חולין 58:2 — Soncino English Talmud

that dates which were kept in a vessel [and which became wormy] are permitted after twelve months. Rab said: No gnat lives a complete day, and no fly lives a complete year. R. Papa said to Abaye. But there is a popular story, ‘For seven years the she-gnat quarrelled with the he-gnat. Said she to him, "I was once watching a resident of Mahza bathing in the sea, and when he came out and wrapped himself in a sheet you came and settled down on him and sucked his blood, but you did not tell me of it"’. — He replied: If as you suggest [that it is to be taken literally], behold that other popular saying. ‘A weight of sixty minas of iron is suspended on the gnat's proboscis’. Is this possible? How much does the whole [gnat] weigh? Obviously it speaks of their minas, so in the previous saying it speaks of their years. We have learnt elsewhere: An animal that has five legs or only three is considered with blemish. R. Huna said: This was stated only of a fore-leg that is wanting or too many, but if a hind leg is wanting or too many it is even trefah. Why? Because every addition [of a limb] is deemed equal to the loss [of the limb]. An animal having two sania dibi was brought before Rabina, and he declared it trefah because of R. Huna's principle. If, however, they run into each other it would be permitted. A tube running from the reticulum to the omasum was once found in an animal. R. Ashi was about to declare it trefah when R. Huna Mar b. Hiyya said to him, But all animals that feed in the open fields have this tube! A tube running from the reticulum to the rumen was once found in an animal. R. Ashi was about to declare it permitted when R. Oshaia said to him, Did you weave them all in one web? Where it has been expressly stated it has been stated, but where it has not been expressly stated it has not been stated. Nathan b. Shila, chief slaughterer in Sepphoris, testified before Rabbi: If two sets of intestines issue concurrently from the [abomasum of the animal]. it is trefah; in a bird, however, [an abnormality] such as this would b permitted. This is the rule only if they emerge from two separate parts [of the abomasum], but if they emerge from the same place [in the abomasum] and coalesce within a fingerbreadth, it is permitted. R. Ammi and R. Assi differ; one says they must be fused into one; the other says they need not be fused into one. Now it is well according to him who says that they must be fused into one, for that would be the meaning of the phrase ‘within a fingerbreadth’; but according to him who says that they need not be fused into one, what does ‘within a fingerbreadth’ mean? — It means, [that they are in fact fused into one] in the last fingerbreadth below. R. JUDAH SAYS, IF ITS DOWN WAS GONE IT IS INVALID. R. Johanan said that R. Judah and R. Ishmael both taught the same rule. R. Judah we have just quoted. R. Ishmael we find in the following Mishnah: The down is to be reckoned [with the flesh]. Raba said: Perhaps it is not so? It may be that R. Judah said so only with regard to the law of trefah, for there is nothing else to protect [the bird], but in respect of the law of piggul he would agree with the Rabbis. And, on the other hand, it may be that R. Ishmael said so only with regard to the law of piggul, but in respect of the law of trefah he would hold that it at no time afforded any protection. MISHNAH. IF AN ANIMAL SUFFERED FROM CONGESTION OF THE BLOOD, OR WAS OVERCOME BY FUMES OR BY THE COLD, OR IF IT ATE OLEANDER OR HENS’ DUNG, OR IF IT DRANK NOXIOUS WATER, IT IS PERMITTED. IF IT ATE POISON OR WAS BITTEN BY A SNAKE, IT IS NOT FORBIDDEN AS TREFAH BUT IT IS FORBIDDEN AS A DANGER TO LIFE. GEMARA. Samuel said: If it swallowed asafoetida it is trefah. Why? Because it will perforate the internal organs. R. Shizbi raised the following objection. It was taught: If an animal suffered from congestion of the blood, or was overcome by fumes, or if it ate oleander or hens’ dung, or if it drank noxious water, or if it swallowed crowfoot, asafoetida or pepper, or if it ate poison, it is permitted. If it was bitten by a snake or a mad dog, it is not forbidden as trefah but is forbidden as a danger to life. Is there not here a contradiction in the matter of asafoetida, and also in the matter of poison? — In the matter of asafoetida there is no contradiction, because one speaks of the drops of asafoetida and the other of the leaves. And in the matter of poison there is also no contradiction, because cine speaks of poison for animals and the other of poison for man. But if it is only a poison for animals then it is the same as oleander? — It mentions two kinds of poison. What is crowfoot? — Rab Judah said,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ

^ᵃnote:But it is not known whether the worms entered the dates whilst yet in growth or only after they were plucked from the tree.
^ᵇnote:l.e., if twelve months have elapsed since the dates were picked from the tree. Worms found then in the dates are certainly permitted, for they could not possibly have crawled in the fruit whilst it was yet on the tree, since they could not have existed for so long.
^ᶜnote:I.e., its sting is virulent. Amino is a weight equivalent to a hundred zuz.
^ᵈnote:I.e., according to their ideas of weight and time.
^ᵉnote:Bek. 40a.
^ᶠnote:And is unfit for a sacrifice. But it is not trefah, and therefore may be slaughtered for general use.
^ᵍnote:The abnormal addition of a limb or organ is treated in law as if both the abnormal and also the normal limb or organ were gone. So that if in the absence of a certain limb the animal would be trefah, it would likewise be trefah if there were two of those limbs. (Rashi).
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘disliked by wolves’. A popular name for the inner rumen; v. supra 50b.
^ⁱnote:For it is really one stomach divided into two bags.
^ʲnote:I.e., you cannot bring all cases under one category.
^ᵏnote:That such a tube is usually found in animals that pasture in the open field.
^ˡnote:In such cases it is regarded as an abnormal addition and is trefah in accordance with R. Huna's principle supra.
^ᵐnote:From two parts of the abomasum. This is the interpretation of Rashi and R. Gershom. Alfasi and Maim. interpret quite differently. According to them the passage deals not with a double set of intestines but with an appendix that branches off the main intestines.
^ⁿnote:For it is not uncommon to find two sets of intestines in a bird. V. Rashi.
^ᵒnote:I.e., they have not been separate for more than a fingerbreadth. The word ihkfu, generally translated ‘and they end’, may be derived from the root kkf which means to merge into one, to coalesce. The dispute between R. Ammi and R. Assi which follows arises from the meaning given by each to this word; v. Hal. Ged. ed. Hildesheimer, p. 538.
^ᵖnote:I.e., within the space of a finger breadth they become fused into one.
^ᵠnote:At the entrance of the rectum. This is Rashi's interpretation; v. R. Nissim a.l.
^ʳnote:Namely, that the down of a bird is regarded on the same footing as the skin on an animal.
^ˢnote:So as to make up an olive's size. The reference is to Toh. I, 2, and, according to Rashi and the present text of the Gemara is to be explained as follows: If the priest, whilst nipping off the head of a sin-offering of a bird, expressed the intention of eating an olive's bulk of it at the improper time, and this olive's bulk was made up partly of the flesh and partly of the down of the bird, it would be piggul (v. Glos.), and he would be liable to the penalty of Kareth. In MS.M. and in the old editions, as evidenced by the views of R. Gershom, Tosaf., R. Samson and others, there are found the words ‘the law of uncleanness’ in place of the words in our text ‘the law of piggul’. The interpretation accordingly is as follows: R. Ishmael holds that the down is to be reckoned together with the flesh so as to make the size of an egg — this being the minimum size — in order to convey uncleanness. In other words the down is deemed to be a foodstuff as the flesh.
^ᵗnote:That the down is not deemed to be a foodstuff.
^ᵘnote:And therefore if the down was gone it is of no consequence and it would still be permitted.
^ᵛnote:This and the other herbs mentioned in this passage, as asafoetida, crowfoot, succory, are species of plants some of which exude poisonous juices while others have poisonous leaves.
^ʷnote:Between the ruling of this Baraitha and that of Samuel.
^ˣnote:Between the ruling of this Baraitha and that of our Mishnah.
^ʸnote:Sc. Samuel.
^ᶻnote:Sc. the Baraitha.
^ᵃᵃnote:The leaves, not being poisonous, will not affect the animal that eats them.
^ᵃᵇnote:As the poison in question has no injurious effect upon man, the Baraitha therefore teaches that the animal that took it is still valid.
^ᵃᶜnote:Sc. our Mishnah.