חולין 51 — Soncino English Talmud

¹it is certain that [the perforation occurred] before the slaughtering; but if there was not found on it a spot of blood [it is permitted, for] it is certain that [the perforation occurred] after slaughtering. If the top of the wound was covered with a crust it is certain that the wound occurred at least three days before the slaughtering; if it was not covered with a crust then the burden of proof lies upon the claimant. Why is this case different from all other cases of perforation of an organ, where the Master declares it to be trefah even though there was not a drop of blood [around the perforation]? — In those cases there was no object to which the blood could cling; here, however, since a needle is impacted [in the reticulum], had it pierced it before the slaughtering some blood would surely have clung to it. R. Safra said to Abaye: ‘Has my Master seen that scholar who came from the West and who goes by the name of R. ‘Awira? For he relates that once there came before Rabbi the case of a needle found impacted in the thick wall of the reticulum and which protruded only on one side and he declared it trefah!’ Abaye thereupon sent for this scholar, but he would not come; so Abaye went to him. He found him on the roof and he called out, ‘Would you come down Sir’? He would not come down; Abaye then went up to him and said: ‘Would you tell me the actual facts of that case?’ He replied. ‘I am in charge of the assemblies to His Excellency the Great Rabbi, and as R. Huna of Sepphoris and R. Jose the Mede were sitting with him there came before Rabbi the case of a needle found impacted in the thick wall of the reticulum. It protruded only on one side, but when Rabbi turned it over he found, on the outside [directly above the needle], a spot of blood, so he declared it to be trefah, saying: "If there was no wound there whence came the spot of blood"’? Abaye exclaimed: You caused me a great deal of trouble [all for nothing]! It is expressly stated in our Mishnah, IF THE OMASUM OR RETICULUM WAS PIERCED ON THE OUTSIDE. IF [THE ANIMAL] FELL FROM THE ROOF. R. Huna said: If a person left an animal on the roof and when he returned he found it on the ground below, we do not apprehend any lesion of the Internal organs. A goat belonging to Rabina was on the roof and through the sky-light saw some peeled barley below. It jumped and fell down from the roof to the ground. He [Rabina] came before R. Ashi and enquired. Was the reason for R. Huna's statement, ‘If a person left an animal on the roof, and returned and found it on the ground we do not apprehend a lesion of the internal organs’, that it had something to hold on, but in this case it had nothing to hold on; or was it that it estimated the distance, so that here too it estimated the distance? — He replied. The reason was that it estimated the distance; so that here too it estimated the distance [and it is therefore permitted]. A ewe belonging to R. Habiba was seen dragging along its hind legs. Said R. Yemar, It is suffering from a hip disease. Rabina demurred, perhaps its spinal cord is severed? It was thereupon examined and was found to be as Rabina had thought. Nevertheless the law is in accordance with the view of R. Yemar, for a hip disease is a common disorder, whereas the severance of the spinal cord is not common. R. Huna said: In the case of rams that attack each other we do not apprehend any lesion of the internal organs, for although they groan with pain the whole time, [we say] it is merely a fever that has taken hold of them. But if they were thrown to the ground we certainly apprehend a lesion of the internal organs. R. Manasseh said: In the case of rams, stolen by thieves, we do not apprehend any lesion of the internal organs. Why? Because when they [the thieves] throw them [over the fence] they throw them in such a manner that they fall on their hips, so that they should run on ahead of them. But it they returned them [by throwing them back over the fence], we certainly apprehend a lesion of the internal organs. This is so, however, only if they returned them on account of fear, but if they returned them by way of repentance they would make proper repentance. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If a man struck an animal [with a stick] upon the head and the blow reached as far as the tail, or if [he struck it] upon the tail and the blow reached as far as the head, [so that in either case the stick came down] upon the entire length of the backbone, we do not apprehend any lesion of the internal organs. If, however, the stick came to an end in the middle of the backbone, we apprehend a lesion of an internal organ; likewise, if the stick had nodes, or if he struck the animal across the back, we must apprehend a lesion of an internal organ. R. Nahman said: [The passage of the young through] the womb cannot cause a lesion of the internal organs. Said Raba, to R. Nahman: There is [a Baraitha] taught that supports you, viz., ‘A boy, one day old.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:And it is trefah.
^ᵇnote:Even though the needle protruded on both sides, since there is no blood clinging to it, the animal is permitted. V. Maim. Yad, Shech, VI, 12; also Asheri a.l. and gloss thereto.
^ᶜnote:So that the sale of this animal, if transacted in these three days, is null and void and the purchaser is entitled to a refund of his money.
^ᵈnote:There is here a doubt whether the wound occurred before or after the animal had passed from the vendor to the purchaser, and it is for the purchaser who is suing for the return of the purchase money to prove his case, namely, that the animal was already trefah at the time of the sale.
^ᵉnote:,uhxbf rhypn, ‘Janitor at the meetings of scholars’, Jast.
^ᶠnote:I.e., R. Judah Ha-nasi, the Patriarch (Rashi). More probably ‘Great Rabbi’ is a title of dignity when speaking of the head of the Academy. So, too, the term tkhgk is evidently a title of honour ‘His Excellency’; cf. the parallel Heb. expression, vkgnk, in Men. 103b. (Glosses of S. H. Dunner).
^ᵍnote:I.e., if the needle had not penetrated both walls of the reticulum.
^ʰnote:And in the case in question there was sufficient evidence that the needle had pierced both coats of the reticulum.
^ⁱnote:It may be slaughtered immediately and there is no necessity to examine all the internal organs.
^ʲnote:And so by clinging to the wall it breaks its fall and it is not so severe. In this case, however, where the goat jumped through the skylight, there were no walls to which it might have clung; accordingly we must apprehend a lesion of the internal organs.
^ᵏnote:And considered it safe for a jump, and therefore there is no fear of any injury to any of the internal organs.
^ˡnote:A cramp of the hip-joint, sciatica. The animal however is permitted.
^ᵐnote:Which are thrown over the fence of the enclosure on to the ground.
^ⁿnote:For they care not how the animal falls to the ground.
^ᵒnote:So that when returning them they would take every precaution not to injure the animals.
^ᵖnote:particularly an injury to the spinal cord.
^ᵠnote:Nid. 43b.

²can convey uncleanness by reason of an issue’. Now if there was any ground to fear [that the passage through the womb might cause] a lesion of the internal organs, then [surely he should not convey such uncleanness, for] the rule of the verse should be applied here: Out of his flesh, but not by reason of an accident! — It may be dealing there with the case of a child that was extracted from the side of his mother. Come and hear: A calf that was born on a festival may be slaughtered [the same day] on the festival! — Here, too, we must suppose that it was extracted from the side. Come and hear: ‘But they agree that if the firstling was born [on the festival] with a blemish, it is of the class of things designated for food’. Now should you say that this too was extracted from the side, [this cannot be since] a firstling extracted from the side has no sanctity! For R. Johanan has stated. R. Simeon admits that with regard to consecrated animals it [sc. an animal extracted from the side] has no sanctity whatsoever! — We must suppose in this case that it planted its hoofs on the ground. R. Nahman further said: In the slaughter-house we do not apprehend any lesion of the internal organs. An ox once fell and the noise of its groaning was heard. [When it was slaughtered] R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha came and bought of the choicest portions of its meat. Thereupon the Rabbis asked him, Whence do you know this? — He replied. Thus said Rab, The animal [whilst falling] plants its hoofs firmly [on the ground] until it actually reaches the ground. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If the animal [after a fall] stood up, it need not be kept alive for twenty-four hours, but it certainly must be examined [against an internal injury]. If it actually walked, there is no need for any examination. R. Hiyya b. Ashi said: In either case it must be examined. R. Jeremiah b. Aba said in the name of Rab, If it stretched out its fore-leg to stand, even though it did not stand, [it is as though it had stood]; or if it moved its hind leg to walk, even though it did not walk, [it is as though it had walked]. R. Hisda said: If it made an effort to stand, even though it did not stand, [it is as though it had stood]. The law is: If it accidentally fell from the roof and stood up but did not walk, it must be examined [against an internal injury], but it need not be kept alive for twenty-four hours; if it walked, it needs no examination. Amemar said in the name of R. Dimi of Nehardea: The examination of which the Rabbis have spoken in the case of a fall must be carried out in the region of the intestines. Mar Zutra said to him, We rule on the authority of R. Papa that an examination must be carried out on all the internal organs. Huna Mar the grandson of R. Nehemiah enquired of R. Ashi, What about the organs of the throat? — He replied. These organs are unaffected by a fall. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Where a bird was thrown with force upon water it is sufficient if it swam the length of its body. This is so, however, only if it swam upstream, but if it swam downstream, clearly the current of the water carried it along. If the waters were still then it matters not. And if twigs were strewn upon the water and the bird overtook them, then it has obviously overtaken them [by moving of its own accord]. If a sheet was stretched taut [and a bird fell down upon it], we must apprehend an injury to the internal organs; if it was not stretched taut, we do not apprehend an injury. Likewise if the sheet was folded double, [even though it was stretched taut] we do not apprehend any injury. [If a bird was caught in its flight] by a closely knotted net, we must apprehend an injury to the internal organs; if it was not closely knotted, we do not apprehend any injury. [If a bird fell] on flax tied up in bundles, we must apprehend an injury; on the sides of the bundles we do not apprehend any injury. On bundles of reeds, we must apprehend an Injury. On flax which was pounded and corded, we do not apprehend any injury; on flax which was pounded but not corded, we must apprehend an injury. On flax stalks which contain seed vessels, we must apprehend an injury because of the knots. On coarse tow, we must apprehend an injury; on fine tow, we do not apprehend any injury. On dried bark, we must apprehend an injury; but on crushed bark, we do not apprehend any injury. On sifted ashes, we must apprehend an injury; but on unsifted ashes, we do not apprehend any injury.^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ʳnote:Lev. XV, 2.
^ˢnote:V. Zabin II. 2. Any issue in a person caused by an accident or injury does not produce the uncleanness which normally results from an issue. Now if there is any apprehension that a child, whilst passing through the womb, might suffer an injury, he should not then convey uncleanness by reason of his issue, for it might have been caused by an accidental injury in birth.
^ᵗnote:By a Caesarean operation, the child not having passed through the womb.
^ᵘnote:V. Bez. 6b. The prohibition of mukzeh does not apply, for the dam as well as its young were designated for food on the Festival, v. supra 14a. There is evidently no apprehension whatsoever of an internal injury caused during calving.
^ᵛnote:Those Tannaim, who in Bez. 26b differ in the case where a firstling became blemished on the festival whether or not it belongs now to that class of food designated for the festival, agree in this case, where the firstling was born with a blemish on the festival, that it may be slaughtered and eaten on the festival, because it was never at any moment of its life forbidden.
^ʷnote:V. Nid. 400. There is a dispute there between R. Simeon and the Rabbis on the question whether a child that had been extracted from the side of its mother by means of an operation is to be regarded as a child ‘born’, entailing all those conditions of uncleanness upon the mother as stated in Lev. XII, or not. They are, however, in agreement with regard to consecrated animals, that an animal so extracted has no sanctity whatsoever, for it is expressly prohibited as a sacrifice by the interpretation of Lev. XXII. 27; v. supra 38b.
^ˣnote:The case adduced from Bez. 26b supra.
^ʸnote:In an attempt to stand. This is a sufficient indication that it has not sustained an internal injury at birth; v. infra.
^ᶻnote:When the animal is cast on to the ground for the slaughtering.
^ᵃᵃnote:That there is no apprehension whatsoever of any lesion to an internal organ caused by the fall.
^ᵃᵇnote:It may be slaughtered immediately but the organs that might have been affected by the fall, e.g., the spinal cord and also the ribs and the intestines, must be examined for any injury.
^ᵃᶜnote:According to Asheri the ruling in the text does not form part of the Gemara. Rashal deletes the passage.
^ᵃᵈnote:The intestines and the various stomachs must be examined for any perforation or laceration.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘hardened against’. Therefore no examination of these organs are necessary where the animal sustained a fall.
^ᵃᶠnote:This corresponds to walking in the case of cattle. There is no longer any fear that the bird was injured Internally and it may be slaughtered immediately
^ᵃᵍnote:Lit., ‘from below upwards’.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘from above downwards’. In this case there is no indication that it moved of its own accord.
^ᵃⁱnote:In whichever direction it moved, it is permitted.
^ᵃʲnote:Even though it only moved downstream.
^ᵃᵏnote:A sheet which is folded cannot be stretched quite taut, and therefore it would not cause any injury to the bird.
^ᵃˡnote:The reason generally in all these cases is that if the substance is hard or closely packed, a bird falling thereon would sustain internal injuries, but if the pile is soft or loose, the bird would not sustain any injuries.
^ᵃᵐnote:For when it is piled up in a heap it cakes and hardens and would cause an injury to the bird.