Chullin 77a (עז.) — the Talmud in English

.

;

Indeed, when there was flesh there initially, but only skin remains and it is distant from the bone, it is not considered to be covering it.

Rav Ashi said: When we were in the presence of

when I was in the house of

Rav Pappa, we raised the following question:

If

the flesh was cut away in a circle

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

like a ring,

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

what is the halakha?

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

And we resolved

this uncertainty

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

I asked the Sages and the doctors about this matter,

and they said

to me:

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

One scratches

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, thereby causing it to become reattached

and to heal. But

if this is done with

iron,

an iron tool,

it gouges deeply

the flesh, aggravates the wound, and healing does not occur in this manner.

Rav Pappa said: And this

these medical procedures that help establish the flesh as flesh covering the bone are effective only when

the bone itself holds it. [That is, the bone holds the flesh around the incision.] In other words, the bone must hold the flesh surrounding the cut, and only then is there a remedy for this wound. But if the flesh surrounding the cut is not attached, there is no remedy, and the cut renders the animal non-kosher. [For it is not considered flesh covering the bone.]

Summary of the sugyot concerning animal leg tereifot and the junction of the tendons:

A. An animal whose hind legs were severed above the upper knee joint—that is, at the thighbone, which is the uppermost of the three bones of the leg—is a tereifa. 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 a tereifa.

B. If the leg was not completely severed, but only the bone [at the aforementioned location] was fractured, then 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 forbidden.

C. Below the knee joint [according to the Geonim, below the thigh; according to Rashi and the Rashba, below the lower leg], if most of the flesh remains, the leg is kosher at that place [and certainly the animal is kosher]. If most of the flesh does not remain, the animal is permitted, but the leg is forbidden, by rabbinic decree due to a limb from a living animal.

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, then according to the Geonim, who deem a fracture of the middle bone kosher, the leg is kosher even at the place of the junction of the tendons. But if the junction of the tendons itself was severed, the animal is a tereifa even if the entire leg is intact.

E. If the lower bone, known as “the knee joint sold with the head,” was severed, the animal is permitted. But if it was not completely severed and most of the flesh does not remain, the leg is forbidden due to the decree.

F. If the bone was fractured [at a place where such a fracture renders the animal a tereifa] and protruded outward, then if skin and flesh cover most of it and most of the circumference of the bone, the animal is kosher. If not, it is a tereifa.

G. Regarding the aforementioned covering, skin is not considered flesh [although according to the Ramban it is considered flesh], and skin does not combine with flesh either. That is, if one covers half and the other covers half, as stated, this combination is not effective.

H. If a bird's bone was fractured and protruded outward, the combination of skin and flesh is effective to cover the fracture, because a bird's skin is soft and is considered flesh for this purpose.

I. If the majority is flesh and the skin merely completes the required covering, this is effective even in the case of an animal.

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

K. If the flesh covering the bone is gathered from two or three places, or is flattened, or is disintegrating, or contains a hole without a loss of flesh, or the flesh is cracked, or its lower third was removed, or it was peeled and separated from the intact flesh, all these cases are unresolved uncertainties in the Gemara, and they are treated stringently.

L. If the flesh was cut away in a circle like a ring and became separated from the rest of the flesh, the animal is kosher. For if one scratches the flesh with a bone and draws blood from it, it heals and becomes attached to the rest of the flesh.

Concerning the junction of the tendons:

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

N. The location of the junction of the tendons extends from the anklebone until the tendons spread into the flesh. Its length in a large animal is approximately sixteen fingerbreadths. In a small animal, as long as they are hard, thick, and white, they are considered the junction of the tendons. But once they begin to become reddish and soft, they are no longer considered the junction of the tendons.

O. As stated, one of the tendons is thick and two are thin. If the thick tendon was severed, the animal is kosher, since the majority by number of the tendons still remains. If the thin tendons were severed, the animal is likewise kosher, since the majority by structure remains [that is, the majority of the thickness and circumference of the tendons].

P. The junction of the tendons in birds consists of sixteen tendons. If one of them was severed, the entire animal is a tereifa, because if one is severed, all of them will ultimately be severed. But if only the majority of one tendon was severed, the Rashba wrote that the bird is kosher.

Q. The location of the junction of the tendons is on the back of 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 concerning what is found in the intestines of a slaughtered animal]. It should properly have been taught before the Mishna concerning the junction of the tendons, but the arrangement became confused.

If one slaughters an animal and finds a placenta in it,

a membranous sac of skin surrounding the fetus,

a person of refined disposition,

that is, one who is not an istenis, 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 consumption and is not forbidden as a limb from a living animal.

And

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

does not convey ritual impurity of food

because it is not ordinarily eaten,

nor

does it convey

impurity imparted by animal carcasses

if the animal died by a process other than valid slaughter, because this placenta is not considered flesh.

But if one

had in mind

to eat this placenta, it

conveys impurity of food

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

But it does not

convey

impurity imparted by animal carcasses

since it is considered merely ordinary food, rather than flesh.

An additional law concerning a placenta:

If part of a placenta emerged

while the animal was still alive,

the entire placenta is forbidden

for consumption,

even

the portion that remained inside the animal. And although only part of the placenta emerged, and it is not possible to say that the entire fetus was within this part and that this is why it is forbidden for consumption [for it is not a ben pekua, since the placenta emerged during the animal's life, and it is forbidden as an animal carcass or as a limb from a living animal], it is because it is possible that the head of the fetus was within the portion that emerged, 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 forbidden. 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 too it is

a sign of a fetus in an animal.

An animal

pregnant with its firstborn,

that is, pregnant with a firstborn male,

that miscarried a placenta—

the placenta is to be thrown to the dogs,

and there is no need to bury it, and we are not concerned that it may contain a fetus sanctified with firstborn sanctity, because most placentas of animals pregnant with their firstborn do not contain a firstborn male. This is due to two uncertainties:

A. Half of all fetuses are male and half female, and perhaps this one is female.

B. Even if it is male, one must take into account the minority of males whose form is unusual [this matter will be explained in the Gemara] and who are exempt from firstborn sanctity.

Accordingly, the half consisting of females can be combined with the minority of males whose form is altered, and it follows that the majority of firstborn fetuses are not sanctified with firstborn sanctity.

And

a placenta that emerged from an animal belonging to

consecrated property,

such as an animal designated as a peace-offering,

must be buried,

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

And it is not buried at a crossroads

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

And

likewise,

it may not be hung from a tree, because of the ways of the Amorite.

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

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: If one slaughters an animal and finds a placenta in it, a person of refined disposition may eat it—that it is permitted for consumption.

The Gemara clarifies:

From where are these matters derived?

What is the source of this permission?

And it explains:

As the Sages taught:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 14:6]: “And

every animal

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

you may eat.”

And from the inclusive expression 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 remained inside would still be permitted, since it would still have the status of “everything within the animal”?

The verse states: “You may eat it.”

“You may eat it.”

“It”

but not its placenta.

Rather, this applies when the entire placenta is inside it and is considered part of it.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Why does the beraita need to derive from a special biblical source that a placenta that emerged is forbidden?

Since

it is an obvious logical inference 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 located in that portion of the placenta and dissolved there, in which case it is forbidden like an animal carcass that was not slaughtered . So

why do I need a verse

specifically to prohibit this?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, by logical inference, the portion of a placenta that emerged should be forbidden for consumption. But

the verse is merely a support

for this ruling. The primary purpose of the verse is only to teach us that anything cut from the spleen and kidneys within it is forbidden to eat, and this is what is expounded from the word “it”: it must be whole and not deficient. Anything that diminishes it is not included in its permission.

We learned in our Mishna:

and it does not impart impurity

either the impurity of food or the impurity of carcasses.

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Nappaḥa raised a question: The hide

of a

donkey

which is tough and repulsive,

that was boiled

—cooked extensively and for a prolonged period—

what is the law?

Has it become susceptible to ritual impurity?

The Gemara examines this uncertainty:

For which

type of impurity was this question asked?

If it concerns the impurity of food,

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Nappaḥa’s uncertainty is difficult, as we have already

learned

the ruling concerning boiled donkey hide [and below, the beraita that teaches this ruling is brought.