## Chullin Daf 44a

###### Chullin 44a:1
[Chullin 44a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:1)

מֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל – עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״הַכְּסִיל בַּחוֹשֶׁךְ הוֹלֵךְ״. אֶלָּא אִי כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי – כְּקוּלֵּיהֶן וּכְחוּמְרֵיהֶן, אִי כְּבֵית הִלֵּל – כְּקוּלֵּיהֶן וּכְחוּמְרֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And one who wishes to adopt both **the stringencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness”** (Ecclesiastes 2:14). **Rather,** one should act **either in accordance with Beit Shammai,** following both **their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel,** following both **their leniencies and their stringencies.**


###### Chullin 44a:2
[Chullin 44a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:2)

הָא גּוּפַאּ קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: לְעוֹלָם הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: וְהָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי יַעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects to the wording of the *baraita*: **This** *baraita* **itself** is **difficult.** First **you say** that the ***halakha*** is **always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, and then** you **teach** that **one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so.**


###### Chullin 44a:3
[Chullin 44a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:3)

לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן – קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל, כָּאן – לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: This is **not difficult. Here,** the statement that a person may act as he wishes was made **before the Divine Voice** emerged and announced that the *halakha* is always in accordance with Beit Hillel. **There,** the statement that the *halakha* is always in accordance with Beit Hillel was made **after the Divine Voice** issued this ruling.


###### Chullin 44a:4
[Chullin 44a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:4)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, אַף לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּבַת קוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **even** the statement that a person may act as he wishes was made **after the Divine Voice** announced that the *halakha* is in accordance with Beit Hillel, **and** this statement **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, who says: One disregards a Divine Voice** that attempts to intervene in matters of *halakha*. According to him, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel has not yet been decided.


###### Chullin 44a:5
[Chullin 44a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:5)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **In any case,** Rava’s ruling is **difficult.** How could he rule in accordance with two contradictory stringencies in order to deem the animal a *tereifa*?


###### Chullin 44a:6
[Chullin 44a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:6)

אָמַר רַב טָבוּת: כּוּלַּהּ כְּרַב עַבְדַהּ, דְּכִי אֲתָא רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אָמַר: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי דְּכָיֵיל יְהוּדָה אֲחִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב! הָכִי אָמַר רַב: וֶושֶׁט נָתְנוּ [בּוֹ] חֲכָמִים שִׁיעוּר, מִכְּלָל דְּתוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט לָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא, וְקָאָמַר בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Tavut said:** Rava **acted entirely in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav. As when Rami bar Yeḥezkel came, he said: Do not listen to those principles that** Rav **Yehuda, my brother, formulated in the name of Rav.** Although Rav holds that a perforation of any part of the entrance of the gullet renders an animal a *tereifa*, this is not because it is a location fit for slaughter. Rather, **this** is what **Rav said: The Sages gave a measure** defining the portion of the **gullet** that is valid for slaughter. **By inference,** one learns that **the entrance of the gullet is not a location** fit for **slaughter. And** nevertheless, **he says** that a perforation **in any amount** renders the animal a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 44a:7
[Chullin 44a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:7)

לְמַעְלָה עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: עַד כְּדֵי תְּפִיסַת יָד. לְמַטָּה עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּשְׂעִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since it was mentioned that the Sages gave a measure defining the portion of the gullet that is valid for slaughter, the Gemara asks: **How far up** the gullet is the upper boundary for valid slaughter? **Rav Naḥman said:** It is **until** the point that there remains only **sufficient** space for **a hand** to **grip** the gullet. The Gemara asks: **How far down** is the lower boundary? **Rav Naḥman said** that **Rabba bar Avuh said: Until** the gullet **becomes hairy,** i.e., until the opening of the rumen, whose lining is hairy.


###### Chullin 44a:8
[Chullin 44a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:8)

אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רָבִינָא אָמַר גְּנִיבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: טֶפַח בַּוֶּושֶׁט סָמוּךְ לַכָּרֵס – זֶהוּ כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי. אַמַּאי? כִּי קָא שָׁחֵט בְּכָרֵס קָא שָׁחֵיט!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But doesn’t Ravina say** that **Geneiva says in the name of Rav:** The lowermost **handbreadth in the gullet, adjacent to the rumen, this is the inner rumen?** If so, **why** does Rav Naḥman permit slaughter until the opening of the rumen? **When one slaughters** within the bottom handbreadth, **he is slaughtering in the rumen,** and his slaughter should be invalid.


###### Chullin 44a:9
[Chullin 44a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:9)

אֵימָא: טֶפַח בְּכָרֵס סָמוּךְ לַוֶּושֶׁט – זֶהוּ כָּרֵס הַפְּנִימִי. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי קָאָמַר רַב – בְּתוֹרָא, דְּמַשְׂעַר טְפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **say** that Rav’s statement should be amended, as follows: The uppermost **handbreadth in the rumen, adjacent to the gullet, this is the inner rumen,** which is not a valid location for slaughter. By contrast, the lowermost handbreadth of the gullet is a valid location for slaughter. And **if you wish, say** instead that **when Rav says** that the lowermost handbreadth of the gullet is considered the rumen, he is referring specifically **to a bull, which is especially hairy,** and hairs appear even within the lowermost handbreadth of the gullet itself. By contrast, in other animals, the entire lower gullet is a valid location for slaughter.


###### Chullin 44a:10
[Chullin 44a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:10)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תּוּרְבַּץ הַוֶּושֶׁט שֶׁנִּיטַּל כּוּלּוֹ מִלֶּחִי – כָּשֵׁר, וּתְנָא תּוּנָא: נִיטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman says** that **Shmuel says:** If **the entrance of the gullet was completely detached from the jaw,** the animal is **kosher. And the *tanna*** of the mishna also **taught** this later (54a): If **the lower jaw was detached** entirely, it is **kosher.**


###### Chullin 44a:11
[Chullin 44a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:11)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וְהָאִיכָּא עִיקּוּר סִימָנִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa objects to this:** How can Shmuel say that if the entrance of the gullet is detached the animal is kosher? **But isn’t there ripping of the *simanim*,** the gullet and the windpipe, from their place? This should render the animal a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 44a:12
[Chullin 44a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:12)

וּלְרַב פָּפָּא קַשְׁיָא מַתְנִיתִין: נִיטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interjects: **But according to Rav Pappa, the mishna** is **difficult** as well, since it states: If **the lower jaw was detached,** it is **kosher.** If the lower jaw is detached, the windpipe and gullet will necessarily be detached as well, since they are attached to it.


###### Chullin 44a:13
[Chullin 44a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:13)

בִּשְׁלָמָא מַתְנִיתִין לְרַב פָּפָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאִיעֲקוּר אִיעֲקוֹרֵי, הָא דְּאִיגּוּם אִיגּוֹמֵי מֵעִילָּוֵי סִימָנִים, אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Granted, the mishna** is **not difficult for Rav Pappa. This** *halakha*, that the ripping of the *simanim* renders the animal a *tereifa*, applies only **when** the *simanim* are **completely ripped** from the jaw. **That** statement of the mishna, that an animal whose jaw is detached is kosher, is referring to a case **where** the lower jaw **is severed above** its connection to the ***simanim*,** which themselves remain connected to the remaining flesh of the jaw. **But** the *halakha* that the ripping of the *simanim* renders the animal a *tereifa* is **difficult for Shmuel.** How can an animal remain kosher when the entrance of its gullet is removed, if this entails the ripping of the *simanim*?


###### Chullin 44a:14
[Chullin 44a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:14)

לָא תֵּימָא כּוּלּוֹ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא רוּבּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Do not say** that Shmuel deems the animal kosher if the entrance of the gullet was **completely** detached. **Rather, say** that he deems it kosher only if it was **mostly** detached.


###### Chullin 44a:15
[Chullin 44a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:15)

וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרוּבָּן – טְרֵפָה? אָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: הָא דְּאִקְּפַל אִיקְּפוֹלֵי, הָתָם דְּאִפְּרוּק אִפְּרוֹקֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say** that **Shmuel says: *Simanim* that were detached in their majority** render the animal **a *tereifa*? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: This** statement of Shmuel, that the animal is kosher even if the *simanim* are mostly detached, applies only to a case in **which** the entrance of the gullet **was peeled off** from the flesh of the jaw, such that the connected tissue is concentrated in one area. In such a case, the animal might recover. **There,** where Shmuel deems the animal a *tereifa*, he is referring to a case in **which** the *simanim* **were** forcibly **separated [*de’ippruk ipprukei*]** from the jaw and are connected only by a few discontinuous pieces of flesh. In such a case the animal cannot recover.


###### Chullin 44a:16
[Chullin 44a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/44a:16)

וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת. תָּנָא: כַּמָּה פְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת? בְּרוּבָּהּ. וְכַמָּה רוּבָּה? רַב אָמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **Or** an animal with **a cut windpipe,** cut across its width, is a *tereifa*. With regard to this the Sages **taught: How much** must **the windpipe** be **cut** to render the animal a *tereifa*? **In its majority. And how much is its majority? Rav says:**