חולין 52 — Soncino English Talmud

¹On fine sand, we do not apprehend any injury; but on coarse sand, we must apprehend an injury. Likewise on dust of the wayside, we apprehend an injury. On straw, if tied in bundles, we must apprehend an injury; but if loose, we do not apprehend any injury. On wheat, or on similar grain, we must apprehend an injury; on barley, or on similar grain, we must apprehend an injury. On all kinds of pulse, except fenugreek, we must apprehend a lesion of the internal organs. On chick-peas, we do not apprehend any lesion of the internal organs; but on lentils, we must apprehend such an injury. This is the rule: on such things as slip away from each other, we do not apprehend any lesion of the internal organs; but on things which do not slip away from each other, we must apprehend a lesion of the internal organs. If [a bird was] glued, R. Ashi permits it and Amemar forbids it. If it was glued by one wing only, all agree that it is permitted. They disagree only where [it was glued] by both wings. He that forbids it gives as his reason, How can it keep aloft? But he that permits it says: It can keep aloft in the air by the movement of its wings at the joints. Others report as follows: If [it was glued] by both wings, all agree that it is forbidden. They disagree only where [it was glued] by one wing only. He that permits it gives as his reason, It can very well fly with one wing. But he that forbids it says. Since it cannot fly with the one wing [which is glued] it cannot fly with the other [which is free]. The law is: If both wings [were glued to the board], it is forbidden, if one wing only [was glued], it is permitted. IF MOST OF ITS RIBS WERE FRACTURED. Our Rabbis taught: This is meant by ‘most of its ribs’: Either six on each side [were fractured] or eleven on one side and one on the other side. Ze'iri added, provided [in each case the fracture was] in that half of the rib nearest the spine. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan, [We are dealing only] with the large ribs which are filled with marrow. Ulla reported that Ben Zakkai taught: If most of the ribs on one side were dislocated, or if most of the ribs on both sides were fractured, [the animal is trefah]. R. Johanan said: Whether the ribs were dislocated or fractured, [the animal is trefah] only if most of the ribs on both sides [were dislocated or fractured]. Rab said: If a rib together with its vertebra was dislocated, the animal is trefah. R. Kahana and R. Assi asked Rab, What if the rib on each side of the vertebra was dislocated but the vertebra remained firm in its place? — He replied. Then you are speaking of an animal cut asunder! But is not Rab's case too the case of an animal cut asunder? — Rab was speaking of the dislocation of a rib only without the vertebra. But did he not expressly say: ‘A rib together with its vertebra’? — He meant, A rib with half of its vertebra. It follows then that R. Kahana and R. Assi were speaking of the case where the ribs [on each side of the vertebra were dislocated] but the vertebra remained firm; would Rab then have replied to them, ‘Then you are speaking of an animal cut asunder’? Has not Ulla reported that Ban Zakkai taught: If most of the ribs on one side were dislocated, or if most of the ribs on both sides were fractured, [the animal is trefah]? — He will say: In that case [of Ulla] the ribs were not opposite each other, but in this case the ribs were opposite each other. But did not R. Johanan say that most of the ribs on both sides must either be fractured or dislocated? And in speaking of most of the ribs on both sides it cannot be otherwise but that at least one rib was dislocated opposite the other! — There [in the case of R. Johanan] only the rib, but not the facet, [was dislocated], but here [in the case put by R. Kahana and R. Assi] the rib together with its facet [was dislocated]. But if so, is not this case identical with Rab's own statement? — They had not heard of Rab's statement. Then why did they not ask him [about the dislocation of one rib together with its facet] as in the statement of Rab? — They thought, Let us rather ask him one question which would give us the answer to two. For if we were to ask him about [the dislocation of] one rib [with its facet] we would have had satisfaction only if he had answered that it was trefah, since this same ruling would apply with even greater force to the case of the dislocation of two ribs; but had he answered that it was permitted we would still have been in doubt as to two ribs. But even now when they ask him about the dislocation of two ribs [with their facets] the same difficulty presents itself, does it not? For only if he had answered that it was permitted would they have had satisfaction, since this same ruling would apply with even greater force to the case of the dislocation of one rib, but had he answered that it was trefah they would still have been in doubt as to one rib? — They thought, In that case he would have been annoyed and would have replied. Seeing that the dislocation of one rib [with its facet] renders the animal trefah can there be any question about two? But did they not actually ask him [about the dislocation of two ribs], nevertheless he was not annoyed? — His answer: ‘Then you are speaking of an animal cut asunder’, is the expression of his annoyance. Rabbah son of R. Shila said in the name of R. Mattena on the authority of Samuel: If a rib was dislodged from its socket, or if the greater portion of the skull was shattered, or if the greater portion of the membrane which covers the greater part of the rumen [was torn] — in each case [the animal] is trefah. ‘If a rib was dislodged from its socket’. I can point out a contradiction to this. [For we have learnt]:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵃnote:This too hardens and forms into lumps.
^ᵇnote:In MS.M. this clause is omitted; in other MSS. the reading is, ‘We do not apprehend any injury’. As the text stands, it is difficult to understand why this clause was not included together with wheat.
^ᶜnote:E.g., beans or peas. These are smooth and slippery and cannot be piled up into a solid mass.
^ᵈnote:Or: linseed.
^ᵉnote:I.e., which are smooth and round and so could not form a hard mass.
^ᶠnote:By its wings to a board to prevent it from flying away.
^ᵍnote:If in an attempt to fly it fell down together with the board to the ground.
^ʰnote:For it could at least keep itself aloft in the air by its other wing which is free.
^ⁱnote:Since only the tips of its wings are glued to the board the bird can in a restricted way jerk its wings at the joints and thus keep aloft.
^ʲnote:Unless after its fall it stood up and walked.
^ᵏnote:The animal has twenty-two large ribs each filled with marrow, eleven ribs on each side. Twelve at least of these ribs must be fractured in order to render the animal trefah.
^ˡnote:I.e., six ribs.
^ᵐnote:Even though it is certain that the spinal cord has not been injured.
^ⁿnote:And it would be nebelah forthwith, v. supra 21a.
^ᵒnote:Since a rib together with its vertebra has been dislocated the corresponding rib on the other side of that vertebra has also been loosened, hence the animal is virtually divided into two.
^ᵖnote:So that at least six ribs must be dislocated in order to render the animal trefah. Rab surely would not have said that where only two ribs were dislocated the animal is virtually cut asunder, and is nebelah!
^ᵠnote:I.e., each of the ribs was dislocated from a different vertebra, but no two ribs were dislocated from the same vertebra.
^ʳnote:I.e., the ribs on either side of the same vertebra were dislocated.
^ˢnote:For there are but eleven ribs on each side and twelve must be fractured or dislocated in order to render the animal trefah; hence the ribs on either side of at least one vertebra were dislocated.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘the pestle with the mortar’.
^ᵘnote:For, as we have explained: Rab also was dealing with the dislocation of a rib plus half of its vertebra. i.e., its facet, and he ruled that it was trefah; why then did R. Kahana and R. Assi enquire of Rab as to the dislocation of two ribs and their facets? That would surely be trefah!
^ᵛnote:They therefore asked him concerning the dislocation of two ribs with their facets.
^ʷnote:So that they would have known from the tone of Rab's answer the law about the dislocation of one rib.
^ˣnote:Although Rab had already taught that the dislocation of one rib with part of its vertebra i.e., its facet renders the animal trefah.
^ʸnote:And this answer of Rab conveyed to them also the information that the dislocation of one rib together with its facet is trefah.
^ᶻnote:According to Rashi only the rib, but not its facet, was dislodged; according to R. Tam the facet was also dislodged. V. Tos. s.v. vregb.

²‘What is considered a deficiency of the spine? Beth Shammai say. If two vertebrae were missing; Beth Hillel say: If only one was missing’. And Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel that their views are the same with regard to rendering the animal trefah! — Here we are speaking of a rib [being dislodged] but not the vertebra and there of a vertebra [being dislodged] but not the rib. I can well understand a rib [being dislodged] without its vertebra but how can it happen that the vertebra [should become dislodged] without [dislodging at the same time] the ribs? — It can happen below at the loins. R. Oshaia raised the question, Why is not this dispute included in the list of differences wherein Beth Shammai adopt the more lenient view and Beth Hillel the stricter view? — Raba answered. Because the dispute arose originally with regard to the law of uncleanness and in this respect Beth Shammai hold the stricter view. ‘If the greater portion of the skull was shattered’. R. Jeremiah asked: Does it mean the greater portion of the height of the skull or the greater portion of its circumference? This remains undecided. ‘If the greater portion of the membrane which covers the greater part of the rumen [was torn]’. R. Ashi asked: Does it mean that the greater portion was torn or that it was gone? But you can surely answer this from our Mishnah which reads: IF THE INNER RUMEN WAS PIERCED OR THE GREATER PART OF THE OUTER COVERING WAS TORN. And this was interpreted by the scholars in the West [palestine] on the authority of R. Jose b. Hanina thus: 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! — Was not this question raised on the statement of Samuel? But R. Jacob b. Nahmani has reported in the name of Samuel that it [sc. the inner rumen] is that part of the rumen which has no downy lining. IF IT WAS CLAWED BY A WOLF. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: In the case of cattle from the wolf and upwards, and in the case of birds from the hawk and upwards. What does this exclude? Should you say it excludes the cat, surely we have expressly learnt: IF IT WAS CLAWED BY A WOLF! And should you further say that the Mishnah merely wishes to teach that a wolf can claw even large cattle, surely [this is not so, for] our Mishnah adds: R. JUDAH SAYS. SMALL CATTLE IF CLAWED BY A WOLF, AND LARGE CATTLE IF CLAWED BY A LION. And should you further say that R. Judah differs [from the view of the first Tanna], surely [it is not so, for] R. Benjamin b. Japhet has stated in the name of R. Ila'a that the sole purpose of R. Judah's statement was merely to explain [the words of the first Tanna but not to dissent therefrom]! — Do you point out a contradiction between one authority and another! If you wish, however, I can say that it [the Mishnah] indeed excludes the cat [and yet R. Judah's statement was necessary], for you might have said [the reason why the Mishnah mentions the wolf was because] it was the more common occurrence; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. R. ‘Amram said in the name of R. Hisda: Goats and lambs [are trefah] if clawed either by a cat or a marten, birds if clawed by a weasel. An objection was raised: The clawing by a cat or a hawk or a marten [does not render trefah] unless the claw actually penetrated into [the abdominal] cavity. Now it follows from this that the clawing itself is of no consequence! But how do you explain this? Is the clawing by a hawk of no consequence? Surely we have learnt: IF CLAWED BY A HAWK! — This is no difficulty, for the statement [of our Mishnah] refers to birds [being clawed], whereas the statement [of the Baraitha] refers to goats and lambs; but against R. Hisda [this Baraitha] is indeed an objection! — He [R. Hisda] concurs with the view of the following Tanna. For it was taught: Beribbi said: Only in that case when no one was present to save [the attacked animal] did the Rabbis say that the clawing [by a cat] was of no consequence. but when some one was present to save [the attacked animal] the clawing [by a cat] is of consequence. Do you then hold that when no one is present to save [the animal], the clawing [by a cat] is of no consequence? But it once happened that a hen belonging to R. Kahana was being pursued by a cat and it ran into a room. The door shut in the face of the cat so that [in its fury] it struck the door with its paw. There were then found on it five spots of blood! — When the attacked animal tries to save itself it is the same as when others are present to save it. But [does not this incident contradict the view of] the Rabbis? — They maintain that it has venom, but the venom does not burn. Others report the passage thus: The author of that Baraitha is Beribbi. For it was taught: Beribbi said: Only in that case when there was some one present to save [the attacked animal] did the Rabbis say that the clawing [by a cat] was of consequence, but when no one was present to save [the attacked animal] the clawing by a cat is of no consequence. Do you then hold that when no one is present to save [the animal] the clawing [by a cat] is of no consequence? But it once happened that a hen belonging to R. Kahana was being pursued by a cat and it ran into a room. The door shut in the face of the cat so that [in its fury] it struck the door with its paw. There were then found on it five spots of blood! — When the attacked animal tries to save itself it is the same as when others are present to save it. R. Kahana enquired of Rab:^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ

^ᵃᵃnote:V. supra 42b. It is here taught that only the removal of a vertebra renders the animal trefah, but not the dislodgement of a rib.
^ᵃᵇnote:For as soon as the vertebra is removed the ribs on each side of it are dislodged and fall apart.
^ᵃᶜnote:In the lumbar region where there are vertebrae but no ribs.
^ᵃᵈnote:Between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel as to what deficiency in the backbone would render the animal trefah; according to the former two vertebrae must be missing, and according to the latter only one. Thus Beth Shammai clearly hold the more lenient view.
^ᵃᵉnote:In ‘Ed. IV.
^ᵃᶠnote:For they hold that the backbone of a corpse will still convey uncleanness to men and vessels in the same ‘tent’ although one vertebra thereof was missing.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., does the greater portion refer to the length of the skull commencing from the eyes rising upwards towards the top of the head, or to the width of the skull, i.e., the distance from ear to ear? (R. Gershom).
^ᵃʰnote:According to the interpretation of the scholars in the West the Mishnah expressly teaches that if the greater portion of the membrane was torn, it is trefah.
^ᵃⁱnote:The Mishnah according to Samuel does not deal with the membrane at all, but only with the actual rumen; it cannot therefore throw any light on the elucidation of Samuel's statement here.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., the Mishnah does not mean a wolf exclusively, but it means any other beast of prey which is larger and fiercer than the wolf. The same is the intention of the Mishnah in the case of birds.
^ᵃᵏnote:And this clearly excludes the cat.
^ᵃˡnote:It is argued that the wolf was expressly stated not in order to exclude the cat but to teach that the clawing by a wolf can render even a large cattle, e.g., an ox, trefah. Small cattle however, e.g., sheep, can be clawed even by a cat.
^ᵃᵐnote:The first Tanna being of the opinion that a wolf can claw even large cattle.
^ᵃⁿnote:In MS.M. as well as in Rashi the reading is ‘R. Eleazar’.
^ᵃᵒnote:Rab does not agree with the view expressed above in the name of R. Ila'a but holds that R. Judah expressed a dissenting view, the first Tanna being of the opinion that the clawing by a wolf would render trefah even large cattle. Now it might have been inferred from this that the clawing by a cat would render trefah small cattle, e.g., sheep and goats; Rab therefore expressly teaches us that a cat is absolutely excluded, and its clawing is of no consequence.
^ᵃᵖnote:But not to imply that the clawing by a cat is of no consequence.
^ᵃᵠnote:And pierced an internal organ. Accordingly the claw is on a par with a thorn or a needle, but it does render trefah solely by the clawing and the poisonous discharge that follows.
^ᵃʳnote:V. supra 22b.
^ᵃˢnote:As stated in the cited Baraitha.
^ᵃᵗnote:The presence of a rescuer infuriates the cat so that it becomes fiercer in its attack and discharges its venom. R. Hisda concurs with this view, and only in these circumstances does he maintain that the clawing by a cat renders trefah.
^ᵃᵘnote:I.e., five red spots of venom were found on the door. This indicates that the cat discharges venom in its attack, even though no one was present to save the victim.
^ᵃᵛnote:The Rabbis who differ from the view of Beribbi maintain that the clawing by a cat is of no consequence under any circumstances. The question is then, How will they explain away the presence of the venom on the door, which indicates that a cat does discharge venom in its attack?
^ᵃʷnote:The discharged venom does not destroy any of the organs.
^ᵃˣnote:In answer to the objection raised above against R. Hisda from the Baraitha quoted.
^ᵃʸnote:But R. Hisda is of the opinion that in all circumstances the clawing by a cat renders trefah. And he maintains hat the Tanna of our Mishnah also concurs with this view.