Parallel
חולין 76
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
MISHNAH. IF THE HIND LEGS OF AN ANIMAL WERE CUT OFF BELOW THE JOINT, IT IS PERMITTED; IF ABOVE THE JOINT, IT IS TREFAH. SO TOO IF THE JUNCTURE OF THE TENDONS WAS GONE, [IT IS TREFAH]. IF THE BONE WAS BROKEN BUT THE GREATER PART OF THE FLESH [AROUND THE FRACTURE] REMAINED, IT IS RENDERED CLEAN BY THE SLAUGHTERING; OTHERWISE IT IS NOT RENDERED CLEAN BY THE SLAUGHTERING. GEMARA. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab who reported it in the name of R. Hiyya, BELOW means below the joint, and ABOVE means above the joint, and the joint referred to is the joint which is sold together with the head. Ulla said in the name of R. Oshaia: It is that joint which is clearly distinguishable in the camel. Ulla said to Rab Judah, ‘According to me, holding as I do that it is that joint which is clearly distinguishable in the camel, it is right that the Mishnah also states: SO, TOO, IF THE JUNCTURE OF THE TENDONS WAS GONE. But according to you, why does it state, SO, TOO, IF THE JUNCTURE OF THE TENDONS WAS GONE?’ — He replied: ‘[It teaches that the animal is trefah] whether the bone was gone and the juncture of the tendons remained, or the juncture of the tendons was gone and the bone remained’. ‘But the Mishnah expressly states WERE CUT OFF’? — He [Rab Judah] was silent [and did not reply]. But when he [Ulla] had left, Rab Judah said to himself, ‘Why did I not answer him thus: BELOW means below the joint, but ABOVE means above the juncture of the tendons?’ Later he said: ‘And did I not suggest an answer to him? but he retorted that the Mishnah expressly states: WERE CUT OFF. Then to this suggestion, too, [he would have retorted, that] the Mishnah expressly states: ABOVE THE JOINT. R. Papa reported the passage thus: Rab Judah said in the name of Rab who reported it in the name of R. Hiyya, BELOW means below the joint and the juncture of the tendons, and ABOVE means above the joint and the juncture of the tendons. So, too, if the juncture of the tendons was gone [it is trefah]; and the actual joint meant is that [which was referred to in the statement] of Ulla in the name of R. Oshaia. But is it possible to conceive of such a case, namely, that if the limb were cut off higher up the animal would live [and it would be permitted], and if it were cut off lower down the animal would die? — R. Ashi retorted: Are you comparing defects with one other? Amongst the various defects we do not say that this resembles that; for one may cut the animal in one place and it will die and in another place and it will live. And this is the extent of the juncture of the tendons — Rabbah said in the name of R. Ashi, That part with is off the bone. Rabbah son of R. Huna said in the name of R. Ashi: That part which is on the bone. Raba the son of Rabbah son of R. Huna said in the name of R. Assi: That part which is above the heel. A certain Rabbi was sitting before R. Abba and recited: It is that part which is on the heel; whereupon R. Abba said: Pay no attention to him, for thus said Rab Judah: It is that part which the butchers strike; and this corresponds with the view reported by Raba the son of Rabbah son of R. Huna in the name of Rab Judah. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The juncture of the tendons of which the Rabbis spoke, is the place where the tendons converge. And how far does it extend? — A certain Rabbi, whose name was R. Jacob, said: When I was at the school of Rab Judah, he said to us: Accept from me the following ruling which I heard from a great man, that is Samuel, viz., The juncture of the tendons of which they spoke is the place where the tendons converge, and it extends from the place where the tendons converge up to the place where they part. How much is this? — Abaye said: Four finger-breadths in an ox. What is the extent in small cattle? — Abaye said: Where the tendons bulge it is part of the juncture, but not where they are sunken in; where they are hard it is part of the juncture but not where they are soft; where they are large it is part of the juncture but not where they are small; where they are white it is part of the juncture but not where they are not white.
—
Mar son of R. Ashi said: Where they are transparent though not white [it is part of the juncture of the tendons]. Amemar said in the name of R. Zebid: It consists of three tendons, one thick and two thin. If the thick one was severed [it is trefah, for] the greater part of its structure has gone; and if the thin ones were severed [it is trefah, for] the greater number [of tendons] has gone. Mar son of R. Ashi reports the above in favour of leniency thus: If the thick one was severed [it is permitted, for] there remains the greater number of tendons, and if the thin ones were severed [it is permitted, for] there remains the greater part of its structure. In birds the juncture consists of sixteen tendons; if one was severed, it is trefah. Mar son of R. Ashi said: I was once standing before my father when there was brought to him a bird which he examined and found therein only fifteen tendons. One, however, appeared different from the others, so he split it and found that it was composed of two tendons; [he therefore declared it to be permitted.] Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: With regard to the juncture of the tendons, if the greater part [was severed, it is trefah]. What is meant by ‘the greater part’? The greater part of any one of them. When I stated this in the presence of Samuel he said to me, ‘Consider, there are three [tendons], are there not? Even if one was entirely severed there still remain two’! Now the reason is because there still remain two; but if there did not remain two it would not [be permitted]. This clearly is in conflict with the view of Rabbanai. For Rabbanai stated in the name of Samuel: If of the juncture of the tendons there only remained as much as the thread of a woolen cloak, it is permitted. Others say: By ‘the greater part’ is meant the greater part of each. [tendon]. When I stated this in the presence of Samuel he said to me, ‘Consider, there are three [tendons], are there not? [Even if the greater part of each was cut] there still remains one third of each one’. This accordingly supports the view of Rabbanai. For Rabbanai stated in the name of Samuel: If of the juncture of the tendons there only remained as much as the thread of a woolen cloak, it is permitted. IF THE BONE WAS BROKEN etc. Rab said, [Where the fracture was] above the joint, if the greater part of the flesh remained, both are permitted, and if not both are forbidden. [Where the fracture was] below the joint, if the greater part of the flesh remained, both are permitted, and if not the limb is forbidden but the animal is permitted. Samuel said: Whether the fracture was above or below the joint, if the greater part of the flesh remained, both are permitted, and if not the limb is forbidden but the animal is permitted. R. Nahman demurred saying: According to Samuel's view people will remark, ‘A limb thereof is thrown on to the dung-heap and yet the animal is permitted’! Whereupon R. Aba son of R. Huna said to R. Nahman: Even according to Rab's view people will remark, ‘A limb thereof is thrown on to the dung-heap and yet the animal is permitted!’ — He replied. I mean this, people will remark, ‘A vital limb of the animal is thrown on to the dung-heap and yet the animal is permitted’! They sent word from there [Palestine]: The law agrees with Rab's view. They later sent word: The law agrees with Samuel's view. And yet another time they sent word: The law agrees with Rab's view; moreover, the limb conveys uncleanness by carrying. R. Hisda raised this objection. It was taught: It is not so. When you say that the slaughtering of a trefah animal renders it clean, or [that the slaughtering of an animal] renders the limb that hangs loose clean, you are concerned with [the animal] itself; but can it render clean the [limb of the] foetus which is not part of [the animal] itself? Thereupon Rabbah said to him: Why go searching for objections? You could raise an objection from a Mishnah which we have learnt: If the animal was slaughtered they are rendered susceptible [to contract uncleanness] by the blood [of the slaughtering]: so R. Meir. R. Simeon says: They are not rendered susceptible to uncleanness! — He replied, [The objection from] that Mishnah can be rejected as indeed we rejected it above. When R. Zera went up [to Palestine] he found R. Jeremiah [b. Abba] sitting and reciting the above statement [of Rab]. R. Zera thereupon remarked: ‘Well spoken! So, too, did Arioch teach it in Babylon’! But who is Arioch? It is Samuel, is it not? But does he not disagree [with Rab]? — Samuel retracted his opinion in favour of Rab's. Our Rabbis taught: Where the bone was broken and it protruded outside, if the skin and flesh cover the greater part of it, it is permitted; otherwise it is forbidden. What is meant by ‘the greater part of it’? — When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Johanan that it means, the greater part of its thickness. Others say: It means, the greater part [of the flesh] that surrounds it. R. Papa said: We therefore require the greater part of its thickness [to be covered by flesh], as well as the greater part [of the flesh] that surrounds it [to be intact]. Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: The skin is like the flesh. R. Nahman said to Ulla: Why does not the Master rather say that the skin is to be reckoned with the flesh [to make up the required amount]? Does not [the above Baraitha] state ‘skin and flesh’? — He replied: We interpret [that Baraitha] to mean, either skin or flesh. Others report this as follows: Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: The skin is to be reckoned together with the flesh [to make up the required amount]. R. Nahman said to Ulla: Why does not the Master rather say that the skin merely completes the [required amount of] flesh, adopting the stricter interpretation? — He replied: I only know of the following incident. At the house of R. Isaac there was a young pigeon [whose leg was broken], and the skin, if reckoned together with the flesh, [covered up the greater part of the fracture]. The case was brought before R. Johanan and he declared it to be permitted. Thereupon R. Nahman retorted: You are speaking of a young pigeon! but the case of a young pigeon is quite different, because its skin is tender. [The case of a fracture which was covered for the most part with flesh and] tender sinews came before Raba. Said Raba: What have we to fear? In the first place, R. Johanan has declared that in respect of the sinews which later will become hard
—