Chullin 52a — the Talmud in English

Fine sand —

we are not concerned

because it is never compacted.

Coarse sand —

we are concerned,

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

Road dust,

which is coarse and becomes hard —

we are concerned.

Straw,

the straw of wheat and barley,

and made into bundles,

a bundle —

we are concerned.

If it is not made into bundles —

we are not concerned. Wheat and anything of its kind —

we are concerned

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

Barley and anything of its kind —

we are concerned!

All types of legumes,

which are not compacted together —

there is no concern of crushing of limbs in them, except for fenugreek

clover.

Chimtsi,

one of the types of legumes —

there is no concern of crushing of limbs in it.

Chafsi,

which is also a type of legume —

there is concern of crushing of limbs in it.

The general principle is,

every

slippery thing,

which is smooth and is not compacted: since the bird that falls upon it slips away and continues on, and is not struck by it —

there is no concern of crushing of limbs in it.

And every thing that is

not slippery,

is not smooth, and therefore is compacted —

there is concern of crushing of limbs in it.

Glue,

the glue made for trapping birds, whereby the bird sticks to the board upon which the glue is, and when it flies it falls together with the board stuck to it —

Rav Ashi permits. Ameimar prohibits.

And the Gemara explains: When the board is stuck only

to one wing,

one wing,

everyone agrees that it is permitted.

For it can continue to fly with its other wing.

They disagree —

with regard to two wings,

when the bird is stuck by both its wings.

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

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

And the one who permits can say to you: Perhaps it can stand on the ends of its wings.

At the ends of the wings, where they join the body, it is not stuck to the board, and through them it can support itself to some extent; therefore it is not struck in its fall.

And some say:

with regard to glue

on two wings —

everyone agrees that it is prohibited.

They disagree with regard to one wing:

The one who permits says to you —

perhaps

it can fly with one wing.

And the one who prohibits —

since with this

wing

it cannot fly, with this

wing, the second,

it also 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. It follows that twelve ribs are most of the ribs.

These are most of the ribs —

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

Zeiri said: And from their middles toward the spine.

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

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

And with regard to large ribs —

those that contain marrow.

Ulla said: Ben Zakkai said:

If

the ribs were uprooted

the ribs

on most of one side,

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

the ribs were broken

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

sides.

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

it is not a tereifa unless the uprooting or breaking was

on most of both sides.

Rav said: If a rib was uprooted

one

and a vertebra with it —

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 remains, what is the law?

He said to them:

And is it that

you are speaking of a gistra?!

Are you asking me about an animal whose middle has been severed [for that is the situation when a rib is uprooted from here and a rib from there], whereas an animal whose middle has been severed, which is called a gistra, is a carcass!?

The Gemara is astonished at Rav’s answer:

But Rav

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

also

with regard to a

gistra did he speak!

For once the vertebra and one rib are uprooted, the second rib also comes apart. And it is a carcass; why did Rav call it a tereifa? And we answer:

When Rav said [this],

with regard to a rib uprooted

without a vertebra.

The Gemara is astonished:

But he said, “a rib and a vertebra,”

Rav!?

And we answer:

“A rib and half a vertebra”

is what Rav said.

But the Gemara is still astonished: Behold,

by implication

you learn this, that

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi

who asked Rav what is the law of an animal in which a rib was uprooted from here while the vertebra remains, were not speaking of half a vertebra remaining, but of the whole vertebra remaining. For even with one rib and a part of a vertebra, Rav said that it is a tereifa; and what were they asking him about with two ribs?! Rather, necessarily, when they said that ribs were uprooted from both sides, they meant

a rib without a vertebra. And he said to them:

Rav:

“Are you speaking of a gistra?

And a gistra is a carcass!”

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

on most of one side; if they were broken — on most of both sides.

Thus, we require most of the ribs on one side in order to render it a tereifa, and uprooting one rib is not sufficient!?

And we answer:

He can say to you,

Rav:

There,

with regard to ribs being uprooted,

it is when they are not opposite one another. Here,

the case called gistra is when they were uprooted

opposite one another.

But we still raise an objection:

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said

that we require the ribs to be uprooted

on most of both sides.

And on most of both sides,

it is impossible that one of them does not remain

whose ribs were uprooted

opposite one another,

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

There,

in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, which requires most of the ribs to be uprooted, he is speaking of a rib uprooted

with the peg,

the rib,

without

part of the vertebra, which is called

the socket.

But

here,

in the statement of Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, he is speaking of the

peg and socket.

The Gemara is astonished:

If so,

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

that is what Rav [said],

who explicitly said that if part of a vertebra was uprooted with the rib, it is a tereifa. And what are Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asking Rav about two ribs uprooted, one rib from each side, together with part of the vertebra? For according to Rav, even if only one rib was uprooted from one side together with part of the vertebra, it is a tereifa!?

And we answer: Rav Kahana and Rav Asi

had not heard

this matter

of Rav.

And we inquire about it: If they were speaking because they had not heard what Rav said, why did they ask him about a rib uprooted from each side?

And let them ask him as in Rav’s statement,

about a rib uprooted from only one side!?

And we answer:

They reasoned: Let us ask him

Rav

one [question], for he will explain to us

from it

two [things].

For if we ask him

about

one

rib being uprooted, then

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

for all the more so we will know regarding two

being uprooted from it.

But

if he tells us that it is kosher, still

when two are uprooted

we will have a question.

And we object:

If so, now too, since they are asking him

about two

being uprooted, it is satisfactory if he tells them

Rav

that it is kosher —

all the more so

when one is uprooted

one.

But

if he tells them that it is a tereifa —

still

one being uprooted

would be a question for them?!

And we answer:

They reasoned

that from Rav’s answer to their question they would also know the answer regarding one rib being uprooted. If Rav would answer them that when two ribs are uprooted it is kosher, then all the more so when one rib is uprooted it is kosher. And if he would answer them that it is a tereifa, from the style of his answer they would know the law of one. For if he answered them calmly that when two are uprooted it is a tereifa, that is a sign that when one is uprooted it is kosher. For if when one is uprooted it is also a tereifa,

then he is becoming angry

Rav in his answer. For if one rib

one

is

a tereifa, and

two

two

ribs —

is there a question?!

The Gemara is astonished:

But they said to him

that they were asking him what the law is when two were uprooted,

and he did not become angry,

even though Rav ruled that even when one is uprooted it is a tereifa!?

And we answer: Indeed, Rav became angry.

Since he said to them

Rav, “

Are you speaking of a gistra?!”

— that was his anger!

Rabba bar Rav Shila said in the name of Rav Mattana in the name of Shmuel: If a rib was uprooted from its root

even though the socket was not uprooted,

and a skull that was crushed,

broken

in most of it, and the flesh covering most of the rumen

that was torn

in most of it —

it is a tereifa.

And we inquire about it: Is it so that

a rib uprooted from its root

is

a tereifa?!

And we contradict this,

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