מפת הסוגיא — חולין נ״דSugya map — Chullin 54

המשנה הקודמת חתמה ב״זה הכלל: כל שאין כמוה חיה — טריפה״. הגמרא שואלת: מה מוסיף הכלל מעבר למה שכבר נמנה? תשובה: שבע שמועות (טריפות שאמרו אמוראים) שלא נמנו במשנה.

§ The mishna states: This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: What case does this principle add that was not previously mentioned? The Gemara responds: It was stated to add seven halakhot of tereifot taught by amora’im and not listed in the mishna. These cases are enumerated on 42b.

אנשי בית יוסף הצייד היו ממיתים בהמה בחץ שפגע בגיד הנשה. שאלו את ר׳ יהודה בן בתירא אם בהמה כזו טריפה (אם נשחטה קודם שמתה). השיבם: וכי אפשר להוסיף על רשימת הטריפות? אין לך אלא מה שמנו חכמים — ואין זו ברשימה.

The Gemara recounts: The men of the house of Yosef the hunter would strike the sciatic nerve of an animal with an arrow and kill it that way. In other words, the animal would die from that wound. They came before Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to ask if an animal with an injured sciatic nerve is a tereifa, which is relevant if the animal was slaughtered before it died. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to them: And is it possible to add to the list of tereifot? You have only what the Sages counted, and the Sages mentioned no such tereifa.

כיוצא בזה: אנשי רב פפא בר אבא הצייד היו ממיתים בהמה בחץ שפגע בכוליא (כליה). שאלו את ר׳ אבא, והשיבם אף הוא: וכי אפשר להוסיף על הטריפות? אין לך אלא מה שמנו חכמים.

Likewise, the men of Rav Pappa bar Abba the hunter would strike an animal in the kidney with an arrow and kill it that way. They came before Rabbi Abba to ask if such an animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Abba said to them: And is it possible to add to the list of tereifot? You have only what the Sages counted.

קושיא: והרי אנו רואים שבהמות אלו מתות מן הפגיעה — סימן שהן טריפות? תירוץ: מסורת בידינו שבכל אלו, אילו פיזרו תרופה על המכה, הבהמה הייתה חיה; ואין טריפה אלא מה שאי אפשר לרפא.

The Gemara objects: But we see that they die. Isn’t this an indication that the animal is a tereifa? The Gemara responds: It is learned as a tradition that in all these cases, if one were to scatter medicine on the wound, the animal would live. An animal is not considered a tereifa unless it cannot be healed.

משנה: ואלו כשרות בבהמה — ניקבה הגרגרת (קנה הנשימה) או שנסדקה לאורכה. עד כמה תחסר? רשב״ג: עד כשיעור איסר האיטלקי. נפחתה הגולגולת ולא ניקב קרום המוח; ניקב הלב אך לא לחלל שבו; נשברה השדרה ולא נפסק חוט השדרה; ניטלה הכבד ונשתייר ממנה כזית — כשרה.

MISHNA: And these, despite their condition, are kosher in an animal: If its windpipe was perforated or cracked lengthwise. How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as the Italian issar. If the skull was fractured but the membrane of the brain was not perforated, it is kosher. If the heart was perforated and the perforation did not reach its chamber, or if the spinal column was broken but its cord was not cut, or if the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher.

המשך המשנה: המסס ובית הכוסות שניקבו זה לתוך זה (ולא לחלל הגוף); ניטל הטחול, ניטלו הכליות, ניטל הלחי התחתון, ניטלה האם (רחם), והבהמה שריאתה התכווצה בידי שמים — כשרה. הגלודה (שהופשט עורה): ר׳ מאיר מכשיר, וחכמים פוסלים.

Additionally, it is kosher if the omasum or the reticulum was perforated one into the other. If the spleen was removed, or the kidneys were removed, or if its lower jaw was removed, or if its womb was removed, or if its lung shriveled by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher. In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa and unfit for consumption.

גמרא: המשנה הקודמת פתחה ״אלו טריפות״, וזו פותחת ״אלו כשרות״. ר׳ יוחנן: ״אלו טריפות״ דווקא — הרשימה כאן אינה ממצה. ריש לקיש: ״אלו כשרות״ דווקא — רשימת הטריפות שבראש הפרק אינה ממצה.

GEMARA: The mishna begins: And these are kosher, while the previous mishna begins: These are tereifot. With regard to this, it was stated that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The tanna intended the phrase: These are tereifot, specifically, teaching that an animal is kosher in another case. The list of kosher cases here is therefore not exhaustive. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that the tanna intended the phrase: These are kosher, specifically, teaching that an animal is a tereifa in another case. The list of tereifot at the beginning of the chapter is therefore not exhaustive.

במאי פליגי? בדינו של רב מתנא: ראש עצם הירך (בוקא דאטמא) שנשמט ממקומו לגמרי — טריפה. לר׳ יוחנן ש״אלו טריפות״ דווקא: התנא שנה את הטריפות, ושנה ״זה הכלל״ להוסיף עליהן —

The Gemara explains: With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the statement of Rav Mattana, as Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that the phrase: These are tereifot, is meant specifically, the tanna taught the list of tereifot and taught afterward: This is the principle, to add cases that were not stated explicitly;

— וראה שדינו של רב מתנא לכאורה נכלל ב״זה הכלל״ (דומה לאיברים שניטלו, שמטריפים), ולכן שנה ״אלו טריפות״ דווקא: רק אלו טריפות, אבל בוקא דאטמא כשרה — לשיטת ר׳ יוחנן.

and the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana, where the end of the thigh is dislocated, ostensibly comes under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it renders the animal a tereifa as well. What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is similar to the cases of removed organs that render the animal a tereifa. Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are tereifot, at the beginning of the mishna, to emphasize that it is only these that render an animal a tereifa, but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is kosher.

ולריש לקיש ש״אלו כשרות״ דווקא: התנא שנה ״זה הכלל״ וראה שדינו של רב מתנא לכאורה אינו נכלל בו — שאינו דומה לא לנקובים, לא לפסוקים ולא לניטלים — ולכן שנה ״אלו כשרות״ דווקא: רק אלו כשרות, אבל בוקא דאטמא טריפה.

And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who says that the phrase: These are kosher, is meant specifically, the tanna taught the list of tereifot, and taught afterward that this is the principle. And the tanna then saw that the case of Rav Mattana ostensibly does not come under the heading of: This is the principle, and one might assume that it does not render the animal a tereifa. What is the reason for this? It is because a dislocated thigh is not similar to cases of perforated organs, and it is not similar to cases of cut organs, such as the windpipe, and it is not similar to cases of removed organs. Therefore, he taught the phrase: These are kosher, to emphasize that it is only these that are kosher, but in the case of Rav Mattana, the animal is a tereifa.

הגמרא חוזרת לעצם הדין: רב מתנא — בוקא דאטמא שנשמט לגמרי טריפה; רבא — כשרה, ורק אם נפסק הגיד המחזיק את העצם — טריפה. ומסקנה: ההלכה — אף שנפסק הגיד כשרה, אלא אם כן נתעכל הגיד ונרקב.

The Gemara addresses the matter itself: Rav Mattana says: This head of the femur that was completely dislocated renders the animal a tereifa. And Rava said: The animal is kosher, but if its sinew holding the bone in place is cut, it is a tereifa. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: Even if the sinew is cut, the animal is still kosher, unless the sinew decomposed, in which case the animal is a tereifa.

המשנה: ״עד כמה תחסר?… עד כאיסר האיטלקי״. זעירי (שעלה מארץ ישראל) אמר לבני בבל: אתם שאינכם מכירים את שיעור האיסר האיטלקי, אמדוהו כדינר קורדינאה, שהוא כפרוטה קטנה ומצוי בין פרוטות פומבדיתא.

§ The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar. Ze’eiri, who came from Eretz Yisrael, said with regard to this: You, who are not familiar with the measure of an Italian issar, because it is not used in Babylonia, should estimate its measure as a Kurdish dinar. And it is like a small peruta coin and can be found among the perutot of Pumbedita.

ר׳ חנא השולחני: ר׳ יוחנן (בר נפחא) עמד מעלי וביקש ממני דינר קורדינאה למדוד בו טריפה. ביקשתי לעמוד מפניו מתוך כבוד, ולא הניחני; אמר לי: שב בני שב, אין בעלי אומניות רשאים לעמוד מפני תלמידי חכמים בשעה שהם עוסקים במלאכתם.

Rabbi Ḥana the money changer said: Bar Nappaḥa, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, was standing over me, and he requested of me a Kurdish dinar with which to measure tereifot, in accordance with the statement of Ze’eiri. And I wanted to rise before him out of respect, but he did not let me. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to me: Sit, my son, sit. Tradesmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars when they are engaged in their work.

קושיא: וכי אין בעלי אומניות עומדים מפני ת״ח? והרי שנינו (ביכורים): כל בעלי האומניות עומדים מפני מביאי הביכורים, ושואלים בשלומם ואומרים: אחינו אנשי מקום פלוני, בואכם לשלום!

The Gemara asks: And are tradesmen not permitted to stand before Torah scholars? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:3): When the pilgrims bring their first fruits to Jerusalem, all the tradesmen stand before them, and greet them, and say to them: Our brothers from such and such place, welcome?

תירוץ ר׳ יוחנן: מפני מביאי הביכורים עומדים, אבל מפני תלמידי חכמים אין עומדים. ר׳ יוסי בר אבין למד מכאן: בוא וראה כמה חביבה מצוה בשעת עשייתה — שהרי מפני מביאי הביכורים עומדים, ומפני ת״ח אין עומדים.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Yes, they stand before those bringing first fruits, but they do not stand before Torah scholars. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: Come and see how beloved is a mitzva performed in its proper time, as the tradesmen stand before those who brought first fruits, while they do not stand before Torah scholars.

דחייה: מניין שעומדים מפני חביבות המצוה? שמא עומדים רק כדי שלא להכשילם לעתיד — שאם לא יכבדום, יימנעו מלעלות עם ביכוריהם בשנים הבאות.

The Gemara rejects the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Avin: From where does one know that they rise out of respect? Perhaps the tradesmen stand only in order not to cause those bringing first fruits to fail and sin in the future. That is, if the tradesmen do not treat those bringing the first fruits with great respect, they may not make the effort to travel to Jerusalem in a subsequent year.

רב נחמן (על שיעורי המשנה): חֶסְרון בגודל סלע נחשב כיתר מכסלע, וחֶסְרון כאיסר נחשב כיתר מכאיסר. כלומר השיעור עצמו כבר נכלל בפסול.

§ The mishna states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the perforation is the same size as an Italian issar. With regard to this, Rav Naḥman says: Whenever the Sages specify the measure as that of a sela, e.g., with regard to a damaged skull for purposes of tereifot, they mean that even an area exactly the size of a sela is treated as more than a sela. Likewise, when they specify the measure as that of an issar, they mean that an area exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were more than an issar.

מסקנת הדיוק: שמע מינה שרב נחמן סובר ״עד״ ולא עד בכלל — השיעור הנקוב (איסר) עצמו בכלל הפסול, ולכן ניקב כאיסר טריפה.

Since Rav Naḥman holds that a perforation exactly the size of an issar is treated as though it were larger than an issar, he must hold that such a perforation in the windpipe renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara therefore infers: Apparently, Rav Naḥman holds that whenever the Sages use the word: Until, it means until and not including the measure, as the mishna states that an animal with a perforated windpipe is kosher until the perforation reaches the size of an issar.

רבא הקשה לרב נחמן ממשנה (כלים): חבל היוצא מן המטה עד חמישה טפחים — טהור (אינו מקבל טומאה, שאין בו שימוש). וכי לא משמע שחמישה ״כלמטה״ — בכלל הטהור, היינו ״עד ועד בכלל״? תשובה: לא, חמישה ״כלמעלה״ — מחוץ לטהור.

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from a mishna (Kelim 19:2): The end of a rope that extends from a rope bed is not susceptible to ritual impurity until it is five handbreadths long. If the bed becomes impure, the rope remains pure, because it has no use and is therefore not considered part of the bed. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly five handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that amount? If so, the word: Until, means until and including the exact measure. The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly five handbreadths long is like a rope whose length is above that amount.

תא שמע מהמשך אותה משנה: מחמישה ועד עשרה טפחים — טמא (מקבל טומאה). וכי לא משמע שעשרה ״כלמטה״ — בכלל הטמא? תשובה: לא, עשרה ״כלמעלה״ — מחוץ לטמא.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the mishna: If the end of the rope was of any length from five handbreadths until ten, it is susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated as though its length were below that? The Gemara responds: No, a rope exactly ten handbreadths long is treated like a rope whose length is above that, and it is not susceptible to impurity.

תא שמע ממשנה אחרת (כלים): הקטנים שבכלי חרס — הם, ושברי קרקעיותיהם ודופנותיהם, היושבים (עומדים) בלא תמיכה —

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from another mishna (Kelim 2:2): With regard to the smallest of earthenware vessels, if they, or even their broken-off bases or sides, can sit, i.e., remain upright, without being supported,

— שיעורם לקבלת טומאה: כדי סיכת תינוק, וזה כשהכלי השלם החזיק עד לוג. וכי לא משמע שלוג ״כלמטה״ — בכלל? תשובה: לא, לוג ״כלמעלה״ — מחוץ לכלל.

their measure in order to be susceptible to ritual impurity is that they can hold enough oil with which to anoint a small child. If they cannot hold this amount, they are considered useless and are not susceptible to impurity. And this measure applies only to vessels that held up to a log when they were whole; if they had originally held more, they must hold more when broken in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly one log it is treated as though it had held below that amount? If so, the term: Up to, means up to and including. The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly one log it is treated as though it held above that amount, and if broken it must be capable of holding a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.

תא שמע מהמשך המשנה: כלי שהחזיק מלוג עד סאה — שיעור שברו ברביעית. וכי לא משמע שסאה ״כלמטה״? תשובה: לא, סאה ״כלמעלה״.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel originally held from a log up to a se’a, its broken-off base or sides must hold a quarter-log in order to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it originally held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held above that amount, and its base or sides must hold a greater measure in order to be susceptible to impurity.

תא שמע מהמשך המשנה: כלי שהחזיק מסאה עד סאתים — שיעור שברו בחצי לוג. וכי לא משמע שסאתים ״כלמטה״? תשובה: לא, סאתים ״כלמעלה״.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the same mishna: If the vessel had originally held from a se’a up to two se’a, its broken-off base or sides must hold half a log to be susceptible to impurity. What, is it not teaching that if it had originally held exactly two se’a it is treated as if though it had held below that amount? The Gemara responds: No, if it had held exactly two se’a it is treated as though it had held above that amount.

קושיא מכרעת: והרי שנינו בברייתא במפורש — לוג ״כלמטה״, סאה ״כלמטה״, סאתים ״כלמטה״; ומשמע ״עד ועד בכלל״, נגד רב נחמן.

The Gemara asks: How can one explain the mishna in this manner? But isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita: If the vessel had originally held exactly a log it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly a se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount; if it had held exactly two se’a it is treated as though it had held below that amount? Evidently, the term: Up to, means up to and including the given measure, in contradiction to Rav Naḥman’s opinion that it means up to and not including the measure.

תירוץ: ״עד״ נדרש תמיד להחמיר. בכלים — להחמיר היינו ״עד ועד בכלל״, שהכלי מקבל טומאה ביתר קלות. ר׳ אבהו בשם ר׳ יוחנן: כל שיעורי חכמים נדרשים להחמיר, חוץ מכגריס שבכתמים שנדרש להקל. ובטריפה, להחמיר היינו ״עד ולא עד בכלל״.

The Gemara responds: The term: Up to, is always interpreted in the more stringent manner. Accordingly, there, with regard to the impurity of vessels, the term: Up to, is interpreted as up to and including in order to rule stringently, since the vessel is then more easily susceptible to impurity. As Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All measures of the Sages must be interpreted stringently, except for the measure of a groat as a standard for stains of blood found on a woman’s clothing, which is interpreted leniently. Even if the stain is exactly the size of a groat, the woman remains pure. Here, it is more stringent to interpret the phrase: Up to, as up to and including, because an animal is then more susceptible to being rendered a tereifa.

דיוק המסייע: אף לשון הברייתא מדויקת — על משנת חבל המטה שנינו: חמישה ״כלמעלה״ (מחוץ לטהור), עשרה ״כלמטה״ (בכלל הטמא) — ובשני המקרים הולכים להחמיר.

The Gemara notes: The language is also precise, i.e., it is evident that the phrase: Up to, is always interpreted stringently, as the mishna (Kelim 19:2) states that if a rope extending from a rope bed is of any length up to five handbreadths, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, but if it is of any length from five up to ten handbreadths, it is susceptible. And a baraita teaches with regard to that mishna: If the rope was exactly five handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were above that; if the rope was exactly ten handbreadths long, it is treated as though its length were below that. In both cases, the measure is interpreted stringently.