Chullin 43a — the Talmud in English

Rather,

explain it this way:

these two,

an animal whose legs were cut off and one whose skin was removed,

which you excluded

above—that is, the Gemara explained above that the tannai did not teach them because he held the view of those who deem them fit—

do not exclude them,

but

indeed

they are to be counted, because the tannai of the school of Rabbi Yishmael held like the Rabbis, that an animal whose legs were cut off is a tereifa. And likewise he held like the Sages regarding one whose skin was removed, that it is a tereifa.

Ulla said: Eight types of tereifa were stated to Moses at Sinai:

a.

Perforated,

which includes all the types of perforations mentioned above.

b.

And severed,

which includes the severed windpipe and the severed spinal cord.

c.

Removed,

which includes a removed liver, a removed skin—that is, one whose skin was removed—and also “the head of the thigh bone was scraped from its place,” which is considered as though it were removed from its place.

d.

And deficient,

which includes a lung that is deficient and an animal whose legs were cut off.

e.

Torn,

which includes the tearing of the flesh that covers the rumen from the outside.

f.

And mauled,

which includes an animal mauled by a wolf or a lion.

g.

Fallen,

which includes an animal that fell from a roof.

h.

And broken,

which includes an animal whose majority of ribs were broken, as well as the dislocation of a rib from its place, and a crushing of the skull. Likewise, when the identifying organs were loosened, it is considered “broken,” for the place where the identifying organs are attached to the jaw was broken.

To exclude the lesion of Rav Pappa’s son Rav Kaddish,

who said in the name of Rav that even if only one kidney was diseased, it is a tereifa; and Ulla disagreed with him.

Ḥiyya bar Abba said: There are eight

types of

“perforated” tereifa. [That is the first type among the eight types of tereifa stated by Ulla.]

a. A perforated esophagus. b. A perforated membrane of the brain. c. A perforated heart. d. A perforated lung. e. A perforated stomach. f. Perforated intestines. g. A perforated inner rumen. h. A perforated reticulum and omasum.

And

if you say there are

nine

types of tereifa among the perforated, for the

gallbladder

was also perforated and it too is a tereifa?

Your answer is: “The perforated gallbladder”—

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda teaches it,

but according to him alone, a perforated gallbladder is a tereifa, whereas the Sages deem it fit.

As it was taught in a beraita: If the stomach was perforated and

likewise

the intestines were perforated [the bowels],

it is

a tereifa.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: Even if the gallbladder was perforated

it is a tereifa.

Laws, companion, olive-sized portion, gallbladder, and gizzard —

a mnemonic

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who said that if the gallbladder was perforated, it is a tereifa.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What did Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda’s colleagues reply to him

in response to his statement that a perforated gallbladder is a tereifa?

This is what they said to him: We find that Job complained about the bitterness of his lot and said [Job 16]: “

He pours my gall upon the ground,”

meaning that Job’s gallbladder was perforated and its contents spilled from it onto the ground,

and still

we find that

Job

remained alive!

And it is proven that even after the gallbladder was perforated, one can continue to live; it follows that a perforated gallbladder is not a tereifa!?

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said to them,

to the Sages:

Miraculous events are not mentioned

to bring proof from them!

For if you do not say this,

you will have the following difficulty from what is written in that same chapter, where Job said: “

He pierces my kidneys and does not spare,”

How did Job remain alive after his kidneys were pierced?

Can he live!?

Surely a person cannot live after an arrow pierces his kidneys!?

Rather,

necessarily,

a miracle

that occurred to Job

is different. As it is written

concerning Job, that the Holy One, blessed is He, said to Satan to strike Job with mortal blows, but at the same time commanded him [Job 2]: “

Only preserve his life!”

so that Job would not die from those mortal blows.

If so,

here too,

when Job said, “He pours my gall upon the ground,” and he still remained alive, we must say

a miracle is different,

and we cannot bring proof from here that a perforated gallbladder is not a tereifa.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rabbi Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says

that enough must remain in the liver

an olive-sized portion

when the liver is removed; and if less than an olive-sized portion remains, the animal is a tereifa.

And we raised a difficulty:

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this

that an olive-sized portion must remain in the liver?

But Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha follows an anonymous Mishna. And we learned

in the first clause of our Mishna:

If the liver was removed and nothing at all remained of it,

it is a tereifa.

And we must infer:

if something remained,

it is

fit, even though an olive-sized remnant did not remain?!

And below the Gemara infers from the first clause of the Mishna, which is anonymous, as it infers here, that it is unnecessary for an olive-sized portion to remain from the liver in order to deem it fit. But from the latter clause of the Mishna [below], which teaches in it, “These are fit,” it is stated: “The liver was removed, and an olive-sized portion remained of it,” implying that if less than an olive-sized portion remained, it is a tereifa. And the Gemara establishes there that it is a dispute between tannaim whether an olive-sized portion must remain from the liver.

And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that the halakha follows an anonymous Mishna, there is a difficulty: How did he decide in accordance with the latter clause of the Mishna, that it is fit only when an olive-sized portion remained, and not in accordance with the first clause? After all, Rabbi taught both the first clause and the latter clause anonymously; and why should the power of the latter clause be greater than that of the first clause, so as to decide according to it!?

And we answer:

They are amoraim

who disagreed

according to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position,

whether Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the halakha follows an anonymous Mishna, or whether he did not say this.

Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that an olive-sized portion must remain from the liver, did not say in his name that the halakha follows an anonymous Mishna. Therefore, he held that Rabbi Yoḥanan could decide in accordance with the latter clause of the Mishna and not the first clause, since we established them as a dispute between tannaim.

But the one who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha follows an anonymous Mishna held that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not decide between the first clause and the latter clause, since both of them are anonymous, and he said nothing concerning the question of whether an olive-sized portion must remain in the liver or not.

And now, since the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rabbi Yosef in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan was brought, the Gemara brings another statement that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rabbi Yosef said in his name.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rabbi Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

A gallbladder that was perforated,

and the perforation was in the place where the gallbladder is attached to the liver,

and the liver seals it,

since the perforation was in the place where the gallbladder is attached to the liver, the attachment to the liver seals the perforation—and it is

fit.

And this is so even according to Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a perforated gallbladder is a tereifa, for here it is different, since the liver seals it.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rabbi Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If the gizzard was perforated, but

the inner

sac remains,

its inner lining remains,

it is fit.

They raised a dilemma: If the sac was perforated

the inner one of the gizzard,

and the gizzard

itself

remains, what is the law?

And we say:

Come and hear: For Rav Naḥman said

with regard to the gizzard and its sac:

If one was perforated but not the other, it is fit.

Rava said: The esophagus has two membranes: The outer

—

red. And the inner—

white.

If one was perforated but not the other,

that is, if only one of the membranes was perforated—

it is fit.

And we raised a difficulty:

Why do I need it to say: The outer is red and the inner is white,

when there is no practical difference!?

And we answer: To teach us

that if they were switched,

if they were reversed—that is, the outer was white and the inner was red—it is

a tereifa.

They raised a dilemma: If both were perforated,

the inner membrane and the outer membrane of the esophagus, but the two perforations were

not opposite one another—

what is the law?

Rav Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: In the esophagus—it is fit!

But

in the gizzard,

if its membrane was perforated in one place, and the inner sac was perforated in another place, it is

unfit,

because the food exits through the first perforation and seeps between the gizzard’s membrane and the inner sac, reaching the second perforation, even though the second perforation is not opposite the first perforation.

Rav Ashi raised an objection to this: On the contrary! The esophagus, through which it eats and through which it makes sounds,

when it cries out [bellows] and produces its sound through the windpipe,

expands.

The esophagus adjacent to the windpipe also spreads out. And since from time to time the animal

contracts it,

contracts the esophagus,

and spreads it out,

expands it, it happens that the two perforations in the two membranes

sometimes become aligned,

come together

with one another,

and at the time when the two perforations are directed opposite one another, they are like one perforation in one place in the esophagus, which renders the animal a tereifa.

But

the gizzard, which lies still,

which does not expand and contract, but

remains as it stands,

the perforation in the gizzard and the perforation in the inner sac do not join there, and they do not become one perforation in one place; therefore the animal does not become a tereifa.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: This is what we say in the name of Rav Zutra, who said it in the name of Rav Pappa—

in accordance with your view!

That is, when both were perforated not opposite one another: in the esophagus it is a tereifa, and in the gizzard it is fit.

And Rabbah said: A membrane that arose because of a wound in the esophagus is not a membrane.

Therefore, if the esophagus was perforated and became sealed, even with a thick seal, it does not endure. For sealing is of no benefit for any of the perforations that render an animal a tereifa, because that membrane, which seals the place of the perforation, will eventually depart from it, and the perforation remains as it was.

And Rabbah said: The esophagus—

it has no examination from the outside

if it is perforated. Since the outer membrane is red, if a perforation occurred in it, a drop of blood enters it and the perforation is not discernible; therefore the examination of the esophagus is

only from the inside,

where they examine the inner membrane, which is white, to see whether it is not perforated.

And we raised a difficulty:

What practical difference is there?

That is, when must one examine the esophagus because of concern that it is perforated, in which case it must be examined from the inside and not from the outside?