Chullin

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].1 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’. 2 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,3 if the greater part of the flesh remained,4 both5 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 forbidden6 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’!7 Whereupon R. Aba son of R. Huna said to R. Nahman: Even according to Rab's view8 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 vital9 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.10 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?11 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 they12 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!13 — He replied, [The objection from] that Mishnah can be rejected as indeed we rejected it above. 14 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 Arioch15 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.16 Others say: It means, the greater part [of the flesh] that surrounds it.17 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.18 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]?19 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?20 — 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 the joint and the greater part of the flesh around the fracture was gone. According to Rab both the limb and the animal are forbidden, whilst according to Samuel the animal is permitted even though the limb is forbidden. slaughtering of the animal. How then can it be said that it conveys uncleanness by ‘carrying’? agree that the limb itself does not convey uncleanness. V. infra 127b; supra 73b. flesh that hang loose from the limb or from the animal itself. (Jastrow). V. Kid., Sonc. ed., p. 189, n. 11. V. also Rashi here, and in Men. 38b. covered by the flesh and skin. the fracture had projected and was exposed, it would be permitted. gone. of skin. which completes the required amount, only then would it be permitted, but not where it consisted half of flesh and half of skin.