Chullin 42a — the Talmud in English

And we resolve:

lest you say

if it is not known to us that his wife gave birth, they would not say that he truly consecrated it for the sake of the offering of a woman who has given birth, for they would say

if it were so that she gave birth

his wife,

there would have been publicity for it [

there would have been publicity for this]

it teaches us

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

perhaps she miscarried

and a miscarriage has no publicity, and they suspect that he consecrated it for the sake of the offering of a woman who has given birth, of his wife who miscarried.

We have completed you, chapter “The One Who Slaughters.”

Introduction to the Chapter “These Are Terefot”

A. What is a tereifa?

A domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird in which there is an injury or illness that will ultimately cause death is a tereifa, and is forbidden to be eaten.

And this is the wording of the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter “These Are Terefot”:

This is the general rule,

every

domesticated animal in which there is an injury or illness, in such a way

that no

domesticated animal in which there is an illness or injury

like it,

can live—

this is a tereifa.

When does this apply? When there was in the animal an injury or defect that brings it to death. But if the animal was “dangerously ill,” for example, if it was ill because its strength had weakened and it was inclined toward death, or it ate a deadly drug, or a snake bit it,

then, even though it will certainly die,

it is not a tereifa.

B.

The source for the prohibition against eating a tereifa

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

The first is

the explicit words of Scripture

stated explicitly [Exodus 22]: “

And flesh in the field

torn

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

The second, in the Sifre [Deuteronomy 14:21]: “

You shall not eat any unslaughtered carcass.” I have only [learned] an unslaughtered carcass; from where [do I derive] a tereifa? The verse states: “ all.”

The third,

the Torah says [Leviticus 11:2]: “ This is the animal that you shall eat.” And the Sages expounded [Hullin 37a]: “An animal, eat; and one that is not an animal [such as a tereifa, which is unable to live], do not eat.”

C.

Terefot that have a remedy

A tereifa that has a remedy is not a tereifa. But the terefot that the Sages said are terefot remain terefot even if nowadays they have a remedy, or if nowadays they live even without a remedy, for you have only what the Sages enumerated, as it is stated: “According to the Torah that they instruct you.”

Likewise, there is no tereifa other than what the Sages enumerated. Therefore, even if there is an injury or illness of another type, it is not a tereifa, for it certainly has [or had] a remedy, even if it became known to us through medical knowledge that it will not ultimately live.

And the Hazon Ish explains that the laws of slaughter 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 terefot

There are eight types of terefot that were transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and within them there are many tens of forms of tereifa:

A.

An animal clawed by a predator.

B.

Perforated,

and included in it are twenty-six types of terefot involving organs that were perforated.

C.

Missing,

which includes fourteen terefot involving organs from which part is missing, and nine terefot involving extra organs; and every extra organ is considered as though removed.

D.

Severed,

including severing of the spinal cord.

E.

Removed,

including eight terefot involving organs that were removed from it.

F.

Broken,

including six terefot involving fractures.

G.

Torn,

where most of the flesh covering the rumen was torn, and likewise if its skin was stripped away.

H.

Fallen,

including organs crushed by the fall, or the simanim becoming loosened.

Mishna:

These are the terefot in a domesticated animal:

A.

a perforated esophagus —

with a perforation of any size.

B.

and a severed windpipe—

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

C.

the membrane of the brain was perforated—

with a perforation of any size. D.

the

wall of

the heart

was perforated

through to its cavity.

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

E.

The spine was broken. And

with its breaking

its cord was severed.

F.

The liver was removed, and nothing of it remained.

G.

the lung was perforated,

H.

or was missing.

Rabbi Shimon says:

a perforated lung is not considered a tereifa

until it is perforated through to the bronchial tubes [see a drawing in the book Sihat Hullin].

[see the illustration in the book Sichat Chullin].

I.

the stomach was perforated—

with a perforation of any size.

J.

the gallbladder was perforated—

with a perforation of any size.

K.

the small intestines were perforated,

the intestines—with a perforation of any size.

L.

the inner rumen [and the Gemara disagreed as to what it is]

[the Gemara disagrees as to what this is]

was perforated

with a perforation of any size.

M.

or most of

the rumen

was torn.

Rabbi Judah says:

the measure of tearing in the outer rumen is not fixed. Rather, the

large

rumen, of a large animal—the measure of tearing that makes it a tereifa is

a handbreadth.

But the

small

rumen, of a small animal—the measure of tearing that makes it a tereifa is

most of

the rumen.

N. O.

the omasum and the reticulum

were perforated

until the perforation can be seen

from outside.

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

P.

it fell from the roof,

and one slaughtered it immediately, without waiting a full day, it is a tereifa. For even though no fractures are visible in it, we are concerned that its organs may have been crushed and dislocated.

Q.

most of its ribs were broken,

without it having fallen.

R.

an animal clawed by a wolf—

where the wolf struck the animal with its claws.

Rabbi Judah says:

an animal clawed by a wolf is a tereifa only

in a

domesticated animal

of the small species,

and not in one of the large species.

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

And

only an animal that was

clawed by a lion

is a tereifa, even

in a

domesticated animal

of the large species.

And since Rabbi Judah taught the distinction between an animal clawed by a wolf and one clawed by a lion, the tanai also taught the distinction concerning an animal clawed by a bird of prey, with regard to terefot of birds.

A bird clawed by a goshawk—

a tereifa

in a small bird,

such as sparrows and doves.

And one clawed by a large predator [a large bird of prey]—

a tereifa even

in a

large bird, such as geese and chickens.

This is the general rule

in the laws of tereifa:

every

animal afflicted with an injury

that no

afflicted animal

like it can live [fit to live],

it is

a tereifa!

Gemara:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: A hint to a tereifa from the Torah—

from where?

And the Gemara wonders at Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish’s question:

“From where?!”

What is the question, “From where do we find a hint to a tereifa in the Torah”? Is it not an explicit verse, as it is written [Exodus 22]:

“And flesh in the field that is torn, you shall not eat”?!

Rather,

this is how Resh Lakish asked:

A hint to a tereifa that does not live [that is not fit to live]

[that it is not capable of living]

from the Torah—

from where?!

And his question is concerning that which

is taught in the latter clause: “This is the general rule: Any [animal] like which cannot live,”

it is

a tereifa. From this

you learn

that a tereifa does not live.

That is, it is demonstrated from the latter clause of the Mishna that the reason for the prohibition of a tereifa is that it is incapable of living. Therefore Resh Lakish asked

from where do we know

a hint from the Torah that a tereifa cannot live?!

And 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 is

alive,

that is, which can continue to live,

eat.

But an animal

that does not live—

do not eat!

And the Gemara infers:

From this

you learn

that a tereifa does not live!

For the verse excluded from eating an animal that “does not live,” and we have no living thing that is defined as “does not live” other than a tereifa [for an unslaughtered carcass is not in the category of “does not live”; rather, it is defined as “dead”].

And the Gemara discusses:

And according to the one who says that a terefa lives,

that it is able to live, but Scripture prohibited it as food,

from where does he have

a hint from the Torah that a terefa, despite being alive, is nevertheless forbidden?

And we answer: he too

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

and we expound it as follows: “this” is an exclusion, and it comes to teach:

This living creature,

that is, an ordinary, regular “living creature”—only that one

eat.

But

another living creature,

such as a terefa, even though it is alive—

do not eat! From this

you learn

that a terefa lives!

And the other one,

who holds that a terefa does not live,

this

exclusion of

“this”—what does he do with it?

He needs it for that which the tanna debei Rabbi Yishmael taught:

For the tanna debei Rabbi Yishmael taught: “

This is the living creature that you may eat”

teaches

that Scripture

that the Holy One, blessed be He, took from each and every species

of living creatures

and showed it to Moses, and said to him: This one eat! And this one do not eat!

And we refute this:

And the other one,

who derives from “this” that a terefa lives—one could object: for him

too, he needs

this verse

for that which the tanna debei Rabbi Yishmael taught?!

And we answer:

Indeed, that is so,

this verse, “And this is the living creature,” comes to teach that which the tanna debei Rabbi Yishmael taught.

But a terefa,

which is

alive, from where does he have it? —

He derives it from another teaching of the tanna debei Rabbi Yishmael.

For the tanna debei Rabbi Yishmael taught: 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 living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten

.”

What is “the living creature that may not be eaten”?

Scripture comes to teach you that a terefa, even though it is alive, is nevertheless not to be eaten!

And what is a terefa?

These are eighteen terefot,

which are not explained in the written text, but

were said to Moses at Sinai!

And we inquire concerning this:

And is there no more,

that there are no additional terefot?

But there are

terefot called “

B.S.G.R.

”—which are indications of four terefot, which will be explained below,

and

there are also

seven traditions,

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