חולין 54 — Soncino English Talmud

¹With regard to the gullet, as the slightest perforation [is sufficient to render the animal trefah], so too is the slightest indication of clawing; but with regard to the windpipe, since [it is established that] there must be a hole the size of an issar, what is the law as to the clawing thereof? — After raising this question he himself answered it thus: In either organ the slightest indication of clawing [will render the animal trefah]. Why? Because the poison gradually burns away more and more. R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha was sitting before R. Nahman and recited: The examination of which the Rabbis have spoken in the case of clawing, must be carried out in the region of the intestines. Thereupon R. Nahman said to him, ‘By God! Rab used to rule [that an examination must be made of all the internal organs] from the pan to the hips’. Now what is ‘the pan’? Is it the pan of the fore-limb? But then this view would be identical with [that mentioned above] ‘in the region of the intestines’. It must mean, therefore, from the pan of the brain to the hips. When R. Hiyya b. Joseph went up [to Palestine] he found R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish stating their view, namely, that the examination of which [the Rabbis have] spoken in the case of clawing, must be carried out in the region of the intestines. He thereupon said: ‘By God! Rab used to rule [that an examination must be made of all the internal organs] from the pan to the hips’. Resh Lakish retorted: ‘Who is this Rab? Who is this Rab? I know him not’. Said R. Johanan to him, ‘Do you not remember that disciple who attended the lectures of the Great Rabbi and of R. Hiyya, and, by God! all the years during which that disciple sat before his teachers I remained standing! And in what [do you think] he excelled? He excelled in everything!’ Immediately Resh Lakish exclaimed: Verily that man is to be remembered for good! For in his name has the following dictum been reported, viz., If, after slaughtering, [the windpipe] was found to be torn loose, the animal is permitted, for it is impossible to have cut through an organ that had been torn loose. R. Johanan, however, said: He should compare it. R. Nahman said: The rule [of Rab] holds good only if the slaughterer did not grasp the organs [when slaughtering], but if he did grasp the organs, [the slaughtering is invalid, for] then it is possible to cut through an organ that had been torn loose. THIS IS THE RULE. What cases does it include? — It includes the Seven Statements. The members of the house of Joseph the fowler used to kill beasts by striking them on the sciatic nerve. When they came to enquire of R. Judah b. Bathyra, he said to them, ‘May we then add to the list of defects [which render an animal trefah]? We accept only those enumerated by the Rabbis’. The members of the house of R. Papa b. Abba the fowler used to kill beasts by striking them on the kidney. When they came to enquire of R. Abba, he said to them, ‘May we then add to the list of defects? We accept only those enumerated by the Rabbis’. But do we not see that the beast dies [from the blow]? It is established [beyond doubt] that if salves were applied, it would live. MISHNAH. AND THE FOLLOWING [DEFECTS] DO NOT RENDER CATTLE TREFAH: IF THE WINDPIPE WAS PIERCED, OR SLIT LENGTHWISE; (TO WHAT EXTENT MAY IT BE DEFICIENT? R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS, UP TO AN ITALIAN ISSAR). IF PART OF THE SKULL BROKE OFF BUT THE MEMBRANE OF THE BRAIN WAS NOT PIERCED; IF THE HEART WAS PIERCED BUT NOT AS FAR AS THE CAVITY THEREOF; IF THE SPINE WAS BROKEN BUT THE CORD WAS NOT SEVERED; IF THE LIVER WAS GONE BUT AN OLIVE'S SIZE THEREOF REMAINED; IF THE OMASUM AND RETICULUM WERE PIERCED ON THE INSIDE; IF THE SPLEEN WAS GONE, OR THE KIDNEYS, OR THE LOWER JAW-BONE. OR THE WOMB; IF THE LUNG WAS SHRIVELLED UP BY AN ACT OF GOD. IF AN ANIMAL WAS STRIPPED OF ITS HIDE, R. MEIR DECLARES IT VALID BUT THE RABBIS DECLARE IT INVALID. GEMARA. It was reported: R. Johanan says. The former Mishnah, ‘The following [defects] render cattle trefah’, is to be emphasized; R. Simeon b. Lakish says. This Mishnah, ‘AND THE FOLLOWING [DEFECTS] DO NOT RENDER CATTLE TREFAH’, is to be emphasized. What is the real issue between them? — It is R. Mattena's case. For R. Mattena ruled: If the top of the femur slipped out of its socket, the animal is trefah — Now R. Johanan who said that the former Mishnah, namely, ‘The following [defects] render cattle trefah’, was to be emphasized. argues thus: The Tanna stated various defects and finally added: ‘This is the rule’.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:V. next Mishnah.
^ᵇnote:I.e., the shoulder-blade or scapula.
^ᶜnote:For it includes all the internal organs, the lungs and the liver, and these are the organs comprehended within the expression ‘from the scapula to the hips’.
^ᵈnote:And this would include the organs of the throat too.
^ᵉnote:I.e., as an advanced student Rab was permitted to sit at the lectures.
^ᶠnote:Aliter: ‘What kind of man was he? He was a man in everything’.
^ᵍnote:And it is doubtful whether it was torn loose before or after the slaughtering.
^ʰnote:The fact that the organ has been cut in the proper manner proves that it was torn away only after the slaughtering.
^ⁱnote:Lit., ‘he should bring and compare’. I.e., he should make another cut in this same windpipe, and if the cuts resemble each other the animal would be trefah, for it is evident that just as the second cut so the first cut too was made in an organ that had already been torn loose.
^ʲnote:V. supra 42a and b.
^ᵏnote:To ascertain whether the slaughtering of an animal so struck would be valid or not.
^ˡnote:But none of ‘its substance was missing; V. supra 45a
^ᵐnote:A coin, the Roman as, a twenty-fourth part of a denar.
^ⁿnote:I.e., the perforation was in that part where one organ lies close to the other without any space intervening. The food therefore would only pass from one organ into the other and could in no way cause an infection of the internal organs.
^ᵒnote:The organs of the throat, however, remained intact attached to the muscles of the throat.
^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘by the hands of heaven’. I.e., sclerosis of the lung, here caused by a fright through an act of nature, by thunder or by lightning.

²He saw, however, that R. Mattena's case might be admitted [as a trefah] under the clause ‘This is the rule’, for it is well nigh similar to a case where the entire organ was gone, he therefore taught: ‘The following [defects] render cattle trefah’, emphasizing that only the following render cattle trefah, but the defect stated by R. Mattena does not render the animal trefah. R. Simeon b. Lakish who said that this Mishnah, namely, ‘AND THE FOLLOWING [DEFECTS] DO NOT RENDER CATTLE TREFAH’, was to be emphasized, on the other hand, argues thus: The Tanna stated various defects and finally added: ‘This is the rule’. He saw, however, that R. Mattena's case might not be admitted [as a trefah] under the clause ‘This is the rule’, for it is not quite the same as when an organ is pierced or severed or gone entirely, he therefore taught: THE FOLLOWING [DEFECTS] DO NOT RENDER CATTLE TREFAH, emphasizing that only the following do not render an animal trefah, but the defect stated by R. Mattena does. The text [stated above]: ‘R. Mattena ruled: If the top of the femur slipped out of its socket, the animal is trefah’. Raba, however, ruled that it was permitted; though if the ligaments were severed it is trefah. The law is: Even if the ligaments were severed it is permitted, unless they had decayed. TO WHAT EXTENT MAY IT BE DEFICIENT? etc. Ze'iri said: ‘You, who have never seen the size [of an Italian issar], may take instead as a standard the size of a Gordian denar, which is equal in size to the small peshita, current among the small coins of Pumbeditha’. R. Hana, the money-changer, said: ‘Once there stood before me Bar Nappaha who asked me for a Gordian denar with which to measure a defect. I wanted to rise before him but he would not allow me, saying. "Sit down, my son, sit down. Craftsmen are not allowed to rise before scholars whilst they are engaged in their work"’. But are they not? Surely we have learnt: All craftsmen must rise before them, enquire after their welfare and greet them, ‘Our brethren from such and such a place, ye are welcome’. — R. Johanan said: Before them they must rise but not before scholars. Thereupon R. Jose b. Abin remarked: Come and see, how precious is a precept when performed in its due season! for they [craftsmen] must rise before these but not before scholars! But whence do you gather this? Perhaps [they are shown respect] so as not to put a stumblingblock in their way for the future! R. Nahman said: An exact sela’ is regarded as more than a sela’; likewise an exact issar is regarded as more than an issar. This shows that R. Nahman is of the opinion that ‘up to’ is not inclusive. Raba raised an objection against R. Nahman. We have learnt: A string which hangs over from the texture of a bed, [that is of any length] up to five handbreadths, is clean. Presumably if it was exactly five handbreadths it would be regarded as less! — No. Exactly five would be regarded as more. Come and hear: If it was from five up to ten handbreadths in length, it is unclean. Presumably if it was exactly ten handbreadths long it would be regarded as less. — No. Exactly ten would be regarded as more. Come and hear: Small earthenware vessels, or the bottoms or sides [of broken earthenware vessels] that can stand without support.^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵠnote:Which clause was added for the sole purpose of including other defects not specifically mentioned.
^ʳnote:In which case the animal would be trefah.
^ˢnote:Name of a gold denar coined by one of the Roman emperors by that name.
^ᵗnote:I.e., whilst working for others (Rashi). According to Tosaf., however, it may mean that even when they are engaged in their own work they need not stand up.
^ᵘnote:Sc. those Jews who came to Jerusalem bringing with them the offering of firstfruits to the Temple. V. Bik. III, 3.
^ᵛnote:For if they were not shown respect when they came, they might refrain from coming again in the future. But it is certainly not the case, as was suggested by R. Jose b. Abin, that their action is more commendable than the study of the Torah.
^ʷnote:Wherever the Rabbis fixed the standard of measure, either a sela’, as in the case of a deficiency in the skull or a deficiency in the rumen, or an issar, as in our Mishnah, they intended to convey that where the measure was exactly the size of the standard fixed it was always to be regarded as more than the standard, with all the results consequent thereto.
^ˣnote:For when our Mishnah says: UP TO AN ITALIAN ISSAR, It means that up to that size is a deficiency permitted, but the deficiency of an exact issar, being regarded as more than an issar, would render the animal trefah.
^ʸnote:V. Kelim XIX, 2. If the bed was rendered unclean, this piece of string which has not yet been cut away from the texture of the bed would not be unclean, for it is insignificant. If, however, it was more than five handbreadths in length it would be unclean, for it would then be of some use — indeed, with this length of string they used to tie up the Passover lambs and hang up the beds. If it was more than ten handbreadths in length it would be clean, for it is considered independent from the texture, and hence cut away from it, and it is established law that a string by itself cannot be rendered unclean.
^ᶻnote:I.e., less than five handbreadths and it would be clean; thus proving that ‘up to’ is inclusive.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., more than five handbreadths and it would be unclean; for ‘up to’ is exclusive.
^ᵃᵇnote:And unclean; v. p. 298, n. 6.