Chullin 77a — the Talmud in English

One -

For

for

Rabbi Yohanan said: Tendons

are soft, even

though they are eventually to harden

and apparently are not like flesh; nevertheless,

they are counted among those who eat them on Passover.

That is, if a person joined a group in order to eat together from an animal that was sacrificed as a Paschal offering, and he had nothing left to eat except these tendons, he fulfills the mitzva of eating the Paschal offering through them. This proves that their status is like flesh, since the tendons are presently soft !

Furthermore,

there is another reason to permit the animal, because

the Torah spared the property of Israel! Rav Pappa said to Rabba:

But

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan and holds that one is not counted among those who eat these tendons as part of the Paschal offering, because they are not considered flesh. And according to him, since they are not like flesh, they are likewise not considered flesh with regard to covering the bone;

and

therefore

there is a prohibition under Torah law

of an animal with a fatal defect here.

And

how

could you

Rabba

say, “What need is there to be concerned about them”?!

For according to Reish Lakish it is an animal with a fatal defect under Torah law. How can this be disregarded?

He fell silent.

Rabba remained silent.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And why did Rabba fall silent?

He could have answered him that in this matter the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. For

Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with him

the halakha is like

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

only

in these three

three matters. And in this dispute concerning eating a tendon in the Paschal offering, the halakha is not like Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish?!

The Gemara answers: Indeed, everywhere the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan. But

here it is different,

the matter here is different,

for he retracted his position,

he changed his position,

Rabbi Yohanan, with regard to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

and ruled concerning soft tendons in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: one is not counted as part of a Paschal offering with the intention of eating these tendons, since they are eventually to harden and will not be fit for eating. Therefore, they are considered according to their eventual state, and their status is not like flesh.

And from where do we know that Rabbi Yohanan retracted his position in this matter? Initially, when Rabbi Yohanan held that one is counted among those who eat the tendons on Passover, he relied on the words of the Mishna below [122a]: “These are those whose skins are considered like their flesh, and the skin of the head of a young calf,” meaning that the skin of the calf is considered like flesh with regard to the impurity of food and the impurity of an animal carcass, even though it is eventually to harden. In a similar manner Rabbi Yohanan derived that a tendon likewise has the status of flesh, even though it is eventually to harden.

Ultimately Rabbi Yohanan retracted his position. As brought there, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked him: What is the law regarding the skin of the head of a young calf—does it become impure? Rabbi Yohanan said to him: It does not become impure. Reish Lakish objected to him: But you, our teacher, taught us the words of the Mishna: “These are those whose skins are like their flesh—the skin of the head of a young calf”?

For he said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan replied to him:

Do not vex me

with this Mishna, which says that the skin of the head of a young calf is like flesh, because this Mishna

I recite in the singular wording

was stated according to the view of Elazar ben Yehuda. It is not an anonymous Mishna, and therefore the halakha is not in accordance with it. Thus Rabbi Yohanan holds that soft tendons are not like flesh, since they are eventually to harden. Therefore, Rav Pappa properly challenged Rabba concerning his statement, “Tendons join with flesh.” And Rabba remained silent in response to this objection, since even Rabbi Yohanan had retracted his position and held that tendons are indeed not considered flesh, since they are eventually to harden.

That

same limb of an animal in which

the bone was fractured

and

the bone emerged

the bone

to the outside

that is, outside the body,

a piece was removed from it

a small amount was removed from the bone that had emerged, and fell to the ground.

He came before

the owner of the animal came before

Abaye

to ask him about this matter.

He delayed three pilgrimage festivals

he delayed him for three pilgrimage festivals, because he waited until the scholars would gather during the festival and he would ask them for a ruling on the matter.

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to him: Go before him

go before

Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Hama, whose knife is sharp

he is sharp and keen, and his heart is open in reasoning; he will answer you concerning the matter.

He came before him

the owner of the animal came before Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Hama, and asked him about the matter.

He replied and

said

to him:

Since

we have already learned

“The bone was fractured and emerged outside,

if skin and flesh cover most of it—it is permitted”

it is taught

so we learned in a beraita.

And now, as long as skin and flesh indeed cover most of it,

what

difference does it make

to me

if that bone which emerged outside

fell,

or

what difference is it to me if it remains there

if it remained outside there? The animal is fit!

Ravina said to Rava

He asked him three questions:

a. If the flesh that covers and conceals most of the bone was torn and detached into pieces, and is not joined as a single unit around the bone; and if all of it

were gathered

and joined together to cover the bone, most of the bone would be covered,

what is the law?

Is this indeed considered flesh that covers the bone?

b. If the flesh covering most of the bone

is crushed

flat and weak, unlike the rest of the thick flesh ,

what is the law,

is this also considered a covering?

c. If the flesh covering most of the bone

has disintegrated

has decayed,

what is the law?

The Gemara discusses:

What are the circumstances?

What degree of decay causes it to be considered

“disintegrated”?

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Any flesh that the physician scrapes out

removes easily with a knife, since its vitality has already ceased; this flesh is considered “disintegrated.”

They raised a dilemma:

a. If

the flesh

covering the bone is pierced with a small hole that does not remove any quantity of the flesh covering it,

what is the law,

does the hole impair the flesh’s ability to serve as a covering or not?

b.

If the flesh

is cracked ,

what is the law?

c.

If the flesh

is peeled away from its connection and adhesion to the bone, but still serves as a covering for the bone from above even though it is not attached to it ,

what is the law?

And if we say that there is indeed no disqualification when the flesh is peeled away, and the essential point is that it covers the bone, one must ask what the law will be when

the lower third was removed

from the thickness of the flesh adjacent to the bone, so that the upper two-thirds remain suspended in the air,

what is the law?

The Gemara brings a proof in order to resolve the final uncertainty:

Come and hear

from this

which Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Skin is like flesh

with regard to covering the bone.

Now, even when there is no flesh beneath the skin at all, and there is a large space between it and the bone, nevertheless it covers it. All the more so flesh, even if its lower third was peeled away and two-thirds of the flesh remain, is certainly considered a covering. The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps

it is possible that the ruling that it is sufficient for the skin to cover the flesh applies only where initially there is no flesh there, but only skin,

for its skin holds its own

that is, the skin maintains itself. It is attached to the bone, as at the end of the knee, where the leg slopes at the knee [that is, in the lower part of the bone, which becomes thinner], where there is no flesh at all, only skin attached to the bone. It is possible that only there, when the skin covers the bone, the animal is fit.

Indeed, where there was flesh initially, and only skin remained, separated from the bone, it is not considered as covering it.

Rav Ashi said: When we were in the house of

when I was in the house of

Rav Pappi, a question arose for us:

If

it was cut out

the flesh above the fracture was cut with a knife and made into a circular cut

like a ring,

which separates the flesh above the fracture from the rest of the flesh surrounding it,

what is its status,

can this flesh heal and again become part of the flesh covering the bone, or does it have no remedy and is it not considered attached, and consequently does not constitute a covering for the bone?

And we resolved it

and resolved this uncertainty

from that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

I asked the Sages and the physicians about this matter,

and they said

to me:

The way this flesh is healed [so that it will cover the limb] is as follows:

They score

the flesh [that was cut in a circle

with

another bone from elsewhere, and through this action blood is drawn from the flesh toward the healthy flesh surrounding it, and through this it becomes attached again

and develops a remedy. But

if he does this with

iron,

an iron instrument,

it cuts deeply

it makes incisions in the flesh, pains the wound, and healing does not arise in this manner.

Rav Pappa said: And this,

these medical procedures that help to render the flesh flesh covering the bone, applies only when it is

the thin part of its own bone. [which the bone holds itself] That is, the bone holds the flesh surrounding the cut, and only in this way does this wound have a remedy. But if the flesh surrounding the cut is not attached, there is no remedy for the matter, and the cut renders the animal unfit. [For it is not considered flesh covering the bone].

Summary of the sugyot concerning defects rendering the legs unfit and the junction of the tendons:

a. An animal whose hind legs were severed above the upper knee joint, that is, at the thigh bone [the thigh], which is the uppermost of the three bones of the leg, is rendered unfit. This is the opinion of the Geonim. However, according to Rashi [and this is also the opinion of the Rashba], even if the middle bone [the lower leg] was fractured, it is rendered unfit.

b. If the leg was not completely severed, but only the bone [at the aforementioned place] was fractured, if most of the flesh at the place of the fracture remains, both the limb and the animal are permitted. However, if most of the flesh at that place does not remain, both the limb and the animal are prohibited.

c. Below the knee joint [according to the Geonim, this means below the thigh; according to Rashi and the Rashba, below the lower leg], if most of the flesh remains, the leg at that place is fit [and certainly the animal]. If most of the flesh does not remain, the animal is permitted, but the leg is prohibited, by decree because of a limb from a living creature.

d. If the leg was severed at the place of the junction of the tendons, but the junction of the tendons itself was not severed with it, according to the Geonim, who deem a fracture in the middle bone fit, even at the place of the junction of the tendons it is fit. And if the junction of the tendons itself was severed, even if the entire leg is intact, the animal is rendered unfit.

e. If the lower bone, called “the knee joint sold with the head,” was severed, the animal is permitted. And if it was not completely severed and most of the flesh does not remain, the leg is prohibited because of the decree.

f. If the bone was fractured [at a place where a fracture renders the animal unfit] and protruded outward, if skin and flesh cover most of it and most of the circumference of the bone, it is fit. And if not, it is rendered unfit.

g. Regarding the aforementioned covering, skin is not considered flesh [and according to Ramban it is considered flesh], and skin is not even combined with flesh. That is, this covers half and that covers half; as stated, this combination is not effective.

h. If the bone of a bird was fractured and protruded outward, the combination of skin and flesh is effective in it to cover the fracture, because the skin of a bird is soft and is considered flesh for this matter.

i. If the majority is flesh, and the skin merely completes it, this is effective even in an animal.

j. If the bone was fractured and a minority of it protruded outward, even if part of it fell away, it is fit.

k. If the flesh covering the bone is gathered from two or three places, or is flattened, or is dissolving, or has a hole that does not involve a deficiency, or the flesh is cracked, or its lower third was removed, or it was peeled and separated from the flesh while remaining intact—all these are uncertainties in the Gemara, and they are judged stringently.

l. If it was cut out like a ring and separated from the rest of the flesh, it is fit. For if one scores the flesh against the bone and draws blood from it, it heals and becomes attached to the rest of the flesh.

Regarding the junction of the tendons:

l. The junction of the tendons in an animal consists of three tendons: one thick and two thin.

m. The place of the junction of the tendons extends from the bone of the ankle until they spread into the flesh. Its length is approximately sixteen fingerbreadths in a large animal. In a small animal, wherever they are hard, thick, and white, they are the junction of the tendons. But when they begin to become reddish and soften, they are not considered the junction of the tendons.

n. As stated, one of the tendons is thick and two are thin. If the thick tendon was severed, it is fit, since the majority of the number of tendons still remains. If the thin tendons were severed, the animal is likewise fit, since there is a majority in bulk [that is, a majority of the thickness and circumference of the tendons].

o. In the junction of the tendons of birds there are sixteen tendons. If one of them was severed, the entire bird is rendered unfit, since if one is severed, all are ultimately destined to be severed. But if only the majority of one was severed, the Rashba wrote that it is fit.

p. The place of the junction of the tendons is behind the hind leg. According to the Raavad, the junction of the tendons is at the front of the hind leg, toward the body of the animal and its inner cavity.

Mishna:

At the opening of this Mishna, the Meiri wrote: The purpose of this Mishna is to complete the explanation of the fourth section [the laws of what is found in the womb of a slaughtered animal], and it should properly have been taught before the Mishna concerning the junction of the tendons; rather, the arrangement became confused.

One who slaughters an animal and finds a placenta in it,

a membranous skin covering the fetus,

a person of an accepting disposition,

that is, one who is not fastidious, whose soul does not recoil from eating repulsive things of this kind,

may eat it.

Once the mother has been slaughtered, the placenta is permitted for eating and is not prohibited as a limb from a living creature.

And

on the other hand, although it is permitted for eating, it

does not transmit impurity of food

because it is not customary to eat it,

nor

does it transmit

impurity of animal carcasses,

if the animal became an animal carcass, because this placenta is not considered flesh.

And if he

had it in mind

to eat this placenta, it

transmits impurity of food

if it came into contact with impurity, since through his thought he gave it the status of “food.”

But it does not

transmit

impurity of animal carcasses,

since it is considered merely ordinary food and not flesh.

An additional law concerning a placenta:

A placenta of which part emerged

while the animal was still alive—

is prohibited

the entire placenta

for eating,

including the part remaining inside the animal. Even though only part of the placenta emerged, and it is impossible to say that the entire fetus was within this part and therefore is prohibited for eating [for this is not a fetus whose mother was slaughtered while it was inside her, since the placenta emerged during the animal's life; and it is prohibited as an animal carcass or as a limb from a living creature]. Rather, it is because it is possible that within the part that emerged there was the head of the fetus, and the emergence of the head is considered birth; if so, there is no remedy for the rest of the placenta, not even through slaughtering the mother, and therefore the placenta is prohibited. For the emergence of the placenta is a

sign

of the presence of

a fetus in a woman,

and its emergence is treated like the emergence of the fetus,

and

so it is

a sign of a fetus in an animal.

An animal

that has not yet borne,

that is, pregnant with its firstborn,

that miscarried a placenta—

one casts it to the dogs,

and there is no need to bury it, and we are not concerned that perhaps there is in it a fetus sanctified with firstborn sanctity, because most placentas of animals bearing their firstborn do not contain a firstborn. For there are two uncertainties in the matter:

a. Half of the fetuses are male and half are female, and perhaps this one is female.

b. Even if it is male, one must be concerned for the minority of males whose form is unusual [this matter will be explained in the Gemara] and who are exempt from firstborn status.

Accordingly, one combines the half that are females with the minority of males whose form was altered, and it follows that the majority of firstborn fetuses are not sanctified with firstborn sanctity.

And in

a placenta that emerged from an animal of

consecrated animals,

such as an animal designated as a peace-offering,

it must be buried,

since whether it is male or female, it is consecrated. Therefore, it must be buried.

And one does not bury it at a crossroads

because it was the practice of diviners to bury the miscarriage there, as a magical remedy so that she would not miscarry again.

And

likewise,

one does not hang it from a tree, because of the ways of the Amorites.

And the holy Torah warned concerning divination, which is among the ways of the Amorites [Exodus 23:24]: “And you shall not do according to their practices.”

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One who slaughters an animal and finds a placenta in it, a person of an accepting disposition may eat it—that it is permitted for eating.

The Gemara clarifies:

From where are these matters

the source of this permission?

And it explains:

For the Sages taught,

it is stated [Deuteronomy 14:6]: “And

every animal

that divides the hoof and splits the cleft hoof into two, and brings up the cud, among the animals, that

you may eat.”

And from the inclusion implied at the beginning of the verse, “every animal,” we learn

to include the placenta,

which is also included in “you may eat.”

If so,

one might have thought that even if part of it emerged

what remains inside would still be permitted, since it is still in the category of “everything in the animal”?

The verse therefore states: “It”

you may eat.”

It—

but not its placenta.

Rather, this applies when all of its placenta is inside it and is considered part of it.

The Gemara asks: Why does the beraita need to derive from a special source in the verse that a placenta that emerged is prohibited?

Since

it is an obvious logical consideration that

there is no placenta without a fetus,

and even if only part of the placenta emerged, one must be concerned that the fetus was found and dissolved within this part of the placenta, and it is therefore prohibited like any animal carcass whose mother was not slaughtered ? And

why do I need a verse

a special source to prohibit this?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, logically, the consumption of the part of the placenta that emerged should be prohibited. But

the verse is merely a supporting indication

for the principal purpose of the verse is only to teach us that one who cuts from the spleen and kidneys within it is prohibited from eating them, and this is what they derive from “it”: it must be whole and not deficient. For anything that diminishes it was not permitted within its inclusion.

We learned in our Mishna:

and it does not convey ritual impurity

neither the impurity of foods nor the impurity of carcasses.

Rabbi Isaac bar Nafha raised a question: the hide

of

a donkey

which is hard and repulsive,

that he boiled,

cooked it with extensive and prolonged cooking,

what is [its status]?

Was it rendered fit to receive impurity?

And the Gemara discusses this uncertainty:

For what [impurity],

with regard to which impurity was this question asked?

If with regard to the impurity of foods,

Rabbi Isaac bar Nafha was uncertain, behold, already

we learned

the law of a boiled donkey hide [and below is brought the beraita that teaches this law.