Chullin

up to the hilum [of the kidney]. Where is this? — At the white [calyces in the middle of the kidney] which are immediately below the loins. R. Nehuniah said: I enquired of all those who decide questions of trefah in the West and they told me that the law was in accordance with the ruling of Rakish b. Papa, but that the law was not in accordance with the ruling of R. ‘Awira. This1 is so, however, only if it [the spleen] was pierced in the flat part, but if it was pierced in the thick part it is trefah. And if there remained [of the spleen] the thickness of a golden denar [that had not been pierced], it is permitted. It was said in the West: Whatsoever is considered a defect in the lung is not a defect in the kidney, for a perforation is a defect in the lung and is not a defect in the kidney; and of course, whatsoever is not considered a defect in the lung is not a defect in the kidney. R. Tanhuma demurred: Is this a fast rule? But take the case of pus, which [if found] in the lung is not considered a defect, but in the kidney is considered a defect. And indeed, take the case of clear water which [if found] in either organ is not a defect.2 Rather said R. Ashi: Do you compare defects with each other? Amongst the various defects we cannot say that this resembles that; for an animal may be cut in one place and die, and in another place and live.3 Now this ruling, that if filled4 with clear water it is permitted, applies only if the water was pellucid, but if it was turbid it is trefah. And the ruling, that if filled with pellucid water it is permitted, applies only if the water was not fetid, but if it was fetid it is trefah. If the kidney diminished in size,5 down to a bean in the case of small cattle, or down to a medium sized grape in the case of large cattle, [it is trefah]. 6 (IF THE LOWER JAW-BONE WAS GONE. R. Zera said: The Mishnah teaches [that it is permitted] only where the animal can continue to live by the stuffing and the pushing of food [into its gullet], but if it cannot continue to live by the stuffing and the pushing of food [into its gullet] it is trefah.)7 IF THE WOMB WAS GONE. A Tanna taught: ‘Em, tarpahath, and shalpuhith, are all one and the same thing.8 IF THE LUNG WAS SHRIVELLED UP9 BY AN ACT OF GOD IT IS PERMITTED. Our Rabbis taught: What is harusah?9 If its lung was shrivelled up; if by an act of God it is permitted, but if by the act of man10 it is trefah. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Even by other creatures. It was asked: Does he [R. Simeon b. Eleazar] refer to the first clause,11 thus making the law more lenient, or does he refer to the second clause,12 thus making it more strict? — Come and hear: It was taught: If it was shrivelled up by an act of man it is trefah. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Even by other creatures [it is also trefah]. Rabbah b. Bar Hana was once travelling through a desert when he came upon certain rams whose lungs were all shrivelled up.13 He went and enquired about them at the college, and was told the following: In summer one must take white glazed basins, fill them with cold water, and leave the lungs therein for a period of twenty-four hours; if they return to their normal state it is a sign that it was caused by an act of God, and they are permitted, otherwise they are trefah. In winter one must take dark14 glazed basins, fill them with warm water, and leave the lungs therein for a period of twenty-four hours; if they return to their normal state they are permitted, otherwise they are trefah. IF AN ANIMAL WAS STRIPPED OF ITS HIDE. Our Rabbis taught: If it was stripped of its hide, R. Meir declares it valid, but the Rabbis declare it invalid. Long ago Eleazar the scribe and Johanan b. Gudgada had testified that an animal stripped of its hide was invalid. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said that R. Meir had retracted his view. It would follow, therefore, that according to R. Simeon b. Eleazar R. Meir did dispute the law of an animal stripped of its hide [with the Rabbis]. But Surely it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: There was never any dispute between R. Meir and the Rabbis in the case of an animal stripped of its hide, for it is certainly invalid. Moreover, R. Oshaia, the son of R. Judah the spice-dealer, had testified before R. Akiba on the authority of R. Tarfon, that an animal stripped of its hide was invalid. But if there remained thereof the size of a sela’, it was permitted! — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered that the words, ‘There was never any dispute’, meant that R. Meir did not persist in the controversy. 15 The Master stated: ‘If there remained thereof the size of a sela’ it was permitted’. Where must this be? — Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Along the entire backbone. It was asked: Does this mean, a long thin strip [along the entire backbone], so that when rolled up it would be the size of a sela’, or does it mean, [a strip] the width of a sela’ along the entire backbone? — Come and hear, for R. Nehorai explained it on the authority of Samuel to mean, [a strip] the width of a sela’ along the entire backbone. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said, [There must be the size of a sela’] at the top of every joint. R. Eleazar b. Antigonos said in the name of R. Eleazar b. R. Jannai, At the navel. R. Jannai son of R. Ishmael raised this question: What if the skin along the entire backbone was gone but all the rest of it remained, or if the skin at the navel was gone but all the rest of it remained, or if the skin at the top of each joint was gone but all the rest of it remained? — This remains undecided. Rab said: Any [remnant of] skin anywhere [the size of a sela’] saves [the animal from being declared trefah], except the skin around the hoofs.16 But R. Johanan said: Even the skin around the hoofs saves [the animal from being declared trefah]. R. Assi enquired of R. Johanan, ‘Would the skin around the hoofs save [the animal from being declared trefah]?’ — He replied: ‘It would’. ‘But’, retorted the other, ‘you, our teacher, have taught us, "In the following cases the skin is accounted as flesh: . . . the skin around the hoofs"’.17 — He replied: ‘Do not weary me [with your arguments], for I taught that as the opinion of an individual.18 For it was taught:19 If a man slaughtered a burnt-offering purposing to burn an olive's bulk of the skin from under the fat tail20 at the improper place, the sacrifice is invalid, and he is not liable to the punishment of Kareth,21 but [if he purposed to burn it] at the improper time, it would be piggul,21 and he would be liable to the punishment of Kareth. Eliezer b. Judah of Ibelaim22 stated in the name of R. Jacob, similarly R. Simeon b. Judah of Kefar ‘Ikus23 stated in the name of R. Simeon, [If a man while slaughtering a burnt-offering purposed to burn] either the skin around the hoofs, or the skin of the head of a young calf,24 or the skin from under the fat tail, or any of the skins which were enumerated by the Sages in connection with the law of uncleanness when they stated that ‘In the following cases the skin is as the flesh’ 25 ruling which followed as a matter of course makes this statement meaningless; but v. Tosaf a.I. It seems that the entire passage is corrupt. R. Gershom comments upon this line, but on the other hand does not seem to have had the second ruling in his text. A very likely original text is to be found in the Alfasi on this passage, q.v. the authority of the Geonim, so that it is clear that it did not form part of the text of the Gemara. Rashal deletes it from current ed. and would be permitted. and is regarded as flesh and not as hide; consequently such skin would not save the animal from being declared trefah. law.