Chullin 116
הני תמרי דכדא לבתר תריסר ירחי שתא שריין
that dates which were kept in a vessel [and which became wormy]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But it is not known whether the worms entered the dates whilst yet in growth or only after they were plucked from the tree.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אמר רב
are permitted after twelve months.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., if twelve months have elapsed since the dates were picked from the tree. Worms found then in the dates are certainly permitted, for they could not possibly have crawled in the fruit whilst it was yet on the tree, since they could not have existed for so long.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
חזיתיה לבר מחוזא דסחא במיא וסליק ואיכרך בסדינין ואותיבת עליה ומצת מיניה ולא הודעת לי
Said she to him, "I was once watching a resident of Mahza bathing in the sea, and when he came out and wrapped himself in a sheet you came and settled down on him and sucked his blood, but you did not tell me of it"'.
לא שנו אלא שחסר ויתר ביד אבל חסר ויתר ברגל טרפה נמי הויא מאי טעמא
An animal that has five legs or only three is considered with blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is unfit for a sacrifice. But it is not trefah, and therefore may be slaughtered for general use.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ואי שפכן להדדי כשרה
Because every addition [of a limb] is deemed equal to the loss [of the limb].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The abnormal addition of a limb or organ is treated in law as if both the abnormal and also the normal limb or organ were gone. So that if in the absence of a certain limb the animal would be trefah, it would likewise be trefah if there were two of those limbs. (Rashi) .');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ההיא גובתא דהוה נפקא מבי כסי להובלילא סבר רב אשי למיטרפה א"ל רב הונא מר בר חייא לרב אשי
An animal having two sania dibi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'disliked by wolves'. A popular name for the inner rumen; v. supra 50b.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ההוא גובתא דהוה מעברא מבי כסי לכרסא סבר מר בר רב אשי לאכשורה אמר ליה רב אושעיא
If, however, they run into each other it would be permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is really one stomach divided into two bags.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
היכא דאתמר אתמר היכא דלא אתמר לא אתמר
R'Ashi was about to declare it trefah when R'Huna Mar B'Hiyya said to him, But all animals that feed in the open fields have this tube! A tube running from the reticulum to the rumen was once found in an animal.
העיד נתן בר שילא רב טבחיא דציפורי לפני רבי על שני בני מעים היוצאין מן הבהמה כאחד שהיא טרפה וכנגדן בעוף כשרה
R'Ashi was about to declare it permitted when R'Oshaia said to him, Did you weave them all in one web?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you cannot bring all cases under one category.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
במה דברים אמורים שיוצאין בשני מקומות אבל יוצאין במקום אחד וכלין עד כאצבע כשרה
Where it has been expressly stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That such a tube is usually found in animals that pasture in the open field.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
פליגי בה רב אמי ורב אסי חד אמר
it has been stated, but where it has not been expressly stated it has not been stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such cases it is regarded as an abnormal addition and is trefah in accordance with R. Huna's principle supra.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
הוא דהדרי וערבי וחד אמר
Nathan B'Shila, chief slaughterer in Sepphoris, testified before Rabbi: If two sets of intestines issue concurrently from the [abomasum of the animal].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From two parts of the abomasum. This is the interpretation of Rashi and R. Gershom. Alfasi and Maim. interpret quite differently. According to them the passage deals not with a double set of intestines but with an appendix that branches off the main intestines.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
אע"ג דלא הדרי וערבי
it is trefah; in a bird, however, [an abnormality] such as this would b permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is not uncommon to find two sets of intestines in a bird. V. Rashi. ihkfu');"><sup>14</sup></span>
בשלמא למאן דאמר
This is the rule only if they emerge from two separate parts [of the abomasum], but if they emerge from the same place [in the abomasum] and coalesce within a fingerbreadth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they have not been separate for more than a fingerbreadth. The word , generally translated 'and they end', may be derived from the kkf root which means to merge into one, to coalesce. The dispute between R. Ammi and R. Assi which follows arises from the meaning given by each to this word; v. Hal. Ged. ed. Hildesheimer, p. 538.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
אע"ג דלא הדרי וערבי מאי עד כאצבע
Now it is well according to him who says that they must be fused into one, for that would be the meaning of the phrase 'within a fingerbreadth';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., within the space of a finger breadth they become fused into one.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
עד כאצבע מלמטה:
but according to him who says that they need not be fused into one, what does 'within a fingerbreadth' mean? - It means, [that they are in fact fused into one] in the last fingerbreadth below.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the entrance of the rectum. This is Rashi's interpretation; v. R. Nissim a.l.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ר' יהודה ור' ישמעאל אמרו דבר אחד
R'Ishmael we find in the following Mishnah: The down is to be reckoned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So as to make up an olive's size. The reference is to Toh. I, 2, and, according to Rashi and the present text of the Gemara is to be explained as follows: If the priest, whilst nipping off the head of a sin-offering of a bird, expressed the intention of eating an olive's bulk of it at the improper time, and this olive's bulk was made up partly of the flesh and partly of the down of the bird, it would be piggul (v. Glos.) , and he would be liable to the penalty of Kareth. In MS.M. and in the old editions, as evidenced by the views of R. Gershom, Tosaf., R. Samson and others, there are found the words 'the law of uncleanness' in place of the words in our text 'the law of piggul'. The interpretation accordingly is as follows: R. Ishmael holds that the down is to be reckoned together with the flesh so as to make the size of an egg - this being the minimum size - in order to convey uncleanness. In other words the down is deemed to be a foodstuff as the flesh.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
הנוצה מצטרפת
It may be that R'Judah said so only with regard to the law of trefah, for there is nothing else to protect [the bird], but in respect of the la piggul he would agree with the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the down is not deemed to be a foodstuff.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
אמר רבא
And, on the other hand, it may be that R'Ishmael said so only with regard to the law of piggul, but in respect of the law of trefah he would hold that it at no time afforded any protection.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore if the down was gone it is of no consequence and it would still be permitted.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
דילמא לא היא
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF AN ANIMAL SUFFERED FROM CONGESTION OF THE BLOOD, OR WAS OVERCOME BY FUMES OR BY THE COLD, OR IF IT ATE OLEANDER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This and the other herbs mentioned in this passage, as asafoetida, crowfoot, succory, are species of plants some of which exude poisonous juices while others have poisonous leaves.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
מתיב רב שיזבי
It was taught: If an animal suffered from congestion of the blood, or was overcome by fumes, or if it ate oleander or hens' dung, or if it drank noxious water, or if it swallowed crowfoot, asafoetida or pepper, or if it ate poison, it is permitted.
הכישה נחש או שנשכה כלב שוטה מותרת משום טרפה ואסורה משום סכנת נפשות
Is there not here a contradiction i the matter of asafoetida,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the ruling of this Baraitha and that of Samuel.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
סם המות דבהמה היינו הרדופני
speaks of poison for animals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the poison in question has no injurious effect upon man, the Baraitha therefore teaches that the animal that took it is still valid.');"><sup>28</sup></span>