The Eddie B. Sit edition of the audio series on the *Talmud Bavli*, specifically *Masechet Chullin*, has been dedicated by our good friend Mr. Joey Jamal and his wife in honor of their son Jack's engagement to Shirley Sutton. May it be, with God's help, that they marry at a good and successful time, and through the merit of the study we will engage in over the next several months in *Masechet Chullin*, may they experience great joy, peace in their home, prosperity, and all blessings, amen. Today’s *daf* is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, Tzvi Moshe ben Nun, and Yitzchak Yaakov ben Yosef. May their souls be at rest in the Garden of Eden, amen.
We begin today’s *daf* on *nun bet amud rishon* and we are up to the discussion on the phrase *nishtaberu rov tzal'oteha*, right in the three lines before they get wide. Before we proceed, it is crucial to examine a significant *Rashi* on the last *sugia* we studied yesterday. We learned about an animal that falls, and in certain cases, if the animal does not get up or walk within twenty-four hours, one must perform *shechitah* (ritual slaughter), but it is necessary to conduct a *bedikah* (inspection) to ensure that nothing is broken inside the animal.
Let’s look at *Rashi*: “Do you see *bitrei gapei assur*? It is written in the *Halachot Gedolot*.” The second line of that *Rashi* states that in all cases where a *bedikah* is required, such as in the case of a fallen, broken, or crushed animal, this applies only to earlier generations, as they were experts in checking. However, we are not experts today and therefore do not know what to check for. This leads to the conclusion that when the halachah requires a *bedikah*, one cannot eat the animal because we lack the expertise to perform the inspection correctly.
Furthermore, *Rashi* states, “The judge can only judge according to what he sees.” Therefore, it is permissible to rely on the judge's assessment as it is written, “And to the judge who will be in those days.” This implies that the judge must make decisions based on the context of his time. However, he must be careful to consult with all the butchers and experts in the field, ensuring that he is informed about the matter at hand. The importance of this lies in minimizing the consequences of a potential error, as we learned in *Sanhedrin* that when rabbis would issue rulings, they would bring many others with them to share the responsibility of the decision.
Now, as we transition to the next *sugia*, we read another *Rashi*: “There are eleven large ribs on each side, which contain marrow.” This indicates that there are a total of twenty-two ribs in the animal, and the majority of them, which is twelve, must be intact for the animal to be considered kosher. The *Gemara* begins its analysis regarding the ribs with the statement *nishtaberu rov tzaloteha*. The *Mishna* provided a case in which if the majority of the ribs are broken, the animal is classified as a *treifah* (non-kosher). The *Gemara* states: “These are the majority of ribs: six on one side and six on the other side.” Alternatively, eleven on one side and one on the other side also constitutes a majority.
Zeiri states that the break must occur halfway up towards the top of the animal. This is illustrated in the *Artscroll*, showing the rib split in half, indicating that the crack must be above a certain line on the rib to classify it as a *treifah*. When discussing ribs that contain marrow, it is essential to note that there are additional ribs that do not contain marrow, and thus they are excluded from this discussion.
Ulla states that even if the ribs did not break but were uprooted from the spine, if the majority of one side is affected, it is considered a *treifah*. If the ribs broke but were not uprooted, then a majority on both sides is required. Rabbi Yochanan asserts that regardless of whether they were uprooted or broken, twelve intact ribs are necessary. Rav states that if one rib and its corresponding vertebra are removed together, the animal is a *treifah*.
The *Gemara* then poses a question: if one rib is removed from each side and the vertebra remains intact, what is the law? The response indicates that this situation is akin to having split the animal in half, categorizing it as a *nevela* (carcass). The distinction between a *treifah* and a *nevela* is significant, as a *nevela* brings about ritual impurity. The discussion continues to clarify the implications of the removal of ribs and vertebrae, emphasizing the need for precision in these rulings.
In summary, the *Gemara* elaborates on the various cases regarding the ribs and vertebrae, establishing clear halachic guidelines on what constitutes a *treifah*. The dialogue between the sages reveals the complexities of these rulings, and the importance of expertise in determining the kosher status of an animal. Each case builds upon the previous ones, reinforcing the necessity for careful examination and adherence to halachic standards.