Chullin 45b — the Talmud in English

like two ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the page")

protuberances (polin)

there are,

and those two protuberances

lie at the opening of the cauldron,

at the place where the neck joins the skull.

From the protuberances inward—

it has the status of the inside.

From the protuberances outward—

it has the status of the outside.

And regarding that part of the brain situated opposite the

protuberances themselves, I do not know

whether its status is that of the inside or that of the outside.

And it stands to reason

that the brain opposite the protuberances themselves has the status of

the inside.

Rabbi Yirmeya examined a bird and found

that birds also have

something resembling two protuberances,

when they are

situated at the opening of the cauldron.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the heart was punctured into its chamber:

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma: Does this mean into the small chamber or into the large chamber?

Abaye said to him: What is the basis of your dilemma? Have we not learned

with regard to the case of a lung that was punctured [above, 42b]:

Rabbi Shimon says: It must be punctured

and the puncture must reach

the house of the bronchi.

And

concerning this

Rabba bar Taḥlifa said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, who said in the name of Rav: It must be punctured

and the puncture must reach

the large

central

bronchus!

And if so, the same should apply to a punctured heart: We require that the puncture reach the large chamber!?

We reject this:

Can these cases be compared!?

What is the similarity!?

There,

in the case of a puncture in the lung, it says that it must be punctured

“into the house of the bronchi,”

that is,

to where

the place is

where all the bronchi empty,

which is the large chamber into which all the bronchi empty.

But

here,

with regard to

a punctured heart, it says:

“into its chamber,”

and with regard to the definition of “the chamber of the heart,”

what difference is there whether it is the large chamber or the small chamber?!

It was stated:

The heart’s windpipe

that was punctured:

Rav said:

A puncture of

any size renders it a tereifa.

And Shmuel said:

It must be punctured

through most of it!

And we raised a question about this:

What is the heart’s windpipe?

Rabba bar Yitzhak said in the name of Rav: The fat that lies upon the walls.

That is, the fat that descends from the spine onto the ribs.

The Gemara is astonished: Is it conceivable that this means fat of the

“walls”?

Could it enter your mind to say that there is vitality in the fat of the walls, such that a puncture would render them unfit!?

Rather,

here we are dealing with a windpipe surrounded by fat

that lies upon the walls of the lung,

descends between the two parts of the lung, and is connected to the chamber of the heart.

Ameimar said in the name of Rav Naḥman: There were three windpipes.

That is, after the windpipe enters the thoracic cavity, it divides in three directions:

one extends to the heart, one extends to the lung, and one extends to the liver.

The one belonging to the lung—

its status is

like that of the lung,

and a puncture of any size renders it a tereifa.

The one belonging to the liver—

its status is

like that of the liver,

and it renders the animal unfit only if it is entirely removed.

The one belonging to the heart—

Rav and Shmuel disagree

about it, as stated above.

Mar bar Ḥiyya taught the reverse: The one belonging to the lung—

has the status of the liver,

and it renders the animal unfit only if it is entirely removed.

The one belonging to the liver—

has the status of the lung,

and a puncture of any size renders it unfit.

The one belonging to the heart—

Rav and Shmuel disagree

about it.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef went and related Rav’s teaching before Shmuel.

Shmuel said to him:

If this is what Abba said [A0105]a title of honor by which Shmuel referred to Rav,

почтительное прозвище, которым Шмуэль называл Рава ],

Rav did not know

anything

about tereifot!

We learned in the Mishna:

If the spine was broken:

The Sages taught: If the spinal cord was severed through most of it,

through most of its width,

these are the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yaakov says: Even if it was punctured.

Rabbi ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yaakov.

Rav Huna said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yaakov.

And how much is

“most of it”? Rav said:

When

most

of the circumference of

its outer membrane

has been severed, even if none of the brain has separated and it is all still present, the animal is a tereifa, because once the membrane has been severed, the brain will eventually emerge.

And some say, and there are those who say: Most of its brain.

If most of its brain has become detached, then even though the membrane was not severed, the animal is a tereifa.

The one who says “most of its brain” would certainly agree that most of its membrane

also suffices, since the membrane supports the brain, and once it is severed, the brain will ultimately disintegrate and emerge.

But

according to the one who says “most of its membrane,”

the question must be considered: If

most of its brain was severed, what is the law?

Come and hear: For Ne’ily said in the name of Rav Huna: The “most” that they stated—

most of its membrane,

because

this brain contributes nothing and detracts nothing.

Rav Natan bar Avin was sitting before Rav; he examined whether most of its membrane remained, and he was examining whether most of its brain remained.

He said to him: If most of its membrane remains—

this brain contributes nothing and detracts nothing!

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: If the spinal cord has become liquefied,

having softened and become like water—

it is unfit! If it has disintegrated—

it is unfit!

The Gemara explains:

What is “liquefaction,” and what is “disintegration”?

Liquefaction—

any case in which it pours out like a pitcher

of water through the puncture.

Disintegration—

when it has softened but does not pour out like a pitcher; rather,

anything that cannot stand upright

when the cord is held in one’s hand with part of it left extending upward, and that part bends downward and cannot remain erect.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:

If the part of the cord held upward cannot stand

because of its weight,

as it is thick and heavy,

what is the law?

Is this considered an illness or not?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

The scholars of Rav’s academy said: If it has disintegrated—

it is unfit.

If it has become diminished,

with some of the brain having emptied on its own—

it is fit!

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: An animal whose brain has become diminished is a tereifa!

And we answer:

That case—“it has disintegrated” was stated!

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But Levi was sitting in a bathhouse,

in a bathhouse,

and he saw a certain man whose head had been struck,

who had fallen and hit his head against a wall, causing his brain to be shaken.

Levi said: “This man’s brain has become diminished”

[of this man]! That is, Levi was distressed and worried about this man whose brain had become diminished.

And we analyze: What did he mean—

did he not

intend to say

“he will not live,”

that this man would not survive!?

Abaye said: No!

Rather, he intended

to say that he will not father children.

For an injury to the brain damages the power of procreation.

How far does the spinal cord extend?

That is, up to what point in the spinal cord does its severing render the animal a tereifa?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Until the space between the branches.

This is the place where separate cords begin to branch off and emerge from the spinal cord in the spinal column toward the various parts of the body. This branching occurs in stages, in the final vertebrae before the tail. Until the space between the branches, if most of the spinal cord is severed, the animal becomes a tereifa. But from the space between the branches onward, the strength of the spinal column has already weakened, and severing most of it does not render the animal a tereifa, since the thighs support the spine, and the animal does not die because most of the cord has been severed there.

Rav Dimi bar Yitzhak was about to travel to Bei Hozai,

and was hurrying to set out on his journey.

He came before Rav Yehuda. He said to him: Let my master show me where “the space between the branches” is located

where it can be found.

He said to him: Go and bring me a kid, and I will show you.

He brought him a fat kid,

slaughtered and skinned, but he did not slit it open so that Rav Yehuda could clearly show him the place where the branches divide. Rather, he asked him to show him the place from the outside, where the cord is white and can be seen as it enters the flesh of the rump on either side beneath the bone, since Rav Dimi bar Yitzhak was hurrying to continue on his journey.

He said to him,

Rav Yehuda:

It is more deeply embedded,

since this kid is fat, the cord is more deeply embedded in it,

and it cannot be discerned;

it is not visible from outside, and it is difficult to identify the exact location, since a hairbreadth on this side is fit, while a hairbreadth on that side renders it a tereifa.

He brought him

a

lean kid.

He said to him: It is more compressed,

since the kid is lean, the bone presses and constricts the flesh to which the spinal cord is attached until it becomes thin,

and it cannot be discerned;

it is not visible.

He said to him: Come, I will teach you the Gemara,

come and I will teach you the law without showing it to you in the kid itself.

This is what Shmuel said:

If the spinal cord was severed

until

the

first

branching point,

it is a tereifa.

From the

third

branching point onward—

it is fit.

But from the

second

branching point onward—

I do not know!

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raised a dilemma:

Concerning that which Shmuel said, “Until the first branching point it is a tereifa,”