## Chullin Daf 58b

###### Chullin 58b:1
[Chullin 58b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:1)

הָנֵי תַּמְרֵי דְּכַדָּא לְבָתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא שַׁרְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**These dates** stored in **a jar are permitted after** remaining there for **twelve months** of **the year.** Since worms have no bones, they cannot last twelve months. Consequently, any worms found in the dates must have hatched after they were picked and are therefore permitted.


###### Chullin 58b:2
[Chullin 58b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:2)

אָמַר רַב: לֵית בָּקָא בַּר יוֹמָא, וְלֵית דִּידְבָא בַּת שַׁתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says: There is no one-day-old mosquito,** since all mosquitoes die before they have lived a day. **And there is no one-year-old fly.**


###### Chullin 58b:3
[Chullin 58b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וְהָא אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: שַׁב שְׁנֵי אִימְּרַאי בָּקְתָּא מִבָּקָא. דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ: חֲזִיתֵיהּ לְבַר מָחוֹזָא דִּסְחָא בְּמַיָּא, וּסְלֵיק וְאִיכְּרֵךְ בִּסְדִינִין, וְאִיתֵּיבְתְּ עֲלֵיהּ וּמְצֵת מִינֵּיהּ, וְלָא הוֹדַעְתְּ לִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי ״שִׁיתִּין מָנֵי פַּרְזְלָא תְּלוּ לֵיהּ לְבָקָא בְּקוּרְנָסֵיהּ״, מִי אִיכָּא? אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ כַּמָּה הָוֵי? אֶלָּא בְּמָנֵי דִּידְהוּ, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּשְׁנֵי דִּידְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But isn’t** there the adage that **people say** that **the female mosquito revolted against the male mosquito seven years, since she said to him: I saw a townsman swimming in the water, and he came out and wrapped himself in sheets, and you sat on him and sucked** blood **from him, and you did not inform me?** Apparently, some boneless creatures can survive at least seven years. Abaye **said to him: And according to your reasoning,** what about **that** adage **that people say: Six thousand iron dinars hang in a mosquito’s mallet,** i.e., its bite is powerful? **Is there** really such a thing? **How much does** the mosquito **itself** weigh? **Rather,** the saying must be referring **to hundreds of their own dinars,** i.e., the mosquitoes’ coins. **Here, too,** the adage is referring **to their own years,** not human years.


###### Chullin 58b:4
[Chullin 58b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:4)

תְּנַן הָתָם: בְּהֵמָה בַּעֲלַת חָמֵשׁ רַגְלַיִם, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָסֵר וְיָתֵר בַּיָּד, אֲבָל חָסֵר וְיָתֵר בָּרֶגֶל – טְרֵפָה נָמֵי הָוְיָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כׇּל יָתֵר כְּנָטוּל דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Bekhorot* 40a): **With regard to an animal with five legs, or** one **that has only three, this is a blemish,** and the animal may not be brought as an offering. **Rav Huna said: They taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case **where** the animal **was missing or had an additional foreleg. But** if it **was missing or had an additional hind leg, it is also a *tereifa*. What is the reason?** It is that **any extra** limb **is considered like a removed** limb. An animal whose foreleg was removed is kosher, but if its hind leg was removed it is a *tereifa*; the same applies if it had an extra leg.


###### Chullin 58b:5
[Chullin 58b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:5)

הָהִיא חֵיוְתָא דַּהֲוָה לַהּ תַּרְתֵּי סַנְיָא דֵּיבֵי, אַיְיתוּהָ לְרָבִינָא, וְטַרְפַהּ מִדְּרַב הוּנָא. וְאִי שָׁפְכָן לַהֲדָדֵי – כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara recounts the case of **a certain animal that had two ceca. They brought it to Ravina, and he deemed it a *tereifa* based on** the statement **of Rav Huna** that an extra limb is like a missing limb. Since an animal missing a cecum is a *tereifa*, an animal with an extra cecum is likewise a *tereifa*. The Gemara adds: **But if they empty into each other,** such that food can move freely between them, the animal is **kosher,** because they are considered one organ.


###### Chullin 58b:6
[Chullin 58b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:6)

הָהִיא גּוּבְתָּא דַּהֲוָה נָפְקָא מִבֵּי כָסֵי לְהוּבְלִילָא, סָבַר רַב אָשֵׁי לְמִיטְרְפַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא מָר בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: כֹּל הָנֵי חֵיוֵי בָּרָיָיתָא הָכִי אִית לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara recounts the case of **a certain tube that exited from the reticulum into the omasum. Rav Ashi thought to deem** the animal **a *tereifa*. Rav Huna Mar bar Ḥiyya said to Rav Ashi: All animals** that dwell **outside have** tubes like **this,** and one need not be concerned.


###### Chullin 58b:7
[Chullin 58b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:7)

הָהוּא גּוּבְתָּא דַּהֲוָה מְעַבְּרָא מִבֵּי כָסֵי לִכְרֵסָא, סְבַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַכְשׁוֹרַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אַטּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ בַּחֲדָא מְחִיתָא מַחֵתִינְהוּ? הֵיכָא דְּאִתְּמַר – אִתְּמַר, הֵיכָא דְּלָא אִתְּמַר – לָא אִתְּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara recounts the case of **a certain tube that passed from the reticulum to the rumen. Mar bar Rav Ashi thought to deem** the animal **kosher,** as in the above case. **Rav Oshaya said to him: Is that to say all** such cases **are woven in one weave? Where it was stated** that such an organ is normal, **it was stated; where it was not stated, it was not stated.** This animal is a *tereifa*.


###### Chullin 58b:8
[Chullin 58b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:8)

הֵעִיד נָתָן בַּר שֵׁילָא רַב טַבָּחַיָּא דְּצִיפּוֹרִי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי, עַל שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם הַיּוֹצְאִין מִן הַבְּהֵמָה כְּאֶחָד, שֶׁהִיא טְרֵפָה, וּכְנֶגְדָּן בָּעוֹף – כְּשֵׁרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁיּוֹצְאִין בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת, אֲבָל יוֹצְאִין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְכָלִין עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע – כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Natan bar Sheila, head of the butchers of Tzippori, testified before Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **about two intestines that exit** the abomasum of **the animal as one, that this** renders the animal **a *tereifa*. But** if this phenomenon occurs **likewise in a bird,** it is **kosher,** because it is common in birds. **In what** case **is this statement said,** i.e., that two intestines render an animal a *tereifa*? It is said in a case **where they exit at two different points. But** if **they exit at one point,** adjacent to each other, **and they end,** i.e., they merge into one intestine, **within a fingerbreadth,** the animal is **kosher.**


###### Chullin 58b:9
[Chullin 58b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:9)

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַמֵּי וְרַב אַסִּי, חַד אָמַר: הוּא דְּהָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, וְחַד אָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ami and Rav Asi disagree with regard to** this *halakha*. **One says: It** is kosher when the two intestines exit at one point only in a case **where they subsequently merge** into one intestine; **and one says:** It is kosher **even if they do not subsequently merge.**


###### Chullin 58b:10
[Chullin 58b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:10)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הוּא דְּהָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הָדְרִי וְעָרְבִי, מַאי ״עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע״? עַד כְּאֶצְבַּע מִלְּמַטָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to the one who says** that **it** is kosher only in a case **where they subsequently merge, this** explanation is consistent with **that which** the *baraita* **teaches: Within a fingerbreadth.** That is, the two intestines must merge within a fingerbreadth for the animal to be kosher. **But according to the one who says:** It is kosher **even if they do not subsequently merge, what** is the meaning of the phrase: And they end **within a fingerbreadth?** The Gemara responds: It means **within a fingerbreadth below.** As long as the intestines merge before the final fingerbreadth near the anus, the animal is kosher.


###### Chullin 58b:11
[Chullin 58b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:11)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם נִיטְּלָה הַנּוֹצָה – פְּסוּלָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: הַנּוֹצָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **Rabbi Yehuda says: If the down** covering its body **was removed,** it is a *tereifa* and **unfit** for consumption, like an animal whose hide was removed. With regard to this, **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael said the same thing. Rabbi Yehuda** said **that which we said** here, that the removal of the feathers is like removal of the hide. **Rabbi Yishmael** agrees, **as we learned** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yishmael says: The down joins** the flesh to constitute an olive-bulk for purposes of *piggul*. If a priest pinches the nape of the neck of a bird with intent to consume a combined olive-bulk of its meat and its down beyond the permitted time, the offering is rendered *piggul*. Evidently, both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yishmael agree that the down of a bird is considered like the hide of an animal.


###### Chullin 58b:12
[Chullin 58b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:12)

אָמַר רָבָא: דִּילְמָא לָא הִיא, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָכָא אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה, דְּלֵיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמַגֵּין עֲלֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אִיפַּגּוֹלֵי – כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָתָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן אִיפַּגּוֹלֵי, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפָה – אַגּוֹנֵי לָא מַגֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Perhaps it is not so,** and they disagree. Perhaps **Rabbi Yehuda says** that the down is like the hide of an animal **here only with regard to a *tereifa*, since** when the down is removed, **there is nothing that protects** the bird, and its life is in danger; **but with regard to *piggul*, he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis** that the down is not treated like the hide of an animal, because *piggul* applies only if one had intent to consume an item that is normally consumed. **And** perhaps **Rabbi Yishmael says** so **there only with regard to *piggul*,** since he holds that the down is in fact fit for consumption; **but with regard to a *tereifa*,** he holds that the down **does not protect** the bird, and its removal does not endanger it.


###### Chullin 58b:13
[Chullin 58b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֲחוּזַת הַדָּם, וְהַמְעוּשֶּׁנֶת, וְהַמְצוּנֶּנֶת, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה הַרְדּוּפְנֵי, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה צוֹאַת תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁתָת מַיִם הָרָעִים – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָכְלָה סַם הַמָּוֶת, אוֹ שֶׁהִכִּישָׁהּ נָחָשׁ – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to an animal that is **congested with** excess **blood, or that** was **smoked,** i.e., that suffered from smoke inhalation, **or that** was **chilled** and subsequently became sick, **or that ate oleander,** which is poisonous, **or that ate the excrement of chickens, or that drank foul water,** although in all these cases the animal is in danger, it is **kosher.** By contrast, if the animal **ate deadly poison, or** if **a snake bit** the animal, **with regard to** the prohibition of ***tereifa*,** consumption of the animal would be **permitted, but** it is **prohibited due to the threat to** one’s **life** if he eats it.


###### Chullin 58b:14
[Chullin 58b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:14)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הִלְעִיטָהּ חִלְתִּית – טְרֵפָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּמְינַקְּבָה לְהוּ לְמַעְיָינַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Shmuel says:** If one **fed** an animal **asafoetida,** a very sharp plant, it is **a *tereifa*. What is the reason? Since it perforates its intestines.**


###### Chullin 58b:15
[Chullin 58b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:15)

מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: אֲחוּזַת הַדָּם, וְהַמְעוּשֶּׁנֶת, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה הַרְדּוּפְנֵי, וְשֶׁאָכְלָה צוֹאַת תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, וְשָׁתָת מַיִם הָרָעִים, הִלְעִיטָהּ תִּיעָה, חִלְתִּית וּפִלְפְּלִין, אָכְלָה סַם הַמָּוֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה. הִכִּישָׁהּ נָחָשׁ, אוֹ שֶׁנְּשָׁכָהּ כֶּלֶב שׁוֹטֶה – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה, וַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת. קַשְׁיָא חִלְתִּית אַחִלְתִּית, קַשְׁיָא סַם הַמָּוֶת אַסַּם הַמָּוֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheizvi raises an objection** from a *baraita*: An animal that is **congested with** excess **blood, or that** suffered from **smoke** inhalation, **or that ate** poisonous **oleander, or that ate the excrement of roosters, or that drank foul water,** or if **one fed it *tia*, asafoetida, or peppers,** or if it **ate deadly poison,** it is **kosher.** But if **a snake bit** the animal, **or if a mad dog bit it, with regard to** the prohibition of ***tereifa*** its consumption is **permitted, but** it is nevertheless **prohibited due to the threat to** one’s **life.** The statement of the *baraita* concerning an animal that was fed **asafoetida** poses **a difficulty to** Shmuel’s statement that **asafoetida** renders the animal a *tereifa*, and the statement concerning **deadly poison** poses **a difficulty to** the mishna’s statement that **deadly poison** renders the animal prohibited due to the threat to one’s life.


###### Chullin 58b:16
[Chullin 58b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:16)

חִלְתִּית אַחִלְתִּית לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּעָלִין, כָּאן בִּקְרָטִין. סַם הַמָּוֶת אַסַּם הַמָּוֶת לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּידַהּ, הָא דְּאָדָם. סַם הַמָּוֶת דִּבְהֵמָה הַיְינוּ הַרְדּוּפְנֵי? תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי סַם הַמָּוֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction between one statement about **asafoetida** and the other statement about **asafoetida** is **not difficult. Here,** the *baraita* is referring **to** a case where the animal ate asafoetida **leaves,** which are less dangerous. **There,** Shmuel is referring **to** a case where the animal ate **slivers** of asafoetida, which are very sharp. Likewise, the apparent contradiction between one statement about **deadly poison** and the other statement about **deadly poison** is **not difficult. This** statement of the *baraita* that it is permitted is referring to a case where the animal consumed poison that is deadly only **to itself. That** statement of the mishna that it is prohibited is referring to a case where it consumed poison deadly **to a person.** The Gemara asks: **Poison deadly to an animal is** the same as **oleander;** why should the *baraita* mention both? The Gemara responds: The *tanna* is referring to **two types of deadly poison.**


###### Chullin 58b:17
[Chullin 58b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/58b:17)

מַאי תִּיעָה? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The above *baraita* teaches that if an animal was fed *tia*, it is kosher. The Gemara asks: **What is *tia*? Rav Yehuda said:**