חולין 56 — Soncino English Talmud

¹meaning to include the skin of the pudenda at the improper place, the sacrifice would be invalid, and he would not be liable to the punishment of Kareth, but at the improper time it would be piggul, and he would be liable to the punishment of Kareth. MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING [DEFECTS] RENDER BIRDS TREFAH: IF THE GULLET WAS PIERCED, OR THE WINDPIPE SEVERED; IF A WEASEL STRUCK [THE BIRD] ON THE HEAD IN SUCH A PLACE AS WOULD RENDER IT TREFAH; IF THE GIZZARD OR THE INTESTINES WERE PIERCED. IF IT FELL INTO THE FIRE AND ITS INTERNAL ORGANS WERE SCORCHED AND THEY TURNED GREEN, IT IS INVALID, BUT IF THEY REMAINED RED IT IS VALID. IF ONE TROD UPON IT OR KNOCKED IT AGAINST A WALL OR IF AN ANIMAL TRAMPLED UPON IT, AND IT STILL JERKS ITS LIMBS, AND IT REMAINED ALIVE AFTER THIS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, AND IT WAS THEREAFTER SLAUGHTERED, IT IS VALID. GEMARA. Rab, Samuel and Levi say: One should insert the finger into the mouth [of the bird and press upon the upper palate] and apply this test: if the brain substance oozes [through the hole in the skull] it is trefah, but if not it is permitted. This is well, however, only according to him who says that unless the lower membrane of the brain has also been pierced [it would not be trefah]; but according to him who says that [it is trefah] even if only the upper membrane and not the lower had been pierced, we ought to be apprehensive of this test for it might well be that the upper membrane has been pierced and the lower has not. — If it were so, that the upper membrane had been pierced, then the lower on account of its tenderness would most certainly break [by reason of the pressure of the finger]. Ze'iri said: No test is of any avail against [the bite of] a weasel because its teeth are fine. But what does it matter if its teeth are fine? — R. Oshaia corrected: Because its teeth are fine and curved. When he [Ze'iri] went up to Nehardea he sent back word saying. ‘That statement which I made before you was wrong. Verily, it has been reported in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish that one may examine [the membrane of the brain against the bite of] a weasel with the finger but not with a nail, but R. Johanan had said: Even with a nail’. Now they differ upon the same principles as in the controversy between R. Judah and R. Nehemiah. For one used to make the test with the finger and the other used to make the test with a needle. Said he who made the test with the finger to him who made the test with a needle, ‘How long will you go on wasting the money of Israel’! Replied he who made the test with a nail to him who made the test with the finger. ‘And how long will you go on feeding Israel with nebelah’! Nebelah? But it has been ritually slaughtered! Rather [say] trefah, for the membrane of the brain might have been pierced. It can be proved that it was R. Judah who used to make the test with the finger, for it has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Judah. One may examine [the membrane of the brain against the bite of] a weasel with the finger but not with a nail. If the bone [of the skull] was broken, even though the membrane of the brain had not been pierced, [it is trefah]. It is indeed proved — But is there not a contradiction in this very [Baraitha]? It first says: ‘One may examine [the membrane of the brain against the bite of] a weasel with the finger but not with a nail’, which shows clearly that the examination is adequate, and then it says. ‘If the bone [of the skull] was broken even though the membrane of the brain had not been pierced [it is trefah]’, which shows clearly that the examination is of no avail! — The latter statement refers to a water bird for it has no membrane. ‘It has no membrane’! Is this possible? — Rather, it means, its membrane is so fine [that the examination is of no avail]. R. Nahman said to R. ‘Anan: ‘Did you not tell us, Master, that Samuel used to make the test with the finger and would declare the bird permitted? And our colleague Huna also reported that Rab used to make the test with the finger and declare it permitted. But surely Levi has taught. The defects enumerated by the Sages in the case of cattle equally apply [wherever possible] to birds; there is, however, this addition in the case of birds, namely: If the bone [of the skull] was broken even though the membrane of the brain has not been pierced!’ — He replied: ‘The latter [defect] refers only to a water bird, for it has no membrane’. ‘It has no membrane’! Is this possible? — Rather, it means, its membrane is very fine. A hen belonging to R. Hana was sent to R. Mattena, for the bone of its skull had been broken but the membrane of the brain had not been pierced; and he declared it to be permitted. He [R. Hana] remarked: But Levi has taught: The defects enumerated by the Sages in the case of cattle equally apply to birds; there is, however, this addition in the case of birds, namely: If the bone of the skull was broken even though the membrane of the brain has not been pierced! — He replied: That [defect] refers only to a water bird for it has no membrane. ‘It has no membrane’! Is this possible? — Rather, it means, its membrane is very fine. R. Shizbi used to examine [the membrane of the brain of a bird] by the light of the sun. R. Yemar used to examine it with water. R. Aha b. Jacob used to examine it^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:Sc. the skin of the female genitalia. This was not expressly stated but had to be included by inference because the Baraitha deals with a burnt-offering which is a male beast.
^ᵇnote:As a general rule it is accepted that all those defects which render cattle trefah will likewise render birds trefah, v. infra, the dictum of Levi. The Tanna of this Mishnah therefore enumerates only those defects which apply exclusively to birds, except for three or four defects for which there are special reasons for their repetition; v. Rashi.
^ᶜnote:This must mean that the weasel struck it with its teeth and not with its fore-paw, for then it would have to be considered under the defect of ‘clawing’; v. supra 52bff.
^ᵈnote:I.e., in that part of the skull under which is situated the membrane of the brain.
^ᵉnote:I.e., those organs which are naturally red, e.g., the heart or the liver or the gizzard. On the other hand, a scorching of those organs which are normally greenish yellow, e.g. the intestines, would render the bird trefah only if they turned red.
^ᶠnote:In these three cases there is grave fear that it sustained a lesion of the internal organs as in the case of a fall, v. supra 51aff.
^ᵍnote:In the case of a bird struck on the head by a weasel in order to ascertain whether the membranes of the brain have been pierced or not.
^ʰnote:V. supra 450.
^ⁱnote:So that even though nothing of the brain substance exudes it might nevertheless be trefah because of the perforation of the upper membrane. Accordingly the test stated is not reliable.
^ʲnote:One may therefore be certain that if nothing of the brain substance exudes the upper membrane has not been pierced.
^ᵏnote:And the hole in the skull would not coincide with the hole in the membrane, so that even in the membrane of the brain were pierced, the bone of the skull that is immediately above it would prevent any of the brain substance from escaping.
^ˡnote:The test with a nail (or a needle or a straw, cf. infra) is a delicate operation. The bone of the skull must first be removed and the nail must be passed gently over the surface of the membrane of the brain. If anything catches or holds up the nail in its course it indicates a perforation and it is trefah. The danger in this operation is that the man whilst making this test might inadvertently pierce the membrane with the nail, and he would then have to declare the bird trefah, though it was not really trefah, thus occasioning loss unto the Israelite.
^ᵐnote:By reason of the danger demonstrated in the preceding note.
^ⁿnote:And the test with the finger is of no avail since the teeth of a weasel are fine and curved; v. supra. p. 306, n. 6.
^ᵒnote:Tosef. Hul. III.
^ᵖnote:It nothing of the brain substance escaped, although there is an obvious hole or crack in the skull.
^ᵠnote:He would first empty the brain matter out of the membrane and then would fill the latter with water; if the water leaked out it is evident that it had been pierced and it would be trefah. Another method of testing by water is to pour water into the hole of the skull and after a few moments to pour it out into a basin; if the water now appears milky it is a clear indication that some of the brain matter as escaped and mixed with this water, and it would be trefah on account of the perforation of the membrane.

²with a straw of wheat. R. Shizbi said: Our geese are regarded as water birds. IF IT FELL INTO THE FIRE. R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Jose b. Joshua: The size of the green patch [on any of the internal organs required to render a bird trefah] is the same as the size of the hole. Just as a hole, however small, [renders trefah], so does a green patch, however small, [render trefah]. R. Joseph, son of R. Joshua b. Levi, asked R. Joshua b. Levi: What is the law if that part of the liver which lies in front of the entrails turned green? — He replied: It would be trefah. But, retorted the other, it should not be worse than if the liver was gone? — Raba answered: Since the part of the liver which lies in front of the entrails has turned green, one can be certain that the bird had fallen into the fire and its internal organs had been scorched; it is therefore trefah. R. Joshua b. Levi had a hen which he sent to R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi. He replied. They are still green; and he declared it permitted. But we have learnt: IF THEY TURNED GREEN IT IS INVALID! — They said: IF THEY TURNED GREEN IT IS INVALID, only with regard to the gizzard, the heart, or the liver There is also a Baraitha that supports this, viz., With regard to which organs did they state the rule [that if they turned green it was invalid]? Only with regard to the gizzard, the heart, or the liver. R. Isaac b. Joseph had a hen which he sent to R. Abbahu. He replied. They have turned red; and he declared it trefah. But we have learnt: IF THEY REMAINED RED IT IS VALID! — He replied, [The rule is:] If organs which are normally red turned green, or organs which are normally green turned red [it is trefah]; for they said: IF THEY REMAINED RED IT IS VALID, only with regard to the heart, the gizzard, or the liver. R. Samuel b. Hiyya said in the name of R. Mani: If organs which are normally red turned green [on the hen falling into the fire], but after being cooked turned again to red, it is valid. Why? For it was merely the smoke that had entered into them [and had discoloured them temporarily]. R. Nahman b. Isaac remarked: Then we too can say likewise: If organs which are normally red did not turn green [on the hen falling into the fire], but after being cooked were found to have turned green, it is invalid. Why? Their shame has only now been brought to light! Therefore, said R. Ashi, one should not eat [a hen that had fallen into the fire] without first cooking the internal organs. But this is not right, for we do not assume any taint [without cause]. IF ONE TROD UPON IT OR KNOCKED IT AGAINST A WALL . . . IT IS VALID. R. Eleazar b. Antigonos said in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Jannai: In each case the bird must be examined. MISHNAH. AND THE FOLLOWING [DEFECTS] DO NOT RENDER BIRDS TREFAH: IF THE WINDPIPE WAS PIERCED OR SLIT LENGTHWISE; IF A WEASEL STRUCK IT ON THE HEAD IN SUCH A PLACE AS WOULD NOT RENDER IT TREFAH; IF THE CROP WAS PIERCED (RABBI SAYS, EVEN IF IT WAS GONE); IF THE ENTRAILS PROTRUDED [FROM THE BODY] BUT WERE NOT PIERCED; IF ITS WINGS WERE BROKEN, OR ITS LEGS; OR IF ITS FEATHERS WERE PLUCKED OUT. R. JUDAH SAYS, IF ITS DOWN WAS GONE IT IS INVALID. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: It is related of R. Simai and R. Zadok that when they were on their way to Lydda in order to intercalate the year they spent the Sabbath at Ono, and they ruled concerning the womb as Rabbi concerning the crop. It was asked: Does it mean, they ruled that if the womb was gone it was forbidden. and they also ruled, like Rabbi, that if the crop was gone it was permitted? Or, does it mean, they ruled that if the womb was gone it was permitted just as Rabbi rules concerning the crop, but in the case of the crop they do not agree with Rabbi's ruling? — It remains undecided. Rabbah, others say R. Joshua b. Levi, said: The top of the crop is regarded as the gullet. Where is this? — R. Bibi b. Abaye said: It is that part of the crop at which point it begins to elongate. IF THE ENTRAILS PROTRUDED. R. Samuel b. R. Isaac said: The Mishnah refers only to the case where they were not twisted [when put back], but if they were twisted [when put back] it would be trefah, for it is written: Hath He not made thee and established thee? which implies that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in man every organ on its foundation, so that if any one organ is twisted man cannot live. It was taught: R. Meir used to expound this verse as follows: Hath He not made thee and established thee? [Israel is] a community wherein all [classes] are to be found: out of them come their priests, out of them their prophets, out of them their princes, out of them their kings, as it is written: Out of them shall come forth the corner-stone, out of them the stake etc. A gentile once saw a man fall from the roof to the ground so that his belly burst open and his entrails protruded. [The gentile] thereupon brought the son [of the victim] and by an optical illusion made out as if he slaughtered him in the presence of the father.24^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ

^ʳnote:V. supra p. 307, n. 1.
^ˢnote:And are to be declared trefah if only the bone of the skull had been broken, because the membrane is so very fine.
^ᵗnote:In which case it would be permitted.
^ᵘnote:The hen had presumably fallen into the fire.
^ᵛnote:Sc. the intestines.
^ʷnote:I.e., in respect of those organs only which are normally red.
^ˣnote:The symptoms of scorching have only now appeared, but it is certainly trefah.
^ʸnote:For the symptoms might appear in the organs only after the cooking.
^ᶻnote:So that as long as there are no evident symptoms of scorching we must not assume any taint in the condition of the bird.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., even where it continued alive for twenty-four hours it must nevertheless be examined in order to ascertain that the spinal cord has not been severed.
^ᵃᵇnote:l.e., in any part of the head not immediately above the brain. For the meaning of ‘struck’ v. 2upra p. 305, n. 7.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., the soft and fine feathers which are close to the body of the bird.
^ᵃᵈnote:A village about three miles to the north of Lydda, mentioned in Ezra II, 33. Its modern name is Kefr Ana.
^ᵃᵉnote:MS.M. reads ‘permitted’. This reading is preferred by Tosaf. s.v. thgcht.
^ᵃᶠnote:The question is really this: Did they make two decisions, one affecting the womb and the other the crop, or did they only make one decision and that with regard to the womb?
^ᵃᵍnote:So that the slightest perforation there would render the bird trefah.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘all that stretches with it’, i.e., with the oesophagus. It refers to the point at which the crop begins to taper and to form into the tube of the oesophagus.
^ᵃⁱnote:Because this would cause a deterioration and finally a perforation of the intestines (Tosaf.)
^ᵃʲnote:Deut. XXXII. 6. Heb. lbbufhu.
^ᵃᵏnote:Heb. ,uhbbuf, ‘fixed on a basis’, ‘foundations’.
^ᵃˡnote:Lit., ‘a city’.
^ᵃᵐnote:Zech. X. 4.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lit., ‘an Aramean’. In MS.M. ‘A Roman’; so also in Alfasi.
^ᵃᵒnote:The purpose of this trick was to horrify him so terribly as to cause him to take in a deep breath and draw in his entrails, thus they would be replaced without the aid of the hand of man.