Chullin 103

חול הדק לא חיישינן

On fine sand, we do not apprehend any injury; but on coarse sand, we must apprehend an injury.

חול הגס חיישינן

Likewise on dust of the wayside, we apprehend an injury.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This too hardens and forms into lumps.');">¹</span>

אבק דרכים חיישינן

On straw, if tied in bundles, we must apprehend an injury; but if loose, we do not apprehend any injury.

תיבנא ועביד בזגא חיישינן לא עביד בזגא לא חיישינן

On wheat, or on similar grain, we must apprehend an injury; on barley, or on similar grain, we must apprehend an injury.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In MS.M. this clause is omitted; in other MSS. the reading is, 'We do not apprehend any injury'. As the text stands, it is difficult to understand why this clause was not included together with wheat.');">²</span>

חיטי וכל דמינייהו חיישינן שערי וכל דמינייהו חיישינן

On all kinds of pulse,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., beans or peas. These are smooth and slippery and cannot be piled up into a solid mass.');">³</span>

כל מיני קטניות אין בהם משום ריסוקי אברים לבר מן רוביא

except fenugreek,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or: linseed.');">⁴</span>

חימצי אין בו משום ריסוק אברים חפצי יש בו משום ריסוק אברים

we must apprehend a lesion of the internal organs.

כללא דמלתא

On chick-peas, we do not apprehend any lesion of the internal organs; but on lentils, we must apprehend such an injury.

כל מידי דמשריק אין בו משום ריסוק אברים לא משריק יש בו משום ריסוק אברים

This is the rule: on such things as slip away from each other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., which are smooth and round and so could not form a hard mass.');">⁵</span>

דבוק רב אשי שרי אמימר אסר

we do not apprehend any lesion of the internal organs; but on things which do not slip away from each other, we must apprehend a lesion of the internal organs.

בחד גפא דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דשרי

If [a bird was] glued,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By its wings to a board to prevent it from flying away.');">⁶</span>

כי פליגי בתרי גפי מאן דאסר אמר לך

R'Ashi permits it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If in an attempt to fly it fell down together with the board to the ground.');">⁷</span>

היכי ניקום

and Amemar forbids it.

ומאן דשרי אמר לך

If it was glued by one wing only, all agree that it is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it could at least keep itself aloft in the air by its other wing which is free.');">⁸</span>

אפשר דניקום אעיקבי דגפי

They disagree only where [it was glued] by both wings.

ואיכא דאמרי

He that forbids it gives as his reason, How can it keep aloft?

בתרי גפי כ"ע לא פליגי דאסיר

But he that permits it says: It can keep aloft in the air by the movement of its wings at the joints.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since only the tips of its wings are glued to the board the bird can in a restricted way jerk its wings at the joints and thus keep aloft.');">⁹</span>

כי פליגי בחד גפא מאן דשרי אמר לך

Others report as follows: If [it was glued] by both wings, all agree that it is forbidde They disagree only where [it was glued] by one wing only.

אפשר דפרח בחד גפא ומאן דאסר

He that permits it gives as his reason, It can very well fly with one wing.

כיון דבהאי לא מצי פרח בהאי נמי לא מצי פרח

But he that forbids it says.

והילכתא

Since it cannot fly with the one wing [which is glued] it cannot fly with the other [which is free].

בתרי גפי אסיר בחד גפא שרי:

The law is: If both wings [were glued to the board], it is forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless after its fall it stood up and walked.');">¹⁰</span>

נשתברו רוב צלעותיה:

if one wing only [was glued], it is permitted.

תנו רבנן

IF MOST OF ITS RIBS WERE FRACTURED.

אלו הן רוב צלעות

Our Rabbis taught: This is meant by 'most of its ribs': Either six on each side [were fractured] or eleven on one side and one on the other side.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal has twenty-two large ribs each filled with marrow, eleven ribs on each side. Twelve at least of these ribs must be fractured in order to render the animal trefah.');">¹¹</span>

שש מכאן ושש מכאן או אחת עשרה מכאן ואחת מכאן

Ze'iri added, provided [in each case the fracture was] in that half of the rib nearest the spine.

אמר זעירי

Rabbah B'Bar Hana said in the name o R'Johanan, [We are dealing only] with the large ribs which are filled with marrow.

ומחציין כלפי שדרה

Ulla reported that Ben Zakkai taught: If most of the ribs on one side<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., six ribs.');">¹²</span>

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן

were dislocated, or if most of the ribs on both sides were fractured, [the animal is trefah].

ובצלעות גדולות שיש בהן מוח

R'Johanan said: Whether the ribs were dislocated or fractured, [the animal i trefah] only if most of the ribs on both sides [were dislocated or fractured].

אמר עולא בן זכאי אמר

Rab said: If a rib together with its vertebra was dislocated, the animal is trefah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though it is certain that the spinal cord has not been injured.');">¹³</span>

נעקרו ברוב צד אחד נשתברו ברוב שני צדדין

R'Kahana and R'Assi asked Rab, What if the rib on each side of the vertebra was dislocated but the vertebra remained firm in its place? - He replied.

רבי יוחנן אמר

Then you are speaking of an animal cut asunder!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it would be nebelah forthwith, v. supra 21a.');">¹⁴</span>

בין נעקרו בין נשתברו ברוב שני צדדין

But is not Rab's case too the case of an animal cut asunder?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a rib together with its vertebra has been dislocated the corresponding rib on the other side of that vertebra has also been loosened, hence the animal is virtually divided into two.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב

- Rab was speaking of the dislocation of a rib only without the vertebra.

נעקרה צלע וחוליא עמה טרפה

But did he not expressly say: 'A rib together with its vertebra'? - He meant, A rib with half of its vertebra.

אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב

It follow then that R'Kahana and R'Assi were speaking of the case where the ribs [on each side of the vertebra were dislocated] but the vertebra remained firm; would Rab then have replied to them, 'Then you are speaking of an animal cut asunder'?

נעקרה צלע מכאן וצלע מכאן וחוליא קיימת מהו

Has not Ulla reported that Ban Zakkai taught: If most of the ribs on one side were dislocated, or if most of the ribs on both sides were fractured, [the animal is trefah]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that at least six ribs must be dislocated in order to render the animal trefah. Rab surely would not have said that where only two ribs were dislocated the animal is virtually cut asunder, and is nebelah!');">¹⁶</span>

אמר להו

- He will say: In that case [of Ulla] the ribs were not opposite each other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., each of the ribs was dislocated from a different vertebra, but no two ribs were dislocated from the same vertebra.');">¹⁷</span>

גיסטרא קאמריתו

but in this case the ribs were opposite each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the ribs on either side of the same vertebra were dislocated.');">¹⁸</span>

והא רב נמי גיסטרא קאמר

But did not R'Johanan say that most of the ribs on both sides must either be fractured or dislocated?

כי קאמר רב צלע בלא חוליא

And in speaking of most of the ribs on both sides it cannot be otherwise but that at least one rib was dislocated opposite the other!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there are but eleven ribs on each side and twelve must be fractured or dislocated in order to render the animal trefah; hence the ribs on either side of at least one vertebra were dislocated.');">¹⁹</span>

והא צלע וחוליא קאמר

- There [in the case of R'Johanan] only the rib, but not the facet, [was dislocated], bu here [in the case put by R'Kahana and R'Assi] the rib together with its facet<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the pestle with the mortar'.');">²⁰</span>

צלע וחצי חוליא

[was dislocated].

מכלל דרב כהנא ורב אסי צלע בלא חוליא אמרי ואמר להו

But if so, i not this case identical with Rab's own statement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, as we have explained: Rab also was dealing with the dislocation of a rib plus half of its vertebra. i.e., its facet, and he ruled that it was trefah; why then did R. Kahana and R. Assi enquire of Rab as to the dislocation of two ribs and their facets? That would surely be trefah!');">²¹</span>

גיסטרא קאמריתו

- They had not heard of Rab's statement.

והאמר עולא בן זכאי אמר

Then why did they not ask him [about the dislocation of one rib together with its facet] as in the statement of Rab? - They thought, Let us rather ask him one question which would give us the answer to two.

נעקרו ברוב צד אחד נשתברו ברוב שני צדדין

For if we were to ask him about [the dislocation of] one rib [with its facet] we would have had satisfaction only if he had answered that it was trefah, since this same ruling would apply with even greater force to the case of the dislocation of two ribs; but had he answered that it was permitted we would still have been in doubt as to two ribs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They therefore asked him concerning the dislocation of two ribs with their facets.');">²²</span>

אמר לך

But even now when they ask him about the dislocation of two ribs [with their facets] the same difficulty presents itself, does it not?

התם זה שלא כנגד זה הכא זה כנגד זה

For only if he had answered that it was permitted would they have had satisfaction, since this same ruling would apply with even greater force to the case of the dislocation of one rib, but had he answered that it was trefah they would still have been in doubt as to one rib? - They thought, In that case he would have been annoyed and would have replied.

והאמר רבי יוחנן

Seeing that the dislocation of one rib [with its facet] renders the animal trefah can there be any question about two?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that they would have known from the tone of Rab's answer the law about the dislocation of one rib.');">²³</span>

ברוב שני צדדין וברוב שני צדדין אי אפשר דלא קיימא חד מינייהו זה כנגד זה

But did they not actually ask him [about the dislocation of two ribs], nevertheless he was not annoyed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although Rab had already taught that the dislocation of one rib with part of its vertebra i.e., its facet renders the animal trefah.');">²⁴</span>

התם בוכנא בלא אסיתא הכא בוכנא ואסיתא

- His answer: 'Then you are speaking of an animal cut asunder', is the expression of his annoyance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this answer of Rab conveyed to them also the information that the dislocation of one rib together with its facet is trefah. vregb');">²⁵</span>

אי הכי היינו דרב

Rabbah son of R'Shila said in the name of R'Mattena on the authority of Samuel: If a rib was dislodged from its socket,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi only the rib, but not its facet, was dislodged; according to R. Tam the facet was also dislodged. V. Tos. s.v. .');">²⁶</span>

לא שמיע להו דרב

or if the greater portion of the skull was shattered, or if the greater portion of the membrane which covers the greater part of the rumen [was torn] - in each case [the animal] is trefah.'

וליבעו מיניה כדרב

If a rib was dislodged from its socket'.

סברי

I can point out a contradiction to this.

ליבעי מיניה חדא דפריש לן תרתי

[For we have learnt]:

דאי בעינן מיניה חדא הניחא אי אמר לן טרפה כל שכן תרתי אי אמר לן כשרה אכתי תרתי קא מיבעיא לן

אי הכי השתא נמי דקא בעי מיניה תרתי

הניחא אי אמר להו כשרה כל שכן חדא ואי אמר להו טרפה אכתי חדא מיבעיא להו

סברי אם כן מירתח קא רתח

חדא טרפה תרתי מיבעיא

והא קא אמרי ליה ולא רתח

כיון דקאמר להו

גיסטרא קאמריתו היינו ריתחיה

אמר רבה בר רב שילא אמר רב מתנא אמר שמואל

נעקרה צלע מעיקרה וגולגולת שנחבסה ברובה ובשר החופה את רוב הכרס ברובו טרפה

נעקרה צלע מעיקרה טרפה

ורמינהו