Chullin — Daf 46a

עד ועד בכלל או דלמא עד ולא עד בכלל

בעי רב פפא את"ל עד ולא עד בכלל פי פרשה מהו

בעי רבי ירמיה את"ל עד ועד בכלל פרשה עצמה מהו

ת"ש הפרשה תידון כבשר מאי לאו פרשה ראשונה ושניה לא שלישית

בעופא ר' ינאי אומר למטה מן האגפים ור"ל אמר עד בין אגפים

אמר עולא הוה קאימנא קמיה דבן פזי ואייתו לקמיה עופא ובדק עד בין אגפים ושלח ליה דבי נשיאה וקם ואזל ולא ידענא אי משום דלא צריך למבדק טפי אי משום כבוד נשיאה:

ניטלה הכבד וכו': הא נשתייר הימנה כלום כשרה אע"ג דלא הוי כזית והתנן ניטל הכבד ונשתייר הימנה כזית כשרה

אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא ר' חייא הא ר"ש בר רבי כי הא דר' חייא זריק לה ור"ש בר רבי מטביל לה וסימניך עשירין מקמצין

ההוא פולמוסא דאתא לפומבדיתא ערקו רבה ורב יוסף פגע בהו ר' זירא אמר להו ערוקאי כזית שאמרו במקום מרה רב אדא בר אהבה אמר במקום שהיא חיה אמר רב פפא הלכך בעינן כזית במקום מרה ובעינן כזית במקום שהיא חיה

בעי ר' ירמיה מתלקט מהו כרצועה מהו בעי רב אשי כזית מרודד מהו תיקו

בעא מיניה ר' זריקא מר' אמי נדלדלה כבד ומעורה בטרפשיה מהו אמר ליה דלדול זה איני יודע מהו אי למ"ד במקום מרה הא איכא אי למ"ד במקום שהיא חיה הא איכא:

הריאה שניקבה: רב ושמואל ורב אסי דאמרי קרמא עילאה ואמרי לה קרמא תתאה אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן וסימניך כיתונא דורדא דמנחא ביה ריאה

פשיטא אי אינקיב עילאה ולא אינקיב תתאה תתאה מגין כדרבה דאמר רבה האי ריאה דאגליד

Is ‘up to’ inclusive1 or not?2 R. Papa raised the point: If you say that ‘up to’ is not inclusive, what is the law then [if the spinal cord was severed] at the point where the nerves branch off?3 R. Jeremiah raised the point: If you say that ‘up to’ is inclusive, what is the law then if the branch nerve itself4 [was severed]? — Come and hear: ‘The branch nerve is accounted as flesh.’5 Presumably this refers to the first and second branch nerves, does it not? — No, it refers to the third. 6 In a bird, says R. Jannai, [the vitality of] the cord extends as far as [the point opposite] the lower extremity of the wings.7 R. Simeon b. Lakish says: As far as the point opposite the [beginning of the] wings. Ulla said: I was once standing before Ben pazzi when a bird was brought to him for examination. He had examined [the spinal cord] as far as the point opposite the [beginning of the] wings when he was sent for by the Nasi, whereupon he arose and went away. Now I did not know whether [his leaving at this point was] because he did not consider it necessary to examine it any further or only out of respect for the Nasi. IF THE LIVER WAS GONE AND NAUGHT REMAINED. It follows, however, that if aught remained, even though less than an olive's bulk, it is permitted; but we have learnt: If the liver was gone, provided there remained an olive's bulk thereof, it is permitted!8 — R. Joseph said: There is no contradiction; the one [Mishnah] represents the view of R. Hiyya and the other the view of R. Simeon b. Rabbi. For R. Hiyya used to throw it away,9 whilst R. Simeon b. Rabbi would eat it.10 And in order to remember this, think of the saying: ‘the rich are parsimonious’. 11 An army once was stationed at pumbeditha. Rabbah and R. Joseph fled the town and were met on the way by R. Zera, who said to them, ‘Fugitives! Remember the olive's bulk of which the Rabbis spoke must be found in the region of the gall-bladder’. R. Adda b. Ahaba said: It must be found in the most vital place.12 Therefore, said R. Papa, there must be one olive's bulk in the region of the gall-bladder and another in the most vital place. R. Jeremiah enquired: What is the law if the olive's bulk was [not found in one place but was] obtained by collecting it? or if there only remained of the liver a long, thin strip? R. Ashi asked: What is the law if that which remained of the liver was flattened? These questions remain undecided. R. Zerika enquired of R. Ammi, What is the law if the liver was [for the most part] torn away from its connections though [in parts] it was still attached to the diaphragm? — He replied: In this case of the liver being torn loose I see no difficulty at all, for as to the one who says, there must be an olive's bulk in the region of the gall-bladder, it is so here, and as to the one who says there must be an olive's bulk in the most vital part, that, too, is here. IF THE LUNG WAS PIERCED. Rab, Samuel and R. Assi say: The outer membrane13 [must be pierced]; others say [that they said], The inner membrane. R. Joseph b. Manyomi said in the name of R. Nahman, In order to remember this think of the rose-coloured coat in which the lungs lie.14 It is clear15 that if the outer membrane was pierced, but not the inner one, [the animal is permitted, for] the inner membrane is a sufficient protection; this being in accordance with Raba's decision, for Raba ruled: That if the outer membrane of the lung was peeled off Rashi and the Commentaries. V. also Glosses of J. H. Dunner on this passage and Katzenelsohn op. cit. pp. 114, 134-7, 280, 282. the humerus (i.e., the bone of the upper arm) to the scapula (i.e., the shoulder blade), or the extremity of the entire wing as it lies on the body of the bird, V. Commentaries. liver. V. Rashi, however, for another interpretation suggesting the reverse. reflected on to the right kidney (by the suprarenal ligament). pulmonis). R. Nahman is of the opinion that the inner is the vital membrane, and this must be pierced in order to render the animal trefah.