חולין 57 — Soncino English Talmud

¹The father became faint, sighed deeply and drew in his entrails; whereupon his belly was immediately stitched up. IF ITS LEGS WERE BROKEN. A basket full of birds, each bird having its legs broken, was brought before Raba. He examined each at the juncture of the tendons and declared them to be permitted. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If the fore-leg of an animal was dislodged, it is permitted; if the femur of an animal was dislodged, it is trefah; if the femur of a bird was dislodged, it is trefah; if the wing of a bird was dislodged, it is trefah, for we apprehend that the lung has been pierced. Samuel said: It should be examined. R. Johanan also said: It should be examined. Hezekiah stated: A bird has no lungs. R. Johanan said: It has [lungs] and they are like rose petals situated immediately beneath the wings. What is meant by, ‘A bird has no lungs’? Does it mean that it has no lungs at all? But we see that it has! And should it mean that any defect therein would not render trefah? Surely Levi has taught: The defects enumerated by the Sages in the case of cattle apply also to birds, with 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! — We must therefore say that the statement ‘It has no lungs’ means that they are in no wise affected, whether the bird falls down [from the roof] or is scorched [in the fire]. Why is it so? — R. Hannah answered: Because they are protected by most of the ribs. But surely since R. Johanan has said that it has [lungs] and they are like rose petals situated immediately beneath the wings, it follows that Hezekiah was of the opinion that it has no [lungs] at all! — In truth, it has been said in the West in the name of R. Jose, son of R. Hanina, ‘It is evident from the statement of Beribbi that he knew nothing of fowls’. R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If the femur of a bird was dislodged, it is permitted. Rabbah, son of R. Huna, said to R. Huna, ‘But the Rabbis who came from Pumbeditha reported the statement of Rab Judah in the name of Rab thus: If the femur of a bird was dislodged it is trefah’! — He replied: ‘My son, every river has its own course’. R. Abba once went and found R. Jeremiah b. Abba examining [a bird] at the juncture of the tendons. Said R. Abba, ‘Why does the Master go to all this trouble? Has not R. Huna reported in the name of Rab: If the femur of a bird was dislodged it is permitted?’ — He replied. ‘I know only of the following Mishnah: If the hind legs of an animal were cut off below the knee-joint it is permitted, above the knee joint it is trefah; similarly, if the juncture of the tendons was gone it is trefah. And Rab has said: The same is the law in the case of a bird’. ‘Then is there not here a contradiction between the two statements of Rab?’ — He [R. Jeremiah] remained silent. The other thereupon suggested. ‘Perhaps he [Rab] makes a distinction in law between a limb dislodged and a limb cut off’? — He [R. Jeremiah] then said: ‘And you merely suggest this distinction in Rab! Rab has expressly said so: If the femur [of a bird] was dislodged it is permitted, but if cut off it is trefah. And be not amazed at this! For if the animal is cut in one place it will die, and if cut in another place it will live’! When R. Abba went up [to Palestine] he found R. Zera sitting and reciting as follows: R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If the femur of a bird was dislodged it is trefah. R. Abba said to him, ‘By your life! Since the day you left [Babylon] to go up here11^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ

^ᵃnote:hruebt. According to Jast. ‘a bird with traces of bites or wounds on its legs’. Rashi gives as a second explanation of this word, which he quotes as the view of the Geonim, viz., ‘black birds with white spots on their heads’.
^ᵇnote:In all these cases of dislodgement of a limb it must be assumed that the ligaments were destroyed, so Rashi and Tosaf.
^ᶜnote:I.e., the lung must be inflated, and if no air escapes from it it is permitted.
^ᵈnote:A title of honour, applied to Hezekiah.
^ᵉnote:Meaning that every district has its own customs and usages. Rab indeed was of the opinion that if the femur of the bird was dislodged it was permitted, but where the practice obtained, as in Pumbeditha, to regard it as trefah, Rab would not interfere with or overrule the prevailing custom. This, however, gave rise to the belief that Rab also held it to be trefah.
^ᶠnote:The femur of this bird had been dislodged and he was therefore examining the bird in order to ascertain that the juncture of the tendons was unaffected.
^ᵍnote:And we are not concerned about the juncture of the tendons as to whether it has been affected or not.
^ʰnote:Infra 76a.
^ⁱnote:I.e., if the juncture of the tendons in a bird was gone or destroyed it would be trefah.
^ʲnote:Where the limb was dislodged and detached from the body, although the juncture of the tendons is now gone entirely, the animal is permitted, but where the limb was cut on the juncture of the tendons it would be trefah, for the constant pain of this injury would affect the general condition of the animal.
^ᵏnote:R. Zera had also left Babylon some time before R. Abba in order to continue his studies in Palestine.

²we had an opportunity of asking R. Huna about this and he told us. If the femur of a bird was dislodged it was permitted. Moreover, I once found R. Jeremiah b. Aba sitting and examining [the femur of a bird) at the juncture of the tendons, and I put to him the question. "Does not the Master concur with the view reported by R. Huna in the name of Rab that if the femur of a bird was dislodged it was permitted"? and he replied. "I know only of the Mishnah: If the hind legs of an animal were cut off below the knee joint it is permitted, above the knee joint it is trefah; similarly, if the juncture of the tendons was gone it is trefah. And Rab has said. The same is the law in the case of a bird". I then said to him, "Then is there not here a contradiction between the two statements of Rab"? At this he remained silent, and I thereupon suggested: "Perhaps Rab makes a distinction in law between a limb dislodged and a limb cut off"? And he replied, "And you merely suggest this distinction in Rab! Rab has expressly said so: If the femur [of a bird] was dislodged it is permitted, but if cut off it is trefah". Now what further traditions have you about it’? — [He replied,] ‘Thus said R. Hiyya b. Ashi in the name of Rab. If the femur of a bird was dislodged it is trefah’. So, too, did R. Jacob b. Idi say in the name of R. Johanan. If the femur of a bird was dislodged it is trefah. And R. Jacob b. Idi further said: Had R. Johanan been present there when the leading scholars ruled that it was permitted, he would not have raised a voice against it. For R. Hanina reported in the name of Rabbi: If the femur of a bird was dislodged it is permitted. Indeed, R. Hanina once had a hen the femur of which had become dislodged and he brought it to Rabbi, and the latter declared it to be permitted. Thereupon R. Hanina preserved it in salt and used it to demonstrate the law to the pupils: ‘This did Rabbi permit to me, this did Rabbi permit to me’. The law, however, does not rest with any of the above views [that declare it to be permitted], but it is as stated in the following incident: R. Jose b. Nehorai asked R. Joshua b. Levi, ‘How large must a hole in the windpipe be [in order to render the animal trefah]?’ He replied. ‘We have learnt it as a clear statement in our Mishnah, viz., Up to an Italian issar’. The other retorted: ‘But there was a lamb in our neighbourhood in whose windpipe there was a [large] hole and they inserted in it a tube of reed and it recovered’! He rejoined. ‘And can you rely upon this? Is not the law widespread in Israel that if the femur of a bird is dislodged it is trefah? Nevertheless it is related that R. Simeon b. Halafta had a hen whose femur was dislodged, and they prepared for it a tube of reed [as a support] and it recovered! You can only suggest in explanation [that it recovered] within twelve months [of the injury], so in the former case too you must say [that it recovered] within twelve months [of the injury]. It was said of R. Simeon b. Halafta that he was an experimenter in all things. Indeed he once made an experiment to disprove R. Judah's view. For we have learnt: R. JUDAH SAYS, IF ITS DOWN WAS GONE IT IS INVALID. Now R. Simeon b. Halafta once had a hen whose down was gone entirely. He put it into the oven, having first wrapped it in the [warm] leather apron used by bronze workers, and it grew feathers even larger than the original ones. But perhaps R. Judah maintains that a trefah can improve? — Surely not in that very physical blemish which rendered it trefah! For here it grew feathers even larger than the original ones. Why was he called an experimenter? — R. Mesharsheya said: It is written: Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways and be wise: which having no chief, overseer, or ruler, provideth her bread in the summer. He [R. Simeon b. Halafta] said: I shall go and find out whether it is true that they have no king. He went at the summer solstice, and spread his coat over an ant-hill. When one [ant] came out he marked it, and it immediately entered and informed the others that shadows had fallen, whereupon they all came forth. He then removed his coat and the sun beat down upon them. Thereupon they set upon this ant and killed it. He then said: It is clear that they have no king, for otherwise they would surely have required to obtain royal sanction! R. Aha, son of Raba, said to R. Ashi: But perhaps the king was with them, or they had royal authority, or it was during an interregnum [when they were under no law], as it is written: In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes! Rather must you take the word of Solomon for it. R. Huna said: The test for a trefah is twelve months. An objection was raised. It was taught: The test for a trefah is that it cannot bring forth young. R. Simon b. Gamaliel says. If it improves in health it is certainly fit, if it wastes away it is certainly trefah. Rabbi says: The test for a trefah is thirty days. But they said to him: Is it not a fact that many continue to live for two or three years? — Tannaim differ in this, for it was taught: If in the skull there was one long hole or if there were many small holes in it — in either case the hole or holes are computed to make up the measure of a hole the size of a [surgical] drill. R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam said: It happened at ‘Ain Ibl that a person had a hole in his skull and they put over it a plaster of a gourd-shell and he recovered. But R. Simeon said to him: Do you mean to prove your case from that? It happened in the summer months but when winter set in he died. R. Aha b. Jacob said: The halachah is that a trefah animal can bring forth young and can also improve. Amemar said: As to the eggs of a bird that was [rendered] trefah.^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ

^ˡnote:Lit., ‘collegiates’.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘he would not have moved’.
^ⁿnote:Cf. infra: ‘The law is widespread in Israel that if the femur of a bird is dislodged it is trefah’.
^ᵒnote:I.e., it was only a temporary recovery and could not continue to live for full twelve months after the injury, for the principle is well established that a trefah cannot continue to live for twelve months after the injury.
^ᵖnote:R. Judah would hold that it is not unlikely for an animal though trefah to improve temporarily in its physical condition.
^ᵠnote:Inasmuch as the loss of its feathers was the cause of the bird being regarded trefah it surely would not now increase its plumage.
^ʳnote:Prov. VI, 6-8.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘at the cycle of Tammuz’, i.e., the quarter of the year following June 21 st, the summer solstice.
^ᵗnote:For ants shun the fierce heat of the sun and only venture forth in the shade.
^ᵘnote:For having deceived them.
^ᵛnote:For the execution of the delinquent ant.
^ʷnote:I.e., they acted within the law which provides that one that deceives others shall be put to death.
^ˣnote:Jud. XVII, 6.
^ʸnote:If an animal about which there arose a doubt whether it was trefah or not continued to live twelve months — or according to Rabbi, infra, thirty days — it certainly was not trefah.
^ᶻnote:This does not mean to say that if it cannot bring forth young it is certainly trefah, for this may be due to various causes; but it means that if it does bring forth young it is certainly not trefah (Tosaf.).
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit., ‘it is known’.
^ᵃᵇnote:The objection against R. Huna is that none of the teachers in this Baraitha mention the test period of twelve months.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. supra 45a.
^ᵃᵈnote:‘Ain Ibl North West of Saffed. Klein's N.B., p. 41.
^ᵃᵉnote:The man did not, as R. Jose imagined, live on for years. He did not live full twelve months, for as soon as the winter set in he died. It is therefore indicated in this Baraitha that a trefah cannot live through a winter and a summer, i.e., twelve months, thus agreeing with R. Huna.