Talmud Bavli Hullin 43a-b - translation by Tzvee

[43a] Rather those two categories that you took out [above at Q and T], you should not take them out. [Then you are left with eighteen categories.]

II.1

A.            Said Ulla, “Eight kinds of terefot were stated to Moses at Sinai: [An animal with an organ that was damaged when it was] pierced, or severed, [of if the organ was] missing, or deficient, torn, or mauled, [of if the animal] suffered a fall, of suffered a fracture.”

B.            This excludes [as a category unto itself the case of] a diseased kidney, stated by Rakhish bar Pappa [above at I.1 W].

C.            Said R. Hiyya bar Rab [var. Raba], “There are eight [sub-categories of] terefot subsumed under the category of [an organ that was] pierced [enumerated in M. 3:1 B-H].”

D.            An if you say [by way of objection] that there are nine [categories enumerated there, I can respond that the category of M. 3:1 F,] the gallbladder [that was pierced is terefah, only] R. Yosé b. R. Judah taught that one.

E.            As it was taught on Tannaite authority, If the belly [abomasum] was pierced, or if the intestines were pierced, it is terefah. R. Yosé b. R. Judah says, “Even if the gallbladder was pierced [it is terefah].”

F.             [A mnemonic is given.] Said R. Yitzhak b. R. Joseph, said R. Yohanan, “The law follows in accord with R. Yosé b. R. Judah.”

G.            And said R. Yitzhak b. R. Joseph, said R. Yohanan, “What did the colleagues say in response to R. Yosé b. R. Judah?” [They cited this verse where Job proclaimed], “He pours out my gall on the ground” (Job 16:13). And Job went on living! [Therefore a pierced gallbladder is not a lethal wound.]

H.           He said to them, “You cannot cite miraculous events [as proof regarding the laws of terefah]. For if you do not state matters in this way [then consider the first part of the verse], `He slashes open my kidneys, and shows no mercy.' Could someone live [with such a wound]? [Rather it must have been a miracle that Job lived with a wound to his kidney.] And miracles are subject to different expectations. As it was written, `[And the Lord said to Satan, Behold, he is in your power;] only spare his life' (Job 2:6). Here too [in the case of his gallbladder] you say that miracles are subject to different expectations [and that is why Job went on living].

II.2

A.            And said R. Yitzhak b. R. Joseph, said R. Yohanan, “The law [concerning the liver that was removed (M. 3:1 C6)] is in accord with the authority who says [if] an olive's bulk [of the liver remains it is valid].”

B.            And did R. Yohanan say this? But lo, said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, said R. Yohanan, “The law is in accord with the anonymous teaching in the Mishnah.”

C.            And it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority, [If] the liver is removed so that nothing whatsoever remains of it [M. 3:1 C] [it is terefah]. Lo, if something remained it would be valid even if it was not an olive's bulk.

D.            [Accordingly we must say that on this issue] there is an Amoraic dispute about [the ruling of] R. Yohanan.

II.3

A.            And said R. Yitzhak b. R. Joseph, said R. Yohanan, “A gallbladder that was pierced and the liver [rested on it and] closed it up, it is valid.”

B.            And said R. Yitzhak b. R. Joseph, said R. Yohanan, “If the gizzard was pierced and its membrane was intact, it is valid.”

C.            They posed the question: “If the gizzard was pierced and its membrane was intact, what is the law?” Come and take note: For said R. Nahman, “If this one was pierced [i.e., the gizzard] but not the other [i.e., the membrane], it is valid.”

III.1

A.            Said Raba, “The gullet has two layers of skin. The exterior one is red and the interior one is white. If this one was pierced but not the other, it is valid.”

B.            Why must I state that the exterior one is red and the interior one is white? [That has no bearing on the piercing of the organ.] [Because] if they are reversed in color [the organ is deemed defective and the animal is] terefah.

C.            They posed the question: If the two of them [i.e., the skins of the gullet or the gizzard and its membrane] were pierced, but not opposite one another, what is the law? Said Mar Zutra in the name of R. Pappa, “In the case of the gullet, it is valid. In the case of the gizzard, it is not valid.”

D.            R. Ashi raised an objection to this. The contrary [conclusion makes more sense]. With regard to the gullet, the animal eats through it and breathes through it, and it contracts and expands. At times [the holes] may line up with one another [so it should not be valid]. The gizzard, that is always still, remains as it is [and the holes will not line up, so it should be valid].

E.            Said to him R. Aha the son of R. Joseph to R. Ashi, “This is what we have stated in the name of Mar Zutra who said in the name of R. Pappa in accord with your view.”

III.2

A.            And said Rabbah, “A membrane that formed as a result of an injury to the gullet is not considered to be a membrane [with regard to the law of piercing].”

B.            And said Rabbah, “There is no valid external inspection of the gullet. It must be internal.” In what case does this make a difference? [43b] For the case of an animal about which there is a doubt whether it was mauled.

C.            There once was a case of an animal about which there is a doubt whether it was mauled. It was brought before Rabbah. Rabbah was inspecting the gullet externally. Said to him Abayye, “Was it not the master [i.e., you] who said, `There is no valid external inspection of the gullet. It must be internal?'”

D.            Rabbah turned it and inspected it [internally] and found on it two drops of blood and declared it to be terefah. And Rabbah did this [external inspection initially] in order to test the sharpness of Abayye's acumen.

IV.1

A.            Said Ulla, “If a thorn was lodged in its gullet we do not suspect that perhaps it [had pierced the gullet but then the wound] healed.”

B.            [A mnemonic is given.] And according to the view of Ulla why is this case different from the case of a doubt as to whether the animal had been mauled? Ulla reasons that, “We are not concerned with the possibility of a case of a doubt as to whether the animal had been mauled.”

C.            And what is the difference between this [case of doubt whose significance he rejects] and [the case of doubt] concerning [two pieces of fat] — one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat? There we have a definite presumption that a forbidden substance was present. [Here regarding the doubt about mauling, we are not sure that any forbidden substance exists.] And what is the difference between this case and the case of one who slaughters with a knife and afterward finds that it was defective? There the taint arose in the knife [not in the animal]. And what is the difference between this case and the case of doubt concerning uncleanness in a private domain? [It should be deemed equivalent to that.] And a case of doubt in this instance is deemed to be unclean.

D.            But according to your logic we should compare this to a case of doubt concerning uncleanness in a public domain. And such a case of doubt is deemed to be clean. But there [in the case of these principles regarding doubt about uncleanness] we derive the rule from analogy to the laws for the suspected woman [see 9b above].

E.            A rabbi was sitting before R. Kahana. And he sat and he said, “[The law of A] was stated for a case where it [i.e., the thorn] was found [in the hollow of the gullet]. But where it was set [in the wall of the gullet] we do suspect [that perhaps it had pierced the gullet but then the wound healed].”

F.             Said to him R. Kahana, “Pay no attention to him. [The law of A] was stated for a case where it was set [in the wall of the gullet]. But where it was found [in the hollow of the gullet], it was not necessary to state for Ulla [the rule] because [as a rule] all beasts that graze eat some thorns.”

V.1

A.            It was stated: [To render the animal terefah the amount that must be pierced in] the pharynx [lit., the forecourt of the gullet (Cashdan), is a matter of dispute]. Rab said, “Any amount.” And Samuel said, “The majority.”

B.            Rab said, “Any amount” because it is a valid place [in the neck] to slaughter the animal. And Samuel said, “The majority” because it is not a valid place [in the neck] to slaughter the animal.

C.            What is this pharynx? Said Mari bar Mar Uqba, said Samuel, “Any place [in the gullet] where the opening widens as you cut, that is the pharynx. [Any place in the gullet] where the opening stays as it is as you cut, that is the gullet itself. ”

D.            Said to him R. Pappi, “The master did not state matters in this manner.” And who was [that master]? R. Bibi bar Abbaye. Rather [he said], “[Any place in the gullet] where the opening stays as it is as you cut it, that is the pharynx.” Where then is the gullet itself? Any place where the opening contracts as you cut it.

E.            Jonah said [in the name of] Zira, “Where it swallows [that is the pharynx].”

F.             And how far [into the gullet does the pharynx extend]? Said R. Avya, “Less than the length of a grain of barley and more than the length of a grain of wheat.”

V.2

A.            There was an ox that belonged to the children of R. Uqba that they started to slaughter in the pharynx and completed [the incision] in the gullet itself. Said Raba, “I impose upon it the stringencies of the rulings of Rab and the stringencies of the rulings of Samuel and I rule that it is terefah.”

B.            The stringencies of the rulings of Rab — for Rab said, “Any amount.” But did Rab not say that it a valid place [in the neck] for slaughter? This accords with the rule of Samuel who says that it is not a valid place for slaughter.

C.            If you hold in accord with the view of Samuel, then did he not say [it is terefah only if he cut], “A majority”? This accords with Rab who said, “Any amount” [renders it terefah]. They went around and around on this matter [and there seemed to be no resolution].

D.            They brought it before R. Abba. He said to them, “Both in accord with Rab and in accord with Samuel an ox [slaughtered in this fashion] is permitted. Go and tell [Raba] the son of R. Joseph bar Hama to pay the value of the ox to the owner.”

E.            Said Mar the son of Rabina, “I can pose an objection to the enemies of Raba [from the following text]:”

F.             In general the law is in accord with the House of Hillel. But one who wishes to act [consistently] in accord with the words of the House of Shammai may do so. [One who wishes to act consistently in accord with] the words of the House of Hillel may do so. [One who wishes to act in accord with] the leniencies of the House of Shammai and the leniencies of the House of Hillel is evil. [44a] [One who wishes to act in accord with] the stringencies of the House of Shammai and the stringencies of the House of Hillel, about him Scripture says, “The fool walks in darkness” (Qoh. 2:14). But [it is proper] if one follows the House of Hillel [to follow both] their leniencies and their stringencies and if one follows the House of Shammai [to follow both] their leniencies and stringencies [T. Suk. 2:3].