Chullin 46a (מו.) — the Talmud in English

Does it mean

“up to, and including the endpoint”

—that is, the place of branching itself, where the fibers emerging from the spinal cord first divide, is included within the spinal cord, and there is no doubt that if it is severed, the animal is a treifa.

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

—that is, the first place of branching is also included in Shmuel’s uncertainty?

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

the mouth of the branching

itself—that is, if the main spinal cord is severed at the point where it begins to divide—

what is the ruling?

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question: 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, renders the animal a treifa. But if the cord of the

“branching” itself

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

what is the ruling?

Come and hear: The branching

is judged like flesh!

And we infer:

Is it not

even the

first and second branchings

that are judged like flesh, so that if they are severed, the animal is not a treifa?

And we reject this:

No!

Here it is speaking of the fibers emerging from the

third

branching.

And the Gemara discusses: How far does the spinal cord extend, such that if it is severed the animal is a treifa—

in a bird?

Rabbi Yannai says: As far as

the cord extends

below the wings

[the wings].

And Reish Lakish said: As far as between the wings

, but not below them.

Ulla said: I was standing before ben Pazi, and they brought a bird before him. He examined it as far as between the wings, and they sent for him from the house of the Nasi

—from the Nasi’s household they sent to summon him to come—

and he rose and went. But I do not know whether he rose and went because there was no need to examine farther,

and he went,

or because of the honor of the Nasi.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the liver was removed

and none of it remained.

And the Gemara infers:

If any of it remained

the animal is fit, even if

less than a

kezayit

remained.

But didn’t we learn in the Mishna: If the liver was removed and a kezayit of it remained, the animal is fit

? But if less than a kezayit remained, it is a treifa!

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This

is the opinion of Rabbi Hiyya, and that is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi

, as he proceeds to explain:

As in this statement of Rabbi Hiyya

—when none 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 ate it.

There was a certain troop

, a military contingent that attacked the inhabitants of the area,

that came to Pumbedita. Rabba and Rav Yosef fled. Rabbi Zeira encountered them.

He said to them

—Rabbi Zeira:

You fugitives

[so called because they had fled from Pumbedita]:

The kezayit that they said

with regard to a removed liver, meaning that a kezayit remained,

must be in the place

of the

gallbladder!

Rav Adda bar Ahava said

: In the place

where it is alive.

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

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, we require

that there remain

a kezayit

of the liver

in the place

where it is joined to the

gallbladder,

and we also require that there remain

a kezayit in the place where it is alive.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question: If

half a kezayit of liver is gathered here and half a kezayit there, so that a kezayit did not remain in one place—

what is the ruling?

If a kezayit remained lengthwise,

like a strip

what is the ruling? Rav Ashi raised a question:

If

a kezayit

remained when it was

flattened

as though it had been rolled flat,

what is the ruling?

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

Rabbi Zerika asked Rabbi Ami: If the liver became detached

, having been torn away from its place in many areas,

but remained attached to its diaphragm

[to the liver’s diaphragm]—

what is the ruling?

He said to him

—Rav Ami:

This detachment

detachment—

I do not know what its status is!

If according to the one who says

that we require a kezayit to remain

in the place

where it is joined to the

gallbladder

there is

a kezayit there, since the entire liver is present.

If according to the one who says

that we require a kezayit to remain

in the place where it is alive

there is

there is one.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the lung was punctured:

Rav, Shmuel, and Rav Asi say

that if

the upper membrane

, the upper membrane, was punctured.

And some say

that if

the lower membrane was punctured.

Rav Yosef bar Manyumi said that Rav Naḥman said

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

And your mnemonic is: A red garment

, which is the inner membrane,

upon which the lung rests.

And the Gemara says: This

is obvious: If it was punctured

—if only the

upper membrane was punctured

and the

lower membrane

was not punctured—then the

lower membrane protects

the lung, and the animal is not a treifa,

as Rabba said.

For Rabba said

: This

lung whose upper membrane was stripped away

[like “gludah,” whose skin was stripped off