## Chullin Daf 46a

###### Chullin 46a:1
[Chullin 46a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:1)

עַד וְעַד בַּכְּלָל, אוֹ דִּלְמָא עַד וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When Shmuel says that the animal is certainly a *tereifa* if the spinal cord is cut anywhere **until** the first gap, does he mean **until and including** the first gap, in which case if it is cut within the first gap the animal is a *tereifa*? **Or perhaps** he means **until and not including** the length of the gap itself?


###### Chullin 46a:2
[Chullin 46a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:2)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, עַד וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל, פִּי פָרָשָׁה מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If you say** that Shmuel means **until and not including** the length of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the *halakha* is unknown, then if the spinal cord was cut in **the mouth of** the first **branch,** exactly where it branches off, **what is** the *halakha*? Is it considered to be within the first gap, in which case the *halakha* is unknown? Or is it considered before the gap, in which case a tear in the mouth renders the animal a *tereifa*?


###### Chullin 46a:3
[Chullin 46a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:3)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר, עַד וְעַד בַּכְּלָל, פָּרָשָׁה עַצְמָהּ מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If you say** that Shmuel means **until and including the measure** of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the animal is a *tereifa*, then if the first **branch itself,** i.e., the first pair of branching nerves, was cut from the spinal cord, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Chullin 46a:4
[Chullin 46a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַפָּרָשָׁה תִּידּוֹן כְּבָשָׂר. מַאי לָאו פָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה? לָא, שְׁלִישִׁית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: **The branch** of the spine that was cut **shall be considered as** normal **flesh,** not as the spine. Therefore, it does not render the animal a *tereifa*, unlike the spinal cord itself. **What, is it not** referring even to the **first or second branch?** The Gemara responds: **No,** the *baraita* is referring only to the **third** branch. But if either of the first two pairs of nerves that branch off from the spinal cord are cut, the animal is a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 46a:5
[Chullin 46a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:5)

בְּעוֹפָא, רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: לְמַטָּה מִן הָאֲגַפַּיִם, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to a bird,** the Sages disagreed as to the lower boundary of the spinal cord, above which if it is cut, the bird will be rendered a *tereifa*. **Rabbi Yannai says:** The spinal cord extends until **below the** level of the **wings. And Reish Lakish says: Until** the point **between the wings,** not below them.


###### Chullin 46a:6
[Chullin 46a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:6)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּבֶן פַּזִּי, וְאַיְיתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ עוֹפָא, וּבְדַק עַד בֵּין אֲגַפַּיִם, וּשְׁלַח לֵיהּ דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה וְקָם וַאֲזַל, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לְמִבְדַּק טְפֵי, אִי מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד נְשִׂיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla says: I was standing before** Rabbi Shimon **ben Pazi, and they brought before him a bird** whose spine had been injured, **and he checked until** the point **between the wings. And** at that point a messenger **of the house of the *Nasi* sent for him, and he got up and went, and I do not know if** he left **because one does not need to check beyond** that point, **or** if **due to the honor of the *Nasi*** he left without completing the inspection.


###### Chullin 46a:7
[Chullin 46a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:7)

נִיטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וְכוּ׳. הָא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּלוּם – כְּשֵׁרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָוֵי כְּזַיִת, וְהָתְנַן: נִיטַּל הַכָּבֵד וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּזַיִת – כְּשֵׁרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: If **the liver was removed** and nothing remained of it, the animal is a *tereifa*. The Gemara asks: It follows, **therefore,** that if **anything remained of it,** the animal is **kosher, even if** the remaining piece **does not constitute an olive-bulk. But didn’t we learn** in a mishna on 54a: If **the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained,** it is **kosher?** One can infer that if less remained, it is a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 46a:8
[Chullin 46a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:8)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי, כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא זָרֵיק לַהּ, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי מְטַבֵּיל לַהּ, וְסִימָנָיךְ: ״עֲשִׁירִין מְקַמְּצִין״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said:** This is **not difficult. This** mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Ḥiyya,** while **that** mishna later in the chapter is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. This is **like that** incident in which an amount smaller than an olive-bulk remained of the liver, and **Rabbi Ḥiyya discarded it,** as he holds that the animal is a *tereifa*, **but Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **dipped it** in a seasoning and ate it. **And your mnemonic** to remember which Sage maintained which opinion is: **The rich are stingy.** Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, was wealthy, but he nevertheless did not allow the meat to go to waste.


###### Chullin 46a:9
[Chullin 46a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:9)

הָהוּא פּוּלְמוּסָא דַּאֲתָא לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, עֲרַקוּ רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף, פְּגַע בְּהוּ רַבִּי זֵירָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: עָרוֹקָאֵי, כְּזַיִת שֶׁאָמְרוּ בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ, בָּעֵינַן כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה, וּבָעֵינַן כְּזַיִת בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **a certain** royal **army came to Pumbedita,** and **Rabba and Rav Yosef fled** the city, whereupon **Rabbi Zeira met them.** Rabbi Zeira **said to them: Refugees,** hear this *halakha*: The **olive-bulk that** the Sages **said** must remain of the liver so the animal will remain kosher must be **in the place** where the liver connects to the **gallbladder. Rav Adda bar Ahava says:** The olive-bulk must be **in the place that** the liver **lives,** i.e., is connected to the other organs, under the right kidney. **Rav Pappa said: Therefore,** in order to satisfy both opinions, **we require an olive-bulk in the place of the gallbladder, and we** also **require an olive-bulk in the place that it lives.** Otherwise, the animal is a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 46a:10
[Chullin 46a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:10)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִתְלַקֵּט, מַהוּ? כִּרְצוּעָה, מַהוּ? בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּזַיִת מְרוּדָּד, מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma:** If the olive-bulk that remained was not all in one piece, but rather small pieces that could be **gathered** together to form the requisite measure, **what is** the *halakha*? Alternatively, if it was long and thin **like a strip, what is** the *halakha*? **Rav Ashi raises a dilemma:** If the **olive-bulk** was **flat,** broad but thinner than an olive, **what is** the *halakha*? To all these questions the Gemara responds: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Chullin 46a:11
[Chullin 46a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:11)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זְרִיקָא מֵרַבִּי אַמֵּי: נִדַּלְדְּלָה כָּבֵד וּמְעוֹרָה בְּטַרְפְּשֶׁיהָ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְדּוּל זֶה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַהוּ, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְקוֹם מָרָה – הָא אִיכָּא, אִי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא חַיָּה – הָא אִיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zerika asked Rabbi Ami:** If the **liver was detached** from the other organs in numerous places **and** was **attached** only **to its membranes [*betarpasheha*],** but the liver itself remained intact, **what** is the *halakha*? Rabbi Ami **said to him:** With regard to the *halakha*, **I do not know what** the significance is of **this detachment** that you mentioned. **If** you rule **according to the one who says** that an olive-bulk must remain **in the place of the gallbladder, that is** the case here. And **if** you rule **according to the one who says** that it must be **in the place that it lives, that is** the case here as well. Consequently, there is no doubt that the animal is kosher.


###### Chullin 46a:12
[Chullin 46a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:12)

הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַב אַסִּי דְאָמְרִי: קְרָמָא עִילָּאָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: קְרָמָא תַּתָּאָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וְסִימָנָיךְ כִּיתּוּנָא דְּוַרְדָּא דְּמַנְּחָא בֵּיהּ רֵיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **The lung that was perforated** renders the animal a *tereifa*. The Gemara quotes **Rav and Shmuel and Rav Asi, who** all **say:** The mishna is referring specifically to the **outer membrane. And some say** that they said that the mishna is referring specifically to the **inner membrane. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said** that **Rav Naḥman said: And your mnemonic** should be: The **red robe in which the lung rests.** The inner membrane is red, while the outer membrane is white, and according to Rav Naḥman, the mishna is referring to the inner membrane.


###### Chullin 46a:13
[Chullin 46a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/46a:13)

פְּשִׁיטָא: אִי אִינְּקִיב עִילָּאָה וְלָא אִינְּקִיב תַּתָּאָה – תַּתָּאָה מֵגֵין, כִּדְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: הַאי רֵיאָה דְּאִגְּלִיד

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It is **obvious** that **if the outer** membrane **is perforated but the inner** membrane **is not perforated, the inner** membrane **protects** the lung, and the animal is kosher. This is **in accordance with** the statement **of Rabba, as Rabba says: This** animal with **a lung whose** outer membrane **was removed,**