws a homiletic lesson on the preciousness of a timely mitzva.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִין, מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין עוֹמְדִין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה חֲבִיבָה מִצְוָה בִּשְׁעָתָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי מִפְּנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִין, מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין עוֹמְדִין.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Yes, they stand before those bringing first fruits, but they do not stand before Torah scholars. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: Come and see how beloved is a mitzva performed in its proper time, as the tradesmen stand before those who brought first fruits, while they do not stand before Torah scholars.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan resolves the contradiction by holding the line: tradesmen do rise for those bringing first fruits, but not for Torah scholars. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin extracts a powerful lesson from the asymmetry: how beloved is a mitzva performed in its proper time (mitzva bi-she’atah)! The bikkurim pilgrim is, at that moment, actively engaged in a time-bound mitzva, and the honor due that fleeting act exceeds even the standing honor of a Torah scholar. The greater respect is paid not to the person but to the mitzva as it is being fulfilled.
Key Terms:
- מִצְוָה בִּשְׁעָתָהּ (mitzva bi-she’atah) = a mitzva performed in its proper/designated time, which is especially beloved
- בֹּא וּרְאֵה (bo u-re’eh) = “come and see” — a formula introducing an instructive observation
Segment 8
TYPE: דחיה (Rejection)
The Gemara undercuts Rabbi Yosei bar Avin’s homily with an alternative explanation for the standing.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נִמְצָא מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: From where does one know that they rise out of respect? Perhaps the tradesmen stand only in order not to cause those bringing first fruits to fail and sin in the future. That is, if the tradesmen do not treat those bringing the first fruits with great respect, they may not make the effort to travel to Jerusalem in a subsequent year.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara deflates the elegant homily. Perhaps the tradesmen rise for the bikkurim-bearers not because the timely mitzva is intrinsically more honored than a Torah scholar, but for a pragmatic reason: to encourage future observance. If the pilgrims were received coldly, they might be discouraged from making the arduous journey again, and the mitzva of bikkurim would lapse. The standing, on this reading, is a communal incentive to prevent stumbling (makshilan) rather than proof that a mitzva-in-action outranks a scholar. This caveat closes the digression and the Gemara returns to the measures.
Key Terms:
- מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא (makshilan le-atid lavo) = “cause them to stumble in the future” — discouraging future fulfillment of the mitzva
- דִּילְמָא (dilma) = “perhaps” — introducing an alternative explanation that undermines the proof
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא (Amoraic Statement)
Rav Naḥman establishes that an exact-measure threshold is treated as already over the line.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּסֶלַע – כְּיָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע, כְּאִיסָּר – כְּיָתֵר מִכְּאִיסָּר.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar. With regard to this, Rav Naḥman says: Whenever the Sages specify the measure as that of a sela, e.g., with regard to a damaged skull for purposes of tereifot, they mean that even an area exactly the size of a sela is treated as more than a sela. Likewise, when they specify the measure as that of an issar, they mean that an area exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were more than an issar.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman lays down an interpretive rule for borderline measures. When the Sages set a threshold “the size of a sela” or “the size of an issar,” a defect that exactly reaches that size is treated as if it had exceeded it (“ke-yater” — like more than). Applied to the mishna’s windpipe rule, a perforation that is precisely issar-sized counts as larger than an issar and therefore renders the animal a tereifa. This stringent reading of the boundary sets up the inference about the word “ad” in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- סֶלַע (sela) = a coin used as a size-measure, e.g. for a skull defect rendering an animal a tereifa
- כְּיָתֵר מִ… (ke-yater mi-) = “like more than” — an exact-measure case is treated as having passed the threshold
Segment 10
TYPE: דיוק (Inference)
The Gemara derives Rav Naḥman’s general position on the word “ad” (until).
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַב נַחְמָן: ״עַד״, וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל.
English Translation:
Since Rav Naḥman holds that a perforation exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were larger than an issar, he must hold that such a perforation in the windpipe renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara therefore infers: Apparently, Rav Naḥman holds that whenever the Sages use the word: Until, it means until and not including the measure, as the mishna states that an animal with a perforated windpipe is kosher until the perforation reaches the size of an issar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws out the general principle implicit in Rav Naḥman’s ruling. The mishna says the windpipe is kosher “until [ad] the size of an issar.” If an exactly-issar perforation already counts as a tereifa, then “ad” must mean “up to but not including” the stated measure — ad ve-lo ad bi-khlal. This is one side of a classic interpretive question (does “until” include or exclude its endpoint?), and the rest of the sugya tests Rav Naḥman’s exclusive reading against several mishnayot in Kelim.
Key Terms:
- עַד וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל (ad ve-lo ad bi-khlal) = “until, and the ‘until’ point is not included” — the endpoint is excluded
- אַלְמָא קָסָבַר (alma kasavar) = “apparently he holds” — an inference about an authority’s underlying view
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ופירוק (Objection and Deflection)
Rava challenges Rav Naḥman from the rope-bed mishna; the Gemara deflects it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: חֶבֶל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּטָּה עַד חֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים – טָהוֹר. מַאי לָאו חֲמִשָּׁה כִּלְמַטָּה? לֹא, חֲמִשָּׁה כִּלְמַעְלָה.
English Translation:
Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a mishna (Kelim 19:2): The end of a rope that extends from a rope bed is not susceptible to ritual impurity until it is five handbreadths long. If the bed becomes impure, the rope remains pure, because it has no use and is therefore not considered part of the bed. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly five handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that amount? If so, the word: Until, means until and including the exact measure. The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly five handbreadths long is like a rope whose length is above that amount.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava tests Rav Naḥman’s exclusive reading of “ad” against a Kelim mishna: the loose end of rope from a bed is impurity-immune “until five handbreadths.” Rava reads this to mean that exactly five handbreadths is treated as below the line (still part of the bed, hence impure) — which would make “ad” inclusive, contradicting Rav Naḥman. The Gemara deflects: no, exactly five is treated as above the line (pure), so the mishna is consistent with Rav Naḥman’s exclusive “ad.” The deflection works but is not yet decisive, prompting further proofs.
Key Terms:
- אֵיתִיבֵיהּ (eitiveih) = “he raised an objection against him” from an authoritative source
- חֶבֶל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּטָּה (chevel ha-yotzei min ha-mita) = the rope-end protruding from a rope bed (Kelim 19:2)
- כִּלְמַטָּה / כִּלְמַעְלָה (kilmata / kilma’ala) = treated as below / above the threshold measure
Segment 12
TYPE: תא שמע (Proof and Deflection)
A second attempt from the continuation of the same mishna, again deflected.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: מֵחֲמִשָּׁה וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה – טָמֵא. מַאי לָאו עֲשָׂרָה כִּלְמַטָּה? לָא, עֲשָׂרָה כִּלְמַעְלָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: If the end of the rope was of any length from five handbreadths until ten, it is susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that? The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated like a rope whose length is above that, and it is not susceptible to impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses with the continuation of the same Kelim mishna: from five “until ten” handbreadths the rope is susceptible to impurity. If exactly ten were treated as below the line (still impure), “ad” would be inclusive — against Rav Naḥman. Again the Gemara deflects: exactly ten is treated as above the line, hence not susceptible, preserving the exclusive reading of “ad.” The repeated tā shema-and-deflection pattern shows the question is genuinely ambiguous from the wording alone, driving the Gemara to a third proof.
Key Terms:
- תָּא שְׁמַע (tā shema) = “come and hear” — a formula introducing an attempted proof
- מֵחֲמִשָּׁה וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה (me-chamisha ve-ad asara) = “from five until ten” handbreadths, the impurity-susceptible range
Segment 13
TYPE: תא שמע (Proof — Begun)
A third proof, from the earthenware-vessels mishna, opens here and continues onto the next daf.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַדַּקִּין שֶׁבִּכְלִי חֶרֶס, הֵן וְקַרְקְרוֹתֵיהֶן וְדוֹפְנוֹתֵיהֶם, יוֹשְׁבִין שֶׁלֹּא מְסוּמָּכִין –
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from another mishna (Kelim 2:2): With regard to the smallest of earthenware vessels, if they, or even their broken-off bases or sides, can sit, i.e., remain upright, without being supported,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to a third source, a mishna in Kelim concerning the smallest earthenware vessels and the impurity status of their fragments — whole vessels, broken-off bases, and sides — that can stand upright unsupported. This case too involves measured thresholds and so bears on the inclusive-or-exclusive meaning of “ad.” The clause breaks off mid-statement; the full proof and its analysis continue on daf 55a. Daf 54 thus ends in the middle of testing Rav Naḥman’s reading of “ad ve-lo ad bi-khlal.”
Key Terms:
- הַדַּקִּין שֶׁבִּכְלִי חֶרֶס (ha-dakin she-bi-khli cheres) = the smallest/thinnest earthenware vessels (Kelim 2:2)
- קַרְקְרוֹתֵיהֶן וְדוֹפְנוֹתֵיהֶם (karkeroteihen ve-dofnoteihem) = their bases and their walls/sides
- יוֹשְׁבִין שֶׁלֹּא מְסוּמָּכִין (yoshvin she-lo mesumachin) = “sit without being supported,” i.e., stand upright on their own