Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 50

1) A RECTUM THAT WAS REMOVED

QUESTION: Ze'iri states that an animal that has a hole in the wall of its rectum (Chalcholes) is Kosher, because the bones in the thigh area of the animal tightly enclose and support the rectum, preventing the contents of the rectum from leaking into the abdominal cavity. Rebbi Ila'i in the name of Rebbi Yochanan says that at the place where the rectum is tightly enclosed by the thighs, even if a majority of the rectum is removed the animal is Kosher. This means that a part of the circumference of the rectal wall has been removed (such as the top of the wall, or the bottom), as RASHI (DH b'Rubo) explains (Rebbi Yochanan does not mean that an entire section of the rectum has been removed).

(This is the Girsa according to our text of Rashi, which reads "b'Rubo"; this reading is supported by the Ma'adanei Yom Tov (#9) to the Rosh 3:32. The Ran and Chochmas Shlomo, however, have a different text in Rashi, which reads "Ad Rubo," according to which a majority of the rectum must *remain* in order for the animal to be Kosher.) However, at any other place, even the smallest hole in the rectum renders the animal a Tereifah.

Rava asserts that Rav Nachman disagrees and maintains that where the rectum is tightly enclosed by the thighs, even if almost all of the rectum in that area was removed, the animal is Kosher, as long as enough of the rectum remains such that it can be grasped by the hand ("Kedei Tefisah"). (RASHI here (50b, DH Bateda) says that this is one fingerbreadth. The RASHBA and others say that this refers to four fingerbreadths. See SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 46:5) who rules that this refers to four fingerbreadths for the rectum of a large bull.) The RASHBA asks why Ze'iri says that an animal that has a hole in the wall of the rectum is Kosher, when the animal is Kosher even when it is missing most of the rectum? (The Rashba points out that there is no indication in the Gemara that Ze'iri argues with Rav Nachman.) Even though the Gemara in Sukah (36a) implies that an opening that is as large as an "Isar" coin is referred to as a "Nekev" (hole), nevertheless we never find that the removal of an entire section of an organ is described as a "hole"! The Rashba leaves this question unanswered.

ANSWERS:

(a) The CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER points out that RABEINU YONAH (cited by the ROSH 3:32) has a different understanding of Rav Nachman's ruling, according to which the question of the Rashba is answered. Rabeinu Yonah explains that Rav Nachman is not arguing with Rebbi Yochanan, but rather he is adding an additional leniency to Rebbi Yochanan's ruling. Rebbi Yochanan explains that, according to Ze'iri, at the place where the rectum is tightly enclosed by the thighs, even if the majority the circumference of the rectum in that area is missing, the animal remains Kosher.

Rav Nachman is adding that this applies only to part of the length of the rectum between the thighs. However, there is another part of the length of the rectum between the thighs in which even if the entire length of the rectum is removed, the animal is Kosher. Rav Nachman agrees with Rebbi Yochanan that at least a minority of the circumference of the first part of the rectum (as it enters the area between the thighs) must remain in order for the animal to be Kosher. It is regarding that part of the rectum that Ze'iri says that the animal is Kosher when there is a hole in the wall of the rectum. Since Ze'iri is referring to a section of the rectum that is not entirely removed, but is missing only a part, he refers to it as a "hole."

This is also the explanation of the RE'AH (as cited by the TORAS HA'BAYIS and the SHITAH MEKUBETZES; as he is cited in the Shitah Mekubetzes, the Re'ah seems to bring proof for this explanation from the wording of Ze'iri). The Re'ah explains that there are three different areas with regard to a blemish in the rectum. The first area is any part of the rectum that is not in the tightly enclosed area between the thighs. In this part, even the smallest hole renders the animal a Tereifah. The second area is the part of the rectum that is tightly enclosed between the thighs. Here, even if this entire part of the rectum has been removed, the animal is Kosher. The third area is the part of the rectum that enters the tightly enclosed area between the thighs, where a "Kedei Tefisah" must remain, but it suffices for a minority of a "Kedei Tefisah" to remain for the animal to be Kosher. (D. Bloom)

(b) According to the Rashba who disagrees with Rabeinu Yonah's explanation of the Gemara, perhaps Ze'iri says that an animal with a "punctured" rectum (and not a "missing" rectum) is Kosher because he wants to allude to the ruling of the Gemara's conclusion (50b). The Gemara concludes that when the rectum is entirely missing, the animal indeed is a Tereifah unless a "Kedei Tefisah" remains. If Ze'iri would have said that a "missing" rectum does not render the animal a Tereifah because the thighs support it, then we might have thought that even a "Kedei Tefisah" does not have to remain. Therefore, he says that a "punctured" rectum does not make the animal a Tereifah, in order to make it clear that there is some part of the rectum that remains. (M. Kornfeld)

50b

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa that states that when a needle is found in the wall of the reticulum (Beis ha'Kosos), and there is a spot of blood on the needle, we must assume that the needle made a hole there before Shechitah, and the animal is a Tereifah.

This seems to contradict the Gemara later (113a). The Gemara there quotes Rav Mesharsheya who says that we do not assume that there is blood in the digestive tract of an animal. RASHI (DH Ein) explain that this means that we do not assume that the parts of the digestive tract of an animal contain blood such that they should become prohibited to eat if they were not salted to remove the blood. (The BI'UR HA'GRA (YD 75:3) cites the PRI CHADASH who says that we may infer from the words of Rashi that even though, b'Di'eved, we say that there is no blood in those parts, l'Chatchilah they require salting just like any other part of the animal.)

The Gemara there says that Rav Mesharsheya's statement refers to the "Karkasha," the "Me'aya", and the "Hadra d'Kanta." Rashi there explains that the "Karkasha" is the Chalcholes, or rectum, the "Me'aya" refers to the Keivah (abomasum), Keres (rumen), and Dakin (small intestines), and the "Hadra d'Kanta" is the colon.

If the Gemara there says that we assume that there is no blood in the various parts of the digestive tract, then why does the Gemara here say that a needle in the Beis ha'Kosos can draw blood?

ANSWERS:

(a) RABEINU TAM (cited by the Ran, DH v'Dikdek) maintains that, indeed, because of this question, we must conclude that the Keres (rumen) is not included in Rav Mesharsheya's assertion that there is no blood in the digestive tract. (Rabeinu Tam considers the Keres, rumen, and the Beis ha'Kosos, reticulum, to have the same Halachah, since they are adjacent to each other (the Keres is the animal's first stomach, and the Beis ha'Kosos is its second stomach), and therefore we assume that there is blood in Beis ha'Kosos as well.)

(b) The RAN disagrees with Rabeinu Tam and explains that when Rav Mesharsheya states that we assume that there is no blood in the digestive tract, this does not mean that there is no blood whatsoever. Rather, there is a small amount of blood in these areas, but there is not enough blood to require salting these areas. When these parts of the animal are cooked, the small amount of blood does not leave the meat and is considered to be "Dam ha'Evarim" which has not left the flesh and is permitted (see TOSFOS to 14a, DH v'Nasbin).

The dispute between Rabeinu Tam and the Ran is reflected in a dispute between the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 75:1) and the REMA. The Shulchan Aruch writes that we assume that there is no blood in the Keres. The Rema writes that some disagree with regard to the Keres and maintain that it does contain blood, and it is even forbidden to eat if it is not salted. In addition, the Beis ha'Kosos is considered like ordinary meat and is forbidden without salting, even b'Di'eved.

The SHACH (75:6) cites the YAM SHEL SHLOMO and BACH who agree with the Rema and rule that the Keres is forbidden without salting. The BI'UR HA'GRA (75:4) points out that the basis for this ruling is the Gemara here that says that it is possible to find a spot of blood on a needle in the Beis ha'Kosos. (D. Bloom)