מפת הסוגיא — חולין נ״אSugya map — Chullin 51

המשנה מנתה המסס ובית הכוסות שניקבו לחוץ. ברייתא: מחט הנמצאת בעובי דופן בית הכוסות — אם ניקבה רק מצד אחד, כשרה; ומשני הצדדים, היינו שניקבה את הדופן לגמרי, טריפה. ואם נמצא קורט דם על המחט —

§ The mishna states: An animal is a tereifa if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, i.e., to the abdominal cavity. With regard to this, the Sages taught: In the case of a needle that is found in the thickness of the reticulum, if it pierced the wall from only one side, the animal is kosher. If it pierced the wall from both sides, i.e., the needle completely pierced the wall of the stomach, it is a tereifa. But even if it protrudes from both sides, it is not always a tereifa, and it may be inspected further: If a drop of congealed blood is found on top of the needle,

— בידוע שהנקב נעשה לפני השחיטה, וטריפה; ואם לא נמצא עליה קורט דם — בידוע שלאחר השחיטה, כשהדם כבר חדל לזוב, וכשרה.

it is certain that the perforation was created before the slaughter of the animal, and it is therefore a tereifa. If a drop of blood is not found on it, it is certain that it occurred after the slaughter, when the blood of the animal had stopped flowing. The animal is therefore kosher.

דין ממוני נלווה: אם נקרם עור על פי הנקב — בידוע שהנקב קדם לשחיטה בשלושה ימים, והקונה יכול לתבוע את כספו. לא הגליד — ספק, וההלכה: המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה, ועל הקונה להוכיח שהנקב קדם לקנייה.

If a scab covered the opening of the wound, i.e., the perforation, it is certain that the perforation occurred three days before the slaughter. Consequently, if the animal was sold less than three days before the slaughter, the buyer can claim that the transaction was performed in error, as he did not intend to purchase a tereifa animal, and the seller must refund the buyer. If a scab did not cover the opening of the wound, and it is uncertain whether the perforation occurred before or after the animal was purchased, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Accordingly, the buyer must furnish proof that the perforation occurred before the purchase in order to demand a refund.

קושיא: ומדוע נקב זה שונה מכל שאר נקבים, שבהם מטריפים אף כשאין דם? תירוץ: בשאר נקבים אין דבר שהדם ייסרך עליו, אבל כאן יש מחט — ואילו הנקב קדם לשחיטה, הדם היה נסרך עליה. משחסר דם, הנקב לאחר שחיטה.

The Gemara asks: But in what way is this case different from all other perforations, where even though there is no blood on the wound the Master deems the animal a tereifa? The Gemara responds: There, in all other cases, there is nothing to which the blood can attach. Even if the wound had bled, the blood would be reabsorbed into the flesh. Here, since there is a needle, it follows that if it is the case that the perforation occurred before slaughter, blood from the wound would have attached to the needle. Accordingly, if there is no blood on the needle, it is certain that the perforation occurred after slaughter.

רב ספרא לאביי: בא תלמיד חכם מארץ ישראל, רב עוירא שמו, ומסר שמעשה בא לפני רבי במחט שנמצאה בעובי בית הכוסות מצד אחד — וטרפה רבי. הדבר סותר את הברייתא, שמצד אחד כשרה. אביי שלח לו, ולא בא; הלך אליו, ומצאו עומד על הגג. ביקש שירד, ולא ירד, ועלה אליו ושאל: ספר לי כיצד היה המעשה ממש.

The Gemara relates that Rav Safra said to Abaye: Did the Master see a Torah scholar who came from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and said: My name is Rav Avira? He said that there was an incident that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi involving a needle that was found in the thickness of the reticulum protruding from only one side, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. Abaye sent a message to Rav Avira calling for him to come and explain the matter, since this contradicts the baraita that states that the animal is a tereifa only if the needle protrudes from both sides. Rav Avira did not come before him, so Abaye went before Rav Avira. Rav Avira was standing on the roof. Abaye said to him: Let Master descend and come, but Rav Avira did not descend. Abaye ascended to him and said to him: Say to me, what were the circumstances of the incident itself?

רב עוירא: באה לפני רבי מחט שנמצאה מצד אחד, והפך רבי את בית הכוסות ומצא קורט דם בצד שכנגד, וטרפה, ואמר: אם אין שם מכה, מנין קורט הדם? נמצא שניקבה לחוץ משני הצדדים. אביי: אם כן, לחינם טרחת אותי — זו עצמה המשנה, ״המסס ובית הכוסות שניקבו לחוץ״.

Rav Avira said to him: I am a director of assemblies in the study hall. I was standing above the Great Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rav Huna of Tzippori and Rabbi Yosei of Media were sitting before him, and a needle came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that was found in the thickness of the reticulum protruding from one side, i.e., the inside, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi turned the reticulum over and found a drop of blood on the outside, parallel to the wound on the inside, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. And he said: If there is no wound on the outside there as well, from where is this drop of blood? Abaye said to Rav Avira: He caused that man trouble needlessly, i.e., you troubled me for no reason. This is nothing more than the mishna, which states that an animal is a tereifa if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated to the outside.

המשנה: ״נפלה מן הגג״ — טריפה, מחשש שנתרסקו אבריה. רב הונא: אם הניח בהמה למעלה על הגג, ובא ומצאהּ למטה ולא ראה אותה נופלת — אין חוששים לריסוק אברים, שמן הסתם קפצה מדעתה ולא נחבטה.

§ The mishna states: An animal that fell from the roof is a tereifa, since its limbs may have been shattered. Rav Huna says: If one left an animal above, on the roof, and he came back and found it below, but did not see it fall, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. One may presume that it jumped intentionally and was not injured.

גדי של רבינא ראה גריסים דרך ארובה, קפץ ונפל מן הגג לארץ. שאל רבינא את רב אשי: טעמו של רב הונא — מפני שיש לבהמה במה להיאחז בירידתה? אם כן, גדי זה שקפץ בעד הארובה אין לו במה להיאחז, וצריך לחשוש. או שמא הטעם שהבהמה אומדת את עצמה לפני קפיצתה? אם כן גם גדי זה אמד את עצמו, ואין חוששים.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain kid belonging to Ravina that saw barley groats through an open skylight. It jumped down through the skylight and fell from the roof to the ground. The case came before Rav Ashi, and Ravina said to him: What is the rationale for this statement that Rav Huna says, that if one left an animal above and he came back and found it below, one need not be concerned about the possible shattering of limbs? Is it because the animal usually has something to grab hold of? If so, since this kid jumped through a skylight, it did not have something to grab hold of, and one must be concerned. Or perhaps it is because the animal evaluates itself and determines that it can jump without injury. If so, this kid also evaluated itself before jumping, and one need not be concerned.

רב אשי השיב: הטעם הוא שהבהמה אומדת את עצמה לפני הקפיצה, וגם גדי זה אמד את עצמו — לפיכך אין חוששים לריסוק אברים.

Rav Ashi said to him: It is because the animal evaluates itself before jumping, and this kid also evaluated itself before jumping. Therefore, one need not be concerned about the possible shattering of limbs.

כבשה בבית רב חביבא הייתה גוררת את רגליה האחוריות. רב יימר: שיגרון (מחלת פרקים) אחזהּ. רבינא הקשה: שמא חוט השדרה נפסק, וטריפה? בדקוה ומצאו כדברי רבינא. ואף על פי כן ההלכה כרב יימר, שאין לחשוש: שיגרון שכיח, ופסיקת חוט השדרה אינה שכיחה.

The Gemara relates that there was a certain ewe that was in the house of Rav Ḥaviva, whose hind legs would drag. Rav Yeimar said: This ewe suffers from rheumatism [shigrona], and this is why she drags her legs. Ravina objects to this: But perhaps the spinal cord was cut, and this is why the ewe dragged her legs, and the animal is a tereifa. They inspected her and found that the spinal cord was cut, as Ravina said. The Gemara notes: And even so, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yeimar, since rheumatism is common, but a cut spinal cord is not common. Accordingly, one need not be concerned about the possibility of a cut spinal cord.

רב הונא: אילים זכרים המנגחים זה את זה — אין חוששים לריסוק אברים, ואף שהם דוויים ועומדים במקומם, אין זה אלא חום וכאב שאחזם. אבל אם נפלו לארץ מחמת הנגיחה — ודאי חוששים שנתרסקו.

Rav Huna also says: With regard to rams that butt one another, one need not be concerned with regard to shattering of limbs. Even though they are in pain and stand still, it is only a fever that afflicts them; one need not be concerned about the possibility of severe injuries. But if they fall to the ground due to the impact, we certainly must be concerned that their limbs may have been shattered.

רב מנשי: אילים שגנבים גונבים ומשליכים מעבר לגדר — אין חוששים לריסוק אברים, שכן הם משליכים אותם על מותניהם כדי שיוכלו לרוץ לפניהם. החזירום הגנבים — ודאי חוששים, כי אז אינם נזהרים בהשלכתם. ודווקא כשהחזירום מחמת יראת תפיסה; אבל אם החזירום מתוך תשובה, תשובה גמורה עשו ונזהרו.

Rav Menashei says: With regard to these rams that thieves steal and throw over the fence, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. What is the reason for this? When the thieves throw them over the fence, they throw them so that they land on their hips, where they will not be injured, so that they will be able to run before them. But if the thieves returned them to the owner, we certainly must be concerned that their limbs may have been shattered, since thieves do not throw them carefully when returning them. And this statement applies only when they return them due to fear of being caught, or are otherwise forced to return them. But if they return them due to repentance, they have performed full-fledged repentance and will take care to return them without injury.

רב יהודה בשם רב: הכה את הבהמה במקל בראשה והמקל נמשך לכיוון הזנב, או בזנב והמקל לכיוון הראש — כלומר המכה לאורך כל השדרה — אין חוששים לריסוק אברים. אבל אם המקל כלה באמצע הגב, או שיש בו קשרים בולטים, או שהכהּ לרוחב הגב — חוששים שנפגעה השדרה.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If one hit an animal on its head with a stick, and the length of the stick continued toward its back; or if one hit the animal on its tail and the length of the stick continued toward its head, such that in either case the blow extended along the entire spine, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. But if the length of the stick concluded at the middle of the back, we must be concerned that the strike caused an injury to the spine. And if there are knots, i.e., protrusions, on the stick, we must be concerned that it injured the spine, even if the stick fell across the entire back. And if he struck it like a slash across the width of the back, we must be concerned that it injured the spine.

רב נחמן: בית הרחם אינו בכלל ריסוק אברים — אין לחשוש שנתרסקו אבריו של ולד מחמת לחץ תעלת הלידה. רבא: יש ברייתא המסייעת לך — ״תינוק בן יום אחד…״

§ Rav Naḥman says: The womb is not subject to concern about possible shattered limbs. In other words, one need not be concerned that the limbs of a newborn calf may have been shattered by the narrow birth canal. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: That which is taught in a baraita supports your opinion: A one-day-old infant

— מטמא בזיבה. ואם תאמר שיש בולד חשש ריסוק אברים, נאמר עליו ״מבשרו״ — שאין הזב מטמא אלא בזיבה היוצאת מבשרו, ולא מחמת אונס (כמחלה); ואז לידתו עצמה אונס, ולא היה מטמא. מכאן שאין חוששים לריסוק.

becomes ritually impure if he experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [ziva]. And if it should enter your mind that a newborn is subject to concern about possible shattered limbs, read here the ruling stated with regard to ziva, that one’s discharge renders one impure only when it issues “out of his flesh” (Leviticus 15:2), but not when it issues due to circumstances beyond his control, e.g., due to illness. Therefore, if one must be concerned that a newborn’s limbs may have shattered during birth, his discharge would not render him impure.

דחייה: אין מכאן ראיה, כי הברייתא עוסקת בולד שיצא דרך דופן (ניתוח), שלא עבר בתעלת הלידה; אבל בלידה רגילה אכן חוששים לריסוק.

The Gemara responds: One cannot bring a proof from this baraita, since here we are dealing with a case where the infant left the womb by caesarean section and did not exit through the narrow birth canal. By contrast, after normal births, a newborn’s discharge does not render it impure, since one is concerned about the possibility of shattered limbs.

תא שמע: עגל שנולד ביום טוב שוחטים אותו ביום טוב — ואין צריך להמתין מעת לעת כבנפולה. משמע שאין חוששים לריסוק בלידה. דחייה: אף כאן ביצא דרך דופן; אבל בלידה רגילה ממתינים.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: If a calf was born on a Festival, one may slaughter it and eat it on the Festival. One need not wait twenty-four hours before deeming the animal kosher, as one does for an animal that fell from a roof. Apparently, one need not be concerned that its limbs were shattered during the birth. The Gemara responds: Here, too, the baraita is referring to a case where the calf left the womb by caesarean section. But after normal births, one must wait twenty-four hours before slaughtering the calf.

תא שמע: הכל מודים שבכור שנולד ומומו עמו — מן המוכן הוא ונאכל ביום, ואין ממתינים מעת לעת. ואם תאמר שגם כאן יצא דרך דופן — והרי בכור היוצא דרך דופן אינו קדוש כלל, כדברי ר׳ יוחנן בשם ר׳ שמעון! אם כן מדובר בלידה רגילה, וקשה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from another baraita: And all agree that if a firstborn animal was born on a Festival and its blemish was born with it, i.e., if it was born with a blemish that removes its sanctity and renders it permitted for consumption, it is considered to be prepared for the Festival and may be eaten. Evidently, one need not wait twenty-four hours before deeming it kosher. And if you would say that here too, the baraita deals with a case where the animal left the womb by caesarean section, one might respond: Is a firstborn animal born by caesarean section sanctified? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Rabbi Shimon would concede with regard to sacrificial animals, e.g., a firstborn, that an animal born by caesarean section is not sanctified? Therefore, the baraita must be referring to an animal born naturally.

יישוב: מדובר בבכור שפשט רגליו על הקרקע ועמד מיד לאחר לידתו — ובכך הוכיח שלא נתרסק, ואינו טריפה.

The Gemara responds: Here we are dealing with a firstborn that spread out its legs on the ground and stood up immediately after birth. In such a case the animal is certainly not a tereifa on account of shattered limbs.

רב נחמן: בהמה שהוטלה לארץ בבית המטבחיים לקראת שחיטה — אין בה חשש ריסוק אברים, שהיא נשמטת בזהירות.

§ And Rav Naḥman says: If an animal was thrown to the ground in the slaughterhouse in preparation for slaughter, it is not subject to concern for shattered limbs.

שור שנפל בבית המטבחיים ונשמע קול גניחתו מן המכה; נכנס רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא ונטל מן הנתחים המובחרים, ולא חשש. שאלוהו חכמים: מנין לך? אמר: כך אמר רב — בנפילתו השור נועץ טלפיו עד שמגיע לארץ, ואינו נחבט בעוצמה.

The Gemara relates: A certain bull fell in the slaughterhouse, and its bellowing was audible due to the blow. Still, Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta entered and took from the very best portions of the bull and was not concerned that it may have been a tereifa. The Sages said to him: From where did you learn this? Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said to them: This is what Rav said: When falling, the bull digs in its hooves until it reaches the earth. Therefore, one need not be concerned that it fell roughly.

רב יהודה בשם רב: נפולה שעמדה — אינה צריכה להמתין מעת לעת, אך ודאי צריכה בדיקה לאחר שחיטה; ואם אף הלכה — אינה צריכה בדיקה כלל. רב חייא בר אשי חולק: בין עמדה ובין הלכה — צריכה בדיקה.

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If an animal fell and stood up again, it does not require a twenty-four-hour period mentioned in the mishna (56b) to determine if it may be slaughtered. Nevertheless, it certainly requires inspection after slaughter to determine whether it was injured by the fall and rendered a tereifa. But if it both stood up and walked after the fall, it does not even require inspection after slaughter. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says: Both in this case and in that case, i.e., even if it walked after the fall, it requires inspection.

רב ירמיה בר אחא בשם רב: פשטה ידהּ כדי לעמוד — נחשב כעמדה, אף שלא עמדה ממש; עקרה רגלהּ כדי ללכת — נחשב כהלכה. רב חסדא מקל יותר: אף אם רק התנערה כדי לעמוד, אף שלא עמדה — נחשב כעמדה.

Rav Yirmeya bar Aḥa says that Rav says: If the animal stretched out its foreleg to stand, even if it did not actually stand, it is considered to have stood and does not require a twenty-four-hour waiting period. If it raised its leg to walk, even if it did not actually walk, it is considered to have walked and does not require inspection according to Rav. And Rav Ḥisda says: Even if it did not stretch out its foreleg, but simply struggled to stand, even if it did not stand, it is considered to have stood and may be slaughtered that day.

ההלכה: בהמה שנפלה מן הגג שלא מדעתה, ועמדה אך לא הלכה — צריכה בדיקה לאחר שחיטה, ואינה צריכה להמתין מעת לעת. ואם הלכה — אינה צריכה אף בדיקה.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: In any case where an animal fell from the roof unawares, i.e., unintentionally, and stood but did not walk, it requires inspection after slaughter but does not require a twenty-four-hour period before slaughter. And if it walked, it does not even require an inspection.

אמימר בשם רב דימי: נפולה שאמרו שצריכה בדיקה — בודקים את הבשר שכנגד בני המעיים, שמא ניקבו. מר זוטרא בשם רב פפא: בודקים כנגד כל בית החלל, שמא נפגעו הצלעות או השדרה.

§ Ameimar said in the name of Rav Dimi of Neharde’a: A fallen animal that the Sages said requires inspection must be inspected around the intestines to see whether the organs there have been perforated or torn, rendering the animal a tereifa. Mar Zutra said to him: This is what we say in the name of Rav Pappa: Such an animal requires inspection around the entire space of the body cavity, in case the ribs or spine have been damaged.

הונא מר שאל את רב אשי: והסימנים — הקנה והוושט — האם גם הם טעונים בדיקה בנפולה? השיב: הסימנים קשים ואינם נפגעים בנפילה, ואין צריך לבדקם.

Huna Mar, grandson of Rav Neḥemya, said to Rav Ashi: What about the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter [simanim], i.e., the windpipe and the gullet? Do they require inspection as well? Rav Ashi said to him: The simanim are hard and resistant to damage in falling. Therefore, one need not inspect them.

רב יהודה בשם שמואל: עוף שנפל ונחבט על פני המים — אם שט באורך כל גופו, די בכך כסימן שלא נתרסקו אבריו. ודווקא כששחה נגד הזרם, ממטה למעלה; אבל ממעלה למטה — שמא המים הם שהשׂיטוהו, וצריך בדיקה. ובמים עומדים — אין חשש. ואם זרק לפניו קיסמים והעוף הקדים אותם — שט בכוח עצמו, ואין חשש.

§ With regard to birds that have fallen, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If a bird fell and hit the surface of the water, once it swims the full length of its body, this is sufficient to indicate that its limbs have not been shattered, similar to an animal that walks after falling. And we said this only in cases where it swam from below to above, i.e., upstream. But if it swam from above to below, i.e., downstream, it is only the water that carried it down, and it must be inspected. And if the water is standing, e.g., in a pond, we have no problem with it, as it is clear that the bird is swimming on its own strength, and it need not be inspected. And even if the bird swims downstream, if straw was scattered in front of it and the bird overtook it with its swimming, then the bird overtook it on its own strength and need not be inspected.

נפל על בגד מתוח — חוששים; על בגד רפוי — אין חוששים; על בגד מקופל — אין חוששים. על רשת שקשריה צפופים — חוששים; קשרים רחוקים — אין חוששים.

If the bird fell on a garment spread out taut over poles, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact. If it fell on a garment that was not taut, we need not be concerned. In any event, if the garment was folded, we need not be concerned, since it presumably was not taut enough to injure the bird. If the bird fell on a net whose knots were woven closely together, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact. If the knots were not close together, we need not be concerned.

נפל על אגדי פשתן — חוששים; על צידם — אין חוששים; על אגדי קנים — חוששים; על פשתן מנופץ ורך — אין חוששים; דפוק ולא מנופץ — חוששים; פשתן קשור — חוששים מחמת הקשרים; נעורת גסה — חוששים; נעורת דקה — אין חוששים.

If the bird fell directly on to flax arranged into bundles, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered from the impact, because the bundles are hard. If it fell on this side or that side of the bundles, we need not be concerned, because it did not fall directly onto the bundles and the impact was dampened. If it fell on bundles of reeds, we must be concerned. If it fell on beaten and combed flax, with the impurities removed, we need not be concerned, since it is soft. If it fell on flax that was beaten but not combed, we must be concerned due to the residue of flax stalks in the bundles. If it fell on flax that was bundled after it was beaten and combed, since it has knots in it we must be concerned. If the bird fell on flax tow, a coarse bundle of unspun fiber, we must be concerned. If it fell on fine tow, we need not be concerned, because it is soft.

נפל על סיבי דקל — חוששים; על קליפת דקל — אין חוששים; על אפר מנופה, שמתקשה — חוששים; אפר שאינו מנופה — אין חוששים.

If the bird fell on nevara, the fibers that grow around a palm tree, we must be concerned that its limbs may have been shattered. If it fell on timaḥta, palm bark cut into strips, we need not be concerned. If it fell on sifted ashes, we must be concerned, because the ashes harden. If it fell on unsifted ashes, we need not be concerned, because they are soft and scatter on impact.

חול דק — אין חוששים; חול גס — חוששים, מפני אבנים המעורבות בו; אבק דרכים — חוששים, שהוא מהודק וקשה; תבן אגוד — חוששים; תבן שאינו אגוד — אין חוששים.

If the bird fell on fine sand, we need not be concerned, because the sand slides on impact, cushioning the fall. If it fell on coarse sand, we must be concerned, because there are large stones mixed into it. If it fell on dust of the road, we must be concerned, because the dust is compact and hard. If the bird fell on bundled straw, we must be concerned, because it is compact and hard. If the straw was not bundled, we need not be concerned.

חיטים וכל הדומה להן — חוששים; שעורים וכל הדומה להן — חוששים; כל מיני קטניות — אין בהם חשש ריסוק, כי העוף מחליק עליהן, חוץ מתלתן; אפונים — אין חשש, חומוס — יש חשש. וזה הכלל: כל דבר שהעוף מחליק עליו — אין בו חשש ריסוק; וכל שאינו מחליק — יש בו חשש.

If the bird fell on wheat and all similar types of grain, such as spelt or rye, whose kernels are hard, we must be concerned. If it fell on barley and all similar types of grain, such as oats, we must be concerned. With regard to all types of beans, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs if a bird fell on them, since their round shape causes the bird to slide when it hits them, except for fenugreek. With regard to peas, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs, but with regard to chickpeas, there is a concern due to possible shattered limbs. The principle of the matter is: With regard to anything that slips to the sides on impact, there is no concern due to possible shattered limbs. And with regard to anything that does not slip, there is a concern due to possible shattered limbs.

עוף שנדבקו כנפיו ללוח מרוח בדבק (מלכודת) ונפל עמו: רב אשי מתיר, אמימר אוסר. באגף אחד — הכל מתירים, כי מנפנף בשני; נחלקו בשני אגפיים. האוסר: כיצד יעמוד להקל את הנפילה? והמתיר: אפשר שיעמוד על קצות כנפיו.

If the bird’s wings became stuck to a davuk, a board covered with glue set as a trap, and in trying to escape it fell to the ground while stuck to the board, Rav Ashi deemed the bird permitted, while Ameimar deemed it prohibited. The Gemara explains: In a case where only one wing was stuck to the board, everyone agrees that it is permitted, because the bird flaps with the other wing, lessening the impact of the fall. They disagree when both wings are stuck to the board. The one who deemed it prohibited could have said to you: How will it stand itself up so that it might dampen the impact? And the one who deemed it permitted could have said to you: It is possible for it to stand itself up by using the tips of its wings.

לישנא אחרינא: בשני אגפיים הכל אוסרים, ונחלקו באגף אחד. המתיר: אפשר שיעוף בכנף האחת ויקל את הנפילה; האוסר: כיוון שאינו יכול לעוף בכנף הדבוקה, אף בשנייה אינו מצליח. וההלכה: שני אגפיים — אסור, אגף אחד — מותר.

And there are those who say: In a case where two wings were stuck to the board, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, because it cannot dampen the impact. They disagree when only one wing is stuck to the board. The one who deemed it permitted could have said to you: It is possible for it to fly with one wing and dampen the fall. And the one who deemed it prohibited could say: Since it cannot fly with this wing that is stuck to the davuk, it also cannot fly with that untrapped wing. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: In a case where two wings were stuck, it is prohibited. In a case where only one wing was stuck, it is permitted.