(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Chulin 57

CHULIN 57-58 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.



(a) The basket of birds that was brought before Rava - contained Shechted birds with broken leg-bones, some above the knee, some below.

(b) He declared the birds Kasher following an examination of their Tzomes ha'Gidin - which is the junction (below the knee), where sixteen nerves meet, to see if they were all intact (which he found them to be).

(c) He would have declared them Tereifah on account of the broken leg-bones - had the broken bones protruded into the body (as we will learn in 'Beheimah Hamaksheh').

(d) The Ge'onim define the Inkuri bird - as a black water-bird with white spots on its forehead (as 'Inkuri' means spotted).

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav declares the dislocated fore-leg of an animal - Kasher.

(b) He declares Tereifah ...

1. ... the dislocated thigh-bone of a bird - provided its sinews have rotted.
2. ... a dislocated wing - because we are afraid that, due to the combined pressure of the lung inside the rib-cage and the thinness of the lung's membrane, it (the wing) will tear away part of the membrane and lung with it.
(c) Both Shmuel and Rebbi Yochanan disagree with Rav's latter ruling. According to them - it is possible to examine the bird by placing a straw into its Kaneh and blowing up the lung, and then seeing if the air escapes.
(a) Initially, we reject the literal interpretation of Chizkiyah's statement 'Ein Re'ah le'Of' - because everybody can see that a bird does have a lung.

(b) Indeed, Rebbi Yochanan states - that it does, and that it is shaped like a rose petal and nestles between the bird's wings.

(a) Neither can we interpret Chizkiyah's words to mean that a bird's lung is not subject to Tereifus, because of the Beraisa quoted by Levi (that we already cited above), which says - that (with the exception of the Tereifus of a dislocated wing), the Tereifos of a bird and of an animal are identical.

(b) So we try to interpret Chizkiyah's statement to mean that when examining the innards of a bird that fell from the roof or that fell into a fire, it is not necessary to examine the lung, because, as Rav Chanah explains - it is protected by the ribs (due to their broad shape and the angle in which they are attached to the chest.

(c) We reject this explanation too however - because Rebbi Yochanan's statement that a bird does have a lung implies that Chizkiyah holds that it doesn't.

(d) We finally explain Chizkiyah with a quote by Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina - who said sarcastically, that from Chizkiyah's statement it appears that he hardly ever ate chickens (in other words, he really believed that a chicken did not possess a lung).

(e) We refer to Chizkiyah as 'b'Rivi' - because he was (as the title implies) one of the great men of his generation.

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna queried his father, who quoted Rav as saying that a bird with a dislocated thigh is Kasher, from the Rabbanan of Pumbedisa in the name of Rav Yehudah - who permits Shemutas Yerech be'Of (as we just learned).

(b) Rav Huna replied 'Nahara Nahara u'Pashteih', which means ...

1. ... literally - that even two tributaries of the same river are different (one is turbulent, the other, calm).
2. ... figuratively, in this context - different places (e.g. Pumbedisa and the rest of Bavel) had different Minhagim. Consequently, it is not surprising if in Pumbedisa they forbade 'Shemutas Yerech be'Of', whereas in the rest of Bavel, they permitted it.
(c) Rav really holds that it is Kasher. However, when he arrived in Pumbedisa, not wanting to contravene local Minhag, he forbade it ...

(d) ... and it was Rav Yehudah, who resided in Pumbedisa. who misquoted him - thinking that Rav's ruling was based on his personal opinion.

(a) When Rebbi Aba found Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba examining the Tzomes ha'Gidin, he queried him from Rav Huna Amar Rav - who considers a missing Tzomes ha'Gidin, Kasher.

(b) In reply, the latter quoted him a Mishnah in 'Beheimah ha'Maksheh', which declares an animal with its legs amputated below the knee, Kasher, above the knee, Tereifah - and Tereifah, if the Tzomes ha'Gidin is cut.

(c) And Rav commented there - 've'Chein be'Of' ...

(d) ... which appears to contradict to contradict the ruling of Rav Huna in his name 'Shemutas Yerech be'Of Kesheirah'.

(a) When Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba remained silent, Rebbi Aba himself resolved the contradiction - by differentiating between a dislocated leg (which is Kasher) and an amputated one, (which is Tereifah).

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah objected to Rebbi Aba giving this answer - in his own name, without referring to Rav himself who drew this distinction.

(c) Based on the principle - 'Chutchah mi'Ka'an u'Meisah ve'Chutchah mi'Ka'an ve'Chaysah' (from which we extrapolate that one cannot compare one Tereifus to another), it should come as no surprise that. on the one hand, if the entire leg is removed, the animal is Kasher, whilst on the other, if only the Tzomes ha'Gidin has been cut, it is Tereifah.




(a) When Rebbi Aba arrived in Eretz Yisrael (some time after Rebbi Zeira) - he was surprised to hear the latter quote Rav Huna citing Rav 'Shemutas Yerech be'Of Tereifah' ...

(b) ... and he commented to Rebbi Zeira - that he personally had had occasion to ask Rav Huna about Shemutas Yerech be'Of, and that the latter had specifically quoted Rav as saying 'Kasher'.

(c) And he further supported his opinion - by repeating the previous Sugya, where Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba also cited Rav Yehudah Amar Rav in this way.

(d) When Rebbi Aba asked Rebbi Zeira what he thought about the matter, he cited Rav Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav and Rav Ya'akov bar Idi Amar Rebbi Yochanan - who both ruled Tereifah.

(a) According to Rebbi Ya'akov bar Idi, had Rebbi Yochanan been present when the Chaverim permitted Shemutas Yerech be'Of - he would not have dared to 'flap a wing' (i.e. to protest), because they were great men.

(b) Rebbi Chanina quoted - Rebbi in that ruling.

(c) After Rebbi permitted the chicken in question - Rebbi Chanina salted it and kept it to demonstrate Rebbi's ruling to the Talmidim.

(d) He salted that chicken - in order to preserve it (so that he should be able to teach more Talmidim).

(a) At the end of the day however, the Halachah is like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who, when Rebbi Yossi ben Nehora'i asked him for the Shi'ur that renders 'a skylight' that is cut into the Kaneh a Tereifah - with the Mishnah 'ad ke'Isar ha'Italki'.

(b) Rebbi Yossi ben Nehora'i queried this ruling however - based on the splinter of cane that they used to close the 'skylight' of a lamb that was defected in this way, and the wound healed.

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's counter argument was based on the ruling 'Shemutas Yerech be'Of Tereifah, and the story of Rebbi Shimon ben Chalafta's chicken whose thigh-bone became dislocated, which they seemingly cured - by tying the tube of a cane in the area of the dislocation to which they attached the dislocated thigh-bone (as a kind of splint).

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's is bringing a proof from there that a Tereifah cannot be cured (even if initially appears that it can) - since he knew for a fact that in Rebbi Shimon ben Chalafta's case, the chicken's wound appeared to heal at first, but it died within twelve months. So he assumed that that is what happened to Rebbi Yossi ben Nehora'i's lamb too.

(a) When Rebbi Shimon ben Chalafta's chicken lost its fluff, in order to disprove Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains in our Mishnah that such a chicken is Tereifah - he first placed it in the oven to heat up, then he covered it with a cloth that is used by coppersmiths ...

(b) ... which is exceptionally warm, due to a. its thickness, and b. because the copper which it wraps gives the cloth a permanent warmth.

(c) This prove - that a bird that has lost its fluff is not a Tereifah, because, even assuming that Rebbi Yehudah holds that a Tereifah improves - that would hardly pertain to the limb or area which caused it to become a Tereifah.

(d) They referred to Rebbi Shimon ben Chalafta as 'Askan bi'Devarim' (an activist) because he applied his theories practically. Rav Mesharshaya found it necessary to bring a second incident to support this title - because, as we already learned, a person does not earn a title because of only one incident.

(a) Shlomoh Hamelech in Mishlei sings the praise of an ant, which prepares its food in the summer for the winter months ahead - even though it has no "captain, policeman or ruler (to enforce the law)".

(b) When, on one hot summer's day, Rebbi Shimon ben Chalafta, after spreading his coat over an ant's nest (to create shade), he spotted a single ant leaving its nest - he marked the ant to be able to identify it, he waited for the other ants (who had just been informed that there was shade outside) to emerge from the nest.

(c) He set out to prove Shlomoh right from there - by removing his coat and witnessing how the other ants (believing they had been tricked) set upon it and killed it, a proof that ants live in a state of anarchy; otherwise they would have first consulted the king.

(d) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava however, rejected this proof, for any one of three reasons. Perhaps, he argued, the king was present and had issued the order to kill it, or perhaps there was a royal edict in effect sentencing to death any ant that tricked his fellow ants - or perhaps, the king had died, as we learned in Shoftim "In those days, there was no king in Yisrael, and each man did as he pleased".

(e) We know that Shlomoh Hamelech was right - because we can trust him, bearing in mind that he possessed Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

(a) We query Rav Huna, who states that if an animal survives twelve months, it cannot be a Tereifah, from a Beraisa. The Tana Kama holds that not having babies is a sign that an animal is a Tereifah. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel gives the sign by which we know that an animal ...
1. ... is not a Tereifah - as the fact that it becomes stronger.
2. ... is a Tereifah - as the fact that it deteriorates.
(b) When Rebbi gave the maximum survival as thirty days, the Chachamim retorted - that there have been known to be Tereifos that survive two or three years.

(c) In any event - there is no opinion in the Beraisa that gives the maximum life-span of a Tereifah as twelve months, a Kashya on Rav Huna.

(d) We answer - that this is in fact a Machlokes Tana'im, and that there is an opinion that supports Rav Huna's ruling (as we shall now see).

(a) We already learned that the Shi'ur of a hole that negates the Tum'as Ohel of a skull, and that makes a live animal a Tereifah, is the size of the head of a doctor's awl. And the same will apply where there are many small holes in a skull that add up to that Shi'ur.

(b) Rebbi Yossi ben ha'Meshulam related the story of a man from Inbul - whose skull was broken and contained holes to that Shi'ur, yet when they covered them with a piece of dry gourd, he survived (apparently disproving this Halachah).

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar however, countered - that this operation took place n the summer, and by the time winter came to an end, he had died, a proof for Rav Huna (that a Tereifah cannot survive two or three years, like the Chachamim in the previous Beraisa).

(d) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov says - that it is possible for a Tereifah to bear children and to become stronger (not like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,