Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 11, 2019 | 讜壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 76

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?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 砖谞讞转讻讜 专讙诇讬讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜讻谉 砖谞讬讟诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉

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.

谞砖讘专 讛注爪诐 讗诐 专讜讘 讛讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转讜

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讘讗讬讝讜 讗专讻讜讘讛 讗诪专讜 讘讗专讻讜讘讛 讛谞诪讻专转 注诐 讛专讗砖

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that Rabbi 岣yya 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.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻谞讙讚讜 讘讙诪诇 谞讬讻专

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讻谞讙讚讜 讘讙诪诇 谞讬讻专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 砖谞讬讟诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 砖谞讬讟诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讻讜讘讛 讘诇讗 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讜爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讘诇讗 专讻讜讘讛 讜讛讗 谞讞转讻讜 拽转谞讬 讗讬砖转讬拽

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.

诇讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉

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.

讛讚专 讗诪专 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬 谞讞转讻讜 拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 拽转谞讬

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.

专讘 驻驻讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诪爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诪爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讻谉 砖谞讬讟诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讗专讻讜讘讛 讙讜驻讛 讻讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗

Rav Pappa teaches the previous discussion like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讚诇讬 驻住讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讞讬讛 诪转转讬 驻住讬拽 诇讬讛 讜诪转讛

The Gemara questions Rav Pappa鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讟专驻讜转 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转 诇讛讚讚讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讘讟专驻讜转 讝讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讝讜 砖讛专讬 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜诪转讛 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讞讬讛

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鈥檚 body react differently: One cuts it from here, at a low point on the animal鈥檚 body, and it could die; and one cuts it from there, at a higher point, and it could live.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗讙专诪讗 讜诇讘专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗讙专诪讗 讜诇讙讬讜 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讚注讬诇讜讬 注专拽讜诪讗

搂 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.

讬转讬讘 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讚注专拽讜诪讗 讙讜驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讻讗 讚驻专注讬 讟讘讞讬 讜讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讙讬讚讬谉 爪讜诪转讬谉 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜专讘 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬讛 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇谉 砖诪注讜 诪谞讬 诪诇转讗 讚诪讙讘专讗 专讘讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜诪谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讙讬讚讬谉 爪讜诪转讬谉 讘讜 讜诪诪拽讜诐 砖爪讜诪转讬谉 注讚 诪拽讜诐 砖诪转驻砖讟讬谉

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鈥檃kov, 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.

讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗专讘注讛 讘讟讚讬 讘转讜专讗 讘讚拽讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘诇讬讟讬 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讘诇讬注讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐

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.

讗砖讜谞讬 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 专讻讬讻讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讗诇讬诪讬 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 拽讟讬谞讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讞讜讜专讬 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 诇讗 讞讜讜专讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐

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.

诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讝讬讙讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讜讜专讬

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.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 转诇转讗 讞讜讟讬 讛讜讜 讞讚 讗诇讬诪讗 讜转专讬 拽讟讬谞讬 讗讬驻住讬拽 讗诇讬诪讗 讗讝讚讗 专讜讘 讘谞讬谉 讗讬驻住讬拽 拽讟讬谞讬 讗讝讚讗 专讜讘 诪谞讬谉 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讗讬驻住讬拽 讗诇讬诪讗 讛讗讬讻讗 专讜讘 诪谞讬谉 讗讬驻住讬拽 拽讟讬谞讬 讛讗讬讻讗 专讜讘 讘谞讬谉

搂 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.

讘注讜驻讜转 砖讬转住专 讞讜讟讬 讛讜讜 讗讬 驻住讬拽 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讟专驻讛 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讗 讜讗讬讬转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 注讜驻讗 讜讘讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讘讬讛 讞诪讬住专 讛讜讛 讞讚 讚讛讜讛 砖谞讬 诪讞讘专讬讛 谞驻爪讬讛 讜讗砖讻讞 转专讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讘专讜讘讜 诪讗讬 专讜讘讜 专讜讘 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 诪讻讚讬 转诇转讗 讛讜讜 讻讬 诪讬驻住讬拽 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讙诪专讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 转专讬

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.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 转专讬 诇讗 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘谞讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讛 讗诇讗 讻讞讜讟 讛住专讘诇 讻砖专讛

The Gemara infers from Shmuel鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 专讜讘讜 专讜讘 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 诪讻讚讬 转诇转讗 讛讜讜 讛讗讬讻讗 转诇转讗 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘谞讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讛 讗诇讗 讻讞讜讟 讛住专讘诇 讻砖专讛

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鈥檚 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.

谞砖讘专 讛注爪诐 讻讜壮

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讗诐 专讜讘 讛讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讗诐 专讜讘 讛讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讘专 讗住讜专 讜讘讛诪讛 诪讜转专转

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讗诐 专讜讘 讛讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讘专 讗住讜专 讜讘讛诪讛 诪讜转专转

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬讗诪专讜 讗讘专 诪诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讘讗砖驻讛 讜诪讜转专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 谞诪讬 讬讗诪专讜 讗讘专 诪诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讘讗砖驻讛 讜诪讜转专转

Rav Na岣an 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 A岣 bar Rav Huna said to Rav Na岣an: 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗讘专 砖讞讬讛 诪诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讘讗砖驻讛 讜诪讜转专转

Rav Na岣an 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.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讚讜专 砖诇讞讜 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讚讜专 砖诇讞讜 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讗讘专 注爪诪讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

搂 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 讗诐 讟讬讛专讛 砖讞讬讟转 讟专驻讛 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讛讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘讛 讚讘专 砖讙讜驻讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛注讜讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛

Rav 岣sda 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鈥檚 claim that the hanging limb of a tereifa is rendered pure by the slaughter of the animal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讛讚讜专讬 讗驻讬专讻讬 诇诪讛 诇讱 讗讜转讬讘 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞砖讞讟讛 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讚诪讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜

Rabba said to Rav 岣sda: 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬讻讗 诇讚讞讜讬讬 讻讚讚讞讬谞谉

Rav 岣sda 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.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 转专讙诪讛 讗专讬讜讱 讘讘讘诇 讗专讬讜讱 诪谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙 讛讚专 讘讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讘专 讛注爪诐 讜讬爪讗 诇讞讜抓 讗诐 注讜专 讜讘砖专 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讜讘讜 诪讜转专 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗住讜专 讜讻诪讛 专讜讘讜 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讜讘 注讜讘讬讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讜讘 讛拽讬驻讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻讱 讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘 注讜讘讬讜 讜讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘 讛拽讬驻讜

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 注讜专 诪爪专祝 诇讘砖专 讚讛讗 注讜专 讜讘砖专 拽转谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 注讜专 讗讜 讘砖专 转谞讬谞谉

Ulla said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Na岣an 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 [讗诪专 注讜诇讗] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讘砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 注讜专 诪砖诇讬诐 诇讘砖专 诇讞讜诪专讗

Some say that there is a different version of this discussion: Ulla said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Skin combines with flesh. Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 注讜讘讚讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讘专 讙讜讝诇讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚注讜专 诪爪专祝 诇讘砖专 讛讜讛 讜讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗讻砖专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 讙讜讝诇讗 拽讗诪专转 讘专 讙讜讝诇讗 讚专讻讬讱 砖讗谞讬

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 Yitz岣k, and its leg broke, and it was a situation where the skin combined with flesh to cover the majority of the bone. And Rabbi Yitz岣k came before Rabbi Yo岣nan and he deemed the bird kosher. Rav Na岣an 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.

讛谞讛讜 讙讬讚讬谉 专讻讬谉 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇诪讗讬 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讬讚讬谉 砖住讜驻谉 诇讛拽砖讜转

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 Yo岣nan says: With regard to sinews that will ultimately harden,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 76

诪转谞讬壮 讘讛诪讛 砖谞讞转讻讜 专讙诇讬讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 驻住讜诇讛 讜讻谉 砖谞讬讟诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉

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.

谞砖讘专 讛注爪诐 讗诐 专讜讘 讛讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 诪讟讛专转讜

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讘讗讬讝讜 讗专讻讜讘讛 讗诪专讜 讘讗专讻讜讘讛 讛谞诪讻专转 注诐 讛专讗砖

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that Rabbi 岣yya 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.

注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻谞讙讚讜 讘讙诪诇 谞讬讻专

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讜诇讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讻谞讙讚讜 讘讙诪诇 谞讬讻专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讜讻谉 砖谞讬讟诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 诪讗讬 讜讻谉 砖谞讬讟诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讻讜讘讛 讘诇讗 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讜爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讘诇讗 专讻讜讘讛 讜讛讗 谞讞转讻讜 拽转谞讬 讗讬砖转讬拽

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.

诇讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉

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.

讛讚专 讗诪专 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬 谞讞转讻讜 拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 拽转谞讬

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.

专讘 驻驻讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诪爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讜诪爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讻谉 砖谞讬讟诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讗专讻讜讘讛 讙讜驻讛 讻讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗

Rav Pappa teaches the previous discussion like this: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says that Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬诇讜 诪讚诇讬 驻住讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讞讬讛 诪转转讬 驻住讬拽 诇讬讛 讜诪转讛

The Gemara questions Rav Pappa鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讟专驻讜转 拽讗 诪讚诪讬转 诇讛讚讚讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讘讟专驻讜转 讝讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讝讜 砖讛专讬 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜诪转讛 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讞讬讛

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鈥檚 body react differently: One cuts it from here, at a low point on the animal鈥檚 body, and it could die; and one cuts it from there, at a higher point, and it could live.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗讙专诪讗 讜诇讘专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗讙专诪讗 讜诇讙讬讜 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讚注讬诇讜讬 注专拽讜诪讗

搂 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.

讬转讬讘 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讚注专拽讜诪讗 讙讜驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 转爪讬转讜 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讻讗 讚驻专注讬 讟讘讞讬 讜讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讙讬讚讬谉 爪讜诪转讬谉 讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜专讘 讬注拽讘 砖诪讬讛 讻讬 讛讜讬谞谉 讘讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇谉 砖诪注讜 诪谞讬 诪诇转讗 讚诪讙讘专讗 专讘讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜诪谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讙讬讚讬谉 爪讜诪转讬谉 讘讜 讜诪诪拽讜诐 砖爪讜诪转讬谉 注讚 诪拽讜诐 砖诪转驻砖讟讬谉

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鈥檃kov, 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.

讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗专讘注讛 讘讟讚讬 讘转讜专讗 讘讚拽讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘诇讬讟讬 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讘诇讬注讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐

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.

讗砖讜谞讬 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 专讻讬讻讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讗诇讬诪讬 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 拽讟讬谞讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讞讜讜专讬 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 诇讗 讞讜讜专讬 诇讗 讛讜讜 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐

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.

诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讝讬讙讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讜讜专讬

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.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讘讬讚 转诇转讗 讞讜讟讬 讛讜讜 讞讚 讗诇讬诪讗 讜转专讬 拽讟讬谞讬 讗讬驻住讬拽 讗诇讬诪讗 讗讝讚讗 专讜讘 讘谞讬谉 讗讬驻住讬拽 拽讟讬谞讬 讗讝讚讗 专讜讘 诪谞讬谉 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬 诇拽讜诇讗 讗讬驻住讬拽 讗诇讬诪讗 讛讗讬讻讗 专讜讘 诪谞讬谉 讗讬驻住讬拽 拽讟讬谞讬 讛讗讬讻讗 专讜讘 讘谞讬谉

搂 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.

讘注讜驻讜转 砖讬转住专 讞讜讟讬 讛讜讜 讗讬 驻住讬拽 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讟专驻讛 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讗 讜讗讬讬转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 注讜驻讗 讜讘讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讘讬讛 讞诪讬住专 讛讜讛 讞讚 讚讛讜讛 砖谞讬 诪讞讘专讬讛 谞驻爪讬讛 讜讗砖讻讞 转专讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讘专讜讘讜 诪讗讬 专讜讘讜 专讜讘 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 诪讻讚讬 转诇转讗 讛讜讜 讻讬 诪讬驻住讬拽 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讙诪专讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 转专讬

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.

讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转专讬 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 转专讬 诇讗 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘谞讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讛 讗诇讗 讻讞讜讟 讛住专讘诇 讻砖专讛

The Gemara infers from Shmuel鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 专讜讘讜 专讜讘 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 诪讻讚讬 转诇转讗 讛讜讜 讛讗讬讻讗 转诇转讗 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘谞讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 爪讜诪转 讛讙讬讚讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 谞砖转讬讬专 讘讛 讗诇讗 讻讞讜讟 讛住专讘诇 讻砖专讛

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鈥檚 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.

谞砖讘专 讛注爪诐 讻讜壮

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讗诐 专讜讘 讛讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗住讜专 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛讗专讻讜讘讛 讗诐 专讜讘 讛讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讘专 讗住讜专 讜讘讛诪讛 诪讜转专转

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讘讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讗诐 专讜讘 讛讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜转专 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讘专 讗住讜专 讜讘讛诪讛 诪讜转专转

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讬讗诪专讜 讗讘专 诪诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讘讗砖驻讛 讜诪讜转专转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 谞诪讬 讬讗诪专讜 讗讘专 诪诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讘讗砖驻讛 讜诪讜转专转

Rav Na岣an 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 A岣 bar Rav Huna said to Rav Na岣an: 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗讘专 砖讞讬讛 诪诪谞讛 诪讜讟诇 讘讗砖驻讛 讜诪讜转专转

Rav Na岣an 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.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讚讜专 砖诇讞讜 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讚讜专 砖诇讞讜 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讗讘专 注爪诪讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪砖讗

搂 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 讗诐 讟讬讛专讛 砖讞讬讟转 讟专驻讛 讗讜转讛 讜讗转 讛讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘讛 讚讘专 砖讙讜驻讛 转讟讛专 讗转 讛注讜讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜驻讛

Rav 岣sda 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鈥檚 claim that the hanging limb of a tereifa is rendered pure by the slaughter of the animal.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讛讚讜专讬 讗驻讬专讻讬 诇诪讛 诇讱 讗讜转讬讘 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞砖讞讟讛 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讻砖专讜 讘讚诪讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讜

Rabba said to Rav 岣sda: 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讬讻讗 诇讚讞讜讬讬 讻讚讚讞讬谞谉

Rav 岣sda 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.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讬砖专 讜讻谉 转专讙诪讛 讗专讬讜讱 讘讘讘诇 讗专讬讜讱 诪谞讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙 讛讚专 讘讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讚专讘

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讘专 讛注爪诐 讜讬爪讗 诇讞讜抓 讗诐 注讜专 讜讘砖专 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讜讘讜 诪讜转专 讗诐 诇讗讜 讗住讜专 讜讻诪讛 专讜讘讜 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讜讘 注讜讘讬讜 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讜讘 讛拽讬驻讜 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻讱 讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘 注讜讘讬讜 讜讘注讬谞谉 专讜讘 讛拽讬驻讜

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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 注讜专 诪爪专祝 诇讘砖专 讚讛讗 注讜专 讜讘砖专 拽转谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 注讜专 讗讜 讘砖专 转谞讬谞谉

Ulla said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Na岣an 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 [讗诪专 注讜诇讗] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讜专 诪爪讟专祝 诇讘砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 注讜专 诪砖诇讬诐 诇讘砖专 诇讞讜诪专讗

Some say that there is a different version of this discussion: Ulla said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Skin combines with flesh. Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 注讜讘讚讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讘专 讙讜讝诇讗 讚讛讜讛 讘讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚注讜专 诪爪专祝 诇讘砖专 讛讜讛 讜讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗讻砖专讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘专 讙讜讝诇讗 拽讗诪专转 讘专 讙讜讝诇讗 讚专讻讬讱 砖讗谞讬

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 Yitz岣k, and its leg broke, and it was a situation where the skin combined with flesh to cover the majority of the bone. And Rabbi Yitz岣k came before Rabbi Yo岣nan and he deemed the bird kosher. Rav Na岣an 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.

讛谞讛讜 讙讬讚讬谉 专讻讬谉 讚讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 诇诪讗讬 诇讬讞讜砖 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讬讚讬谉 砖住讜驻谉 诇讛拽砖讜转

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 Yo岣nan says: With regard to sinews that will ultimately harden,

Scroll To Top