Chullin

On 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.1 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.2 On all kinds of pulse,3 except fenugreek,4 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,5 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,6 R. Ashi permits it7 and Amemar forbids it. If it was glued by one wing only, all agree that it is permitted.8 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.9 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,10 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.11 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 side12 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.13 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!14 But is not Rab's case too the case of an animal cut asunder?15 — 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]?16 — He will say: In that case [of Ulla] the ribs were not opposite each other,17 but in this case the ribs were opposite each other.18 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!19 — 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 facet20 [was dislocated]. But if so, is not this case identical with Rab's own statement?21 — 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.22 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?23 But did they not actually ask him [about the dislocation of two ribs], nevertheless he was not annoyed?24 — His answer: ‘Then you are speaking of an animal cut asunder’, is the expression of his annoyance.25 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,26 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]: is difficult to understand why this clause was not included together with wheat. thus keep aloft. must be fractured in order to render the animal trefah. also been loosened, hence the animal is virtually divided into two. where only two ribs were dislocated the animal is virtually cut asunder, and is nebelah! vertebra. trefah; hence the ribs on either side of at least one vertebra were dislocated. 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! animal trefah. is trefah. V. Tos. s.v. vregb.