Parallel
חולין 43
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
You have no other alternative but to say that the two cases which were excluded above must now be added. Ulla said: Eight types of [defects as] trefah were communicated to Moses on Mount Sinai: If [an organ was] pierced, or severed, or gone, or deficient, or torn, or [if the animal was] clawed, or fell [from a height], or if [a limb was] fractured. This clearly excludes disease [of the kidneys] mentioned by Rakish b. Papa. Hiyya b. Rab said: There are eight cases of trefah included under the head of piercing. If you say there are nine [enumerated in the Mishnah], you must remember that the piercing of the gall-bladder is the ruling of R. Jose son of R. Judah only. For it was taught: If the abomasum or the intestines were pierced it is trefah. R. Jose son of R. Judah says: Even if the gall-bladder was pierced. (Mnemonic: The halachah. The colleague. An olive's bulk. The gall-bladder. The gizzard). R. Isaac son of R. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah follows the view of R. Jose son of R.Judah. R. Isaac son of R. Joseph further said in the name of R. Johanan: What was the reply of the colleagues of R. Jose son of R. Judah? [They said: It is written,] He poureth out my gall upon the ground, nevertheless Job continued to live! He retorted: You may not quote miraculous deeds [in support of an argument]. Otherwise you might as well ask, it is written: He cleaveth my reins asunder and doth not spare; could he then continue to live on? You must therefore admit that a miracle is an exceptional case; [and the whole treatment of Job was miraculous] for it is written: Only spare his life, and so here a miracle is an exceptional case. R. Isaac son of R. Joseph further said in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah follows the view of him who says: ‘an olive's bulk’. But did R. Johanan really say this? Did not R. Johanan say that the halachah was in accordance with the ruling of an anonymous Mishnah? And we have learnt: IF THE LIVER WAS GONE AND NAUGHT REMAINED. Now it follows that if aught remained, even less than an olive's bulk, it is permitted! — Amoraim differ as to R. Johanan's view. R. Isaac son of R. Joseph further said in the name of R. Johanan: If the gall-bladder was pierced but the liver completely closed up [the hole], it is permitted. R. Isaac son of R. Joseph further said in the name of R. Johanan: If the [muscular covering of the] gizzard was pierced but the inner lining was intact, it is permitted. The question was raised: What is the law if the inner lining was pierced but the muscular covering was intact? — Come and hear: R. Nahman taught: If one [coat of the gizzard] was pierced but not the other, it is permitted. Rabbah said: The gullet has two coats, the outer red and the inner white; if one was perforated but not the other, it is permitted. Why was it necessary to state that the outer coat was red and the inner white? — To teach that if these coats interchanged, it is trefah. The question was raised: What is the law if both coats were pierced, one hole, however, not coinciding with the other? — Mar Zutra said in the name of R. Papa: In the gullet this would be permitted, but in the gizzard it would be trefah. R. Ashi demurred: The contrary should be the rule; as the gullet contracts and expands when [the animal] eats or bellows, it may sometimes happen that one hole will coincide with the other, whereas the gizzard is at rest and the holes will always remain where they are. R. Aha the son of R. Joseph said to R. Ashi: We have indeed received the tradition in the name of Mar Zutra who reported in the name of R. Papa as you have suggested it. Rabbah further said: A membrane which was formed in consequence of a wound in the gullet is no membrane. Rabbah further said: The gullet cannot be examined from the outside but only from the inside. For what purpose is this stated?
—
— For the case of [an animal] about which there arose a doubt whether it was clawed or not. There once came, before Rabbah, the case [of a bird] about which there arose a doubt whether it was clawed or not, and he was about to examine the gullet from the outside when Abaye said to him, ‘Did you not say: Master, that the gullet cannot be examined from the outside but only from the inside’? Rabbah at once turned it inside out and examined it and found upon it two drops of blood, so he declared it trefah. Rabbah, however, [by his action] merely wanted to test the acumen of Abaye. Ulla said: If a thorn was impacted in the gullet, there is no fear that it pierced it through. (Mnemonic: Clawed. Pieces. In the knife. Uncleanness). But why, according to Ulla, is this case different from that of [an animal] about which there arose a doubt whether it had been clawed or not? — Ulla is of the opinion that we are not apprehensive for [an animal] about which there arose a doubt whether it had been clawed or not. And why is it different from the case of ‘two pieces of fat one being forbidden fat and the other permitted fat’? — In that case the forbidden [piece of fat] is clearly established, but here the prohibition is not clearly established. And why is it different from the case of the man who slaughtered with a knife which was found afterwards to have a notch in it? — In that case there had arisen a flaw in the knife. And why is it different from the case of a doubt concerning uncleanness which occurred in a private domain which is regarded as unclean? — But according to your own argument it is analogous, is it not, with the case of a doubt concerning uncleanness which occurred in a public domain which is regarded as clean? — In truth the law [concerning uncleanness is exceptional for it] is derived by analogy from the case of a woman suspected of adultery. A certain Rabbi was once sitting before R. Kahana and recited as follows: The ruling of Ulla applies only to the case where it [the thorn] was found [in the cavity of the gullet], but where it was impacted [in the wall of the gullet] it is to be feared [that it actually pierced the gullet, and it is therefore trefah]. R. Kahana thereupon said to his disciples, ‘Do not pay any attention to this Rabbi. The ruling of Ulla was stated concerning a thorn that was impacted in the gullet; for if it were merely found [in the cavity of the gullet] it would not be necessary for Ulla to state it, since all beasts that pasture in the open field eat thorns.’ It was reported: As regards the pharynx, Rab says: The slightest perforation therein [will render the animal trefah]; Samuel says, [It is trefah only if] the greater portion [of its circumference was severed]. Rab said: ‘The slightest perforation’, because he regards it as being within the area prescribed for slaughtering; Samuel said: ‘The greater portion’, because he does not regard it as being within the area prescribed for slaughtering. What is considered to be the pharynx? — Mari b. Mar ‘Ukba said in the name of Samuel: That part of the gullet which, when cut, opens wide is the pharynx, but that part which, when cut, remains as it was is the gullet proper. R. Papi remarked: But the Master (that is, R. Bibi b. Abaye) did not say sob but thus: That part of the gullet which, when out, remains as it was is the pharynx, but that part which, when cut, closes up is the gullet proper. Jonah said in the name of Zera, [It is that part where] deglutition [takes place]. And what is its extent? — R. ‘Awia answered: It is less than [the length of] a grain of barley but more than a grain of wheat. An ox belonging to the family of R. ‘Ukba was slaughtered, the slaughtering having been commenced at the pharynx and completed in the gullet proper. Said Raba, ‘I will impose the restriction implied in Rab's view as well as the restriction implied in Samuel's view and will declare it trefah. ‘The restriction of Rab's view’ — for Rab said that the slightest perforation therein [would render the animal trefah]. But [if you will ask,] does not Rab hold that it is within the area prescribed for slaughtering? [In that respect I rule] in accordance with Samuel's view that it is not within the area prescribed for slaughtering. And [if you will further argue,] does not Samuel hold that it is trefah only if the greater portion of its circumference was severed? [In that respect I am] in accordance with Rab's view that the slightest perforation therein will render the animal trefah’. Meanwhile the case was circulated till at last it was laid before R. Abba. He said to his disciples, ‘The ox should have been permitted — whether one accepted the view of Rab or of Samuel. Go, tell the son of Joseph b. Hama to pay the owner the value of the ox’. Mar the son of Rabina said: I can adduce a passage which would confute this dictum of Raba's foes. For it has been taught: ‘The halachah is always in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel. Nevertheless one who desires to adopt the view of Beth Shammai may do so, and one who desires to adopt the view of Beth Hillel may do so. One who adopts the view of Beth Shammai only when they incline to leniency, and likewise the view of Beth Hillel only when they incline to leniency, is a wicked person.
—