Chullin 43a (מג.) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

explain it as follows:

these two,

an animal whose legs were severed and one whose hide was removed,

which he excluded

above—that is, the Gemara explained above that the tanna did not teach them because he held in accordance with the opinion of those who deem them fit—

should not be excluded,

but

indeed

they should be counted, because the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael held in accordance with the Rabbis, that an animal whose legs were severed is a tereifa. And likewise he held in accordance with the Sages with regard to an animal whose hide was removed, that it is a tereifa.

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

a.

Perforated,

which includes all the types of perforations listed above.

b.

And severed,

which includes a severed windpipe and a severed spinal cord.

c.

Removed,

which includes a removed liver, a removed hide, i.e., an animal whose hide was removed, and also “the head of the thigh bone that was scraped from its place,” which is considered as though it were removed from its place.

d.

And lacking,

which includes a lung that is missing part of it and an animal whose legs were severed.

e.

Torn,

which includes tearing of the flesh that covers the rumen externally.

f.

And clawed,

which includes an animal clawed 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 crushing of the skull. Likewise, when the trachea and esophagus became detached, this is considered “broken,” as the place where they connect to the jaw was broken.

To exclude the lesion of Rekhish bar Pappa,

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

Ḥiyya bar Abba said: There are eight

types of

tereifot in the category “perforated”

[which is the first type among the eight types of tereifot 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. Perforation of the small intestines. g. Perforation of the inner rumen. h. Perforation of the omasum and reticulum.

And

if you say that there are nine

types of tereifot in the category “perforated,” since the

gallbladder

too, if perforated, renders the animal a tereifa?

Your answer is: “A perforated gallbladder”—

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, teaches it;

only according to him does a perforated gallbladder render the animal a tereifa, but the Rabbis deem it fit.

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

likewise

the small intestines are perforated

[i.e., the intestines], it is

a tereifa.

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

it is a tereifa.

Laws, fellow, olive-bulk, gallbladder, and gizzard —

a mnemonic.

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

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

And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar 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 renders the animal a tereifa?

This is what they said to him: We find that Job complained about the bitterness of his fate and said [Job 16:13],

“He pours my gall upon the ground,”

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

and yet

we find that

Job

remained alive!

And it is demonstrated that even after the gallbladder is perforated, one can continue to live; it follows that a perforated gallbladder does not render the animal a tereifa!?

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said to them,

the Sages:

Miraculous events are not mentioned

in order to derive proof from them!

For if you do not say so,

you will have difficulty with that which is written in the same chapter, that Job said,

“He pierces my kidneys and does not spare,”

for how did Job remain alive after his kidneys were pierced?

Can he live!?

After an arrow pierces his kidneys, a person cannot live!?

Rather,

necessarily,

the miracle

that occurred to Job

is different. As it is written

concerning Job, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, told Satan to strike Job with fatal blows, but at the same time commanded him [Job 2:6],

“Only preserve his life!”

so that Job would not die from those mortal blows.

If so,

here too,

with regard to Job’s statement, “He pours my gall upon the ground,” while he nevertheless remained alive, we must say that

a miracle is different,

and we cannot bring proof from here that a perforated gallbladder does not render the animal a tereifa.

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

that a

olive-bulk

must remain in the liver when the liver is removed; and if less than an olive-bulk remains, the animal is a tereifa.

And we raise a difficulty:

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this,

that an olive-bulk must remain in the liver?

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

in the first clause of our Mishna:

If the liver was removed and none of it remained,

it is a tereifa.

And we should infer:

if some remained,

it is

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

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

And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that the halakha follows an unattributed Mishna, there is a difficulty: How could he rule in accordance with the latter clause of the Mishna, that the animal is fit only when an olive-bulk remained, and not in accordance with the first clause? After all, Rabbi taught both the first clause and the latter clause as unattributed teachings; why should the latter clause have greater force than the first clause, so as to determine the halakha in accordance with it!?

And we answer:

They are amoraim,

who disagreed

with regard to the view of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

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

Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that an olive-bulk must remain from the liver, did not say in his name that the halakha follows an unattributed Mishna. Therefore, he held that Rabbi Yoḥanan could rule 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 unattributed Mishna held that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not decide between the first clause and the latter clause, since both are unattributed, and he said nothing concerning the question of whether an olive-bulk must remain in the liver or not.

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

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

If a gallbladder 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.

This is so even according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that a perforated gallbladder renders the animal a tereifa, because here it is different, as the liver seals the perforation.

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

the

inner sac remains,

its inner lining remains,

it is fit.

They raised a dilemma: If the sac is perforated

the inner sac 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 is perforated but not the other, it is fit.

Rava said: The esophagus has two membranes: The outer one—

red. And the inner one—

red. And the inner—

white.

If one is perforated but not the other,

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

it is fit.

And we raise a difficulty:

Why do I need it to say that the outer one is red and the inner one is white,

when there is no practical difference!?

And we answer: To teach

that if they are reversed,

that is, if the outer one was white and the inner one 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?

Mar 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 one perforation and seeps between the gizzard membrane and the inner sac until it reaches the second perforation, even though the second perforation is not opposite the first.

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

when it bellows [literally, “bellows”] and produces its sound through the windpipe,

expands,

the esophagus adjacent to the windpipe also expanding. And since from time to time the animal

contracts it

and constricts the esophagus,

and stretches it

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

sometimes align,

coinciding

with one another,

and at the time when the two perforations are aligned with 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,

does not expand and contract; rather,

it remains as it stands.

The perforation in the gizzard and the perforation in the inner sac do not join together, 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 Mar Zutra, who said it in the name of Rav Pappa—

in accordance with your opinion!

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 Rabba said: A membrane that formed in the esophagus because of an injury is not considered a membrane.

Therefore, if the esophagus was perforated and became sealed, even by a thick seal, the seal will not endure. None of the perforations that render an animal a tereifa can be remedied by a seal, because the membrane that seals the place of the perforation will eventually disappear, and the perforation will remain as it was.

And Rabba said: The esophagus

cannot be examined externally

to determine whether it is perforated. This is because the outer membrane is red, and if a perforation occurs in it, a drop of blood enters it and the perforation cannot be discerned. Therefore, the esophagus

can be examined only internally,

by examining whether the inner membrane, which is white, is perforated.

And we raise a difficulty:

What practical difference is there?

That is, when is it necessary to examine the esophagus because of concern that it is perforated, in which case it must be examined internally and not externally?