חולין 50 — Soncino English Talmud

¹surely for us [Babylonians] it should at least be effective to stop up a perforation! Now concerning the fat that is upon the greater curvature [of the abomasum] there is no dispute at all that it is forbidden. The dispute is only concerning the fat that is upon the lesser curvature. (Others report: Concerning the fat that is upon the lesser curvature there is no dispute at all that it is permitted; the dispute is only concerning the fat that is upon the greater curvature.) This accords with the statement of R. Awia in the name of R. Ammi who said: One must scrape away a little from the surface [of the fat upon the lesser curvature]. R. Jannai likewise said in the name of an elder, One must scrape away a little from the surface thereof. R. Awia said: ‘I was once present before R. Ammi and [I saw that] they gave him this fat to eat after having scraped away a little from the surface thereof, and he ate it’. The attendant of R. Hanina was standing in attendance before him when R. Hanina said to him, ‘Scrape away a little from the surface thereof and give me the fat to eat’. As he saw his attendant hesitating, he said to him, ‘You are evidently a Babylonian, so you had better cut it off entirely and throw it away’. It was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If there was a perforation in the intestines but it was stopped up by mucus, it is permitted. What is this mucus? — It is the viscous substance of the intestines which is removed by great pressure. The Following statement R. Abba's colleague — i.e., R. Zera — learnt from R. Abba (others say: R. Zera's colleague — i.e., R. Abba — learnt from R. Zera): R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya b. Abba said: Thus said R. Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in the matter of ‘Trefah’ and the halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon in the matter of ‘Mourning’. ‘The halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in the matter of Trefah’, as we have stated it above. But what is this matter of ‘Mourning’ [concerning which the halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon]? — It has been taught: In the first three days of mourning he who arrives from a place nearby counts the days of mourning with the others; [if he arrives] from a far place he must count the days of mourning for himself. After these [three days], even if he arrives from a place nearby, he must count the days of mourning for himself. R. Simeon says: Even on the seventh day he who arrives from a place nearby counts the days of mourning with the others. A certain Rabbi said: ‘I pray that I be granted to go up [to Palestine] and learn the law from the mouth of the Master’. When he came he found R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya b. Abba and asked him, ‘Did the Master say that the halachah was in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in the matter of Trefah’? — He replied: ‘Indeed, I said that the halachah was not in accordance with his view. ‘And what about the halachah being in accordance with the view of R. Simeon in the matter of Mourning’? — He replied, ‘There is a dispute about this. For it has been stated: R. Hisda said: The halachah is [in accordance with R. Simeon's view]; R. Johanan also said that that was the halachah. R. Nahman, however, said: The halachah is not [in accordance with R. Simeon's view]. The halachah is not in accordance with the View of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel in the matter of Trefah, but the halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon in the matter of Mourning, for Samuel has taught: In matters of mourning the law is always in accordance with him who states the more lenient view. R. Shimi b. Hiyya said: We may compare defects in the intestines. The intestines of an animal were brought before Raba [containing perforations]. He compared them [with other perforations that he now made] but they did not appear alike; whereupon his son R. Mesharsheya came and handled them, and they now appeared like the others. He [Raba] said to him, ‘Whence did you know to do this’? — He replied: ‘Think of the number of hands that had handled [the original perforations] before they were brought to my Master’! He exclaimed: ‘My son is versed in the laws concerning trefah like R. Johanan’! R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both said: We may compare defects in the lungs. Raba said: This is allowed only in the same lung, but we may not compare the defect in one lung with the defect in the other lung. The law, however, is that the defect in one lung may be compared with the defect in the other lung, the small with the small and the large with the large, but not the large with the small nor the small with the large. Abaye and Raba both said: We may compare defects in the windpipe. R. Papa said: This is allowed only in the same group [of cartilaginous rings], but we may not compare the defect in one group with the defect in another group [of rings in the same windpipe]. The law, however, is that the defect in the cartilaginous portion of one group may be compared with the defect in the cartilaginous portion of another group; likewise the defect in the membranous portion of one group with the defect in the membranous portion of another group, but we may not compare the defect in the cartilaginous portion with the defect in a membranous portion, nor the defect in the membranous portion with the defect in a cartilaginous portion. Ze'iri said: If the rectum was perforated it is permitted, for the hips support it, [and close up the perforation]. How much must be mutilated? R. Ila'i said in the name of R. Johanan, Where it is joined [to the hips] only the destruction of the greater part thereof [will render trefah]; where it is not so joined even the slightest perforation [will render trefah]. When the Rabbis reported this statement to Raba in the name of R. Nahman he exclaimed: Have I not told you not to hang on him [R. Nahman]^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:This remark of R. Nahman indicates that Bar Himza, which, as stated above, is effective to stop up a perforation, must be the fat which is upon the lesser curvature of the abomasum. For, as immediately follows in the text, it is only this fat (sc. that upon the lesser curvature) which the Palestinians permit themselves to eat and which R. Nahman maintains should at least serve for us to stop up a perforation. The second version in the text (infra) has no bearing upon this remark of R. Nahman. V. Rashi.
^ᵇnote:The dispute between the Palestinians and the Babylonians revolves about the views of R. Akiba and R. Ishmael (stated supra 49a) as to what constitutes forbidden fat. In this respect it must be remembered that the fat upon the greater curvature of the abomasum is well-nigh flat and lies almost as an even layer upon the abomasum, consequently it is forbidden according to all views, whereas the fat upon the lesser curvature does not lie in an even layer. Now the Palestinians accepted the view of R. Akiba, that the condition of the fat lying as an even layer is an essential characteristic in the definition of forbidden fat, and this being so they permit the fat that is upon the lesser curvature. The Babylonians, on the other hand, accepted the view of R. Ishmael and consequently forbid this fat.
^ᶜnote:According to this version all accept the view of R. Akiba that only the fat that lies as an even layer is forbidden; consequently the fat on the lesser curvature is permitted. But the issue between the Babylonians and the Palestinians is as to whether the fat upon the greater curvature is to be regarded as an even layer or not. According to the former it is so, hence it is forbidden; according to the Palestinians it is not so, hence it is permitted.
^ᵈnote:Sc. the view stated in the first version.
^ᵉnote:Only the surface of this fat is forbidden as it has been in close proximity to the fat that covers the inwards, which is forbidden. The rest of this fat, however, is allowed to be eaten according to the Palestinian view, and R. Ammi was a Palestinian.
^ᶠnote:R. Abba, son of R. Hiyya b. Abba, not to be confused with R. Abba mentioned first (Rashi).
^ᵍnote:That where a perforation in the intestines was stopped up by the viscous substance attached thereto it is permitted.
^ʰnote:V. M.K. 21b. A man who was not more than a day's journey away from home when the death of a near relative occurred and who returned to his home within the first three days of the mourning, joins the other mourners in the counting of the Shib'ah, or the traditional seven days of mourning, and his period of mourning comes to an end at the same time as that of the others.
^ⁱnote:I.e., he must count seven full days of mourning from the time that he arrives, though the other mourners have almost completed their period of mourning.
^ʲnote:R. Abba the son of b. R. Hiyya.
^ᵏnote:This is the final ruling of the Gemara.
^ˡnote:I.e., we may compare a perforation found in the intestines concerning which there is a doubt whether it existed before the slaughtering, in which case the animal would be trefah, or it was made after the slaughtering, in which case it is permitted, with a perforation made in that same organ after the slaughtering. If the two perforations are alike in appearance the animal is permitted, for it is clear that they both were made after the slaughtering.
^ᵐnote:Sc. the newly made perforations.
^ⁿnote:He therefore declared the animal to be permitted.
^ᵒnote:V. supra 28b.
^ᵖnote:I.e., even in the lungs of one animal one may not compare a defect in the right lung with a defect in the left lung, or vice versa.
^ᵠnote:I.e., the defect in the lungs of a small animal, e.g. sheep or goat, with the defect in the lungs of another small animal: so R. Hananel and first explanation of Rashi. Another suggestion in Rashi is: the defect in the main lobe of one lung with the defect in the main lobe of the other lung, and the defect in the small lobes of one lung with the defect in the small lobes of the other lung.
^ʳnote:A section consisting of three rings.
^ˢnote:This includes the membranous substance between each of the rings as well as the posterior portion of each ring, for the rings of cartilage are incomplete in part of their circumference, being about one-third filled in by fibrous tissue.

²empty vessels? Thus said R. Nahman, Where it is joined [to the hips] even if the whole was gone, provided there remained a portion thereof which can be covered by a hand-grasp, it is permitted. How much is this? — A bitra in an ox. IF THE INNER RUMEN WAS PIERCED. Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab that Nathan b. Shila, chief slaughterer in Sepphoris, testified before Rabbi in the name of R. Nathan as follows: ‘What is the inner rumen? It is the sania dibi’. R. Joshua b. Karha also said that it is the sania dibi. R. Ishmael said: It is the entrance of the rumen. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan, It is a narrow part in the rumen but I don't know which it is. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac, The rumen has fallen into the well. R. Aha b. ‘Awa said in the name of R. Assi, It [the above-mentioned narrow part] is that portion of the rumen where it begins to taper down [to join with the gullet]. R. Jacob b. Nahmani said in the name of Samuel, It is that part of the rumen which has no downy lining. R. Abina said in the name of Geniba on the authority of Rab: The last handbreadth of the gullet adjoining the rumen is the inner rumen. In the West [Palestine] it was said on the authority of R. Jose b. Hanina, The entire rumen is the inner rumen. And what is the outer rumen? It is the membrane which covers the greater part of the rumen. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: It is the mafra'ta. What is the mafra'ta? R. Awia said: It is that part of the rumen which is exposed when the butcher tears open the abdomen. In Nehardea they acted on the view of Rabbah son Of R. Huna. R. Ashi asked Amemar, But what about all the other views? — He answered: They are all included in the view of Rabbah son of R. Huna. But what about the view of R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan? — He answered: It has already been explained by R. Aha son of R. Awia. And what about the view of R. Abina and of those in the West? — He answered: These are obviously at variance [with the view of Rabbah son of R. Huna]. R. JUDAH SAYS, IN A LARGE ANIMAL etc. R. Benjamin b. Japhet reported in the name of R. Eleazar, LARGE does not mean a large animal nor SMALL a small one, but the meaning is: If it was torn to the extent of a handbreadth but this was not the greater portion [of the rumen, it is trefah], and this is what the Mishnah teaches us by stating IN A LARGE ANIMAL TO THE EXTENT OF A HANDBREADTH; and if the greater portion was torn but it was not the extent of a handbreadth, [it is trefah], and this is what the Mishnah teaches us by stating IN A SMALL ANIMAL THE GREATER PORTION OF IT. But it is obvious, is it not, that where the greater portion was torn, though it was not the extent of a handbreadth, [it is trefah]? — It was only necessary to be stated with regard to such a case as where the laceration [extended over the greater portion but it] would have made up a handbreadth had it only been torn a little more, for then you might have said that it was not trefah until the extent of a handbreadth was torn; he therefore teaches [that it is not so]. Geniba said in the name of R. Assi: If a circular hole was cut out [in the rumen having a diameter] of a sela’, it is trefah, for then if you were to stretch out [the circumference thereof] it would amount to a handbreadth. R. Hiyya b. Abba said: Geniba explained it to me on the bridge of Nehardea thus: A hole [having a diameter] of a sela’ is permitted; if it is more than a sela’ it is trefah. What, for example, is a hole larger than a sela’? — Said R. Joseph. A hole through which three date stones with some of the fruit attached could pass with pressure, or easily without any fruit thereon. IF THE OMASUM OR RETICULUM WAS PIERCED. Our Rabbis taught: Where a needle was found impacted in the thick wall of the reticulum, if it had protruded only on one side it is permitted. but if it had protruded on both sides it is trefah. If there was found on it a spot of blood^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵗnote:I.e., do not attribute to R. Nahman absurd views.
^ᵘnote:tryc or tsyc. According to Rashi it means, ‘one fingerbreadth’; according to Alfasi and Tosaf. (supra 44a) ‘four fingerbreadths’.
^ᵛnote:hchs thbx, lit., ‘disliked by wolves’. It is a certain part at the top of the rumen which is described by this term. For an exhaustive discussion on this passage v. Katzenelsohn op. cit. pp. 186-189.
^ʷnote:Lit., ‘the stomach of the rumen’. ‘Stomach’ was frequently used by ancient doctors to describe the entrance to an organ, viz., ‘mouth’, ‘entrance’.
^ˣnote:I.e., the matter is far from clear, for R. Johanan has suggested some portion which he cannot identify or locate.
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘the flesh’.
^ᶻnote:I.e., the peritoneum.
^ᵃᵃnote:t,grpn from root grp ‘to tear open’.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., the anterior half of the rumen.
^ᵃᶜnote:That it is that portion of the rumen where it begins to taper, and that is included in the anterior half of the rumen.
^ᵃᵈnote:Either the one measure or the other measure, whichever is the smaller, will render the animal trefah.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., with some of the fruit attached to the stone.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., it had only pierced the inner coat of the reticulum.