deceptively, i.e., he only pretended to kill the son. The father fainted and went limp. By this movement, his intestines entered his stomach, and the Roman sewed up his stomach, and he recovered.

§ The mishna states: If its legs were broken, the bird remains kosher. The Gemara relates that there was a certain basket of birds with broken legs that came before Rava. Rava inspected each bird at the convergence of sinews in the thigh, and when he found that all its sinews were intact, he deemed it kosher.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A dislocated foreleg in an animal is kosher. A dislocated femur in an animal renders it a tereifa. A dislocated femur in a bird renders it a tereifa. A dislocated wing in a bird renders it a tereifa, because we must be concerned that perhaps the lung was perforated. The lung is located near the wing’s attachment to the body, and part of the lung may have been torn out with the wing. And Shmuel says: The lung should be inspected, and if no damage is found, the bird is kosher. And so says Rabbi Yoḥanan: It should be inspected.

Ḥizkiyya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: A bird has no lungs. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A bird does have lungs, and they are like a rose petal in appearance, thin and red, between the wings. The Gemara asks: What does Ḥizkiyya mean when he says that a bird has no lungs? If we say that it has no lungs at all, that is problematic, as don’t we see that it does have lungs? Rather, say that he means that the bird is not rendered a tereifa by them if they are perforated. But this, too, is problematic, as doesn’t Levi teach: Those tereifot that the Sages enumerated in an animal hold likewise in a bird, and in addition to those, a bird is a tereifa if the bone of the skull was broken, even if the membrane of the brain was not perforated? If so, a perforated lung in a bird, as in an animal, renders it a tereifa.

Rather, say that Ḥizkiyya means that a bird’s lung has no halakha of falling and no halakha of singeing. If a bird falls, one need not inspect the lungs for damage as he must other organs (see 51b), and if it falls in a fire, one need not inspect the lungs for a change in color as he must other organs (see 56b). What is the reason for this? Rav Ḥana said: Since a majority of the bird’s ribs protect the lungs, one need not be concerned that the lung was damaged.

The Gemara asks: But from the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan says in response: A bird does have lungs, and they are like a rose petal between the wings, by inference one must conclude that Ḥizkiyya maintains that it has no lungs at all. Rather, one must say as they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: From the statement of the Distinguished, i.e., Ḥizkiyya, it is apparent that he is unfamiliar with chickens.

§ Rav Huna said that Rav said: A dislocated femur in a bird is kosher. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to Rav Huna: But the Rabbis that came from Pumbedita said that Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav: A dislocated femur in a bird renders it a tereifa. Rav Huna said to him: My son, each river and its course, i.e., different communities observe different customs. Although Rav himself held that such a bird is kosher, he ruled for those living in Pumbedita that such a bird is a tereifa, in accordance with their own custom.

The Gemara recounts: Rabbi Abba went and found Rav Yirmeya bar Abba inspecting birds at the convergence of sinews in the thigh. Rabbi Abba said to him: Why must Master do all this? But doesn’t Rav Huna say that Rav says: A dislocated femur in a bird is kosher? If a bird is kosher even when the whole thigh has been removed, all the more so it should be kosher when only the convergence of sinews has been removed. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said to him: I know the mishna (76a): With regard to an animal whose hind legs were severed, if they were severed from the leg joint and below, it is kosher; from the leg joint and above, it is a tereifa and unfit for consumption. And likewise an animal whose convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed is a tereifa. And Rav said about this: And likewise with regard to a bird.

Rabbi Abba responded: If so, this statement of Rav, that a bird whose convergence of sinews was removed is a tereifa, poses a difficulty for that statement of Rav, that a bird with a dislocated femur is kosher. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was silent and did not respond. Rabbi Abba said to him: Perhaps there is a difference for Rav between a dislocated femur and a severed femur, and while the former does not render a bird a tereifa, the latter does. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said to him: And are you interpreting Rav’s halakhot based on your own reasoning? Rav said explicitly: A dislocated femur is kosher, while a severed femur renders the animal unfit for consumption. And do not be confounded by this distinction, as one cuts an animal from here, in one place, and it dies, but one cuts it from there, in another place, and it lives.

The Gemara recounts: When Rabbi Abba went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Zeira sitting and saying: Rav Huna said that Rav said that a dislocated femur in a bird renders it a tereifa. Rabbi Abba said to him: By Master’s life, since the day that Master came up to here, Eretz Yisrael,