In this daf, we continue our deep dive into the halachos of tereifos, focusing on the critical differences between the gullet (veshet) and the windpipe (kaneh). The Gemara explores the severe nature of clawing (derisah) by a predator, explaining how the venom burns and widens any wound, which requires a thorough inspection of the animal. We also learn about the immense stature of Rav, as Rabbi Yochanan rebukes Reish Lakish and describes Rav's unmatched greatness in Torah and piety.
Additionally, the sugya addresses whether we can add to the list of tereifos established by Chazal. We encounter hunters who killed animals by striking them in the sciatic nerve or the kidneys, yet the Sages ruled these are not tereifos because the wounds could theoretically heal with medicine. We then begin a new Mishnah listing the cases where an animal remains kosher, such as a split windpipe, a fractured skull where the brain membrane is intact, or removed kidneys.
וֶושֶׁט נְקוּבָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, דְּרוּסָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.
Regarding the gullet, its perforation renders the animal a tereifa in any amount, and likewise its clawing renders it a tereifa in any amount.
קָנֶה נְקוּבָתוֹ בִּכְאִיסָּר, דְּרוּסָתוֹ בְּכַמָּה?
But regarding the windpipe, its perforation renders it a tereifa only as the size of an issar; if so, its clawing requires how much reddening to render it a tereifa? In how much is it?
בָּתַר דְּבַעְיָא הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ.
After he raised the dilemma, he then resolved it: Both this, the gullet, and that, the windpipe, render the animal a tereifa if they are clawed and redden in any amount.
מַאי טַעְמָא? זִיהֲרֵיהּ מִקְלָא קָלֵי וְאָזֵיל.
What is the reason? The predator's venom burns continuously and goes on to widen the hole.
יָתֵיב רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.
Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta sat before Rav Nachman, and he sat and was saying: A clawed animal about which the Sages said one must be concerned, requires inspection only in the area adjacent to the intestines.
רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: הָאֱלֹהִים! מוֹרֵי בַּהּ רַב מִכַּפָּא וְעַד אַטְמָא.
Rav Nachman said to him: By God! Rav would teach regarding it that it must be inspected from the hollow to the thigh.
מַאי כַּפָּא? אִילֵּימָא כַּפָּא דִּידָא – הַיְינוּ כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים, אֶלָּא מִכַּפָּא דְּמוֹחָא עַד אַטְמָא.
What is the hollow? If we say it is the hollow of the foreleg, that is the same area as adjacent to the intestines, and Rav Nachman would have said nothing new. Rather, it means from the hollow of the brain, the skull, to the thigh.
כִּי סְלֵיק רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף, אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: דְּרוּסָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִים.
When Rav Chiyya bar Yosef went up to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish sitting and saying: A clawed animal about which the Sages said one must be concerned, requires inspection adjacent to the intestines.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָאֱלֹהִים! מוֹרֵי בַּהּ רַב מִכַּפָּא וְעַד אַטְמָא.
He said to them: By God! Rav would teach regarding it that it must be inspected from the hollow to the thigh.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַנּוּ רַב וּמַנּוּ רַב? וְלָא יָדַעְנָא לֵיהּ!
Reish Lakish said to him: Who is Rav, and who is Rav? I do not know him!
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְלָא נְהִירָא לֵיהּ לְאוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ אֶת רַבִּי רַבָּה, וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא? וְהָאֱלֹהִים! כׇּל אוֹתָן שָׁנִים שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ אוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד בִּישִׁיבָה, אֲנִי שִׁמַּשְׁתִּי בַּעֲמִידָה, וּמַאן גְּבַר? הוּא גְּבַר בְּכוֹלָּא.
Rabbi Yochanan said to Reish Lakish: And do you not remember that student who served Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the Great, and Rabbi Chiyya? By God! All those years that that student served in the yeshiva, I served standing, and who was the greater man? He was the greater man in everything, in Torah and piety.
מִיָּד פָּתַח רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וַאֲמַר: בְּרַם זָכוּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ לַטּוֹב, שֶׁאָמְרוּ שְׁמוּעָה מִפִּיו: שְׁמוּטָה וּשְׁחוּטָה – כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַשְּׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּיעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה.
Immediately Reish Lakish began to speak and said: Indeed, remembered is that man for good, as they said a halachic ruling from his mouth: If the windpipe was dislocated and then the animal was slaughtered, it is kosher, because it is impossible for a dislocated windpipe to be slaughtered, as it would slip away from the knife.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא וְיַקִּיף.
And Rabbi Yochanan says: This is not certain; rather, he should bring the windpipe, make a new cut, and compare the two cuts to see if they are similar.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא תָּפַס בְּסִימָנִים, אֲבָל תָּפַס בְּסִימָנִים וְשָׁחַט – אֶפְשָׁר לַשְּׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּיעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה.
Rav Nachman said: They only taught that it is impossible to slaughter a dislocated windpipe where he did not hold the simanim, but if he held the simanim and slaughtered, it is possible for a dislocated windpipe to be slaughtered.
זֶה הַכְּלָל, לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי שַׁב שְׁמַעְתָּתָא.
The Mishnah stated: This is the general rule. To include what? To include seven halachic rulings of tereifot taught by the Amora'im.
דְּבֵי יוֹסֵף רִישְׁבָּא מָחוּ בְּגִידָא נַשְׁיָא וְקָטְלִי, אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְכִי לְהוֹסִיף עַל הַטְּרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ? אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים!
The men of the house of Yosef the hunter would strike animals in the sciatic nerve and kill them. They came before Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to ask if it is a tereifa. He said to them: Is there any authority to add to the tereifot? You have only what the Sages enumerated!
רַב פָּפָּא בַּר אַבָּא רִישְׁבָּא, מָחוּ בְּכוּלְיָא וְקָטְלִי. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְכִי לְהוֹסִיף עַל הַטְּרֵפוֹת יֵשׁ? אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים!
The men of Rav Pappa bar Abba the hunter would strike animals in the kidney and kill them. They came before Rabbi Abba. He said to them: Is there any authority to add to the tereifot? You have only what the Sages enumerated!
וְהָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּקָא מֵתָה!
The Gemara asks: But we see that they die from these wounds! Why are they not tereifot?
גְּמִירִי דְּאִי בָּדְרִי לַהּ סַמָּא, חַיָּיא.
The Gemara answers: It is learned as a tradition that if they apply medicine to it, it would live, and a wound that can heal does not make a tereifa.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת בַּבְּהֵמָה, נִיקְּבָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת אוֹ שֶׁנִּסְדְּקָה.
MISHNAH: And these are kosher in an animal: If the windpipe was perforated, or if it was split lengthwise.
עַד כַּמָּה תֶּחְסַר? רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: עַד כְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי.
How much can be missing from the windpipe and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Up to the size of an Italian issar.
נִפְחֲתָה הַגּוּלְגּוֹלֶת וְלֹא נִיקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מוֹחַ, נִיקַּב הַלֵּב וְלֹא לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וְלֹא נִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁלָּהּ, נִיטְּלָה הַכָּבֵד וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּיר הֵימֶנָּה כְּזַיִת.
If the skull was fractured but the membrane of the brain was not perforated; if the heart was perforated but not to its chamber; if the spine was broken but its cord was not severed; if the liver was removed but an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher.
הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת, שֶׁנִּיקְּבוּ זֶה לְתוֹךְ זֶה.
If the omasum and the reticulum were perforated one into the other, it is kosher.
נִיטַּל הַטְּחוֹל, נִיטְּלוּ הַכְּלָיוֹת, נִיטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן, נִיטְּלָה הָאֵם שֶׁלָּהּ, וַחֲרוּתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם.
If the spleen was removed, or the kidneys were removed, or the lower jaw was removed, or its womb was removed, or if the lung shriveled by the hand of Heaven, it is kosher.
הַגְּלוּדָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין.
An animal whose hide was removed — Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Sages deem it unfit as a tereifa.
גְּמָ׳ אִתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת״ דַּוְקָא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת״ דַּוְקָא.
GEMARA: It was stated: Rabbi Yochanan said: The phrase "These are tereifot" in the first Mishnah is exclusive, meaning only these are tereifot but other cases are kosher. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The phrase "These are kosher" in our Mishnah is exclusive, meaning only these are kosher but other cases are tereifot.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? בִּדְרַב מַתְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: הַאי בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא דְּשָׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ – טְרֵפָה.
In what do they differ? They differ regarding the ruling of Rav Mattana, as Rav Mattana said: This head of the femur that slipped from its place is a tereifa.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת״ דַּוְקָא, תְּנָא טְרֵפוֹת, וּתְנָא ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״,
Rabbi Yochanan said: "These are tereifot" is exclusive. The Mishnah taught tereifot, and taught "This is the general rule" to include other cases.
וְחַזְיַיהּ לִדְרַב מַתְנָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּזֶה הַכְּלָל,
And the Tanna saw that the case of Rav Mattana, where the thigh bone is dislocated, comes under the category of "This is the general rule", which includes cases of missing limbs, and one might think it is a tereifa.
מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּדָמְיָא לִנְטוּלֵי.
What is the reason for this? Because it is similar to cases of removed organs, which render the animal a tereifa.
תְּנָא ״אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת״ – הָנֵי הוּא דִּטְרֵפָה, הָא דְּרַב מַתְנָא כְּשֵׁרָה.
Therefore, the Tanna taught "These are the tereifos" at the beginning of the Mishnah to emphasize: These listed cases alone are tereifos, but this case of Rav Mattana is kosher.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת דַּוְקָא,
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: "These are kosher" at the end of the Mishnah is meant specifically to exclude other cases.
תְּנָא טְרֵפוֹת, וּתְנָא ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״,
The Tanna taught the list of tereifos, and then taught "This is the general rule" to include other cases of tereifos.
וְחַזְיַיהּ לִדְרַב מַתְנָא דְּלָא אָתְיָא בְּ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״,
And the Tanna saw that the case of Rav Mattana does not come under "This is the general rule", and one might think it is kosher.
מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו לִנְקוּבֵי דָּמְיָא, וְלָא לִפְסוּקֵי דָּמְיָא, וְלִנְטוּלֵי נָמֵי לָא דָּמְיָא,
What is the reason for this? It is not similar to perforated organs, and not similar to severed organs, and also not similar to removed organs.
תְּנָא ״אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת״ – הָנֵי הוּא דִּכְשֵׁרוֹת, הָא דְּרַב מַתְנָא טְרֵפָה.
Therefore, the Tanna taught "These are kosher" to emphasize: These listed cases alone are kosher, but this case of Rav Mattana is a tereifa.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: הַאי בּוּקָא דְּאַטְמָא דְּשָׁף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ – טְרֵפָה,
Returning to the text itself: Rav Mattana said: This head of the femur that slipped from its place, meaning it was dislocated, renders the animal a tereifa.
וְרָבָא אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִי אִיפְּסִיק נִיבֵיהּ – טְרֵפָה.
And Rava said: It is kosher, but if its sinew that binds the bone in place is severed, it is a tereifa.
וְהִלְכְתָא: אִיפְּסִיק נָמֵי כְּשֵׁרָה, עַד דְּמִתְעַכְלָא אִתְעֲכוֹלֵי.
And the halacha is: Even if the sinew is severed, it is also kosher, until it is completely decayed.
עַד כַּמָּה תֶּחְסַר?
The Mishnah states: How much can the windpipe be missing and still be kosher? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Until the size of an Italian issar.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: אַתּוּן דְּלָא מִיתְחֲמֵי לְכוֹן שִׁיעוּרָא, שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ בְּדִינָרָא קוּרְדִּינָאָה,
Ze'eiri said: You in Babylonia, who do not see and are not familiar with this measure of an Italian issar, its measure is like a Kurdish dinar,
וְהָוֵי כִּפְשִׁיטָא זוּטַרְתִּי, וּמִשְׁתַּכְחָא בֵּינֵי פְּשִׁיטֵי דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא.
and it is like a small peruta coin, and it is found among the perutah coins of Pumbedita.
אָמַר רַבִּי חָנָא פָּתוּרָאָה: עִילָּא מִינַּאי הֲוָה קָאֵי בַּר נַפָּחָא,
Rabbi Chana the moneychanger said: Bar Nappacha, meaning Rabbi Yochanan, was standing over me,
וּבְעָא מִינַּי דִּינָרָא קוּרְדִּינָאָה לְשַׁעוֹרֵי בֵּיהּ טְרֵיפְתָא, וּבְעַי לְמֵיקָם מִקַּמֵּיהּ וְלָא שְׁבַקְנִי.
and he requested of me a Kurdish dinar to measure a tereifa with it, and I wanted to stand up before him out of respect, but he did not let me.
אָמַר לִי: שֵׁב בְּנִי שֵׁב, אֵין בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲמוֹד מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעֲסוּקִין בִּמְלַאכְתָּם.
He said to me: Sit, my son, sit; craftsmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars at the time when they are occupied with their work.
וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי אוּמָּנִיּוֹת עוֹמְדִים מִפְּנֵיהֶם, וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן,
And are they not permitted to stand? But didn't we learn in a Mishnah regarding those bringing Bikkurim: All the craftsmen stand before them and greet them,
וְאוֹמְרִין לָהֶם: אַחֵינוּ אַנְשֵׁי מְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי בּוֹאֲכֶם בְּשָׁלוֹם!
and say to them: "Our brothers, people of such-and-such place, may your coming be in peace!"
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִין, מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין עוֹמְדִין.
Rabbi Yochanan said: Before them, the bringers of Bikkurim, they stand, but before Torah scholars they do not stand while working.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה חֲבִיבָה מִצְוָה בִּשְׁעָתָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי מִפְּנֵיהֶם עוֹמְדִין, מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין עוֹמְדִין.
Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: Come and see how beloved is a mitzvah in its proper time, for before them, the Bikkurim bringers, they stand, but before Torah scholars they do not stand.
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נִמְצָא מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא.
The Gemara objects: From where do you prove this? Perhaps they stand so that you do not find yourself causing them to stumble in the future, meaning they might stop bringing Bikkurim if they are not shown respect.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּסֶלַע – כְּיָתֵר מִכְּסֶלַע, כְּאִיסָּר – כְּיָתֵר מִכְּאִיסָּר.
Rav Nachman said: A measure of "like a sela" is like more than a sela, and "like an issar" is like more than an issar.
אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רַב נַחְמָן: ״עַד״, וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל.
Consequently, Rav Nachman holds that the word "until" means until but not including the limit itself.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: חֶבֶל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּטָּה עַד חֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים – טָהוֹר.
Rava challenged Rav Nachman from a Mishnah: A rope that extends from a bed, until five handbreadths, is pure.
מַאי לָאו חֲמִשָּׁה כִּלְמַטָּה?
What, is it not that exactly five handbreadths is like below five, meaning it is pure, which proves "until" includes the limit?
לֹא, חֲמִשָּׁה כִּלְמַעְלָה.
The Gemara answers: No, exactly five is like above five, meaning it is susceptible to impurity.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מֵחֲמִשָּׁה וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה – טָמֵא.
Come and hear a proof from the next clause: From five and until ten handbreadths, the rope is impure.
מַאי לָאו עֲשָׂרָה כִּלְמַטָּה?
What, is it not that exactly ten is like below ten, meaning it is impure?
לָא, עֲשָׂרָה כִּלְמַעְלָה.
The Gemara answers: No, exactly ten is like above ten, meaning it is pure.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַדַּקִּין שֶׁבִּכְלִי חֶרֶס, הֵן וְקַרְקְרוֹתֵיהֶן וְדוֹפְנוֹתֵיהֶם, יוֹשְׁבִין שֶׁלֹּא מְסוּמָּכִין –
Come and hear another proof: The smallest of earthenware vessels, they and their bases and their walls, that can sit without being supported, are susceptible to impurity.
The daf establishes that while a puncture in the windpipe must be the size of an issar to render an animal a tereifa, clawing by a predator renders both the gullet and the windpipe a tereifa in any amount due to the burning venom. The Gemara discusses the scope of inspection required for a clawed animal, bringing Rav's view that it must be checked from the head to the thigh. We then transition to the new Mishnah listing kosher cases, which sparks a fundamental dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding whether the Mishnah's lists of 'these are tereifos' and 'these are kosher' are exclusive, specifically analyzing how this impacts Rav Mattana's ruling that a dislocated femur is a tereifa.
We see in our Gemara a beautiful and moving moment of kavod HaTorah. When Rav Chiyya bar Yosef mentioned the ruling of Rav, Reish Lakish initially questioned Rav's authority. But Rabbi Yochanan immediately corrected him, describing how he himself stood in awe of Rav's greatness, testifying that Rav was "the greater man in everything, in Torah and piety." Upon hearing this, Reish Lakish did not let pride get in the way; he immediately changed his tone, praised Rav, and quoted a halachah in his name with the utmost respect.
This teaches us a profound lesson in how we must view and speak of our gedolim, our rabbeim, and indeed, any talmid chacham. It is very easy in the course of learning or discussing Torah to treat opinions as mere intellectual arguments, forgetting the holiness of the souls who carried this Torah down to us. When we speak of the sages of the Gemara, the Rishonim, the Acharonim, or the rabbeim of our own generation, we must do so with a sense of awe and deep reverence.
This respect is not just a nice middah; it is the very foundation of our mesorah. When we show genuine kavod to those who teach and embody the Torah, we are showing kavod to the Torah itself and to the Aibershter who gave it.
Today, when you mention a Torah teaching, a vort, or a halachah, make sure to say the name of the rav or sage who said it with visible warmth and respect, consciously elevating their honor in your conversation.