Chullin

Of course to the Tanna of our Mishnah this is no difficulty, for he merely mentioned some1 [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?2 — 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.3 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!4 — Rather [say]. He concurs with R. Simeon b. Eleazar who [indeed] declares [that in such a case the animal is] permitted.5 But is there not the case of a deficiency of the spine? For we have learnt: What is considered a deficiency of the spine?6 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.7 — 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 this8 in its place. But is there not the case of an animal which was stripped of its hide?9 — 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?10 — 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 exclude11 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;12 (ii) Rakish b. Papa said in the name of Rab: If one kidney was diseased it is trefah,13 Further we have learnt: If the spleen was gone the animal is permitted.14 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;15 (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.16 And further Rabbah son of R. Shila said in the name of R. Mattena who reported in the name of Samuel,17 (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 membrane18 which covers the greater portion of the rumen [was torn], it is trefah! — The eight cases of piercing19 [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;20 consequently there is one short of the number. Moreover, R. ‘Awira's case is also a case of piercing, is it not? 21 — number eighteen. 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. 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’. Beth Hillel, even if only one was missing. 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. and the omasum and reticulum. The gall-bladder has been excluded supra. only sixteen cases of trefah.