Chullin

it is certain that [the perforation occurred] before the slaughtering;1 but if there was not found on it a spot of blood [it is permitted,2 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;3 if it was not covered with a crust then the burden of proof lies upon the claimant.4 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 assemblies5 to His Excellency the Great Rabbi,6 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 there7 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.8 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.9 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,10 but in this case it had nothing to hold on; or was it that it estimated the distance,11 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.12 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,13 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.14 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.15 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;16 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] taught17 that supports you, viz., ‘A boy, one day old. Maim. Yad, Shech, VI, 12; also Asheri a.l. and gloss thereto. refund of his money. 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. 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). through the skylight, there were no walls to which it might have clung; accordingly we must apprehend a lesion of the internal organs.