The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, Tractate 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. With God’s help, may they be married at an auspicious and successful time, and may they merit to build a home filled with Torah learning. May they enjoy much joy, peace in the home, peace, prosperity, and all blessings. Amen.
Today’s page, page 51a, is being studied in memory of Ram ben Esther, Rabbi Moshe ben Nun, and Yaakov ben Yosef. May their souls be bound in the bond of eternal life, and may they have mercy and forgiveness.
We begin with a quotation from the Mishnah, eighteen lines from the bottom. The Mishnah discusses a large animal, such as an ox, whose stomach has been torn. The outer stomach is called the reticulum. In a large animal, the required size of the tear is one handbreadth; it does not have to be most of the stomach. In a small animal, however, the majority of the stomach makes it non-kosher, even if the tear is less than one handbreadth.
The Gemara explains that when the Mishnah says “large” and “small,” it does not mean the largest possible animal or the smallest possible animal. Rather, the rule is as follows: whenever the stomach is torn, if the tear is still less than half the stomach, that is the case of a large animal. The stomach of a large animal is generally two handbreadths or more. Therefore, if one handbreadth is torn and that is still less than half the stomach, this is the case described as a large animal: one handbreadth, but not most of the stomach.
If most of the stomach is torn but the tear is still less than one handbreadth, that is the case of a small animal. For example, if the stomach is 1.9 handbreadths, then a tear of slightly less than one handbreadth would constitute most of it. In that case, as long as most of the stomach is torn, even though the tear is not yet a full handbreadth, the animal is non-kosher.
The Gemara asks: Why is this necessary to teach? If most of the stomach has been torn, even though the tear is less than a handbreadth, that seems obvious. We already know the principle that the majority is treated as the whole. Once most of the stomach has been torn, what additional novelty is there in telling us that the animal is non-kosher?
Rav Ashi answers that the case is one in which the tear is almost a full handbreadth. If it were torn just a little more, it would reach a full handbreadth. One might have thought that because it is so close to the boundary, we must wait until it actually reaches a handbreadth. The Mishnah therefore teaches that this is not so. As long as most of the stomach has been torn, even if the tear is still slightly less than a handbreadth, the animal is already non-kosher.
Rav Ashi then says that if the reticulum was punctured by the measure of a sela, it is non-kosher. A sela is a coin. If the round hole made by a sela is extended and stretched into a straight line, it will measure one handbreadth. Thus, the measure of a sela is equivalent to a handbreadth for this purpose.
Rav Ashi says that he heard this directly from Ginevai when they were walking across a bridge in Har De’a: a hole exactly the size of a sela is still permitted, but a hole larger than a sela makes the animal non-kosher. How much larger than a sela is considered “larger”? The measure is the size of three date pits.
There are two types of date pits. Some still have a small amount of date attached to them, and they are somewhat larger. If three such pits can be pushed through the hole, that is considered the required measure; this is called “with pressure.” Other pits are completely clean, without any date attached. Three of those can pass through the hole easily; this is called “without pressure.”
The Gemara now turns to the next subject: the reticulum and the honeycomb stomach. The honeycomb stomach is the part of the animal’s stomach that has compartments resembling cups. We have previously seen pictures of it. Inside are the cup-like structures, and on the outside is an outer membrane. That outer membrane is important for the discussion because the question concerns a needle passing through the honeycomb stomach.
The teaching states that when a needle is found in the wall of the honeycomb stomach, one must determine whether it has penetrated the outer membrane. If the needle has entered from the inside but has not pierced the outer membrane, there is no problem. The inner wall may have been punctured, but the outer membrane remains intact. The animal becomes non-kosher only when the needle has penetrated the inner wall and also pierced the outer membrane, so that it has reached the body cavity.
The law also depends on when the puncture occurred. If the puncture took place before slaughter, the animal was already non-kosher. If it happened after slaughter, it does not make the animal non-kosher. How can one determine when it happened? The Gemara gives a rule: if blood is found on the needle, the puncture must have occurred before slaughter, because a puncture made after slaughter would not produce blood in this way.
If no blood is found on the needle, one can infer that the puncture occurred after slaughter. The blood would have adhered to the needle if the puncture had taken place while the animal was alive. Since no blood is present, the puncture was apparently made after slaughter.
The Gemara adds another indication. If there is a hole in the membrane but a scab has already formed over it and closed it like a new layer of skin, then the puncture certainly occurred at least three days before slaughter. It takes three days for such a scab to form. Therefore, if the slaughterer bought the animal less than three days before slaughter and then discovered a closed puncture, it is certain that the animal was already non-kosher when he bought it. He can return to the seller and demand his money back.
The seller cannot claim that the puncture occurred after the sale. Since the slaughter took place within three days of the purchase, and the scab requires three days to form, the puncture must have preceded the sale. The slaughterer bought the animal for slaughter and for its meat; he cannot be sold an animal that was already non-kosher.
If the hole has not yet developed a scab, however, and blood is found on the needle, it is possible that the puncture occurred after the purchase. In that case, the burden of proof rests on the buyer. Since he is asking the seller to return his money, he must prove that the animal was already non-kosher when he bought it. If he cannot prove that, the sale remains valid.
Even if the animal was purchased more than three days before slaughter, the sale is not automatically reversed. The fact that no scab is visible does not prove that the puncture occurred within the last three days. Sometimes the moisture of the body prevents a scab from forming. Thus, even if the animal was purchased more than three days before slaughter, there may still be uncertainty as to whether it was already non-kosher at the time of purchase. Since the buyer cannot prove it, the sale stands.
The Gemara asks why this case is different from other punctures. With regard to other holes, we do not discuss whether there is blood. We simply determine whether there is a hole. If there is a hole, the animal is non-kosher. Why, in this case, does the absence of blood establish that the puncture occurred only after slaughter?
The Gemara answers that in the case of an ordinary hole, there is nothing for the blood to adhere to. The blood may have been present at the time of the puncture but then dispersed back into the body. With a needle, however, the blood would remain on the needle. Therefore, if the needle is clean, that is an indication that the puncture occurred after slaughter. The absence of blood from an ordinary hole is not proof, but the absence of blood from a needle is proof.
A Torah scholar came from the Land of Israel and said in the name of Rav Avira that there was once a case before Rabbi Judah the Prince in which the needle was found protruding from only one side—the inner side. Rabbi Judah the Prince ruled that the animal was permitted. This was a novelty, because we had learned that the needle must pierce the outer membrane as well in order to make the animal non-kosher.
When Abaye heard that a rabbi had come from the Land of Israel and was reporting such a significant teaching in the name of Rabbi Judah the Prince, he wanted to meet him. He summoned Rav Avira, but Rav Avira did not come. Abaye went to Rav Avira’s house and found him on the roof. Abaye asked him to come down, but Rav Avira did not do so. Abaye therefore climbed up to the roof himself and asked him to relate the case precisely.
Rav Avira explained that he had been the attendant in the study hall where Rabbi Judah the Prince taught. His responsibilities included informing the students when the lesson would begin, arranging the chairs, and bringing everyone into the study hall. One day, Rabbi Judah the Prince and another great rabbi were sitting before Rabbi Judah the Prince when a needle was found in the honeycomb stomach. At first, it appeared to be protruding only from the inner side. Rabbi Judah the Prince turned it over and saw blood on the needle. He then said, “If the needle did not penetrate the outer membrane, where did the blood come from?”
With that statement, Rabbi Judah the Prince was clarifying that the case had in fact involved a needle that had pierced the outer membrane. Abaye said to Rav Avira, “You made me climb all the way to the roof for this? There was no novelty. You were simply describing a case in which the outer membrane had been punctured.”
This passage shows how deeply the Sages valued Torah wisdom. Abaye was willing to go to great lengths, even climbing onto a roof, to understand one statement accurately and determine precisely what Rabbi Judah the Prince had taught.
The Mishnah then discusses an animal that fell from a roof. It does not have to be a roof specifically; the same law applies to an animal that falls from any place higher than ten handbreadths. The concern is that the animal’s internal organs or bones may have been crushed, making it non-kosher.
If an animal was left on a roof and was later found on the ground, one does not necessarily have to assume that it fell and was injured. If it is slaughtered within twenty-four hours, it may still be permitted. Normally, if one sees an animal fall from a roof, one must wait twenty-four hours to determine whether it survives, and afterward one must inspect it. In this case, however, the fall was not witnessed. Since the animal may have jumped voluntarily, it is not automatically treated as an animal that fell in a dangerous manner.
Rashi explains that because the animal was found on the ground rather than being seen falling, we do not have to suspect that its bones were broken. We assume that it jumped. An animal that jumps controls its descent; it is similar to a controlled fall. Even if it cannot stand afterward, the injuries from such a jump are not necessarily severe enough to cause it to die.
This is the view that applies the twenty-four-hour rule to an animal that definitely fell. If the animal remains alive for twenty-four hours after the fall, that demonstrates that it did not suffer a fatal injury. In the case discussed here, however, the animal may have jumped voluntarily. Since its descent was controlled, it may be slaughtered even within twenty-four hours.
The Gemara discusses an example of a goat that was standing on a roof and saw barley through a skylight. It became excited and jumped through the opening in order to reach the barley. It fell all the way to the ground, without any wall or other object to help break its fall. The question is whether the permission to slaughter an animal found on the ground applies only when we assume that it was able to hold on to something and reduce the force of the fall, or whether the permission is based on the fact that a voluntary jump is controlled even when there is nothing to hold on to.
The Gemara’s conclusion is that the animal protects itself when it jumps. Even if it has no place to hold on and cannot reduce the fall by touching a wall, the jump is still considered controlled. Therefore, it may be slaughtered within twenty-four hours.
There was another case involving an animal that dragged its hind legs. Something was clearly wrong with it. It might have been a cramp or tightened ligaments, but someone suggested that perhaps the animal’s spinal cord had been broken, which would make it non-kosher. The animal was examined, and indeed the spinal cord was broken.
Nevertheless, the ruling was that one does not have to assume that this is the cause in every case. It is more common for an animal to suffer a cramp than for it to have a broken spine. Therefore, we follow the more common explanation and do not automatically declare the animal non-kosher. The fact that the diagnosis happened to be a broken spinal cord in that particular case does not change the general rule.
Rav Huna says that when rams are locking horns and goring each other, we do not have to suspect that their bones were broken as a result. Even if they appear to be in pain, the pain may simply be the result of the blows. However, if one ram falls to the ground because of the other ram’s blow, then we must be concerned that it was injured.
The language indicates that once the animal has fallen and does not stand, one cannot simply slaughter it immediately. If it survives for twenty-four hours, it may then be slaughtered after an internal inspection. According to one explanation, the concern is not necessarily that the goring itself broke the bones, but that the animal was pushed forcefully to the ground. Although it did not fall from a great height, the force of the other animal may have caused a serious impact.
The Gemara gives another case involving rams stolen by thieves. The thieves enter a person’s yard, seize the rams, and throw them over a fence into another area so that they can escape with the animals. The question is whether the impact of being thrown over the fence makes the animals non-kosher.
The Gemara says that when thieves are stealing the animals, they throw them in a manner that allows them to land on their legs. The thieves want the animals to survive and run away, because the theft is still in progress. Therefore, they are careful not to throw them in a way that would injure them.
If the thieves later return the animals, however, the law depends on why they are returning them. If they are returning the animals only because they are afraid of being caught, they may simply throw them over the fence without concern for the animals’ condition. In that case, we must suspect that they landed badly and were injured.
If they are returning the animals because they genuinely regret the theft and wish to repent, then they will not deliberately injure them. They do not want to return an animal in a non-kosher condition. Therefore, the animals are assumed to have been thrown in a way that would allow them to land properly. We must determine the thieves’ intention: were they returning the animals out of fear, or because of sincere repentance?
Rav Yosef gives another case. A person strikes an animal with a stick. If he strikes the animal on the head and the stick extends all the way to the tail, or if he strikes the tail and the stick extends to the head, or if the middle of the stick reaches the animal’s spine, we are not automatically concerned that the animal’s spine was damaged.
The principle is that the main force of the blow comes from the end of the stick—the point that makes the primary impact. The portions of the stick that merely extend beyond the point of impact do not have the same force. Therefore, if the end of the stick strikes the head or tail while another part reaches the spine, there is no concern that the spine was broken.
If the stick is short and its end strikes the middle of the animal’s back, then there is a concern that the spine was damaged. Similarly, if the stick has protruding knots, each knot is treated like an end of the stick, because the force is concentrated there. If one of the knots strikes the spine, the animal may become non-kosher.
The Gemara asks about striking the animal across its width. If the stick strikes across the body, the force may still be concentrated on the particular spot where the end or a knot makes contact. Therefore, that spot must also be taken into account.
The Gemara now discusses an animal giving birth. The baby animal must pass through a narrow birth canal. Why do we not suspect that every animal born naturally has crushed internal organs and therefore must be kept alive for twenty-four hours before it can be slaughtered?
The Gemara answers that normal birth through the birth canal does not cause the internal organs to be crushed. Therefore, even if the animal is slaughtered within twenty-four hours of birth, it is permitted.
Rav says that there is a proof from the laws of a person who experiences an abnormal bodily emission. A male infant who is only one day old can already have this condition and become ritually impure. The law is that such an emission must occur naturally. If it is caused by an external factor—for example, something that a person ate—it does not create the same impurity.
Therefore, if one were to say that birth through the birth canal crushes the infant’s organs, then the infant’s emission would have been caused by that external pressure and would not qualify as a natural emission. Since the Torah’s law treats a newborn as capable of having this condition, the Gemara initially concludes that birth through the birth canal does not cause the internal organs to be crushed.
The Gemara rejects the proof. Who says that the infant in that case was born through the birth canal? Perhaps the infant was delivered by a surgical birth. In the time under discussion, a substance was placed on the mother’s abdomen to open it, and the child was removed through that opening.
The Gemara clarifies that the mother and child were both alive. It should not be understood as a case in which the mother died and the child was removed afterward. If the mother had died, the child would also have died. The case concerns a live surgical birth.
The Gemara then brings another proof. A calf born on a Festival may be slaughtered on that same day. One might ask how it can be used, since an animal born on the Festival is generally considered newly created for the day and therefore unavailable for use. The answer is that while it was still in its mother’s womb, the calf was already considered available along with its mother. If the mother had been slaughtered, the calf would have been permitted to eat. Therefore, the calf is not treated as newly prepared when it is born on the Festival.
Obviously, if birth through the birth canal crushed the calf’s internal organs, one would have to wait twenty-four hours before eating it. The fact that it may be eaten on the day it is born seems to prove that ordinary birth does not cause such damage. The Gemara answers that perhaps the case was one of a surgical birth, so the calf did not pass through the birth canal.
The Gemara brings another proof from a firstborn animal that has a blemish. If a firstborn kosher animal is born on a Festival with a permanent blemish, everyone agrees that it is considered prepared and may be slaughtered and eaten on the Festival. Since it had a blemish from birth, it was never in a prohibited state that required it to be brought to the Temple.
Again, the Gemara suggests that perhaps this was a surgical birth. The answer is that even Rabbi Shimon, who regards a surgical birth in the case of a human being as a valid birth, agrees that a firstborn animal must emerge naturally in order to have the status of a firstborn. Therefore, the case cannot involve a surgical birth. Nevertheless, the Gemara does not accept this as a proof that ordinary birth does not injure the animal, because the animal may have stood immediately after birth.
The Gemara also discusses the case of a woman who gives birth by surgery. Rabbi Shimon says that such a birth is considered a birth in the ordinary sense for certain laws. If she gives birth to a boy, she observes seven days of impurity; if she gives birth to a girl, she observes fourteen days. The verse includes additional words indicating that this law applies even to a surgical birth.
The Gemara again rejects the proof from the animal. Perhaps the animal in that case stood after birth. Once the animal stands, there is no longer a concern that its internal organs were crushed. The various proofs therefore do not establish conclusively that birth through the birth canal cannot cause such damage.
The Gemara continues with a statement of Rav Nachman. In the slaughterhouse, the slaughterer throws an animal to the ground in order to slaughter it. Rav Nachman says that this act does not cause the animal’s internal organs to be crushed. There was a case in which an animal was thrown down in the slaughterhouse, and people heard it moaning. Nevertheless, the person involved ate from the choicest meat of that animal, demonstrating that the fall had not made it non-kosher.
Why is this not considered a dangerous fall? When an animal is thrown down, it braces itself with its claws and resists the descent. It does not simply fall freely to the ground. Since it helps control the fall with its feet, the impact is not comparable to a fall from a high place.
The Gemara then returns to the laws of an animal that fell from a roof. If the animal stands immediately after falling, there is no need to wait twenty-four hours. It may be slaughtered at once. However, an internal inspection is still required to make sure that no organs or bones were damaged.
Ordinarily, one does not have to inspect every part of an animal. There are certain areas that must be checked, including the lungs, but one does not examine the entire animal. In the case of an animal that fell, however, the entire inside must be inspected.
Rashi says that if the animal stands and walks after the fall, it does not even require an inspection. Its ability to get up and walk demonstrates that it is not seriously injured. Another view says that both an animal that merely stands and an animal that walks require an inspection, because in either case the animal fell from the roof.
The law is that even if the animal merely extends one leg in order to stand or walk, that is sufficient to permit immediate slaughter; there is no need to wait twenty-four hours. One opinion goes further and says that even if the animal only shakes its leg in an effort to rise, without actually extending it or standing, this is enough to permit slaughter within twenty-four hours.
The Rashba summarizes the laws learned from this discussion. If an animal jumps voluntarily from a high place, one does not have to wait twenty-four hours and does not require an inspection, because the animal gauges its ability and protects itself when it jumps.
If an animal falls accidentally from a place higher than ten handbreadths, one must suspect that its bones were broken and that it is non-kosher. If it stands within twenty-four hours, however, it may be slaughtered immediately. If it did not stand, one must wait twenty-four hours. After the twenty-four-hour period, it may be slaughtered, but an inspection is required.
If the animal stood immediately, it may be slaughtered at once. According to the view that walking eliminates the need for an inspection, an animal that actually walks does not require an inspection. If two animals were fighting and one forcefully knocked the other down, that is treated as a forceful fall and must be considered carefully.
The case of the thieves is also included in the summary. When they throw a stolen animal over a fence in a way that allows it to land on its legs, the animal is permitted. When they return it, we must determine whether they are returning it out of fear or because they genuinely wish to repent. The slaughterhouse case is permitted because the animal braces itself with its claws when it is thrown down.
With regard to an animal that stood after falling, if it stood or if one waited twenty-four hours, it may be slaughtered. If one waited twenty-four hours, an inspection is still required. The inspection includes the intestines and stomach area, to ensure that the stomach was not torn and that the intestines were not punctured because of the fall.
The inspection must also include the entire inner area of the animal, including the ribs, to make sure that none of the ribs were broken and that none of the vertebrae were damaged. The windpipe and esophagus do not require a special inspection for this concern, because they are hard and are not generally damaged by this type of fall. They would be checked only if there were an independent reason for concern.
The Gemara then discusses birds. If a bird lands on water, one may observe whether it can swim the length of its own body. If it can swim that distance, this demonstrates that its bones were not broken. It is similar to an animal that stands or walks after a fall.
This applies when the bird is swimming against the current and must exert its own strength. If it is swimming with the current, the water may be carrying it, and its movement is not proof of its strength. In a lake with no current, the direction in which it swims makes no difference. If the bird swims in the direction of the current but passes a piece of wood floating in the water, that shows that it is moving faster than the current and is therefore swimming under its own power.
There is also a moral lesson here. For a bird to be considered sound, it must be able to swim against the current. Similarly, a person who wishes to demonstrate genuine religious integrity must be willing to go against the prevailing current of society. Someone who simply follows everyone else has not demonstrated the same loyalty to God.
The Gemara discusses a bird that falls onto a stretched garment. If a prayer shawl is pulled tightly and held out like a roof, and the bird falls onto it, one must be concerned that the impact may have damaged the bird. Since the cloth is stretched tightly, it offers sufficient resistance to injure the bird.
If the garment is not pulled completely tight, there is no such concern. Even if it is being held, as long as it is loose, it cushions the fall. If the garment is folded, it is also permitted, even if it is held tightly, because the folds provide cushioning.
The Gemara now lists different surfaces on which a bird might fall. If it falls onto a net or trap with many tightly spaced knots, one must be concerned that the knots may injure it. If the knots are not close together, there is no concern.
If it falls onto bundles of flax, the flax is hard and one must be concerned that the bird’s bones may have been damaged. If it falls onto the side of the bundles, however, there is no concern, because the sides are sufficiently soft. If it falls onto a bundle of reeds, the reeds are hard and there is likewise a concern.
If the flax has been beaten and combed and is spread out on the ground, it is soft and there is no concern. If it is spread out but has not been combed, hard portions may remain within it, and one must therefore be concerned that the bird was injured.
The Gemara discusses the material that is removed when flax is combed. If it is spread out in separate piles, one must be concerned because the remaining knots can create a hard surface. If it is properly spread out and combed without forming hard piles, there is no concern.
If the bird falls onto the fibers that grow around a palm tree, one must be concerned because they may contain hard portions. If those fibers are made into a rope, however, there is no concern, because the material is compressed and does not create the same kind of hard impact.
If the bird falls onto ashes, sifted ashes are considered hard, so one must be concerned. Unsifted ashes are softer, and there is no concern. Fine sand is also not a problem because it is smooth and slips away rather than forming a hard surface. Coarse sand, however, may contain stones and pebbles, so one must be concerned.
Dirt on a road is considered a hard surface, and one must be concerned. Straw from wheat or barley is not a concern when it is loose. If it has been gathered into a pile, however, it can form a hard surface, and one must be concerned.
If a bird falls onto wheat or another grain, one must be concerned, because the grains can gather together and create a hard surface. The same applies to barley and the various types of grain. In general, with regard to legumes, there is no concern that they will cause the bird’s bones to be crushed, because they are smooth and do not ordinarily form a hard surface.
There is an exception: fenugreek. Fenugreek can gather and become hard, so one must be concerned. Peas are not a problem because they are round and roll rather than forming a solid surface. Chickpeas, however, are a concern because they are not as round and can collect together into a hard mass.
The general principle is that anything slippery does not combine into a hard surface and does not raise a concern about crushed bones. Anything that is not slippery may gather together and create a hard surface, in which case one must be concerned.
The Gemara then discusses glue. If glue is placed on a piece of wood, a bird can fly into it and become attached. Sometimes the bird flies with the piece of wood attached to its body, and the weight causes it to fall to the ground.
If the piece of wood is attached to only one wing, everyone agrees that the bird is permitted, because it can use the other wing to control its fall. If the wood is attached to both wings, everyone agrees that the bird is not permitted, because neither wing can function properly and the bird cannot break its fall.
The disagreement concerns a case in which the wood is attached to one wing. One opinion says that the bird can still use the other wing to fly or control its descent. The other opinion says that once one wing is unusable, the bird cannot properly fly with the remaining wing either. The final rule is that wood attached to both wings renders the bird non-kosher, while wood attached to only one wing is permitted.
May the study of the Torah bring merit, blessing, and success. Amen.