Chullin

— For the case of [an animal] about which there arose a doubt whether it was clawed or not.1 There once came, before Rabbah, the case [of a bird]2 about which there arose a doubt whether it was clawed or not, and he was about to examine the gullet3 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.4 (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?5 — 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.6 And why is it different from the case of ‘two pieces of fat one being forbidden fat and the other permitted fat’?7 — In that case the forbidden [piece of fat] is clearly established, but here the prohibition is not clearly established.8 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?9 — In that case there had arisen a flaw in the knife.10 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.11 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,12 Rab says: The slightest perforation therein [will render the animal13 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;14 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.15 Jonah16 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.17 Go, tell the son of Joseph b. Hama18 to pay the owner the value of the ox’.19 Mar the son of Rabina said: I can adduce a passage which would confute this dictum of Raba's foes.20 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. of blood. This examination can only be carried out by inspecting the inner coat of the gullet which is white; but it is useless to inspect the outer coat, since it is red, and a drop of blood would not be discernible thereon. might also be translated: There is no fear that the wound caused by the perforation had healed, so that there is here only a membrane formed over the wound, which as stated above, is no protection. huk, oat. doubt only; v. supra 10a, b. or not. In Ulla's case, however, the thorn may not have pierced through the gullet at all. not found in the pharynx. text refers to the pharynx of a dove and is to be rendered: ‘As to a dove, Zera said etc.’; this is most probable in view of the statement of R. ‘Awia as to its extent. Samuel because only the severance of the greater portion of its circumference is, in his view, a defect.