Chullin 65: Grasshoppers, Locusts

The Sages discuss the four  kosher species of locusts specifically mentioned in the Torah: arbeh, solar, charged and chagav.  Each of these is said to be permitted “after its kind.” Following this a baraita teaches that: 

• the arbeh is the govai, a grasshopper who travels in a swarm
• the solam is the rashon, a locust with a large head
• the chargol is the nippul, a grasshopper with a tails or elongated birth canal 
• the chagav is the gadyan or nadyan, a locust that can fly or jump

The huge number of species of locusts and grasshoppers is overwhelming.  Our rabbis were experts in entomology, as well.

Chullin 64: Are the Eggs Kosher?

A new Mishna presents Chizikiya's question: Where in the Torah do we learn that the egg of a bird that is not kosher is prohibited?  The Gemara reminds us of bat ha'ya'ana (likely the ostrich or the Eurasian eagle-owl, a bird of prey), one of the birds in the list of non-kosher birds (Vayikra 11:16), where bat means daughter.  It implies that the egg of the ya'ana, the unclean bird, is not kosher either.  Chizikiya's question may not be necessary because of the principal ha'yotzeh min ha'tameh, tameh, anything produced by a non-kosher animal is also non-kosher.

Perhaps Chizikiya's question focuses on whether or not the egg of a kosher bird is permitted according to the Torah.  A living bird cannot be eaten until it has been slaughtered.  Does that forbid the eggs as well?  The passage about the bat ha'ya'ana tells us that only the eggs of non-kosher birds are forbidden.

Other rabbis disagree.  We know that eggs are permitted by shilu'ach ha'ken, where we may take the eggs of a bird if we first chase away their mothers (Devarim 22:6-7).  If we believe that the Torah allows all eggs like this (their status is that of the product of a living animal, however), we might believe that all eggs are permitted.  Chizikiya's question is thus valid.

Chullin 63: Tradition Over Indicators

Rabbi Yitzchak teaches us that we can use massoret, tradition, to identify whether or not a bird is kosher.  He also tells us that a hunter should be believed when he says that he learned a  tradition regarding the kashrut of a particular bird.  Rabbi Yochanan tells us that this is only true for those who can demonstrate that they are familiar with birds and their names.

Rashi elucidates: this tradition can be from a teacher or from a parent.  It can be from a hunter's memory of what his father ate.  In these cases, there is no need to double check the bird's state of kashrut by looking at the four indicators discussed in past dapim.  Massoret overrules the indicators.  The Shach rules that if a bird is found to have an indicator that it is not kosher - a bird of prey, for example, it is decided that the tradition was mistaken.

Steinsaltz notes that modern, commercial kashrut has caused us to lose traditions regarding the determination of kashrut. 

Chullin 62: Identifying Birds, Eight Types that are Uncertain

The rabbis teach that if we know one bird well in a species, we can tell if they are kosher with only one sign.  They go on to describe identifying features on a number of different birds, naming them as well.  The rabbis consider what the birds eat and how that might affect their status.  They tell us that there are eight types of birds that are uncertain.  Each of these has a gizzard that can be softened but still peeled only with the help of a knife.

One minor comment teaches us that an Ammonite man cannot enter the assembly but an Ammonite woman is permitted to do so.  This is said in the context of one category being permitted and another not being permitted.  Steinsaltz teaches that this commentary is related to the laws regarding conversion and marriage which is strict for Ammonite men but not for Ammonite women.

The detail regarding characteristics of different bird species suggests that the rabbis spend many, many hours learning about the behaviours and appearances of these creatures.

Chullin 61: The Eagle and the Kashrut of Birds

Discussing what makes an animal kosher, we have learned that birds are only known for kashrut by the listed names that are not kosher.  The Sages decide whether or not all other birds are not kosher: 

• when a bird catches its prey in its fingers and lifts it up
• when the bird has an extra claw
• when the bird has a crop, where the food first stops in this place
• when the bird has a korkevan to store food 

The rabbis question whether or not the Torah mentions the nesher, the eagle, is actually not kosher.  It should be unkosher as it meets none of these four requirements for kashrut.  The rabbis also look at the turtledove, which meets all of the characteristics of kashrut animals.  

The rabbis determine that the nesher may not be an eagle.  The rabbis suggest that the eagle does have an extra finger and thus it cannot be a nesher.  Instead perhaps the nether refers to another similar animal.  

Chullin 60: On the Sun & the Moon; the Superiority of G-d and the State of Being "Less Than"

Yesterday's daf (59a) offered a new Mishna.  It described how to determine the kashrut status of birds, fish, grasshoppers and other creatures.  Today's daf branches far from our last Mishna.

We begin with challenges given to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya from the Roman Emperor.  When he wishes to see the Lord, Rabbi Yehoshua offers to look at the sun, which is impossible.  That much more so to look at the master of the sun, he explains.  

The Roman Emperor then asks to make a meal for our G-d.  Rabbi Yehoshua suggests he set plates of food on a clear part of the beach - the wind whisks everything away. When the same thing is done in the winter, the meal is rained on and swallowed by the sea.  Rabbi Yehoshua explains that G-d's servants blew on the meal and rained on the meal and ate it themselves; G-d would never reach such an offering.  

Finally, the Emporer's daughter asks for our G-d's favour as He is a carpenter (Psalms) - to bring her a distaff used for weaving.  Rabbi Yehoshua prays for the distaff. The daughter contracts leprosy and is given a distaff to use while begging in the market.  Rabbi Yehoshua sees her and she asks for G-d to take the distaff back.  Rabbi Yehoshua explains that our G-d gives but does not take away.

The Gemara then considers differences between bulls and donkeys.  It also considers the prohibition against mixing species when referring to grass, which is already mixed.  

We are told a story about the sun and the moon where Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi  sees the moon in competition with the sun, offering that one should be less bright - but not the moon!  Rabbi Shimon explains that the moon continues to beg for G-d's mercy and to allow it to be brighter.  The moon understands that though people count our months with the moon, it is written in Genesis that we use the sun to count.  G-d eventually convinces the moon that other creatures who are 'the lesser' are still great.

The rabbis attempt to understand the differences between different nations that have challenged the people of Israel.  This is part of a larger conversation about difference - when the Torah teaches something that seems contradictory.  All seemingly contradictory statements are, of course, explained.

Chullin 58: Poisons and Becoming a Treifa

Today a new Mishna teaches us about a number of conditions that cause an animal to be poisoned.  If the animal were still alive, it may or may not be a tereifa.  The rabbis walk us through these details:

• if an animal eats oleander it is kosher
• if an animal is bitten by a snake or drinks poison, it is kosher but cannot be eaten due to danger
• Shmuel says that some poisons render an animal a tereifa
• an animal that eats the substance ferula assafoetida, which pierces the intestines, it is a tereifa
• poisonous plants have been proven to be medicinally beneficial when used in small doses

Why is a poisoned animal not considered a tereifa?  It is sure to die within a year.  The Ra'avad teaches that poison can be treated with medicine.  Other rabbis suggest that because there is no immediate terminal injury, it cannot be considered a tereifa.

Perhaps the rabbis are working to interpret these laws so that they suit the needs of their communities.  Calling an animal a tereifa if it is poisoned might be disadvantageous; calling an animal a tereifa at all might be financially impractical.

Chullin 57: Intestines Outside of the Body

If a bird's intestines are protruding from its body, they must not be jumbled to be kosher.  Devarim (32:6) teaches that our bodies are ordered in a particular way by G-d.  The Gemara applies this to animals as well as humans.  Tosafot explain that twisted intestines are bound to become injured and thus the animal should be called a tereifa.  

We are told the story of a Roman who saw a man fall from a roof causing his stomach to burst open and his intestines were visible.  The Roman brought the man's son and pretended that he slaughtered the son.  The father fainted, went limp, and his intestines were drawn in.  He was then stitched up.

Rashi teaches that the the Roman must have known about our teaching and was hesitant to touch the man's intestines to help him, afraid he would cause his death.  The trick was to cause the father to be horrified and draw in his own intestines.  This would ensure that the Roman did not have to touch the man's intestines.

Chullin 56: Birds and Becoming Treifot

A very brief note about today's daf:

Birds that would normally be considered kosher might become treifot if damaged.  But in which ways? The rabbis note that birds become treifot in ways similar to other animals as already described.  Particular to birds are their crops, which sit beside the esophagus and store/soften seeds before digestion, and gizzards.  If the gizzard is pierced, the bird might become a treifa.  But if the crop is pierced, the bird is kosher.  Even if the crop is removed completely, the bird is kosher, we are taught.

Chullin 55: Diseased Kidneys

What is done when the kidneys are damaged?  They filter the blood and send waste to the bladder.  They regulate the acid-based balance and they maintain the salt and especially the water balance. They produce hormones, as well.  Even if the kidneys are removed, a ruminant animal can be kosher for sacrifice because the stomach does some of this work and thus the animal will not die immediately.  

Rachish bar Pappa teaches us that if one kidney is diseased, the animal is a tereifa.  The Gemara teaches that in HaAretz this was limited to cases where the disease spread to the white area beneath the animal's loins.  Rashi describes this as pus.  Others describe the kidneys as beginning to dissolve - they fall apart when they are held up.  Or perhaps the kidneys become white, which would indicate serious disease.

Chullin 53: Clawing of a Sacrifice by Another Animal

Today's daf discusses whether or not an animal is tereifa if it has been clawed by another animal.   It begins with descriptions of a cat's claws in comparison with the claws of a weasel.  The daf goes on to describe the depth of the injury, whether or not the claw was left behind, and how to inspect for damage.  The rabbis agree that certain injuries create immediate rulings of tereifa whether others must be examined - the internal organs and/or the simanim - to determine a state of tereifa.  

Chullin 51: Falling vs. Jumping

We assume that there is no internal injury if an animal falls or trips within 24 hours of a sacrifice.  Today the rabbis discuss what is done if an animal fell to the ground without a witness.  Rava's goat was said to fall through a sky-light to the peeled barley beneath it.   We do not assume that it fell - it had no shattered limbs and nothing to grab hold of on the way down.  

We take from this story that in cases whether the animal chose to jump, we rule against the Mishna.  There is no need to assess the animal further.  However, we have to watch for other signs of injury that might be related to the fall. 

Chullin 50: Comparing Perforations

When one finds a perforation in an animal, what are the protocols?  The rabbis describe a number of tests used to determine where the hole came from and whether it causes the animal to be a tereifa.  If the hole is on an animal's lung, a similar hole can be created to compare the two.  If the second hole looks like the first, then the first is determined to have been caused after the slaughter, and the animal is permitted.

Rava suggests that this comparison can be made on one but not both lungs.  The Gemara disagrees.  The rabbis decide that small animals can be compared and large animals can be compared but that small and large animals cannot be compared to each other.  Rashi asserts that comparisons between two different animals are never reliable.  He suggests that we are only to compare the small and larger lobes of the lungs.

The Rema (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'a 36:5) teaches that we cannot be experts in this method any longer.  There is no tradition that we can rely upon to test whether or not an animal is permitted.

Chullin 49: Internal Injuries, Exposure

Today's daf considers damage done to internal organs and the determination of fitness for consumption. If a needle perforates any part of the animal, it is considered to be kosher.  The injury caused by a needle is almost superficial.  If there is a pit in an animal - an olive pit or another pit - perhaps in the gall bladder ducts, we are permitted to assume that the pit would have passed and would not cause an injury that would render the animal a tereifa.

The rabbis consider whether or not the timing makes a difference - if the animal is rendered imperfect after its slaughter, does it become a tereifa at that point?  Different examples are provided.  Further, fat could change the ruling.  The rabbis assert that kosher animals have fat that will seal a protrusion, keeping the animal kosher.  Non-kosher animals have fat without that property.  Rav Sheshet and others argue that all fat can seal an internal injury.

The rabbis also discuss exposure.  While only wine, water and milk are liable to exposure - to become forbidden due to the possible venom of a snake in an unprotected container - honey could be a problem as well.  The notion of damaging a food item after its production is of great importance both for reasons of kashrut and safety.

Chullin 48: Cysts in Lungs, Opinions on What is Permitted

Brief notes about today's daf:

• are lungs with cysts permitted?
• if cysts are filled with pus are the lungs permitted?
• if cysts are filled with clear fluid are the lungs permitted?
• who do we ask when we are unsure?
• if a rabbi generally permits and we agree with that perspective are we permitted to ask that rabbi?

It is interesting that the rabbis consider the ethics involved in asking for help from one who is known to be more stringent or more lenient.  We are discouraged from doing this today; we are meant to go to one rabbi for every question.  That rabbi might be our family's rabbi.  If we do not have a rabbi, we choose one.

Chullin 47: Colour Indicates Blood Issues

The rabbis continue to discuss the determination of lung health.  Sometimes lungs have abrasions, sometimes cysts, sometimes they are liquefied, and sometimes they are different colours.  The rabbis hold different opinions about when a lung permits the animal to be slaughtered.

Today's discussion includes a relatively famous set of stories about Rabbi Natan, also known as Natan the Babylonian.  It is related that two different women approached him with their infants.  In both cases two previous infants had died following circumcision.  Based on the colours of the present babies, Rabbi Natan recommends that the children wait until their blood has settled before circumcision.  Both survive and are named after him.  Steinsaltz notes that each colour of skin has been scientifically connected to medical conditions of the blood.

Another note in today's daf is that women's menstrual blood is sometimes black after it has decayed.  The blood is normally red.  This suggests that other blood found with a black colour should be considered to be decayed blood.

Chullin 46: Smooth Lungs, Glatt Kosher

Today's daf teaches us about blemishes found in the lungs of an animal to be sacrificed.  If the lobes of the two lungs are stuck together by an adhesion, fibrous tissue, the lungs cannot be assessed to render the animal permissible (or not).  This is only the case when the lobes are not naturally beside each other, which is unusual. 

Steinsaltz teaches us that animal lungs contain four or five lobes: two at the bottom, three on the left side and two on the right side.  Commonly mucus will leak from one lobe to another and thicken another lobe.  

Rashi says that these adhesions are proof of a hole in the animal's lung that was covered by hardened mucus.  The hold shows that the animal is a tereifa. It is terminally ill and not kosher.  Tosafot argue that this is an ordinary occurrence and that the animal did not necessarily have a hole in its lung.  Once the adhesion breaks off, however, it will create a hole and thus the animal is a tereifa.  The rabbis discuss ways of finding holes in the lung, including filling them with water or air.

Glatt, smooth, describes a lung that has no adhesions and thus there is no guessing as to whether or not there is a blemish in the lung (stringently, all of these cases are called tereifot).  We still use the term glut kosher to describe stringent adherence to the laws regarding these issues.

Chullin 44: Choose One Rabbi

We begin today's daf with a comment about one who follows both Beit Shammai, generally more stringent, and Beit Hillel, generally more lenient.  "The fool walks in darkness", it says in Ecclesiastes (2:14).  Instead we should choose one school and follow its leniencies and stringencies.  This continues today - we are not supposed to turn to different rabbis when the opinion of our rabbi is too stringent or too lenient compared with what we want to hear.  The bulk of today's daf discusses the positioning of different parts of esophageal anatomy to determine when a slaughter is permitted.

Chullin 43: Examining an Esophageal Injury After Slaughter

If an animal's esophagus is injured but a membrane grew over the injury, it is considered to be a tereifa because the injury was severe.  The injury can be checked only from looking at the inside of the neck, and thus an external examination is not valid in this type of case.  

We are told the story of a bird which may have been damaged in this way.  The esophagus was examined from the outside by Rabba.  Abaye asked him if he did not say that the gullet must be examined from the inside.  Rabbi the turned it inside out and examined it.  Finding two drops of blood, he declared it a terrify.  The Gemara says that Rabba did not make an error; he was testing Abaye.

Chullin 42: Life Span of a Tereifa

We begin daf 42 - also the beginning of Perek III- with Steinsaltz's images of the anatomy of cows and chickens.  An auspicious start to our learning.  A new Mishna teaches us that there are a number of conditions which will lead to the death of an animal.  The conclusion is a principal: any animal with a similar affliction cannot continue to live and thus it is classified as a tereifa, an animal that will die within the year due to illness or injury and is not permitted as a sacrifice.

Does the animal have to die within twelve months or within 30 days?  Or is this an animal that cannot conceive or give birth because of the illness/injury?  If a tereifa can be treated with drugs, will it be permitted in the future?  The rabbis consider the notion of different categories of tereifot.

The rabbis also discuss the wording in the Mishna, where it is stated that an animal "with a similar defect could not continue to live, it is a tereifa".  Is this different from an animal that is destined to die is a terrify?  Are we discussing an animal already slaughtered that is found to have an internal injury?  Is the Mishna teaching us that if the animal survives beyond 12 months even when other animals wouldn't, it is a tereifa?

Chullin 41: Where Blood May Flow, the Appearance of Appropriateness

We are introduced to a new Mishna that teaches more about sacrifice and blood and what is permitted.  It teaches that the blood of a slaughter cannot flow into the sea, the rivers, or a vessel, because that has the appearance of idolatry.  If the blood flows into a round excavation containing water, it is permitted.  Similarly one may slaughter an animal while on a ship into a vessel because it is obvious that one is attempting to protect the ship.  One is not permitted to have animal's blood flow into a small hole in the ground, but it is permitted to have the blood flow into a small hole within one's home.  In the marketplace this is not permitted, again because it has the appearance of idolatry.

The rabbis go on to discuss the differences between sacrifice inside and outside of the Temple.  The Gemara demonstrates the many different opinions that prevail regarding what is permitted and what is not permitted. 

Mayin ha'ayin, the perception of  what an action might engender in others, is a prominent concept.  In today's society, this reminds me of the legal concept "the appearance of justice".  One reason for this rule is that others might believe that something is permitted when in fact it is not.  In addition, this is a justification for stringency in rulings.

Chullin 40: Idolatry, Shechita and What is Permitted/Kosher

We begin with a new Mishna:  when one slaughters an animal for purposes of idol worship: for the sake of the mountains or the hills or the seas or the rivers or the wilderness, the slaughter is not valid.  If there were two people holding a knife together and slaughtering an animal - one of them for the sake of those purposes above, and one for the sake of a legitimate matter, their slaughter is not valid.  

The rabbis discuss whether or not we can forbid another's property.  What if a neighbour's animal was near an idol when it was slaughtered?  What if the slaughter was of one siman and not both simanim?  Can the rabbis rule on the property of Gentiles?  The rabbis discuss other instances where the entirety of a sacrifice is not permitted and what that suggests regarding a less complete act of shechita.

The rabbis also disagree about the kashrut of an animal whose shechita is done while the owner is thinking of idolatry. 

Chullin 39: Intention of Jews and Non-Jews in Sacrifice in Cesearea

Yesterday's daf included a new Mishna stating the tension between those who believe that slaughtering for a Gentile is permitted and those who do not because it is the slaughterer who must have the proper intention.   

Today's daf introduces a baraita which teaches that if someone slaughters with the intention of sprinkling the blood for idolatry/sacrificing its fats to an idol, that sacrifice is forbidden.   That sacrifice would be like eating "sacrifices of the dead".  

Slaughtering without particular plans and then including idolatrous behavior is described as a case in Caesarea and the Sages did not rule.  Rav Chisda says that they did not wish to side against Sages who assume that non-Jews might not sacrifice idolatrously.  They also did not wish to insult Rabbi Eliezer who was certain that we should assume idolatrous practice would follow non-Jewish sacrifice.

Steinsaltz teaches us about some of the history of Cesearea, which was often populated by a majority of Pagans.  Stories about how to interpret Jewish law regarding Jews and Gentiles were common in this city.

Chullin 37: When is a Tereifa Not a Tereifa?

Today we learn a new Mishna about what we are permitted to sacrifice.  It teaches that when one slaughters an animal that might die in the near future,

• Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that the slaughter is valid only if the animal convulses with all of its legs following the slaughter
• Rabbi Eliezer says that it is valid if blood spurts from the neck
• Rabbi Shimon agrees with Rabbi Eliezer: it is valid if it is slaughtered in the evening and the next day the walls show evidence of blood spurting
• The rabbis says that it is valid only if its legs convulse or if it wags its tail

These indicators apply to animals both small and large (ex. a sheep and a cow) who are in danger of imminent death.  They do not include small animals whose forelegs move briefly which is "part of the natural course of the removal of the animal's soul from its body and not a convulsion which demonstrates life".  If the animal is healthy and not facing imminent death,  the slaughter is valid even if none of these indicators is present.

The Gemara discusses the positions of these different rabbis.  They speak to how one might determine the status of an animal ready for sacrifice.  When is an animal a tereifa and when is it simply ill and permitted for slaughter (within the above limitations)?  When is such animal actually piggul?  When is the animal absolutely forbidden and when might it be permitted?

After so much attention has been paid to the disqualification of a tereifa as sacrifice, it is somewhat surprising to learn that a dying animal might not be considered a tereifa.  Perhaps the rabbis were aware of the limitations of the people, and they hoped to allow people to benefit from the mitzvah of sacrifice. Or perhaps there is another reason for this leniency.

Chullin 36: Can Blood be Like Water?

We have learned that when something or someone who is tamei, ritually impure, contacts food that has been made wet, that food becomes defiled.  That state of being wet might be understood as necessary to prepare the food for defilement, and that would be done by one of the seven liquids.

A baraita teaches that not all blood can serve this purpose of 'preparer'.  In Bamidbar (23:24) the Jews are compared to a lion that drinks its victims' blood.  It is concluded that blood from a dead creature will serve this purpose. If the blood comes from an animal still alive, then it is flowing blood.

Rashi teaches that blood that flows from an animal at the moment of death is the blood that is permitted.  Tosafot argues that the blood would still be considered to be blood from a  living animal and that it is only blood that comes from an animal at a later point that would be considered to be dam challis.  Rashi and Tosafot agree that blood collected from an animal while it is still alive (from an injury or bloodletting) does not prepare food for potential ritual defilement.

Should any blood from ritual slaughter be considered like water for this law?  There are laws that teaches us that blood might be poured unto the earth as water (Devarim (12:16).  This is rejected by the Gemara - that proof should be used for other purposes. 

Chullin 35: Rabbi Shimon and the Strength of Chibbat Kodashim to Create Vulnerability

Today's daf moves past yesterday's daf, which discusses the law that limits ritual defilement of food to items which has become wet by wine, blood, oil, milk, dew, honey or water (Vayikra 11:38).  Rabbi Shimon argues that those liquids "prepare" food for potential defilement.  Thus blood that flows from laughter will prep the animal for possible defilement; went there is no blood, meat would remain undefiled if touched by unwashed hands.  

The Ran says that Rabbi Shimon's position works on a rabbinic level only.  Other commentaries defend Rabbi Shimon's belief that the act of shechita is strong enough to prevent defilement if the sacrifice is touched with unwashed hands.  Chibbat kodashim, the love of consecrated objects, is quoted by Tosafot Rabbeinu Peretz as being the reason behind Rabbi Shimon's position.  

It is explained that when something is set aside as consecrated to the Temple, that extra status makes the object more susceptible to ritual defilement.  Thus when an animal that cannot be eaten is slaughtered and becomes kosher food, it is chibbat shechita coming from the change of status that makes it susceptible to ritual defilement.