Chullin 42a (מב.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Lest you say

that if it is not known to us that his wife gave birth, people would not say that he actually consecrated it for the sake of the burnt-offering of a woman who gave birth, as they would say:

If indeed she gave birth

his wife,

there would have been publicity about it

(there would have been publicity about it),

this teaches us

that the birth of a viable child is indeed known, but

perhaps she miscarried

and a miscarriage does not become known, and they suspect that he consecrated it for the sake of the burnt-offering of a woman who gave birth, whose wife had miscarried.

We shall return to you, chapter “The One Who Slaughters.”

Introduction to the Chapter “These Are Tereifot”

A. What is a tereifa?

An animal, wild animal, or bird that has an injury or illness destined to cause death is a tereifa, and is forbidden to eat.

This is the wording of the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter “These Are Tereifot”:

This is the general principle,

every

animal that has an injury or illness such that

no

animal that has an illness or injury

like it

can live—

it is a tereifa.

When does this apply? When the animal had an injury or defect that leads to death. But if the animal was in a dangerous condition—for example, it was ill because its strength had weakened and it was inclined to die, or it had eaten poison, or it had been bitten by a snake—

then, even though it will certainly die,

it is not a tereifa.

B.

The source of the prohibition against eating a tereifa

We find three sources for the prohibition against eating a tereifa:

The first is

the explicit

wording of the verse:

“And flesh that is torn in the field,

a tereifa,

you shall not eat; you shall cast it to the dog.”

The second is in the Sifra: “You shall not eat any neveila.” I have only [learned the prohibition against eating] a neveila; from where [do I derive the prohibition against eating] a tereifa? The verse says: “Any.”

The third:

the Torah states: “This is the animal that you shall eat.” And the Sages expounded: Eat an animal that can live, but one that cannot live [such as a tereifa, which cannot survive] you shall not eat.

C.

Tereifot that have a cure

A tereifa that has a cure is not a tereifa. However, the conditions that the Sages stated are tereifot: even if today they have a cure, or today they live even without a cure, they remain tereifot, for one has only what the Sages enumerated, as it is stated: “According to the law that they teach you.”

Likewise, only what the Sages enumerated is a tereifa. Therefore, even if there is an injury or illness of another type, it is not a tereifa, because certainly it has a cure [or had a cure], even if we have learned through medical practice that it is not destined to survive.

The Chazon Ish explains that the laws of Shechita were established during the “two thousand years of Torah,” and according to what the Sages established then, so the halakha was established forever.

D.

The types of tereifot

There are eight categories of tereifot that were transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and within them are many dozens of forms of tereifa:

a.

An animal mauled by a predator (derusa).

b.

An organ with a perforation (nekuva),

including twenty-six types of tereifa involving perforated organs.

c.

An organ lacking a part (chasera),

including fourteen tereifot involving organs from which part is missing, and nine tereifot involving extra organs; and every extra organ is considered as though the corresponding organ were missing.

d.

An organ severed (pesuka),

including the severing of the spinal cord.

e.

An organ removed (netula),

including eight tereifot involving organs removed from the animal.

f.

A broken organ (shevura),

including six tereifot involving fractures.

g.

A torn organ (kerua),

such as when most of the flesh covering the rumen is torn, and likewise when its hide is stripped off.

h.

An animal that fell (nefula),

including a case in which its organs were crushed by the fall, or its windpipe and esophagus were loosened.

Mishna:

These are the tereifot in an animal:

1.

A perforated esophagus—

with a perforation of any size.

2.

And a severed windpipe—

when the windpipe [the trachea] was severed across its width, through most of it.

3.

The membrane of the brain was perforated—

with a perforation of any size. 4.

The wall of

the

heart

was perforated

through to its cavity.

If the perforation in the wall did not reach the heart’s cavity, this is not a tereifa.

5.

The spine was broken. 6.

And through its fracture

its cord was severed.

6.

The liver was removed, and none of it remained.

7.

A lung that was perforated,

8.

or from which part was missing.

Rabbi Shimon says:

A perforated lung is not considered a tereifa

until the perforation reaches the bronchial tubes

[see the illustration in the book Sichat Chullin].

9.

The stomach was perforated—

with a perforation of any size.

10.

The gallbladder was perforated—

with a perforation of any size.

11.

The small intestines were perforated,

the intestines—with a perforation of any size.

12.

The inner rumen

[the Gemara disagrees as to what this is]

was perforated

with a perforation of any size.

13.

Or most of

the rumen

on the outside was torn.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The measure of the tear in the outer rumen is not fixed. Rather, in the case of

a large

rumen, belonging to a large animal, the measure of a tear that renders it a tereifa is

a handbreadth.

But in the case of

a small

rumen, belonging to a small animal, the measure of a tear that renders it a tereifa is

most

of the rumen.

14. 15.

The omasum and the reticulum

were perforated

until the perforation could be seen

from the outside.

But if the perforation was between the two adjoining walls of the omasum and reticulum, this is not a tereifa, since in any event the food flows from one to the other through the perforation between them.

16.

It fell from the roof,

and was slaughtered immediately, without waiting twenty-four hours, it is a tereifa. For although no fractures are visible in it, we are concerned that its organs may have been crushed and dislocated.

17.

Most of its ribs were broken,

without its having fallen.

18.

Mauled by a wolf—

the wolf struck the animal with its claws.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Being mauled by a wolf renders an animal a tereifa only in

a

small animal,

and

not in a large one.

For according to Rabbi Yehuda, the wolf’s venom, which is between its claws, burns only a small animal, but does not burn a large animal.

And

only an animal that was

mauled by a lion

is a tereifa, even

in a

large

animal.

Since Rabbi Yehuda taught the distinction between an animal mauled by a wolf and one mauled by a lion, the tanna also taught the corresponding distinction concerning a bird, with regard to the tereifot of birds.

Mauled by a hawk—

it is a tereifa

in a small bird,

such as sparrows and pigeons.

And mauled by a large bird of prey

[a large predator]—it is a tereifa even

in a

large bird, such as geese and chickens.

This is the general principle

in the laws of tereifa:

Every

animal afflicted by an injury

such that no

animal afflicted

like it can live

[is capable of living] is

a tereifa!

Gemara:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: A hint of a tereifa in the Torah—

from where [is it derived]?

The Gemara is astonished by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s question:

From where?!

What is the question “From where do we find a hint of a tereifa in the Torah?” There is an explicit verse, as it is written [Exodus 22]:

“And flesh torn in the field, a tereifa—you shall not eat”?!

Rather,

this is what Reish Lakish asked:

A hint in the Torah that a tereifa cannot live

[that it is not capable of living]

from the Torah—

from where?!

His question concerns

what is taught at the end of the [Mishna]: “This is the general principle: Anything unlike which no animal can live,”

it is

a tereifa. From this general statement

you learn

that a tereifa cannot live.

That is, it is evident from the conclusion of the Mishna that the reason for the prohibition of a tereifa is that it is incapable of living. Therefore, Reish Lakish asked:

From where do we know

from the Torah a hint that a tereifa cannot survive?

The Gemara answers his question:

For it is written, “And this is the animal that you shall eat,”

and we expound: Only this animal, which

can live,

that is, which can continue to live,

eat.

But an animal

that cannot live—

do not eat!

The Gemara infers:

From the general implication

of these words you learn

that a tereifa cannot live!

For the verse excluded from eating an animal “that cannot live,” and there is no living thing that is defined as “unable to live” other than a tereifa [because a neveila is not in the category of “unable to live”; rather, it is defined as “dead”].

And the Gemara asks:

And according to the one who says that a tereifa can live,

meaning that it can live, but the Torah prohibited it for consumption,

from where does he derive

a hint from the Torah that a tereifa, despite being alive, is nevertheless prohibited?

And we answer: He too

derives it from “This is the living creature that you may eat,”

and we interpret it as follows: “This” is an exclusion, and it comes to teach:

“This is the living creature,”

that is, an ordinary, typical living creature—only that one

may you eat.

But

another living creature,

such as a tereifa, even though it is alive—

you may not eat! From this

you learn

that a tereifa can live!

And the other one,

who maintains that a tereifa cannot live,

what

does he do with this exclusion of

“this”?

He requires it for that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

“This is the living creature that you may eat”

teaches

that the verse

that the Holy One took one specimen from each and every species

of living creatures

and showed it to Moses, saying to him: This one you may eat, and this one you may not eat!

And we challenge this:

And the other one,

who derives from “this” that a tereifa can live, should it not be difficult for him: for according to him

he too requires

this verse

for that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael?!

And we answer:

Yes, indeed,

this verse, “And this is the living creature,” comes to teach that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rather, a tereifa,

which

can live—from where does he derive this?

He derives it from another teaching of the school of Rabbi Yishmael.

It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Regarding that which is written [there], “This is the law of the animal and the bird—to distinguish between the impure and the pure, and

between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.”

What is meant by “the animal that may not be eaten”?

The verse comes to teach you that a tereifa, even though it is alive, may nevertheless not be eaten!

And what is a tereifa?

These are the eighteen categories of tereifa,

which are not explained in the written Torah, but

were transmitted to Moses at Sinai!

And we raise a question about this:

Is that all there are,

meaning, are there no additional categories of tereifa?

But there are

categories of tereifa designated by

“bet-samekh-gimel-resh,”

which are mnemonic signs for four categories of tereifa that will be explained below,

and

there are also

seven teachings,

seven types of tereifa that were not taught in the Mishna but were taught by the amoraim, and which will likewise be explained below!?

seven types of tereifa that were not taught in the Mishna, but were taught by the amoraim, the sages of the Gemara, and these, too, will be explained below!?