Chullin Daf 55 (חולין דף נ״ה)
Daf: 55 | Amudim: 55a – 55b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (55a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תא שמע (Proof and Deflection)
Continuing from 54b: testing whether “ad” (up to) is inclusive, using the earthenware-vessels mishna.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שִׁיעוּרָן בִּכְדֵי סִיכַת קָטָן וְעַד לוֹג. מַאי לָאו לוֹג כִּלְמַטָּה? לֹא, לוֹג כִּלְמַעְלָה.
English Translation:
their measure in order to be susceptible to ritual impurity is that they can hold enough oil with which to anoint a small child. If they cannot hold this amount, they are considered useless and are not susceptible to impurity. And this measure applies only to vessels that held up to a log when they were whole; if they had originally held more, they must hold more when broken in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly one log it is treated as though it had held below that amount? If so, the term: Up to, means up to and including. The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly one log it is treated as though it held above that amount, and if broken it must be capable of holding a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens mid-sugya, continuing the question begun on 54b: does the word “ad” (up to) include its endpoint? The Kelim mishna says a broken sherd is susceptible to impurity if it holds enough oil to anoint a small child, applying to vessels that held “up to a log.” The Gemara reads this as a proof that exactly-a-log is treated as below the line (“ad” inclusive), which would refute Rav Nachman. The deflection: no, exactly-a-log is treated as above the line, preserving Rav Nachman’s exclusive reading of “ad.” This is the first of three parallel ta-shema attempts from the same mishna.
Key Terms:
- כְּדֵי סִיכַת קָטָן (kedei sichat katan) = “enough to anoint a small child” — the minimum oil-capacity that keeps a sherd useful and impurity-susceptible
- לוֹג (log) = a liquid measure; here the capacity-threshold for the whole vessel
- כִּלְמַטָּה / כִּלְמַעְלָה (kilmata / kilma’ala) = treated as below / above the threshold
Segment 2
TYPE: תא שמע (Second Proof and Deflection)
A second attempt from the next clause of the same Kelim mishna, again deflected.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: מִלּוֹג עַד סְאָה – בִּרְבִיעִית, מַאי לָאו סְאָה כִּלְמַטָּה? לָא, סְאָה כִּלְמַעְלָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel originally held from a log up to a se’a, its broken-off base or sides must hold a quarter-log in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held above that amount, and its base or sides must hold a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses with the next clause of the same mishna: a vessel that held “from a log up to a se’a” needs its fragment to hold a quarter-log to be impurity-susceptible. Again the proof would have exactly-a-se’a treated as below the line (“ad” inclusive), and again the Gemara deflects: exactly-a-se’a is treated as above. The repeating pattern shows the wording alone cannot resolve the question, mirroring the rope-bed attempts of the previous daf.
Key Terms:
- סְאָה (se’a) = a larger dry/liquid measure (six kav)
- רְבִיעִית (revi’it) = a quarter-log; the fragment-capacity required for mid-range vessels
Segment 3
TYPE: תא שמע (Third Proof and Deflection)
The third clause of the mishna, deflected like the first two.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: מִסְּאָה וְעַד סָאתַיִם – בַּחֲצִי לוֹג, מַאי לָאו סָאתַיִם כִּלְמַטָּה? לָא, סָאתַיִם כִּלְמַעְלָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel had originally held from a se’a up to two se’a, its broken-off base or sides must hold half a log to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it had originally held exactly two se’a it is treated as if though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it had held exactly two se’a it is treated as though it had held above that amount.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third clause: a vessel that held “from a se’a up to two se’a” needs its fragment to hold half a log. The Gemara entertains the same inference — exactly two se’a treated as below (“ad” inclusive) — and deflects it the same way. Having tried all three clauses of the mishna and deflected each, the Gemara is poised to confront a baraita that states the matter explicitly, which it does in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- סָאתַיִם (sa’atayim) = two se’a; the upper bound of the largest vessel category here
- חֲצִי לוֹג (chatzi log) = half a log; the fragment-capacity required for the largest vessels
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא מברייתא (Objection from a Baraita)
An explicit baraita seems to settle the matter against Rav Nachman.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: לוֹג – כִּלְמַטָּה, סְאָה – כִּלְמַטָּה, סָאתַיִם – כִּלְמַטָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: How can one explain the mishna in this manner? But isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: If the vessel had originally held exactly a log it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly two se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount? Evidently, the term: Up to, means up to and including the given measure, in contradiction to Rav Naḥman’s opinion that it means up to and not including the measure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Now the deflections collapse. A baraita states explicitly that exactly a log, exactly a se’a, and exactly two se’a are each treated as below the line. That makes “ad” inclusive — directly contradicting Rav Nachman, who held that “ad” excludes its endpoint (so an issar-sized windpipe hole is already a tereifa). The Gemara must now reconcile this, which it does in the next segment by introducing the principle that thresholds are read for stringency.
Key Terms:
- וְהָתַנְיָא (ve-hatanya) = “but it is taught in a baraita” — introducing an authoritative contradiction
- כִּלְמַטָּה (kilmata) = treated as below the threshold — here meaning “ad” is inclusive of its endpoint
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ (Resolution — Principle of Stringency)
The contradiction dissolves: “ad” is always read toward stringency, which cuts differently for vessels vs. tereifot.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָתָם לְחוּמְרָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל שִׁיעוּרֵי חֲכָמִים לְהַחְמִיר, חוּץ מִכִּגְרִיס שֶׁל כְּתָמִים לְהָקֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The term: Up to, is always interpreted in the more stringent manner. Accordingly, there, with regard to the impurity of vessels, the term: Up to, is interpreted as up to and including in order to rule stringently, since the vessel is then more easily susceptible to impurity. As Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All measures of the Sages must be interpreted stringently, except for the measure of a groat as a standard for stains of blood found on a woman’s clothing, which is interpreted leniently. Even if the stain is exactly the size of a groat, the woman remains pure. Here, it is more stringent to interpret the phrase: Up to, as up to and including, because an animal is then more susceptible to being rendered a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is elegant: “ad” is not fixed as inclusive or exclusive — it is always read in whichever direction yields the stringency. For vessels, inclusive (“ad” includes the endpoint) is stringent, because the vessel is then more readily impure; hence the baraita reads it that way. For the windpipe (and the issar), exclusive is stringent, because the animal is then more readily a tereifa; hence Rav Nachman reads it that way. Both follow the master rule of Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: all the Sages’ measures are interpreted stringently — with the lone exception of the groat-sized stain (ketamim), where the measure is read leniently to keep a woman pure.
Key Terms:
- לְחוּמְרָא (le-chumra) = “toward stringency” — the governing principle for reading shiurim
- כׇּל שִׁיעוּרֵי חֲכָמִים לְהַחְמִיר = “all the Sages’ measures are [read] stringently,” the rule of R. Abbahu / R. Yochanan
- כִּגְרִיס שֶׁל כְּתָמִים (ki-geris shel ketamim) = the groat-sized blood-stain measure — the sole exception, read leniently
Segment 6
TYPE: דיוק (Supporting Inference)
The rope-bed baraita confirms the stringency principle by reading the same word in opposite directions.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ דְּהַהִיא: חֲמִשָּׁה – כִּלְמַעְלָה, עֲשָׂרָה – כִּלְמַטָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: The language is also precise, i.e., it is evident that the phrase: Up to, is always interpreted stringently, as the mishna (Kelim 19:2) states that if a rope extending from a rope bed is of any length up to five handbreadths, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, but if it is of any length from five up to ten handbreadths, it is susceptible. And a baraita teaches with regard to that mishna: If the rope was exactly five handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were above that; if the rope was exactly ten handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were below that. In both cases, the measure is interpreted stringently.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara finds textual support (dayka nami) for the stringency principle in the rope-bed baraita. There the very same boundaries are read in opposite directions: exactly five handbreadths is treated as above (so the rope is impurity-susceptible, the stringent result), while exactly ten is treated as below (so it remains susceptible up to that point, again stringent). The fact that the baraita does not apply a uniform inclusive/exclusive rule but flips per case to maximize stringency proves that le-chumra, not a fixed grammar of “ad,” is the operative principle.
Key Terms:
- דַּיְקָא נָמֵי (dayka nami) = “it is also precise” — the source’s own wording supports the proposed reading
- חֶבֶל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּטָּה = the rope protruding from a rope bed (Kelim 19:2), the test case for stringent threshold-reading
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא (Amoraic Qualification of the Mishna)
Returning to the mishna’s kosher list: Rav Avira qualifies “spleen removed.”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִיטַּל הַטְּחוֹל, אָמַר רַב עַוִּירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא נִיטַּל, אֲבָל נִיקַּב – טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If the spleen was removed the animal remains kosher. Rav Avira says in the name of Rava: The Sages taught that it is kosher only when the spleen was removed, but if it was perforated, it is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya now leaves the “ad” discussion and works through the mishna’s kosher list (54a) item by item. On “the spleen was removed — kosher,” Rav Avira (in Rava’s name) draws a sharp and counterintuitive line: full removal is kosher, but mere perforation (nikkav) renders the animal a tereifa. The logic is that a clean removal heals over, whereas a perforation that pierces the spleen’s substance can be fatal. This ruling will be challenged in the next segment and ultimately limited on amud bet.
Key Terms:
- טְחוֹל (techol) = the spleen
- נִיטַּל / נִיקַּב (nittal / nikkav) = removed (whole) vs. perforated — the crux of Rav Avira’s distinction
- רַב עַוִּירָא (Rav Avira) = the amora transmitting this ruling in the name of Rava
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא (Objection from a Mishna)
A mishna from a later chapter seems to show a partially-cut spleen leaves the animal kosher.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זְבִידָא: חוֹתֵךְ מֵעוּבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ – מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה, מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת – אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. הָא בְּהֵמָה גּוּפַהּ שַׁרְיָא!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, raises an objection from a mishna in the next chapter (68a): If, prior to slaughtering an animal, one severs pieces from a fetus that is in the womb and leaves those pieces in the womb, their consumption is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother animal (see 69a). By contrast, if one severs pieces of the spleen or of the kidneys of an animal and then slaughters it, then even if those pieces are left inside the animal their consumption is prohibited, because an organ severed from a living being is not permitted by the subsequent slaughter of the animal. One can infer from the mishna that the animal itself is permitted even when part of the spleen was severed. Evidently, such an animal is not a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei bar Avin (or bar Zevida) challenges Rav Avira from a mishna on 68a. That mishna says: pieces cut from a fetus before slaughter are permitted by the mother’s slaughter, but pieces cut from the spleen or kidneys before slaughter are forbidden (a limb from a living animal — ever min ha-chai — is not redeemed by later slaughter). The implied premise is that the animal itself remains permitted (kosher) even though part of its spleen was cut away — so a damaged spleen is not a tereifa, against Rav Avira.
Key Terms:
- מֵתִיב (meitiv) = “he raises an objection” from a tannaitic source
- חוֹתֵךְ מֵעוּבָּר (chotech me-ubar) = cutting pieces from a fetus before the mother’s slaughter
- אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי = a limb severed from a living animal, which the mother’s later slaughter cannot permit
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ (Two Resolutions)
The Gemara defends Rav Avira with two answers.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּהֵמָה נָמֵי אֲסִירָא, אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא ״מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה״, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא ״אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: נִיקַּב לְחוֹד, וְנֶחְתַּךְ לְחוּד.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The same is true of the animal, and even the animal is prohibited. But since the mishna taught in the first clause, with regard to the parts of the fetus: Their consumption is permitted, it taught in the last clause with regard to the parts of the spleen: Their consumption is prohibited, to contrast between them. Or, if you wish, say instead that a perforated spleen is a discrete case, in which the animal is a tereifa, and a cut spleen is a discrete case, in which the animal is not.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers two defenses of Rav Avira. First: the mishna’s silence about the animal proves nothing — in fact the animal is also forbidden; the mishna only said “the pieces are forbidden” as a stylistic parallel (aydei) to the fetus clause’s “the pieces are permitted,” not to imply the animal is kosher. Second (ve-ibba’it eima): perforation and cutting are distinct cases — a perforated spleen (nikkav) is a tereifa, but a cut/sliced spleen (nechtach) is not, so the 68a mishna about cutting does not touch Rav Avira’s ruling about perforation. Both answers preserve the nikkav-renders-tereifa rule.
Key Terms:
- הוּא הַדִּין (hu ha-din) = “the same law applies” — the unstated case follows the stated one
- אַיְּידֵי (aydei) = “since / because” — a clause is phrased a certain way merely to parallel an adjacent clause
- וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא (ve-ibba’it eima) = “and if you wish, say” — introducing an alternative resolution
- נִיקַּב לְחוֹד וְנֶחְתַּךְ לְחוּד = perforated and cut are treated as separate, distinct cases
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא (Qualification of the Mishna)
The next item — “kidneys removed” — gets its own qualification, broken off into amud bet.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִיטְּלוּ הַכְּלָיוֹת. אָמַר רָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: לָקְתָה בְּכוּלְיָא אַחַת – טְרֵפָה. אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: וְהוּא דִּמְטַאי לָקוּתָא
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If the kidneys were removed the animal remains kosher. Rakhish bar Pappa said in the name of Rav: If an animal was diseased in even one kidney, the animal is a tereifa. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: And this applies only in a case where the disease reached
קלאוד על הדף:
Parallel to the spleen, the Gemara qualifies “kidneys removed — kosher.” Rakhish bar Pappa, in Rav’s name, rules that even disease (lakuta) in a single kidney renders the animal a tereifa — a striking stringency given that total removal of both kidneys is kosher. The scholars of Eretz Yisrael (be-ma’arava) add a crucial limitation that begins here and completes on 55b: this applies only when the disease has reached a specific anatomical point (the “crevice”). The clause breaks off mid-sentence, continuing on the next amud.
Key Terms:
- כְּלָיוֹת (kelayot) = the kidneys
- לָקְתָה (lakta) = “became diseased / afflicted” — a diseased lesion, not mere removal
- בְּמַעְרְבָא (be-ma’arava) = “in the West,” i.e., the scholars of Eretz Yisrael
- רָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא (Rakhish bar Pappa) = the amora reporting Rav’s ruling on a diseased kidney
Amud Bet (55b)
Segment 1
TYPE: השלמה ופסק (Completion and Ruling)
Completing the kidney qualification and recording the halakhic verdicts on both kidney and spleen.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לִמְקוֹם חָרִיץ. וְהֵיכָא מְקוֹם חָרִיץ? לְחִיוָּרָא דְּתוּתֵי מׇתְנֵי. אָמַר רַב נְחוּנְיָא: שְׁאֵילְתִּינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ טָרוֹפָאֵי דְּמַעְרְבָא, וְאָמְרִי לִי הִלְכְתָא כְּרָכִישׁ בַּר פָּפָּא, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב עַוִּירָא.
English Translation:
the location of the crevice. And where is the location of the crevice? This is a reference to the white matter under the loins. Rav Neḥunya said: I asked all the authorities on tereifot of the West, and they said to me: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rakhish bar Pappa in the name of Rav that a diseased kidney renders an animal a tereifa, but the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Avira that a perforated spleen renders the animal a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The qualification from 55a completes: a diseased kidney makes the animal a tereifa only when the disease reaches the “crevice” (charitz) — identified as the white matter beneath the loins. Rav Nechunya then reports a survey he conducted of all the tereifot-experts of Eretz Yisrael: they ruled like Rakhish bar Pappa (diseased kidney = tereifa) but rejected Rav Avira (perforated spleen = tereifa). So the kidney stringency is accepted as halakha while the spleen stringency is, in principle, overturned — though the next segment immediately walks the spleen ruling partway back.
Key Terms:
- מְקוֹם חָרִיץ (mekom charitz) = “the place of the crevice,” the anatomical point the kidney-disease must reach
- חִיוָּרָא דְּתוּתֵי מׇתְנֵי (chivvara de-tutei matnei) = the white matter under the loins
- טָרוֹפָאֵי דְּמַעְרְבָא (taropa’ei de-ma’arava) = the tereifot-experts of Eretz Yisrael whom Rav Nechunya consulted
Segment 2
TYPE: סייג (Limiting the Ruling)
The rejection of Rav Avira is itself limited: a perforation at the thick end IS a tereifa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּרַב עַוִּירָא נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא בְּקוּלְשֵׁיהּ, אֲבָל בְּסוּמְכֵיהּ – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי אִישְׁתְּיַיר בֵּיהּ כְּעוֹבִי דִּינַר זָהָב – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: And even with regard to the opinion of Rav Avira, we said that the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion only if the spleen was perforated in its narrow, lower end, but if it was perforated in its thick, upper end, the animal is a tereifa. And even if it was perforated in its thick end, if it was not perforated completely and a layer of the spleen as thick as a gold dinar remains intact, the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The blanket rejection of Rav Avira is now refined anatomically. We reject his “perforated spleen = tereifa” only for the narrow, lower end (kulsheih), where a hole is survivable. At the thick, upper end (sumkheih), a perforation does render the animal a tereifa. And even there, a partial perforation that leaves a layer of spleen-tissue as thick as a gold dinar intact keeps the animal kosher. The result is a nuanced middle position rather than a flat acceptance or rejection of Rav Avira.
Key Terms:
- קוּלְשֵׁיהּ / סוּמְכֵיהּ (kulsheih / sumkheih) = the spleen’s thin (lower) end vs. its thick (upper) end
- כְּעוֹבִי דִּינַר זָהָב (ke-ovi dinar zahav) = “as thick as a gold dinar” — the minimum intact layer that keeps it kosher
Segment 3
TYPE: כלל (A Proposed Principle)
A general rule from Eretz Yisrael: the kidney is more forgiving of injury than the lung.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: כׇּל הַפּוֹסֵל בָּרֵיאָה – כָּשֵׁר בַּכּוּלְיָא, שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶקֶב פָּסוּל בָּרֵיאָה, וְכָשֵׁר בַּכּוּלְיָא, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הֵיכָא דְּכָשֵׁר בָּרֵיאָה – כָּשֵׁר בַּכּוּלְיָא.
English Translation:
§ They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any injury that renders an animal unfit for consumption when occurring in the lung is kosher when occurring in the kidney. For example, a perforation renders an animal unfit when occurring in the lung (see 42a), but the animal is kosher if it occurs in the kidney. And it follows that all the more so, where an animal is kosher despite an injury in the lung, it will remain kosher despite a similar injury in the kidney.
קלאוד על הדף:
The scholars of Eretz Yisrael propose a sweeping comparative principle: whatever disqualifies in the lung is kosher in the kidney. The proof-case is perforation — a hole disqualifies the lung (42a) but not the kidney — and the kal va-chomer follows: if even lung-disqualifying injuries are tolerated in the kidney, then surely lung-kosher injuries are tolerated there too. The principle treats the kidney as categorically more resilient than the lung, a tidy generalization that the next segment will attack with counterexamples.
Key Terms:
- רֵיאָה / כּוּלְיָא (rei’a / kulya) = lung vs. kidney — the two organs being compared
- נֶקֶב (nekev) = a perforation, which disqualifies the lung but not the kidney
- כָּל שֶׁכֵּן (kol she-ken) = “all the more so,” the a-fortiori inference extending the rule
Segment 4
TYPE: מתקיף ומסקנא (Refutation and Conclusion)
Rabbi Tanchuma demolishes the principle; Rav Ashi states why tereifot cannot be compared.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא: וּכְלָלָא הוּא? הֲרֵי מוּגְלָא, דְּכָשֵׁר בָּרֵיאָה וּפָסוּל בַּכּוּלְיָא! וַהֲרֵי מַיִם זַכִּין, דִּכְשֵׁרִים הָכָא וְהָכָא, אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: טְרֵפוֹת קָא מְדַמֵּית לַהֲדָדֵי? אֵין אוֹמְרִים בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וָמֵתָה, חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וְחָיְתָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Tanḥuma objects to this: And is this an established principle? But what about a case of pus, where the animal is kosher if it occurs in the lung and unfit for consumption if it occurs in the kidney? And what about clear fluid, which is kosher both here and there, i.e., whether occurring in the lungs or the kidney? Rather, Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing tereifot to one another? One cannot say with regard to tereifot: This is similar to that, as one cuts an animal from here, in one place, and it dies, while one cuts it from there, in another place, and it lives. Certain injuries may compromise the kidney but not the lung, or vice versa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Tanchuma refutes the Eretz Yisrael principle with two counterexamples: pus (mugla) is kosher in the lung but disqualifying in the kidney — the reverse of the claimed direction — and clear fluid (mayim zakkin) is kosher in both, so no consistent ranking holds. Rav Ashi then states the deeper methodological point: one may not compare tereifot to one another at all. Each organ has its own physiology; a cut in one place kills while the same cut elsewhere is survivable. Tereifot are a received, case-by-case list (recall 54a: “only what the Sages counted”), not a system derived by analogy.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף (matkif) = “objects / attacks” — a sharp refutation of a stated view
- מוּגְלָא (mugla) = pus — kosher in the lung, disqualifying in the kidney
- מַיִם זַכִּין (mayim zakkin) = clear fluid — kosher in both lung and kidney
- אֵין אוֹמְרִים בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ = “we do not say of tereifot ‘this resembles that’” — Rav Ashi’s no-analogy rule
Segment 5
TYPE: סייג (Qualification)
The “clear fluid is kosher” claim is itself narrowed to clear, non-fetid fluid.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַיִם זַכִּין כְּשֵׁרִים, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּצִילִּי, אֲבָל עֲכִירִי – טְרֵפָה. וְכִי צִילִּי נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא סְרִיחַ, אֲבָל סְרִיחַ – טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And with regard to clear fluid found in the lungs or kidney, which is kosher, we said so only in a case where the fluid was unclouded, but if it was clouded, the animal is a tereifa. And even when the fluid was unclouded, we said the animal is kosher only if the fluid is not fetid, but if it is fetid, the animal is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara qualifies the “clear fluid is kosher” data point that Rabbi Tanchuma had used. The leniency holds only when the fluid is genuinely clear (tzilli); cloudy fluid (akhiri) renders the animal a tereifa. And even clear fluid is kosher only if it is not fetid — foul-smelling clear fluid (sariach) is still a tereifa. The double qualification shows that the bedikat-noted phenomena are diagnostic markers, with clarity and odor signaling whether the organ is healthy or diseased.
Key Terms:
- צִילִּי / עֲכִירִי (tzilli / akhiri) = clear/unclouded vs. cloudy fluid
- סְרִיחַ (sariach) = fetid, foul-smelling — even clear fluid is a tereifa if it stinks
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא (Measures of a Shrunken Kidney)
A final kidney case: how far a kidney may shrink before the animal is a tereifa.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַכּוּלְיָא שֶׁהִקְטִינָה, בַּדַּקָּה – עַד כְּפוֹל, בַּגַּסָּה – עַד כַּעֲנָבָה בֵּינוֹנִית.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues to discuss cases of tereifot due to the kidneys: With regard to a kidney that shrank, in small animals, such as sheep, the animal is a tereifa if it shrank until the size of a bean; in large animals, such as cattle, the animal is a tereifa if it shrank until the size of an intermediate-sized grape.
קלאוד על הדף:
Closing the kidney discussion, the Gemara gives the measures for a kidney that has shriveled through disease. The threshold is scaled to the animal’s size: in small animals (sheep, goats) the animal is a tereifa once the kidney shrinks to the size of a bean, and in large animals (cattle) once it shrinks to an intermediate-sized grape. As with the issar and sela measures earlier, the abstract criterion (a dangerously atrophied kidney) is anchored to concrete, recognizable reference objects.
Key Terms:
- הִקְטִינָה (hiktina) = “shrank / atrophied” — the kidney shriveled through disease
- כְּפוֹל / כַּעֲנָבָה בֵּינוֹנִית (ke-pol / ka-anava beinonit) = the size of a bean / an intermediate grape — thresholds for small vs. large animals
- דַּקָּה / גַּסָּה (dakka / gassa) = small livestock (sheep/goats) vs. large livestock (cattle)
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא (Qualification of the Mishna)
The next mishna item — “lower jaw removed” — is qualified by Rabbi Zeira.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִיטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לִחְיוֹת עַל יְדֵי לְעִיטָה וְהַמְרָאָה, אֲבָל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לִחְיוֹת עַל יְדֵי לְעִיטָה וְהַמְרָאָה – טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If the animal’s lower jaw was removed, it remains kosher. With regard to this, Rabbi Zeira says: The Sages taught this only when the animal is able to live by placing food in its mouth or stuffing it down its throat. But if it cannot live by placing or stuffing food into it, it is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna ruled a removed lower jaw kosher. Rabbi Zeira qualifies: this holds only when the animal can still be sustained by force-feeding — placing food directly in its mouth (le’ita) or stuffing it down the throat (hamra’a). If even artificial feeding cannot keep it alive, it is a tereifa. The criterion is functional survivability: the lost jaw is tolerated only insofar as the animal can still take in nourishment by some means, consistent with the chapter’s underlying definition of tereifa as an injury incompatible with life.
Key Terms:
- לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן (lechi ha-tachton) = the lower jaw
- לְעִיטָה (le’ita) = placing/feeding food directly into the mouth
- הַמְרָאָה (hamra’a) = forcibly stuffing food down the throat (cf. force-feeding fowl)
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא (Terminological Clarification)
A short note identifying the synonyms for the womb mentioned in the mishna.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, תָּנָא: הִיא הָאֵם, הִיא טַרְפַּחַת, וְהִיא שַׁלְפּוּחִית.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If its womb [em] was removed, the animal remains kosher. A Sage taught: The em is synonymous with the tarpaḥat, and it is synonymous with the shalpuḥit.
קלאוד על הדף:
A brief lexical clarification on the mishna’s “womb (em) removed — kosher.” A baraita teaches that three terms denote the same organ: em, tarpachat, and shalpuchit. This matters because the Sages used different names for the womb in different contexts, and the ruling that its removal leaves the animal kosher applies under all of them. The note prevents confusion that the various terms might refer to distinct organs with distinct halachot.
Key Terms:
- הָאֵם (ha-em) = the womb / uterus (literally “the mother”)
- טַרְפַּחַת (tarpachat) = an alternate name for the womb
- שַׁלְפּוּחִית (shalpuchit) = another alternate name for the womb
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא ומחלוקת (Baraita and Dispute)
Defining the shriveled lung (charuta) and when its cause keeps the animal kosher.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַחֲרוּתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם – כְּשֵׁרָה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזוֹהִי חֲרוּתָה? כֹּל שֶׁצָּמְקָה רֵיאָה שֶׁלָּהּ. בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם – כְּשֵׁרָה, בִּידֵי אָדָם – טְרֵפָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּידֵי כׇּל הַבְּרִיּוֹת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: Or if its lung shriveled [ḥaruta] by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher. The Sages taught in a baraita: Which is a ḥaruta? It is any animal whose lung shriveled. If this occurred by the hand of Heaven, e.g., if the lung shriveled from fright of thunder and lightning, the animal is kosher. But if it happened by the hands of a person who frightened it, e.g., if it witnessed another animal being slaughtered, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if the lung shriveled by the hands of any creature, e.g., if it was frightened by a lion’s roar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita defines charuta as any case of a shriveled lung and explains the mishna’s “by the hand of Heaven” distinction. A lung that shriveled from a natural cause — fright at thunder and lightning — is kosher; one that shriveled from a human-caused fright, such as watching another animal slaughtered, is a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar adds “even by the hand of any creature” (e.g., a lion’s roar), but his ruling is ambiguous, which generates the dilemma of the next segment. The operative idea is that the same physical shriveling can be benign or fatal depending on its cause.
Key Terms:
- חֲרוּתָה (charuta) = a shriveled/contracted lung
- צָמְקָה (tzamka) = “shriveled / shrank”
- בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם / בִּידֵי אָדָם = by the hand of Heaven (natural) vs. by the hand of man — the kosher/tereifa divide
- בִּידֵי כׇּל הַבְּרִיּוֹת (bi-ydei kol ha-beriyot) = “by the hand of any creature” — R. Shimon ben Elazar’s added category
Segment 10
TYPE: איבעיא (Dilemma)
Does R. Shimon ben Elazar’s addition make the law more lenient or more stringent?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי וּלְקוּלָּא, אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי וּלְחוּמְרָא?
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar referring to the first clause of the baraita, in which case the statement is a leniency, and even the roar of a lion is considered by the hand of Heaven? Or perhaps it is referring to the latter clause, and the statement is a stringency, and a lung shriveled by the hand of any creature renders the animal a tereifa?
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Shimon ben Elazar’s “even by the hand of any creature” can attach to either clause, with opposite effects. If it refers to the first (kosher) clause, it is a leniency: even a lion’s roar counts as “by the hand of Heaven,” so the animal is kosher. If it refers to the latter (tereifa) clause, it is a stringency: a non-human creature’s fright is grouped with human-caused fright and renders the animal a tereifa. The dilemma turns entirely on whether a frightening animal is more like an act of Heaven or an act of man.
Key Terms:
- אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ (ibba’aya lehu) = “a dilemma was raised before them” — an unresolved inquiry
- אַרֵישָׁא / אַסֵּיפָא (a-reisha / a-seifa) = referring to the first clause vs. the latter clause
- לְקוּלָּא / לְחוּמְרָא (le-kula / le-chumra) = toward leniency vs. toward stringency
Segment 11
TYPE: תא שמע (Resolution of the Dilemma)
A baraita phrasing settles that R. Shimon ben Elazar’s ruling is a stringency.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: חֲרוּתָה בִּידֵי אָדָם – טְרֵפָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּידֵי כׇּל הַבְּרִיּוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as it is taught in the above baraita: A lung that was shriveled by the hands of a person renders the animal a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even by the hands of any creature. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is referring to the latter clause.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the dilemma from the baraita’s own sequencing. R. Shimon ben Elazar’s statement immediately follows “shriveled by the hand of a person — tereifa,” and he says “even by the hand of any creature.” Since his “af” (even) extends the tereifa clause, he is clearly referring to the latter clause as a stringency: a lung shriveled by fright from any creature, not just a human, renders the animal a tereifa. Only a shriveling from a truly impersonal natural cause (thunder) remains “by the hand of Heaven” and kosher.
Key Terms:
- אַף (af) = “even / also” — extending the preceding (tereifa) clause, marking a stringency
- תָּא שְׁמַע (tā shema) = “come and hear” — here yielding a decisive resolution rather than a deflected attempt
Segment 12
TYPE: מעשה (Practical Test)
A field test for distinguishing a Heaven-caused shriveling from a fatal one.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בְּמַדְבְּרָא, אַשְׁכַּח הָנְהוּ דִּיכְרֵי דִּצְמִיק רֵיאָה דִּידְהוּ. אֲתָא שְׁאֵיל בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: בְּקַיְיטָא – אַיְיתִי מְשִׁיכְלֵי חִיוָּרֵי, וּמַלִּינְהוּ מַיָּא קָרִירֵי, וְאַנְּחִינְהוּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. אִי הָדְרָן בָּרְיָין – בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם הִיא וּכְשֵׁרָה, וְאִי לָא – טְרֵפָה. בְּסִיתְוָא – אַיְיתִי מְשִׁיכְלֵי שִׁיחוּמֵי, וּמַלִּינְהוּ מַיָּא פָּשׁוֹרֵי, וְאַנְּחִינְהוּ מֵעֵת לְעֵת. אִי הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִי לָא – טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: Rabba bar bar Ḥana was walking in the desert, and he found certain rams whose lungs were shriveled. He came and asked in the study hall how one can determine the cause of the shriveling. The Sages said to him: In the summer, bring white vessels and fill them with cold water and set the lungs in them for a twenty-four-hour period. If they go back to appearing healthy, i.e., if they expand, one knows that it was by the hand of Heaven and the animals are kosher; but if they do not expand, the animals are tereifa. In the winter, bring dark vessels and fill them with tepid water, and set the lungs in them for a twenty-four-hour period. If they go back to appearing healthy, they are kosher; but if not, they are tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
This story supplies a practical bedika for the otherwise unknowable cause of a shriveled lung. Rabba bar bar Chana found rams in the desert with shriveled lungs and could not tell whether the cause was Heaven-sent (kosher) or fright-induced (tereifa). The study hall’s test: soak the lung in water for a full day — in summer, cold water in white vessels; in winter, tepid water in dark vessels (the seasonal adjustment keeps the water at the right temperature). If the lung re-expands to a healthy appearance, the shriveling was a reversible, Heaven-caused contraction and the animal is kosher; if it stays shriveled, the damage is structural and the animal is a tereifa. Function, not cause-narrative, becomes the operative test.
Key Terms:
- דִּיכְרֵי (dikhrei) = rams
- מְשִׁיכְלֵי חִיוָּרֵי / שִׁיחוּמֵי (meshikhlei chivvarei / shichumei) = white vessels / dark vessels, chosen per season
- מֵעֵת לְעֵת (me-et le-et) = a full twenty-four-hour period
- הָדְרָא בָּרְיָא (hadra barya) = “it returns to being healthy,” i.e., the lung re-expands
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא (The Flayed Animal — Testimony)
Opening the long discussion of ha-geluda: testimony and a report that R. Meir retracted.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַגְּלוּדָה: תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַגְּלוּדָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִים, וּכְבָר הֵעִיד אֶלְעָזָר סָפְרָא וְיוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא עַל הַגְּלוּדָה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: חָזַר בּוֹ רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa. With regard to this, the Sages taught: 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. And Elazar the scribe and Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda already testified before the Sages with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir retracted his statement.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya reaches the mishna’s final and only disputed case: the flayed animal (ha-geluda), kosher per R. Meir, tereifa per the Rabbis. The baraita reinforces the Rabbis with formal testimony (eidut) from Elazar the scribe and Yochanan ben Gudgeda that a flayed animal is unfit. R. Shimon ben Elazar then reports that R. Meir himself retracted his lenient view. This sets up the next segment’s tension: another version of R. Shimon ben Elazar’s report says R. Meir never disagreed at all.
Key Terms:
- הַגְּלוּדָה (ha-geluda) = an animal whose entire hide has been flayed off
- הֵעִיד (he’id) = “testified” — formal halachic testimony before the court
- חָזַר בּוֹ (chazar bo) = “he retracted” — R. Meir withdrew his lenient opinion
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (Contradiction and Reconciliation)
Two versions of R. Shimon ben Elazar clash; Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak harmonizes them.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּלָל דִּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר פְּלִיג רַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּגְלוּדָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים עַל הַגְּלוּדָה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה, וּכְבָר הֵעִיד רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַבַּשָּׂם לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן עַל הַגְּלוּדָה שֶׁפְּסוּלָה, וְאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בּוֹ כְּסֶלַע – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ״? לֹא עָמַד רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמַחֲלוֹקְתּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: By inference, one may conclude that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rabbi Meir initially disagreed with regard to an animal whose hide was removed. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir and the Sages did not disagree with regard to an animal whose hide was removed, and all agree that it is unfit for consumption. And Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Yehuda the spice merchant, already testified before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Tarfon with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. And if a piece of hide the same size as a sela remained intact, the animal is kosher. The Gemara explains the objection: The phrase: Did not disagree, indicates that Rabbi Meir never disagreed with the Sages. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of the phrase: Did not disagree? It means that Rabbi Meir did not stand firm in his disagreement and retracted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The two reports of R. Shimon ben Elazar collide. The first (segment 13) implied R. Meir disagreed and then retracted; this second baraita says R. Meir and the Sages “did not disagree” (lo nechleku) at all, with testimony from R. Oshaya before R. Akiva in R. Tarfon’s name that a flayed animal is unfit — kosher only if a sela-sized piece of hide remained. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles by re-reading “did not disagree” as “did not stand firm in his disagreement” — i.e., R. Meir did initially differ but did not maintain the position. Both reports are thus true: R. Meir began as lenient but ultimately conceded. The segment also introduces the crucial measure: a surviving sela-sized patch of hide keeps the animal kosher.
Key Terms:
- לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ (lo nechleku) = “they did not disagree” — reinterpreted as “did not persist in disagreeing”
- נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בּוֹ כְּסֶלַע (nishtayer bo ke-sela) = a sela-sized piece of hide remained — the kosher threshold for a flayed animal
- לֹא עָמַד בְּמַחֲלוֹקְתּוֹ = “did not stand firm in his dispute,” Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s harmonizing reading
Segment 15
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (Locating the Saving Patch)
Where on the body must the surviving sela-sized hide be?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: אִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בּוֹ כְּסֶלַע – כְּשֵׁרָה. הֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עַל פְּנֵי הַשִּׁדְרָה כּוּלָּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: If a piece of hide the same size as a sela remained intact in the animal, it is kosher. The Gemara asks: Where must this piece of hide be? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The piece of hide must be along the entire spine.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now unpacks the sela-patch rule introduced in the previous segment. The question is locational: where on the flayed animal must the surviving sela-sized hide be in order to save it? Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel rules that it must lie along the spine (al penei ha-shidra). The spine is the body’s central axis, so a remnant of hide there is most significant for the animal’s viability. The exact form of this requirement — strip vs. patch — is then probed in the following segment.
Key Terms:
- אָמַר מָר (amar mar) = “the Master said” — citing back a line of the baraita for analysis
- עַל פְּנֵי הַשִּׁדְרָה (al penei ha-shidra) = along the spine — the required location of the surviving hide
Segment 16
TYPE: איבעיא ופשיטותא (Dilemma and Resolution)
Is the saving hide a thin strip totaling a sela, or a sela-wide band along the whole spine?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּאֲרִיךְ וְקַטִּין, דְּכִי מְצָרֵף לַהּ הָוֵי כְּסֶלַע, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּרוֹחַב סֶלַע עַל פְּנֵי הַשִּׁדְרָה כּוּלָּהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּפָרֵישׁ רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: בְּרוֹחַב כְּסֶלַע עַל פְּנֵי כׇּל הַשִּׁדְרָה כּוּלָּהּ.
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Shmuel mean that it is kosher if a long and thin strip of hide remains along the spine, such that when one combines its area, it will constitute the same size as a sela? Or perhaps it is kosher only if the remaining hide is the width of a sela along the entire spine? The Gemara responds: Come and hear proof from that which Rabbi Nehorai explained in the name of Shmuel: It must be the width of a sela along the entire spine.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara clarifies Shmuel’s “along the spine.” Does he mean a long, thin strip whose total area merely adds up to a sela, or a band a full sela in width running the entire length of the spine — a much larger amount of hide? Rabbi Nehorai, transmitting Shmuel, resolves it stringently: it must be a sela in width along the whole spine. The saving remnant is therefore substantial, not a token sela’s worth of scattered hide.
Key Terms:
- אֲרִיךְ וְקַטִּין (arikh ve-katin) = “long and thin” — a narrow strip whose area only sums to a sela
- רוֹחַב סֶלַע (rochav sela) = the width of a sela — the band’s required breadth along the entire spine
- מְצָרֵף (metzaref) = “combines / aggregates” the area into the sela measure
Segment 17
TYPE: מחלוקת (Alternative Locations)
Two more opinions on where the saving sela of hide must remain.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: רָאשֵׁי פְרָקִים. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: מְקוֹם טִיבּוּרוֹ.
English Translation:
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: There must be a piece of hide the size of a sela on the tips of all segments of the spine and on the tips of the femur and tibia. Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yannai: The piece of hide must be the width of a sela at the place of its navel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two further opinions diverge from Shmuel’s spine-band. Rabba bar bar Chana holds the decisive hide is on the rashei perakim — the tips of the spinal segments and of the leg joints (femur and tibia), the points of greatest articulation and exposure. Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus, in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yannai, locates it at the navel (mekom tiburo), the body’s central point. Each opinion fixes on the anatomical region it deems most vital for the flayed animal’s survival, yielding several competing standards for what saves it.
Key Terms:
- רָאשֵׁי פְרָקִים (rashei perakim) = the tips of the spinal segments and leg joints
- מְקוֹם טִיבּוּרוֹ (mekom tiburo) = the place of the navel
Segment 18
TYPE: איבעיא (Unresolved Dilemma — Teiku)
The inverse question: what if only the vital spots are bared but the rest is intact?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי בְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נִיטַּל מְקוֹם הַשִּׁדְרָה וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים, נִיטַּל מְקוֹם טִיבּוּרוֹ וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים, נִיטְּלוּ רָאשֵׁי פְרָקִים וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael, raises a dilemma: If all the hide covering the place of the spine was removed, but all of the remaining hide was intact, or if the hide covering the place of its navel was removed but all of the remaining hide was intact, or if the hide covering all the tips of the segments were removed but all of the remaining hide was intact, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yannai son of Rabbi Yishmael inverts the previous discussion. The earlier opinions named the spine, navel, and joint-tips as the places where surviving hide saves the animal. But what if it is precisely those vital spots that are flayed, while all the rest of the hide remains intact? Is the animal a tereifa because the key locations are bared, or kosher because nearly all the hide is present? The Gemara cannot resolve it: teiku — the dilemma stands. This leaves the relationship between “amount of hide” and “location of hide” formally open.
Key Terms:
- בָּעֵי (ba’ei) = “raises a dilemma / asks”
- וְכוּלּוֹ קַיָּים (ve-khulo kayam) = “and all the rest [of the hide] is intact”
- תֵּיקוּ (teiku) = the dilemma remains unresolved
Segment 19
TYPE: מחלוקת (Dispute on Hoof-Hide)
Does the hide of the hooves count as “hide” that can save the animal?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הָעוֹר כּוּלּוֹ מַצִּיל בִּגְלוּדָה, חוּץ מֵעוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת נָמֵי מַצִּיל.
English Translation:
Rav says: Any portion of the hide that is the size of a sela saves an animal whose hide was removed from becoming a tereifa, except for the hide of the hooves, which is not considered hide. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even the hide of the hooves saves it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The discussion shifts from location to which hide qualifies. Rav rules that hide from anywhere on the body can serve as the saving sela-patch — except the hide of the hooves (or beit ha-perasot), which he does not consider true hide. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees: even hoof-hide counts and can save the animal. The dispute hinges on whether hoof-covering is classified as skin or as something closer to flesh, a question pursued at length in the remaining segments.
Key Terms:
- מַצִּיל (matzil) = “saves” — qualifies as the surviving hide that keeps the animal kosher
- עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת (or beit ha-perasot) = the hide of the hooves — disputed as to whether it is true hide
Segment 20
TYPE: מעשה ושקלא וטריא (Exchange and Analysis)
Rabbi Asi challenges Rabbi Yochanan from a mishna; Rabbi Yochanan defends his view as a minority reading.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי אַסִּי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת מַהוּ שֶׁיַּצִּיל בִּגְלוּדָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַצִּיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, לִמַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ: אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן – עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, שֶׁבִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: Rabbi Asi asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to the hide of the hooves, what is the halakha? Does it save an animal whose hide was removed if a piece of it the size of a sela remains? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It saves the animal. Rabbi Asi said to him: But didn’t you teach us, our teacher, the following mishna (122a): These are the entities whose hide is like their flesh in terms of halakhic status, in that it transmits ritual impurity…the skin of a head of a young calf, and the hide of the hooves? Evidently, the hide of the hooves is considered like flesh and not true skin. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Do not trouble me by invoking that mishna, as I teach it in the singular. Only according to one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, is the hide of the hooves not true skin; according to the Rabbis, it is considered true skin.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Asi presses Rabbi Yochanan on his hoof-hide ruling, citing a mishna (122a) that lists hoof-hide among the cases where “the hide is like the flesh” for impurity — implying hoof-hide is not true skin and so should not save a flayed animal. Rabbi Yochanan parries: do not trouble me with that mishna, for I teach it “in the singular” (be-lashon yachid) — as the view of a single Sage, Rabbi Shimon, not the accepted halakha. According to the Rabbis (the majority), hoof-hide is true skin, which is the position Rabbi Yochanan follows. The next segments cite the baraita proving this is indeed a tannaitic dispute.
Key Terms:
- עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן (oroteihen ki-vesaran) = “their hide is like their flesh” — the impurity category Rabbi Asi invokes
- אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי (al takniteni) = “do not provoke/trouble me”
- בִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד (bi-lshon yachid) = “in the singular” — teaching a mishna as the opinion of one Sage rather than as accepted law
Segment 21
TYPE: ברייתא (Supporting Source — Rabbis’ View)
A korbanot baraita showing that soft hide is treated like flesh — the Rabbis’ position.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָעוֹלָה לְהַקְטִיר כְּזַיִת מֵעוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – פָּסוּל, וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת; חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – פִּגּוּל, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering with intent to burn an olive-bulk of the hide beneath the tail outside its designated area, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for excision from the World-to-Come [karet] for one who partakes of the offering. If he had intent to burn it beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. This halakha usually applies to an offering’s flesh but not its hide. Since the hide beneath the tail is soft, it is treated like part of the flesh. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.
קלאוד על הדף:
To ground his claim that the dispute is tannaitic, Rabbi Yochanan’s view is supported by a baraita from the laws of sacrifices. The laws of pigul (intent to consume/burn an offering outside its proper time, incurring karet) ordinarily apply to an offering’s flesh, not its hide. Yet here the soft hide beneath the tail (or shel tachat ha-alya) is treated like flesh for these laws — showing that the Rabbis classify soft hide as flesh. This is the Rabbis’ position; the contrasting view follows in the next segment, confirming the matter is genuinely disputed among Tannaim.
Key Terms:
- עוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה (or shel tachat ha-alya) = the soft hide beneath the tail, treated like flesh
- פִּגּוּל (pigul) = an offering disqualified by improper intent regarding time, eating which incurs karet
- חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ / חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ = intent to act outside the proper place / outside the proper time
Segment 22
TYPE: ברייתא (The Dissenting View — R. Shimon)
The opposing tannaitic position: certain soft hides are NOT treated like flesh — broken off into 56a.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ אֶיבְלַיִם אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אִישׁ [כְּפַר] עִיכּוּס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֶחָד עוֹר בֵּית הַפְּרָסוֹת, וְאֶחָד עוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ, וְאֶחָד עוֹר שֶׁל תַּחַת הָאַלְיָה, וְכֹל שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים גַּבֵּי טוּמְאָה אֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן,
English Translation:
Eliezer ben Yehuda of Evlayim said in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and so says Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Ikos in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Whether the hide of the hooves, or the hide of the head of a young calf, or the hide beneath the tail, or any hide that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity under the heading: These are the entities whose hide is like their flesh in terms of halakhic status,
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the dissenting tannaitic voice that completes Rabbi Yochanan’s claim of a dispute. Eliezer ben Yehuda of Evlayim (in the name of Rabbi Yaakov) and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Ikos (in the name of Rabbi Shimon) list the hide of the hooves, the hide of a young calf’s head, the hide beneath the tail, and the other hides the Sages enumerated for impurity as “those whose hide is like their flesh.” For Rabbi Shimon these soft hides are categorized with flesh — so hoof-hide would not count as true skin and would not save a flayed animal, the opposite of the Rabbis. The clause breaks off mid-statement and the full position continues on daf 56a, confirming that the hoof-hide question is a real Tanna-vs-Tanna dispute.
Key Terms:
- עוֹר הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל עֵגֶל הָרַךְ = the hide of a young calf’s head, listed among “hide like flesh”
- גַּבֵּי טוּמְאָה (gabei tum’a) = “with regard to impurity” — the context in which the Sages listed these soft hides
- רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן (Rabbi Shimon) = the Tanna whose view treats these hides as flesh, the minority position Rabbi Yochanan rejects