## Chullin Daf 52a

###### Chullin 52a:1
[Chullin 52a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:1)

חוֹל הַדַּק – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן; חוֹל הַגַּס – חָיְישִׁינַן; אֲבַק דְּרָכִים – חָיְישִׁינַן; תִּיבְנָא וַעֲבִיד בִּזְגָּא – חָיְישִׁינַן; לָא עָבֵיד בִּזְגָּא – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the bird fell on **fine sand, we** need **not be concerned,** because the sand slides on impact, cushioning the fall. If it fell on **coarse sand, we must be concerned,** because there are large stones mixed into it. If it fell on **dust of the road, we must be concerned,** because the dust is compact and hard. If the bird fell on **bundled straw, we must be concerned,** because it is compact and hard. If the straw **was not bundled, we** need **not be concerned.**


###### Chullin 52a:2
[Chullin 52a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:2)

חִיטֵּי וְכֹל דְּמִינַיְיהוּ – חָיְישִׁינַן; שְׂעָרֵי וְכֹל דְּמִינַיְיהוּ – חָיְישִׁינַן; כׇּל מִינֵי קִטְנִיּוֹת – אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּקֵי אֵבָרִים, לְבַר מִן רוּבְּיָא. חִימְצֵי – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים, חִפְצֵי – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים. כְּלָלָא דְּמִלְּתָא: כֹּל מִידֵּי דְּמַשְׁרֵיק – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים, לָא מַשְׁרֵיק – יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם רִיסּוּק אֵבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the bird fell on **wheat and all** similar **types of** grain, such as spelt or rye, whose kernels are hard, **we must be concerned.** If it fell on **barley and all** similar **types of** grain, such as oats, **we must be concerned.** With regard to **all types of beans, there is no** concern **due to** possible **shattered limbs** if a bird fell **on them,** since their round shape causes the bird to slide when it hits them, **except for fenugreek.** With regard to **peas, there is no** concern **due to** possible **shattered limbs,** but **with regard to chickpeas, there is** a concern **due to** possible **shattered limbs. The principle of the matter** is: **With regard to anything that slips** to the sides on impact, **there is no** concern **due to** possible **shattered limbs.** And with regard to anything that **does not slip, there is** a concern **due to** possible **shattered limbs.**


###### Chullin 52a:3
[Chullin 52a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:3)

דָּבוֹק – רַב אָשֵׁי שָׁרֵי, אַמֵּימָר אָסַר. בְּחַד גַּפָּא – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּשְׁרֵי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּתְרֵי גַּפֵּי. מַאן דְּאָסַר אָמַר לָךְ: הֵיכִי נֵיקוּם? וּמַאן דְּשָׁרֵי אָמַר לָךְ: אֶפְשָׁר דְּנֵיקוּם אַעִיקְבֵי דְּגַפֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the bird’s wings became stuck to **a *davuk*,** a board covered with glue set as a trap, and in trying to escape it fell to the ground while stuck to the board, **Rav Ashi deemed** the bird **permitted,** while **Ameimar deemed** it **prohibited.** The Gemara explains: **In** a case where only **one wing** was stuck to the board, **everyone agrees that it is permitted,** because the bird flaps with the other wing, lessening the impact of the fall. **They disagree when both wings** are stuck to the board. The one **who deemed** it **prohibited** could have **said to you: How will it stand** itself up so that it might dampen the impact? **And** the one **who deemed** it **permitted** could have **said to you: It is possible for** it to **stand** itself up **by** using **the tips of** its **wings.**


###### Chullin 52a:4
[Chullin 52a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:4)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בִּתְרֵי גַּפֵּי כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִיר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּחַד גַּפָּא. מַאן דְּשָׁרֵי אָמַר לָךְ: אֶפְשָׁר דְּפָרַח בְּחַד גַּפָּא, וּמַאן דְּאָסַר: כֵּיוָן דִּבְהַאי לָא מָצֵי פָּרַח, בְּהַאי נָמֵי לָא מָצֵי פָּרַח. וְהִילְכְתָא: בִּתְרֵי גַּפֵּי אֲסִיר, בְּחַד גַּפָּא שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say: In** a case where **two wings** were stuck to the board, **everyone agrees that it is prohibited,** because it cannot dampen the impact. **They disagree when** only **one wing** is stuck to the board. **The one who deemed** it **permitted** could have **said to you: It is possible for** it to **fly with one wing** and dampen the fall. **And the one who deemed** it **prohibited** could say: **Since it cannot fly with this** wing that is stuck to the *davuk*, **it also cannot fly with that** untrapped wing. The Gemara concludes: **And the *halakha*** is: **In** a case where **two wings** were stuck, it is **prohibited. In** a case where only **one wing** was stuck, it is **permitted.**


###### Chullin 52a:5
[Chullin 52a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:5)

נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רוֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵלּוּ הֵן רוֹב צְלָעוֹת – שֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן וְשֵׁשׁ מִכָּאן, אוֹ אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִכָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that if **most of** an animal’s **ribs were fractured,** it is a *tereifa*. **The Sages taught: These are most of the ribs: Six from here and six from there,** i.e., six on each side, **or eleven from here and one from there.** Twenty-two ribs are significant for matters of *tereifot*, eleven on each side. Twelve fractured ribs constitutes a majority.


###### Chullin 52a:6
[Chullin 52a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:6)

אָמַר זְעֵירִי: וּמֵחֶצְיָין כְּלַפֵּי שִׁדְרָה. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּבִצְלָעוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מוֹחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ze’eiri says: And** this applies only when the ribs were fractured **from the half of** the rib **toward the spine,** but not if they were fractured on the other half. **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And** this applies only to fractures occurring **in large ribs that contain marrow;** fractures in small ribs do not render the animal a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 52a:7
[Chullin 52a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:7)

אָמַר עוּלָּא, בֶּן זַכַּאי אָמַר: נֶעְקְרוּ – בְּרוֹב צַד אֶחָד, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ – בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בֵּין נֶעְקְרוּ בֵּין נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ – בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Ulla said** that **ben Zakkai says:** If the ribs were **dislocated** from the spine, even **a majority of one side,** i.e., six dislocated ribs, is enough to render the animal a *tereifa*. Only if the ribs were **broken** is **a majority of both sides** necessary. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whether they were dislocated or broken,** the animal is a *tereifa* only **with a majority of both sides.**


###### Chullin 52a:8
[Chullin 52a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:8)

אָמַר רַב: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע וְחוּלְיָא עִמָּהּ – טְרֵפָה. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי לְרַב: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מִכָּאן וְצֵלָע מִכָּאן, וְחוּלְיָא קַיֶּימֶת, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמְרִיתוּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says:** If **a rib was dislocated and** the attached **vertebra** was torn out **with it,** the animal is **a *tereifa*,** even if the spinal cord remains intact. **Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav:** If **a rib was dislocated from here and** another **rib from there,** i.e., both ribs connected to a single vertebra were dislocated, **but** the **vertebra** itself remains **intact, what is** the *halakha*? Rav **said to them: Are you saying** that an animal that was **sliced** in half is a *tereifa*? This animal is considered to have been sliced and already has the status of a carcass, as it is already considered dead (see 21a).


###### Chullin 52a:9
[Chullin 52a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:9)

וְהָא רַב נָמֵי גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמַר? כִּי קָאָמַר רַב – צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rav also say** that **a sliced** animal is a *tereifa*, since he said that if a rib was dislocated along with the attached vertebra, the animal is a *tereifa*? In such a case, the opposite rib is inevitably detached. If so, the animal should be considered a carcass. The Gemara responds: **When Rav said** that such an animal is a *tereifa*, he was referring to a case where the **rib** was dislocated **without the vertebra.**


###### Chullin 52a:10
[Chullin 52a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:10)

וְהָא צֵלָע וְחוּלְיָא קָאָמַר? צֵלָע וַחֲצִי חוּלְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But didn’t** Rav explicitly **say** his statement with regard to **a rib and vertebra** that were dislocated? The Gemara responds: Rav meant that if **a rib and half** its attached **vertebra** were dislocated, the animal is a *tereifa*. The opposite rib, however, is intact and connected to the remainder of the vertebra.


###### Chullin 52a:11
[Chullin 52a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:11)

מִכְּלָל דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא וְרַב אַסִּי, צֵלָע בְּלֹא חוּלְיָא אָמְרִי, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: ״גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמְרִיתוּ״? וְהָאָמַר עוּלָּא: בֶּן זַכַּאי אָמַר: נֶעְקְרוּ – בְּרוֹב צַד אֶחָד, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ – בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **By inference,** one may conclude **that Rav Kahana and Rav Asi stated** their question with regard to a less serious case, i.e., where **a rib** from each side was torn out **without** the **vertebra** being damaged at all. **And** yet, Rav **said to them: Are you saying** that an animal that was **sliced** in half is a *tereifa*? Rather, this animal is a carcass and is certainly prohibited. **And** how could Rav say this? **But didn’t Ulla say** that **ben Zakkai says:** If the ribs were **dislocated,** even **a majority of one side** is enough to render the animal a *tereifa*, while if the ribs were **broken, a majority of both sides** is necessary? If so, any animal with fewer than six dislocated ribs should be kosher, as long as the spine is undamaged.


###### Chullin 52a:12
[Chullin 52a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:12)

אָמַר לָךְ: הָתָם זֶה שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד זֶה, הָכָא זֶה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Rav could have **said to you: There,** where ben Zakkai says that six dislocated ribs on one side render the animal a *tereifa*, this is referring only to ribs **not** dislocated **one opposite the other. Here,** where Rav says that two dislocated ribs render the animal a carcass, this is referring to ribs dislocated **one opposite the other.**


###### Chullin 52a:13
[Chullin 52a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:13)

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין, וּבְרוֹב שְׁנֵי צְדָדִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא קָיְימָא (חד) [חֲדָא] מִינַּיְיהוּ זֶה כְּנֶגֶד זֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that the animal is a *tereifa* only if **a majority of both sides** was dislocated, **and in a majority of both sides, it is impossible that one of them is not situated opposite another?** Still, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the animal is a *tereifa* and not a carcass.


###### Chullin 52a:14
[Chullin 52a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:14)

הָתָם – בּוּכְנָא בְּלָא אֲסִיתָא, הָכָא – בּוּכְנָא וַאֲסִיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **There,** Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to a case where **the pestle,** i.e., the end of the rib, was torn out **without the mortar,** the socket of the vertebra in which it sits, leaving the spine completely intact. In such a case, the animal is a *tereifa* only if twelve ribs were dislocated, even though this necessarily includes one rib opposite another. **Here,** where Rav says that two dislocated ribs opposite one another render the animal a carcass, that is referring to a case where the **pestle and mortar** were torn out together, damaging the spine.


###### Chullin 52a:15
[Chullin 52a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:15)

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּרַב? לָא שְׁמִיעַ לְהוּ דְּרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** why did Rav Kahana and Rav Asi ask anything of Rav? Their case in question **is** identical to the statement of **Rav.** If Rav says that the animal is a *tereifa* if a rib and part of its vertebra were dislocated, that should be the *halakha* all the more so if ribs opposite one another were dislocated in addition to part of the attached vertebra. The Gemara responds: Rav Kahana and Rav Asi **did not hear** that statement **of Rav.**


###### Chullin 52a:16
[Chullin 52a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:16)

וְלִיבְעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ כִּדְרַב? סָבְרִי: לִיבְעֵי מִינֵּיהּ חֲדָא דְּפָרֵישׁ לַן תַּרְתֵּי, דְּאִי בָּעֵינַן מִינֵּיהּ חֲדָא, הָנִיחָא אִי אֲמַר לַן ״טְרֵפָה״ – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן תַּרְתֵּי, אִי אֲמַר לַן ״כְּשֵׁרָה״ – אַכַּתִּי תַּרְתֵּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara persists: **But** if so, **let them ask** about the simpler case of one dislocated rib, **like that** which **Rav** himself discussed. Why ask specifically about two ribs opposite one another? The Gemara responds: **They reasoned: Let us ask him one** question through **which he** will **explain to us two** different cases. **As, if we ask him** about only **one** dislocated rib, **this works out well if he says to us** that the animal is **a *tereifa*,** because we can infer that **all the more so** if **two** ribs opposite one another are dislocated, the animal is a *tereifa*. But **if he says to us** that it is **kosher, we** must **still ask** with regard to a case of **two** dislocated ribs.


###### Chullin 52a:17
[Chullin 52a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:17)

אִי הָכִי, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי דְּקָא בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי, הָנִיחָא אִי אֲמַר לְהוּ ״כְּשֵׁרָה״ – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן חֲדָא; וְאִי אֲמַר לְהוּ ״טְרֵפָה״, אַכַּתִּי חֲדָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If that is so,** then **now, too, when they ask him** about **two** ribs, they may not receive an answer with regard to both cases. Granted, **this works out well if he says to them** that an animal with two dislocated ribs opposite one another is **kosher,** since they can infer that **all the more so** it is kosher if only **one** rib is dislocated. **But if he says to them** that it is **a *tereifa*, they** must **still ask** with regard to a case of only **one** dislocated rib.


###### Chullin 52a:18
[Chullin 52a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:18)

סָבְרִי: אִם כֵּן מִירְתָּח קָא רָתַח. חֲדָא טְרֵפָה, תַּרְתֵּי מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **They reasoned** that it is better to ask about a case where two ribs opposite one another were dislocated, because **if** it is **so** that Rav holds that the animal is a *tereifa* if even one rib is dislocated, then **he would become angry** and respond: If an animal with even **one** dislocated rib is **a *tereifa*, is** it **necessary** to ask about an animal with **two** dislocated ribs?


###### Chullin 52a:19
[Chullin 52a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:19)

וְהָא קָא אָמְרִי לֵיהּ וְלָא רָתַח, כֵּיוָן דְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ ״גִּיסְטְרָא קָאָמְרִיתוּ״ – הַיְינוּ רִיתְחֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But they did say** this question **to him and he did not become angry,** despite the fact that he holds that even one dislocated rib renders the animal a *tereifa*. The Gemara responds: **When he said to them: Are you saying** that an animal that was **sliced** in half is a *tereifa*, **this is his anger.** Rav Kahana and Rav Asi understood from this response that an animal with two dislocated ribs opposite one another is a carcass, but an animal with one dislocated rib is a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 52a:20
[Chullin 52a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:20)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מֵעִיקָּרָהּ, וְגוּלְגּוֹלֶת שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה בְּרוּבָּה, וּבָשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת רוֹב הַכָּרֵס בְּרוּבּוֹ – טְרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba bar Rav Sheila says** that **Rav Mattana says** that **Shmuel says:** If **a rib was ripped from its root, or** if the **skull was crushed in its majority, or** if **the flesh that envelops the majority of the rumen** was damaged **in its majority,** the animal is **a *tereifa*.**


###### Chullin 52a:21
[Chullin 52a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/52a:21)

נֶעֶקְרָה צֵלָע מֵעִיקָּרָהּ טְרֵפָה? וּרְמִינְהוּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Did Shmuel really say that if **a rib was ripped from its root,** the animal is **a *tereifa*? But raise a contradiction** from a mishna (*Oholot* 2:3):