Chullin 46a — the Talmud in English

Does it mean

“up to, and including the endpoint”

? That is, the place of the branching as well, where the strands emerging from the spinal cord first divide, is included in the spinal cord, and there is no doubt that if it is severed, it is a terefa.

Or perhaps: “up to, but not including the endpoint”

? That is, the first place of branching too is included in Shmuel’s doubt?

Rav Pappa inquired: If you should say, “up to, but not including the endpoint,”

the mouth of the branching

itself—that is, if the large cord of the spine is severed at the place where it begins to divide—

what is the law?

Rabbi Jeremiah inquired: If you should say, “up to, and including the endpoint,”

then there is no doubt that the mouth of the branching, which is within the cord itself, is terefa. But if the cord of

the branching itself

is severed—that is, the strand emerging from the spinal cord at the first branching—

what is the law?

Come and hear: The branching

shall be judged as flesh!

And we infer:

What, is it not

even

the first and second branchings

whose law is like flesh, so that if they are severed, it is not terefa?

And we reject this:

No!

Here it is speaking of the strands emerging from the

third

branching.

And the Gemara discusses: And how far is the place of the spinal cord, such that if it is severed, it is terefa—

in a bird?

Rabbi Yannai says: Up to

the place of the cord

below the wings

[the wings].

And Resh Lakish said: Up to between the wings

, but not beneath them.

Ulla said: I was standing before ben Pazi, and they brought a bird before him, and he examined it up to between the wings, and they sent for him from the house of the Nasi

, from the house of the Nasi they sent to summon him to come,

and he rose and went. And I do not know whether it was because there was no need to examine further

that he rose and went,

or because of the honor of the Nasi.

We learned in the Mishna:

The liver was removed

and nothing at all of it remained.

And the Gemara infers:

If anything at all of it remained

it is kosher, even though there was not

an olive’s bulk

remaining.

remained.

But we learned: If the liver was removed and an olive’s bulk of it remained, it is kosher

. But if less than an olive’s bulk remained, it is terefa?!

Rav Joseph said: This is not difficult. This

is Rabbi Hiyya; that is Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi

, as he explains and proceeds:

As in this statement of Rabbi Hiyya

, when nothing of the liver remained, he

throws it away

.

But Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi

dips it

and eats it.

And your mnemonic is: The wealthy

are parsimonious.

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi was wealthy, and he would eat it.

A certain military troop,

a regiment of soldiers who would attack the inhabitants of the place,

came to Pumbedita. Rabbah and Rav Joseph fled. Rabbi Zeira encountered them.

He said to them

—Rabbi Zeira:

Fugitives

[so called because they had fled from Pumbedita]:

The olive’s bulk that they said

regarding a removed liver, namely, that an olive’s bulk remained,

in the place of

the

gallbladder!

Rav Adda bar Ahava said

: In the place

where it is alive.

That is, in the place where the liver hangs beneath the kidneys.

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, we require

that there remain

an olive’s bulk

of the liver

in the place

of its connection to the

gallbladder,

and we also require that there remain

an olive’s bulk in the place where it is alive.

Rabbi Jeremiah inquired: If there are gathered

half an olive’s bulk of liver here and half an olive’s bulk there, so that an olive’s bulk did not remain in one place—

what is the law?

An olive’s bulk remained elongated

like a strip

—what is the law? Rav Ashi inquired:

An

olive’s bulk

remained while it was

flattened

, as though it had been flattened—

what is the law?

And we conclude:

The matter stands unresolved.

Rabbi Zerika asked Rabbi Ami: If the liver became detached

, having been torn from its place in many places,

but remained attached to its diaphragm

[to the liver’s diaphragm]—

what is the law?

He said to him

—Rav Ami:

This detachment

detachment—

I do not know what its law is!

If according to the one who says

that we require an olive’s bulk to remain

in the place

of the connection to the

gallbladder

there is

an olive’s bulk there, for it is all present.

If according to the one who says

that we require an olive’s bulk to remain

in the place where it is alive

there is

one.

We learned in the Mishna:

The lung that was punctured:

Rav, Shmuel, and Rav Asi say

: If

the upper membrane

was punctured.

And some say

: If

the lower membrane was punctured.

Rav Joseph bar Minyumi said in the name of Rav Nahman

: The Mishna is speaking of a case in which the lower membrane was punctured.

And your mnemonic is: a red garment,

a red garment, which is the inner membrane,

upon which the lung rests.

And the Gemara says: This is

obvious: if it is punctured,

if only the

upper

membrane was punctured

and the lower

membrane was not punctured, then the

lower membrane protects

the lung, and it is not terefa,

as Rabbah said.

For Rabbah said

: This

lung whose upper membrane has peeled off,

and has been stripped [like “stripped,” whose skin was stripped off,