Talmud Bavli Hullin 56a-b - translation by Tzvee

                [56a] This includes [by inference] the skin of the pudenda [of an animal that he slaughtered with intention to eat it] outside of its proper place, it is invalid but there is for this no punishment on account of extirpation. [If he did so with intention to offer it] after its proper time, it is refuse and they are liable to punishment on account of extirpation [cf. T. Zeb. 2:3 H-I].

These units adhere predictably close to Mishnah's operative agenda. I.1 explores the implications of Mishnah's general statement in comparison with that of M. 3:1. I.2 comments on a lemma cited in I.1. II.1 discusses Mishnah's measure of size. II.2 takes up general issues regarding measures of size. The unit cites a complementary Tannaite rule from Mishnah Kelim for its illustrations.

                III.1 comments on a rule of Mishnah in light of the premises of M. 4:1. IV.1 directly elucidates Mishnah's rule regarding kidneys. IV.2 provides a discussion regarding the comparison of defects of one organ with those of another, secondary to the Mishnah. V.1 and VI.1 give us brief glosses to clarify Mishnah's rules. VII.1 glosses Mishnah's rule and adds a further discussion regarding the inspection of the lung. VIII.1 expands on Mishnah's rule by citing related materials including the Tosefta-passage relevant to the text.

                Finally, VIII.2 examines a secondary issue raised in the preceding discussion — how much and which hide counts? The unit cites a related Tosefta-passage from Zebahim and examines its implications.

                                                                     3:3

                A.            And these are the terefah [carcasses] among fowl:

                                (1) one the gullet of which is pierced,

                                (2) one the windpipe of which is torn.

B.            (3) [If] the weasel pierced its head at a point which renders it terefah;

                                (4) [if] the gizzard is pierced;

                                (5) [if] the small intestines are pierced.

                C.            (6) [If] it fell into the fire and the intestines were scorched — if they are green, they are invalid. If they are red, they are valid.

                D.           (7) [If] one trampled it or knocked it against the wall,

                E.            or [if] a beast trampled on it, and it flutters — if it remains alive for twenty-four hours, and one [then] slaughtered it, it is valid.

I.1

A.            Rab and Samuel and Levi said, “He inserts his hand inside and inspects it [i.e., the mouth of a bird whose head was pierced by a weasel]. If it oozes [from a hole in the skull] it is terefah. And if not, it is valid.”

B.            This is reasonable according to the authority who holds the view [that it is not terefah] until the interior membrane is pierced [b. 45a]. But according to the authority who holds the view that [it is terefah] if the exterior membrane is pierced even though the interior membrane is not pierced, we should suspect that perhaps [in our case] the exterior membrane was pierced but the interior membrane was not pierced. [That is why there is no oozing from the skull. Accordingly, this form of inspection would not be an effective means to determine if the animal is terefah.]

C.            [This is not likely.] If it is the case that the exterior membrane is pierced, the interior membrane on account of its delicacy will surely rupture. [Thus the inspection is valid.]

I.2

A.            Said Ziri, “There is no effective inspection for [piercing by] a weasel because its teeth are thin.” But what difference does it make if its teeth are thin?

B.            Said R. Oshaia, “[There is no effective inspection for piercing by a weasel] because its teeth are thin and curved.” [There will be no oozing because the holes it makes do not align.]

C.            When he departed to Nehardea he sent to them, “The matters that I spoke before you were errors on my part. In fact this is what they said in the name of R. Simeon b. Laqish, `They inspect [for signs of piercing by] a weasel by hand, but not with a nail [or needle or straw].' And R. Yohanan said, `[They may inspect] even with a needle.'”

D.            And this is [the same as] the dispute between R. Judah and R. Nehemiah. One inspected by hand and one inspected with a needle. The one who inspected by hand would say to the one who inspected with a needle, “How long will you go on losing money for Israel?” [The inspection with a needle resulted in the discovery of many more signs of defects.] Said the one who inspected with a needle to the one who inspected by hand, “How long will you go on feeding the Israel carrion?” [Your method of inspection does not discover the defects.]

E.            Is it carrion? But lo the animal was slaughtered [and should not be categorized as carrion in any case]! Rather [he means] terefah for perhaps the membrane of the brain was pierced.

F.             We have proof that R. Judah was the one who inspected by hand. For it was taught on Tannaite authority, R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Judah, “They inspect it by hand, but they do not inspect it with a needle. If the bone is pierced, [it is invalid, and if not, it is valid] [T. 3:15 D]” even if the membrane of the brain was not pierced. This is proof.

G.            Lo the body of this text itself contains a contradiction. It says, They inspect [for signs of piercing by hand, but not with a nail. It seems [logical to conclude from this] that it you need to inspect [for the defect]. And then it teaches, If the bone is pierced [it is invalid] even if the membrane of the brain was not pierced. It seems [logical to conclude from this] that you do not need to inspect it.

H.           [You can explain that there is no contradiction.] The latter text refers to a water bird since it has no membrane. Can you conclude that it has no membrane? Rather because its membrane is delicate [it would rupture if you inspected it].

I.3

A.            Said R. Nahman to R. Anan, “Did not the master say, `Samuel inspected by hand and declared it valid [if he found no defect].' And did not Huna our associate say, `Rab inspected by hand and declared it valid.' But Levi taught, `The terefot that the sages enumerated for an animal all have equivalents for a fowl. There is an additional one for fowl: If the bone is pierced [it is invalid] even if the membrane of the brain was not pierced.'”

B.            He [Anan] said to him, “The latter text refers to a water bird since it has no membrane. Can you conclude that it has no membrane? Rather because its membrane is delicate [it would rupture if you inspected it].”

I.4

A.            A certain hen that was in the house of R. Hana [and] they sent [it for a ruling] before R. Matna [because it fell under the rule of]: If the bone is pierced [it is invalid] even if the membrane of the brain was not pierced. And he declared it valid! They said to him, “But lo Levi taught, `The terefot that the sages enumerated for an animal all have equivalents for a fowl. There is an additional one for fowl: If the bone is pierced [it is invalid] even if the membrane of the brain was not pierced.'”

B.            He [Matna] said to him, “The latter text refers to a water bird since it has no membrane. Can you conclude that it has no membrane? Rather because its membrane is delicate [it would rupture if you inspected it].”

I.5

A.            R. Shizbi inspected [the membrane for signs of piercing] in the sun. R. Yemar inspected it [for leaks] in water. R. Aha bar Jacob inspected it with a [56b] stalk of wheat [i.e., as they did with a nail or needle].

B.            Said R. Shizbi, “Our geese are like water birds [with respect to this rule].”

II.1

A.            [If] it fell into the fire [and the intestines were scorched — if they are green, they are invalid. If they are red, they are valid] [M. 3:3 C]. Said R. Yohanan in the name of R. Yosé b. Joshua, “The [minimum] quantity that must turn green [to render it invalid] is the same as the [minimum] quantity that must be pierced [to render it invalid]. Just as the [minimum quantity that must] turn green [to render it invalid] is any amount at all, the [minimum quantity that must] be pierced [to render it invalid] is any amount at all.”

B.            R. Joseph the son of R. Joshua b. Levi posed a question to R. Joshua b. Levi: If the liver near the intestines turned green, what is the law? He [Joshua] said to him, “It is terefah.” [Joseph asked,] “Should it not be treated as if it were removed [and thus valid]?” Said Raba, “Because the liver near the intestines turned green, we know that it fell into the fire and that the intestines were scorched and it is terefah.”

II.2

A.            Rabbi Joshua b. Levi had a certain hen [that had fallen into a fire] that he sent before R. Eleazar Haqappar beribbi [for a ruling]. He said to him, “They are green.” And he declared them valid. But lo we were taught, If they are green, they are invalid. [This is not a contradiction.] They only said, If they are green, they are invalid regarding the gizzard, the heart and the liver.

B.            R. Yitzhak bar Joseph had a certain hen [that had fallen into a fire] that he sent before R. Abbahu [for a ruling]. He said to him, “They [the intestines] are red.” And he declared them terefah. But lo we were taught, If they are red, they are valid. [This is not a contradiction.] He said to him, “Red ones that turned green or green ones that turned red are terefah. They only said that red ones are valid regarding the heart, the gizzard and the liver.”

C.            Said R. Samuel bar Hiyya, said R. Mani, “Red ones [intestines] that turned green [after the hen fell into the flame] and he boiled them and they turned red again are valid.” What is the basis for this rule? Smoke had contaminated them [and made them look green].

D.            Said R. Nahman bar Yitzhak, “Even I said, `Red ones that had not turned green [after the hen fell into the flame] and he boiled them and they turned green are terefah.” What is the basis for this rule? Their true status is revealed [by boiling them]. Said R. Ashi, “Therefore a person should only eat [from a hen that fell into a fire after the intestines are] boiled.”

E.            But this is not the case! We do not surmise the presence of a taint [that would render the animal defective].

III.1

A.            [If] one trampled it or knocked it against the wall, or [if a beast trampled on it... [M. 3:3 D-E]. Said R. Eleazar b. Antigonos in the name of R. Eleazar b. R. Yannai, “In any case it must be inspected [for defects that would render it terefah].”

These units engage in close Mishnah-criticism and rarely venture far from the Mishnah's narrowly stated operative concerns. I.1 states the procedure for inspecting for defects specified in Mishnah and correlates this with related views. I.2 gives rulings related to the preceding and correlates this with the relevant Tosefta-passage. I.3-5 provides further inspection procedures and precedents.

                II.1-2 delineates the minimum needed for Mishnah's next ruling. Secondary rules related to Mishnah's concern follow. The section concludes with III.1, a brief lemma commenting on Mishnah's rule.

                                                                     3:4

                A.            And these are valid [carcasses] among fowl:

                                (1) [if] the windpipe is pierced or severed [lengthwise],

                B.            (2) [if] the weasel pierced its head at a point which does not render it terefah,

                C.            (3) [if] the crop was pierced,

                D.           Rabbi says, “Even if it is removed” —

                E.            (4) [if] the intestines protrude but are not pierced,

                                (5) [if] its wings are broken,

                                (6) [if] its legs are broken,

                                (7) [if] its wing feathers are plucked.

                F.             R. Judah says, “If the fuzz is removed, it is invalid.”

I.1

A.            Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: Once [m`Ñh b] R. Simai and R. Zadok went to intercalate the year in Lod and they spent the Sabbath in Ono. And they ruled regarding [defects in a bird's] womb in accord with the view of Rabbi regarding [defects in a bird's] crop.

B.            They posed a question [concerning this teaching at A]: Did they rule to prohibit [regarding defects] in a womb in the same manner that Rabbi ruled to permit [regarding defects] in a crop? Or perhaps, did they rule to permit [regrading defects] in a womb in the same manner that rabbi ruled [to permit regarding defects] in a crop? But [at the same time] did they not reason in accord with the view of Rabbi [regarding defects in a] crop? The question stands unresolved.

C.            Said Rabbah and some say R. Joshua b. Levi, “The top of the crop is treated with regard to the law as if it were part of the gullet.” Where is [the top of the crop]? Said R. Bibi bar Abayye, “Any part of it that contracts along with [the gullet].”

II.1

A.            (4) [If] the intestines protrude [but are not pierced] [M. 3:4 E]. Said R. Samuel bar R. Yitzhak, “They taught this only where he did not twist them. But if he twisted them, it is terefah.” As it is written, “[Is not he your father, who created you,] who made you and established you?” (Deut. 32:6). This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, established order [in the organs] in a person. And if one of them should become twisted, he cannot live.

B.            It was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Meir used to say, “[The verse], `[Is not he your father, who created you,] who made you and established you?' (Deut. 32:6) [implies that the people of Israel are like] a village that has it all. From it come its priests, prophets, officers and kings. As it states, “Out of them shall come the cornerstone, out them the tent peg, out of them the battle bow, out of them every ruler” (Zech. 10:4).