Chullin 55b — the Talmud in English

And where

is

the place of the groove?

When the lesion reached

the whiteness,

that whiteness which is found

beneath

the

waist

of the flanks.

Rabbi Neḥunya said: I asked all

the decisors

of tereifot,

in the laws of tereifa

of the West, and they said to me:

The halakha is like Rakhish bar Pappa

with regard to the kidney,

and the halakha is not like Rav Avira

with regard to a puncture in the spleen.

And we said

that the halakha is not like Rav Avira

only

with regard to a puncture in the spleen

at its thin part,

in its thin place.

But

if it was punctured

at its thick part,

in its upper thickness—

it is tereifa!

And if there remained in it

of the thickness of its wall

the thickness of a gold dinar

that was not punctured—

it is fit.

They said in the West: Everything that disqualifies in the lung—

is fit in the kidney.

For a puncture is disqualifying in the lung,

and fit in the kidney.

And all the more so, where it is fit in the lung—

it is fit in the kidney.

Rabbi Tanḥuma objected to this: Is it a general rule?! But there is pus, which is fit in the lung and disqualified in the kidney?!

But there is clear water, which is fit in both here and there.

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Is it so that you compare

the cases of tereifot to one another?! One does not say that one case of tereifot resembles another! For if one cuts it here,

in a low place on the leg, at the junction of the tendons—

it dies.

But

if one cuts it here,

above the junction of the tendons, in the flesh of the legs—

it lives! And clear water

that is

fit—we said this only when it is clear,

when it is transparent.

But

water that is

murky—

it is tereifa.

And even when it is clear,

we said this only when it does not stink.

But if it stinks—it is tereifa.

A kidney that became small,

that shrank because of illness—

in

a small animal,

up to the size of a double date,

it is fit. But

in

a large animal,

up to the size of an average grape.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Its womb was removed.”

A tanna taught: It is the womb, it is the terpaḥat, and it is the shalaf ve-ḥeit!

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one whose lung has shriveled by the hand of Heaven is fit.”

The Sages taught: What is a “shriveled one”?

Any [animal] whose lung shriveled by the hand of Heaven—

it is fit! By the hand of man—

it is tereifa!

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even

if the lung shriveled

by the hand of any

other

creatures,

such as the roar of a lion.

It was raised before them:

Does

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stand upon the first clause,

to say that when it is by the hand of any creatures it is like by the hand of Heaven

and leniently?

Or perhaps he stands upon the latter clause,

to say that if it was frightened by other creatures, it is like by the hand of man

and stringently?

Come and hear

from this

which was taught: A lung shriveled by the hand of man—

it is tereifa.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even by the hand of any creatures,

it is tereifa.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana was going in the wilderness. He found those rams

that he found,

whose lungs had shriveled. He came and asked in the beit-midrash.

They said to him: In the summer,

in summer,

bring white bowls,

earthenware vessels

white,

white,

and fill them with cold water, and place them

the lung in these waters

for a day and a night. If they return to their natural state,

if they return to their original state—

it is by the hand of Heaven, and it is fit. But if not—

it is tereifa!

In the winter,

in winter,

bring black bowls,

black earthenware vessels, which do not cool as white ones do,

and fill them with lukewarm water,

lukewarm,

and place them

the shriveled lung

for a day and a night.

If

it returns to health—

it is fit, but if not—

it is tereifa!

We learned in the Mishna:

“The flayed one.”

The Sages taught: The flayed one—

Rabbi Meir declares fit, and the Sages declare disqualified.

And Elazar the Scribe and Yoḥanan ben Gudgada already testified concerning the flayed one that it is disqualified.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir retracted his view.

And the Gemara infers from this, from Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s saying that Rabbi Meir retracted his view:

By inference, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

at first

Rabbi Meir disagreed concerning the flayed one,

but afterward he retracted and conceded to the Sages.

And we refute this:

But was it not taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir and the Sages did not disagree concerning the flayed one, that it is disqualified. And Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Yehuda the perfume-maker, already testified before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Tarfon concerning the flayed one—

that it is disqualified! But if there remained on it

in the skin, which had not been stripped,

the size of a sela—

is it fit?!

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of “they did not disagree”?

For

Rabbi Meir did not stand by his dispute,

but retracted his view.

The Master said:

if there remained

on it the size of a sela, it is fit.

And we considered this:

Where

did it remain?!

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Over the entire surface of the spine.

It was raised before them:

Did there remain a strip of skin

that is long and narrow,

narrow,

such that when it is joined

along the entire length of the skin

it amounts to the size of a sela?

Or perhaps

we require that skin remain

of the width of a sela over the entire spine?

Come and hear: Rabbi Nehorai explained in the name of Shmuel: Of the width of a sela over the entire spine.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said:

we require that skin remain, the size of a sela, on each and every one of the

heads

of the

joints

of the vertebrae, and the bones of the lower leg and the thigh.

Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus said in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yannai:

we require that skin remain, the size of a sela, at

the place of its navel.

Rabbi Yannai son of Rabbi Yishmael raised a question:

The skin was removed at

the place of the spine, and all of it

the rest of the skin

remains.

Or

the skin was removed

at

the place of its navel, and all of it remains.

Or

the parts of the skin were removed

from

above the heads of the joints

of the spine,

and all of it remains.

What [is the ruling]?

And we conclude:

It remains unresolved.

Rav said: The entire skin,

if a sela’s measure remains of it, it heals,

and protects in the case of a flayed one, except for the skin of the house of the hoofs;

the skin that remains, which does not heal the entire skin of the animal.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even the skin of the house of the hoofs

from which a sela’s measure remains

also protects.

Rabbi Asi asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: The skin of the house of the hoofs

from which a sela’s measure remains—

what is the ruling: does it protect in the case of a flayed one?

He said to him: It protects! He said to him: Our master, you taught us: Those whose skins transmit impurity like their flesh—

the skin of the house of the hoofs!

By inference, it is not considered skin, but is considered like flesh?!

He said to him: Do not vex me

with that Mishna, because

in the singular wording

and according to Rabbi Shimon

I teach it,

and the halakha is not like him, but like the first tanna who disagrees with him!

For it was taught: One who slaughters the burnt offering

with the thought

to burn an olive’s bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its place

the place fit for it—

the offering is disqualified,

according to the law of one who thinks to burn part of the offering outside its place.

And there is no excision

for one who eats it, for an offering disqualified because of the thought of [burning it] outside its place does not entail excision for its eating, but only if he thought to eat it outside its appointed time.

And if he thought to burn it

outside its appointed time,

it is

piggul, and one is liable for it,

for its eating,

excision.

And this means that according to the first tanna, skin is considered flesh only in the case of the skin beneath the tail!

Eliezer ben Yehuda, a man of Evelim, said in the name of Rabbi Yaakov. And so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda

a man of Kfar

Ikhus, says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

Both the skin of the house of the hoofs, and the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin beneath the tail, and all those concerning which the Sages said with regard to impurity, “These are those whose skins transmit impurity like their flesh.”