The Eddie B. Sitt 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. With God’s help, may they get married, and in the merit of the Torah learning that we will have over the next several months, may they enjoy much joy, peace, prosperity, and every blessing. Amen.
We begin today’s Mishnah. It appears a little below the middle of the page. Until now, we have been discussing various animals; we now discuss different wounds that do not render a bird non-kosher.
If the windpipe, or trachea, of a bird develops a hole, it is kosher as long as the hole does not extend around the majority of the circumference of the windpipe. If it is split lengthwise, it is also kosher, provided that the split does not reach the majority of the circumference.
If there is a worm or similar lesion in the bird’s head, in a place that does not render it non-kosher, it remains kosher. If the crop develops a hole, it is also kosher. Even if the entire crop was removed from the bird, the bird is still kosher.
One cannot understand this to mean that the entire crop was completely removed, leaving the bird unable to digest food. There must still be enough of the crop remaining for digestion to continue. If the entire crop were gone, the bird would not be able to live.
The intestines are also discussed. If they came out but were not punctured, the bird is kosher. The novelty is that one does not need the intestines to remain inside the body in order for the bird to live, provided that they were not punctured.
The Mishnah then discusses broken wings and legs. The large feathers attached to the body contain a kind of spine and are hard, while other feathers are soft and do not contain such a spine. The Mishnah is referring to one of the fine feathers that are close to the flesh. If those feathers are broken, the bird is non-kosher.
The crop is like a pouch into which the food is inserted. The bones of the wings may also break. As for the legs, if the bone breaks below the knee or above the knee, the law depends on whether the bone protruded from the animal. The Mishnah is discussing a case in which the bone did not emerge from the body and remained inside.
When the sages went to establish a leap year, they stopped on the way back in Ono on the Sabbath. There, they issued a ruling concerning the womb of an animal, called the tarpahat, in the same way that Rabbi had ruled regarding the crop. We are not told exactly what they ruled, so the Gemara raises a question: Did they rule that a missing womb renders the animal non-kosher, just as Rabbi ruled concerning a missing crop, which renders the bird kosher? Or did they rule that a missing womb is permitted, like Rabbi’s ruling regarding a missing crop?
There are two ways to understand their ruling. One possibility is that they issued two separate rulings: a missing womb is permitted, and a missing crop is permitted, in accordance with Rabbi. The other possibility is that they ruled that the womb is non-kosher, just as Rabbi ruled that a missing crop is permitted. In other words, they accepted Rabbi’s position regarding the crop but did not accept his position regarding the womb. The Gemara does not resolve precisely what they ruled in that situation.
We now return to the Mishnah. If the crop has a hole, it is not a problem. Earlier, however, we learned that a hole in the esophagus renders the animal non-kosher. The question is where the esophagus ends and the crop begins, since they are attached to one another. If the hole is in the esophagus, it is a problem; if it is in the crop, it is not. The Gemara therefore asks where the boundary between them is.
Rabbi Abaye says that the boundary is the point at which the esophagus begins to expand into the crop. The part of the crop that narrows and leads into the esophagus is considered the roof, or upper section, of the esophagus. Therefore, if there is a hole in that area, it renders the bird non-kosher. The illustration makes this clear: the area of the crop that begins narrowing as it enters the esophagus is considered part of the esophagus.
The Mishnah then says, “The intestines came out but were not punctured.” This appears to refer to a case in which the intestines came out of the bird and one then returned them to their place. They remained connected to the body, but when they were put back, they had to be returned in their proper position.
If they were returned correctly, the bird is kosher. If they were returned upside down, the bird is non-kosher. The Gemara cites the verse, “You made me and established me,” which is understood to mean that God established the limbs of a person in a particular order. The foundation has to be correct. If the limbs are inverted, the animal or person cannot live.
Rashi explains that if the intestines were inverted, what should have been below was placed above, and what should have been above was placed below. They were returned in the wrong position. The foundation of the animal was therefore damaged, and the animal could not live.
How would one know whether the intestines had been returned correctly? One would have to know what they were supposed to look like. The person would need a picture or some other way of identifying the proper arrangement. It might seem that it would be better to leave the intestines outside, but that is not the conclusion. Since the Mishnah says that the bird is kosher when the intestines came out but were not punctured, it indicates that they are to be returned. The novelty is that the bird remains kosher when they are returned properly, whereas returning them incorrectly creates a problem.
There is a story related to this discussion. It concerns a city that possessed all the necessary institutions of self-government. The Jewish people governed themselves there; the kings came from among them, as did the princes and the prophets. It was a city that contained all of its leaders.
A man once fell from a roof and struck his abdomen. His stomach opened, and his intestines came out. Someone went to the man’s son and appeared to slaughter him in front of his father, who was lying injured on the ground. The account says that he did not actually slaughter the son. Rather, he used witchcraft and black magic to create the appearance that he was slaughtering him. It was an optical illusion.
When the father saw this, he became frightened and cried out. As a result, the intestines went back inside. This gave them a way to return the intestines to the body so that they could sew up the stomach. The intestines went back in, and they stitched the stomach closed. Once again, we see that if the intestines can be returned to the body, the animal can remain viable, provided that they are returned properly.
The person who treated him did not want to touch the intestines, because touching them might cause them to slip. He therefore wanted them to return naturally and used this method as an alternative way of accomplishing that.
The Mishnah next says that if the legs of the bird break, the law depends on where they broke. The Gemara discusses a particular type of bird, and one interpretation understands the word as the name of a bird. It is a black water bird with spots on its body.
If the leg breaks below the knee, or above the knee, and the bone does not protrude, the bird is kosher. The lower part of the leg contains an important junction called the joining point of the sinews. This area contains the sinews and veins, and it is a critical part of the leg. If that area is cut, it may create a problem.
When the Mishnah says that a break below the knee is permitted even if the bone protrudes through the flesh, while a break above the knee is permitted only when the bone does not protrude, that is the distinction. Below the knee, the bone may even jut out of the flesh. Above the knee, the bone must remain inside.
Rava examined the junction of the sinews to see whether they were all intact, and he declared the bird kosher. The sinews are like strings connecting the blood vessels and the flesh to the bone. The junction is the attachment point of the sinews. A sinew functions like a band that attaches the flesh to the bone. There are sixteen sinews in that area of the bird’s leg.
Apparently, the case involved a break below the knee. Otherwise, why would Rava have examined the sinews? It is reasonable to assume that the leg had broken below the knee and that he was concerned that the break might also have damaged one of the sinews. He checked them and found that they were all intact, so he permitted the bird. The junction of the sinews is therefore the key point. When the leg breaks below the knee, that area must be examined.
Rav Yehudah said that if the foreleg of an animal becomes dislocated, the animal is non-kosher. The two front limbs of an animal are called its hands, while the two rear limbs are called its legs. The discussion returns briefly to animals: the front leg has come out of its socket and is no longer attached properly to the shoulder.
The same law applies to a bird whose wing becomes dislocated. The wing itself is not necessarily the problem. The wing bone is adjacent to the lung, and the concern is that when the wing becomes dislocated, it may puncture the lung. Therefore, the lung must be examined for a puncture.
Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan say that the lung should be checked. There is nothing inherently wrong with the wing breaking or becoming dislocated; the concern is whether it caused an injury to the lung. The wing is next to the lung, so one must examine the lung to determine whether it was punctured.
Hezekiah says that a bird does not have a lung, while Rabbi Yochanan says that it does. The lung of a bird is different from the lung of an animal. The lung of an animal has large sections, whereas the bird’s lungs are smaller and finer, like two rose petals between the wings.
The bird does have lungs, located on both sides beneath the rib cage. There are lungs on either side of the wings. The issue is what halachic status those lungs have. Technically, they are called lungs, but they do not have the same structure as the lungs of an animal.
How could Hezekiah say that a bird does not have a lung? We see that it does. The point is that perhaps the bird does not have a lung in the halachic sense. The laws concerning a punctured lung may apply to the lungs of an animal, but not necessarily to these delicate structures in a bird. When Hezekiah said that a bird has no lung, he may have meant that it does not have a lung with the same legal status and structure as an animal’s lung.
Otherwise, if the bird truly has lungs, why would a puncture not render it non-kosher? We learned that a puncture in an animal’s lung renders it non-kosher, and one might assume that the same applies to a bird. The bird has an additional problem as well: even if the skull bone breaks while the membrane remains intact, it is non-kosher. How, then, could one say that a punctured lung is not a problem in a bird?
This issue also affects a bird that falls from a roof. When an animal or bird falls from a roof, an examination is generally required, because the spine or spinal cord may have been damaged. However, one does not necessarily have to examine the lungs in the case of a fallen bird. This is called a fall without an examination of the lungs.
Similarly, if the bird falls into a fire, one examines the internal organs to see whether their color has changed from red to green, but one does not need to examine the lungs. The ribs of the bird form a protective cage around the lungs. Therefore, when the bird falls or is scorched, there is less concern that the lungs were affected, because they are protected by the ribs.
From Rabbi Yochanan’s statement that a bird does have lungs, we understand that he recognized these structures as lungs, like two rose petals between the wings. Hezekiah, however, may have meant that they are not lungs in the legal sense. Thus, it is possible to understand Hezekiah’s statement as saying that a bird does not have lungs of the type that create the relevant halachic concern.
There is also a discussion about a bird whose thigh bone becomes dislocated. In an animal, this is a serious problem because the animal cannot stand when the thigh bone is dislocated. A bird, however, still has its wings, and it can support itself on its wings. Therefore, a dislocated thigh bone may be treated more leniently in a bird than in an animal.
Someone quoted Rav as saying that a dislocated thigh bone is permitted, but another statement attributed to Rav indicates that it is a problem. How can these statements be reconciled? The answer is expressed by the idea that each river flows according to its own course. Some rivers flow with a strong current and others with a weaker current. In the same way, Rav may have personally held that the case was permitted, but when he went to a place where the custom was to be stringent, he followed the local practice rather than going against it.
This is the meaning of the expression “go with the flow.” In his own place, Rav held that the case was permitted. When he went elsewhere, where the custom was to be stringent, he followed the custom of that place. We often find that when the halachic authorities write that each person should follow the custom of his place, they are expressing this same principle.
Rav was examining some of the sinews in the bird’s leg to see whether they were intact. Someone asked him what he was checking. If a bird’s thigh bone becomes dislocated, it is kosher. A dislocated bone is treated as though the limb were entirely missing. If an entirely missing thigh bone is permitted, then certainly a bone that is merely cut should be permitted.
Rabbi Yirmiyah responded that the case under discussion involved a leg broken below the knee, at the junction of the sinews. The same principle that applies there applies to a bird. The response was that this does not answer the question. The Mishnah says that the junction of the sinews is a problem, while another statement attributed to Rav says that a completely dislocated limb is permitted. If the entire limb is missing, it is permitted; if the sinews are cut, it is a problem.
Rabbi Yirmiyah could not answer the question. He then proposed that perhaps there is a difference between a limb that is dislocated and one that is cut. A dislocated limb may be considered as though it were entirely removed, whereas a limb that is cut at the junction of the sinews is still present but damaged. Even though, in the case of a dislocation, one may regard the limb as completely absent, the case of the cut sinews is more serious.
There is a difference between something being dislocated and something being cut at the junction of the sinews. If the sinews are cut, the bird will not live. If the limb is dislocated, even though one might treat it as though it were completely gone, the bird can still remain viable.
They responded to this explanation: Why are you explaining Rav’s statement for him? Rav himself explained it explicitly. Rav said that a dislocated limb is kosher, whereas a cut limb is not. If the entire limb is dislocated, that is permitted; if it is cut, it is not.
But what is the source of the statement that a dislocated thigh bone is non-kosher? Rabbi Abba came from Babylonia to the Land of Israel and found Rabbi Zeira sitting there. Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Huna, in the name of Rav, that a dislocated thigh bone renders the bird non-kosher.
Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Zeira, “I swear by the life of the rabbi: From the day that you came to the Land of Israel, while I was still in Babylonia, we discussed this matter with Rav Huna. I asked him about a dislocated thigh bone, and he clearly told me in the name of Rav that it was kosher. How can you now tell me in the name of Rav Huna that it is non-kosher?”
Rabbi Abba continued by relating the earlier incident. He had seen Rav examining the junction of the sinews in the lower part of a bird’s leg. He asked Rav: If the limb becomes completely dislocated, is it permitted? Rav answered that if it is completely dislocated, it is permitted. Since it is as though the limb were absent, the junction of the sinews is no longer present. However, Rav said that the junction of the sinews must be examined when the leg is broken there.
Rabbi Abba therefore said that one statement says that the junction of the sinews must be checked, while another says that if the entire limb is missing, the bird is kosher. He had no answer to this question. He suggested that perhaps the difference is between a dislocated limb and a cut limb.
He was told that this still does not explain Rav’s position, because Rav said it explicitly: a dislocated limb is kosher, while a cut limb is not. What, then, was Rabbi Abba bringing by attributing the opposing ruling to Rabbi Yochanan? The answer may be that Rabbi Yochanan said that a dislocated thigh bone is non-kosher, but if he had been in a place where the other great rabbis ruled leniently, he would not have opposed the accepted local ruling. This indicates that there was a dispute among the authorities concerning the matter.
There was a case involving a bird in Rabbi Yochanan’s place whose thigh bone became dislocated. They brought it before Rabbi Yochanan, and he tore it apart, ruling that it was non-kosher. In another place, however, a similar bird was permitted. This demonstrates that the matter was a significant controversy among the rabbis, including a dispute about Rav’s own position.
The Gemara ultimately concludes that we do not follow any of these rulings concerning a dislocated leg. The halachic conclusion is that a dislocated thigh bone renders the bird non-kosher.
There is also a discussion concerning a hole in the windpipe. What size hole renders the animal non-kosher? The answer is that as long as the hole is the size of an issar, it is a problem. We once had a small sheep in our neighborhood whose windpipe was punctured. They fashioned a patch and were able to close the hole, and the sheep lived.
But if an animal with a hole of that size in its windpipe is a non-kosher animal, how could that sheep have lived? The answer is that the fact that it lived does not refute the ruling. The statement that a non-kosher animal cannot live means that it cannot live for twelve months. It may remain alive for a time, but it will eventually die within twelve months.
There was a similar story about a chicken whose leg became dislocated. They placed a peg or some kind of support in the area to hold the leg in place, covered it, and the chicken lived. This appears to contradict the ruling that a dislocated leg renders a bird non-kosher. The answer is again that when the account says the bird lived, it means only that it did not die immediately. It lived for a period of time, perhaps six months, but it did not survive twelve months.
Therefore, the story is not a refutation. A dislocated leg is still a sign that the bird is non-kosher. Even if someone placed a peg in the area and the bird survived for a while, it did not live for the full twelve months required to demonstrate that it was not a non-kosher animal.
We now come to another matter. Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta used to conduct many experiments. Whenever he learned a statement, he would sometimes test it in practice—not because he was questioning the sages, but because he liked to see through experimentation whether the statement worked as described.
Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta sought to demonstrate that the first sage in the Mishnah was correct. The Mishnah teaches that if a feather is missing from a bird, it is non-kosher, while another sage disagrees. Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta wanted to prove that the position of the first sage was correct and that a missing feather does render the bird non-kosher.
He took a bird and placed it in an oven. He did not kill it; he placed it in a hot environment. He covered it with a sheet or leather mat of the type used by blacksmiths to collect the metal shavings produced during their work. The covering insulated the bird and kept the heat inside.
After some time, the bird grew new feathers. The new feathers were stronger than the original ones. Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta considered this a proof that the bird was not non-kosher. Not only could it heal, but it could become stronger. If the bird had been non-kosher, the assumption would be that it would not grow new feathers that were stronger than the first ones.
It was objected that this was not necessarily a proof. Perhaps the sage who ruled that a missing feather renders the bird non-kosher held that the bird could improve temporarily before eventually dying. It might become stronger in another part of its body, but perhaps the part of the body that caused the problem could also heal and then deteriorate later.
It was answered that this is difficult to say. Perhaps an animal can temporarily improve, but it would not be expected that the very feature that caused the non-kosher condition would grow back stronger than it was originally. Since the second set of feathers that grew was stronger than the first, Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta considered that a demonstration that the bird was not non-kosher.
This shows how Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta conducted experiments. The question is why he received the reputation of being the one who liked experiments, and what story earned him that nickname.
Solomon says to the lazy person, “Go to the ant and observe its ways and become wise.” The ants work very diligently. They have no leader and no king, yet they all work together.
Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta wanted to prove that ants do not have a leader. He said, “Let me go and see for myself and confirm that they have no king.” He went during the summer, when it was very hot, and placed his cloak over the entrance to an anthill so that it would provide shade.
One ant came out. Rabbi Shimon placed a mark on that ant so that he would know which one it was. The ant returned to the anthill and told the others that there was shade outside. The other ants then came out. Rabbi Shimon removed his cloak, and the sun came out over the anthill.
The other ants became angry at the first ant because it had told them that there was shade, but the shade had disappeared. They attacked that ant and killed it. Rabbi Shimon concluded that the ants must not have a king. If they had a king, there should have been a protocol: they would first have to bring the matter before the king, seek judgment, and follow an established system. They could not simply gather together and kill one of their own.
From the fact that they acted immediately, it appeared to him that they had not asked a king for permission. He therefore considered this an experimental proof that the ants did not have a king.
The Gemara challenges the experiment. Perhaps there was a king, and perhaps the king instructed them to kill the ant. How could Rabbi Shimon know that the king was not involved? Perhaps the king was present, or perhaps the ants had already received permission to kill anyone who did this. It was also possible that this occurred between kingdoms or at a time when there was no king.
The point is that Rabbi Shimon was trying to establish this through an experiment. The comparison is made to the Jewish people, who might say, “There was no king in Israel, and everyone did whatever he wanted.” The answer is that one must trust Solomon’s wisdom. When Solomon says that the ants have no leader, one does not need to rely on the experiment; Solomon’s statement itself is sufficient.
May God bless us all.