1) A BIRD THAT FELL (cont.)

(a) If a bird lands on any if the following, we are not concerned for crushed limbs:
1. A garment that was doubled over (for then it cannot be stretched tightly); the sides of bundles of flax; legumes other than clover; peas.
2. The rule is – we are concerned if it fell on something that is not smooth, not if it fell on something slippery.
(b) (Rav Ashi): If a bird’s wings were glued (to a stick) and it fell, we are not concerned;
(c) (Ameimar): We are concerned.
(d) Version #1: If only one wing was glued, all agree that it is Kosher; they argue when both wings were glued:
1. Ameimar says, it cannot fly at all, it is like an animal that fell.
2. Rav Ashi says, it can flutter somewhat using the base of the wings (where people cut them off the bird), to soften the fall.
(e) Version #2: If both wings were glued, all agree that it is like a fallen animal; they argue when one wing was glued.
1. Rav Ashi says, it can fly somewhat using the unglued wing.
2. Ameimar says, since one wing is glued, it cannot fly with the other wing, it is like a fallen animal.
(f) The Halachah is, if both wings were glued, it is like a fallen animal; if one wing was glued, it is Kosher.
2) BROKEN RIBS
(a) (Mishnah): If most of the ribs were broken.
(b) (Beraisa): If the majority were broken (it is Tereifah) – this is six on each side, or even all 11 on one side, and one on the other side.
1. (Ze’iri): A rib is considered broken only if it is broken on the half closer to the spine.
(c) (Rabah bar bar Chanah): We consider the majority of the large ribs that have marrow inside.
(d) (Ula): If the majority of ribs on one side were uprooted, or the majority of both sides were broken, it is Tereifah.
(e) (R. Yochanan): In either case, we require a majority of both sides.
(f) (Rav): If one rib and the vertebra to which it is attached are uprooted, it is Tereifah.
(g) Question (Rav Kahana and Rav Asi): What if the ribs on both sides of a vertebra are uprooted, but the vertebra itself is still attached?
(h) Answer (Rav): That is like an animal cut into two pieces (it is Nevelah)!
1. Question: But also in Rav’s case, it was cut into two pieces!
2. Answer: In Rav’s case the rib was uprooted but the vertebra was intact.
3. Objection: But Rav said, ‘If one rib *and the vertebra*…’!
4. Answer: He meant, a rib and *part of* the vertebra to which it is attached.
5. Question: If so, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked about when the ribs alone are detached, and Rav said that the animal is Nevelah;
i. But Ula taught, if the majority of ribs on one side were uprooted (not just two), or the majority of both sides were broken, it is Tereifah (but not Nevelah)!
6. Answer: It is worse when two ribs of the same vertebra are uprooted.
7. Question: But R. Yochanan said, if the majority of the ribs on both sides are uprooted it is Tereifah – this always includes two ribs on different sides of the same vertebra!
8. Answer: R. Yochanan discusses when the vertebra is complete; Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked about when part of the vertebra is missing.
9. Question: If so, Rav’s law answers their question!
10. Answer: They had not heard Rav’s law.
11. Question: If so, they should rather have asked regarding Rav’s case (one rib is uprooted)!
12. Answer: It is better to ask about when two are uprooted, for then one can derive the law when one is uprooted:
i. If they asked about one, and were told that it is Tereifah, all the more so when two are uprooted – but if they were told that it is Kosher, they would not know the law regarding two;
ii. Rather, they asked about two – if they will hear that it is Kosher, all the more so when one is uprooted.
13. Question: But if they will be told that it is Tereifah, they will not know the law by one!
14. Answer: They can learn from Rav’s response:
i. If the law is that even one is Tereifah, Rav will respond in anger (since their question presumes that one is Kosher.)
15. Question: But indeed, (Rav holds that) even one is Tereifah, but he did not respond angrily!
16. Answer: His amazement (‘It is even Nevelah’!) is equivalent to responding angrily.
(i) (Rabah bar Rav Shilo citing Shmuel): Any of the following makes an animal Tereifah:
1. A rib is uprooted from the spine; the majority of the skull was crushed, or a problem in the flesh covering the majority of the Keres.
(j) Question: This contradicts another teaching of Shmuel!
52b—————————————52b

1. (Mishnah – Beis Shamai): If two vertebrae are missing from the spine, the spine is not Metamei b’Ohel;
2. Beis Hillel say, even if one vertebra is missing it is not Metamei b’Ohel.
3. (Shmuel): They argue similarly regarding how much must be missing to make (a person or animal) Tereifah (even without a rib being detached)!
(k) Answer: Here, Shmuel teaches that a detached rib makes a Tereifah, even if the vertebra is intact; there, he teaches that a missing vertebra makes a Tereifah, even if the ribs are intact.
(l) Question: Surely, a rib can be detached and the vertebra is intact – but how can a vertebra be missing and the ribs are intact?
(m) Answer: The lower vertebrae do not have ribs attached to them.
(n) Question (R. Oshiya): According to Shmuel, this Mishnah should be taught among the Mishnayos in Maseches Idiyos in which Beis Shamai are more lenient than Beis Hillel!
(o) Answer (Rava): They Mishnah was taught regarding Tum’ah, with respect to Tum’ah Beis Shamai are more stringent.
3) OTHER TEACHINGS OF SHMUEL
(a) (Shmuel): If the majority of the skull was crushed it is Tereifah.
(b) Question (R. Yirmeyah): Does this refer to the majority of the height, or the majority of the circumference?
1. This question is unresolved.
(c) (Shmuel): (A problem in) the flesh covering the majority of the Keres is Tereifah.
(d) Question (Rav Ashi): Does he refer to the flesh being torn, or missing?
1. Suggestion: We can learn from our Mishnah.
i. (Mishnah): If the majority of the outer Keres was torn (it is Tereifah.)
ii. (R. Yosi bar Chanina): The outer Keres is the flesh covering the majority of the Keres (i.e. Shmuel explains the Mishnah, he means, if it was torn.)
2. Rejection: No, Shmuel explains the Mishnah differently!
i. (R. Yakov bar Nachmani citing Shmuel): The outer Keres is the part without hair.
3. (Here, Shmuel teaches a Tereifah not explicit in the Mishnah; we do not resolve our question.)
4) “DERISAH”
(a) (Mishnah): An animal Nidras (clawed and poisoned) by a wolf (is Tereifah.)
(b) (Rav): A (venomous) animal at least like large like a wolf is Matrif (makes Tereifah through Derisah) an animal, a bird at least like large like a Netz (small hawk or cuckoo?) is Matrif a bird.
(c) Question: What does Rav come to exclude?
1. Suggestion: Perhaps he excludes something Nidras by a cat.
2. Rejection: We already know this – the Mishnah says, something Nidras by a wolf (implying, not by anyhing smaller)!
3. Suggestion: Perhaps the Mishnah teaches that a wolf is Matrif even a large animal (but animals smaller than a wolf can Matrif small animals.)
4. Rejection (Mishnah – R. Yehudah): A wolf is Matrif small animals, a lion is Matrif large animals (but a wolf is not.)
5. Suggestion: That is R. Yehudah’s opinion, but the first Tana holds that a wolf is Matrif even large animals!
6. Rejection: R. Binyamin bar Yefet taught, R. Yehudah explains the first Tana.
(d) Answer #1: Rav argues with R. Binyamin, he says that R. Yehudah argues with the first Tana.
(e) Answer #2: Really, the Mishnah teaches a wolf to exclude a cat;
1. Rav must teach this, so we should not think that the Mishnah discusses a wolf because it is common.
(f) (Rav Amram): A cat or marten is Matrif a kid or lamb, a weasel is Matrif a bird.
(g) Question (Beraisa): A cat, Netz or marten is not Matrif, unless an interior organ was punctured (but the venom will not kill it.)
1. Counter-question: Our Mishnah says that a Netz is Matrif!
2. Answer: A Netz is Matrif birds, not kids or lambs.
3. The question against Rav Chisda remains.
(h) Version #1 – Answer: Rav Chisda holds like Beribi.
1. (Beraisa – Beribi): A cat is not Matrif when no one saves its prey, but if someone saves its prey, it is Matrif.
2. Question: A case occurred which disproves this!
i. A cat was chasing a chicken in Rav Kahana’s house. The chicken closed a door in front of the cat; the cat clawed the door, blood exuded from all five claws (indicating venom)!
3. Answer: The chicken saved itself, this is like being saved by a person.
4. Chachamim agree that it exudes venom (in such situations), but they say that it is not Matrif.
(i) Version #2 – Answer: The Beraisa is like Beribi.
1. (Beraisa – Beribi): A cat is Matrif when someone saves its prey, but if not, it is not Matrif.
2. Question: A case occurred (with Rav Kahana’s chicken) that disproves this!
3. Answer: The chicken saved itself, this is like being saved by a person.