Chullin

With 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,1 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?2 But then this view would be identical with [that mentioned above] ‘in the region of the intestines’.3 It must mean, therefore, from the pan of the brain to the hips.4 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 teachers5 I remained standing! And in what [do you think] he excelled? He excelled in everything!’6 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,7 the animal is permitted, for it is impossible to have cut through an organ that had been torn loose.8 R. Johanan, however, said: He should compare it.9 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.10 The members of the house of Joseph the fowler used to kill beasts by striking them on the sciatic nerve. When they came to enquire11 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 enquire11 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;12 (TO WHAT EXTENT MAY IT BE DEFICIENT? R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS, UP TO AN ITALIAN ISSAR).13 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;14 IF THE SPLEEN WAS GONE, OR THE KIDNEYS, OR THE LOWER JAW-BONE.15 OR THE WOMB; IF THE LUNG WAS SHRIVELLED UP BY AN ACT OF GOD.16 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’. expression ‘from the scapula to the hips’. 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. therefore would only pass from one organ into the other and could in no way cause an infection of the internal organs. or by lightning.