Chullin 57b (נז:) — the Talmud in English

After you ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael,

we had an “opening” before Rav Huna,

we were compelled to speak with him about a dislocated thigh,

and we asked him

what the status of a dislocated thigh in a bird is,

and he said to us: A dislocated thigh in a bird is kosher.

And we also found Rav Yirmeya bar Abba sitting and examining the junction of the sinews. And we challenged him:

But

does the Master not accept that which Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: A dislocated thigh in a bird is kosher,

so why do you need to examine the junction of the sinews?

And

he said to me: I know the Mishna! For we learned: An animal whose legs were severed below the knee is kosher; above the knee, it is disqualified. And likewise, if the junction of the sinews was removed.

And Rav said about it: And likewise with regard to a bird.

And we said to

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba:

If so, there is a difficulty between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav,

for Rav Huna said in Rav’s name that a dislocated thigh is kosher, whereas you said in Rav’s name that an animal whose legs were severed above the knee, and likewise one whose junction of the sinews was removed, is disqualified—and the same applies to a bird.

And

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was silent.

And we challenged him: Perhaps Rav distinguishes between a dislocated

thigh in a bird, which is permitted,

and

a severed

leg or junction of the sinews, which you prohibited in Rav’s name?

And he said to me:

That is indeed the distinction. But

do

you

interpret Rav’s statement?

For

Rav stated explicitly

as you said:

A dislocated limb is kosher; a severed limb is disqualified.

Now Rabbi Abba asked Rabbi Zeira:

And what do you have,

that is, did you hear something in the name of another sage after you ascended to Eretz Yisrael?

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

This is what Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: A dislocated thigh in a bird—

is a terefa.

And likewise Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A dislocated thigh in a bird—

is a terefa.

And Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said: Had

Rabbi Yoḥanan

been

present

in a place where his colleagues issued a ruling

in a place where our colleagues ruled

to permit it,

contrary to his view,

he would not have fluttered

Rabbi Yoḥanan would not have been able even to move a wing—that is, he could not even have hinted that the halakha followed his view, to declare a dislocated thigh a terefa—since our colleagues who disagreed with him were greater than he.

For Rabbi Ḥanina said in the name of Rabbi: A dislocated thigh in a bird—

is kosher.

And Rabbi Ḥanina had a hen whose thigh had become dislocated, and he brought it before Rabbi, who permitted it to him. Rabbi Ḥanina salted it

so that it would remain preserved for a long time and he would be able to display it,

and he would teach with regard to it

this dislocated thigh

the halakha to the students: “Rabbi permitted this to me! Rabbi permitted this to me!”

And we conclude:

But the halakha does not follow any of these statements

that permit a dislocated thigh in a bird.

Rather,

it is

like that

which we find stated: It is an accepted ruling that a dislocated wing is a terefa.

For Rabbi Yosei ben Nehorai asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

“A perforation of the windpipe,”

that is, if a piece was cut from the windpipe in the form of an opening,

how large

must it be for the animal to be a terefa?

He said to him: We learned a complete Mishna: Up to the size of an issar coin, it is kosher.

He said to him: But there was one ewe in our neighborhood whose windpipe was perforated,

that is, part of its windpipe had been cut away,

and they made tubes

in the form

of a windpipe,

and placed them where the windpipe was missing,

and it lived,

and since it lived, it should be permitted, for it is evidently not a terefa!

He said to him: And do you rely on that,

that is, can you rely on this and permit the animal merely because you saw that the injury could be repaired?

But is it not an accepted ruling in Israel that a dislocated thigh in a bird is a terefa? And

nevertheless we find that

Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta had a hen whose thigh had become dislocated, and they made a tube of a reed for it—

and it lived?!

But a terefa does not live for twelve months!

Rather, what can you say? It was within twelve months,

that is, the injury remained healed for a time, but at the end of twelve months it died, since a terefa does not live longer than twelve months.

Here too,

with regard to the animal whose windpipe had been perforated and was repaired,

it was within twelve months.

They said about Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta that he was an “intriguer” in matters. And he would perform an act to refute Rabbi Yehuda’s view.

For Rabbi Yehuda would say: If the feathers were removed, it is disqualified.

And

what did he do?

Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta had a hen whose feathers had been removed. He placed it in an oven and covered

it

with a cloth of coppersmiths,

in order to warm it,

and it grew

the hen

wings,

and the wings were

later ones, larger than the

wings

that had originally been there,

before its feathers had been removed.

The Gemara wondered: How did this act refute Rabbi Yehuda’s statement?

Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda holds that a terefa can improve,

and the improvement is no proof that it is not a terefa?

And we answer:

If so,

it could also improve in its other organs. But

with regard to the very matter through which it becomes a terefa,

that is, the removal of its wings, how could it have

grown later wings larger than the original ones?!

Surely it is impossible for it to improve in the very matter through which it became a terefa! And now we explain:

What is meant by “an intriguer in matters”

that he was?

Rabbi Mesharsheya said:

For it is written [Proverbs 6]: “Go to the ant, you sluggard,

observe its ways and become wise.

It has no

chief, officer, or ruler;

it prepares its food in the summer.”

Rabbi

Shimon ben Ḥalafta

said: “I will go and see whether it is indeed true that they have no king.”

And that is why Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta was called an “intriguer”: He did not rely on King Solomon, but went to investigate it himself.

He went during the month of Tammuz and spread his cloak over the nest

of

ants,

ants.

One of them emerged and came out,

from among the ants, and saw the shade.

He placed a mark on it,

Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta placed

a sign

on that ant—that is, he made a note for himself of what this ant looked like, so that he would recognize it and know what the other ants would do to it when they discovered that it had lied, as will be explained below.

That ant came to the nest.

It said to them,

the ant said to the ants inside the nest:

“A shade has fallen,”

there is shade outside.

They emerged and came out,

the ants went out and came outside.

He lifted

Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta

his cloak,

and then

the sun shone.

The sun’s rays fell upon that place.

They fell upon it

all the ants, upon the ant that had informed them about the shade,

and killed it,

and they killed it.

Rabbi

Shimon ben Ḥalafta

said:

The ants

evidently have no

king.

For if they had

a king, would

the king’s authority

to kill their fellow

not be required?!

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Perhaps a king was with them,

and their king instructed them to kill it.

Alternatively, they may have had the king’s authority

from the king to kill one who deceived his fellow,

in their possession,

that is, each one of them may have possessed such authority.

Alternatively,

it may have been a time

between one king and another.

As

it is written

[Judges 17]:

“In those days there was no king in Israel; each man did what was right in his eyes.”

Rather, rely on Solomon’s trustworthiness,

for he said this through ruaḥ hakodesh.

Rav Huna said: A sign of a terefa—

twelve months.

That is, if the terefa remains alive for twelve months and does not die, it is not a terefa.

The Gemara raises an objection: A sign of a

doubtful

terefa is: Any animal that does not give birth.

That is, it is certain that a terefa cannot give birth. Therefore, if an animal that is possibly a terefa gives birth, it is certainly not a terefa.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

There is another sign of a doubtful terefa: If it

continues to improve, it is certainly kosher; and if it continues to deteriorate, it is certainly a terefa.

Rabbi says: The sign of a terefa is thirty days.

That is, if it remains alive for thirty days, it is not a terefa.

They said to him: But many terefot remain alive for two or three years?!

And we say:

It is a dispute between tannaim,

as they disagree whether a terefa that remains alive for twelve months is proof that it is not a terefa.

As it is taught in a beraita: And with regard to a skull in which there is one elongated perforation—even many perforations join together to reach the size of a drill,

as was explained above [45a].

Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam said: There was an incident in Anbul involving one whose skull had been diminished, and they made for him a covering of a dried gourd,

a piece of dried gourd,

and he lived.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said to him: Is that a proof?

The

incident took place during the summer

season.

And once the cold season had passed over him—

he died immediately.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: The halakha is—

a terefa can give birth and improve.

That is, neither giving birth nor improving is proof that it is not a terefa.

Ameimar said: These eggs

eggs

of a terefa,