Chullin 76b — the Talmud in English

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Since they are clear,

if they are translucent and have not actually become red, and they are still somewhat white, then

even though they are not white,

they are nevertheless included within the junction of the sinews.

Ameimar said in the name of Rav Zevid: There are three sinews

in the junction of the sinews

that are

there.

One is thick

and

two are thin

and narrow.

If

the thick one is severed,

the thick sinew is cut,

the majority of the bulk is gone,

the majority of the bulk of the junction of the sinews is gone, and it is considered entirely cut. This is because the thick sinew constitutes the majority of the thickness of the junction, since its thickness exceeds that of the two thin ones.

If

the thin ones are severed,

the thin sinews are cut,

it is gone,

the

majority of the number

of the sinews, since two out of three are involved; and even in this manner it is considered entirely cut, and the animal thereby becomes a tereifa.

Mar bar Rav Ashi taught

this matter

leniently,

as follows:

If

the thick one is severed,

the sinew is cut,

the thick

one among them, this does not render the animal a tereifa, for

there is

still

the majority of the number,

since two out of the three remain.

And likewise, if

the thin ones are severed,

the thin sinews are cut, even in this case one should not declare the animal a tereifa, for

there is the majority of the bulk.

Quantitatively, the majority of the junction remains, and it should not be declared a tereifa on account of this.

It is explained that both according to Rav Zevid and according to Rav Ashi, in the junction of the sinews one follows the majority.

And

in

the junction of the sinews of birds that

sixteen

sixteen

sinews there are

in its junction of the sinews,

if one of them is severed,

if one of them is cut —

it is a tereifa!

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I was standing before

my father,

and they brought before him

they brought before him

a bird,

a bird,

and he examined it, and found in it

he found

fifteen

fifteen sinews in the junction of the sinews; seemingly, one of them was missing, and it should be declared a tereifa.

There was one that was two of its fellow,

there was one sinew that was thicker than its fellow, like two,

he split it

and separated that sinew,

and found

that it was

two

two sinews, and he declared it kosher.

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

that the animal becomes a tereifa through its being cut is when it is severed

through its majority.

The Gemara explains:

What is “its majority”? —

The majority of one of them!

For if the majority of one of the three sinews is cut in its thickness, the animal becomes a tereifa through this.

Rav Yehuda continues:

When I said it before

when I said this matter before

Shmuel, he said to me: Since

there are

three

three sinews

that are

in the junction, and

when

when

one of them is entirely severed, behold,

there are still

there are

two

two

remaining sinews in their entirety. If so, the majority of the junction remains before us?!

Rather, certainly the animal is kosher because of this majority.

The Gemara infers from Shmuel’s words as brought by Rav Yehuda: Shmuel declares the animal kosher because the two remaining sinews are still whole. And it infers:

The reason

is only when

there are two

whole ones does Shmuel declare it kosher.

But

if

there are not two

whole ones,

no,

he does not declare it kosher.

And he disagrees

and in this matter that he reports in the name of Shmuel, Rav Yehuda disagrees

with

the words of

Ravina

in the name of Shmuel.

For Ravina said in the name of Shmuel: The junction of the sinews—even if there remained in it

in each of the three sinews

only as much as the thread of a garment

[a thread that holds the collar of the garment, whose thickness is one-third the thickness of the sinews],

it is kosher.

It follows that Ravina and Rav Yehuda disagreed concerning Shmuel’s opinion. According to Rav Yehuda, if the majority of two sinews was removed, it is a tereifa. But according to Ravina, as stated, even if something remained, even one-third, it is kosher.

Some say

that Rav Yehuda taught the words of Rav in this manner: The junction of the sinews that they said causes the animal to become a tereifa through its being cut does not make it a tereifa unless it is cut through its majority.

And

what is “its majority”? The majority of each and every one

of the sinews. And only in this manner is it a tereifa.

And Rav Yehuda continues:

When I said it before

when I said this matter before

Shmuel, he said to me: Since there are three

sinews in the junction of the sinews.

And

there are three

a third

of each and every one

and retaining this minority suffices. It follows that an actual majority of each and every one is not required. Rather, since one-third of each remains, it is considered as though its majority remained.

And indeed, according to this statement,

it supports Ravina: for Ravina said in the name of Shmuel —

the junction of the sinews that they said

through whose cutting an animal becomes a tereifa,

even

if

only as much as the thread of a garment remained in it, it is kosher.

We learned in our Mishna:

The bone was broken;

if the majority of the flesh remains, its slaughter renders it pure. But if not, its slaughter does not render it pure.

Rav said:

If the bone was broken

above the lower knee joint,

where the break was at the upper knee joint, the law is that

if the majority of the flesh

surrounding the bone

remains —

both this and that,

both the limb and the entire animal,

are permitted.

But if not,

if not only the bone was cut but the flesh was also torn away with it,

both this and that,

the limb and the animal,

are forbidden.

The dangling limb is forbidden, because of “flesh in the field of a tereifa,” and it is like a limb from a living creature, since it separated from the animal and became dangling during its life.

But the animal is forbidden because it is a tereifa, since it is lacking one limb.

And if a bone was broken

below the upper knee joint,

that is, at the lower knee joint, the law is as follows:

if the majority of the flesh

surrounding the bone

remains —

this

the limb

and this

the animal

are permitted.

And

if not,

but the flesh too was torn away with it, the

limb is forbidden

because it is a dangling limb,

but

the

animal is permitted.

For the animal does not become a tereifa because of the absence of a bone at the lower knee joint, even if it is completely cut.

Accordingly, that which is brought in our Mishna, “But if not, its slaughter does not render it pure,” implying that specifically the limb is forbidden but the animal itself is permitted, refers to a case in which the bone was broken below the upper knee joint. For if it was broken at the upper knee joint or above,

And Shmuel said: Whether

the bone was broken

above

the knee joint, and

whether

it was broken

below

the knee joint, the law is that

if the majority of the flesh remains, both this and that

the limb and the animal

are permitted.

And

if not,

if the flesh does not remain, the

limb

indeed

is forbidden, but the animal is permitted!

For the limb is forbidden because it is a dangling limb. But the animal does not become a tereifa because of this dangling, and the limb is not considered entirely cut off, because the sinews are still attached.

Accordingly, what is stated in our Mishna, “But if not, its slaughter does not render it pure,” refers both to a break above the lower bone and to a break below, in the lower bone itself. And the animal itself, as stated, is permitted.

Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Shmuel:

According to your words, that a dangling bone, although it itself is a tereifa, nevertheless does not make the entire animal a tereifa, there is a concern here because of appearances. For

they will say

the observers that

a limb from it is lying in the refuse heap,

since it was cut and discarded because of its prohibition. For a dangling limb is a limb from a living creature,

but

the animal

is permitted. And because of this they will come to permit even a case in which the bone was completely cut, above the knee joint, in which case it is a complete tereifa. If so, how can you permit an animal in which a limb has become dangling?

Why is this question directed only to Shmuel? After all, even

Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman:

Why is this question directed only to Shmuel? For even

to Rav,

who holds that only when the fracture occurred in the lower bone and even the majority of the flesh does not remain are the limb forbidden and the animal permitted—if so, in this case as well,

they will say

the observers that

a limb from it is lying in the refuse heap

[for they do not distinguish precisely which limb it is],

and

it

is permitted. And because of this too they will come to permit an animal from which a limb has been completely cut and which becomes a tereifa through it?

Because of this, too, they might come to permit an animal from which a limb was completely severed and which is rendered a terefah because of it.

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman: I did not intend to object to Shmuel that whenever people see a bone lying in the refuse heap, they will come to permit the tereifa because of it. Rather,

this is what I am saying:

this is what I intended to ask: when one sees

a limb from which

the animal

lives

and because of its absence it is a tereifa [such as the case that Shmuel permitted, where the bone was broken above, which is a tereifa while the animal is permitted], and this limb

is lying in the refuse heap, and

the animal

is permitted,

it is only because of this bone that they will come to permit a case in which the bone was completely cut. Therefore, I raised the objection only against Shmuel, who permits the animal in this situation. But against Rav there is no objection from this.

They sent from there: The halakha is according to Rav,

that if the bone was broken above the lower knee joint [that is, from the lower end of the upper knee joint and onward], and the majority of the flesh does not remain, both the limb and the animal are forbidden!

They went back

and

sent

to say that the halakha is

like him

as

Shmuel.

That in this manner the limb is forbidden, but the animal is permitted.

They went back

and

sent

to say that the halakha is

like Rav.

That both the limb and the animal are forbidden.

And

so, the

limb itself contracts

the impurity of

carrying!

And although the halakha is that a dangling limb does not contract the impurity of carrying like a carcass [as is learned from what is written, “when it falls”—until the limb falls entirely, and only then does it contract impurity like a carcass, as the law of a limb from a living creature], nevertheless, this applies only during the animal’s lifetime. But if the animal was slaughtered while the dangling limb was still within it, we learned above that slaughter causes nipul. That is, it makes the fallen limb completely fallen off and detached. And its law is like that of a limb from a living creature, and it contracts the impurity of carrying like a carcass.

Rav Hisda raised an objection:

We learned in a beraita, [brought above, on page 73a]: Rabbi Meir said to the Sages:

No,

it is possible to compare the slaughter of a tereifa, which purifies the tereifa immediately from the impurity of a carcass, to the limb of the fetus that emerges, which, according to the Sages, should likewise be purified from the impurity of a carcass by the slaughter of its mother. For

if the slaughter of a tereifa purified it

the animal,

and the dangling limb

that is

within it,

for as long as it has not fallen completely, the slaughter of its mother is effective for it, to purify it from the impurity of a carcass—this is because they are included within

“a thing that is of its body.”

And certainly one cannot say that this slaughter

will purify

this limb

of

the fetus that emerges,

which is not

from

its body

of the slaughtered animal itself.

It is explained in this beraita that slaughter does not cause nipul. For according to everyone, slaughter purifies the limb that is in the animal’s own body. And not as they sent to say, that the limb contracts the impurity of carrying like a carcass?

Rabba said to him: Why do you need to go around to objections,

why do you need to seek out the words of a beraita with which not everyone is familiar in order to raise this objection?

Raise it from the Mishna,

for you can raise this matter from an explicit Mishna?

We learned in the Mishna: The flesh of an animal does not contract impurity during its lifetime, but only after its death. For an animal that has been slaughtered becomes “food,” and if it came into contact with water, it has been prepared to contract the impurity of foodstuffs.

And during its lifetime, even if it came into contact with water or with one of the other liquids that prepare everything to contract impurity, nevertheless, these liquids do not prepare the flesh to contract impurity during its lifetime.

And when it was

slaughtered,

the

animal was prepared

together with the dangling limb within it

by its blood,

by the blood that emerges from slaughter, which is one of the liquids. For through slaughter the animal changed from a living animal into flesh [which is “food”], and it, together with the dangling limb, was prepared to contract impurity through the blood—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Shimon says: They were not prepared

to contract impurity through the blood.

And this Mishna makes clear that the entire discussion concerning slaughtered flesh and the dangling limb within it concerns only whether the animal has been prepared to contract the impurity of foodstuffs. But according to everyone, there is no question concerning the dangling limb whether it is impure as a limb from a living creature, like a carcass. And it is proved from this Mishna that it is not as they sent from there: that the dangling limb contracts the impurity of carrying like a carcass.

Rav Hisda said to him,

this objection that arises from the words of

the Mishna can be rejected,

it can be rejected

as we rejected

above, on page 73b, where the Gemara explains that the Mishna’s words “they were prepared” do not refer to the dangling limb. For a dangling limb is certainly impure with the impurity of a carcass. Rather, the Mishna’s words “they were prepared” refer to the flesh of the animal that separated from the living animal. It is not subject to the law of a limb from a living creature, because the law of a limb from a living creature applies only when a limb separates in its form, together with sinews and bones. But when merely a piece of flesh separates, it is not impure. Therefore, it requires preparation through the blood.

When Rabbi Zeira went up, he found him

he found

Rav Yirmeya sitting

who was sitting

and saying this teaching

this report brought in the name of Rav: that if the bone was fractured above the joint and most of the flesh was not present, both the limb and the animal are forbidden.

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira:

Well said!

This halakha is correct.

And thus interpreted it

explained it

Ariokh in Babylonia.

The Gemara explains:

Ariokh—

who is he

who is meant?

Shmuel!

And they called him this because “Ariokh” is a royal expression, after “Ariokh, king of Ellasar.” And since “the halakha is like Shmuel in monetary matters,” they called him this, for he was expert in laws and judged the entire land like a king.

The Gemara objects:

But he certainly disagreed

for Shmuel disagreed with Rav, and held that even if a bone was fractured at the upper joint, the limb is forbidden but the animal is permitted?

The Gemara answers:

He retracted his position

he retracted

Shmuel, with regard to Rav

to rule like Rav.

The Sages taught: If the bone was fractured and emerged outside

outside the limb.

If the skin and flesh still cover most of it

of the bone,

it is permitted

the limb. Since it is still covered as limbs normally are, it is not considered a dangling limb. But

if not,

it is not covered over most of it—

it is forbidden

the limb.

The Gemara inquires:

And how much

is

most of it

of the bone?

When

when

Rav Dimi came, he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan:

When do we consider the bone to have emerged outside the limb? Only when

most of its thickness

and the cavity of the fractured bone emerged and became exposed outside. But if only a minority of the thickness of the bone’s cavity emerged, and only this minority is exposed outward, while most of the inner thickness of the bone remains inside, it is not considered to have “emerged.”

And some say

that “most of it” of the bone means

most of its circumference.

That is, we are not concerned whether the thickness and cavity of the bone are exposed outward. Rather, the essential matter is that the bone be surrounded by flesh at the site of the fracture around its exterior, and through this it is fit. But if the outer circumference of the bone is exposed, then even if the site of the fracture and the cavity of the bone itself are directed inward toward the flesh, yet it is exposed from the outside, it is a tereifa. Since, in the end, the principal circumference of the bone is exposed.

Rav Pappa said: Therefore,

since we hear both positions, according to these two conditions,

we require

that the bone be covered from both aspects:

a. That there be

most of its thickness

and the cavity of the bone covered within the flesh, and that it not protrude outside. b.

And we require

also that

most of its circumference

the outer circumference of the bone be covered with flesh.

Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

With regard to covering the bone so that it will not be considered a tereifa,

skin

is like flesh.

Even where the bone is not covered with flesh, in its thickness or in its circumference, if there is skin there covering it, its law is like flesh.

Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: Let the Master say

since we say that skin is like flesh, let him say

that

the bone’s covering should be achieved through

skin joining flesh.

That is, skin alone is not sufficient; there must be at least half skin and half flesh, and together they cover the bone. But skin alone is not enough. And he derives this stringency

for behold,

in the beraita

“skin and flesh

cover most of it”

it teaches.

And it implies that both skin and flesh are required; why, according to Ulla, is flesh alone sufficient?

He said to him,

Ulla:

We

I, who hold that it is sufficient for the skin alone to cover the bone, understand the beraita above to teach that

we learned “skin or flesh.”

There are those who say

that some recite this statement of Ulla in the opposite manner:

Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Skin joins flesh.

That is, only if the bone is covered by both of them together is it fit.

Rav Naḥman said to Ulla:

From where do you know that the joining of both alone is sufficient?

Let him say

perhaps, since

the Master

teaches the words of the beraita, “skin and flesh cover most of it,” the intention is not that half of one and half of the other are sufficient. Rather, the intention is that if there is most flesh,

the skin

may

complete it to flesh,

and the words of the beraita are taught

as a stringency—that the essential covering must be of flesh, and not that the covering may be half skin and half flesh?

The principal covering must be flesh; it need not consist of half skin and half flesh?

He said to him,

Ulla:

I know an incident.

I learned this halakha from an incident.

For there was a fledgling

that fledgling of a bird

that was

which was

in

in the house of

Rabbi Yitzḥak,

and its leg was fractured, and this bone was covered in such a way

that skin joined flesh.

That is, half the bone was covered with flesh and half with skin.

And it came before Rabbi Yohanan, and he declared it fit!

From this Ulla learned to permit a case in which skin joins flesh.

Rav Naḥman said to him:

Do you wish to prove it from this case of

the fledgling

you wish to prove?

The two matters cannot be compared. For

the fledgling is soft,

its skin is soft like flesh,

it is different,

and the fetus is treated like flesh; therefore, even when it covers the bone with half skin and half flesh, it is fit. But an animal whose skin is hard and is not like flesh cannot have its skin treated as flesh; therefore, the bone must be covered by most flesh.

Those

those

sinews

the

soft

that joined the flesh, and together covered the fractured bone,

that came before

and this case was brought before

Rabba.

Rabba said:

These sinews join the flesh, and the animal is fit. And Rabba explains his ruling:

Why should we be concerned about them,

why should we be concerned and forbid the animal? There is no reason to forbid it.