Chullin

empty vessels?1 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.2 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’.3 R. Joshua b. Karha also said that it is the sania dibi. R. Ishmael said: It is the entrance of the rumen.4 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.5 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 membrane6 which covers the greater part of the rumen.7 Rabbah son of R. Huna said: It is the mafra'ta.8 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.9 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.10 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.11 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 attached12 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 side13 it is permitted. but if it had protruded on both sides it is trefah. If there was found on it a spot of blood ‘four fingerbreadths’. For an exhaustive discussion on this passage v. Katzenelsohn op. cit. pp. 186-189. organ, viz., ‘mouth’, ‘entrance’.