The Eri B. Sit Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Chullin, has been dedicated by our good friends Mr. Joey Jamal and his wife in honor of their son Jack’s engagement to Shirley Sutton. May they marry at an auspicious time and with great success, and may they merit to enjoy much joy, peace, prosperity, and every blessing. Amen.
Fourteen lines from the bottom: Rav Chisda says, “Who is a Torah scholar?” What defines a Torah scholar, and why does it matter to know who qualifies as one?
The practical difference is the case discussed by the Gemara: ordinarily, if someone loses an object and another person finds it, the owner must provide identifying signs in order to reclaim it. A Torah scholar, however, may receive the object merely by recognizing it visually. If he says, “I recognize this as my object,” we trust him and return it without requiring identifying signs. The question, then, is who qualifies as a Torah scholar to whom a lost object may be returned through visual recognition alone.
The Torah scholar is described as someone who can be strict with himself regarding his own food. If he slaughters a piece of meat and there are two possible ways to view it—one indicating that it is kosher and the other indicating that it is non-kosher—he is able to look at his own piece of meat and say, “It is non-kosher.” Once we see that he can declare his own meat non-kosher, even though doing so causes him a personal financial loss, we know that he has no desire for money.
He is not merely uninterested in other people’s money; he is not even attached to his own money. He has no attraction to financial gain. Therefore, when he comes to reclaim a lost object without providing an identifying sign, we can trust him. A person who is able to declare his own meat non-kosher, even when there may have been a way to rule that it was kosher, is certainly not going to have an improper desire for someone else’s property.
Rav Chisda then says, “Who is the one who hates gifts and will live?” The verse says, “One who hates gifts will live,” and Solomon explains that the person described there is the same individual who can declare his own food non-kosher. Since he does not want to receive gifts, he is certainly not interested in taking somebody else’s property. This is the source, and this is the teaching of the Mishnah and Gemara: he is able to be strict with himself and rule against his own interests.
That is also part of his Torah study. He studies all the opinions of the Sages: one opinion says this, another opinion says that. He examines the different approaches and works through them. Such a person fulfills the description of someone who labors through his own efforts. He does not seek to benefit from other people; he supports himself through his own work and efforts.
Why do we say that? Because he is honest. Even when it concerns food that belongs to him, he does not rule in his own favor. He rules strictly. That shows that he is not interested in making an easy dollar. He is an honest person.
A person who does all these things receives both worlds. Sometimes they would send him gifts from the house of the head of the Sanhedrin. He did not accept them. At other times, they would invite him to a meal. He would go. He explained, “Why do you want me to live?” when they sent him gifts, meaning, “Why are you giving me all these gifts?” But when they invited him to a meal, he would attend and say, “Why do you want me to die?”
When they sent him gifts, he would not receive them. When they invited him to a meal, however, he would go, because they were receiving honor from his presence. When he attended the meal, he was giving them honor; they were not giving him anything. His presence was their honor.
Let us review the comments of Rashi. The discussion begins at the section referring to a Torah scholar, several lines from the top of the page. There are two possible approaches, and in either case he is not concerned with personal gain. If he is prepared to declare his own food non-kosher, he is certainly not interested in somebody else’s money. Regarding his own property, he is already strict.
Whenever the Gemara says that a person is sophisticated or well versed, that is the refined way of describing someone who studies the Gemara. What is the Gemara, essentially? It resolves the contradictions in the Mishnah by considering what each Rabbi said. That is why this person earns an honest living: we see that he does not care even about his own things.
Look at the bottom of Tosafot, where it discusses who qualifies as a Torah scholar. That is the basis for returning his lost object to him without requiring an identifying sign.
We now return to the laws of an animal that has become non-kosher. The windpipe has holes in it, like a sieve. A sieve has many small holes, and if several holes are next to one another, they may be combined. We gather all the small holes and consider them as though they were in one area. If, when combined, they constitute the majority of the circumference of one of the rings of the windpipe, the animal is considered non-kosher.
Look at the picture. You see the windpipe and the rings, with several tiny holes around the circumference of one ring. Each individual hole does not have the capacity to invalidate the animal. But if all the holes are gathered together in one area and constitute the majority of the circumference of a ring, the animal is non-kosher.
Rashi explains that if all the holes were joined together, they would constitute the majority of the circumference of the ring. That is why they are combined and treated as one area, resulting in the required measure for a non-kosher defect.
There is a similar principle in the laws of ritual impurity through a tent. If a person dies in a house, the impurity spreads throughout the house through the roof and surrounding area. However, if a piece is missing from the skull, the impurity does not spread through the tent. How large must the missing piece be? It must be the amount that would be removed by a particular instrument, described as a drill or a cutting tool.
For example, if a doctor performed surgery and removed a certain amount of brain tissue, and an ordinary person could not survive with that amount missing, then the same measure missing from the skull prevents the impurity from spreading through the tent. The measure is defined by the amount removed by that instrument.
It is not always a round, circular opening. Sometimes there is a long opening, or many small openings. In that case, the area is measured by gathering all the small openings together and determining whether their combined area reaches the measure of the instrument. If it does, the impurity does not spread through the tent.
The Gemara derives from this that once the required measure is established as the measure of the instrument, several small openings may be combined. They do not have to form one single opening in one place. All the small holes may be joined together for purposes of the measure.
The question is therefore raised regarding the windpipe as well. We said that a hole in the windpipe makes the animal non-kosher, but what is the required measure? The minimum measure is the size of a coin. If the windpipe contains holes whose combined area is the size of that coin, why does the Gemara say that the holes are combined until they constitute the majority of the circumference? Why not say that they are combined until they reach the size of the coin?
The answer is that it depends on the type of hole. If the small holes involve an actual deficiency—if they go all the way through the windpipe and something is missing—then the holes are combined until they reach the size of the coin. But if they are only surface holes, without an actual deficiency in the windpipe, then they are combined until they constitute the majority of the circumference.
Thus, the measure depends on whether the holes penetrate through the windpipe. If there is an actual deficiency, the measure is the size of the coin. If the holes affect only the surface and do not remove anything from the windpipe, the measure is the majority of the circumference.
The Gemara presents this same question to Rabbi Yitzchak. It asks about numerous holes in the windpipe: if they involve an actual deficiency, they combine to the measure of the coin; if they do not involve a deficiency, they combine to the majority of the circumference. This is the distinction that will be discussed in the Mishnah that follows.
There was a discussion about the comparison to a sieve. When the Gemara says “like a sieve,” it does not necessarily mean that the holes go entirely through from one side to the other. It can mean that there are many small holes, like the holes of a sieve, even if they are only surface holes. In that case, the relevant measure is the majority of the circumference.
If, however, a long strip is missing, it does not matter that the missing area is not circular. We calculate the area as though it were a circular opening and combine it until it reaches the measure of the coin. The same principle applies: where there is an actual deficiency, the holes combine to the measure of the coin.
We now turn to the case of a bird. The same issue arises if there are holes in its windpipe, but we cannot simply apply the measure of the coin, because a bird’s windpipe is smaller. What is the measure for a bird?
I heard an explanation of this from Rabbi Elazar. There is an area containing the holes. One cuts out the entire area containing those holes and places it over the opening of the windpipe, like a flap or a door. If the piece that was cut out covers the majority of the opening of the windpipe, the bird is non-kosher. If it covers less than the majority, the bird remains kosher.
Look at the illustration. The piece containing the holes is cut out and placed over the opening of the windpipe. If it covers most of the opening, that is the required measure and the bird is not kosher. If it covers less than half, it is acceptable.
The Gemara gives a way to remember this law through the image of a sieve. Just as one places a sieve over a container, here one takes the piece containing the holes and places it over the opening. The comparison teaches us to view the piece as a flap placed over the opening.
Next, the Gemara discusses a case in which the windpipe is opened like a door. The opening is cut on three sides but remains attached on one side, like a door whose hinge is still attached. Rav Nachman says that the measure is larger in this case. The hole must be large enough that a coin can be inserted through its width.
Ordinarily, the measure of a hole is the size of a coin. But if the flap is still attached, the opening must be slightly larger than the coin so that the coin can actually pass through it. Since the flap has not completely detached, the Sages required this larger measure.
We now come to the next case: a crack in the windpipe. The windpipe is split across its length. What is the required measure? One straightforward explanation is that as long as one complete ring remains above the crack and one complete ring remains below it, the animal is kosher.
Rashi does not accept that explanation. He understands the term used for a ring as referring to a group of rings, similar to the rings of ritual fringes. According to Rashi, there must be at least three complete rings in one area that have not been affected by the crack.
We already discussed the difference between the two explanations. When the crack runs around the circumference, the measure is the majority of the circumference. Here, however, we are discussing a crack that runs lengthwise along the windpipe.
The reason for the distinction is that the windpipe expands and contracts lengthwise. When the animal stretches its neck, a lengthwise crack can close and eventually heal. A crack running across the width of the windpipe, however, will not heal in the same way. Therefore, the requirement for a lengthwise crack is more stringent: three complete rings above and three complete rings below must remain unaffected.
Another opinion says that one does not need an entire group of rings. Even a very small amount remaining above and below the crack is sufficient, as long as the crack does not extend across the entire windpipe. The discussion contrasts the stricter explanation with this more lenient one.
The Gemara then continues: which part of the windpipe is valid for slaughter? The windpipe begins in the neck and extends down toward the lungs. The question is how far down one may slaughter.
The first statement says that the valid area extends from the large ring of the windpipe to the lower wings of the lungs. Look at the illustration. The windpipe descends into the lungs. On the sides of the lungs, there are flaps that open like wings. These are called the wings of the lungs. The statement means that the area from the large ring at the top of the windpipe down to the lower wings is valid for slaughter.
The large ring is called large either because it is thicker at that point or because it completely encircles the windpipe, whereas the other rings do not fully surround it in the same way.
When the Gemara refers to the lower wings, it means the wings that are lower when the animal is hanging upside down. Animals were hung by their hind legs when they were being skinned, so the part that is physically lower in that position is actually the upper part when the animal is standing normally.
What is the reasoning? One may slaughter anywhere that the animal normally extends its neck while eating. When an animal extends its neck naturally, the windpipe lengthens, and the area that becomes exposed is included in the valid location for slaughter. If a person forcibly pulls the animal’s neck beyond its ordinary extension in order to expose more of the windpipe, that area is not valid for slaughter.
The Sages determined that when the animal naturally extends its neck, the windpipe reaches the area above the lungs that becomes exposed. That is the point to which one may slaughter. The lower area is not normally exposed unless the animal is forced into an unnatural position.
A question is raised: what if the animal itself extends its neck farther than usual? Perhaps the prohibition applies only when a person forcibly stretches the neck, but if the animal extends it on its own, perhaps the exposed area should be valid. The discussion considers this possibility.
The expression “the wings of the lungs” does not mean that the valid area extends all the way down to the bottom of the lungs. When the animal naturally stretches its neck, that lower region is not exposed. Only if the neck is forcibly pulled would the area become visible, and such an extension does not make it valid for slaughter.
This leads to another law. If a person forcibly pulls the animal’s neck and slaughters it in that lower area, and a hole is later found there, the law of the area changes. Ordinarily, for a hole in the windpipe to make the animal non-kosher, there must be an actual deficiency. In the lung, however, even a hole without an actual deficiency renders the animal non-kosher.
Since this lower part of the windpipe is not a valid place for slaughter, it is treated like the lung rather than like the ordinary windpipe. Therefore, a hole there renders the animal non-kosher even if it does not involve an actual deficiency.
In this regard, it is not judged according to the law of the windpipe but according to the law of the lung. Once the area is considered part of the lung, even a tiny puncture is sufficient to render the animal non-kosher.
We now discuss the portion given to the priest from a peace offering. When one brings such an offering, certain parts must be given to the priest. One of those parts is the chest. What is considered the chest?
The chest is the part of the animal that faces the ground when the animal is standing. It is located in front of the stomach, toward the animal’s head. That portion faces the ground as the animal walks.
The chest extends from the stomach area toward the neck. It is the lower portion of the animal in that region. The priest receives that part when a peace offering is slaughtered.
The upper ribs on both sides are also included. The rib on each side comes away together with the chest. In the illustration, the upper ribs are marked, and both of them are part of the portion given to the priest.
Next, the Mishnah discusses a puncture in the membrane surrounding the brain. The brain has two membranes: an outer membrane and an inner membrane. The question is which membrane must be punctured for the animal to be considered non-kosher.
One opinion says that the puncture must reach the inner membrane, the membrane that forms the sack in which the brain rests. Another opinion might have suggested that a puncture in the outer membrane alone is sufficient. The conclusion is that the puncture must reach the inner membrane, where the brain is actually contained.
The Gemara gives a way to remember this through another part of the body. In a male animal, the testicles are also contained in a sack. Around that sack are two membranes: an outer membrane and an inner membrane in which the testicles rest. There, it is easier to distinguish the two membranes.
Just as the inner membrane in the testicles is the sack that contains them, so too, with regard to the brain, the inner membrane is the sack that contains the brain. The outer membrane is merely a covering. The law concerns the inner membrane, not merely the outer covering.
Rashi explains that in the testicles it is possible to recognize the two membranes clearly: one is external, and the other is the membrane in which the testicles lie. In the brain, however, the inner membrane is extremely thin. It can appear to be part of the brain itself rather than a separate membrane. That is why the comparison to the testicles helps clarify the law.
We now come to another point. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazzi says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Levi in the name of Bar Kappara that anything located within the cavity of the skull is considered brain matter. Once it begins to leave the cavity of the skull and move toward the spinal cord, it is considered part of the spinal cord.
Where is the boundary? At the entrance from the brain toward the spinal cord there are two bean-shaped structures, one on each side. The area inward from these two structures is considered part of the brain. The area outward from them, toward the spinal cord, is considered part of the spinal cord.
The question is what status the two bean-shaped structures themselves have. Are they considered part of the brain or part of the spinal cord? The Gemara leaves that matter unresolved.
The same two structures are found in the brain of a bird. Therefore, the boundary is measured in the same way in a bird: the area in front of them is brain, the area behind them is spinal cord, and the status of the structures themselves remains uncertain.
We now turn to a hole in the heart. The heart has two cavities, a large cavity and a small cavity. The question is whether the heart must be punctured into the large cavity, or whether a puncture into the small cavity is sufficient.
One might try to compare this to the law of the lungs. Regarding the lungs, we learned that the puncture must reach the place where the main bronchial tubes emerge. The windpipe enters the lungs and branches out from there, and the requirement concerns that principal area.
Perhaps the heart should be treated in the same way: just as a puncture in the lung must reach the larger area where the main tubes are gathered, perhaps a puncture in the heart must reach the large cavity.
The Gemara rejects that comparison. Regarding the lungs, the wording specifically refers to the place where the main bronchial tubes are located. The law is clearly connected to that particular area. Regarding the heart, however, the statement merely says that the puncture must reach the cavity. It does not distinguish between the large cavity and the small cavity. Therefore, one cannot derive from the law of the lungs that the puncture in the heart must reach the large cavity.
There is a disagreement between Rav and Shmuel. Rav says that even a tiny puncture in the relevant area of the heart is sufficient. Shmuel says that the majority of the area must be punctured.
The Gemara then asks what part of the heart is being discussed. It answers that it is the structure located on the sides of the heart, described as a fatty covering. The Gemara rejects that possibility because an animal becomes non-kosher only through a defect in an organ upon which its life depends. Life does not depend on that fatty material at the side of the heart, so removing it would not render the animal non-kosher.
Instead, the reference is to the fatty material surrounding the tube that runs from the heart toward the lungs and the spinal cord. The windpipe and related tubes extend into the body, and this fatty material surrounds the relevant passage into the heart. That is the area being discussed.
There are three major tubes. One goes to the heart, one to the lungs, and one to the liver. The tube that goes to the lungs has the status of the lungs, and the tube that goes to the liver has the status of the liver. The discussion concerns the tube that goes to the heart.
One opinion says that the tube leading to the heart is invalidated by even the smallest defect. Another opinion says that the majority of it must be removed or damaged. The dispute depends on which organ’s law is applied to this tube.
One approach says that the tube leading to the lungs has the status of the lungs. Since even a small puncture in the lungs can render the animal non-kosher, the same is true of this tube. The tube leading to the liver has the status of the liver, where the entire organ must be removed for the animal to be non-kosher. The tube leading to the heart is then compared to the heart, and the dispute concerns whether a small puncture or a majority is required.
Another statement reverses the comparison: the tube leading to the lungs is treated like the liver, requiring the removal of the entire tube, while the tube leading to the heart is treated like the lungs, so that even a small puncture is sufficient.
When this statement was reported to Shmuel, he said that the person who made it did not understand the first principles of the laws of animals that become non-kosher. The point was that the earlier statements were attributed to Rav, and the dispute concerned how Rav’s ruling should be understood.
We now discuss a break in the spinal cord. One opinion says that the majority of the spinal cord must be severed for the animal to be non-kosher. Rabbi Yaakov says that even a puncture is sufficient. A case came before Rabbi, and he initially ruled according to Rabbi Yaakov, that even a puncture in the spinal cord renders the animal non-kosher. However, the final law does not follow Rabbi Yaakov. The law follows the first opinion: the majority of the spinal cord must be severed.
The Gemara then explains what “the majority” means. The spinal cord consists of an outer membrane and the marrow inside it. The question is whether the majority of the outer membrane must be severed or whether the majority of the marrow must be affected.
One opinion says that the majority of the circumference of the outer membrane must be severed, even if the marrow inside remains intact. Another opinion says that the majority of the marrow must be affected, even if the outer membrane remains intact.
The Gemara notes that the person who says the law depends on the marrow would certainly agree that a defect in the outer membrane is sufficient, because the membrane holds the marrow inside. Once the membrane is damaged, the marrow will ultimately be affected as well.
However, the person who says that the law depends only on the membrane does not consider the condition of the marrow significant. According to that opinion, the marrow itself does not add or subtract from the ruling; the question is whether the outer membrane has been damaged to the required extent.
Rav Natan was sitting before Rav with an animal whose spinal cord was being examined. He checked the majority of the outer membrane and then began examining the marrow inside. Rav told him that there was no need to continue. Once the majority of the outer membrane was intact, the condition of the marrow made no difference. This follows the ruling that the outer membrane determines the law.
Rabbi Yosef ben Rabbi says that if the marrow has become softened or liquefied, the animal is non-kosher. The Gemara distinguishes between two forms of deterioration.
One form is when the marrow becomes liquid enough that, if the membrane were opened, it would pour out like water from a pitcher. Another form is when the marrow has become soft and heavy, so that when the spinal cord is lifted, it bends over because it no longer has its normal firmness.
The Gemara explains that if the spinal cord bends merely because the marrow has become heavy, that does not necessarily render the animal non-kosher. If the marrow has become so liquefied that it pours out, however, the animal is non-kosher.
There is a further discussion about a term that can mean that the marrow has softened or that it has emptied out. One source says that this condition makes the animal non-kosher, while another source appears to say that it remains kosher. The Gemara resolves the contradiction by explaining that the ruling of non-kosher refers to marrow that has become softened, whereas marrow that has emptied out is treated differently.
Levi was once in a bathhouse and saw a man strike his head against a wall. Levi said, “This man has suffered that condition.” The Gemara initially understands him to mean that the man would not survive. But it rejects that interpretation. Levi meant that the man would no longer be able to have children.
Rashi explains that the reproductive capacity is connected to the brain through the spinal cord. The relevant reproductive organs are connected to the spinal cord, which extends upward to the brain. Therefore, when the man struck his head, Levi was saying that his reproductive ability had been damaged, not that he was necessarily going to die.
Thus, the term in that passage does not mean that the person would die and does not establish that the animal is non-kosher. It refers to the loss of reproductive ability.