Chullin Daf 56 (חולין דף נ״ו)
Daf: 56 | Amudim: 56a – 56b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (56a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — conclusion of the previous sugya
Tail end of the daf 55b discussion about which hides are treated like flesh for the laws of piggul and notar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְהָבִיא עוֹר בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִים עָלָיו כָּרֵת.
English Translation:
including the hide of the vulva, the halakha is the same: If one performs the sacrificial rites with intent to burn one of them outside its designated area, the offering is unfit, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If he had intent to burn it beyond its designated time, this renders it piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it. This baraita indicates that only Rabbi Shimon holds that the hide of the hooves is treated like its flesh, and that the Sages disagree, as Rabbi Yochanan stated.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment closes out the prior discussion (from daf 55b) about whether certain soft hides — such as the hide of the vulva — are classified as flesh (and thus subject to the laws of piggul and karet) or as ordinary hide. The baraita’s distinction between chutz limkomo (slaughter with intent to consume the offering outside its designated place, which disqualifies but carries no karet) and chutz lizmano (intent beyond its designated time, which renders the offering piggul and carries karet) shows that these hides are reckoned as flesh according to Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara reads the baraita as proof that only Rabbi Shimon equates such hides with flesh, while the Sages disagree — exactly as Rabbi Yochanan had asserted.
Key Terms:
- עוֹר בֵּית הַבּוֹשֶׁת (or beit habboshet) = the hide of the vulva, one of the soft hides debated as flesh-like
- חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ (chutz limkomo) = improper intent regarding place — disqualifies the offering but no karet
- חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ (chutz lizmano) = improper intent regarding time — renders the offering פיגול (piggul) with karet liability
- פִּיגּוּל (piggul) = a sacrifice rendered repugnant/invalid by improper intent of time, punishable by karet
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה — the eight tereifot of a bird
The defining mishna of this chapter, enumerating the conditions that render a bird a tereifa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת בָּעוֹף: נְקוּבַת הַוֶּושֶׁט, וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, הִכְּתָה חוּלְדָּה עַל רֹאשָׁהּ מָקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה, נִיקַּב הַקּוּרְקְבָן, נִיקְּבוּ הַדַּקִּין, נָפְלָה לָאוּר וְנֶחְמְרוּ בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ, אִם יְרוּקִּים – פְּסוּלִים, אִם אֲדוּמִּים – כְּשֵׁרִים. דְּרָסָהּ וּטְרָפָהּ בַּכּוֹתֶל אוֹ שֶׁרִיצְּצַתָּה בְּהֵמָה וּמְפַרְכֶּסֶת, וְשָׁהֲתָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וּשְׁחָטָהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: And these are tereifot in a bird: One with a perforated gullet, or with a cut windpipe that was cut across its width; or if a weasel struck the bird on its head in a place that renders it a tereifa, as one must be concerned that the membrane of the brain was perforated; or if the gizzard was perforated; or if the small intestines were perforated. In a case where a bird fell into the fire and its innards were singed, if they turned green they are unfit, and the bird is a tereifa, but if they are red the bird is kosher. If a person trampled the bird, or slammed it against a wall, or if an animal crushed it and it is twitching, it is a tereifa because its limbs were shattered. But if the bird lasted for a twenty-four-hour period, and then one slaughtered it, it is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the foundational mishna of the discussion of tereifot in birds, parallel to the mishna of the eighteen tereifot in animals (daf 42a). It lists the conditions: a perforated gullet (veshet), a severed windpipe (gargeret), a weasel-bite to the head reaching a fatal spot, a perforated gizzard (kurkevan) or small intestines (dakkin), singed innards that turn green after a fire, and being trampled or crushed. The mishna deliberately omits some of the animal tereifot — a bird has no rumen or reticulum, for example — while the weasel-bite and the fire cases are unique to birds. The closing principle, that a crushed bird which survives a full twenty-four hours (me’et le’et) is restored to kosher status, establishes that twitching alone does not condemn it; survival proves no fatal internal injury.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה (tereifa) = an animal or bird with a physical defect that will cause death within twelve months, rendering it forbidden
- וֶושֶׁט (veshet) = the gullet/esophagus
- גַּרְגֶּרֶת (gargeret) = the windpipe/trachea
- קוּרְקְבָן (kurkevan) = the gizzard
- דַּקִּין (dakkin) = the small intestines
- מֵעֵת לְעֵת (me’et le’et) = a full twenty-four-hour period
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא — how to inspect the brain membrane
The opening Gemara on the weasel-bite clause: the method of inspecting whether the brain membrane was perforated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְלֵוִי דְּאָמְרִי: מַכְנִיס יָדוֹ לִפְנִים וּבוֹדֵק, אִם מְבַצְבֵּץ וְעוֹלֶה – טְרֵפָה, וְאִם לָאו – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna states: If a weasel struck the bird on its head in a place that renders it a tereifa, one must be concerned that the membrane of the brain was perforated. Rav and Shmuel and Levi say: How does one inspect the membrane? After slaughter, one inserts his hand into the mouth of the bird and pushes the nerve tissue with his finger and inspects it. If the nerve tissue emerges and rises out through the hole in the skull, the animal is a tereifa, because this proves that the membrane has been perforated, allowing the nerve tissue through. And if not, the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens by clarifying that the mishna’s weasel-bite clause is a case of doubt — the bite raises the concern that the brain membrane (kerum shel moach) was perforated, which is itself a tereifa-causing defect. Rav, Shmuel, and Levi offer a practical test: press the soft brain matter with a finger inserted through the bird’s mouth toward the skull, and watch whether the nerve tissue bubbles up (mevatzbetz) through the bite-hole in the bone. If it emerges, the membrane was breached and the bird is a tereifa; if it does not, the membrane held and the bird is kosher. This sets up the long sugya that follows on whether — and how — such inspection can be relied upon.
Key Terms:
- קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ (kerum shel moach) = the membrane of the brain; its perforation renders a tereifa
- מְבַצְבֵּץ (mevatzbetz) = bubbles up / oozes out, the sign that nerve tissue escaped the membrane
- בְּדִיקָה (bedika) = inspection, the post-slaughter examination of the suspect organ
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — two-membrane theory and the inspection
A challenge to the inspection method based on the dispute over whether one or both brain membranes must be perforated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר עַד דְּמִנְּקִיב קְרָמָא תַּתָּאָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אִינְּקִיב עִילָּאָה אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה, נֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא עִילָּאָה אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה לָא אִינְּקִיב? אִי אִיתָא דְּאִינְּקִיב עִילָּאָה, תַּתָּאָה אַגַּב רוּכְּכֵיהּ מִיפְקָע פָּקַע.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that an animal is not a tereifa unless the inner membrane is perforated as well. But according to the one who says that the animal is rendered a tereifa if the outer membrane was perforated, even if the inner membrane was not perforated, how can one rely on this inspection? Let us be concerned that perhaps the outer membrane was perforated but the inner membrane was not perforated, in which case the animal is a tereifa even if the nerve tissue does not emerge through the hole. The Gemara responds: If it is the case that the outer membrane was perforated, the inner membrane will inevitably burst due to its fragility, allowing the nerve tissue to emerge. If it does not emerge, it is certain that the outer membrane is intact as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now tests the finger-inspection against the earlier machloket (daf 45a) over how many of the brain’s two membranes must be breached to create a tereifa. If a tereifa requires perforation of the lower/inner membrane (kerama tatta’a), then the test works: nerve tissue only escapes once the inner membrane is gone. But for the opinion that perforation of the upper/outer membrane (ila’a) alone already condemns the bird, the test seems useless — the outer could be torn while the inner stays intact and holds the nerve tissue back. The Gemara resolves this by an anatomical fact: the inner membrane is so delicate (ruchkeih) that once the outer is breached it inevitably bursts too, so if nothing emerges one may safely conclude both membranes are whole.
Key Terms:
- קְרָמָא תַּתָּאָה (kerama tatta’a) = the lower/inner brain membrane
- עִילָּאָה (ila’a) = the upper/outer brain membrane
- רוּכְּכֵיהּ (ruchkeih) = its softness/fragility — the reason the inner membrane bursts once the outer is breached
Segment 5
TYPE: דעה חולקת — Ze’eiri rejects the inspection
Ze’eiri holds there is no reliable inspection at all, because of the weasel’s teeth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: אֵין בְּדִיקָה לְחוּלְדָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשִּׁינֶּיהָ דַּקּוֹת. וְכִי שִׁינֶּיהָ דַּקּוֹת מַאי הָוֵי? אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשִּׁינֶּיהָ דַּקּוֹת וַעֲקוּמּוֹת.
English Translation:
Zeeiri says: There is no effective inspection for a bird bitten on the head by a weasel, because the weasel’s teeth are so thin that even if they perforate the membrane, the nerve tissue will not emerge through the perforations. The Gemara asks: And if its teeth are thin, what of it? Certainly a small amount will emerge through the perforation. Rav Oshaya said: There is no inspection because its teeth are fine and crooked. The hole in the skull does not overlap the perforation in the membrane, and nothing will be able to escape.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ze’eiri dissents from the inspection of the previous segments: he holds there is no valid bedika for a weasel-bitten bird, because the weasel’s teeth are too thin to leave a hole through which nerve tissue would visibly emerge. The Gemara presses: surely even a thin tooth leaves some opening through which a trace would ooze? Rav Oshaya sharpens Ze’eiri’s reasoning — the teeth are not merely thin but crooked (akumot), so the puncture in the bone and the puncture in the membrane do not line up; even a real perforation leaves no clear channel for the nerve tissue to escape, defeating the test entirely.
Key Terms:
- אֵין בְּדִיקָה (ein bedika) = there is no [reliable] inspection — Ze’eiri’s stringent position
- שִׁינֶּיהָ דַּקּוֹת (shinneha dakkot) = its teeth are thin
- וַעֲקוּמּוֹת (va’akumot) = and crooked — so the bone-hole and membrane-hole are misaligned
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא — Ze’eiri’s retraction; hand vs. nail
Ze’eiri retracts and reports the dispute of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan on inspecting by hand or by nail
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי סְלֵיק לִנְהַרְדְּעָא, שְׁלַח לְהוּ: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם טָעוּת הֵן בְּיָדִי, בְּרַם כָּךְ אָמְרוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: בּוֹדְקִין לְחוּלְדָּה בַּיָּד, אֲבָל לֹא בְּמַסְמֵר, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף בְּמַסְמֵר.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: When Zeeiri went up to Nehardea, he sent a message to the Sages: The matters that I stated before you are an error on my part. In fact, they said this in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: One inspects a bird bitten on the head by a weasel with one’s hand, pressing against the nerve tissue to see if it emerges through the hole, but not with a nail. One may not inspect it by dragging the tip of a nail over the surface of the membrane to see if it catches on a perforation, since the nail itself may perforate the membrane. And Rabbi Yochanan says: One may even inspect it with a nail.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ze’eiri honorably retracts: upon arriving at Nehardea he sends word that his earlier teaching (that there is no inspection at all) was a mistake. The correct tradition, in the name of Reish Lakish, is that inspection is valid but only by hand — pressing the brain to see if tissue emerges — and not with a nail (masmer), since the rigid nail might itself puncture a still-whole membrane and produce a false positive. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees and permits even the nail. This Reish Lakish–Rabbi Yochanan dispute becomes the axis of the rest of the sugya.
Key Terms:
- כִּי סְלֵיק (ki saleik) = when he went up [to the land of Israel / to Nehardea] — framing Ze’eiri’s retraction
- טָעוּת הֵן בְּיָדִי (ta’ut hen beyadi) = they are an error in my hand — a formula of scholarly retraction
- מַסְמֵר (masmer) = a nail; the disputed instrument of inspection
- בַּיָּד (bayad) = by hand — Reish Lakish’s permitted method
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — the parallel Tannaitic dispute
The hand-vs.-nail debate is mapped onto a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya, with each accusing the other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, חַד בָּדֵיק בִּידָא, וְחַד בָּדֵיק בְּמַחְטָא. מַאן דְּבָדֵיק בִּידָא אָמַר לֵיהּ לְמַאן דְּבָדֵיק בְּמַחְטָא: עַד מָתַי אַתָּה מְכַלֶּה מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל? אָמַר לֵיהּ מַאן דְּבָדֵיק בְּמַחְטָא לְמַאן דְּבָדֵיק בִּידָא: עַד מָתַי אַתָּה מַאֲכִיל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נְבֵלוֹת?
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And this disagreement is also reflected in the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya, wherein one inspected the bird by hand, and one inspected it with a needle. The one who inspected it by hand said to the one who inspected it with a needle: Until when will you waste the money of the Jewish people by causing them to discard kosher meat? Sometimes the needle itself will perforate a membrane that was initially whole. The one who inspected it with a needle said to the one who inspected it by hand: Until when will you feed carcasses to the Jewish people, as you permit for consumption a bird that might well be forbidden?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara observes that the same hand-vs.-instrument dispute already appears among earlier Tannaim, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya — one inspecting by hand, the other by needle (machta). Their mutual rebukes crystallize the two competing risks: the hand-inspector charges that the needle wastes Jewish money (mamonan shel Yisrael) by puncturing whole membranes and condemning kosher birds, while the needle-inspector charges that the hand-method is too lax and feeds the people forbidden meat that should have been caught. The two values in tension — avoiding wasteful loss versus avoiding forbidden food — frame the entire debate.
Key Terms:
- מַחְטָא (machta) = a needle — here equivalent to the masmer (nail) of the previous segment
- מְכַלֶּה מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל (mechalleh mamonan shel Yisrael) = wasting/destroying the money of Israel — the cost of needless stringency
- מַאֲכִיל … נְבֵלוֹת (ma’achil… neveilot) = feeding [forbidden] carcasses — the danger of excessive leniency
Segment 8
TYPE: הגהה — correcting the terminology
The Gemara corrects “neveilot” to “tereifot,” since a slaughtered bird cannot be a carcass
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נְבֵלוֹת? וְהָא שְׁחוּטָה הִיא! אֶלָּא טְרֵפוֹת, שֶׁמָּא נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Carcasses? But this is a slaughtered animal; even if it is forbidden, it is a tereifa, not a carcass. Rather, he must have said: Until when will you feed tereifot to the Jewish people; perhaps the membrane of the brain was perforated. Inspection by hand is not reliable, since the teeth of the weasel are thin and crooked and the nerve tissue may not escape even if the membrane is perforated.
קלאוד על הדף:
A precise terminological correction: the needle-inspector could not literally have said “carcasses” (neveilot), because a properly slaughtered bird is never a neveila — that term denotes an animal that died without valid shechita. The Gemara therefore emends his accusation to read “tereifot.” The point stands unchanged: the worry is that a hand-inspection misses a real membrane perforation (because the weasel’s thin, crooked teeth leave no escaping tissue), feeding the people a genuine tereifa.
Key Terms:
- נְבֵלָה (neveila) = a carcass — an animal that died or was killed without valid slaughter
- שְׁחוּטָה (shechuta) = [a properly] slaughtered [bird] — by definition not a neveila
- טְרֵפָה vs. נְבֵלָה = both are forbidden, but a tereifa is slaughtered-yet-defective, whereas a neveila is never validly slaughtered
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא — identifying which Tanna held which view
A baraita establishes that it was Rabbi Yehuda who inspected by hand, and adds: a broken skull bone is a tereifa even without a perforated membrane
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הוּא דְּבָדֵיק בִּידָא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: בּוֹדְקִין לְחוּלְדָּה בַּיָּד, אֲבָל לֹא בְּמַסְמֵר. נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ – תִּסְתַּיֵּים.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: It may be concluded that it is Rabbi Yehuda who inspected it by hand, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda that one may inspect a bird bitten on the head by a weasel with one’s hand, but not with a nail. The baraita continues: If the bone of the skull was broken, even if the membrane of the brain was not perforated, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, it may be concluded that Rabbi Yehuda permits inspection only by hand.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now pins down attribution. A baraita citing Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in the name of Rabbi Yehuda rules: inspect by hand, not by nail — proving that in the previous segment’s pairing it was Rabbi Yehuda who took the hand position (and Rabbi Nechemya the needle). The baraita also introduces a striking new rule that will dominate the rest of the daf: in a bird, a broken skull bone (nishbar ha’etzem) makes it a tereifa even if the membrane was never perforated — a stringency beyond the animal tereifot. The conclusion tistayem (“it may be concluded”) is affirmed.
Key Terms:
- תִּסְתַּיֵּים (tistayem) = it may be concluded / let it be established — a formula confirming an attribution
- נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם (nishbar ha’etzem) = the skull bone was broken — a tereifa in a bird even without membrane perforation
- רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר = the Tanna transmitting Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling in the baraita
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — internal contradiction in the baraita
The baraita seems to both allow and disallow inspection; resolved by distinguishing a water bird
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא גוּפַאּ קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: בּוֹדְקִין לְחוּלְדָּה בַּיָּד אֲבָל לֹא בְּמַסְמֵר. אַלְמָא אִית לֵיהּ בְּדִיקוּתָא, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ. אַלְמָא לֵית לֵיהּ בְּדִיקוּתָא! סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְעוֹף שֶׁל מַיִם, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לוֹ קְרוּם. אֵין לוֹ קְרוּם סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא, הוֹאִיל וּקְרוּמוֹ רַךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: This itself is difficult. You said in the baraita: One may inspect a bird injured by a weasel with one’s hand, but not with a nail; apparently, it has an option of inspection. But you then teach: If the bone of the skull was broken, even if the membrane of the brain was not perforated, the animal is a tereifa; apparently it has no inspection, because inspecting for a perforation would be pointless. The Gemara responds: In the latter clause, we come to discuss a water bird, which cannot be inspected, since it has no membrane. The Gemara clarifies: Can it enter your mind that it has no membrane? One can see that it does. Rather, the response is: Since its membrane is fragile, it must have ruptured when the skull was broken.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara finds the baraita internally inconsistent: its first clause assumes inspection is meaningful (hand yes, nail no), but its second clause condemns a broken-skull bird even when the membrane is demonstrably whole — implying inspection is pointless. The resolution: the two clauses speak of different birds. The first treats ordinary (land) birds, where inspection works; the second treats a water bird (of shel mayim). The Gemara rejects the literal claim that a water bird “has no membrane” — it plainly does — and refines it: a water bird’s membrane is so soft (kerumo rach) that a broken skull is certain to have torn it, so inspection cannot vindicate it. This of shel mayim answer will be applied repeatedly in the segments that follow.
Key Terms:
- הָא גוּפַא קַשְׁיָא (ha gufa kashya) = this very [text] is itself difficult — a self-contradiction in one source
- עוֹף שֶׁל מַיִם (of shel mayim) = a water bird (e.g. goose, duck)
- קְרוּמוֹ רַךְ (kerumo rach) = its membrane is soft/fragile — the real reason it cannot be vindicated by inspection
- סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ (salka da’atach) = could it enter your mind? — a formula rejecting an overly literal reading
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Nachman’s challenge from Levi’s baraita
Rav and Shmuel permit inspection, but Levi’s baraita seems to bar it; resolved again by the water bird
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב עָנָן: מָר אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל בָּדֵיק בִּידָא וּמַכְשַׁר, וְהוּנָא חַבְרִין אָמַר רַב בָּדֵיק בִּידָא וּמַכְשַׁר. וְהָתָנֵי לֵוִי: טְרֵפוֹת שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים בִּבְהֵמָה – כְּנֶגְדָּן בָּעוֹף, יָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹף – נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא בְּעוֹף שֶׁל מַיִם, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לוֹ קְרוּם. אֵין לוֹ קְרוּם סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא, הוֹאִיל וּקְרוּמוֹ רַךְ.
English Translation:
Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rav Nachman said to Rav Anan: The Master says that Shmuel inspects a bird bitten on the head by a weasel with his hand and deems it kosher if the membrane is not perforated, and our colleague Rav Huna also says that Rav inspects it by hand and deems it kosher. But doesn’t Levi teach: Those tereifot that the Sages enumerated in an animal apply likewise in a bird, and in addition to those, a bird is a tereifa if the bone of the skull was broken, even if the membrane of the brain was not perforated? If so, how can a bird be permitted through inspection? Rav Anan said to him: That baraita is referring to a water bird, which cannot be inspected since it has no membrane. The Gemara clarifies: Can it enter your mind that it has no membrane? Rather, the response is: Since its membrane is fragile.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first of three parallel exchanges applying the of shel mayim resolution. Rav Nachman challenges Rav Anan: both Rav and Shmuel permit a hand-inspected bird whose membrane is intact, yet Levi taught a baraita stating the principle “the tereifot of an animal apply equally to a bird, plus the extra rule that a broken skull bone condemns a bird even without a perforated membrane” — which would forbid the very birds Rav and Shmuel permit. Rav Anan answers exactly as the previous segment did: Levi’s broken-bone rule applies only to a water bird, whose fragile membrane is presumed torn. Land birds remain inspectable and permissible.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפוֹת שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים בִּבְהֵמָה — כְּנֶגְדָּן בָּעוֹף = the tereifot the Sages enumerated in an animal apply correspondingly in a bird
- יָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹף (yater aleihen of) = the bird has an additional [tereifa] beyond them — the broken-skull rule
- לֵוִי = the Tanna/Amora whose baraita poses the recurring challenge
Segment 12
TYPE: מעשה — the hen of Rav Chana
A practical case: Rav Mattana permits a broken-skull hen with an intact membrane; same challenge and same resolution
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהִיא תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דַּהֲוַאי בֵּי רַב חָנָא, שַׁדְּרַהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב מַתְנָא. נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְלֹא נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ הֲוַאי, וְאַכְשְׁרַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָתָנֵי לֵוִי: טְרֵפוֹת שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים בִּבְהֵמָה כְּנֶגְדָּן בָּעוֹף, יָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹף – נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם בְּעוֹף שֶׁל מַיִם, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין לוֹ קְרוּם. אֵין לוֹ קְרוּם סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וּקְרוּמוֹ רַךְ.
English Translation:
Similarly, the Gemara relates: There was a certain hen that was in the house of Rav Chana whose skull was injured. He sent it before Rav Mattana, who inspected it and found that the bone of the skull was broken but the membrane of the brain was not perforated, and he deemed it kosher. Rav Chana said to Rav Mattana: But doesn’t Levi teach: Those tereifot that the Sages enumerated in an animal hold likewise in a bird, and in addition to those, a bird is a tereifa if the bone of the skull was broken, even if the membrane of the brain was not perforated? Rav Mattana said to him: That baraita is referring to a water bird, which cannot be inspected since it has no membrane. The Gemara clarifies: Can it enter your mind that it has no membrane? Rather, say that his response was: Since its membrane is fragile.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second parallel exchange, now a real ruling. A hen (tarnegolet — a land bird) in Rav Chana’s house had a broken skull; Rav Mattana inspected it, found the membrane whole, and permitted it. Rav Chana raised the identical challenge from Levi’s baraita, and Rav Mattana gave the identical answer: Levi’s broken-bone stringency speaks only of a water bird with its fragile membrane, so the land hen with a verifiably intact membrane is kosher. The repetition across three frames (abstract challenge, then two case histories) drives home that the of shel mayim qualification is the settled reading of Levi.
Key Terms:
- תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא (tarnegolet) = a hen — a land bird, contrasted with water birds
- אַכְשְׁרַהּ (achsherah) = he declared it kosher / fit
- רַב מַתְנָא = the sage who inspected and permitted the hen
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — the varied inspection techniques
A catalogue of the methods individual sages used to inspect the brain membrane (continues onto 56b)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב שֵׁיזְבִי בָּדֵיק בְּשִׁימְשָׁא, רַב יֵימַר בָּדֵיק בְּמַיָּא, רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב בָּדֵיק
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that Rav Sheizvi would inspect the membrane of the brain by the light of the sun. Rav Yeimar would inspect it by pouring water into the skull through the hole, to see if it emerges mixed with nerve tissue. Rav Acha bar Yaakov would inspect it
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established that inspection is valid for land birds, the Gemara now records the diverse practical techniques the sages developed — a kind of forensic toolkit. Rav Sheizvi held the skull up to sunlight (shimsha) to detect a tear; Rav Yeimar poured water (maya) into the cavity to see whether it came out mixed with brain tissue; and Rav Acha bar Yaakov used a method that the text breaks off mid-sentence here and completes on the next amud (56b). The variety underscores that there is no single mandated procedure — only the shared goal of reliably detecting a membrane perforation.
Key Terms:
- בְּשִׁימְשָׁא (be-shimsha) = by [the light of] the sun — Rav Sheizvi’s method
- בְּמַיָּא (be-maya) = with water — Rav Yeimar’s method
- רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב = the sage whose method is given at the start of 56b
Amud Bet (56b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — completion of Rav Acha’s method
The conclusion of the sentence begun at the end of 56a: Rav Acha bar Yaakov’s inspection technique
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּגִילָא דְּחִיטְּתָא.
English Translation:
by dragging a wheat straw over the membrane to see if it would catch on a perforation.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the sentence cut off at the bottom of 56a: Rav Acha bar Yaakov inspected with a wheat straw (gila de-chitta), gently drawing it across the membrane to feel whether it snagged on a perforation. Notably, this is a soft, organic probe — unlike the rigid nail that Reish Lakish forbade — so it is sensitive enough to catch a real tear without itself puncturing a whole membrane. It thus represents a middle path in the hand-vs.-nail dispute that opened the sugya.
Key Terms:
- גִּילָא דְּחִיטְּתָא (gila de-chitta) = a wheat straw / stalk — a soft probe for inspection
- בְּדִיקָה (bedika) = inspection — the recurring theme of these technique-segments
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא — geese as water birds
Rav Sheizvi classifies domestic geese with water birds for the broken-skull rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: הָנֵי אֲוָוזֵי דִּידַן כְּעוֹף שֶׁל מַיִם דָּמְיָין.
English Translation:
Rav Sheizvi said: Our geese are considered like water birds. If the skull of a goose is broken, even if the membrane is not perforated, it is a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
A practical application of the of shel mayim category that has run through the whole sugya. Rav Sheizvi rules that the domestic geese of his locale (avvazei didan) are reckoned as water birds even though they are raised on land — presumably because their nature and soft cranial membrane resemble true waterfowl. The halachic consequence is the stringent one: if a goose’s skull is broken, it is a tereifa regardless of inspection, since its fragile membrane is assumed to have torn. This shows that the water-bird category is determined by the bird’s character, not merely its habitat.
Key Terms:
- אֲוָוזֵי (avvazei) = geese
- דִּידַן (didan) = ours / of our place — local domestic geese
- כְּעוֹף שֶׁל מַיִם דָּמְיָין (ke-of shel mayim damyan) = they are comparable to water birds
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא — the “fell into the fire” clause
Beginning the discussion of singed innards: any amount of greening, like any amount of perforation, condemns
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נָפְלָה לָאוּר, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שִׁיעוּר יְרוּקָּתָן כְּשִׁיעוּר נְקוּבָתָן, מָה נְקוּבָתָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ – אַף יְרוּקָּתָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.
English Translation:
The mishna states: In a case where a bird fell into the fire and its innards were singed, if they turned green the bird is a tereifa; if they are red the bird is kosher. Rabbi Yochanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehoshua: The measure of their turning green is like the measure of their perforation. Just as their perforation in any amount renders them a tereifa, so too their turning green in any amount renders them a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sugya now turns to the mishna’s nafla la’ur clause — a bird that fell into the fire and whose internal organs were scorched. Rabbi Yochanan, in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehoshua, establishes the threshold: the discoloring (greening) that condemns is measured exactly like a perforation. Since the gizzard, intestines, and the like become tereifa from a perforation of any size (be-mashehu), so too greening of any size on those organs renders the bird a tereifa. The logic is that a fire severe enough to turn the organ green has effectively destroyed that spot, equivalent to a perforation.
Key Terms:
- נָפְלָה לָאוּר (nafla la’ur) = it fell into the fire
- נֶחְמְרוּ (nechmeru) = were singed/scorched
- שִׁיעוּר (shiur) = measure/threshold
- בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ (be-mashehu) = in any amount, however small — the threshold for both perforation and greening
Segment 4
TYPE: בעיא — a green liver facing the intestines
Rav Yosef asks about a greened liver; Rava explains the greening is evidence the intestines themselves burned
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מֵרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הוֹרִיקָה כָּבֵד כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טְרֵפָה. וְלֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא נִיטְּלָה! אָמַר רָבָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוֹרִיקָה כָּבֵד כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנָּפְלָה לָאוּר, וְנֶחְמְרוּ בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים, וּטְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef, son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: If a liver turned green on the side facing the intestines, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: The bird is a tereifa. Rav Yosef said to him: But this halakha should be no more stringent than that of a case where the liver was removed and an olive-bulk remained, in which case the bird is kosher. Therefore, as long as an olive-bulk remains red, the bird should be kosher. Rava said: Since the liver turned green facing the intestines, it is certain that the bird fell into the fire and the intestines themselves were singed, and this is why the animal is a tereifa, not because of the liver per se.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef (son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi) poses a sharp question to his father: if only the part of the liver facing the intestines greened, why is the bird a tereifa? After all, the liver is not a vital organ for this purpose — even if most of it were removed, leaving only an olive-bulk (nitla case, daf 54a), the bird is kosher. So a merely discolored liver should be even more lenient. Rava resolves the difficulty by reframing the case: the liver did not cause the tereifa at all. Rather, the localized greening of the liver opposite the intestines is forensic proof that the bird fell into a fire intense enough to singe the intestines themselves — and it is the burned intestines, a genuine tereifa, that condemn the bird.
Key Terms:
- הוֹרִיקָה (horika) = it turned green/pale
- כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים (keneged benei me’ayim) = facing/opposite the intestines
- נִיטְּלָה (nitla) = [the liver] was removed — the lenient comparison case
- בְּיָדוּעַ (be-yadua) = it is certain/known — Rava’s inferential reasoning
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה — greening only condemns the red organs
R. Elazar HaKappar permits a green-innards hen: greening only disqualifies the gizzard, heart, and liver
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הַוְיָא לֵיהּ הָהִיא תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא, שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרִיבִּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יְרוּקִּין הֲווֹ, וְאַכְשְׁרַהּ. וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: ״יְרוּקִּין פְּסוּלִין״! לֹא אָמְרוּ ״יְרוּקִּין פְּסוּלִין״ אֶלָּא בַּקּוּרְקְבָן, בַּלֵּב וּבַכָּבֵד. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: בְּאֵלּוּ בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים אָמְרוּ – בַּקּוּרְקְבָן, בַּלֵּב וּבַכָּבֵד.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi had a certain hen that fell into the fire. After it was slaughtered, he sent it before the distinguished Rabbi Elazar HaKappar and said to him: Its innards were green, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar deemed it kosher. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: If they turned green they are unfit? Rabbi Elazar HaKappar said to him: The Sages said that if they turned green they are unfit only with regard to the gizzard, the heart, and the liver, which are naturally red. Other innards of a hen, such as the intestines, are naturally green, and a green appearance in them does not render the hen a tereifa. The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: Concerning which innards did they say that a green appearance renders the bird a tereifa? Only concerning the gizzard, the heart, and the liver.
קלאוד על הדף:
This case refines the mishna’s color rule by attending to each organ’s natural color. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi sent a fire-singed hen with green innards to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who unexpectedly permitted it. The principle: the mishna’s “green is unfit” applies only to organs that are naturally red — the gizzard (kurkevan), heart (lev), and liver (kaved) — because in those, greening signals burn damage. Organs that are naturally green, such as the intestines, are not condemned merely for appearing green, since that is their normal color. A supporting baraita confirms the list of three red organs.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרִיבִּי = Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, the distinguished sage who permitted the hen
- בַּקּוּרְקְבָן בַּלֵּב וּבַכָּבֵד = in the gizzard, the heart, and the liver — the three naturally-red organs
- יְרוּקִּין פְּסוּלִין (yerukkin pesulin) = “green ones are unfit” — the mishna’s rule, now limited to red organs
Segment 6
TYPE: מעשה — the converse: green organs that reddened
R. Abbahu condemns a red-innards hen: naturally-green organs that turned red are also a tereifa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהִוא תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא, שַׁדְּרַהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲדוּמִּין הֲווֹ וּטְרֵפָה. וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: ״אֲדוּמִּין כְּשֵׁרִים״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲדוּמִּין שֶׁהוֹרִיקוּ וִירוּקִּין שֶׁהֶאֱדִימוּ – טְרֵפָה, לֹא אָמְרוּ ״אֲדוּמִּין כְּשֵׁרִים״ אֶלָּא בַּלֵּב בַּקּוּרְקְבָן וּבַכָּבֵד.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef had a certain hen that fell into the fire. After it was slaughtered, he sent it before Rabbi Abbahu and said to him: Its innards were red, and Rabbi Abbahu deemed it a tereifa. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef asked: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: If they are red, the bird is kosher? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Red innards that turned green and green innards that turned red render the animal a tereifa. The Sages said in the mishna that red innards are kosher only with regard to the heart, the gizzard, and the liver, because these organs are naturally red. Organs that are naturally green, however, render the bird a tereifa if they have turned red.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mirror image of the previous case completes the principle. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef sent a fire-singed hen with red innards to Rabbi Abbahu, who deemed it a tereifa — seemingly contradicting the mishna’s “red is kosher.” Rabbi Abbahu clarifies the unifying rule: what condemns is any unnatural color change. Naturally-red organs (heart, gizzard, liver) that turned green, AND naturally-green organs (intestines) that turned red, are both tereifa. The mishna’s “red is kosher” referred only to the naturally-red organs retaining their proper color; a normally-green organ that has reddened from the fire is just as damaged as a normally-red organ that has greened.
Key Terms:
- אֲדוּמִּין שֶׁהוֹרִיקוּ (adummin she-horiku) = red organs that turned green
- יְרוּקִּין שֶׁהֶאֱדִימוּ (yerukkin she-he’edimu) = green organs that turned red
- רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ = the sage who ruled the red-innards hen a tereifa
- אֲדוּמִּין כְּשֵׁרִים (adummin kesheirim) = “red ones are kosher” — the mishna’s rule, limited to the naturally-red organs
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — the boiling test for color change
Boiling reveals whether a color change was real burn damage or merely smoke; Rav Ashi’s practical advice is rejected
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר חִיָּיא אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: אֲדוּמִּין שֶׁהוֹרִיקוּ וּשְׁלָקָן וְחָזְרוּ וְהֶאֱדִימוּ – כְּשֵׁרִין, מַאי טַעְמָא? קוּטְרָא עָיֵיל בְּהוּ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אַף אָנוּ נֹאמַר, אֲדוּמִּין שֶׁלֹּא הוֹרִיקוּ וּשְׁלָקָן וְהוֹרִיקוּ – טְרֵפָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיגַּלַּאי בַּהְתַּיְיהוּ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הִלְכָּךְ לָא לֵיכוֹל אִינָשׁ אֶלָּא בְּשִׁלְקָא. וְלָא הִיא, אַחְזוֹקֵי רֵיעוּתָא לָא מַחְזְקִינַן.
English Translation:
Rav Shmuel bar Chiyya says that Rabbi Mani says: If red organs turned green, and one boiled them and they turned red again, they are kosher. What is the reason? This proves that they were not burned; rather, smoke entered them and changed their color temporarily. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: We, too, will say: If red organs did not turn green, and one boiled them and they then turned green, the animal is a tereifa. What is the reason? Their shame was revealed, i.e., it is evident that they were in fact burned. Rav Ashi said: Therefore, even if a bird’s innards remain red after it fell in a fire, a person may eat it only if it is boiled, to be certain that the innards will not turn green. The Gemara rejects this: But that is not so, since we do not presume the existence of a flaw without evidence.
קלאוד על הדף:
Boiling is introduced as a diagnostic. Rabbi Mani (via Rav Shmuel bar Chiyya) rules that red organs that greened but then reverted to red upon boiling are kosher — the reversion proves the green was only superficial smoke (kutra), not true burning. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak draws the symmetric inference: red organs that boiling causes to green were genuinely damaged (“their shame was revealed”). Rav Ashi then offers a precaution — never eat such a bird unless boiled first, to expose any hidden burning. The Gemara rejects Rav Ashi’s stringency on a foundational principle: achzukei ri’uta lo machzekinan — we do not presume a defect exists without actual evidence, so a red-innards bird need not be tested.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלָקָן (shelakan) = he boiled them
- קוּטְרָא (kutra) = smoke — the harmless cause of temporary greening
- אִיגַּלַּאי בַּהְתַּיְיהוּ (igallai bahtaihu) = their shame was revealed — boiling exposed real burn damage
- אַחְזוֹקֵי רֵיעוּתָא לָא מַחְזְקִינַן = we do not presume a flaw [without evidence] — the principle defeating Rav Ashi
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — the trampled/crushed bird requires inspection
On the mishna’s final clause: even a bird that survived 24 hours must still be inspected after slaughter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּרָסָהּ וּטְרָפָהּ בַּכּוֹתֶל. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה.
English Translation:
The mishna states: If a person trampled the bird, or slammed it against a wall, or if an animal crushed it, and it lasted twenty-four hours, and then one slaughtered it, it is kosher. Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yannai: Both this and that, i.e., all of the above cases, require inspection after slaughter, to ascertain that there is no injury that would itself render the animal a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief gloss closes the first mishna. The mishna had taught that a bird trampled, slammed, or crushed which then survives a full twenty-four-hour period is kosher — survival proving no fatal internal injury. Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus (in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yannai) adds an important qualification: surviving the waiting period is not by itself sufficient. Each of these cases (achat zo ve-achat zo — “both this one and that one”) still requires a post-slaughter inspection of the internal organs, since a crushing blow could have caused a specific tereifa-defect that twenty-four hours of life would not rule out.
Key Terms:
- דְּרָסָהּ (derasah) = trampled it
- בַּכּוֹתֶל (ba-kotel) = against the wall — slammed it
- אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ (achat zo ve-achat zo) = both this and that — all the listed cases alike
- צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה (tzericha bedika) = requires inspection — survival alone does not exempt it
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה — the cases where a bird is kosher
The complementary mishna listing injuries that do NOT render a bird a tereifa, with disputes of Rabbi and Rabbi Yehuda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת בָּעוֹף: נִיקְּבָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, אוֹ שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה, הִכְּתָה חוּלְדָּה עַל רֹאשָׁהּ מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה, נִיקַּב הַזֶּפֶק, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ נִיטַּל, יָצְאוּ בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ וְלֹא נִיקְּבוּ, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ גַּפֶּיהָ, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רַגְלֶיהָ, נִמְרְטוּ כְּנָפֶיהָ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם נִטְּלָה הַנּוֹצָה פְּסוּלָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: And these are kosher among birds: If a bird’s windpipe was perforated or cracked lengthwise; or if a weasel struck the bird on its head in a place that does not render it a tereifa; or if the crop was perforated. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is kosher even if the crop was removed. If the bird’s intestines emerged from the abdominal wall but were not perforated, or if its wings were broken, or if its legs were broken, or if the feathers on its wings were plucked, the bird is kosher. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the down covering its body was removed, it is a tereifa and unfit for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mirror mishna lists the non-fatal conditions under which a bird remains kosher, paralleling the kosher-cases mishna for animals. A perforated or lengthwise-cracked windpipe (unlike a severed one) is fine; a weasel-bite to a non-fatal spot is fine; a perforated crop (zefek) is fine — and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (here “Rabbi”) goes further, permitting even a fully removed crop. Likewise, intestines that emerged intact, broken wings or legs, and plucked wing-feathers do not condemn the bird. Rabbi Yehuda dissents on one point: if the down (notza) covering the body was stripped off, he holds the bird is a tereifa. These rulings become the agenda for the Gemara on the rest of the daf.
Key Terms:
- כְּשֵׁרוֹת (kesheirot) = [cases where the bird is] kosher/fit
- זֶפֶק (zefek) = the crop — the bird’s food-storage pouch
- רַבִּי (Rabbi) = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who permits even a removed crop
- נוֹצָה (notza) = the down/soft plumage covering the body — disputed by Rabbi Yehuda
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא (ברייתא) — the ruling at Ono on the womb
A baraita: Rabbi Simai and Rabbi Tzadok applied Rabbi’s removed-crop ruling to a removed womb
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי סִימַאי וְרַבִּי צָדוֹק שֶׁהָלְכוּ לְעַבֵּר שָׁנָה בְּלוֹד, וְשָׁבְתוּ בְּאוֹנוֹ, וְהוֹרוּ בְּטַרְפַּחַת כְּרַבִּי בְּזֶפֶק.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Simai and Rabbi Tzadok, who went to intercalate the year in Lod, and they spent Shabbat in the town of Ono. And they ruled with regard to an animal whose womb was removed, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in the mishna with regard to the crop.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens on the mishna’s removed-crop clause with a historical baraita. Rabbi Simai and Rabbi Tzadok, traveling to Lod to intercalate the calendar (le’abber shana) and lodging over Shabbat in the town of Ono, issued a ruling about an animal whose womb (tarpachat) had been removed, deciding it “like Rabbi with regard to the crop.” Since Rabbi held a bird kosher even with its crop entirely removed (because the crop is non-vital), the parallel suggests they treated the womb as similarly non-vital. But the cryptic phrasing leaves the actual ruling — permit or forbid — ambiguous, which the next segment will probe.
Key Terms:
- לְעַבֵּר שָׁנָה (le’abber shana) = to intercalate the year — add a leap month, a function of the central court
- אוֹנוֹ (Ono) = a town in the Land of Israel where they lodged
- טַרְפַּחַת (tarpachat) = the womb/uterus of an animal
- כְּרַבִּי בְּזֶפֶק (ke-Rabbi be-zefek) = “like Rabbi with regard to the crop” — the cited precedent
Segment 11
TYPE: בעיא — interpreting the ambiguous baraita
Did they permit or forbid the womb? The dilemma is left unresolved (teiku)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הוֹרוּ בְּטַרְפַּחַת לְאִיסּוּרָא, כְּרַבִּי בְּזֶפֶק לְהֶתֵּירָא? אוֹ דִילְמָא: הוֹרוּ בְּטַרְפַּחַת לְהֶתֵּירָא כְּרַבִּי בְּזֶפֶק, אֲבָל כְּרַבִּי בְּזֶפֶק לָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the meaning of the baraita? Is it referring to two different rulings, i.e., that they ruled with regard to the womb to prohibit it, and they also ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to the crop to permit it? Or perhaps it is referring to only one ruling, and it means that they ruled with regard to the womb to permit it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to the crop, but they do not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to the crop itself. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara dissects the baraita’s ambiguity. Reading 1: there were two separate rulings — they forbade the removed womb (le’isura), and, separately, they cited Rabbi to permit a removed crop (le-hettera). Reading 2: there was one ruling — they permitted the removed womb by analogy to Rabbi’s crop position, but did not actually adopt Rabbi’s crop ruling itself as binding law. The two readings differ sharply on both the womb’s status and on whether the sages endorsed Rabbi. Lacking decisive evidence, the Gemara concludes teiku — the dilemma stands unresolved.
Key Terms:
- אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ (ibba’ya lehu) = a dilemma was raised before them
- לְאִיסּוּרָא (le’isura) = to forbid / toward prohibition
- לְהֶתֵּירָא (le-hettera) = to permit / toward leniency
- תֵּיקוּ (teiku) = let it stand — the dilemma remains unresolved
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא — the roof of the crop is like the gullet
Even within the lenient crop-ruling, the “roof” of the crop is treated stringently like the gullet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: גַּגּוֹ שֶׁל זֶפֶק נִידּוֹן כְּוֶושֶׁט. הֵיכָא? אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל שֶׁנִּמְתָּח עִמּוֹ.
English Translation:
Rabba says, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who says: The roof of the crop is treated like the gullet, i.e., it renders the bird a tereifa if perforated in any amount. The Gemara asks: Where is the roof of the crop? Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: It is any part of the crop that stretches with the gullet.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s leniency on a perforated crop is now bounded. Rabba (or Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi) teaches that the “roof” of the crop (gago shel zefek) — its upper portion — is not treated like the rest of the crop but like the gullet (veshet), so a perforation there of any amount renders the bird a tereifa. The reason is anatomical continuity: that section functions as an extension of the esophagus. Rav Beivai bar Abaye supplies the operative definition — the roof is whatever part of the crop stretches together with the gullet when the bird swallows (kol she-nimtach immo), marking it as functionally esophageal tissue.
Key Terms:
- גַּגּוֹ שֶׁל זֶפֶק (gago shel zefek) = the roof/top of the crop
- נִידּוֹן כְּוֶושֶׁט (nidon ke-veshet) = is judged like the gullet — perforation in any amount is a tereifa
- כֹּל שֶׁנִּמְתָּח עִמּוֹ (kol she-nimtach immo) = whatever stretches along with it [the gullet] — the test for the roof
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא ודרשה — emerged intestines and the verse on jumbling
Emerged intestines are kosher only if not jumbled; a derasha from “He made you and established you”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָצְאוּ בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ, אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא הִיפֵּךְ בָּהֶן, אֲבָל הִיפֵּךְ בָּהֶן – טְרֵפָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״הוּא עָשְׂךָ וַיְכֹנְנֶךָ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כּוֹנָנִיּוֹת בָּאָדָם, שֶׁאִם נֶהְפָּךְ אֶחָד מֵהֶן – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת.
English Translation:
The mishna states: If the bird’s intestines emerged from the stomach wall but were not perforated, the bird is kosher. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where one did not jumble them, but returned them to the stomach in their proper order. But if he jumbled them, the bird is a tereifa, as it is written: Has He not made you, and established you? The verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created established locations for each organ in a person, so that if one of them is switched he cannot live. The same applies to other creatures.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak qualifies the mishna’s leniency on emerged-but-unperforated intestines: it holds only if, after the intestines protruded, they were returned to their natural arrangement. If they were jumbled (hipech bahen) — restored in the wrong order — the bird is a tereifa, because the disordered organs cannot function. He anchors this in a derasha on the verse “Has He not made you and established you?” (Deuteronomy 32:6): God created fixed, ordered placements (konaniyot) for the body’s organs, such that switching even one is incompatible with life. The same anatomical principle applies to birds.
Key Terms:
- יָצְאוּ בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ (yatzu benei me’eha) = its intestines emerged [from the body cavity]
- הִיפֵּךְ בָּהֶן (hipech bahen) = he jumbled/reversed them — restored them out of order
- הוּא עָשְׂךָ וַיְכֹנְנֶךָ = “He made you and established you” (Deut. 32:6) — the prooftext
- כּוֹנָנִיּוֹת (konaniyot) = fixed/established placements of the organs
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא ואגדה — Rabbi Meir’s homiletic reading of the verse
The same verse, read aggadically: the Jewish people is a self-sufficient city producing its own leaders
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: ״הוּא עָשְׂךָ וַיְכֹנְנֶךָ״ – כַּרְכָא דְּכוֹלָּה בֵּיהּ, מִמֶּנּוּ כֹּהֲנָיו, מִמֶּנּוּ נְבִיאָיו, מִמֶּנּוּ שָׂרָיו, מִמֶּנּוּ מְלָכָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִמֶּנּוּ פִנָּה מִמֶּנּוּ יָתֵד וְגוֹ׳״.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say that the verse: Has He not made you, and established you? teaches that the Jewish people is a city with everything in it. Out of it come its priests, out of it come its prophets, out of it come its chiefs, out of it come its kings, as it is stated: Out of them shall come forth the cornerstone, out of them the stake, out of them the battle bow, out of them every master together.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara appends a second, aggadic reading of the same verse, weaving the halachic prooftext into a homily. Rabbi Meir reads “He made you and established you” as teaching that the Jewish people is a self-contained city (karka de-kholla beih) — a community that produces from within itself everything it needs: its priests, its prophets, its officers, and its kings. He supports this with Zechariah 10:4, “Out of them the cornerstone, out of them the stake, out of them the battle bow,” each metaphor naming a category of leader. Just as Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak saw divine order in the body’s fixed organs, Rabbi Meir sees the same providential completeness in the social body of Israel.
Key Terms:
- כַּרְכָא דְּכוֹלָּה בֵּיהּ (karka de-kholla beih) = a city that has everything in it — self-sufficient
- מִמֶּנּוּ … מִמֶּנּוּ (mimmennu… mimmennu) = “out of it… out of it” — the anaphoric structure listing each office
- זְכַרְיָה (Zechariah 10:4) = the supporting verse: cornerstone, stake, and battle bow as images of leaders
Segment 15
TYPE: מעשה — a cruel demonstration of the verse (continues on 57a)
A grim anecdote testing the principle that jumbled innards are incompatible with life; the story breaks off here
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא רוֹמָאָה דְּחַזְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּנְפַל מֵאִיגָּרָא לְאַרְעָא, פְּקַעיה כְּרֵסֵיהּ וּנְפוּק מַעְיָינֵיהּ, אַתְיֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ וְשַׁחְטֵיהּ קַמֵּיהּ
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts an incident involving a certain Roman who saw a certain man fall from the roof to the ground, and his stomach ruptured and his intestines emerged. The Roman brought the man’s son and slaughtered him before his father’s eyes
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes on the opening of a stark, troubling anecdote that continues on 57a, illustrating Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak’s principle that disordered or displaced innards are incompatible with life. A certain Roman witnessed a man fall from a roof so that his abdomen burst and his intestines spilled out — yet the man survived. To test whether the survival could be replicated by deliberately disturbing the organs, the Roman performed a cruel experiment, beginning to slaughter the man’s son before his eyes. The Gemara halts the narrative here mid-sentence; its resolution and the lesson drawn about the body’s God-given order are picked up at the start of the next daf.
Key Terms:
- רוֹמָאָה (roma’a) = a Roman — the figure conducting the grim experiment
- נְפַל מֵאִיגָּרָא (nefal me-iggara) = fell from the roof
- פְּקַע כְּרֵסֵיהּ (peka kreseih) = his abdomen burst open
- נְפוּק מַעְיָינֵיהּ (nefuk ma’yaneih) = his intestines emerged