Chullin 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

Fine sand -

we are not concerned

because it is never compressed.

Coarse sand -

we are concerned,

because the large stones within it crush the bird when it falls upon them.

Road dust,

which is coarse and becomes hard -

we are concerned.

Straw,

straw of wheat and barley,

when bound in bundles,

a bundle -

we are concerned.

When it is not bound in bundles -

we are not concerned. Wheat and anything similar to it -

we are concerned

if a bird falls upon them, because they are hard.

Barley and anything similar to it -

we are concerned!

All types of legumes,

which are not compressed together -

there is no concern for crushing of limbs on account of them, except for rubya

[fenugreek].

Himtzei,

one of the types of legumes -

there is no concern for crushing of limbs on account of it.

Haftei,

also a type of legume -

there is concern for crushing of limbs on account of it.

The general principle is:

anything

that causes sliding,

which is smooth and is not compressed, since a bird that falls upon it slips away and proceeds onward, rather than striking it -

there is no concern for crushing of limbs on account of it.

And anything that is

not slippery,

not smooth, and therefore is compressed -

there is concern for crushing of limbs on account of it.

Adhesive,

glue used by those who trap birds, such that the bird becomes stuck to the board on which the glue is spread, and when it flies up it falls together with the board stuck to it -

Rav Ashi permits it. Ameimar prohibits it.

The Gemara explains: When the board is stuck only

to one wing,

one wing,

everyone agrees that it is permitted.

For the bird can continue flying with its other wing.

They disagree -

with regard to two wings,

when the bird is stuck by both of its wings.

The one who prohibits it can say to you: How can it rise?!

Since it is stuck by both of its wings, it cannot lift and support itself, and its fall is an impact that causes its limbs to be crushed.

And the one who permits it can say to you: Perhaps it can rise by means of the bases of its wings.

At the ends of the wings, where they are attached to the body, the bird is not stuck to the board; by means of them it can support itself to some degree, and therefore it does not strike the ground upon falling.

Some say that with regard to adhesive

stuck

to two wings -

everyone agrees that it is prohibited.

They disagree with regard to one wing:

The one who permits it can say to you -

perhaps

it can fly with one wing.

And the one who prohibits it -

since with this

wing

it cannot fly, with this

wing, the other one,

it likewise cannot fly.

And the halakha is: With two wings it is prohibited; with one wing it is permitted.

We learned in the Mishna:

If most of its ribs were broken,

it is a tereifa.

The Sages taught:

There are twenty-two large ribs in an animal, eleven on each side. Thus, twelve ribs constitute a majority of the ribs.

What constitutes a majority of the ribs -

six on this side and six on that side, or eleven on this side and one on the other.

Ze'iri said: And from their midpoint toward the spine.

That is, provided that the break is on the side nearer the spine, which is the animal's vital side, and not on the side nearer the chest.

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

And this applies to large ribs -

that contain marrow.

Ulla said: Ben Zakkai said:

If

the ribs were uprooted

the ribs

on the majority of one side,

it is a tereifa. That is, when six ribs were uprooted from one side. But if the ribs merely

were broken

and were not uprooted, it is a tereifa only if they were broken on the majority of both

sides.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Whether they were uprooted or whether they were broken,

it is not a tereifa unless the uprooting or breaking occurred

on the majority of both sides.

Rav said: If a rib was uprooted

one

together with a vertebra -

it is a tereifa.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: If a rib was uprooted from here and a rib from there, while the vertebra remained intact, what is the law?

He said to them:

And do

you mean a gistara?!

Are you asking me about an animal whose middle has been severed [which is the situation when a rib is uprooted from here and a rib from there]? An animal whose middle has been severed, which is called a gistara, is a neveila!

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning Rav's response:

But Rav

himself, who said, “If a vertebra was uprooted together with a rib, it is a tereifa,”

also

with regard to

a gistara said this!

For once the vertebra and one rib have been uprooted, the other rib also becomes detached. It is therefore a neveila; why did Rav call it a tereifa? And we answer:

When Rav said this -

it was with regard to a

rib uprooted without a vertebra.

The Gemara raises a further difficulty:

But Rav said “a rib and a vertebra,”

did he not!?

And we answer:

Rav said “a rib and half a vertebra.”

Rav was referring to this.

The Gemara nevertheless raises a further difficulty:

By inference

you learn that

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi,

when they asked Rav what the status was of an animal in which a rib had been uprooted on one side while the vertebra remained intact, were not speaking of half a vertebra remaining intact, but of the entire vertebra remaining intact. For Rav had said that even when one rib and part of a vertebra are uprooted it is a tereifa; so what were they asking him about two ribs? Rather, they must have been referring to a case in which

a rib without a vertebra, they said. And he said to them

Rav:

“Do you mean a gistara?

That is a neveila!”

But Ulla said: Ben Zakkai said: If the ribs were uprooted -

on the majority of one side; if they were broken - on the majority of both sides.

It is apparent that most of the ribs must be uprooted on one side in order to render the animal a tereifa, and that uprooting a single rib is insufficient!?

And we answer:

He can say to you,

Rav:

There,

where the ribs were uprooted,

it was not one opposite the other. Here,

the case called a gistara concerns ribs that were uprooted

one opposite the other.

The Gemara nevertheless challenges this:

But Rabbi Yohanan said

that the ribs must be uprooted

on the majority of both sides.

And when this occurs on the majority of both sides,

it is impossible that at least one of them did not remain

whose ribs were uprooted

one opposite the other,

since there are eleven ribs on each side, and if six ribs were uprooted from each side, certainly one rib was uprooted from both of its sides!? And we answer:

There,

in Rabbi Yohanan's statement, which requires most of the ribs to be uprooted, the case is one in which the

bukhna,

a rib, was uprooted

without

part of the vertebra, which is called the

asita.

But

here,

in the statement of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, the case is one in which the

bukhna and asita were uprooted.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so,

if Rav Kahana and Rav Asi were speaking of a rib uprooted together with part of the vertebra,

that is Rav's

statement, who explicitly said that when part of a vertebra is uprooted together with the rib, the animal is a tereifa. What, then, were Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asking Rav about two ribs, one from each side, uprooted together with part of the vertebra? According to Rav, even if only one rib from one side was uprooted together with part of the vertebra, it is a tereifa!?

And we answer: Rav Kahana and Rav Asi

had not heard

this matter

from Rav.

We inquire concerning this: If they were speaking in a case in which they had not heard what Rav had said, why did they ask him about a rib uprooted from each side?

Let them ask him in accordance with Rav's ruling,

about a rib uprooted from only one side!?

And we answer:

They thought: Let us ask him

Rav

one question, and he will clarify

it for us

as two.

For if we ask him

about

one

rib being uprooted,

it is satisfactory if he tells us that it is a tereifa,

for all the more so we will know that when

two ribs are uprooted, it is a tereifa.

But

if he tells us that it is kosher, we will still

have a question concerning

two being uprooted.

The Gemara challenges this:

If so, now too, when they ask him

about

two being uprooted, it is satisfactory if he tells them

Rav

that it is kosher -

all the more so

when only

one is uprooted.

But

if he tells them that it is a tereifa -

still, do

they have a question about one being uprooted

?!

And we answer:

They thought

that from Rav's response to their question they would also know the answer concerning a single uprooted rib. If Rav were to answer that when two ribs are uprooted the animal is kosher, then certainly when one rib is uprooted it is kosher. And if he were to answer that it is a tereifa, they would infer the status of one rib from the manner of his response. If he were to answer calmly that when two are uprooted it is a tereifa, this would indicate that when one is uprooted it is kosher. For if even when one is uprooted it is a tereifa,

then he would be raging

in his response. For if one rib is uprooted,

one,

it is

a tereifa, and when

two

ribs are uprooted -

is there any question

?!

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But they did say to him

that they were asking about the case of two being uprooted,

and he did not rage,

even though Rav had ruled that the animal is a tereifa even when only one rib is uprooted!?

And we answer: Indeed, Rav did rage.

Since he said to them

Rav, “

Do you mean a gistara?!”

that itself was his rage!

Rabba bar Rav Sheila said that Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: If a rib was uprooted from its base

even if the asita was not uprooted,

and if a skull was crushed,

broken

over the majority of its area, and if the flesh covering most of the rumen

was torn

over most of its area -

it is a tereifa.

We inquire concerning this: Does

a rib uprooted from its base

indeed render the animal

a tereifa?!

And we challenge this,

from what we learned in tractate Oholot [2:3]: