Chullin 87

Chapter 87

א מחומרי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל עליו הכתוב אומר
1 One who adopts the view of Beth Shammai only when they incline to strictness and likewise the view of Beth Hillel only when they incline to strictness, [is a fool and] to such an one applies the verse: But the fool walketh in darkness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eccl. II, 14.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב (קהלת ב, יד) הכסיל בחושך הולך אלא אי כבית שמאי כקוליהן וכחומריהן אי כבית הלל כקוליהן וכחומריהן
2 But one must either adopt the view of Beth Shammai in all cases, whether they incline to leniency or strictness, or the view of Beth Hillel in all cases, whether they incline to leniency or strictne Now is not this statement self-contradictory?
ג הא גופא קשיא אמרת
3 At first it says: 'The halachah is always in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel', and immediately after it says: 'Nevertheless one who desires to adopt the view of Beth Shammai may do so'? - This is no difficulty.
ד לעולם הלכה כדברי ב"ה והדר תני
4 The latter statement relates to the practice before the Heavenly Voice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 'Er. 13a: 'A Heavenly Voice was heard, saying: The law is always in accordance with Beth Hillel'.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ה והרוצה לעשות כדברי ב"ש יעשה
5 was heard, whilst the former states the law as it is after the Heavenly Voice was heard.
ו לא קשיא
6 Or, you may even say that the latter statement too was made after the Heavenly Voice was heard.
ז כאן קודם בת קול כאן לאחר בת קול
7 [and yet there is no contradiction], for that statement is the view of R'Joshua who exclaimed: We pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice! Nevertheless the question remains?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against Raba for adopting the strict side of Rab's view and the strict side of Samuel's view.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ח ואי בעית אימא אף לאחר בת קול ורבי יהושע היא דאמר
8 - R'Tabuth said: He [Raba] acted entirely in accordance with Rab's view.
ט אין משגיחין בבת קול
9 For when Rami B'Ezekiel arrived [from palestine] he stated: 'Don't pay any heed to the laws transmitted to you by my brother Judah in the name of Rab; for thus said Rab: The Sages prescribed the limits in the gullet'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the furthermost limits of the gullet, above and below (v. Tosaf.) within which the slaughtering may be performed.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
י מכל מקום קשיא
10 Now since he said that the Sages prescribed the limits [in the gullet], it follows that th pharynx is not within the region prescribed for slaughtering; nevertheless, [Rab ruled that] the slightest perforation therein [will render the animal trefah].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Despite the fact that it is outside the region prescribed for slaughtering. Raba thus accepted Rab's view in its entirety.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
יא אמר רב טבות
11 How far on top?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how far does the region of slaughtering extend in the gullet?');"><sup>6</sup></span>
יב כולה כרב עבדא
12 - Said R'Nahman: As far as [the last] hand grip.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., up to the last three or four fingerbreadths of the gullet towards the head (Rashi) . According to Hal. Ged. and Alfasi the text means 'the grip of two fingers', which means either two fingerbreadths, or what can be gripped by two fingers, placing one finger on each side of the gullet, in other words, one fingerbreadth.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יג דכי אתא רמי בר יחזקאל אמר
13 And how far below? - R'Nahman said in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha: As far as that part where it is villous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably the beginning of the rumen, the mucous membrane of which is covered with minute processes, resembling hair, known as villi.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יד לא תציתו להו להני כללי דכייל יהודה אחי משמיה דרב
14 But this cannot be, for Rabina said in the name of Geniba on the authority of Rab that the [last] handbreadth of the gullet close to the rumen was the inner rumen.
טו הכי אמר רב
15 Now [if you say: 'as far as that part where it is villous',] one would then actually be cutting the rumen!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this surely is no valid slaughtering.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
טז וושט נתנו [בו] חכמים שיעור מכלל דתורבץ הוושט לאו מקום שחיטה הוא
16 - Render thus: The [first] handbreadth in the rumen close to the gullet is the inner rumen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is so called because it is enclosed between the ribs.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יז וקאמר
17 Alternatively, you may say that Rab was referring to an ox in which the villous portion is found higher up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Extending into the last handbreadth of the gullet.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יח במשהו
18 R'Nahman said in the name of Samuel: If the pharynx was entirely detached from the jaw,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be observed that from the Talmudic viewpoint, as implied in this passage, the pharynx which is a continuation of the gullet, is attached to the lower jaw-bone and to the flesh around it. Accordingly, Samuel teaches that even if the pharynx was entirely detached from its moorings, i.e., torn away both from the jaw-bone and the surrounding flesh so that the gullet now hangs loose, the animal is still valid. As for the difficulty of reconciling this viewpoint with present day knowledge of anatomy v. Katzenelsohn, op. cit. pp. 125-127.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יט למעלה עד כמה
19 [the animal] is valid.
כ אמר רב נחמן
20 And our Tanna confirms this, for we have learnt: If the lower jaw was removed, [the animal] is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 54a. With the removal of the lower jaw-bone (and presumably the surrounding flesh with it) the organs of the throat would hang loose, nevertheless the animal is valid, thus in accord with Samuel. ruehg tfhtvu');"><sup>13</sup></span>
כא עד כדי תפיסת יד
21 R'Papa demurred, saying: But is this not a case of [throat] organs being torn away?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , one of the conditions which render the slaughtering invalid and is in itself a defect according to Rashi. V. Tosaf. s.v . ruehg');"><sup>14</sup></span>
כב למטה עד כמה
22 - And does not this statement of the Mishnah, 'If the lower jaw was removed, [the animal] is valid', present the same difficulty to R'Papa? - No, the Mishnah does not present any difficulty to R'Papa because in the one case [the organ] was torn away forcibly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the organ was torn away entirely, from the jawbone and the flesh, in which case the animal is unfit.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
כג אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה
23 whilst in the case [of the Mishnah the jawbone] was merely carved away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the organ was still attached to the flesh, in which case it is valid.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
כד עד כדי שישעיר
24 Against Samuel, however, the difficulty remains! - Do not read 'entirely', but rather 'the greater portion'.
כה איני
25 But has not Samuel himself said that if the greater portion of [the circumference of] the pharynx was severed it is trefah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas here Samuel states that if the greater portion of the pharynx was torn loose from its moorings it is still valid. The text adopted here is that of MS.M. which is also given by Ban in his Glosses. Cur. edd. omit this question and the answer which follows.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
כו והאמר רבינא אמר גניבא משמיה דרב
26 - There it was lacerated, but here it merely came away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the organ merely came away from its moorings to the extent of the greater part of its circumference, but in no wise was there any laceration or trauma in the organ, it is still valid; but where the actual body of the organ was severed it is trefah.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
כז טפח בוושט סמוך לכרס זהו כרס הפנימי
27 But has not Rabbah B'Bar Hana said in the name of Samuel that if the greater part of the [circumference of the] organs of the throat was torn loose the animal is trefah? - R'Shisha the son of R'Idi answered: In that case the organs were forcibly torn loose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By reason of a violent wrench the organ was torn loose and remained attached only by some thin strands of its tissue in a few places. In this case it is trefah, for the attachments in these places are meager and would not hold the organ in Position. On the other hand, Samuel speaks of the case in which the organ came away but not with violence, so that even though the greater part of its circumference on top was detached, what remains is firm and could hold the organ in its place; so he rules the animal still valid.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
כח אמאי
28 OR THE WINDPIPE SEVERED.
כט כי קא שחט בכרס קא שחיט
29 It was taught: How much of the windpipe must be severed?
ל אימא
30 The greater part of it.
לא טפח בכרס סמוך לוושט זהו כרס הפנימי
31 And what is meant by 'the greater part of it'? - Rab says,
לב איבעית אימא
32 
לג כי קאמר רב בתורא דמשעיר טפי
33 
לד אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל
34 
לה תורבץ הוושט שניטל כולו מלחי כשר
35 
לו ותנא תונא
36 
לז ניטל לחי התחתון כשר
37 
לח מתקיף לה רב פפא
38 
לט והאיכא עיקור סימנים
39 
מ ולרב פפא קשיא מתניתין
40 
מא ניטל לחי התחתון כשר
41 
מב בשלמא מתניתין לרב פפא לא קשיא הא דאיעקור איעקורי הא דאיגום איגומי מעילוי סימנים
42 
מג אלא לשמואל קשיא
43 
מד לא תימא כולו אלא אימא
44 
מה רובו
45 
מו והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר שמואל
46 
מז סימנים שנדלדלו ברובן טרפה
47 
מח אמר רב שישא בריה דרב אידי
48 
מט הא דאקפל איקפולי התם דאפרוק אפרוקי:
49 
נ ופסוקת הגרגרת:
50 
נא תנא
51 
נב כמה פסוקת הגרגרת ברובה
52 
נג וכמה רובה
53 
נד רב אמר
54 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter