C. Said R. Pappa, “R. Bibi bar Abayye posed the question: [54a] The gullet — any amount of piercing at all [renders it terefah]. Any amount of mauling at all [renders it terefah]. The windpipe — a piercing the size of an issar [renders it terefah]. How much mauling [renders it terefah]?”
D. After he posed the question, he then answered it: In either case any amount at all [of mauling renders it terefah]. What is the basis for this view? The venom [of the animal from the mauling] will continue to burn [a larger hole even after the mauling itself].
A. R. Yitzhak bar Samuel bar Marta sat before R. Nahman and he sat and said, “The mauled animal that they spoke of must be inspected around its intestines.” [See above XXVII.2 B.]
B. R. Nahman said, “By God! Rab ruled concerning it [that an animal must be inspected] from the pan to the hips [so Cashdan].” What is the [location of the] pan? If you say the pan of the fore-leg, this is [the same as saying] around the intestines. Rather [it must mean] from the pan of the brain to the hips.
C. When R. Hiyya bar Joseph departed [for Israel] he found R. Yohanan and R. Simeon b. Laqish who were sitting and saying, “The mauled animal that they spoke of must be inspected around its intestines.”
D. He said to them, “By God! Rab ruled concerning it [that an animal must be inspected from the pan to the hips.” Said to him Resh Laqish, “Who is Rab? Who is Rab? I do not know who he is.” Said R. Yohanan, “Do you not remember that student who served the Great Rabbi and R. Hiyya. And by God! All those years that student [sat and] served in the academy, I served standing up. And in what [subject] was his strength? He was strong in all [subjects].”
E. Resh Laqish immediately spoke and said, “To be sure. I remember this man well. For a teaching was stated in his name: [If an organ of the neck was found] dislocated and slaughtered, it is valid. For it is impossible to slaughter a dislocated organ. [Thus it must have been dislocated after it was slaughtered.]”
F. And R. Yohanan said, “Let him bring it and compare it [to a properly slaughtered organ before he declares it valid].”
G. Said R. Nahman, “They only taught this law in regard to a case of one who did not take hold of the organs of the neck. But in the case of one who did take hold of the organ and slaughtered, it is possible that a displaced organ can be slaughtered. [Thus we have no proof that it was slaughtered prior to the organ becoming displaced.]”
A. This is the general principle: Any the like of which does not live is terefah [M. 3:1 L]. What does this statement encompass? It encompasses the seven categories [of terefot] that were taught [on Amoraic authority, see above b. 42b].
B. Members of the house of Joseph the trapper used to hit [the animal on] the sciatic nerve to kill [their catch]. They brought this case before R. Judah b. Betera for a ruling. He said to them, “Is there a need to add to the [list of those circumstances that render animals] terefot? You only need [to enumerate] those [cases] that the sages specified.”
C. Members of the house of R. Pappa bar Abba the trapper used to hit [the animal on] the kidneys to kill [their catch]. They brought this case before R. Abba for a ruling. He said to them, “Is there a need to add to the [list of those circumstances that render animals] terefot? You only need [to enumerate] those [cases] that the sages specified.”
D. But lo we can see that it dies [from a blow to the kidneys]! We learn from this that if you applied medication to it, it would live. [Therefore it is not included with the other conditions that render animals terefot].
This chapter is a large-scale composite that resembles a code of rules rather than an extended discourse on principles. It bears more characteristics of a list of laws than an extended essay. Few of the topics in the present text are discussed or cross-referenced elsewhere in the Talmud. And furthermore the rules of this chapter can have profound implications in the actual regulation by the rabbis of meat consumption in their communities. For these reasons the chapter is considered to be one of the most difficult in the Talmud.
Unit I.1 begins by seeking a basis in the Torah for Mishnah's definition of terefah. It goes on to discuss the number of categories of terefah-animals. II.1-3 continues the above inquiry with specific questions regarding the categories of terefah-animals. The next few sections closely adhere to the agenda of Mishnah and mainly clarify its meaning. III.1-2 gives rules about a pierced gullet. IV.1 states rules for a thorn in the gullet. V.1-2 provides rules for the pharynx and discussion of their application. V.3 delineates the extent of the gullet as a place for the incision of slaughtering. Then V.4 gives the rule for slaughter in a detached pharynx.
VI.1 relates to Mishnah's rule for the torn windpipe. This leads into a second-level discussion of the responsibilities and consequences for sages who rule on the status of an animal. VII.1 investigates the operative principle of combining holes together to constitute a sign of a terefah-animal. VII.2 clarifies the rule regarding a slit in the windpipe. VII.3 identifies the appropriate area of the neck for the incision of slaughter. VIII.1 discusses Mishnah's rule regarding defects caused by piercing the membranes of the brain. This is followed by secondary materials relating to the brain.
Again adhering to Mishnah's operative concerns, IX.1-2 takes up Mishnah's rule regarding defects caused by piercing the heart. A rule for the aorta follows. X.1 analyzes Mishnah's rule regarding defects of the spinal cord. X.2 gives other rules for spinal liquids and X.3-4 discusses where the spinal cord ends. XI.1-3 then investigates Mishnah's rule for a defect of the liver. More rules for the liver follow. XII.1-5 clarifies Mishnah's rule for a defect of the lung. Secondary materials about the lung follow that.
XIII.1-5 specify procedures for inspecting the lung. The Talmud then turns to derivative rules for judging the status of ulcerations of the lung. At XIV.1-2 rules relating to a needle in the lung follow. XV.1-3 appends rules relating to defects of the lung. XVI.1 then takes up Mishnah's concern with a defect in the bronchial tubes. XVII.1 follows this with concern for Mishnah's rule regarding a defect in the belly. XVIII.1-3 state rules for fats and forbidden liquids. XIX.1 investigates Mishnah's rule for a defect in the intestine. The text then adds a secondary rule for mourning.
XX.1-2 provides us with principles and rules for comparing operative defects to one another. XX.3 deals with the rule for a defect in the rectum and XXI.1 exposits Mishnah's rule for a defect in the rumen. XXII.1-2 clarifies Judah's rule in Mishnah. Rules follow for judging the size of a defect that has operative implications. XXIII.1 takes up Mishnah's rule for a defect in the reticulum. The text cites Tosefta and then a precedent to clarify Mishnah. XXIV.1-5 examines Mishnah's rule for a defect where an animal fell. The Talmud follows this with related second-level rules regarding hidden injuries due to the trauma of a fall, a blow, or to stress (1-3). Then it raises similar issues for birds (4-5).
The pattern of the text continues the sustained and predictable program of defining and amplifying the operative concerns stated in Mishnah. XXV.1-3 takes up Mishnah's rule for a defect due to broken ribs. More rules for ribs follow. XXVI.1-6 clarifies Mishnah's rule for a defect due to mauling. Various derivative rules on the subject follow this. XXVII.1-5 provides us with precedents and additional rules with regard to mauling. Finally, XXVIII.1 comments on Mishnah's concluding principle. The units throughout present no surprises as they persistently and directly amplify the rules of Mishnah.
A. And these are the valid [carcasses] among cattle:
(1) [if] the windpipe is pierced or is slit [lengthwise] —
B. How large may the hole be? Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, “So much as an Italian issar” —
C. (2) [if] the skull is damaged, but the membrane of the brain is not pierced,
(3) [if] the heart is pierced, but not up to the empty space [cavity] thereof,
(4) [if] the backbone is broken, but the spinal cord is not severed,
(5) [if] the liver is removed, but an olive's bulk of it remains,
(6) the omasum or the second stomach [reticulum] that are pierced [so that the holes lead] one into the other,
(7) [if] the spleen is removed,
(8) [if] the kidneys are removed,
(9) [if] the lower jaw is removed,
(10) [if] the womb is removed.
D. (11) And one [the lung] of it is dried naturally.
E. (12) One that has lost its hide [having been flayed] —
F. R. Meir declares valid.
G. And sages declare invalid.
A. It was stated: R. Yohanan said, These are the terefah [carcasses][M. 3:1 A] specifies [all the cases]. And R. Simeon b. Laqish said, These are the valid [carcasses] specifies [all the cases].
B. Concerning what did they dispute? Concerning the rule of R. Matna. For said R. Matna, “This [case of an animal whose] femur slipped out of its socket [Cashdan] is terefah” [M. 3:1, I.1 V].
C. R. Yohanan said, These are the terefah [carcasses][M. 3:1 A] specifies [all the cases]. The Mishnah taught, These are the terefah [carcasses][3:1 A], and it taught, This is the general principle [3:1 L]. [54b] And it seems reasonable for the rule of R. Matna to be subsumed in the general principle.
D. What is the basis for this conclusion? Because it resembles a case where [an organ] was removed [from the animal rendering it terefah]. The Tanna taught These are the terefah [carcasses] [to teach us] these are terefah. That case of [the rule of] R. Matna is valid.
E. And R. Simeon b. Laqish said, These are the valid [carcasses] specifies [all the cases]. The Mishnah taught, These are the terefah [carcasses][3:1 A], and it taught, This is the general principle [3:1 L]. And it seems reasonable for the rule of R. Matna not to be subsumed in the general principle.
F. What is the basis for this conclusion? Because it does not resemble a case where [an organ] was pierced. Nor does it resembles a case where [an organ] was severed. And neither does it resemble a case where [an organ] was removed. The Tanna taught, These are the valid [carcasses] [to teach us] these are valid. That case of [the rule of] R. Matna is terefah.
A. Reverting to the body of the prior text: Said R. Matna, “This [case of an animal whose] femur slipped out of its socket is terefah.” And Raba said, “It is valid. But if its ligaments were severed it is terefah.”
B. And the law is: if they were severed it is valid anyway, unless they [the ligaments] disintegrated.
A. How large may the hole be? [Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, “So much as an Italian issar.”] Said Ziri, “You who are not familiar with this measure [of an Italian issar] may take the measure of a Gordian dinar. And that is the same as a small peshitta [coin]. And it is found [circulating] among the peshittas of Pumbedita.”
B. Said R. Hanna the money changer, “[Yohanan] bar Nappaha was standing before me. And he asked me for a Gordian dinar to measure [the size of a defect that might render an animal] terefah. And I wanted to stand up before him [as a sign of respect]. And he would not let me. He said to me, `Sit my son, sit.' Professionals [such as money changers] are not permitted to stand up on account of disciples of the sages while they are engaged in their professional activities.”
C. But are they not [supposed to stand up before a sage]? For lo it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaitic authority, All of the craftsmen of Jerusalem stand before them and greet them [saying], “Brothers, men of such and such a place, you have come in peace [M. Bik. 3:3 J-K].”
D. Said R. Yohanan, “Before them [those who bring first fruits to the Temple] they stand up. Before disciples of the sages, they do not have to stand up.”
E. Said R. Yosé bar Abin, “Come and see how beloved is the performance of a commandment in its proper time. For lo, `Before them [those who bring first fruits to the Temple] they stand up. Before disciples of the sages, they do not have to stand up.'”
F. But why draw this conclusion? Perhaps [they acted in this way] so as not to discourage them [from bringing the first fruits] in the future. [It does not prove that one who brings first fruits is inherently more deserving of respect than a sage.]
A. Said R. Nahman, “[A measure] the size of a sela [exactly] is treated as if it were larger than a sela. [A measure] the size of an issar [exactly] is treated as if it were larger than an issar.” It seems [logical to conclude] that R. Nahman reasons in accord with the principle that in measures of size, `So much as' a certain size means not equal to [that size].
B. Raba raised an objection to R. Nahman, The rope that hangs over from [the webbing of] the bed — up to five handbreadths is clean [if the bed itself becomes unclean. M. Kel. 19:2 A-B]. Do we not conclude that five [handbreadths] is the same as any amount below this measure? No. [We conclude that] five [handbreadths] is the same as any amount above this measure.
C. Come and take note: From five handbreadths up to ten is unclean [M. Kel. 19:2 C]. Do we not conclude that ten [handbreadths is the same as any amount below [this measure]? No. [We conclude that] ten [handbreadths] is the same as any amount above this measure.