Chullin

You have no other alternative but to say that the two cases1 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.2 Hiyya b. Rab said: There are eight cases of trefah included under the head of piercing.3 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,4 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;4 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,5 and so here6 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’.7 But did R. Johanan really say this? Did not R. Johanan8 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.9 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.10 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,11 whereas the gizzard is at rest and the holes will always remain where they are.12 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.13 Rabbah further said: The gullet cannot be examined from the outside but only from the inside. For what purpose is this stated? internal disorder or degeneration of an organ. the perforation of the spleen. whatever sufferings befall him, his life was to be spared. the animal is permitted. V. infra 46a. in many MSS.; v. D.S. be applied generally, and certainly would not apply to the case of an anonymous Mishnah which is contradicted by another anonymous Mishnah, as here our Mishnah, supra 42a, is contradicted in its ruling with regard to the liver by the Mishnah which follows, infra 54a. submucous fibers, and therefore the coincidence of the holes is quite probable.