Chullin 45a (מה.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira:

“They are being honored through me.”

They are honored by my presence at their meal, and this is not a gift for me, but rather a benefit for them.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If the trachea is perforated

around its circumference by many fine perforations

like a sieve—

they join

the perforations around the trachea

to constitute a majority.

That is, they are assessed as though they were joined together; if they would thereby sever the majority of the trachea, the animal is unfit.

Rav Yirmeya raised an objection:

Why do you require the fine perforations to join together to the extent of severing the majority of the trachea? Granted, the measure for a severed trachea is the severing of the majority of the trachea; but there is also a condition of טריפה resulting from the trachea being deficient. For we learned below [54a] that if the trachea is perforated and is missing an amount the size of an issar coin, it is unfit. If so, why do we not combine all the fine perforations to the measure of one issar, and declare the animal unfit even if the fine perforations do not join together to the measure of a deficiency? This is analogous to what we learned concerning the impurity of the tent of a corpse: If a corpse’s complete spine or skull is present, it imparts impurity in a tent; but if the spine or skull is deficient [by the measure explained in Tractate Oholot, chapter 2, mishna 3], it does not impart impurity in a tent, but only through contact and carrying.

For we learned there: By how much must the spine be deficient for the spine of the corpse not to impart impurity in a tent? Beit Shammai say: If two vertebrae were removed. And Beit Hillel say: Even if one vertebra was removed.

And with regard to the skull, Beit Shammai say: If the skull is deficient by the width of the hole made by a drill that, if removed from a living person, would cause him to die.

That is, Beit Hillel say that if the skull is deficient by an amount such that, had this deficiency existed during life, the person would have died as a result of it, the deficient skull does not impart impurity in the tent of a corpse.

And it is stated in Tractate Bekhorot: What is the measure of “that which, if removed from a living person, would cause him to die”? The full measure of a physicians’ drill!

And it is taught there in addition:

And with regard to the skull,

which has one long perforation,

even if it has many perforations

small ones,

they

indeed

join to

the measure of

“the full measure of a drill,”

and we do not say that since they are small perforations, they must join together to a larger measure; rather, it is sufficient for them to join together to the ordinary measure of the full width of a drill.

Apparently, since its measure

for the deficiency

is the full width of a drill, they join to the full width of a drill;

they join to this measure, and there is no need for them to join to a larger measure because of their smallness. If so,

here too, since its measure

for a perforation of the trachea that renders it unfit

is an issar,

if there are small, fine perforations,

they join to an issar,

and we do not require them to join to the severing of the majority of the trachea!?

And we answer: There is a distinction between two types of perforations. Some perforations are merely in the form of a cut: the place where the perforation is located is cut, but nothing is missing because of the perforation. Other perforations are in the form of a deficiency: since something is missing from that place, it is considered perforated.

And the one who raised the objection was unaware of this statement,

which Rabbi Helbo said that Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav said: Perforations that entail a deficiency

indeed

join to an issar,

which is the measure of a deficiency in the trachea that renders it unfit.

And

perforations

that do not entail a deficiency,

but are merely cuts,

join to constitute a majority

of the severing of the trachea, since the measure of a severed trachea that renders it unfit is a cut, or cuts joined together, extending over the majority of the circumference of the trachea.

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If a strip was removed from it,

from the trachea,

a strip

long

joins

that strip

to an issar.

That is, if the strip were rounded into a circle, and it would contain the measure of an issar, it constitutes a deficiency in the trachea that renders it unfit.

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Naḥmani asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: If the trachea is perforated

in many fine perforations

like a sieve, what is the ruling?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

They already said: Perforations that entail a deficiency join to an issar, and those that do not entail a deficiency join to constitute a majority,

as we have explained it.

And we inquire:

With regard to a bird—what is the ruling?

In a bird, the measure of a perforation is smaller than the measure of an issar. If so, what is the measure for joining the fine perforations in the trachea of a bird?

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Naḥmani said: For me, Rabbi Elazar explained it to me as follows: Fold it

the skin containing perforations like a sieve, by cutting it from below and along the sides of the perforations,

and place it

the skin perforated like a sieve

over the opening of the windpipe. If it covers

the skin containing the perforations

the majority of

the hollow

of the windpipe, it is unfit. And if not, it is fit.

That is, the measurement is made over the entire area of the skin containing the perforations. One does not measure only the perforations themselves; rather, one combines with the perforations the entire area of skin between them, and determines whether all the perforated skin can cover the opening of the windpipe.

The reason that the perforations are measured together with the skin surrounding the perforations is that the perforations are numerous and close together, like a sieve, and all the skin is considered as though it were perforated.

Rav Pappa said: And your mnemonic is: a sieve.

That is, this will be your mnemonic: Here, one does not measure by an issar, nor by joining the perforations to constitute a majority. Rather, one covers the hollow of the windpipe with the perforated skin and determines whether the perforated skin covers the majority of the hollow of the windpipe.

The mnemonic is a sieve, made of horse-tail hair, which covers the circular frame of the sieve.

If the trachea is opened

the windpipe

like a door.

That is, the detached portion was not removed, but was torn and remains hanging from the trachea, just as a door remains hanging on its hinges—

Rav Naḥman said:

Since there is no deficiency here, but only a tear in the wall of the trachea, and the “door” blocks the opening that was created, therefore a larger measure is required to render it unfit: the opening of the tear must be large

enough for an issar to enter through its width.

That is, the issar must be able to enter and exit through this opening.

If the trachea is split

lengthwise—

Rav said: Even if only one vertebral ring

remained

that was not split in the windpipe

above, and one vertebral ring

that was not split in the windpipe

below,

while all the other vertebral rings along the entire length of the windpipe were split, it is

fit.

The reason for this is that although if the windpipe is perforated across the majority of its width the animal is unfit, the case there is different, because the neck pulls the windpipe upward and the lung pulls it downward. Consequently, if there is a transverse cut, the windpipe is completely torn and does not heal. But if the split is lengthwise along the windpipe, then the more the neck is pulled, the more the split closes and heals.

It follows that this perforation, in which the entire length of the windpipe is split [apart from one vertebral ring above and one vertebral ring below], is the greatest leniency in the laws of perforations!

They stated

this law concerning a trachea split lengthwise: If one vertebral ring remains above and one below, it is fit,

before Rabbi Yoḥanan.

He said

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

“What need is there for ‘one vertebral ring’ and ‘one vertebral ring,’ as Rav said?!”

That is, why do you require complete vertebral rings to remain above and below!?

Rather, say: Even if nothing remained in it

along the length of the trachea

except something above and something below—it is fit!

They stated this before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yonatan,

who also said

so,

that if something remained above and something below, it is fit.

He said to them

Rabbi Yoḥanan, when he heard Rabbi Yonatan’s words, in which he said the same as he had said:

“The Babylonian scholars know how to explain matters in this manner!”

That is, he praised Rabbi Yonatan, who had come from Babylonia to the Land of Israel, for knowing how to explain the rationale of this halakha: It is not necessary for a complete vertebral ring to remain above and below; it is sufficient that something remain.

The tanna Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef taught before Rabbi Yoḥanan: The entire neck is fit for slaughter,

beginning

from the large ring

above

until

the wings of the

lower lung.

That is, although the windpipe continues downward until the lung itself, the place fit for slaughter is only until the point where the windpipe reaches the area between the lobes of the lung.

Rava said:

The statement of Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef that one may slaughter until the wings of the lower lung means:

lower,

when the animal is suspended with its legs directed upward and its head downward, the small lobes extending from the lung are oriented downward,

which is upper,

when one takes hold of the windpipe and the lung suspended from it, the small lobes are found above, over the lung.

Rava adds:

“And I say that”

the place where the windpipe may be slaughtered is

“the entire area over which it extends its neck and grazes.”

That is, it extends its neck willingly, and no farther. This place is, as stated, until the point where the windpipe reaches the area between the lobes, whereas the continuation of the windpipe down to the lung is not a place fit for slaughter. Therefore I explained that when Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said “lower,” he meant the lower part that is upper, namely, the small lobes of the lung, and not the lower part in itself, namely, the lung, which is always lower, both when it is inside the animal and when one holds the windpipe from which the lung hangs after slaughter.

Provided that it is not forced.

That is, if a person stretches the animal’s neck and pulls its signs away from the chest, the area created as a result of pulling the neck is not fit for slaughter.

Rav Hanina, and some say Rav Hananya, asked:

An animal that, at the time of slaughter,

forcibly extended itself

to stretch its neck beyond the degree to which it ordinarily stretches its neck while grazing—

what is the ruling?

Is it possible to slaughter in the area that it itself stretched? And we conclude:

The question remains unresolved.

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish were sitting. A matter emerged from among them:

If a person forcibly

extended the animal

by its signs and slaughtered it—

it is unfit.

If the windpipe is perforated below the chest,

in a place that is not fit for slaughter,

it is treated like the lung,

so that any perforation, however small, renders it prohibited, and it is not treated like the esophagus, which is not prohibited until the majority of it is perforated.

Since we are dealing with a perforated windpipe below the chest, the Gemara brings a matter concerning the chest with regard to the law of a sacrifice of peace-offerings.

The Sages taught: What is the “chest”?

That is, what is included in the chest of a sacrifice of peace-offerings, which is a mitzva to give to the priests?

This

is the lower portion of the animal or sheep

that faces the ground.

That is, the lower front portion of the animal, extending to and including the cartilage at the heads of the ribs. However, the ribs themselves are not broken [see the illustration in the book Siaḥat Hulin].

This portion is defined when the animal is hung for skinning, with its head facing downward:

Below, up to the neck.

But from the point where the slope of the neck begins upward, this is no longer included in the chest.

Above, up to

the place of

the rumen.

To reach the place of the rumen, he

cuts

also

the two ribs

upper small ones

from the two walls, from here to there.

That is, he cuts one rib on this side and one rib on that side [the two ribs on either side of the windpipe, where it enters the lung].

And this is the chest given to the priests.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the membrane of the brain is perforated:

Rav and Shmuel both say:

If

the upper membrane

the upper membrane that envelops the brain, located beneath the skin, is perforated,

even though the lower one was not perforated,

the soft membrane in which the brain rests.

And some say: Only when the lower one is perforated.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: And your mnemonic is,

that the lower, soft membrane must be perforated:

a pouch

[a sack]

in which the brain rests.

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Opposite it, in the testicles—

the distinction is apparent!

That is, one can distinguish between the two membranes—the enveloping membrane and the thin membrane in which the brain rests—by comparing the two membranes of the brain with the two membranes of the male testicles. In the two membranes of the testicles, the distinction between the membrane enveloping the testicles and the membrane in which the testicles rest is apparent.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara:

What is the

brain

in which any perforation renders the animal unfit?

Everything within the skull,

in the cranium, before it emerges into the spinal cord,

is treated as brain.

But if it

begins to extend

from the skull to emerge into the spinal cord, it

is treated as spinal cord,

and it becomes unfit only when the majority of it is severed.

And from where does it begin to extend?

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Naḥmani said: For me, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explained it to me as follows: