Chullin 76a (עו.) — the Talmud in English

Several laws of tereifa are presented in the Mishna before us.

Although these laws would seemingly belong in the previous chapter, “These Are the Tereifot,” they were nevertheless taught here because of the conclusion of the Mishna, which discusses a bone that was broken and whether slaughter renders that limb pure. This is similar to the laws of a fetus permitted through the slaughter of its mother, which were taught earlier in this chapter.

To understand the Mishna and Gemara below, it is necessary to preface:

The animal’s leg 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 “kulyot” [this part is inserted at its upper end into the bone of the “tail fat” above it, within the animal’s body].

b. The middle part is

the upper knee

[Arukhba means knee. This is because the two parts, the upper and lower knees, are located around the knee] . This part is

the shank,

and parallel to its lower end is the junction of the tendons, as will be explained extensively below in the course of the sugya.

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

the lower knee

or “the knee sold with the head.”

Mishna:

a.

An animal whose hind legs have been severed

from the knee

lower — that is, from the beginning of the lower part of the leg

and below

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

fit.

But if he severed

from

the beginning of

the knee,

which is part of the lower leg,

and above,

toward the upper beginning of the leg, the animal is

unfit,

and it is a tereifa.

b.

Likewise,

if

the junction of

the tendons

is removed—these are three hard, white tendons joined together — and located parallel to the lower part of the middle section [the upper knee] of the leg [as far as a small protrusion at the end of the middle section].

If these tendons are removed, even though the bone was not broken and the body of the leg was not severed, the mere severing of the tendons renders the animal a tereifa.

c. If

the bone was broken

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

If most

of the thickness and circumference of

the flesh

surrounding the bone

remains,

then

“its slaughter

[that is, the slaughter of the animal, which is called “slaughter” also with reference to the limb]

renders it pure

and permits this limb to be eaten.

But if not,

if most of the flesh surrounding the bone has been severed and is no longer present,

its slaughter does not render it pure

for that limb; it is a dangling limb and has the status of a tereifa [as we learned above: “and flesh torn in the field—a tereifa,” which includes a limb and flesh that are dangling], although the rest of the animal is permitted.

All this applies only to the bone of a limb whose perforation or severing does not render the animal a tereifa. But if it is a limb through which the animal becomes a tereifa, the entire animal is forbidden.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: An animal whose legs were severed from the knee and below is fit; from the knee and above, it is unfit.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that Rabbi Hiyya said: “Below”

stated here in the Mishna means

below

the beginning of

the knee

[and the knee mentioned here is the lower knee beneath the actual knee]. Only severing from the knee and below does not render the animal unfit.

“Above”

stated here means

above

the beginning of

the lower knee.

Anything above the lower knee becomes a tereifa through severing.

Which knee did they mean

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

The knee sold with the head,

which is the lower knee.

For if we say that the knee mentioned in the Mishna is the upper knee [the middle bone], and that above its beginning is unfit while below its beginning is fit, it is impossible to explain the Mishna’s words, “from the knee and below, it is fit.” According to this, the severing would begin at the start of the upper knee and extend downward. This is impossible, since the upper knee is above the junction of the tendons. And if severing at the junction of the tendons renders the animal unfit, then certainly severing above it renders it unfit [since severing at a place that endangers the animal’s life makes it a tereifa, and if the junction of the tendons is considered a dangerous place, any severing above it is certainly even more dangerous].

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

And

Ulla said

in the name of

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

such that

its counterpart in a camel is visible,

that is, the location of that knee in a camel

is visible.

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

According to Ulla, the Mishna’s words “from the knee and above” mean that the thigh bone was severed—that is, the bone of the upper section. Severing at this place renders the animal a tereifa. And “from the knee and below” means that the middle section was severed above the junction of the tendons.

In this matter he disputes Rav Yehuda, who said in the name of Rav, in the name of Rabbi Hiyya [according to whom any severing above the junction of the tendons certainly renders the animal a tereifa]. But according to Ulla, this does not necessarily follow. Although severing at the junction of the tendons renders the animal a tereifa, the upper knee is less severe than the junction, and severing there does not render the animal a tereifa.

Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: Granted, according to me, who say

that I hold that the knee mentioned in the Mishna is the place

whose counterpart in a camel is visible,

that is, the upper knee,

this is why it teaches

in our Mishna

“and likewise, if the junction of the tendons was removed,”

which renders the animal a tereifa.

For this reason the Mishna must teach us the law of the junction of the tendons. We might otherwise have thought that only severing at the upper knee renders the animal a tereifa, but that the junction of the tendons is not included in this ruling.

Likewise, had the Mishna taught only the law of the junction of the tendons, we might have said that only the junction renders the animal a tereifa, since it is more severe, but that the upper knee, although above it, is not a place where the animal becomes a tereifa. Therefore the Mishna must teach: a. The law of the upper knee, at which the animal becomes a tereifa; b. The law of the junction of the tendons, at which the animal becomes a tereifa.

But according to you,

according to your view, Rav Yehuda, that our Mishna speaks of the lower knee, above which severing renders the animal unfit and below which it does not,

what

is the reason the Mishna must teach us

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

The junction of the tendons is above the beginning of the lower knee [as it is adjacent to the end of the upper knee, as stated above]. If so, it certainly should render the animal unfit, just as does the upper knee, and there is no need to state this explicitly!?

He said to him

Rav Yehuda: The law of one tereifa cannot be inferred from the other. For in the first clause, “from the knee and above,” the bone of

the knee

[arkuva] was broken

without the junction of the tendons being severed

with it. Only from this can we learn that severing renders the animal a tereifa. But it is not necessary to infer the law of the junction of the tendons from the law of the knee.

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

the junction of the tendons without the knee.

This is what is stated to render the animal a tereifa. It is not necessary to infer from this that if the knee were severed, the animal would also become a tereifa.

Therefore, the Mishna must teach both the law of the knee and the law of the junction of the tendons, since they are different limbs, and the laws of tereifot cannot necessarily be inferred from one another.

Ulla challenges him:

But

in our Mishna

it teaches “were severed” in the plural,

which indicates that the leg was completely severed, not merely that the bone was broken; rather, the entire leg was severed, including the junction of the tendons. If so, the question remains: Why did the Mishna repeat and teach the law of the junction of the tendons? It should have stated only the law of “the junction of the tendons was removed,” and we would automatically know that certainly if the entire leg were severed, the animal would be unfit?

Rav Yehuda fell silent

because of this difficulty!

After Ulla had left,

after Ulla departed,

Rav Yehuda said

to himself:

Why did I not say to him,

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

below

” stated in the Mishna means

below

the beginning of

the lower knee, but “from the knee and

above

” does not mean that severing immediately above the lower knee renders the animal unfit; rather, only

does not mean that a cut immediately above the lower knee renders the animal unfit. Rather, it means only

above the junction of the tendons,

which is slightly before the end of the upper knee?

Accordingly, he could have answered Ulla that the Mishna needed to teach the law of the upper knee, so that we would not mistakenly say that only the junction of the tendons is a place where the animal becomes a tereifa, but not the upper knee.

Likewise, it needed to teach the law of the junction of the tendons, so that we would not reach the opposite conclusion: that only the upper knee is a place where the animal becomes a tereifa, but not the junction of the tendons.

He reconsidered and said,

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

would he not have said to me,

would he not have challenged me with the valid explanation that the first clause refers to the knee being removed without the junction of the tendons, whereas the latter clause refers to the junction of the tendons being removed without the knee, and therefore the tanna of our Mishna had to teach these laws separately?!

And he would have said to me,

Ulla would have challenged me based on the precise wording of the Mishna:

“It teaches ‘were severed,’

which implies that the entire leg was severed.

And if so, even if I had answered him as I have now proposed—that “from the knee and below” means the lower knee, whereas “from the knee and above” means above the junction of the tendons—

here too,

Ulla would likewise have challenged me based on the precise wording of the Mishna:

“It teaches, ‘from the knee and above.’

This implies immediately from the beginning of the upper knee, even at the place corresponding to the junction of the tendons.

Thus, no matter how I would have answered him, he would have continued to challenge me from the Mishna.

Rav Pappa taught the statement in this manner,

he transmitted the aforementioned dictum as follows:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that Rabbi Hiyya said:

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

The Mishna’s words, “from the knee and below, it is fit,” do not mean below the upper end of the knee. For if so, this would include the location of the junction of the tendons, and at that location the animal certainly becomes a tereifa.

Rather, its meaning is

below

the end of

the upper knee

and

also

below

the junction of the tendons

attached to the upper knee. Regarding this, the Mishna says that if the leg is severed from the knee and below—that is, at the lower knee—the animal is fit.

The Mishna’s words, “from the knee and

above,”

mean

above

the beginning of

the knee and the junction of the tendons

within it. That is, the severing takes place in the upper part of the leg, in the highest bone, called the “kulyot.”

The latter clause speaks of the middle bone being severed, that is, the upper knee. This is what the Mishna states:

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

in which case the animal is a tereifa. But if the middle bone is severed above the junction of the tendons, the animal is fit.

And “the knee itself”

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

in accordance with Ulla, who said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya,

that the knee in our Mishna is the upper one.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: According to these statements, if the leg is severed at the tzomet hagiddin, the animal is a tereifa. Yet if the leg is severed at the upper arkuva, above the tzomet hagiddin, it is kosher. This is difficult:

And

because

is there such a thing

—is such a thing possible—

that if one severs it higher up, it lives,

for if one raises the point of severing and cuts the leg at a higher place, the animal lives, whereas

if one severs it lower down,

cutting it at a lower place, such as the tzomet hagiddin,

it dies?!

After all, severing at the higher place includes within it the lower place, whose severing causes death. How, then, can it live?

Rav Ashi said:

But

do you compare one tereifa to another?!

Do you wish to compare these terefot to one another and raise a difficulty from one to the other?!

For

with regard to terefot, one does not say, “This resembles that.” For

there is a situation in which one

severs

a particular limb

here, and it dies,

whereas

if one severs it here,

on the other side,

it lives,

and therefore one cannot raise a difficulty of this kind.

The Gemara now explains:

And what is the tzomet hagiddin?

That is, where does the portion of the tendons called the “tzomet hagiddin” begin and where does it end—the portion upon which the animal's life depends, and whose severing therefore renders the animal a tereifa?

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

Rabba said

in the name of

Rav Ashi:

The tzomet hagiddin is the portion of the tendons that is

from the bone and outward.

That is, from the bone outward.

The bottom of the middle bone [the upper arkuva] is exposed, with no flesh surrounding the bone. This exposed portion extends two or three fingerbreadths below the bottom of the bone and upward. In that exposed place, the tendons adhere to the bone and ascend, parallel to the bone as it continues upward, entering 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 of this is called the “tzomet hagiddin” —that is, as long as the tendons are bound and joined together, until they divide from one another as they enter the flesh.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said

in the name of

Rav Ashi:

The tzomet hagiddin is the portion of the tendons

from the bone and inward.

That is, those that are attached to and connected with the bone before they divide. Only this portion is called the tzomet hagiddin. Once they divide as they enter the flesh, they are no longer included in the tzomet hagiddin.

Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, said

in the name of

Rav Asi:

The tzomet hagiddin is the portion of the tendons located

above the arkum.

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 “arkum.” It is attached below to the upper bone, and on the other side it is attached to the head of the lower leg. The tendons located between that bone, the “arkum,” until they spread out and separate as they enter the flesh [their entry into the flesh being parallel to the middle of the upper bone], are called the tzomet hagiddin.

This measurement is the greatest of the measurements in the previous approaches, since it begins at the arkum, which is even lower than the middle bone.

Even concerning this measurement, according to which the tzomet hagiddin begins opposite the arkum, we find the following disagreement:

One of the Sages sat

—one of the scholars—

before

Rabbi Abba,

and sat and said

—he sat and said:

Even the tendons located

at the arkum itself,

opposite the arkum itself, and not only from the beginning of the arkum onward, are included in the tzomet hagiddin. [That is, according to him, the measurement of the tzomet hagiddin continues downward, as far as the beginning of the arkum.]

Rabbi Abba said to him: Do not listen to him

—do not heed his words, for he is being excessively stringent concerning the measurement of the tzomet hagiddin. Because

thus

indeed

Rav Yehuda said:

The tzomet hagiddin is

from the place where the butchers open.

It begins at the place where the butchers open and split the leg in order to separate the flesh from the bone and clean out the tendons located there . This place is from the arkum upward, but not opposite the arkum itself.

And

this matter—that is, the statement brought above by

Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna,

in the name of

Rav Asi,

that the measurement of the tzomet hagiddin is from the beginning of the arkum and upward—

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The tzomet hagiddin that they spoke of

is the portion of the tendons located in

the place where the tendons join

and are connected and appear as one. But from the moment they appear to be separate from one another, they are no longer included in the tzomet hagiddin.

And how much

is the length of the tzomet hagiddin [that is, of the portion of the tendons whose severing renders the animal a tereifa]?

One of the Sages said to him,

one of the scholars,

whose name was Rav Yaakov: When we were

when we were

in

the house of

Rav Yehuda, he said to us:

Hear a statement from me,

hear a matter from me,

which I heard from a great man

—that I heard from a great man.

And who was he

—who was he?

Shmuel!

And this is what he said:

The tzomet hagiddin that they spoke of

is

the place where the tendons join

—where they are connected—

there. And

the place of the tzomet hagiddin extends

from the place where they join 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 batdei

four fingerbreadths

in

the tzomet hagiddin of

an ox

—a bull.

Until now, we learned the law of the sinews’ juncture in a large animal. Now the Gemara clarifies:

with regard to

a

small animal [

goat ],

what

is the location of the sinews’ juncture in a small animal?

Abaye said:

With regard to the sinews’ juncture in a small animal, the measure is not determined by their location and length, but by their appearance and quality.

These are the conditions for considering the sinews to be “the sinews’ juncture.”

a. If they are

protruding,

protruding beyond the flesh,

they are

indeed

the sinews’ juncture.

But if they are

embedded,

having been swallowed into the flesh,

they are not

they are not

the sinews’ juncture.

b. If they are

hard,

then

they are the sinews’ juncture; but if they are soft,

having already entered the flesh, where they are soft,

they are not the sinews’ juncture.

c.

Thick,

they

are the sinews’ juncture; if thin,

they are thin—

they are not the sinews’ juncture.

d. If they are

white,

that is, white,

they are the sinews’ juncture. If they are not white,

because they have already begun entering the flesh and have started to turn reddish,

they are not the sinews’ juncture.