Chullin 58b (נח:) — the Talmud in English

These dates

that were placed in

a basket and

became worm-infested

after twelve months—they are kosher.

The fact that they remained for twelve months proves that the infestation occurred after they had been detached, since worms have no bones, and according to Rav Huna they cannot survive for more than twelve months.

Rav said: There is no baka

[a type of fly] that is

a one-day-old creature,

as it does not live an entire day.

And there is no didva

[a type of fly]

that lives for a year,

meaning that it survives an entire year.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But people say: “Seven years, imara,”

that for seven years the female fly called

“bakta”

was estranged from and rebelled against the male fly called

“baka,”

because

she said to him: “You saw a man from Mehoza

who was pampered and corpulent, like the people of Mehoza, who were fat and well-fed,

who swam in water and emerged,

having swum in the river and emerged from the water,

and wrapped himself in sheets. And I sat upon him and sucked from him,

and sucked his superior blood from him

, but you did not tell me

so that I could come and suck his blood as you did.

This proves that a fly can live for seven years!

Abaye said to him:

“Rav Pappa,

And according to your reasoning, what about this statement that people say:

a weight of

sixty maneh

of

iron vessels

iron

is hung on the baka by its hammer,

by its hammer, meaning by its bite, which is a powerful bite—

is there such a thing? But how much does the creature itself weigh?!

Rather, it means according to their maneh,

in proportion to its own body.

Here too,

it is speaking

of their “years,”

which are moments.

We learned there

in tractate Bekhorot, with regard to blemishes:

An animal with five legs, or one that has only three, has a blemish.

Rav Huna said: They taught this

that it is considered a blemish only with regard to an offering, but it is permitted for human consumption,

only with regard to an animal that is missing or has an extra foreleg,

as the laws of tereifa regarding an animal’s leg apply only to its hind leg, and not to its foreleg, which is called a “hand.”

But if it is missing or has an extra hind leg—

it is also a tereifa.

What is the reason?

Anything extra—

is considered as though it were missing!

There was a certain animal that had two

large

intestines

large intestines.

They brought it before Ravina, and he deemed it a tereifa in accordance with Rav Huna’s ruling,

as anything extra is considered as though it were missing.

But if they emptied into one another—

it is kosher.

There was a certain protuberance

a growth of flesh

that emerged from the reticulum

the reticulum

to the omasum

the omasum.

Rav Ashi thought to deem it a tereifa.

Rav Huna bar Rav Ḥiyya said to Rav Ashi: All these wild animals

all the animals that roam outdoors in the field

have this. That protuberance

a growth of flesh

that passed from the reticulum to the rumen.

Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to deem it kosher,

as we had deemed the earlier case kosher.

Rav Oshaya said to him: Do you mean that they were all cast in a single mold?!

Rather,

where it was stated, it was stated.

Where it was not stated, it was not stated.

Natan bar Sheila, the slaughterer of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi: Regarding two intestines that emerge from

the animal’s

stomach together, it is a tereifa.

But in a bird, the corresponding condition is kosher.

Because this sometimes occurs in a bird. [See the illustration in the book Sihat Hulin].

With regard to what case is this statement said, that they emerge

the intestines

in two places. But if they emerge from one place,

when they are adjacent to one another,

and converge,

joining at their ends,

up to the width of a finger, it is kosher.

They disagreed about this

this halakha, that if they emerge from one place it is kosher,

Rav Ami and Rav Asi.

One said: It is

kosher only in a case

where they return and join,

where the two intestines join one another and become one.

And one said: Even though they do not return and join,

the animal is kosher, and the Gemara asks:

Granted, according to the one who said that it is specifically where they return and join, this is the meaning of what the Mishna teaches: “up to the width of a finger.”

But according to the one who said that even though they do not return and join—

what is the meaning of “up to the width of a finger”?!

And we answer:

Up to the width of a finger below.

That is, they join at the end, at the point where the waste is expelled.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: If the feathers were removed, it is unfit.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Yehuda,

who said that the removal of the feathers is considered like the removal of the skin of an animal,

and Rabbi Yishmael,

who said that one who formulates the intention to eat an olive-bulk of a mixture of the flesh and feathers of a bird-offering outside its designated time has formulated an intention of piggul—

said the same thing.

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yehuda—

this is what we said.

Rabbi Yishmael, as we learned

[Tahorot 1:2]

, Rabbi Yishmael says: The feathers combine

with the flesh of the bird-offering to constitute an olive-bulk with regard to an intention of piggul, since their status is like that of flesh.

Rava said: Perhaps that is not so!

Rabbi Yehuda stated his ruling here only with regard to a tereifa, as there is nothing that protects it

after the feathers have been removed.

But with regard to rendering it piggul,

perhaps

he holds in accordance with the Sages.

And Rabbi Yishmael stated his ruling there only with regard to rendering it piggul. But with regard to a tereifa,

he holds that

the feathers do not provide protection

for the bird. Therefore, the bird does not become a tereifa when its feathers are removed.

Mishna:

An animal that became ill and became

blood-congested

, or smoked,

as smoke entered its body,

or chilled,

having become ill because of cold,

or that ate oleander,

which is poison for an animal,

or that ate

chicken droppings or drank

harmful water—

is kosher.

If it ate poison or was bitten by a snake—

it is permitted with regard to a tereifa, but prohibited because of danger to life.

Gemara:

Shmuel said: If one force-fed it chaltit—

it is a tereifa.

What is the reason?

Because it perforates its intestines.

Rav Shizvi raised an objection

from that which was taught in a beraita:

An animal that became blood-congested, or smoked, or ate oleander, or ate chicken droppings, or drank harmful water.

And likewise, if

it was force-fed ti'a, chaltit, or peppers.

Or if it ate poison—

in all these cases

it is kosher.

If it was bitten by a snake or bitten by a rabid dog, it is permitted with regard to a tereifa, but prohibited because of danger to life.

The case of chaltit

here

is difficult in light of the case of chaltit

of Shmuel.

The case of poison

here, where we say that it is kosher,

is difficult in light of the case of poison

in the Mishna, where we say that it is prohibited.

The Gemara answers:

The cases of chaltit and chaltit are not difficult. Here, it is referring to leaves; there, to stalks,

which are sharp and perforate.

The cases of poison and poison

also

are not difficult. This

in the beraita refers to poison

for an animal; that refers to poison for a person.

The Gemara challenges this:

Poison for an animal—

is that not oleander?!

The Gemara answers:

There are two types of poison.

What is “ti'a”?

Rav Yehuda said: