Chullin 55a — the Talmud in English

Their measure

with regard to the impurity of vessels is that they should be capable of holding oil sufficient for anointing a small child.

And this measure of oil for anointing a small child is given for fragments of vessels that are small,

and up to

vessels that are of the measure of

a log.

And Rava deduces:

Is it not

that vessels which are of the measure of

a log

have their law like vessels that are

at the lower limit

of the measure of a log? And it follows that “up to” is inclusive! And we reject this:

No! A log

— at the upper limit!

Come and hear:

Vessels in which there was

from a log up to a se'a,

and they broke—their measure for receiving the impurity of vessels is

a quarter-log,

if enough remained in their fragments to hold a quarter-log of oil.

What, is it not: a se'a

— at the lower limit?!

No. A se'a

— at the upper limit,

there must be in its fragments capacity for a measure of half a log, for the vessel to receive impurity.

Come and hear:

Vessels in which there was

from a se'a up to two se'ahs—

there must remain in their fragments

half a log!

What, is it not: two se'ahs

— at the lower limit!

No! Two se'ahs

— at the upper limit,

for their measure is one complete log.

And we challenge:

But was it not taught

explicitly that one measures toward the lower limit, as it was taught:

A log

— at the lower limit. A se'a

— at the lower limit. Two se'ahs

— at the lower limit!

And we reject this:

There—

as a stringency,

for they render the fragments impure; therefore we say that “up to” is inclusive.

For Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: All the measures of the Sages

—if the precise measure is a stringency, we follow it

to be stringent,

and they measured it by the precise measure. But if the precise measure is lenient, they measured it not by the precise measure but by “heaping.”

Except for

the measure

“as a gris” for bloodstains,

in which they follow

the lenient measure.

That is, by Torah law a woman does not become impure with the impurity of a menstruant unless she sees and feels the departure of menstrual blood from her body, and not when she finds a bloodstain on her body or on her garment. Rather, the Sages decreed concerning bloodstains that a woman becomes impure through them by rabbinic law.

And the Sages established a measure for a bloodstain: if it is smaller than “as a gris,” it renders her not impure at all. The reason for this is that up to the size of a gris it can be attributed that the blood came from a ma'akolet [a type of louse] that was crushed and its blood came out; therefore the Sages did not decree at all concerning less than a gris, even where it cannot be attributed to the blood of a ma'akolet.

And since all impurity from bloodstains is only rabbinic, the Sages were lenient in it, so that a woman does not become impure until the bloodstain is more than the measure of a gris. But a precise gris does not render her impure!

But concerning the other measures of the Sages, they were stringent with the precise measure. Therefore, concerning the sela and the issar of Rav Naḥman, if we say that “up to” is inclusive, this would be a leniency, for even at an issar and at a sela there is no deficiency, and we deem it fit.

And Rav Naḥman teaches us that wherever it is taught “up to,” one must follow it stringently. But where, if we say that “up to” is inclusive, this would be lenient, we say concerning it: “up to, but not inclusive.”

It is also precise, for it is taught concerning that

of the cord that protrudes:

five

handbreadths—

at the upper limit.

For it is impure. And from here you learn that when the Mishna teaches “up to five is pure,” the intention of the Mishna is “up to, but not inclusive.”

And likewise it teaches:

ten

handbreadths,

at the lower limit.

That is, it is impure as though it were less than ten [for a cord that is above ten handbreadths is pure].

And this is because we follow the stringency, and say that concerning what it teaches, “from five up to ten is impure,” we say concerning it: “up to and including.”

And it is proven that the matter of “up to” is determined according to the stringency: sometimes we say “up to and including,” and sometimes “up to, but not including,” and all is to be stringent, according to the matter.

We learned in the Mishna:

The spleen was removed:

Rav Avira said in the name of Rava: They taught this only when the spleen was removed

—the spleen.

But if it was punctured,

the spleen, it is

a terefa.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin objected, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida:

For we learned below: One who

cuts

a limb

from a fetus that is in its womb

of an animal—

it is permitted

that limb

for eating,

through the slaughter of the animal, just as the slaughter is effective to permit the fetus itself, for we read in it: “Everything in an animal you may eat.”

But if he cut

from the spleen and from the kidneys

of the animal itself, then even though he did not remove the piece from the body of the animal before slaughter, we do not read in it, “Everything in an animal you may eat”; therefore

it is forbidden

the cut-off limb

for eating,

as the law of a limb from a living animal that was not permitted through slaughter.

And now we deduce:

the animal itself is permitted,

despite the fact that the spleen or the kidneys were cut from it.

But the cutting of the spleen means that the spleen was punctured, for every removal from the spleen creates a cavity in it, and nevertheless it is not a terefa!?

And we reject this: No,

the same law applies: even the animal is forbidden.

For a punctured spleen, or one cut rather than completely removed, is more severe than one that was completely removed. For a puncture in the spleen adds pain and illness and makes it a terefa through its illness. Rather,

since the first clause was taught,

concerning one who cuts from a fetus,

it is permitted

that limb

for eating, the latter clause was also taught,

concerning one who cuts the spleen from the body of the animal, for that limb is

forbidden for eating.

But indeed, the entire animal becomes a terefa through the loss of the spleen!

And if you wish, say: It was punctured

the spleen

alone, and it was cut

the spleen

alone.

We learned in the Mishna:

The kidneys were removed:

Rakhish bar Pappa said in the name of Rav: If the kidney became diseased

in one kidney

one—

it is a terefa!

They said in the West: And this is so when the disease reached

Exact page location")

the place of the fissure.