Chullin 55a (נה.) — the Talmud in English

Their measure

with regard to the ritual impurity of vessels is that they must be able to hold enough oil for an ordinary person to anoint a small amount.

And this measure of oil for an ordinary person to anoint applies to small, broken vessels,

and

to vessels whose capacity is

a log.

And Rava infers:

Is it not

that vessels whose capacity is

a log

are treated like vessels that are

below

the measure of a log? This indicates that “until” includes the stated measure. And we reject this:

No! A log—

means above!

Come and hear:

Vessels that contained

from a log up to a se'a

and broke—the measure for their retaining ritual impurity as vessels is

a quarter-log,

provided that their fragments remain capable of holding a quarter-log of oil.

Is it not: A se'a—

means below?!

No. A se'a—

means above;

the fragments must be capable of holding a measure of half a log for the vessel to retain ritual impurity.

Come and hear:

Vessels that contained

from a se'a up to two se'ot—

there must remain in their fragments

a half-log!

Is it not: Two se'ot—

means below!

No! Two se'ot

means above,

as their measure is a full log.

And we challenge this:

But it was taught

explicitly that the measure is determined downward, as it was taught:

A log—

means below. A se'a—

means below. Two se'ot—

means below!

And we reject this:

There—

for stringency,

as the fragments are rendered impure; therefore we say that “until” includes the stated measure.

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

when the precise measure is the more stringent one, we follow it

to be stringent,

and they determined it according to the precise measure. But when the precise measure is lenient, they did not determine it according to the precise measure, but according to the “heaped” measure.

Except for

the measure

of “a gris” for stains,

with which they proceed

leniently.

That is to say, by Torah law, a woman does not become impure with the ritual impurity of niddah unless she sees and feels the blood of niddah leaving her body, but not when she finds a bloodstain on her body or garment. Rather, the Sages decreed with regard to stains that the woman becomes impure through them, by rabbinic law.

And the Sages established a measure for a stain: If it is smaller than “a gris,” it does not render her impure at all. The reason is that up to the size of a gris, it can be assumed that the blood came from a ma'akholit [a type of louse] that was crushed and whose blood emerged. Therefore, the Sages did not decree at all regarding anything smaller than a gris, even where there is no basis for attributing the blood to a ma'akholit.

And since all impurity from stains is only rabbinic, the Sages were lenient concerning it, so that a woman does not become impure until the stain is larger than the measure of a gris. But a precisely measured gris does not render her impure!

But concerning the other measures of the Sages, they were stringent with regard to the precise measure. Therefore, regarding the sela and the issar mentioned by Rav Naḥman, if we say that “until” includes the stated measure, it would be a leniency, since even at an issar or a sela there is no deficiency, and we would deem it fit.

And Rav Naḥman teaches us that wherever the term “until” is stated, one must follow it stringently. But where saying that “until” includes the stated measure would result in leniency, we say: “until”—but not including the stated measure.

This is also precise, as it is taught concerning that

rope that extends:

five

handbreadths—

means above.

That is, it is impure. And from here you learn that where the Mishna teaches, “until five is pure,” its intention is: “until, but not including the stated measure.”

And it likewise teaches:

Ten

handbreadths—

means below.

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

That is, we proceed stringently and say that where it teaches, “from five until ten it is impure,” we apply to it the principle: “until” includes the stated measure.

It is therefore evident that the meaning of “until” is determined according to stringency: Sometimes we say “until” includes the stated measure, and sometimes “until” does not include the stated measure; in every case, the ruling is to be stringent, according to the matter at hand.

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.

But if the spleen was punctured, it is

a terefah.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin raised an objection, and some say it was Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida:

We learned below: One who

cuts off

a limb

of a fetus in its mother's womb

of an animal—

the limb is permitted

that limb

for consumption

through the slaughter of the animal, just as the slaughter permits the fetus itself, as we interpret the verse: “Everything in an animal you may eat.”

But if he cut

from the spleen or from the kidneys

of the animal itself, then even though he did not remove the piece from the animal's body before slaughter, we do not interpret the verse as saying, “Everything in an animal—you may eat.” Therefore,

it is forbidden

to eat the severed limb,

for consumption

as the limb of a living animal, which was not permitted through slaughter.

And now we infer:

The animal itself is permitted,

despite the spleen or kidneys having been cut from it.

But cutting off the spleen necessarily means puncturing the spleen, since any removal from the spleen creates a cavity in it, and nevertheless the animal is not a terefah!?

And we reject this: No!

The same law applies: Even the animal itself is forbidden.

For puncturing the spleen is more severe than removing it entirely, since a puncture in the spleen adds pain and illness and renders the animal a terefah through its illness. Rather,

since the first clause was taught

regarding one who cuts off a limb from a fetus,

permitted

that limb

for consumption, the latter clause was also taught

regarding one who cuts the spleen from the body of the animal, where that limb is

forbidden for consumption.

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

And if you wish, say: The puncture

of the spleen is

one matter, and the removal

of the spleen is

another matter.

We learned in the Mishna:

The kidneys were removed:

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

in the kidney

one—

it is a terefah!

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

the indentation.