Chullin 76a — the Talmud in English

In the Mishna before us, several laws of an animal rendered a terefa are brought.

Although ostensibly the place of these laws is in the preceding chapter, “These Are the Terefot,” nevertheless they were taught here because of the end of the Mishna, which discusses a bone that was broken, whether slaughtering purifies that limb. This is similar to the laws of a fetus permitted through the slaughtering of its mother, which were taught above throughout the chapter.

For understanding the Mishna and the Gemara below, it is necessary to introduce:

The leg of an animal consists of three parts [from the beginning of its root, which is inside the animal, to its lower end]: a. The upper part, which is

the thigh,

also called the “kulyit” [this part is inserted at its head into the bone of the “tail-fat” above it, inside the animal’s body].

b. The middle part is

the upper knee-joint

[Arkuva—an expression for knee. Since the two parts, the upper and lower knee-joints, are around the knee ], and this part is

the lower leg,

and parallel to its bottom is the junction of the tendons. As will be explained below at length during the course of the sugya.

c. The lower part of the leg [excluding the foot], is called

the lower knee-joint

or “the knee-joint sold with the head.”

Mishna:

a.

An animal whose hind legs were cut

from the knee-joint

the lower one. That is, from the beginning of the lower part of the leg

and below

it, to the end of the leg—the animal is

fit.

But if he cut

from

the beginning of

the knee-joint,

which is the lower part of the leg,

and upward,

toward the beginning of the leg above, the animal is

unfit,

and it is a terefa.

b.

And likewise

when

the junction of

the tendons is removed,

which are three hard, white tendons joined together, and are found parallel to the lower part of the middle part [the upper knee-joint] of the leg [until a small protuberance found at the end of the middle part].

If these tendons were removed, even though the bone was not broken and the body of the leg was not cut, the mere cutting of the tendons renders the animal a terefa.

c.

If the bone

of one of the animal’s limbs was broken, in a place where a break does not render the animal a terefa, and the bone was not completely severed, the law is as follows:

If the majority

of the thickness and circumference of

the flesh

around the bone

exists,

then

“its slaughtering”

of the limb [that is, the slaughtering of the animal, which is the “slaughtering” that also relates to the limb]

purifies it

for this limb and permits it to be eaten.

But if not,

if the majority of the flesh around the bone was cut and is absent,

its slaughtering does not purify it

for that limb, and it is a dangling limb, whose law is that of a terefa [as we learned above, “and flesh in the field torn by a terefa,” to include a limb and flesh that are dangling], although the rest of the animal is permitted.

And all this applies only to the bone of a limb through which the animal does not become a terefa because of a hole or cut made in it. But if it is a limb through which the animal becomes a terefa, the entire animal is forbidden.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: An animal whose legs were cut from the knee-joint and below is fit. From the knee-joint and above, it is unfit.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, Rabbi Hiyya said: “Below”

stated here in the Mishna means

below

the beginning of

the knee-joint

[and the knee-joint mentioned here is the lower knee-joint beneath the knee]. Only cutting from the knee-joint and below does not disqualify the animal.

“Above”

stated here means

above

the beginning of

the knee-joint

the lower one. Everything above the lower knee-joint becomes a terefa through cutting.

Which knee-joint did they speak of

in our Mishna, above which the animal is unfit and below which it is fit?—

The knee-joint sold with the head,

which is the lower knee-joint.

For if we say that the knee-joint mentioned in the Mishna is the upper knee-joint [the middle bone], and above its beginning is unfit while below its beginning is fit, it is impossible to explain the Mishna’s words, “from the knee-joint and below, it is fit.” For according to this, the meaning is that the cut is from the beginning of the upper knee-joint and below. But this is impossible, since the upper knee-joint is above the junction of the tendons. And if a cut in the junction of the tendons disqualifies, then certainly a cut above it disqualifies [since a cut in a place that endangers the animal’s life makes it a terefa. And if the junction of the tendons is considered a dangerous place, certainly every cut in a place above it endangers it even more].

It follows that the knee-joint mentioned in our Mishna is the lower knee-joint.

And

Ulla said

in the name of

Rabbi Oshaya: The knee-joint mentioned in our Mishna is the upper knee-joint [the middle bone of the leg], for

opposite it in a camel,

is discernible,

that is, the place of that knee-joint in a camel

is visible.

That is, the knee, which is the upper end of the leg, protrudes in the camel.

According to him, the Mishna’s words, “from the knee-joint and above,” mean that the kulyit bone was cut, that is, the bone of the upper part. A cut in this place makes the animal a terefa. And “from the knee-joint and below” means that the middle part was cut above the junction of the tendons.

In this matter he disagrees with Rav Yehuda, who said in the name of Rav, in the name of Rabbi Hiyya [according to whom every cut above the junction of the tendons certainly makes the animal a terefa]. But according to Ulla, this is not necessary. Although a cut in the junction of the tendons makes the animal a terefa, nevertheless the upper knee-joint is less severe than the junction, and a cut in it does not make the animal a terefa.

Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: Granted, according to me, for I say

that I hold that the knee-joint mentioned in the Mishna is the place where

it is visible opposite it in a camel,

that is, the upper knee-joint,

this is why it teaches

in our Mishna

“And likewise, when the junction of the tendons was removed,”

that it is a terefa.

And for this reason the Mishna needs to inform us of the law of the junction of the tendons. For we might have said that only a cut in the upper knee-joint renders the animal a terefa, but the junction of the tendons is not included in this.

And likewise, if the Mishna had informed us only of the law of the junction of the tendons, we might have said that only the junction of the tendons renders the animal a terefa, since it is more severe. But the upper knee-joint, although it is above it, is not a place that renders the animal a terefa. Therefore, the Mishna needs to teach: a. the law of the upper knee-joint, in which there is terefa; b. the law of the junction of the tendons, in which there is terefa.

But according to you,

according to your view, Rav Yehuda, that our Mishna speaks of the lower knee-joint, above which a cut disqualifies and below which it does not,

what

is the reason the Mishna needs to inform us

“and likewise, when the junction of the tendons was removed”?

For the junction of the tendons is above the beginning of the lower knee-joint [which is attached to the end of the upper knee-joint, as stated above], and if so, it certainly should disqualify, by the law of the upper knee-joint, and there is no need to state it!?

He said to him

Rav Yehuda: The law of one terefa cannot be learned from the other. For in the first clause, “from the knee-joint and above,” it speaks of the bone of

the knee-joint

[arkuva]

without the junction of the tendons being cut

along with it. Only concerning this can one learn that the cut renders the animal a terefa. But there is no necessity to derive the law of the junction of the tendons from the law of the knee-joint.

Whereas in the latter clause, when we teach, “and likewise, when the junction of the tendons was removed,” it speaks of the removal of

the junction of the tendons, without the knee-joint.

And concerning this it is said that the animal is a terefa. There is no necessity to infer from this that if the knee-joint was cut, the animal likewise becomes a terefa.

And for this reason the Mishna needs to teach both the law of the knee-joint and the law of the junction of the tendons, since they are different limbs, and there is no necessity to derive the laws of terefot from one another.

Ulla raises an objection to him:

But

in our Mishna,

“were cut” it teaches,

which implies that the leg was completely cut, and not merely that the bone was broken; rather, the entire leg was cut, including the junction of the tendons. If so, the difficulty returns: Why did the Mishna repeat and teach the law of the junction of the tendons? The Mishna should have brought only the law of “the junction of the tendons was removed,” and we would automatically know that certainly if the entire leg was cut, it is unfit?

He was silent

Rav Yehuda because of this objection!

After he left,

after Ulla left,

Rav Yehuda said

to himself:

Why did I not say to him,

why did I not answer him that “from the knee-joint and

below”

stated in the Mishna means

below

the beginning of

the knee-joint

lower one, but “from the knee-joint and

above”

does not mean that a cut immediately above the lower knee-joint disqualifies; rather, only

above the junction of the tendons,

which is slightly before the end of the upper knee-joint.

According to this, he could have answered Ulla that the Mishna needed to inform us of the law of the upper knee-joint, so that we would not mistakenly say that only the junction of the tendons is a place of terefa, but not the upper knee-joint.

And it likewise needed to inform us of the law of the junction of the tendons, so that we would not say the opposite: that only the upper knee-joint is a place of terefa, but not the junction of the tendons.

He then said,

Rav Yehuda returned and said to himself: It is good that I did not give him this answer. For,

did I not say to him,

did I not give him the proper answer, that in the first clause the knee-joint was removed without the junction of the tendons, whereas in the latter clause the junction of the tendons was removed without the knee-joint, and for this reason the tanna in our Mishna needed to teach these laws separately?!

And he said to me,

Ulla objected to me from the precise wording of the Mishna:

“Were cut,” it teaches,

which implies that the entire leg was cut.

And if so, even if I had answered him in the manner of this answer that I have now given, that “from the knee-joint and below” means the lower knee-joint, whereas “from the knee-joint and above” means above the junction of the tendons,

so too,

Ulla would likewise have objected to me concerning this from the precise wording of the Mishna:

“From the knee-joint and above,” it teaches.

And this implies immediately from the beginning of the upper knee-joint, even at the place parallel to the junction of the tendons.

And if so, whatever way I might have answered him, he would have continued to object to me from the Mishna.

Rav Pappa taught it thus,

he taught the aforementioned statement as follows:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, Rabbi Hiyya said:

The knee-joint mentioned in our Mishna is the upper knee-joint, that is, the middle bone.

And the Mishna’s words, “from the knee-joint and below, it is fit,” do not mean below the upper end of the knee-joint. For if so, it follows that this also includes the place of the junction of the tendons. And there, it is certainly rendered a terefa.

Rather, its meaning is

below

the end of

the knee-joint

the upper one,

and

also below

the junction of the tendons

attached to the upper knee-joint. Concerning this the Mishna said that if it was cut from the knee-joint and below—that is, in the lower knee-joint—it is fit.

And the Mishna’s words, “from the knee-joint and

above,”

mean

above

the beginning of

the knee-joint, and from the junction of the tendons

within it. That is, the cut was made in the upper part of the leg and in the highest bone, called the “kulyit.”

And the latter clause speaks of a case in which the middle bone, that is, the upper knee-joint, was cut. This is what the Mishna says:

“And likewise, when the junction of the tendons was removed,”

and with this cut it is a terefa. But if the middle bone was cut above the junction of the tendons, it is fit.

And the “knee-joint” itself

mentioned in our Mishna means, as stated, the upper knee-joint, as was brought,

as Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya,

that the knee-joint in our Mishna is the upper one.

And the Gemara challenges: According to these words, it follows that if the leg was severed at the place of the junction of the tendons, it is a tereifa. But if the leg was severed at the upper joint, above the junction of the tendons, it is fit. And this matter is difficult:

And

for

is there anything

is it possible that such a thing exists,

that if he severs it higher up, it lives,

that if he raises [the place] and cuts the leg at a higher place, the animal lives, whereas if

he severs it lower down,

he cuts it at a lower place than that, such as at the junction of the tendons,

and it dies?!

But the cutting at the higher place includes within it the lower place, whose cutting brings about death. And how does it live?

Rav Ashi said:

And do you

compare tereifot to one another!?

Do you wish to compare one tereifa to another and raise a difficulty from one against its fellow?!

Behold,

one does not say with regard to tereifot, “this is similar to that.” For

there is a situation in which

if one cuts

a particular limb

from here, it dies,

whereas

if one cuts it from here,

from another side,

it lives,

and therefore one cannot raise a difficulty of this kind.

And now the Gemara explains:

And what are the junctions of the tendons?

That is, where does the part among the tendons called “the junction of the tendons” begin and where does it end, upon which part the life of the animal depends, and therefore cutting that part makes the animal a tereifa?

The amoraim disagreed concerning this, and there are several approaches:

Rabba said

in the name of

Rav Ashi:

The junction of the tendons is the part of the tendons found

from the bone and outward.

From the bone and outward.

The bottom of the middle bone [the upper joint] is exposed, and there is no flesh around the bone. This exposed part extends two or three fingerbreadths from the bottom of the bone upward. In that exposed place, the tendons are attached to the bone and rise upward, parallel to the continuation of the bone upward, and enter into the flesh above the bone.

From the place where the tendons emerge from their attachment to the bone until they separate and enter the flesh, all this is called “the junction of the tendons ”—that is, as long as the tendons are bound and joined together, until they divide from one another upon entering the flesh.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said

in the name of

Rav Ashi:

The junction of the tendons is the part among the tendons

from the bone and inward.

That is, those that are attached to the bone and connected to it before they divide. Only this part is called the junction of the tendons. Once they divide upon entering the flesh, they are no longer included in the junction of the tendons.

Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, said

in the name of

Rav Asi:

The junction of the tendons is the part of the tendons found

above the ankle-bone.

Between the lower bone and the middle bone [the lower leg], at the bottom of the joint connecting these bones, there is a small bone called “the ankle-bone ”. And it is connected at the bottom to the upper bone, and on the other hand is connected to the top of the lower leg. And the tendons found between that bone, the “ankle-bone,” until they spread out and separate upon entering the flesh [their entry into the flesh is parallel to the middle of the upper bone], are called the junction of the tendons.

And this measurement is the greatest among the measurements in the earlier approaches, for it begins from the ankle-bone, which is still below the middle bone.

And even concerning this measurement, according to which the junction of the tendons begins opposite the ankle-bone, we find that they disagreed as follows:

A certain one of the Sages sat

one of the sages sat

before him

before

Rabbi Abba, and sat and said

he sat and said as follows:

Even the tendons found

at the ankle-bone itself

opposite the ankle-bone itself, and not only from the beginning of the ankle-bone onward, are also included in the junction of the tendons. [That is, according to his words, the measurement of the junction of the tendons continues and extends downward, until the beginning of the ankle-bone.]

Rabbi Abba said to him: Do not listen to him

Do not listen to his words. For he is exceedingly stringent in the measurement of the junction of the tendons. Because

thus,

for so

said Rav Yehuda:

The junction of the tendons is from

the place where the butchers open.

From the place where the butchers split open and open the leg in order to separate the flesh from the bone and clean out the tendons found in this place . And this place is from the ankle-bone and upward, but not opposite the ankle-bone itself.

And

this matter, namely, what he brought above,

Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna,

in the name of

Rav Asi said,

that the measurement of the junction of the tendons is from the beginning of the ankle-bone and upward.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The junction of the tendons that they said

is the part of the tendons found in

the place where the tendons are joined

and connected and appear as one. But from the moment they appear divided from one another, they are not included in the junction of the tendons.

And how much

is the length of the junction of the tendons [that is, of the part among the tendons whose cutting renders the animal a tereifa]?

One of the Sages said to him

one of the sages,

and his name was Rav Yaakov: When we were

when we were

in

the house of

Rav Yehuda, he said to us:

Hear a matter from me,

hear a matter from me,

which I heard from a great man

which I heard from a great man.

And who was he

and who was he? —

Shmuel!

And so he said:

The junction of the tendons that they said

is at

the place where the tendons are joined

connected

there. And

the place of the junction of the tendons extends

from the place where they are joined until the place where they spread out

and divide on their way into the flesh.

And how much

is the length of this measurement?

Abaye said: Four betadim

four fingerbreadths

in

the junction of the tendons of a

bull

ox.

Until now we have discussed the law of the junction of the tendons in large livestock. Now the Gemara clarifies:

in

livestock

of the small kind [

goat],

what

is the location of the junction of the tendons in small livestock?

Abaye said:

With regard to the junction of the tendons in small livestock, the measure is not determined by their location and length, but by their appearance and quality.

And these are the conditions for considering the tendons the “junction of the tendons.”

a. If they are

protruding

—protruding outside the flesh—

they are

indeed

the junction of the tendons.

But if they are

embedded

—embedded within the flesh—

they are not

—they are not

the junction of the tendons.

b. If they are

hard

, then

they are the junction of the tendons; soft

—soft ones that have already entered into the flesh and there are soft—

are not the junction of the tendons.

c.

Thick

,

they are the junction of the tendons; thin

—

they are not the junction of the tendons.

d. If they are

white

—

they are the junction of the tendons. If they are not white

, because they have already begun entering the flesh and have begun to become reddish—

they are not the junction of the tendons.