Chullin Daf 57 (חולין דף נ״ז)
Daf: 57 | Amudim: 57a – 57b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (57a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא (אגדה) — conclusion of the Roman story
The end of the anecdote begun on 56b: the man with emerged intestines survives the Roman’s test
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בַּאֲחוּזַּת עֵינַיִם, אִינְּגִיד וְאִיתְּנַח, עוּל מַעְיָינֵיהּ וְחַיְּיטֵיהּ לִכְרֵסֵיהּ.
English Translation:
deceptively, i.e., he only pretended to kill the son. The father fainted and went limp. By this movement, his intestines entered his stomach, and the Roman sewed up his stomach, and he recovered.
קלאוד על הדף:
This completes the grim narrative opened at the close of 56b. The Roman, testing whether disordered innards are truly fatal, only feigned (be’achuzat einayim) slaughtering the man’s son; the shock made the father faint and go limp (inngid ve’itnach), and that very collapse let his protruding intestines slip back into the abdomen in their proper arrangement. The Roman then stitched the belly and the man recovered — a living demonstration of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak’s principle (56b) that intestines which return unperforated and in order are compatible with life, whereas jumbling them is not.
Key Terms:
- בַּאֲחוּזַּת עֵינַיִם (be’achuzat einayim) = a sleight of the eyes; a deceptive pretense
- אִינְּגִיד וְאִיתְּנַח (inngid ve’itnach) = he went limp and groaned/fainted
- עוּל מַעְיָינֵיהּ (ul ma’yaneih) = his intestines went back in
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה וגמרא — broken legs; inspecting the tzomet ha-gidin
On the mishna’s “broken legs are kosher”: Rava inspects the convergence of sinews and permits
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רַגְלֶיהָ. הַהוּא צַנָּא דְּאִינְקוֹרֵי דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, בַּדְקֵיהּ רָבָא בְּצוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין, וְאַכְשְׁרֵיהּ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: If its legs were broken, the bird remains kosher. The Gemara relates that there was a certain basket of birds with broken legs that came before Rava. Rava inspected each bird at the convergence of sinews in the thigh, and when he found that all its sinews were intact, he deemed it kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to the previous mishna’s ruling that a bird with broken legs is kosher. A practical case illustrates the necessary caveat: a basket of birds (tzana de-inkorei) with broken legs came before Rava, who did not permit them outright but inspected each one at the convergence of sinews in the thigh (tzomet ha-gidin) — the cluster of tendons whose severance is itself a tereifa. Finding the sinews intact, he permitted them. The lesson: a broken leg alone is harmless, but the break must not have severed the critical tendons.
Key Terms:
- נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רַגְלֶיהָ (nishtabberu ragleha) = its legs were broken
- צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין (tzomet ha-gidin) = the convergence of sinews in the thigh — severance renders a tereifa
- צַנָּא דְּאִינְקוֹרֵי (tzana de-inkorei) = a basket of birds [with broken legs]
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא — Rav’s catalogue of dislocations; the wing and the lung
Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav lists dislocated limbs; the wing raises a lung concern, with Shmuel and R. Yochanan requiring inspection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שְׁמוּטַת יָד בַּבְּהֵמָה – כְּשֵׁרָה, שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בַּבְּהֵמָה – טְרֵפָה, שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף – טְרֵפָה, שְׁמוּטַת גַּף בָּעוֹף – טְרֵפָה, חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא נִיקְּבָה הָרֵיאָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: תִּיבָּדֵק, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תִּיבָּדֵק.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A dislocated foreleg in an animal is kosher. A dislocated femur in an animal renders it a tereifa. A dislocated femur in a bird renders it a tereifa. A dislocated wing in a bird renders it a tereifa, because we must be concerned that perhaps the lung was perforated. The lung is located near the wing’s attachment to the body, and part of the lung may have been torn out with the wing. And Shmuel says: The lung should be inspected, and if no damage is found, the bird is kosher. And so says Rabbi Yochanan: It should be inspected.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda transmits a systematic ruling from Rav distinguishing dislocations (shemita) by limb and species: a dislocated foreleg (yad) in an animal is kosher, but a dislocated femur (yarech) in an animal — or in a bird — is a tereifa, and a dislocated wing (gaf) in a bird is also a tereifa. The wing case is unique: the concern is not the wing itself but that the lung, lying near the wing’s attachment, may have been torn (nikkeva ha-rei’a) when the wing was wrenched off. Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan soften this: rather than condemning automatically, the lung should be inspected (tibbadek), and if undamaged the bird is kosher.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמוּטָה (shemita) = dislocation [of a limb from its socket]
- יָד / יָרֵךְ / גַּף = foreleg / femur (thigh) / wing
- נִיקְּבָה הָרֵיאָה (nikkeva ha-rei’a) = the lung was perforated
- תִּיבָּדֵק (tibbadek) = let it be inspected — Shmuel/R. Yochanan’s ruling
Segment 4
TYPE: מחלוקת — does a bird have lungs? Chizkiyya vs. R. Yochanan
Chizkiyya says a bird has no lungs; R. Yochanan describes them; the Gemara probes what “no lungs” can mean
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: אֵין רֵיאָה לָעוֹף, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֵשׁ לוֹ וְיֶשְׁנָהּ כְּעָלֶה שֶׁל וֶורֶד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם. מַאי ״אֵין רֵיאָה לָעוֹף״? אִילֵּימָא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל – וְהָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּאִית לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא דְּלָא מִיטְּרִיף בֵּיהּ, וְהָתָנֵי לֵוִי: טְרֵפוֹת שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים בַּבְּהֵמָה – כְּנֶגְדָּן בָּעוֹף, יָתֵר עֲלֵיהֶן עוֹף נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ!
English Translation:
Chizkiyya, son of Rabbi Chiyya, says: A bird has no lungs. And Rabbi Yochanan says: A bird does have lungs, and they are like a rose petal in appearance, thin and red, between the wings. The Gemara asks: What does Chizkiyya mean when he says that a bird has no lungs? If we say that it has no lungs at all, that is problematic, as don’t we see that it does have lungs? Rather, say that he means that the bird is not rendered a tereifa by them if they are perforated. But this, too, is problematic, as 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? If so, a perforated lung in a bird, as in an animal, renders it a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
A startling dispute: Chizkiyya (son of Rabbi Chiyya) declares “a bird has no lungs,” while Rabbi Yochanan affirms it does — thin and red, shaped like a rose petal (k’aleh shel vered), lying between the wings. The Gemara cannot take Chizkiyya literally (we plainly see a bird has lungs), nor can it mean a perforated bird-lung is not a tereifa, since Levi’s baraita teaches that all the animal tereifot apply to birds too — so a perforated lung would condemn. This sets up the reinterpretation in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- רֵיאָה (rei’a) = lung
- כְּעָלֶה שֶׁל וֶורֶד (k’aleh shel vered) = like a rose petal — R. Yochanan’s description of the bird’s lung
- חִזְקִיָּה (Chizkiyya) = son of Rabbi Chiyya, who said a bird “has no lungs”
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ — “no lungs” means no falling/singeing inspection
Chizkiyya’s statement is reinterpreted: a bird’s lung needs no inspection after a fall or fire, because the ribs protect it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אֵין לוֹ לֹא לִינָּפֵל וְלֹא לֵיחָמֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב חָנָה: הוֹאִיל וְרוֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ מְגִינּוֹת עָלֶיהָ.
English Translation:
Rather, say that Chizkiyya means that a bird’s lung has no halakha of falling and no halakha of singeing. If a bird falls, one need not inspect the lungs for damage as he must other organs (see 51b), and if it falls in a fire, one need not inspect the lungs for a change in color as he must other organs (see 56b). What is the reason for this? Rav Chana said: Since a majority of the bird’s ribs protect the lungs, one need not be concerned that the lung was damaged.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara salvages Chizkiyya’s words by limiting their scope: he does not deny that a perforated bird-lung is a tereifa, but rather that a bird’s lung has no law of “falling” (nefila, see 51b) and no law of “singeing” (chamira, see 56b). That is, unlike other organs, one need not inspect a bird’s lung for damage after the bird falls, nor for discoloration after it falls into fire. Rav Chana supplies the reason: the bird’s ribs largely encase and shield the lung (rov tzal’oteha meginot aleha), so injury from such accidents need not be suspected there.
Key Terms:
- לִינָּפֵל (linnafel) = [law of] falling — inspection after a fall
- לֵיחָמֵר (leichamer) = [law of] singeing — inspection for discoloration after fire
- רוֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ מְגִינּוֹת (rov tzal’oteha meginot) = most of its ribs protect [the lung]
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא — the West’s verdict on Chizkiyya
Since R. Yochanan had to describe the lung, Chizkiyya evidently denied it entirely; the West concludes he was simply unfamiliar with chickens
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא מִדְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יֵשׁ לוֹ, וְיֶשְׁנָהּ כְּעָלֶה שֶׁל וֶורֶד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִים – מִכְּלָל דְּחִזְקִיָּה סָבַר דְּלֵית לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִדְּבָרָיו שֶׁל בְּרִיבִּי נִיכָּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי בְּתַרְנְגוֹלִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But from the fact that Rabbi Yochanan says in response: A bird does have lungs, and they are like a rose petal between the wings, by inference one must conclude that Chizkiyya maintains that it has no lungs at all. Rather, one must say as they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Chanina: From the statement of the Distinguished, i.e., Chizkiyya, it is apparent that he is unfamiliar with chickens.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses back on the previous reinterpretation: if Chizkiyya only meant the lung lacks falling/singeing inspections, why would Rabbi Yochanan respond by insisting the bird has a lung and describing its shape? That response implies Chizkiyya really did deny the lung’s existence. The sages of the West (Eretz Yisrael), in the name of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina, deliver a pointed verdict: from Chizkiyya’s very words “it is apparent that he was not expert in chickens” (eino baki be-tarnegolin) — a rare instance of the Gemara attributing a sage’s error to simple lack of familiarity.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַעְרְבָא (be-ma’arva) = in the West — Eretz Yisrael
- בְּרִיבִּי (b’rivi) = the Distinguished one — here referring to Chizkiyya
- אֵינוֹ בָּקִי בְּתַרְנְגוֹלִין (eino baki be-tarnegolin) = he is not expert in chickens
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Huna: a dislocated femur in a bird is kosher
Rav Huna reports Rav as ruling kosher, contradicting the Pumbedita tradition; Rav Huna explains it as local custom
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא לְרַב הוּנָא: וְהָא רַבָּנַן דַּאֲתוֹ מִפּוּמְבְּדִיתָא אֲמַרוּ רַב יְהוּדָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אָמַר: שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף טְרֵפָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּרִי, נַהֲרָא נַהֲרָא וּפְשָׁטֵיהּ.
English Translation:
§ Rav Huna said that Rav said: A dislocated femur in a bird is kosher. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to Rav Huna: But the Rabbis that came from Pumbedita said that Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav: A dislocated femur in a bird renders it a tereifa! Rav Huna said to him: My son, each river and its course, i.e., different communities observe different customs. Although Rav himself held that such a bird is kosher, he ruled for those living in Pumbedita that such a bird is a tereifa, in accordance with their own custom.
קלאוד על הדף:
A textual conflict in Rav’s rulings opens here and will dominate the rest of the daf. Rav Huna reports that Rav held a dislocated femur (shemutat yarech) in a bird is kosher — the opposite of what Rav Yehuda taught (segment 3). Rabba bar Rav Huna challenges his father with the Pumbedita tradition that Rav declared it a tereifa. Rav Huna answers with a memorable image: “each river follows its own course” (nahara nahara u-fshateih) — Rav personally held it kosher but issued the stringent ruling to the people of Pumbedita in deference to their established custom.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ (shemutat yarech) = a dislocated femur/thigh
- נַהֲרָא נַהֲרָא וּפְשָׁטֵיהּ (nahara nahara u-fshateih) = each river and its own course — local custom varies
- פּוּמְבְּדִיתָא (Pumbedita) = the Babylonian town with the stringent tradition
Segment 8
TYPE: מעשה וקושיא — R. Abba challenges R. Yirmeya bar Abba
R. Yirmeya inspects the tzomet ha-gidin despite Rav’s lenient ruling; he cites the mishna that a severed tzomet is a tereifa, “and likewise in a bird”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲזַל רַבִּי אַבָּא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא דְּקָא בָּדֵיק בְּצוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמָר כּוּלֵּי הַאי? וְהָא רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף כְּשֵׁרָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא מַתְנִיתִין יָדַעְנָא: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה כְּשֵׁרָה, מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה פְּסוּלָה, וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין, וְאָמַר רַב עֲלַהּ: וְכֵן בָּעוֹף.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: Rabbi Abba went and found Rav Yirmeya bar Abba inspecting birds at the convergence of sinews in the thigh. Rabbi Abba said to him: Why must Master do all this? But doesn’t Rav Huna say that Rav says: A dislocated femur in a bird is kosher? If a bird is kosher even when the whole thigh has been removed, all the more so it should be kosher when only the convergence of sinews has been removed. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said to him: I know the mishna (76a): With regard to an animal whose hind legs were severed, if they were severed from the leg joint and below, it is kosher; from the leg joint and above, it is a tereifa and unfit for consumption. And likewise an animal whose convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed is a tereifa. And Rav said about this: And likewise with regard to a bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba finds Rav Yirmeya bar Abba inspecting birds at the convergence of sinews and questions why, given Rav Huna’s report that a dislocated femur is kosher — surely if the whole thigh may be lost the bird is fine when only the sinews are gone. Rav Yirmeya answers from the mishna (76a): an animal’s leg severed below the knee-joint is kosher, above it is a tereifa, and likewise one whose tzomet ha-gidin was removed is a tereifa — and Rav explicitly extended this (“ve-chen ba-of”) to birds. The two Rav-traditions are now squarely in tension.
Key Terms:
- הָאַרְכּוּבָּה (ha-arkuva) = the [leg] joint/knee — the dividing line for severed legs
- נִיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין (nittal tzomet ha-gidin) = the convergence of sinews was removed — a tereifa
- וְכֵן בָּעוֹף (ve-chen ba-of) = “and likewise in a bird” — Rav’s extension of the mishna
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא — resolving by distinguishing dislocation from severing
R. Abba notes the contradiction in Rav; the resolution is that Rav distinguishes a dislocated (shemuta) femur from a severed (chatucha) one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַב אַדְּרַב! אִישְׁתִּיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ בֵּין שְׁמוּטָה לַחֲתוּכָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאַתְּ מְפָרְשַׁתְּ שְׁמַעְתָּתֵיהּ דְּרַב? בְּפֵירוּשׁ אָמַר רַב: שְׁמוּטָה – כְּשֵׁרָה, חֲתוּכָה – פְּסוּלָה. וְאַל תִּתְמַהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וָמֵתָה, חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וְחָיְתָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Abba responded: If so, this statement of Rav, that a bird whose convergence of sinews was removed is a tereifa, poses a difficulty for that statement of Rav, that a bird with a dislocated femur is kosher. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was silent and did not respond. Rabbi Abba said to him: Perhaps there is a difference for Rav between a dislocated femur and a severed femur, and while the former does not render a bird a tereifa, the latter does. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said to him: And are you interpreting Rav’s halakhot based on your own reasoning? Rav said explicitly: A dislocated femur is kosher, while a severed femur renders the animal unfit for consumption. And do not be confounded by this distinction, as one cuts an animal from here, in one place, and it dies, but one cuts it from there, in another place, and it lives.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba points out that Rav Yirmeya’s mishna-based ruling (severed sinews = tereifa, even in a bird) contradicts Rav’s lenient ruling on a dislocated femur. Rav Yirmeya falls silent. Rabbi Abba then proposes the resolution himself: Rav distinguishes a dislocated femur (shemuta — kosher) from a severed one (chatucha — a tereifa). Rav Yirmeya rebukes him for interpreting Rav by his own reasoning, but it turns out Rav said exactly this explicitly. The Gemara adds a vivid anatomical caution against being surprised: cutting at one spot kills, cutting at another the animal lives — the precise location is decisive.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמוּטָה (shemuta) = dislocated — kosher per Rav
- חֲתוּכָה (chatucha) = severed/cut — a tereifa per Rav
- מְפָרְשַׁתְּ שְׁמַעְתָּתֵיהּ (mefarshat shema’tateih) = you are interpreting his teaching [by your own reasoning]
Segment 10
TYPE: מעשה — R. Abba travels to Eretz Yisrael (continues on 57b)
R. Abba finds R. Zeira teaching that Rav ruled the bird a tereifa; R. Abba begins to report Rav Huna’s lenient ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי סְלֵיק רַבִּי אַבָּא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי זֵירָא דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף טְרֵפָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַיֵּי דְּמָר, מִיּוֹמָא דִּסְלֵיק מָר לְהָכָא
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: When Rabbi Abba went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Zeira sitting and saying: Rav Huna said that Rav said that a dislocated femur in a bird renders it a tereifa. Rabbi Abba said to him: By Master’s life, since the day that Master came up to here, Eretz Yisrael,
קלאוד על הדף:
The narrative shifts to Eretz Yisrael. When Rabbi Abba went up from Babylonia, he found Rabbi Zeira teaching the stringent version — that Rav Huna reported Rav as ruling a dislocated femur in a bird a tereifa. Rabbi Abba swears “by Master’s life” and begins to correct the record, recounting his own firsthand experience with Rav Huna; the sentence breaks off here and is completed at the top of 57b. The episode dramatizes how a single ruling of Rav traveled through multiple tradents and emerged in contradictory forms.
Key Terms:
- כִּי סְלֵיק (ki saleik) = when he went up [to Eretz Yisrael]
- רַבִּי זֵירָא (Rabbi Zeira) = the Eretz-Yisrael sage teaching the stringent version
- חַיֵּי דְּמָר (chayei de-mar) = “by Master’s life” — an oath-formula introducing the correction
Amud Bet (57b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — completion of R. Abba’s testimony
R. Abba finishes: he personally asked Rav Huna, who said a dislocated femur in a bird is kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲוָה לַן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא וּשְׁאֵילְנֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לַן: שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף כְּשֵׁירָה.
English Translation:
we had the opportunity to speak with Rav Huna, and we asked him about this matter, and he said to us: A dislocated femur in a bird is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence cut off at the end of 57a now completes. Rabbi Abba testifies that during his time in Babylonia he and his colleagues had direct access to Rav Huna (“pitchon peh kammeih de-Rav Huna”), asked him this very question, and Rav Huna answered plainly: a dislocated femur in a bird is kosher. This firsthand report directly contradicts Rabbi Zeira’s version that Rav Huna held it a tereifa, sharpening the conflict over what Rav Huna actually taught.
Key Terms:
- פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה (pitchon peh) = an opening to speak — direct access to ask
- שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף כְּשֵׁירָה = a dislocated femur in a bird is kosher — Rav Huna’s reported ruling
Segment 2
TYPE: מעשה — R. Abba retells the exchange with R. Yirmeya bar Abba
In Eretz Yisrael, R. Abba recounts to R. Zeira his earlier debate with R. Yirmeya, who cited the mishna of severed legs “and likewise a bird”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַשְׁכַּחְתֵּיהּ נָמֵי לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא דְּיָתֵיב וְקָא בָדֵיק בְּצוֹמֵת הַגִּידִין, וְאַקְשִׁי לֵיהּ: לָא סָבַר לַהּ מָר הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף כְּשֵׁרָה? אָמַר לִי: אֲנָא מַתְנִיתִין יָדַעְנָא: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ, מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמִטָּה – כְּשֵׁרָה, מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה – פְּסוּלָה, וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין, וְאָמַר רַב עֲלַהּ: וְכֵן בָּעוֹף.
English Translation:
And I also found Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba sitting and inspecting birds at the convergence of sinews in the thigh. And I posed a difficulty to him: Doesn’t Master maintain in accordance with this statement that Rav Huna says that Rav says: A dislocated femur in a bird is kosher? Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said to me: I know the mishna (76a): With regard to an animal whose hind legs were severed, if they were severed from the leg joint and below, it is kosher; from the leg joint and above, it is a tereifa and unfit for consumption. And likewise an animal whose convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed is a tereifa. And Rav said about this: And likewise with regard to a bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba recounts to Rabbi Zeira the same exchange already narrated on 57a (segment 8). He had found Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba inspecting the convergence of sinews and challenged him on the basis of Rav Huna’s lenient ruling. Rabbi Yirmeya answered with the mishna (76a) — legs severed below the joint kosher, above it a tereifa, severed sinews a tereifa — and Rav’s extension “and likewise in a bird.” The retelling in Eretz Yisrael, almost verbatim, underscores that the same source-conflict was being debated in both centers of learning.
Key Terms:
- אַקְשִׁי לֵיהּ (akshi leih) = I posed a difficulty to him
- מַתְנִיתִין יָדַעְנָא (matnitin yada’na) = “I know the mishna” — R. Yirmeya’s grounding
- צוֹמֵת הַגִּידִין (tzomet ha-gidin) = the convergence of sinews
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא — the dislocation/severing distinction restated
R. Abba again proposes that Rav distinguishes shemuta from chatucha; R. Yirmeya confirms Rav said so explicitly
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַאֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַב אַדְּרַב! אִישְׁתִּיק, וְאַקְשַׁי לֵיהּ: וְדִלְמָא שָׁנֵי לֵיהּ לְרַב בֵּין שְׁמוּטָה לַחֲתוּכָה? וְאָמַר לִי: וְאַתְּ מְפָרְשַׁתְּ שְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב? בְּפֵירוּשׁ אָמַר רַב: שְׁמוּטָה – כְּשֵׁרָה, חֲתוּכָה – פְּסוּלָה.
English Translation:
And I said to him: If so, this statement of Rav poses a difficulty for that statement of Rav. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba was silent. And I challenged him: But perhaps there is a difference for Rav between a dislocated femur and a severed one. And he said to me: And are you interpreting Rav’s halakha based on your own reasoning? Rav said explicitly: A dislocated femur is kosher, while a severed femur renders the animal unfit for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
Continuing the retelling, Rabbi Abba reports that he raised the contradiction in Rav, Rabbi Yirmeya fell silent, and Rabbi Abba suggested the shemuta-vs-chatucha distinction. Rabbi Yirmeya again objected to interpreting Rav by reasoning, then confirmed that Rav had in fact stated it explicitly: a dislocated femur is kosher, a severed one is unfit. The doubled narration (57a and here) is the Gemara’s way of preserving the testimony exactly as Rabbi Abba delivered it in Eretz Yisrael.
Key Terms:
- קַשְׁיָא דְּרַב אַדְּרַב (kashya de-Rav a-de-Rav) = a contradiction of Rav against Rav
- בְּפֵירוּשׁ אָמַר רַב (be-feirush amar Rav) = Rav said explicitly
- אִישְׁתִּיק (ishtik) = he fell silent
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא — R. Zeira’s own tradition
R. Zeira reports Rav Chiyya bar Ashi (in Rav’s name) and R. Yaakov bar Idi (in R. Yochanan’s name): a dislocated femur in a bird is a tereifa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַתְּ, מָה בִּידָךְ? הָכִי אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף טְרֵפָה, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Abba then asked Rabbi Zeira: And as for you, what is in your hand? What have you heard with regard to this halakha? Rabbi Zeira said to him: This is what Rav Chiyya bar Ashi says that Rav says: A dislocated femur in a bird renders it a tereifa. And so said Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi that Rabbi Yochanan said: A dislocated femur in a bird renders it a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba turns the question back: “And you, what is in your hand?” Rabbi Zeira produces his own received traditions — both stringent. Rav Chiyya bar Ashi reports Rav as ruling a dislocated femur in a bird a tereifa, and Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi reports the same in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. So the dispute is not merely a garbled transmission of Rav; major tradents in both Babylonia and Eretz Yisrael independently held the stringent view.
Key Terms:
- מָה בִּידָךְ (mah bidach) = “what is in your hand?” — what tradition have you received?
- רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי = a tradent reporting Rav’s stringent ruling
- רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי = a tradent reporting R. Yochanan’s stringent ruling
Segment 5
TYPE: אגדה — R. Yochanan’s deference; R. Chanina’s salted hen
R. Yaakov bar Idi: R. Yochanan would defer to the earlier assembly that permitted; Rabbi himself permitted R. Chanina’s dislocated-femur hen
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי: אִילְמָלֵי הֲוָה רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּאַתְרָא דְּאוֹרוֹ בַּהּ חַבְרָוָותָא לְהֶתֵּירָא, לָא פַּרְכֵּיס. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַבִּי: שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף כְּשֵׁרָה. וְתַרְנְגוֹלֶת הָיְתָה לוֹ לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא שֶׁנִּשְׁמְטָה יָרֵךְ שֶׁלָּהּ, וֶהֱבִיאָהּ לִפְנֵי רַבִּי וְהִתִּירָהּ לוֹ, וּמְלָחָהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא, וַהֲוָה מוֹרֵי בַּהּ הֲלָכָה לַתַּלְמִידִים: זֶה הִתִּיר לִי רַבִּי, זֶה הִתִּיר לִי רַבִּי.
English Translation:
And with regard to this, Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said: If Rabbi Yochanan had been in the place where the assembly ruled to permit such a bird, he would not have stirred. In other words, he would not have contested their ruling, because they were the greatest Sages of the previous generation. As Rabbi Chanina says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A dislocated femur in a bird is kosher. And Rabbi Chanina had a hen whose femur was dislocated, and he brought it before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted it to him, and Rabbi Chanina salted the hen to preserve it. And he would teach the students the halakha with it, as he would show them the preserved body of the hen and say: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted this to me, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted this to me.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi adds a striking note of intellectual humility: had Rabbi Yochanan been in a place where the great earlier assembly (chavravata) had ruled to permit such a bird, he would “not have stirred” — he would not contest his predecessors. The grounding is a tradition that Rabbi Chanina reported Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitting a dislocated femur in a bird. Indeed Rabbi Chanina owned such a hen, brought it to Rabbi who permitted it, then salted and preserved it as a teaching specimen, repeating to his students: “This one Rabbi permitted to me, this one Rabbi permitted to me.”
Key Terms:
- לָא פַּרְכֵּיס (la parkeis) = he would not stir/twitch — would not contest the ruling
- חַבְרָוָותָא (chavravata) = the [earlier] assembly of colleagues/great sages
- וּמְלָחָהּ (u-melachah) = and he salted it — to preserve the hen as a teaching example
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא — the halacha: the twelve-month criterion
The halacha follows none of the above; rather, R. Yosei ben Nehorai’s exchange with R. Yehoshua ben Levi on the windpipe and the surviving ewe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּכׇל הָנֵי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא, אֶלָּא כִּי הָא דִּשְׁאֵל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן נְהוֹרַאי אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: קְדִירַת קָנֶה בְּכַמָּה? אָמַר לוֹ: מִשְׁנָה שְׁלֵמָה שָׁנִינוּ, עַד כְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. אָמַר לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא רָחֵל אַחַת הָיְתָה בִּשְׁכוּנָתֵנוּ שֶׁנִּקְדַּר קָנֶה שֶׁלָּהּ, וְעָשׂוּ לָהּ קְרוּמִין שֶׁל קָנֶה וְחָיְתָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes: But the halakha is not in accordance with any of these statements. Rather, it is in accordance with that which Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: In what amount must a windpipe be punctured to render the animal a tereifa? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: We learned a full mishna (54a): Until the perforation is the same size as the Italian issar. Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai said to him: But wasn’t there a certain ewe in our neighborhood whose windpipe was punctured in a greater amount, and they made a seal for the windpipe out of the shell of a reed and it lived?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara renders its verdict: the halacha follows none of these dislocation-rulings, but rather the principle drawn from a different exchange. Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi how large a windpipe perforation makes a tereifa; the answer (from the mishna, 54a) is up to the size of an Italian issar (a coin). Rabbi Yosei objected from a real case: a ewe in his neighborhood whose windpipe was perforated beyond that, yet was patched with a reed-shell and lived — seemingly disproving the limit. The resolution comes in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- קְדִירַת קָנֶה (kedirat kaneh) = perforation of the windpipe
- כְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי (k’issar ha-italki) = the size of an Italian issar (a coin) — the tereifa threshold
- רָחֵל (rachel) = a ewe — the case of the patched windpipe
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — the twelve-month resolution
A surviving tereifa proves nothing: like R. Shimon ben Chalafta’s hen, it survived within twelve months and then died
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ: וְעַל דָּא אַתְּ סָמֵיךְ? וַהֲלֹא הֲלָכָה רוֹוַחַת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: שְׁמוּטַת יָרֵךְ בָּעוֹף טְרֵפָה, וְתַרְנְגוֹלֶת הָיְתָה לוֹ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא שֶׁנִּשְׁמְטָה יָרֵךְ שֶׁלָּהּ, וְעָשׂוּ לָהּ שְׁפוֹפֶרֶת שֶׁל קָנֶה וְחָיְתָה! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר: תּוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ הֲוָה, הָכָא נָמֵי תּוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ הֲוָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: And do you rely on this incident as evidence? But isn’t it a widespread halakha among the Jewish people that a dislocated femur in a bird renders it a tereifa? And still, Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta had a hen whose femur was dislocated, and they made it a support out of the tube of a reed and it lived. Rather, what have you to say about this case? It must have occurred within twelve months of the dislocation, and afterward the hen died, since no tereifa can live more than twelve months. Here, too, in the case of the punctured windpipe, the episode occurred within twelve months of the injury and the ewe later died.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi rejects the ewe as evidence. He cites the widely-accepted halacha that a dislocated femur in a bird is a tereifa, yet Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta had exactly such a hen, supported it with a reed-tube, and it lived — and the only possible explanation is that it survived within the twelve-month window and then died, since no tereifa outlives twelve months. The same must be said of the patched ewe: it lived only within twelve months and then died. This establishes the operative criterion: temporary survival never refutes tereifa status.
Key Terms:
- הֲלָכָה רוֹוַחַת (halacha rovachat) = a widespread/accepted halacha
- שְׁפוֹפֶרֶת שֶׁל קָנֶה (shfoferet shel kaneh) = a tube of reed — used to support the injured organ
- תּוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ (toch shneim asar chodesh) = within twelve months — the maximum a tereifa survives
Segment 8
TYPE: אגדה — R. Shimon ben Chalafta the “researcher”; the feather case
R. Shimon ben Chalafta countered R. Yehuda’s “plucked down is a tereifa”: his plucked hen regrew even fuller feathers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא שֶׁעַסְקָן בִּדְבָרִים הָיָה, וְהָיָה עוֹשֶׂה דָּבָר לְהוֹצִיא מִלִּבּוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם נִיטְּלָה הַנּוֹצָה פְּסוּלָה. וְתַרְנְגוֹלֶת הָיְתָה לוֹ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה נוֹצָה שֶׁלָּהּ, וְהִנִּיחָה בַּתַּנּוּר, וְטָלָה עָלֶיהָ בְּמַטְלִית שֶׁל טַרְסִיִּים, וְגִידְּלָה כְּנָפַיִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים יוֹתֵר מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים.
English Translation:
§ They said about Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta that he was a researcher of various matters, and he would act to counter the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yehuda would say: If the down covering a bird’s body was removed, it is a tereifa and unfit for consumption, as stated in the mishna. And Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta had a hen whose down was removed, and he placed it in an oven, a warm place, and he covered it with a Coppersmiths’ apron, and its new, i.e., rehabilitated, wings grew even more feathers than the original wings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explores R. Shimon ben Chalafta’s reputation as an askan bi-dvarim — an investigator/experimenter. He acted to refute (le-hotzi mi-libo) Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling (from the mishna, 56b) that a bird whose down (notza) was removed is a tereifa. He took such a plucked hen, placed it in a warm oven, covered it with a coppersmiths’ (tarsiyyim) apron, and it grew new wing-feathers even more abundant than the original. A surviving and thriving bird, he argued, cannot be a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- עַסְקָן בִּדְבָרִים (askan bi-dvarim) = a researcher/experimenter of matters
- נוֹצָה (notza) = the down/plumage — its removal is R. Yehuda’s tereifa
- מַטְלִית שֶׁל טַרְסִיִּים (matlit shel tarsiyyim) = a coppersmiths’ apron — used to keep the hen warm
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ — does the experiment really refute R. Yehuda?
Perhaps R. Yehuda holds a tereifa can thrive; answered: not in the very organ that caused the tereifa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה טְרֵפָה מַשְׁבַּחַת? אִם כֵּן, בְּמִידֵּי דְּמִיטַּרְפָא בַּהּ – הִגְדִּילָה כְּנָפַיִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים יוֹתֵר מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים?!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But how does this counter Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion? Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda holds that a tereifa can live and that its health can even improve beyond its previous state. The Gemara responds: Even if this is so, would Rabbi Yehuda say so with regard to the very thing with which it was rendered a tereifa, as is the case here, where it grew new wings with more feathers than the original wings?!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara questions whether R. Shimon ben Chalafta’s experiment truly disproves Rabbi Yehuda: perhaps Rabbi Yehuda holds that a tereifa can live and even improve (tereifa mashbachat), so a thriving hen proves nothing. The Gemara answers with a sharp limitation: even granting that a tereifa might improve in general, Rabbi Yehuda would not say it improves specifically in the very feature that rendered it a tereifa — yet here the hen regrew its plumage more fully than before, exactly the organ at issue. That regeneration is the decisive refutation.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה מַשְׁבַּחַת (tereifa mashbachat) = a tereifa whose health improves
- מִידֵּי דְּמִיטַּרְפָא בַּהּ (midei de-mitarfa bah) = the very thing by which it became a tereifa
- כְּנָפַיִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים (knafayim ha-acharonim) = the later (regrown) wings/feathers
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדה — the origin of the title “researcher”: the ant investigation
Rav Mesharshiyya: R. Shimon ben Chalafta tested Solomon’s claim (Proverbs 6) that ants have no king
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי עַסְקָן בִּדְבָרִים? אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֵךְ אֶל נְמָלָה עָצֵל רְאֵה דְרָכֶיהָ וַחֲכָם, אֲשֶׁר אֵין לָהּ קָצִין שֹׁטֵר וּמֹשֵׁל, תָּכִין בַּקַּיִץ לַחְמָהּ״. אָמַר: אֵיזִיל אִיחְזֵי אִי וַדַּאי הוּא דְּלֵית לְהוּ מַלְכָּא!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: From what episode did Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta earn the title: Researcher of matters? Rav Mesharshiyya said: He saw that it is written: “Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise; which having no chief, overseer, or ruler, provides her bread in the summer” (Proverbs 6:6-8). Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta said: I will go and see if it is correct that they have no king!
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains how R. Shimon ben Chalafta earned the epithet askan bi-dvarim. Rav Mesharshiyya recounts that he read Solomon’s words, “Go to the ant, you sluggard… which having no chief, overseer, or ruler, provides her bread in the summer” (Proverbs 6:6-8), and resolved to verify empirically whether ants truly have no king. This frames the famous experiment of the next segment and marks R. Shimon ben Chalafta as a rare figure in Chazal who tested scriptural and natural claims through observation.
Key Terms:
- לֵךְ אֶל נְמָלָה (lech el nemala) = “Go to the ant” — Proverbs 6:6
- קָצִין שֹׁטֵר וּמֹשֵׁל (katzin shoter u-moshel) = chief, overseer, and ruler — the offices the ant lacks
- אֵין לָהּ … מַלְכָּא = it has no king — the claim under investigation
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדה — the ant experiment
R. Shimon ben Chalafta shades an ant-hole, marks an ant, then exposes them to sun; they kill the misinforming ant, suggesting no king
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲזַל בִּתְקוּפַת תַּמּוּז, פַּרְסֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ אַקִּינָּא דְּשׁוּמְשְׁמָנֵי. נְפַק אֲתָא חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, אַתְנַח בֵּיהּ סִימָנָא. עָל, אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״נְפַל טוּלָּא״. נְפַקוּ וַאֲתוֹ, דַּלְיֵיהּ לִגְלִימֵיהּ, נְפַל שִׁמְשָׁא. נְפַלוּ עֲלֵיהּ וְקַטְלֵיהּ. אֲמַר: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לֵית לְהוּ מַלְכָּא, דְּאִי אִית לְהוּ הַרְמָנָא דְּמַלְכָּא לָא לִיבְעוֹ.
English Translation:
He went in the season of Tammuz, i.e., summer. Knowing that ants avoid intense heat, he spread his cloak over an ant hole to provide shade. One of the ants came out and saw the shade. Rabbi Shimon placed a distinguishing mark on the ant. It went into the hole and said to the other ants: Shade has fallen. They all came out to work. Rabbi Shimon lifted up his cloak, and the sun fell on them. They all fell upon the first ant and killed it. He said: One may learn from their actions that they have no king; as, if they had a king, would they not need the king’s edict to execute their fellow ant?
קלאוד על הדף:
The experiment itself. In the heat of Tammuz, R. Shimon ben Chalafta spread his cloak to shade an ant-hole. A scout ant emerged, saw the shade, and he marked it; it told the colony “shade has fallen” (nafal tulla) and they swarmed out to work. He then lifted the cloak, the sun struck them, and the ants fell upon the misinforming scout and killed it. He concluded: this proves they have no king — for had there been a king, the ants would have needed royal authorization (harmana de-malka) before executing their fellow, rather than acting on their own.
Key Terms:
- תְּקוּפַת תַּמּוּז (tekufat Tammuz) = the season of Tammuz — high summer
- שׁוּמְשְׁמָנֵי (shumshemanei) = a species of ant
- הַרְמָנָא דְּמַלְכָּא (harmana de-malka) = the king’s edict/authorization
Segment 12
TYPE: אגדה — Rav Acha’s objections; rely on Solomon
Rav Acha offers alternative explanations for the ants’ behavior; the conclusion is to trust Solomon rather than the experiment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְדִלְמָא מַלְכָּא הֲוָה בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ? אִי נָמֵי, הַרְמָנָא דְּמַלְכָּא הֲווֹ נְקִיטִי? אִי נָמֵי בֵּין מַלְכָּא לְמַלְכָּא הֲוָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״? אֶלָּא, סְמוֹךְ אַהֵימָנוּתָא דִּשְׁלֹמֹה.
English Translation:
Rav Acha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps the king was with them at the time and gave them permission. Or perhaps they already possessed the king’s edict giving them license to kill the ant. Or perhaps it was an interregnum between kings, as it is written: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6)? Rather, rely on the credibility of Solomon, the author of Proverbs, that ants have no king.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Acha son of Rava raises methodological objections to Rav Ashi: the experiment is not conclusive — perhaps a king was present and authorized the killing, perhaps the ants already held a standing royal edict, or perhaps it was an interregnum, “when there was no king in Israel and each did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6). The Gemara therefore relocates the basis of the teaching: we do not rely on R. Shimon ben Chalafta’s experiment but on the credibility of Solomon (heimanuta di-Shlomo), the divinely-inspired author of Proverbs, who stated that ants have no king. Empirical investigation yields to the authority of Scripture.
Key Terms:
- בֵּין מַלְכָּא לְמַלְכָּא (bein malka le-malka) = between one king and the next — an interregnum
- אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל (ein melech be-Yisrael) = “there was no king in Israel” — Judges 17:6
- הֵימָנוּתָא דִּשְׁלֹמֹה (heimanuta di-Shlomo) = the credibility/trustworthiness of Solomon
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Huna: twelve months is the sign of a tereifa
Rav Huna sets twelve months as the criterion; a baraita raising other views is brought as an objection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: סִימָן לִטְרֵפָה – שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. מֵיתִיבִי: סִימָן לִטְרֵפָה – כֹּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מַשְׁבַּחַת וְהוֹלֶכֶת – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה, מִתְנַוְּונָה וְהוֹלֶכֶת – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהִיא טְרֵפָה. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: סִימָן לִטְרֵפָה – שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא הַרְבֵּה מִתְקַיְּימוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים!
English Translation:
§ Rav Huna says: The sign of a tereifa is twelve months. If it is uncertain whether an animal is a tereifa, one may wait twelve months; if the animal survives, it is kosher. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The sign of a tereifa is any animal that cannot give birth. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If its health improves continuously, it is certainly kosher; if its health deteriorates continuously, it is certainly a tereifa. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The sign of a tereifa is any animal that does not survive thirty days. The Sages said to him: But don’t many animals that are certainly tereifot survive two or three years? None of the opinions cited in the baraita accord with Rav Huna’s statement.
קלאוד על הדף:
Returning to halacha, Rav Huna states the general criterion: the sign of a tereifa is twelve months — survive that long and the animal is proven kosher. The Gemara objects from a baraita offering competing standards: one view says a tereifa is anything that cannot give birth; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says steady improvement proves kosher and steady decline proves tereifa; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says the sign is failure to survive thirty days — to which the Sages objected that many certain tereifot live two or three years. None of these matches Rav Huna’s twelve-month figure.
Key Terms:
- סִימָן לִטְרֵפָה (siman li-treifa) = the sign/criterion of a tereifa
- אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת (eina yoledet) = it cannot give birth — one proposed criterion
- מִתְנַוְּונָה וְהוֹלֶכֶת (mitnavena ve-holechet) = progressively deteriorating — RaShBaG’s sign of a tereifa
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ — it is a Tannaitic dispute; the skull baraita
Rav Huna’s view is grounded in R. Shimon ben Elazar’s position that an animal must survive both summer and winter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: וּבַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת, עַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ נֶקֶב אֶחָד אָרוֹךְ, אֲפִילּוּ נְקָבִים הַרְבֵּה מִצְטָרְפִים לִמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעִנְבּוּל, בְּאֶחָד שֶׁנִּפְחֲתָה גֻּלְגׇּלְתּוֹ, וְעָשׂוּ לוֹ חִידּוּק שֶׁל קֵרוּיָה וְחָיָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה? יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה הָיָה, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁעָבְרוּ עָלָיו יְמוֹת הַצִּנָּה מִיָּד מֵת.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The matter is a dispute between tannaim, as it is taught in a baraita: And in a skull, the animal is a tereifa only when there is in it one long hole, or even if it has many holes, the areas of the holes join together to constitute the size of a drill hole, and they render the animal a tereifa. Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam said: There was an incident in a place called Inbul involving one whose skull was missing a piece, and they made for him a patch out of the shell of a gourd, and he survived. Therefore, an animal with a missing piece of skull cannot be a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said to him: Can you bring proof from there? It was summer then, and once winter came upon him he died immediately. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that an animal is a tereifa if it does not survive through summer and winter, i.e., one year. Rav Huna’s statement accords with this opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that Rav Huna’s twelve-month criterion is itself a Tannaitic position. A baraita on the skull (gulgolet) — a tereifa once the holes total a drill-bit’s width — records a debate: Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam cited a man at Inbul whose skull was breached, patched with a gourd-shell, and survived, arguing such an injury cannot be fatal. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar rebutted: it was summer, and once winter came he died at once. R. Shimon ben Elazar thus holds an animal must endure both summer and winter — a full year — to escape tereifa status, exactly Rav Huna’s view.
Key Terms:
- גֻּלְגֹּלֶת (gulgolet) = the skull
- מְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ (melo makdei’ach) = a drill-hole’s width — the threshold for skull-hole tereifa
- יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה / יְמוֹת הַצִּנָּה = the hot season / the cold season — must survive both
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא — final halacha; Ameimar on eggs (continues 58a)
Rav Acha bar Yaakov: a tereifa can give birth and thrive; Ameimar begins discussing the eggs of a tereifa bird
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, הֲלָכָה: טְרֵפָה יוֹלֶדֶת וּמַשְׁבַּחַת. אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הָנֵי בֵּיעֵי דִּטְרֵפָה
English Translation:
Rav Acha bar Yaakov says: The halakha is that a tereifa can give birth and its health can even improve. If the animal appears to recover or gives birth, this does not prove it is not a tereifa. Ameimar says: With regard to these eggs of a tereifa bird,
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes by settling the principle: Rav Acha bar Yaakov rules that the halacha is that a tereifa can give birth and even improve in health — so neither breeding nor apparent recovery proves an animal is not a tereifa (consistent with the twelve-month criterion as the true test). The final line opens a new topic, Ameimar’s ruling about the eggs (beiei) of a tereifa bird, which the sentence leaves incomplete here and resolves on 58a.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה יוֹלֶדֶת וּמַשְׁבַּחַת (tereifa yoledet u-mashbachat) = a tereifa gives birth and improves — the settled halacha
- בֵּיעֵי דִּטְרֵפָה (beiei di-treifa) = the eggs of a tereifa bird — the new topic
- אַמֵּימָר (Ameimar) = the sage opening the discussion of the eggs