Chullin 55b (נה:) — the Talmud in English

And where

is

the location of the fissure?

When the lesion reaches

the white area,

that whiteness found

beneath

the

kidney

of the loins.

Rabbi Neḥunya said: I asked all

my teachers who issue rulings

concerning tereifot,

regarding the laws of a tereifa,

in the West, and they said to me:

The halakha is in accordance with Rakhish bar Pappa

with regard to the kidney,

but the halakha is not in accordance with Rav Avira

with regard to a perforated spleen.

And we said

that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav Avira

only

with regard to a perforated spleen

at its narrow part,

at its thin place.

But

if it was perforated

at its thick part,

at its upper thickness—

it is a tereifa!

And if there remained in it

in the thickness of its wall

the thickness of a gold dinar

that was not perforated—

it is kosher.

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

is kosher in the kidney.

For a perforation is disqualifying in the lung,

but is kosher in the kidney.

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

it is kosher in the kidney.

Rabbi Tanḥuma raised an objection to this: Is that a general principle?! But what of pus, which is kosher in the lung but disqualifying in the kidney?!

And what of clear water, which is kosher in both here and there?

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Is it that

you are comparing one case of tereifa to another?! One does not say that one case of tereifa resembles another! For if one cuts it here,

at a lower place on the leg, at the juncture of the tendons,

it dies.

But if one

cuts it here,

above the juncture of the tendons, in the flesh of the legs,

it lives! And as for clear water,

which is

kosher, we said this only when it is clear,

when it is transparent;

but

cloudy

water—

it is a tereifa.

And even when it is clear,

we said this only when it does not stink. But if it stinks—

it is a tereifa.

A kidney that has become smaller,

having shriveled because of illness—

In

a small animal,

up to twice

its normal size it is kosher. But

in

a large animal,

up to the size of an average grape.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Its womb was removed.”

The tanna taught: The womb, the tarpaḥat, and the shalfuḥit are one and the same!

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one whose lung has shriveled by the hand of Heaven is kosher”:

The Sages taught: What is meant by “one whose lung has shriveled”?

Any lung that has shriveled by the hand of Heaven—

is kosher! By human agency—

it is a tereifa!

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even

if the lung shriveled

by the hand of all

the other

creatures,

such as from the roar of a lion.

They raised a dilemma:

Does

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar follow the first clause,

meaning that an occurrence caused by all creatures is like one caused by the hand of Heaven,

and rules leniently?

Or perhaps he follows the latter clause,

meaning that if it was frightened by other creatures, it is like one affected by human agency,

and rules stringently?

Come and hear

from this

as it was taught in a beraita: If its lung shriveled by human agency—

it is a tereifa.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if it was caused by all the creatures,

it is a tereifa.

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

that had shriveled lungs.

He came and asked in the beit-midrash.

They said to him: In the summer,

in summer,

bring earthenware vessels,

earthenware vessels

that are white,

white ones,

fill them with cold water, and place them

the lung in this water

for a twenty-four-hour period. If they return to their original state,

if they return to their normal condition—

it was caused by the hand of Heaven, and it is kosher. But if not—

it is a tereifa!

In the winter,

in winter,

bring black earthenware vessels,

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

fill them with lukewarm water,

lukewarm,

and place them

the shriveled lung

for a twenty-four-hour period.

If

it returns to a healthy state—

it is kosher, but if not—

it is a tereifa!

We learned in the Mishna:

“One whose skin was flayed.”

The Sages taught: With regard to one whose skin was flayed—

Rabbi Meir declares it kosher, and the Sages declare it disqualified.

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

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

And the Gemara infers from Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s statement that Rabbi Meir retracted his opinion:

By inference, according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

at first

Rabbi Meir disputed the status of one whose skin was flayed,

but afterward he retracted his opinion and conceded to the Sages.

And we challenge this:

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

that it is disqualified! And if there remained on it

some skin that had not been removed,

the size of a sela—

it is kosher?!

And we answer:

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

That

Rabbi Meir did not persist in his dispute,

but retracted his opinion.

The Master said:

If some skin remained,

the size of a sela, it is kosher.

And we inquire about this:

Where

did it remain?!

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

They raised a dilemma:

Did a strip of skin remain

that is long and narrow,

narrow,

so 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

a sela’s width over the entire spine?

Come and hear: Rabbi Nehorai explained in the name of Shmuel: A sela’s width over the entire length of the spine.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said:

We require that skin the size of a sela remain on each of the

heads

of the

joints

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

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

We require that skin the size of a sela remain at

the navel.

Rabbi Yannai bar Rabbi Yishmael raised a question:

The skin was removed at

the location of the spine, and all

the rest of the skin

remains.

Or

the skin was removed

at

the location of the navel, and all of it remains.

Or

the skin was removed

from the portions of skin

over the heads of the joints

of the spine,

while all of it remains.

What is the halakha?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

Rav said: With regard to the entire skin,

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

and it protects an animal whose skin was flayed, except for the skin of the houses of the hooves

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

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even the skin of the houses of the hooves

if a sela’s measure of it remains

also protects the animal.

Rabbi Asi asked Rabbi Yoḥanan about the skin of the houses of the hooves

if a sela’s measure of it remains—

what is the halakha as to whether it protects an animal whose skin was flayed?

He said to him: It protects it! He said to him: Our teacher, you taught us: Those whose skins render one impure like their flesh—

the skin of the houses of the hooves!

It follows that it is not considered skin; rather, it is considered like flesh?!

He said to him: Do not vex me

with that Mishna, because

it is stated in the singular,

and I teach it in accordance with Rabbi Shimon;

I teach it,

but the halakha is not in accordance with him. Rather, it follows the first tanna, who disputes his opinion!

As it was taught in a beraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering

with the intention

of burning an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its designated place,

the part that is fit to be burned,

the offering is disqualified,

as is the law when one intends to burn part of the offering outside its designated place.

And there is no karet for it,

for one who eats it, because for an offering disqualified due to an intention involving outside its designated place, one is not liable to karet for eating it; one is liable only if he intended to eat it outside its designated time.

And if he intended to burn it

outside its designated time,

then it is

pigul, and one is liable for it,

for eating it,

to karet.

That is to say, according to the first tanna, only the skin beneath the tail is considered like flesh!

Eliezer ben Yehuda, of the village of Aivelim, said in the name of Rabbi Yaakov. And similarly Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda [

of the village]

of Eikos, said in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

Both the skin of the houses of the hooves, 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 ritual impurity, “These are those whose skins render one impure like their flesh.”