Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 56

1) WHEN DO WE SUSPECT THAT A CHICKEN HAD A FATAL FALL INTO A FIRE?

QUESTIONS: The Mishnah states that if a bird fell into a fire and, when it was slaughtered, its intestines were found to have shriveled and changed colors as a result of the fire, the bird is a Tereifah.

1. What constitutes "falling into a fire"? Can a bird be in a fire for a short period of time without any concern that the fire renders it a Tereifah?

2. If a bird fell into a fire and its intestines were not checked after it was slaughtered, may the bird be eaten?

ANSWERS:

1. There are a number of opinions regarding what constitutes "falling into a fire."

(a) The TAZ (YD 57:10) says that this Halachah does not apply to a bird that enters a fire and exits immediately. This also seems to be the opinion of the SHACH (YD 57:14). The Taz comments that only if the bird stays in the fire long enough for it to be "heated up" is it deemed to have the status of a Tereifah until proven otherwise.

The TUV TA'AM V'DA'AS (Tinyana #185) rules like the Taz. He says that the amount of time that it takes for the bird to be "heated up" is ten minutes. The DARCHEI TESHUVAH (YD 52:1) and others are perplexed by the statement of the Tuv Ta'am v'Da'as. A bird that stays in a fire for ten minutes obviously will become well roasted and will not survive, and certainly will be a Tereifah! (Perhaps the Tuv Ta'am v'Da'as is referring to seconds, not minutes.)

(b) The SHE'EILAS YA'AVETZ (2:170) argues that even if a bird comes out of a fire and has no appearance of having been scathed, even on its feathers, we still apply this Halachah and assume that it has become a Tereifah until proven otherwise. We suspect that though the outside of the bird does not appear to have changed, the insides may have been damaged by the heat of the fire.

(c) The Darchei Teshuvah quotes the MEI DA'AS who says that one should be stringent only when the bird did not leave the fire immediately *and* its feathers are singed. If either of these two conditions is not met, the bird is not assumed to be a Tereifah.

2. There seem to be two approaches in the Rishonim to whether or not a bird that fell into a fire, and was not examined properly after Shechitah, may be eaten.

(a) The RAN says that if we see a bird fall into a fire, it indeed must be examined to ascertain that it did not become a Tereifah. If it was not examined and it is not longer possible to examine it (the intestines have been discarded), then one is not allowed to eat the meat of such a bird. He proves this from the Gemara later (57a) that says that a bird's lung does not became injured, rendering the bird a Tereifah, when the bird falls from a high place or when it falls into a fire, because its ribs protect the lung. The Gemara there must be referring to a case in which we are unsure whether or not the bird's lung was affected by the fire and the lung is no longer available for examination. If the lung is available, then we should be required to examine it! It must be that the lung is not available, and we may rely on the fact that the ribs protect it. The Ran deduces that the Gemara there says this only with regard to the lungs, but not with regard to the rest of the bird. Therefore, if the intestines of a bird that fell into a fire have been discarded, then the animal must be assumed to be a Tereifah and is prohibited.

(b) The BEIS YOSEF (end of YD 52) says that the ROSH (3:49) does not agree with the Ran's proof. The Rosh explains that the aforementioned Gemara is referring to a case in which we see that the lung's appearance has changed (as a result of the fall or the fire), and, nevertheless, it does not render the bird a Tereifah. Accordingly, there is no proof to the Ran's statement that the bird is considered a Tereifah if it is not checked.

However, the Beis Yosef concludes that one should be stringent like the opinion of the Ran, and this is the way he rules in the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 52:5). (Y. Montrose)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that if a bird fell into a fire and, when it was slaughtered, its intestines were found to have changed colors as a result of the fire, the bird is a Tereifah. RASHI (DH v'Elu Tereifos b'Of) quotes the Gemara later in which Levi states that all of the Tereifos that apply to an animal also apply to a bird (with one additional Tereifah that applies to a bird but not to an animal, that of "Nishbar ha'Etzem"). This implies that all of the Tereifos that apply to a bird also apply to an animal (with the exception of "Nishar ha'Etzem"). As Rashi explains here, the Tereifos listed in the Mishnah as Tereifos of birds apply also to animals as well, and each one was repeated in the Mishnah with regard to birds for a specific reason, as Rashi proceeds to enumerate. However, Rashi does not discuss the Tereifah of a bird that falls into a fire and its intestines are found to have changed colors. Would such a change of color render an animal a Tereifah as well?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shechitah 10:11) explains that although the Gemara later lists only one difference between the Tereifos of a bird and the Tereifos of an animal, there are actually two differences. Intestines that change colors due to fire is the second difference, and this Tereifah does not apply to animals. This is why the Mishnah lists a change of color due to fire as a Tereifah only with regard to birds.

The ROSH agrees with the Rambam, and he adds that the thicker skin and ribcages of animals protect their inner organs from being burned by fire. Any color changes that are found must be attributed to natural causes and do not render an animal a Tereifah (see below, Insight #4).

(b) The RA'AVAD (in Hasagos to the Rambam, loc. cit.) and the RASHBA, however, explain that an animal also becomes a Tereifah when its inner organs change color due to fire, as can be inferred from Levi's statement in the Gemara. The Mishnah lists this Tereifah only with regard to birds because it is far less common for an animal's inner organs to be affected by fire.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 52:7) quotes the more lenient opinion of the Rambam, who permits an animal whose organs changed color due to fire. The REMA, however, prohibits such an animal, following the opinion of the Rashba.

QUESTION: The Gemara relates that Resh Lakish maintains that one should check for a punctured cranial membrane with one's hand but not with a nail, lest he accidentally puncture the membrane with the nail and render the bird a Tereifah. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that one may check the membrane even with a nail. The Gemara compares this argument to the argument between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemyah in a Beraisa. One Tana would check for punctures *only* with his hand, and the other would *only* with a needle.

Why does the Gemara say that the Machlokes between Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan is the same as the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon? Rebbi Yochanan does not seem to be following the opinion of either Tana, since he says that one may check *even* with a nail, and he agrees that one may check with one's hand!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH v'Rebbi Yochanan) explains that Rebbi Yochanan indeed is a third opinion. The Gemara does not mean to compare his opinion to the opinion mentioned in the Beraisa *entirely*, but rather it means to show that there is a Tana that agrees that a nail may be used. (See Yoma 43b, "Rebbi Yochanan... l'Tana d'Lo Tzayis," and see TOSFOS to Kesuvos 8a, DH Rav Tana.)

(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH (in his second explanation) writes that Rebbi Yochanan is not arguing with both Tana'im in the Beraisa. Rather, both Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan follow the opinion of the Tana that maintains that one should check with his hand and *not* with a needle. Rebbi Yochanan, however, maintains that this Tana prohibits only a *needle*, but not a *nail*. A nail is less likely to puncture the membrane than a needle, and therefore it may be used to examine the membrane.

56b

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses changes of color of a bird's internal organs that occur due to the effects of fire. What is the Halachah in a case in which a change of color is found that did not occur as a result of the bird falling into a fire?

(a) The ROSH (3:49) explains that if we have no proof that the bird fell into a fire before its organs changed colors, then the animal is not a Tereifah. He explains that this is why the Gemara mentions changes of color in the "gizzard, heart, and liver," and not in the lungs. Since the lung is not affected by fire (57a), no change in the color of the lung renders the bird a Tereifah (see TOSFOS DH b'Elu).

(b) The RASHBA argues and maintains that color changes make an animal a Tereifah even if they are not due to fire. The Gemara does not mention color changes of the lung since it is discussing organs that render the animal a Tereifah specifically by turning a *greenish* color. Since this color is the lung's natural color, a greenish lung and will not render the animal a Tereifah (see 47b).

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 52:6) accepts the stringent opinion of the Rashba, while the REMA rules like the Rosh.

QUESTION: Rebbi Elazar ha'Kafar teaches that when the Mishnah says that organs that turned a greenish color render the animal a Tereifah, it is referring to the gizzard, heart, and liver, which are normally red. The Gemara cites a Beraisa as support for this.

RASHI (56a, DH Im Horiku), when explaining the Mishnah, writes that a greenish color renders the animal a Tereifah only when it is found in the "gizzard and heart." Why does Rashi not mention the liver?

ANSWER: The Gemara earlier says that a change in the color of the liver renders an animal a Tereifah only when the change of color is on the part of the liver that hangs opposite the intestines. Such a change reveals that the *intestines* must also have been affected by fire, rendering the animal a Tereifah.

This implies that the effects of fire on the liver alone does not render an animal a Tereifah (just as a puncture in the liver does not render the animal a Tereifah, while a puncture in the intestines does, as the Mishnah (42a) states; see ROSH 3:49 and RASHBA). When the Gemara mentions the liver among the organs that render the animal a Tereifah when they change color, it is referring to a color change opposite the intestines, which is basically the same as a color change in the intestines themselves. Since the color change of the liver itself is not the cause for the animal becoming a Tereifah, Rashi omits the liver in his explanation of the Mishnah. (M. Kornfeld)

OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that a punctured crop ("Zefek") does not render the bird a Tereifah. Rebbi adds that even if the entire crop was removed, the bird is not a Tereifah.

The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that relates that when Rebbi Sima'i and Rebbi Tzadok spent a Shabbos in Ono, "they ruled with regard to the Tarpachas (womb) as Rebbi ruled with regard to the Zefek." The Gemara asks whether this means that "they ruled with regard to the Tarpachas to prohibit it as Rebbi ruled with regard to the Zefek to permit it," or whether it means that "they ruled with regard to the Tarpachas to permit it as Rebbi rules with regard to the Zefek," but they do not agree with Rebbi's ruling with regard to the Zefek itself. The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.

What exactly is the Gemara's question? What are the two possible ways of understanding the ruling of Rebbi Sima'i and Rebbi Tzadok?

(a) According to RASHI, the Gemara is asking that there are two possible explanations for the Beraisa's statement. The Beraisa is saying either that Rebbi Sima'i and Rebbi Tzadok ruled that a bird missing its Tarpachas is prohibited, while a bird missing its Zefek is permitted (like Rebbi), or that they ruled that a bird missing its Tarpachas is permitted, as Rebbi rules with regard to a bird missing its Zefek, but they maintain that a bird missing its Zefek is a Tereifah (unlike Rebbi).

(b) TOSFOS, however, questions this explanation. The Gemara should consider a third possibility -- perhaps the Beraisa is saying that Rebbi Sima'i and Rebbi Tzadok permitted the bird in *both* situations. Tosfos therefore proposes that the Girsa of our text is incorrect, and the question of the Gemara should read that they permitted either *both* the case of the Tarpachas and the case of the Zefek, or that they permitted only the case of the Tarpachas but not the case of the Zefek. It is clear that they did not *prohibit* the bird with the missing Tarpachas, because the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 33a) clearly permits such a bird.

To answer the question of Tosfos on Rashi's explanation, we may suggest as follows. In what way is the case of a missing Tarpachas comparable to a case of a missing Zefek, such that the Beraisa compares the two cases? The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (37a) says that the Tana'im and Amora'im were afraid to issue a lot of lenient rulings, lest they be labeled as "the lenient ones." Perhaps the Beraisa here is saying that Rebbi Sima'i and Rebbi Tzadok were afraid to permit two different questions over the course of one Shabbos, lest they be called "the lenient ones," and so they permitted only one of the two cases. This is why the two rulings were grouped together; one ruling affected the outcome of the other. This is also why the Gemara does not consider the possibility that the Beraisa's statement means that they permitted *both* the case of the Tarpachas and the case of the Zefek! (M. Kornfeld)