חולין 42 — Soncino English Talmud

¹— No, for you might say that if his wife had given birth to a child it would be known to all, he therefore teaches us [that the slaughtering in this case is invalid] for it is possible that she had a miscarriage. C H A P T E R I I I MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING [DEFECTS] RENDER CATTLE TREFAH: [I] IF THE GULLET WAS PIERCED; [II] OR THE WINDPIPE SEVERED; [III] IF THE MEMBRANE OF THE BRAIN WAS PIERCED; [IV] IF THE HEART WAS PIERCED AS FAR AS THE CAVITY THEREOF; [V] IF THE SPINE WAS BROKEN AND THE CORD SEVERED; [VI] IF THE LIVER WAS GONE AND NAUGHT REMAINED; [VII] IF THE LUNG WAS PIERCED, [VIII] OR WAS DEFICIENT (R. SIMEON SAYS, PROVIDED IT WAS PIERCED AS FAR AS THE MAIN BRONCHI); [IX] IF THE ABOMASUM, [X] OR THE GALL-BLADDER, [XI] OR THE INTESTINES WERE PIERCED; [XII] IF THE INNER RUMEN WAS PIERCED, [XIII] OR THE GREATER PART OF THE OUTER COVERING TORN (R. JUDAH SAYS, IN A LARGE ANIMAL IF IT WAS TORN TO THE EXTENT OF A HANDBREADTH, AND IN A SMALL ANIMAL IF THE GREATER PART OF IT WAS TORN); [XIX] IF THE OMASUM [XV] OR RETICULUM WAS PIERCED ON THE OUTSIDE; [XVI] IF THE ANIMAL FELL FROM THE ROOF; [XVII] IF MOST OF ITS RIBS WERE FRACTURED; [XVIII] OR IF IT WAS CLAWED BY A WOLF (R. JUDAH SAYS, SMALL CATTLE [ARE TREFAH] IF CLAWED BY A WOLF, LARGE CATTLE IF CLAWED BY A LION; SMALL FOWL IF CLAWED BY A HAWK, LARGE FOWL IF CLAWED BY A FALCON). THIS IS THE RULE: IF AN ANIMAL WITH A SIMILAR DEFECT COULD NOT CONTINUE TO LIVE, IT IS TREFAH. GEMARA. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Where do we find in the Torah an allusion to trefah? — Where [you ask]? Is it not written: Ye shall not eat flesh that is torn of beasts [trefah] in the field? The question was: Where do we find in the Torah the view that a trefah animal cannot continue to live? For from the last clause of the Mishnah, THIS IS THE RULE: IF AN ANIMAL WITH A SIMILAR DEFECT COULD NOT CONTINUE TO LIVE, IT IS TREFAH, it follows that a trefah animal cannot continue to live. Where then do we find it in the Torah? — It is written: These are the living things which ye may eat, that is, that which can continue to live you may eat, but that which cannot continue to live you may not eat; hence a trefah animal cannot continue to live. And as to the one who holds the view that a trefah animal can continue to live, [it will be asked]: where do we find this view indicated [in the Torah]? — It is indicated in the verse: These are the living things which ye may eat, for it means, these living things you may eat but other living things you may not eat; hence a trefah animal can continue to live. And for what purpose does the first teacher use the word ‘these’? — He requires it for the following exposition of a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael expounded: The verse: These are the living things which ye may eat, indicates that the Holy One, blessed be He, took hold of one of each species of animal, showed it to Moses and said to him, ‘This you may eat and this you may not eat’. But does not the second teacher also require this word for the exposition of the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael? — Indeed, he does. Where then is it indicated [in the Torah] that a trefah animal can continue to live? — It is indicated in the exposition of another verse also by a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael expounded: It is written: Between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten; here are indicated the eighteen defects [which render an animal trefah and] which were communicated to Moses on Mount Sinai. But are there no more? But what about Basegar, and the seven statements [reported by the Amoraim]?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:And since it is not known that his wife gave birth to a child his words would not be taken seriously, and the slaughtering should be valid.
^ᵇnote:And this fact might not be known to all. It is to be noted that Rashi omits the statements of R. Eleazar and R. Abbahu from the Gemara, although he arrives at the same conclusions by logical argument.
^ᶜnote:For the proper understanding of this chapter and its anatomical details it is recommended that the reader consult some text book on animal anatomy. The following works are recommended: Bailliere's Atlas of the Ox, S. Sisson, The anatomy of the Domestic Animals (an excellent and most comprehensive work), I. L. Katzenelsohn, Ha-Talmud we-Hokmath ha-Refuah (in Hebrew, a brilliant study of the anatomy and medicine in the Talmud in the light of modern knowledge), J. Preeus, Biblisch Talmudische Medizin, O. Charnock Bradley, The Structure of the Fowl.
^ᵈnote:Each of these eighteen defects are explained and commented upon with great detail in the Gemara.
^ᵉnote:By ‘pierced’ is meant a puncture or perforation of an organ though naught of its substance is missing.
^ᶠnote:The fracture of the spine is not a defect by itself; the defect here is that the cord has been severed and this is usually caused by a fracture of the spine.
^ᵍnote:These are the four stomachs common to all ruminants. The food first passes into the Rumen, xrf, thence into the Reticulum, ,uxufv ,hc, thence into the Omasum, xxnv, and finally into the stomach proper or the Abomasum, vche.
^ʰnote:For the meanings of ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ v. infra 50b.
^ⁱnote:I.e., but not where the two are joined together.
^ʲnote:Heb. vxurs, lit., ‘trodden’; in its technical sense it means ‘struck by the fore-paw or claw of a beast or bird of prey whereby poison is discharged and enters the body of the victim’.
^ᵏnote:Or: vulture.
^ˡnote:For twelve months.
^ᵐnote:Ex. XXII, 30.
^ⁿnote:Lev. XI, 2.
^ᵒnote:I.e., is a living thing.
^ᵖnote:For since a trefah may not be eaten, it is not a living thing, i.e., it cannot continue to live for twelve months.
^ᵠnote:Lev. XI, 47.
^ʳnote:Than the eighteen cases enumerated in our Mishnah.
^ˢnote:A mnemonic (meaning perhaps ‘under lock’) formed by the characteristic letters of the four cases of trefah which follow, thus: c from vnvc, x from iurxj, d from vsukd, and r from v,urj.

²Of course to the Tanna of our Mishnah this is no difficulty, for he merely mentioned some [defects], whilst those which he omitted to mention he intended to include under the general head, THIS IS THE RULE. But against the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael who expressly mentions the number eighteen, it will be asked: Are there no more? Is there not [also]: An animal whose hind leg was cut off above the knee-joint is trefah? — He [the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael] concurs with the view expressed by R. Simeon b. Eleazar that [the wound] could be cauterized and the animal could recover. Granted, however, that it could be cauterized and the animal could recover, but are we not arguing upon the view of the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael? And he is of the view that a trefah animal can continue to live! — Rather [say]. He concurs with R. Simeon b. Eleazar who [indeed] declares [that in such a case the animal is] permitted. But is there not the case of a deficiency of the spine? For we have learnt: What is considered a deficiency of the spine? Beth Shammai say. If two vertebrae were missing; Beth Hillel say: If only one was missing. And Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel that their views are the same with regard to trefah. — The [piercing of the] omasum and the reticulum which you reckon as two cases you ought to reckon as one, so that you may exclude one and add this in its place. But is there not the case of an animal which was stripped of its hide? — He concurs with the view of R. Meir that it is permitted. But is there not the case of an animal whose lungs were shrivelled up? — Who is it that includes the [piercing of the] gall-bladder in the list of defects? It is R. Jose b. R. Judah. You should therefore exclude the case of the gall-bladder and insert the case of the shrivelled lungs in its place. But are there not the following seven statements [which should be included]? (i) R. Mattena said: If the top of the femur slipped out of its socket, the animal is trefah; (ii) Rakish b. Papa said in the name of Rab: If one kidney was diseased it is trefah, Further we have learnt: If the spleen was gone the animal is permitted. But R. ‘Awira said in the name of Raba: This was taught only in the case where the spleen was gone, but (iii) if the spleen was pierced it is trefah; (iv) Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of Samuel: If the greater part of the organs of the throat was torn away, it is trefah. And further Rabbah son of R. Shila said in the name of R. Mattena who reported in the name of Samuel, (V) If a rib was dislodged from its socket, or (vi) if the greater part of the skull was shattered, or (vii) if the greater part of the membrane which covers the greater portion of the rumen [was torn], it is trefah! — The eight cases of piercing [enumerated in the Mishnah] you ought to reckon under one head; so that by eliminating seven cases you can insert these seven statements in their stead. If so, you ought also to reckon under one head the two cases of severing; consequently there is one short of the number. Moreover, R. ‘Awira's case is also a case of piercing, is it not? —^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ

^ᵗnote:For although in the Mishnah the Tanna enumerates eighteen cases of trefah, he does not, however, expressly state the number eighteen.
^ᵘnote:v. infra 76a.
^ᵛnote:It is therefore not trefah according to R. Simeon b. Eleazar.
^ʷnote:So that the fact that the animal could recover has no bearing on the question whether or not it is trefah.
^ˣnote:V. Tosef. Hul. III. According to Rashba (Adreth), Hiddushin, Yeb. 120b the statement ‘because (the wound) could be cauterized’, given in Tosef. as the reason for R. Simeon b. Eleazar's ruling, is an intrusion from Yeb. 120b. The correct reading on his view is simply R. Simeon b. Eleazar declares (the animal) permitted and when the Gemara here quotes R. Simeon b. Eleazar's reason the reference is to the case dealt with in Yeb. and not to that of an animal whose hind legs were cut off. V. however, Rashi.
^ʸnote:V. Ohol. II, 3. A complete spine of a corpse will render unclean men and vessels that are in the same ‘tent’ or under the same roof, but if it is incomplete it will only convey uncleanness by contact or by carrying, but will not render unclean men and vessels that are in the same ‘tent’.
^ᶻnote:I.e., according to Beth Shammai if two vertebrae of the spine of an animal were missing it is trefah, and according to Beth Hillel, even if only one was missing.
^ᵃᵃnote:This case of the deficiency in the spine.
^ᵃᵇnote:Which is trefah according to the Rabbis, v. infra 54a.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., shrivelled up and hardened because of fright caused by man. This is also trefah, v. infra 55b.
^ᵃᵈnote:From the eighteen cases of trefah in the court of R. Ishmael's school.
^ᵃᵉnote:Provided that the ligaments were destroyed, v. infra 54b.
^ᵃᶠnote:v. infra 55a.
^ᵃᵍnote:Infra 54a.
^ᵃʰnote:Only it pierced in the thick part, v. infra 55b.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., the greater part of the circumference of one of the organs of the throat was violently torn away from its connection on top, even though it is still attached in part. V. infra 44a. According to R. Hananel: The organs of the throat were separated from each other.
^ᵃʲnote:v. infra 52a and b.
^ᵃᵏnote:The parietal peritoneum. V. however infra 50b and 52b.
^ᵃˡnote:The piercing of the gullet, the membrane of the skull, the heart, the lung, the abomasum, the intestines, the rumen, and the omasum and reticulum. The gall-bladder has been excluded supra.
^ᵃᵐnote:The severance of the windpipe and of the spinal cord.
^ᵃⁿnote:So that it would be included with the others under the general head of ‘piercing’. The position now is that there are only sixteen cases of trefah.