Chullin 58b — the Talmud in English

These dates that

are lying in

a vessel,

and became wormy

after twelve months of the year—they are permitted.

For it is demonstrated from the fact that they remained for twelve months that the infestation occurred while they were detached, since worms have no bones, and according to Rav Huna they cannot exist for more than twelve months.

Rav said: There is no bakkah [שם זבוב]which is

[the name of a fly] that

a creature of one day,

for it does not live an entire day.

And there is no didva [שם זבוב]

[the name of a fly]

a creature of a year,

which lives an entire year.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But people say: “Seven years, a female fly,”

for seven years the fly called

“bakketa,”

was estranged from and rebelled against its mate, the fly called

“bakka,”

because

she said to him: “You saw a man of Mehoza,

you saw a pampered and fat man of the people of Mehoza [who were fat and well-fed]

who bathed in water and came up,

who swam in the river water and emerged from the water,

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

and you sat upon him and sucked his superior blood

, but you did not inform me

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

And it is demonstrated that a fly can live even seven years!

Abaye

said to him:

And according to your reasoning, that which people say:

a weight of

sixty manehs

of

iron

utensils

they hung for the bakkah on its hammer

on its hammer, that is, on its bite, which is a powerful bite,

is there such a thing?! But how much is it itself?!

Rather, by their manehs,

according to the proportionate weight relative to its body.

Here too

it speaks

of their “years,”

which are moments.

We learned there

in Bekhorot, concerning blemishes:

An animal possessing five legs, or having only three, this is a blemish.

Rav Huna said: They taught

that this is a blemish only with regard to the Most High, but it is permitted for a person to eat,

except in the case of a missing or additional [limb] on the foreleg,

for the laws of an animal tereifa were stated only with regard to its hind leg and not its foreleg, which is called “a hand.”

But a missing or additional [limb] on the leg—

it is also a tereifa.

What is the reason?

Anything additional—

is considered as though it were removed!

There was a certain animal that had two

two

large intestines

large intestines.

They brought it before Ravina, and he declared it a tereifa based on Rav Huna,

for anything additional is considered as though it were removed.

But if they emptied into one another—

it is kosher.

There was a certain tube

a growth of flesh

that emerged from the house of the reticulum

from the reticulum

to the omasum

to the omasum.

Rav Ashi thought to declare it a tereifa.

Rav Huna Mar bar Hiyya said to Rav Ashi: All these wild animals

all the animals that walk about outside in the open,

have this arrangement. That certain tube

a growth of flesh

that passed from the reticulum to the rumen.

Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to declare it kosher,

as we had declared [such a case] kosher above.

Rav Oshaya said to him: Is it that we cut all of them with one blow?!

Rather,

where it was stated, it was stated.

Where it was not stated, it was not stated.

Natan bar Sheila, the chief slaughterer of Sepphoris, testified before Rabbi concerning two intestines emerging from

the stomach of

the animal as one: that it is a tereifa.

And their counterpart in a bird is kosher.

Because sometimes such a thing occurs in a bird. [See a drawing in the book Sihat Hulin].

In what case are these words said? When they emerge

the intestines

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

when they are adjacent to one another,

and end,

joining at the end,

to the width of a finger, it is kosher.

They disagree concerning it

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

Rav Ami and Rav Asi.

One said: It is so

that it is kosher only in a case

where they return and intermix,

where the two intestines join one another and become one.

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

the animal is kosher, and the Gemara discusses:

Granted, according to the one who says that it is specifically when they return and intermix; this is why it teaches, “to the width of a finger.”

But according to the one who says that even though they do not return and intermix—

what is “to the width of a finger”?!

And we answer:

to the width of a finger below.

That is, they join at the end, at the place where the feces emerge.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: If the feathering was removed, it is unfit:

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Yehuda,

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

and Rabbi Yishmael,

who said that one who thinks the thought of piggul to eat an olive-bulk of a mixture of the flesh and feathering of the bird-offering outside its time has a thought of piggul—

said one thing.

And the Gemara explains:

Rabbi Yehuda—

that which we said.

Rabbi Yishmael, as we learned [טהרות א ב][Tohorot 1:2]

[Tahorot 1:2]

, Rabbi Yishmael says: The feathering combines

with the flesh of the bird of the sin-offering to form an olive-bulk with regard to a thought of piggul, since its law is like that of flesh.

Rava said: Perhaps it is not so!

Rabbi Yehuda said here only with regard to a tereifa, where there is nothing that protects it

after the feathering has been removed.

But with regard to piggul,

say

that he holds in accordance with the Sages.

And Rabbi Yishmael said there only with regard to piggul. But with regard to a tereifa,

he holds

that the feathering does not protect

the bird. And therefore the bird does not become a tereifa when its feathering is removed.

Mishna:

An animal that became ill and became

“seized by blood,”

, and smoke-filled,

into whose body smoke entered,

and chilled,

which became ill because of cold, and

that ate oleander,

which is a poison for an animal,

and that ate

chicken excrement or drank

bad water—

it is kosher.

If it ate poison or a snake bit it—

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

Gemara:

Shmuel said: If one force-fed it asafoetida—

it is a tereifa.

What is the reason?

For it punctures its intestines.

Rav Shizvi raised an objection,

from that which was taught in a beraita:

“Seized by blood, smoke-filled, having eaten oleander, having eaten chicken excrement, or having drunk bad water.”

And likewise if

one force-fed it asafoetida, asafoetida, and pepper.

Or if it ate poison—

in all these cases

it is kosher.

If a snake bit it or a mad dog bit it, it is permitted with regard to a tereifa, but forbidden because of danger to life.

The case of asafoetida

here

is difficult in relation to the asafoetida

of Shmuel.

The case of poison

here, where we say it is kosher,

is difficult in relation to the poison

of the Mishna, where we say it is forbidden.

And the Gemara answers:

Asafoetida in relation to asafoetida is not difficult. Here it is with leaves; there it is with stalks,

with stalks, which are sharp and perforate.

Poison in relation to poison

also

is not difficult. This

the beraita speaks of poison

belonging to it; that is a person’s [poison].

And we challenge this:

An animal’s poison—

is that not oleander?!

And the Gemara answers:

There are two kinds of poison.

What is “tia”?

Rav Yehuda said: