The mishna goes back to laws of treifot – if the leg is cut where exactly will it become a treifa? Which leg joints are the ones mentioned in the mishna? What if a bone is broken? Where exactly is the convergence of the sinews, which would make an animal a treifa if cut?
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Chullin 76
מַתְנִי׳ בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה – כְּשֵׁרָה, מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה – פְּסוּלָה, וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין.
MISHNA: With regard to an animal whose hind legs were severed, if they were severed from the leg joint and below, the animal is kosher; from the leg joint and above, the animal is thereby rendered a tereifa and is not kosher. And likewise, an animal whose convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed is a tereifa and is not kosher.
נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם, אִם רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.
If the bone of a limb was broken but the limb was not completely severed, and the animal was then slaughtered, if the majority of the flesh surrounding the bone is intact, the slaughter of the animal renders it permitted; but if not, its slaughter does not render it permitted.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: לְמַטָּה – לְמַטָּה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה, לְמַעְלָה – לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה. בְּאֵיזוֹ אַרְכּוּבָּה אָמְרוּ? בְּאַרְכּוּבָּה הַנִּמְכֶּרֶת עִם הָרֹאשׁ.
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: When the mishna makes reference to the leg being severed from the leg joint and below, it means that the cut was below the leg joint, and when it says that if it was severed from the leg joint and above it is a tereifa, it means that the cut was above the leg joint. And with regard to which leg joint did they say this? With regard to the leg joint that is sold together with the head of the animal. This is the lower leg joint that connects the lower bone, or metatarsus, and middle bone, or tibia. Accordingly, the animal is a tereifa only if the leg was severed in the middle bone or upper bone.
עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּגָמָל נִיכָּר.
Ulla says that Rabbi Oshaya says: The mishna is referring to the leg joint that in most animals cannot be seen from the outside, but the corresponding joint in the leg of a camel is prominent and conspicuous. This is referring to the joint between the upper bone, or femur, and middle bone, or tibia. Accordingly, the animal is a tereifa only if it was severed in the upper bone.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ עוּלָּא לְרַב יְהוּדָה: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי דְּאָמֵינָא כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּגָמָל נִיכָּר, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, מַאי וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין?
Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: Granted, according to my opinion, as I say it means the joint whose corresponding joint in the leg of a camel is conspicuous, i.e., the upper joint, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: And likewise, an animal whose convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed is not kosher. The convergence of sinews lies on the lower part of the middle bone. Since I hold that if the middle bone is severed, this does not render the animal a tereifa, it is necessary for the mishna to teach that nevertheless, if that bone was severed at the point of the convergence of sinews, this would render it a tereifa. But according to your opinion that the mishna is referring to the lower joint, and if the middle bone is severed, this renders the animal a tereifa, what is the purpose of teaching: And likewise, an animal whose convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed is not kosher?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְכוּבָּה בְּלֹא צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, וְצוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים בְּלֹא רְכוּבָּה. וְהָא ״נֶחְתְּכוּ״ קָתָנֵי! אִישְׁתִּיק.
Rav Yehuda said to Ulla: According to my opinion, the mishna is referring to two cases: The first is where the leg was severed above the lower leg joint, in the middle bone, without the removal of the convergence of sinews in the thigh, and the second is where the convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed without the leg above the leg joint being severed. Ulla then asked Rav Yehuda: But the mishna teaches: Were severed, indicating that the leg was entirely severed, which perforce includes the convergence of sinews. Rav Yehuda was silent, as he did not have a resolution.
לְבָתַר דִּנְפַק אֲמַר: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ, ״לְמַטָּה״ – לְמַטָּה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה, ״לְמַעְלָה״ – לְמַעְלָה מִצּוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין?
After Ulla left, Rav Yehuda said to himself: What is the reason that I did not say to him the following resolution: When the mishna states that if the leg was severed below the leg joint the animal is kosher, it means below the lower leg joint, and when it says that if it was severed above it is a tereifa, it means in the middle bone above the convergence of sinews in the thigh. Accordingly, it would still be necessary to teach that if the convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed, this would render it a tereifa.
הֲדַר אָמַר: וְלָא אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לִי: ״נֶחְתְּכוּ״ קָתָנֵי? הָכָא נָמֵי, ״מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה״ קָתָנֵי.
Rav Yehuda then said to himself: It is good that I did not suggest this resolution, as did I not initially say a resolution to him, and he said to me that it was refuted by the fact that the mishna teaches: Were severed, which clearly indicates that it was severed completely? Here too, he could have said: You cannot explain the mishna as referring only to severing the leg above the convergence of sinews, as the mishna teaches: From the lower leg joint and above, which clearly includes the entire middle bone, including the area of the convergence of sinews.
רַב פָּפָּא מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: ״לְמַטָּה״ – לְמַטָּה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּמִצּוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין, ״לְמַעְלָה״ – לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּמִצּוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין, וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין. וְאַרְכּוּבָּה גּוּפַהּ כִּדְעוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא.
Rav Pappa teaches the previous discussion like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: When the mishna refers to severing the leg below, it means severing below both the leg joint and the convergence of sinews in the thigh, i.e., the lower bone was severed, and when it refers to severing the leg above, it means severing above both the leg joint and the convergence of sinews in the thigh, i.e., the upper bone was severed. And then the mishna adds that with regard to the middle bone, it is only a tereifa when the convergence of sinews was removed. And this explanation assumes that the leg joint itself is referring to the upper leg joint, in accordance with that which Ulla said that Rabbi Oshaya said, i.e., that it means the joint whose corresponding joint in the leg of a camel is conspicuous.
וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּאִילּוּ מִדְּלֵי פָּסֵיק לֵיהּ וַחֲיָה, מְתַתֵּי פָּסֵיק לֵיהּ וּמֵתָה?
The Gemara questions Rav Pappa’s explanation of the opinions of Ulla and Rav Yehuda: But is there any possibility that if one went higher up the leg and severed the middle bone above the convergence of sinews, it would live, i.e., the animal would not be a tereifa, but if one went down the leg and severed it on the convergence of sinews, it would be a tereifa and would die within twelve months? It is illogical that severing more of the leg is less life-threatening for the animal.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: טְרֵפוֹת קָא מְדַמֵּית לַהֲדָדֵי? אֵין אוֹמְרִין בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וָמֵתָה, חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וְחַיָּה.
Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing different types of tereifot to one another? One cannot say with regard to tereifot that this is similar to that, as different areas of an animal’s body react differently: One cuts it from here, at a low point on the animal’s body, and it could die; and one cuts it from there, at a higher point, and it could live.
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין? רַבָּה אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דְּאַגַּרְמָא וּלְבַר, רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דְּאַגַּרְמָא וּלְגָיו, רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: דְּעִילָּוֵי עַרְקוּמָא.
§ The Gemara asks: And which parts are included in the convergence of sinews in the thigh, such that if they are removed it renders the animal a tereifa? The sinews at the bottom of the bone cleave to it, as there is no flesh on that part of the bone. A short distance above that they separate from the bone and then they diverge from each other as they enter the flesh. Rabba says that Rav Ashi says: Those which are off the bone, before they diverge. Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav Ashi says: Those which are adjacent to the bone. Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, says that Rav Asi says: The convergence of sinews begins even lower and includes those which are above the arkum bone, a small bone that lies between the lower bone and the middle bone of the leg.
יָתֵיב הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: דְּעַרְקוּמָא גּוּפַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הֵיכָא דְּפָרְעִי טַבָּחֵי. וְהַיְינוּ רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי.
The Gemara relates: One of the Sages sat before Rabbi Abba, and he sat and said: The convergence of sinews includes the sinews of the arkum bone itself. Rabbi Abba said to his students: Do not listen to that Sage, as his ruling is too stringent. This is what Rav Yehuda said: It is in the place where butchers split open the animal’s leg. The Gemara comments: And this is the same as that which Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, says that Rav Asi says, i.e., that it includes the sinews above the arkum.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ – מְקוֹם שֶׁהַגִּידִין צוֹמְתִין, וְעַד כַּמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וְרַב יַעֲקֹב שְׁמֵיהּ: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר לַן: שְׁמַעוּ מַנִּי מִלְּתָא דְּמִגַּבְרָא רַבָּה שְׁמִיעַ לִי, וּמַנּוּ? שְׁמוּאֵל: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין שֶׁאָמְרוּ – מְקוֹם שֶׁהַגִּידִין צוֹמְתִין בּוֹ, וּמִמְּקוֹם שֶׁצּוֹמְתִין עַד מְקוֹם שֶׁמִּתְפַּשְּׁטִין.
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The convergence of sinews in the thigh that they spoke of in the mishna is the place where the sinews converge and appear as though they are a single entity. The Gemara asks: And until how far does it extend? One of the Sages, and his name is Rav Ya’akov, said to them: When we were studying in the school of Rav Yehuda, he said to us: Hear from me a matter that I heard from a great man, and who is he? Shmuel. The convergence of sinews that they spoke of is the place where the sinews converge, and it extends from the place where they converge until the place where they diverge and are subsumed within the flesh.
וְכַמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַרְבָּעָה בַּטְדֵי בְּתוֹרָא. בְּדַקָּה מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּלִיטִי – הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, בְּלִיעִי – לָא הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים.
The Gemara asks: And how far is this? Abaye said: Four handbreadths in an ox. The Gemara asks: What is the measure in a small domesticated animal? Abaye said: There is no set measure; rather, as long as the sinews are prominent and are not subsumed within the flesh, they are part of the convergence of sinews in the thigh, but once they are subsumed they are not considered part of the convergence of sinews in the thigh.
אַשּׁוּנֵי – הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, רַכִּיכֵי – לָא הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, אַלִּימֵי – הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, קַטִּינֵי – לָא הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, חִוָּורֵי – הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, לָא חִוָּורֵי – לָא הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים.
Abaye adds: The sinews that are hard are part of the convergence of sinews in the thigh; those that are soft are not part of the convergence of sinews. Those that are thick are part of the convergence of sinews; those that are thin are not part of the convergence of sinews. Those that are white are part of the convergence of sinews; those that are not white are not part of the convergence of sinews.
מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּזִיגִי – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חִוָּורֵי.
Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Once the sinews begin to be translucent, even if they are not actually white, they are considered part of the convergence of sinews.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב זְבִיד: תְּלָתָא חוּטֵי הָווּ, חַד אַלִּימָא וּתְרֵי קַטִּינֵי. אִיפְּסִיק אַלִּימָא – אַזְדָּא רוֹב בִּנְיָן, אִיפְּסִיק קַטִּינֵי – אַזְדָּא רוֹב מִנְיָן. מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי לְקוּלָּא: אִיפְּסִיק אַלִּימָא – הָאִיכָּא רוֹב מִנְיָן, אִיפְּסִיק קַטִּינֵי – הָאִיכָּא רוֹב בִּנְיָן.
§ With regard to the removal of the convergence of sinews in the thigh, which renders the animal a tereifa, Ameimar says in the name of Rav Zevid: There are three strands, i.e., sinews; one is thick and the other two are thin. If the thick sinew was severed, a majority of the structure of the convergence of sinews is gone, as the thick sinew is thicker than the other two combined. If the thin ones were severed, then a majority of the number of sinews is gone. If either type of majority has been severed, the animal is rendered a tereifa. Conversely, Mar bar Rav Ashi teaches a lenient version of this ruling: If the thick sinew was severed, since there is a majority of the number of sinews that remains, the animal is not a tereifa. Likewise, if the thin ones were severed, since there is a majority of the structure that remains intact, the animal is not a tereifa.
בְּעוֹפוֹת שִׁיתְּסַר חוּטֵי הָווּ, אִיפְּסִיק חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ – טְרֵפָה. אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּא, וְאַיְיתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ עוֹפָא, וּבְדַק וְאַשְׁכַּח בֵּיהּ חֲמֵיסַר. הֲוָה חַד דַּהֲוָה שָׁנֵי מֵחַבְרֵיהּ, נַפְּצֵיהּ וְאַשְׁכַּח תְּרֵי.
The Gemara comments: All this applies to animals, whereas with regard to birds, there are sixteen strands; if even one of them is severed, it is a tereifa. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I was standing before father, i.e., Rav Ashi, and they brought before him a bird, and he examined it to see if it was a tereifa and found fifteen sinews. There was one of them that was different from the others; he broke it apart and it was found to be composed of two sinews.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּרוּבּוֹ; מַאי רוּבּוֹ? רוֹב אֶחָד מֵהֶן. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: מִכְּדֵי תְּלָתָא הָווּ, כִּי מִיפְּסִיק חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ לִגְמָרֵי, הָא אִיכָּא תְּרֵי.
The Gemara returns to the issue of the convergence of sinews in an animal. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The convergence of sinews in the thigh of which the Sages spoke, stating that if it is severed the animal is a tereifa, is referring to the severing of the majority of it. Rav Yehuda added: What is the meaning of the majority of it? This means the majority of one of the sinews. Rav Yehuda further stated: When I stated this halakha in the name of Rav before Shmuel, he said to me: Since they are three sinews, when one of them is severed entirely, there are still two remaining, which means that the majority of the convergence of sinews is intact. Therefore, the animal is still kosher.
טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי, הָא לֵיכָּא תְּרֵי – לָא, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבְנַאי, דְּאָמַר רַבְנַאי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בָּהּ אֶלָּא כְּחוּט הַסַּרְבָּל – כְּשֵׁרָה.
The Gemara infers from Shmuel’s statement: The reason the animal is not a tereifa is only that there are two remaining, from which it may be inferred that if there are not two remaining it is not kosher, despite the fact that the other sinew is intact. The Gemara notes: And according to this version of his opinion, Shmuel disagrees with the opinion of Rabbenai, who also stated his ruling in Shmuel’s name. As Rabbenai says that Shmuel says: With regard to the convergence of sinews in the thigh, even if only one sinew remains of it, which is as thick as the string used to close the neckline of a cloak [hasarbal], the animal is kosher.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מַאי רוּבּוֹ? רוֹב כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: מִכְּדֵי תְּלָתָא הָווּ, הָאִיכָּא תְּלָתָא דְּכֹל חַד וְחַד מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבְנַאי, דְּאָמַר רַבְנַאי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בָּהּ אֶלָּא כְּחוּט הַסַּרְבָּל – כְּשֵׁרָה.
And some say that there is a different version of this discussion. Rav Yehuda said: What is the meaning of a majority of it? This means a majority of each and every one of the sinews. Rav Yehuda added: When I stated this halakha in the name of Rav before Shmuel, he said to me: Since they are three sinews, there is one-third of each and every one, and that should be sufficient. There is no need for a majority of each sinew to remain. The Gemara notes: Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Shmuel supports the opinion of Rabbenai, as Rabbenai says that Shmuel says: With regard to the convergence of sinews in the thigh of which the Sages spoke, even if there remains of each of the three sinews only as much as the thickness of the string used to close the neckline of a cloak, the animal is kosher. This also indicates that there is no need for a majority of the sinew to remain.
נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם כּוּ׳.
§ The mishna states: If the bone of a limb was broken but the limb was not completely severed, and the animal was then slaughtered, if the majority of the flesh surrounding the bone is intact, the slaughter of the animal renders it permitted; but if not, its slaughter does not render it permitted.
אָמַר רַב: לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה, אִם רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – זֶה וָזֶה מוּתָּר, וְאִם לָאו – זֶה וָזֶה אָסוּר. לְמַטָּה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה, אִם רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – זֶה וָזֶה מוּתָּר, אִם לָאו – אֵבֶר אָסוּר וּבְהֵמָה מוּתֶּרֶת.
Rav says: If the bone was broken above the leg joint and then the animal was slaughtered, if a majority of the flesh around the break is intact, both this, the animal itself, and that, the limb, are permitted. The break does not render the animal a tereifa and the limb is not regarded as a hanging limb; therefore it is permitted by the slaughter of the animal. But if not, i.e., if a majority of the flesh around the break is not intact, both this and that, the animal and the limb, are prohibited. If the bone was broken below the leg joint, then if a majority of the flesh is intact, both this and that are permitted; if not, then the limb itself is prohibited from the area of the break and below, as it is not permitted by the slaughter of the animal, but the rest of the animal is permitted.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בֵּין לְמַעְלָה בֵּין לְמַטָּה, אִם רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – זֶה וָזֶה מוּתָּר, אִם לָאו – אֵבֶר אָסוּר, וּבְהֵמָה מוּתֶּרֶת.
And Shmuel says: Whether the break is above or below the leg joint, the halakha is the same: If a majority of the flesh is intact, both this and that, the limb and the animal, are permitted. If the majority of the flesh is not intact, the limb is prohibited and the animal is permitted. Even if the leg was broken above the leg joint the animal does not become a tereifa unless the leg was entirely severed.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן לִשְׁמוּאֵל: יֹאמְרוּ ״אֵבֶר מִמֶּנָּה מוּטָּל בָּאַשְׁפָּה וּמוּתֶּרֶת״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: לְרַב נָמֵי יֹאמְרוּ ״אֵבֶר מִמֶּנָּה מוּטָּל בָּאַשְׁפָּה וּמוּתֶּרֶת״!
Rav Naḥman objects to this ruling of Shmuel: If one permits the animal despite the fact that its leg is prohibited, people will say: A limb from the animal is placed in the garbage, as it is prohibited, and yet the animal itself is permitted? They may then mistakenly conclude that even if that leg had been completely severed from the animal, the animal would be permitted. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: This concern also exists according to the opinion of Rav, in a case where the bone is broken below the joint and the flesh is not intact. Rav rules in that case that the animal is permitted and the limb is prohibited. But is there not the concern that people will say: A limb from this animal is placed in the garbage, and the animal itself is permitted?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא, אֵבֶר שֶׁחָיָה מִמֶּנָּה מוּטָּל בָּאַשְׁפָּה, וּמוּתֶּרֶת?
Rav Naḥman said to him: This is what I meant to say: People will say: A limb from which this animal lives, i.e., which if removed, renders the animal a tereifa, is placed in the garbage, and the animal itself is permitted? The concern exists only according to the opinion of Shmuel, who permits the animal even when the break is above the joint, as were it severed there, the animal would thereby be rendered a tereifa. People may mistakenly equate the case where the bone was broken and the case where it was severed and permit both. The concern does not exist according to the opinion of Rav, as he permits the animal only in a case where the bone is broken below the joint, and even if it were severed there that would not render it a tereifa.
שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, הֲדוּר שְׁלַחוּ: כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, הֲדוּר שְׁלַחוּ: כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, וְאֵבֶר עַצְמוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.
§ With regard to this dispute, they sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that if the bone was broken above the leg joint, if a majority of the flesh around the break is not intact, both the animal and the limb are prohibited. They then sent a ruling: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that only the limb is prohibited. They then a ruling: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the animal is a tereifa, and they added that the limb itself is not rendered pure by the slaughter; rather, it imparts the impurity of a limb from a living animal by carrying. The animal itself, though, is rendered pure from the impurity of a carcass and is prohibited only as a tereifa.
מֵתִיב רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא, אִם טִיהֲרָה שְׁחִיטַת טְרֵפָה אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת הָאֵבֶר הַמְדוּלְדָּל בָּהּ – דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ, תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָעוּבָּר – דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוּפָהּ?
Rav Ḥisda raises an objection from a baraita cited earlier (73a) concerning whether the slaughter of a mother animal can render pure a limb of its fetus that was extended outside the womb even though the act of slaughter cannot render the fetus permitted for consumption. The Rabbis brought proof for their opinion that this limb is rendered pure from the halakha that a tereifa is rendered pure by slaughter even though it is not thereby permitted for consumption. Rabbi Meir responded: No, even if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the animal itself pure, and likewise, the slaughter of any animal renders pure the limb that was partially cut from it but still hangs from it from imparting the impurity of a carcass, despite the fact that this animal or limb is prohibited for consumption, that is so with regard to something that is part of its own body. Does it necessarily follow that it should also render pure the limb of its fetus, which is something that is not part of its own body? It is explicit in Rabbi Meir’s claim that the hanging limb of a tereifa is rendered pure by the slaughter of the animal.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: הַדּוֹרֵי אַפִּירְכֵי לְמָה לָךְ? אוֹתֵיב מִמַּתְנִיתִין! נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.
Rabba said to Rav Ḥisda: Why are you searching after refutations from baraitot that are not known by all? You can raise a conclusive refutation from the mishna (127b): With regard to the limb or flesh of an animal that was partially severed but remains hanging from it, if the animal was slaughtered, the limb and the flesh were thereby rendered susceptible to contracting the impurity of food by the blood of the animal, as blood is one of the seven liquids that render foods susceptible to impurity; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible with the blood of the slaughtered animal. It is evident that according to all opinions in the mishna, the hanging limb and flesh are not regarded as a limb or flesh from a living animal, which would not need to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as they impart their own impurity.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַתְנִיתִין אִיכָּא לְדַחוֹיֵי, כִּדְדָחֵינַן.
Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba: The difficulty from the mishna can be refuted, as we refuted it earlier (73a), by claiming that the dispute about the blood rendering the animal susceptible to impurity concerns only the hanging flesh, but that a hanging limb from an animal that was slaughtered does have the status of a limb from a living animal and the associated impurity.
כִּי סָלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב יִרְמְיָה דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִישַׁר, וְכֵן תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַרְיוֹךְ בְּבָבֶל. אַרְיוֹךְ מַנּוּ? שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיג! הֲדַר בֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַב.
The Gemara relates that when Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rav Yirmeya sitting and saying this halakha of Rav, i.e., that if the bone is broken above the leg joint and the flesh is not intact, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You have spoken well, and Aryokh interpreted the matter likewise in Babylonia. The Gemara asks: Who is Aryokh? It is Shmuel. But that is difficult, as Shmuel disagrees with Rav concerning this issue. The Gemara explains: Shmuel retracted his opinion in favor of that of Rav.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְיָצָא לַחוּץ, אִם עוֹר וּבָשָׂר חוֹפִין אֶת רוּבּוֹ – מוּתָּר, אִם לָאו – אָסוּר. וְכַמָּה רוּבּוֹ? כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רוֹב עוֹבְיוֹ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רוֹב הֶקֵּיפוֹ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ, בָּעֵינַן רוֹב עוֹבְיוֹ וּבָעֵינַן רוֹב הֶקֵּיפוֹ.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the bone broke and protruded outward, if skin and flesh cover a majority of the bone the animal is permitted; if not, it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: And how much is a majority of a bone? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A majority of its width, and some say that he said: A majority of its circumference. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, as there is no clear ruling on the matter, we require that the bone be covered by a majority of its width, and we also require that it be covered by a majority of its circumference.
אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָשָׂר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְעוּלָּא: וְלֵימָא מָר עוֹר מְצָרֵף לְבָשָׂר, דְּהָא ״עוֹר וּבָשָׂר״ קָתָנֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנַן ״עוֹר אוֹ בָּשָׂר״ תָּנֵינַן.
Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Skin is like flesh with regard to this issue, i.e., if the flesh has been removed but the skin covers a majority of the bone, the animal is kosher. Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: And let the Master say that skin combines with flesh, i.e., that if flesh and skin together cover a majority of the bone the animal is kosher, as the tanna of the above baraita teaches: Skin and flesh, which indicates that skin alone is ineffective. Ulla said to him: We learned that the baraita states: Skin or flesh.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי [אָמַר עוּלָּא], אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר מִצְטָרֵף לְבָשָׂר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְעוּלָּא: וְלֵימָא מָר עוֹר מַשְׁלִים לְבָשָׂר לְחוּמְרָא!
Some say that there is a different version of this discussion: Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Skin combines with flesh. Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: And let the Master say that skin completes the amount of flesh required, and this is a stringent ruling. This would mean that if the majority of the bone is covered mostly with flesh and the rest of the majority is covered with skin the animal is kosher, but if the majority is covered half with flesh and half with skin, it is not kosher.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא עוֹבָדָא יָדַעְנָא, דְּהָהוּא בַּר גּוֹזָלָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּעוֹר מְצָרֵף לְבָשָׂר הֲוָה, וַאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְאַכְשְׁרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּר גּוֹזָלָא קָאָמְרַתְּ? בַּר גּוֹזָלָא דְּרַכִּיךְ שָׁאנֵי.
Ulla said to him: I know my ruling from the following incident: As there was a certain fledgling that was in the house of Rabbi Yitzḥak, and its leg broke, and it was a situation where the skin combined with flesh to cover the majority of the bone. And Rabbi Yitzḥak came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and he deemed the bird kosher. Rav Naḥman said to him: Do you speak of a fledgling? The halakha in the case of a fledgling is different, as its skin is soft and is considered like flesh.
הָנְהוּ גִּידִין רַכִּין דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, אָמַר רַבָּה: לְמַאי לֵיחוּשׁ לְהוּ? חֲדָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גִּידִין שֶׁסּוֹפָן לְהַקְשׁוֹת
The Gemara further relates: There was a case involving certain soft sinews that combined with flesh to cover the majority of a broken bone, and they came before Rabba for a ruling. Rabba said: What concern is there with the sinews in this case? First, there is no concern, because Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to sinews that will ultimately harden,
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Chullin 76
מַתְנִי׳ בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה – כְּשֵׁרָה, מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה – פְּסוּלָה, וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין.
MISHNA: With regard to an animal whose hind legs were severed, if they were severed from the leg joint and below, the animal is kosher; from the leg joint and above, the animal is thereby rendered a tereifa and is not kosher. And likewise, an animal whose convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed is a tereifa and is not kosher.
נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם, אִם רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.
If the bone of a limb was broken but the limb was not completely severed, and the animal was then slaughtered, if the majority of the flesh surrounding the bone is intact, the slaughter of the animal renders it permitted; but if not, its slaughter does not render it permitted.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: לְמַטָּה – לְמַטָּה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה, לְמַעְלָה – לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה. בְּאֵיזוֹ אַרְכּוּבָּה אָמְרוּ? בְּאַרְכּוּבָּה הַנִּמְכֶּרֶת עִם הָרֹאשׁ.
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: When the mishna makes reference to the leg being severed from the leg joint and below, it means that the cut was below the leg joint, and when it says that if it was severed from the leg joint and above it is a tereifa, it means that the cut was above the leg joint. And with regard to which leg joint did they say this? With regard to the leg joint that is sold together with the head of the animal. This is the lower leg joint that connects the lower bone, or metatarsus, and middle bone, or tibia. Accordingly, the animal is a tereifa only if the leg was severed in the middle bone or upper bone.
עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּגָמָל נִיכָּר.
Ulla says that Rabbi Oshaya says: The mishna is referring to the leg joint that in most animals cannot be seen from the outside, but the corresponding joint in the leg of a camel is prominent and conspicuous. This is referring to the joint between the upper bone, or femur, and middle bone, or tibia. Accordingly, the animal is a tereifa only if it was severed in the upper bone.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ עוּלָּא לְרַב יְהוּדָה: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי דְּאָמֵינָא כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּגָמָל נִיכָּר, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, מַאי וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין?
Ulla said to Rav Yehuda: Granted, according to my opinion, as I say it means the joint whose corresponding joint in the leg of a camel is conspicuous, i.e., the upper joint, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: And likewise, an animal whose convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed is not kosher. The convergence of sinews lies on the lower part of the middle bone. Since I hold that if the middle bone is severed, this does not render the animal a tereifa, it is necessary for the mishna to teach that nevertheless, if that bone was severed at the point of the convergence of sinews, this would render it a tereifa. But according to your opinion that the mishna is referring to the lower joint, and if the middle bone is severed, this renders the animal a tereifa, what is the purpose of teaching: And likewise, an animal whose convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed is not kosher?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְכוּבָּה בְּלֹא צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, וְצוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים בְּלֹא רְכוּבָּה. וְהָא ״נֶחְתְּכוּ״ קָתָנֵי! אִישְׁתִּיק.
Rav Yehuda said to Ulla: According to my opinion, the mishna is referring to two cases: The first is where the leg was severed above the lower leg joint, in the middle bone, without the removal of the convergence of sinews in the thigh, and the second is where the convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed without the leg above the leg joint being severed. Ulla then asked Rav Yehuda: But the mishna teaches: Were severed, indicating that the leg was entirely severed, which perforce includes the convergence of sinews. Rav Yehuda was silent, as he did not have a resolution.
לְבָתַר דִּנְפַק אֲמַר: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ, ״לְמַטָּה״ – לְמַטָּה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה, ״לְמַעְלָה״ – לְמַעְלָה מִצּוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין?
After Ulla left, Rav Yehuda said to himself: What is the reason that I did not say to him the following resolution: When the mishna states that if the leg was severed below the leg joint the animal is kosher, it means below the lower leg joint, and when it says that if it was severed above it is a tereifa, it means in the middle bone above the convergence of sinews in the thigh. Accordingly, it would still be necessary to teach that if the convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed, this would render it a tereifa.
הֲדַר אָמַר: וְלָא אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לִי: ״נֶחְתְּכוּ״ קָתָנֵי? הָכָא נָמֵי, ״מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה״ קָתָנֵי.
Rav Yehuda then said to himself: It is good that I did not suggest this resolution, as did I not initially say a resolution to him, and he said to me that it was refuted by the fact that the mishna teaches: Were severed, which clearly indicates that it was severed completely? Here too, he could have said: You cannot explain the mishna as referring only to severing the leg above the convergence of sinews, as the mishna teaches: From the lower leg joint and above, which clearly includes the entire middle bone, including the area of the convergence of sinews.
רַב פָּפָּא מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: ״לְמַטָּה״ – לְמַטָּה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּמִצּוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין, ״לְמַעְלָה״ – לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּמִצּוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין, וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין. וְאַרְכּוּבָּה גּוּפַהּ כִּדְעוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא.
Rav Pappa teaches the previous discussion like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that Rabbi Ḥiyya says: When the mishna refers to severing the leg below, it means severing below both the leg joint and the convergence of sinews in the thigh, i.e., the lower bone was severed, and when it refers to severing the leg above, it means severing above both the leg joint and the convergence of sinews in the thigh, i.e., the upper bone was severed. And then the mishna adds that with regard to the middle bone, it is only a tereifa when the convergence of sinews was removed. And this explanation assumes that the leg joint itself is referring to the upper leg joint, in accordance with that which Ulla said that Rabbi Oshaya said, i.e., that it means the joint whose corresponding joint in the leg of a camel is conspicuous.
וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּאִילּוּ מִדְּלֵי פָּסֵיק לֵיהּ וַחֲיָה, מְתַתֵּי פָּסֵיק לֵיהּ וּמֵתָה?
The Gemara questions Rav Pappa’s explanation of the opinions of Ulla and Rav Yehuda: But is there any possibility that if one went higher up the leg and severed the middle bone above the convergence of sinews, it would live, i.e., the animal would not be a tereifa, but if one went down the leg and severed it on the convergence of sinews, it would be a tereifa and would die within twelve months? It is illogical that severing more of the leg is less life-threatening for the animal.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: טְרֵפוֹת קָא מְדַמֵּית לַהֲדָדֵי? אֵין אוֹמְרִין בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וָמֵתָה, חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וְחַיָּה.
Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing different types of tereifot to one another? One cannot say with regard to tereifot that this is similar to that, as different areas of an animal’s body react differently: One cuts it from here, at a low point on the animal’s body, and it could die; and one cuts it from there, at a higher point, and it could live.
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין? רַבָּה אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דְּאַגַּרְמָא וּלְבַר, רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דְּאַגַּרְמָא וּלְגָיו, רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: דְּעִילָּוֵי עַרְקוּמָא.
§ The Gemara asks: And which parts are included in the convergence of sinews in the thigh, such that if they are removed it renders the animal a tereifa? The sinews at the bottom of the bone cleave to it, as there is no flesh on that part of the bone. A short distance above that they separate from the bone and then they diverge from each other as they enter the flesh. Rabba says that Rav Ashi says: Those which are off the bone, before they diverge. Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav Ashi says: Those which are adjacent to the bone. Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, says that Rav Asi says: The convergence of sinews begins even lower and includes those which are above the arkum bone, a small bone that lies between the lower bone and the middle bone of the leg.
יָתֵיב הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: דְּעַרְקוּמָא גּוּפַהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הֵיכָא דְּפָרְעִי טַבָּחֵי. וְהַיְינוּ רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי.
The Gemara relates: One of the Sages sat before Rabbi Abba, and he sat and said: The convergence of sinews includes the sinews of the arkum bone itself. Rabbi Abba said to his students: Do not listen to that Sage, as his ruling is too stringent. This is what Rav Yehuda said: It is in the place where butchers split open the animal’s leg. The Gemara comments: And this is the same as that which Rava, son of Rabba bar Rav Huna, says that Rav Asi says, i.e., that it includes the sinews above the arkum.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ – מְקוֹם שֶׁהַגִּידִין צוֹמְתִין, וְעַד כַּמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וְרַב יַעֲקֹב שְׁמֵיהּ: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר לַן: שְׁמַעוּ מַנִּי מִלְּתָא דְּמִגַּבְרָא רַבָּה שְׁמִיעַ לִי, וּמַנּוּ? שְׁמוּאֵל: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין שֶׁאָמְרוּ – מְקוֹם שֶׁהַגִּידִין צוֹמְתִין בּוֹ, וּמִמְּקוֹם שֶׁצּוֹמְתִין עַד מְקוֹם שֶׁמִּתְפַּשְּׁטִין.
Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The convergence of sinews in the thigh that they spoke of in the mishna is the place where the sinews converge and appear as though they are a single entity. The Gemara asks: And until how far does it extend? One of the Sages, and his name is Rav Ya’akov, said to them: When we were studying in the school of Rav Yehuda, he said to us: Hear from me a matter that I heard from a great man, and who is he? Shmuel. The convergence of sinews that they spoke of is the place where the sinews converge, and it extends from the place where they converge until the place where they diverge and are subsumed within the flesh.
וְכַמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַרְבָּעָה בַּטְדֵי בְּתוֹרָא. בְּדַקָּה מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּלִיטִי – הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, בְּלִיעִי – לָא הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים.
The Gemara asks: And how far is this? Abaye said: Four handbreadths in an ox. The Gemara asks: What is the measure in a small domesticated animal? Abaye said: There is no set measure; rather, as long as the sinews are prominent and are not subsumed within the flesh, they are part of the convergence of sinews in the thigh, but once they are subsumed they are not considered part of the convergence of sinews in the thigh.
אַשּׁוּנֵי – הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, רַכִּיכֵי – לָא הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, אַלִּימֵי – הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, קַטִּינֵי – לָא הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, חִוָּורֵי – הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, לָא חִוָּורֵי – לָא הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים.
Abaye adds: The sinews that are hard are part of the convergence of sinews in the thigh; those that are soft are not part of the convergence of sinews. Those that are thick are part of the convergence of sinews; those that are thin are not part of the convergence of sinews. Those that are white are part of the convergence of sinews; those that are not white are not part of the convergence of sinews.
מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּזִיגִי – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חִוָּורֵי.
Mar bar Rav Ashi said: Once the sinews begin to be translucent, even if they are not actually white, they are considered part of the convergence of sinews.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב זְבִיד: תְּלָתָא חוּטֵי הָווּ, חַד אַלִּימָא וּתְרֵי קַטִּינֵי. אִיפְּסִיק אַלִּימָא – אַזְדָּא רוֹב בִּנְיָן, אִיפְּסִיק קַטִּינֵי – אַזְדָּא רוֹב מִנְיָן. מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי לְקוּלָּא: אִיפְּסִיק אַלִּימָא – הָאִיכָּא רוֹב מִנְיָן, אִיפְּסִיק קַטִּינֵי – הָאִיכָּא רוֹב בִּנְיָן.
§ With regard to the removal of the convergence of sinews in the thigh, which renders the animal a tereifa, Ameimar says in the name of Rav Zevid: There are three strands, i.e., sinews; one is thick and the other two are thin. If the thick sinew was severed, a majority of the structure of the convergence of sinews is gone, as the thick sinew is thicker than the other two combined. If the thin ones were severed, then a majority of the number of sinews is gone. If either type of majority has been severed, the animal is rendered a tereifa. Conversely, Mar bar Rav Ashi teaches a lenient version of this ruling: If the thick sinew was severed, since there is a majority of the number of sinews that remains, the animal is not a tereifa. Likewise, if the thin ones were severed, since there is a majority of the structure that remains intact, the animal is not a tereifa.
בְּעוֹפוֹת שִׁיתְּסַר חוּטֵי הָווּ, אִיפְּסִיק חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ – טְרֵפָה. אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּא, וְאַיְיתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ עוֹפָא, וּבְדַק וְאַשְׁכַּח בֵּיהּ חֲמֵיסַר. הֲוָה חַד דַּהֲוָה שָׁנֵי מֵחַבְרֵיהּ, נַפְּצֵיהּ וְאַשְׁכַּח תְּרֵי.
The Gemara comments: All this applies to animals, whereas with regard to birds, there are sixteen strands; if even one of them is severed, it is a tereifa. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I was standing before father, i.e., Rav Ashi, and they brought before him a bird, and he examined it to see if it was a tereifa and found fifteen sinews. There was one of them that was different from the others; he broke it apart and it was found to be composed of two sinews.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין שֶׁאָמְרוּ בְּרוּבּוֹ; מַאי רוּבּוֹ? רוֹב אֶחָד מֵהֶן. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: מִכְּדֵי תְּלָתָא הָווּ, כִּי מִיפְּסִיק חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ לִגְמָרֵי, הָא אִיכָּא תְּרֵי.
The Gemara returns to the issue of the convergence of sinews in an animal. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The convergence of sinews in the thigh of which the Sages spoke, stating that if it is severed the animal is a tereifa, is referring to the severing of the majority of it. Rav Yehuda added: What is the meaning of the majority of it? This means the majority of one of the sinews. Rav Yehuda further stated: When I stated this halakha in the name of Rav before Shmuel, he said to me: Since they are three sinews, when one of them is severed entirely, there are still two remaining, which means that the majority of the convergence of sinews is intact. Therefore, the animal is still kosher.
טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי, הָא לֵיכָּא תְּרֵי – לָא, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבְנַאי, דְּאָמַר רַבְנַאי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בָּהּ אֶלָּא כְּחוּט הַסַּרְבָּל – כְּשֵׁרָה.
The Gemara infers from Shmuel’s statement: The reason the animal is not a tereifa is only that there are two remaining, from which it may be inferred that if there are not two remaining it is not kosher, despite the fact that the other sinew is intact. The Gemara notes: And according to this version of his opinion, Shmuel disagrees with the opinion of Rabbenai, who also stated his ruling in Shmuel’s name. As Rabbenai says that Shmuel says: With regard to the convergence of sinews in the thigh, even if only one sinew remains of it, which is as thick as the string used to close the neckline of a cloak [hasarbal], the animal is kosher.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: מַאי רוּבּוֹ? רוֹב כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: מִכְּדֵי תְּלָתָא הָווּ, הָאִיכָּא תְּלָתָא דְּכֹל חַד וְחַד מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבְנַאי, דְּאָמַר רַבְנַאי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בָּהּ אֶלָּא כְּחוּט הַסַּרְבָּל – כְּשֵׁרָה.
And some say that there is a different version of this discussion. Rav Yehuda said: What is the meaning of a majority of it? This means a majority of each and every one of the sinews. Rav Yehuda added: When I stated this halakha in the name of Rav before Shmuel, he said to me: Since they are three sinews, there is one-third of each and every one, and that should be sufficient. There is no need for a majority of each sinew to remain. The Gemara notes: Rav Yehuda’s statement in the name of Shmuel supports the opinion of Rabbenai, as Rabbenai says that Shmuel says: With regard to the convergence of sinews in the thigh of which the Sages spoke, even if there remains of each of the three sinews only as much as the thickness of the string used to close the neckline of a cloak, the animal is kosher. This also indicates that there is no need for a majority of the sinew to remain.
נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם כּוּ׳.
§ The mishna states: If the bone of a limb was broken but the limb was not completely severed, and the animal was then slaughtered, if the majority of the flesh surrounding the bone is intact, the slaughter of the animal renders it permitted; but if not, its slaughter does not render it permitted.
אָמַר רַב: לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה, אִם רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – זֶה וָזֶה מוּתָּר, וְאִם לָאו – זֶה וָזֶה אָסוּר. לְמַטָּה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה, אִם רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – זֶה וָזֶה מוּתָּר, אִם לָאו – אֵבֶר אָסוּר וּבְהֵמָה מוּתֶּרֶת.
Rav says: If the bone was broken above the leg joint and then the animal was slaughtered, if a majority of the flesh around the break is intact, both this, the animal itself, and that, the limb, are permitted. The break does not render the animal a tereifa and the limb is not regarded as a hanging limb; therefore it is permitted by the slaughter of the animal. But if not, i.e., if a majority of the flesh around the break is not intact, both this and that, the animal and the limb, are prohibited. If the bone was broken below the leg joint, then if a majority of the flesh is intact, both this and that are permitted; if not, then the limb itself is prohibited from the area of the break and below, as it is not permitted by the slaughter of the animal, but the rest of the animal is permitted.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בֵּין לְמַעְלָה בֵּין לְמַטָּה, אִם רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – זֶה וָזֶה מוּתָּר, אִם לָאו – אֵבֶר אָסוּר, וּבְהֵמָה מוּתֶּרֶת.
And Shmuel says: Whether the break is above or below the leg joint, the halakha is the same: If a majority of the flesh is intact, both this and that, the limb and the animal, are permitted. If the majority of the flesh is not intact, the limb is prohibited and the animal is permitted. Even if the leg was broken above the leg joint the animal does not become a tereifa unless the leg was entirely severed.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב נַחְמָן לִשְׁמוּאֵל: יֹאמְרוּ ״אֵבֶר מִמֶּנָּה מוּטָּל בָּאַשְׁפָּה וּמוּתֶּרֶת״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: לְרַב נָמֵי יֹאמְרוּ ״אֵבֶר מִמֶּנָּה מוּטָּל בָּאַשְׁפָּה וּמוּתֶּרֶת״!
Rav Naḥman objects to this ruling of Shmuel: If one permits the animal despite the fact that its leg is prohibited, people will say: A limb from the animal is placed in the garbage, as it is prohibited, and yet the animal itself is permitted? They may then mistakenly conclude that even if that leg had been completely severed from the animal, the animal would be permitted. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: This concern also exists according to the opinion of Rav, in a case where the bone is broken below the joint and the flesh is not intact. Rav rules in that case that the animal is permitted and the limb is prohibited. But is there not the concern that people will say: A limb from this animal is placed in the garbage, and the animal itself is permitted?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא, אֵבֶר שֶׁחָיָה מִמֶּנָּה מוּטָּל בָּאַשְׁפָּה, וּמוּתֶּרֶת?
Rav Naḥman said to him: This is what I meant to say: People will say: A limb from which this animal lives, i.e., which if removed, renders the animal a tereifa, is placed in the garbage, and the animal itself is permitted? The concern exists only according to the opinion of Shmuel, who permits the animal even when the break is above the joint, as were it severed there, the animal would thereby be rendered a tereifa. People may mistakenly equate the case where the bone was broken and the case where it was severed and permit both. The concern does not exist according to the opinion of Rav, as he permits the animal only in a case where the bone is broken below the joint, and even if it were severed there that would not render it a tereifa.
שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, הֲדוּר שְׁלַחוּ: כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, הֲדוּר שְׁלַחוּ: כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, וְאֵבֶר עַצְמוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.
§ With regard to this dispute, they sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that if the bone was broken above the leg joint, if a majority of the flesh around the break is not intact, both the animal and the limb are prohibited. They then sent a ruling: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that only the limb is prohibited. They then a ruling: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the animal is a tereifa, and they added that the limb itself is not rendered pure by the slaughter; rather, it imparts the impurity of a limb from a living animal by carrying. The animal itself, though, is rendered pure from the impurity of a carcass and is prohibited only as a tereifa.
מֵתִיב רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא, אִם טִיהֲרָה שְׁחִיטַת טְרֵפָה אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת הָאֵבֶר הַמְדוּלְדָּל בָּהּ – דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ, תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָעוּבָּר – דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוּפָהּ?
Rav Ḥisda raises an objection from a baraita cited earlier (73a) concerning whether the slaughter of a mother animal can render pure a limb of its fetus that was extended outside the womb even though the act of slaughter cannot render the fetus permitted for consumption. The Rabbis brought proof for their opinion that this limb is rendered pure from the halakha that a tereifa is rendered pure by slaughter even though it is not thereby permitted for consumption. Rabbi Meir responded: No, even if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the animal itself pure, and likewise, the slaughter of any animal renders pure the limb that was partially cut from it but still hangs from it from imparting the impurity of a carcass, despite the fact that this animal or limb is prohibited for consumption, that is so with regard to something that is part of its own body. Does it necessarily follow that it should also render pure the limb of its fetus, which is something that is not part of its own body? It is explicit in Rabbi Meir’s claim that the hanging limb of a tereifa is rendered pure by the slaughter of the animal.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: הַדּוֹרֵי אַפִּירְכֵי לְמָה לָךְ? אוֹתֵיב מִמַּתְנִיתִין! נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.
Rabba said to Rav Ḥisda: Why are you searching after refutations from baraitot that are not known by all? You can raise a conclusive refutation from the mishna (127b): With regard to the limb or flesh of an animal that was partially severed but remains hanging from it, if the animal was slaughtered, the limb and the flesh were thereby rendered susceptible to contracting the impurity of food by the blood of the animal, as blood is one of the seven liquids that render foods susceptible to impurity; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: They were not rendered susceptible with the blood of the slaughtered animal. It is evident that according to all opinions in the mishna, the hanging limb and flesh are not regarded as a limb or flesh from a living animal, which would not need to be rendered susceptible to impurity, as they impart their own impurity.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַתְנִיתִין אִיכָּא לְדַחוֹיֵי, כִּדְדָחֵינַן.
Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba: The difficulty from the mishna can be refuted, as we refuted it earlier (73a), by claiming that the dispute about the blood rendering the animal susceptible to impurity concerns only the hanging flesh, but that a hanging limb from an animal that was slaughtered does have the status of a limb from a living animal and the associated impurity.
כִּי סָלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב יִרְמְיָה דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יִישַׁר, וְכֵן תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַרְיוֹךְ בְּבָבֶל. אַרְיוֹךְ מַנּוּ? שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיג! הֲדַר בֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַב.
The Gemara relates that when Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rav Yirmeya sitting and saying this halakha of Rav, i.e., that if the bone is broken above the leg joint and the flesh is not intact, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Zeira said to him: You have spoken well, and Aryokh interpreted the matter likewise in Babylonia. The Gemara asks: Who is Aryokh? It is Shmuel. But that is difficult, as Shmuel disagrees with Rav concerning this issue. The Gemara explains: Shmuel retracted his opinion in favor of that of Rav.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְיָצָא לַחוּץ, אִם עוֹר וּבָשָׂר חוֹפִין אֶת רוּבּוֹ – מוּתָּר, אִם לָאו – אָסוּר. וְכַמָּה רוּבּוֹ? כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רוֹב עוֹבְיוֹ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: רוֹב הֶקֵּיפוֹ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הִלְכָּךְ, בָּעֵינַן רוֹב עוֹבְיוֹ וּבָעֵינַן רוֹב הֶקֵּיפוֹ.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the bone broke and protruded outward, if skin and flesh cover a majority of the bone the animal is permitted; if not, it is prohibited. The Gemara asks: And how much is a majority of a bone? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A majority of its width, and some say that he said: A majority of its circumference. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, as there is no clear ruling on the matter, we require that the bone be covered by a majority of its width, and we also require that it be covered by a majority of its circumference.
אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָשָׂר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְעוּלָּא: וְלֵימָא מָר עוֹר מְצָרֵף לְבָשָׂר, דְּהָא ״עוֹר וּבָשָׂר״ קָתָנֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנַן ״עוֹר אוֹ בָּשָׂר״ תָּנֵינַן.
Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Skin is like flesh with regard to this issue, i.e., if the flesh has been removed but the skin covers a majority of the bone, the animal is kosher. Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: And let the Master say that skin combines with flesh, i.e., that if flesh and skin together cover a majority of the bone the animal is kosher, as the tanna of the above baraita teaches: Skin and flesh, which indicates that skin alone is ineffective. Ulla said to him: We learned that the baraita states: Skin or flesh.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי [אָמַר עוּלָּא], אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר מִצְטָרֵף לְבָשָׂר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְעוּלָּא: וְלֵימָא מָר עוֹר מַשְׁלִים לְבָשָׂר לְחוּמְרָא!
Some say that there is a different version of this discussion: Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Skin combines with flesh. Rav Naḥman said to Ulla: And let the Master say that skin completes the amount of flesh required, and this is a stringent ruling. This would mean that if the majority of the bone is covered mostly with flesh and the rest of the majority is covered with skin the animal is kosher, but if the majority is covered half with flesh and half with skin, it is not kosher.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא עוֹבָדָא יָדַעְנָא, דְּהָהוּא בַּר גּוֹזָלָא דַּהֲוָה בֵּי רַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּעוֹר מְצָרֵף לְבָשָׂר הֲוָה, וַאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְאַכְשְׁרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בַּר גּוֹזָלָא קָאָמְרַתְּ? בַּר גּוֹזָלָא דְּרַכִּיךְ שָׁאנֵי.
Ulla said to him: I know my ruling from the following incident: As there was a certain fledgling that was in the house of Rabbi Yitzḥak, and its leg broke, and it was a situation where the skin combined with flesh to cover the majority of the bone. And Rabbi Yitzḥak came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and he deemed the bird kosher. Rav Naḥman said to him: Do you speak of a fledgling? The halakha in the case of a fledgling is different, as its skin is soft and is considered like flesh.
הָנְהוּ גִּידִין רַכִּין דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, אָמַר רַבָּה: לְמַאי לֵיחוּשׁ לְהוּ? חֲדָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גִּידִין שֶׁסּוֹפָן לְהַקְשׁוֹת
The Gemara further relates: There was a case involving certain soft sinews that combined with flesh to cover the majority of a broken bone, and they came before Rabba for a ruling. Rabba said: What concern is there with the sinews in this case? First, there is no concern, because Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to sinews that will ultimately harden,
Follow
