Chullin Daf 76 (חולין דף ע״ו)
Daf: 76 | Amudim: 76a – 76b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (76a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
The mishna: severed hind legs — below the joint kosher, above tereifa; and the tzomet hagiddin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה – כְּשֵׁרָה, מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה – פְּסוּלָה, וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna in the chapter of tereifot of the limbs: an animal whose hind legs were severed below the arkuvah (leg joint) remains kosher — the loss is a mutilation, not a mortal wound; severed from the joint and above, it is a tereifa. And likewise, an animal whose tzomet hagiddin — the convergence of sinews in the lower thigh — was removed is a tereifa even if the leg itself is intact. The entire daf will be spent locating that joint and mapping that convergence.
Key Terms:
- אַרְכּוּבָּה = the leg joint — whose identity (lower or upper joint) the Gemara will now dispute
- צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין = the convergence of sinews — the bundle of tendons above the hock whose removal renders the animal a tereifa
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
A broken bone: if most of the flesh is intact, the slaughter covers the limb
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם, אִם רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s second clause: if the bone of a leg was broken but not severed, and the animal was slaughtered, the law of the dangling limb depends on the flesh. If the majority of flesh around the break is intact, the limb draws vitality from the body and the slaughter renders it permitted; if not, the limb is as good as detached — the slaughter does not permit it. The Gemara’s second half will refine this rule through the Rav-Shmuel dispute.
Key Terms:
- רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים = the majority of the flesh is intact — the limb still nourishes from the body
- שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ = its slaughter renders it pure/permitted
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Yehuda in Rav’s name: the joint sold with the head
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: לְמַטָּה – לְמַטָּה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה, לְמַעְלָה – לְמַעְלָה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה. בְּאֵיזוֹ אַרְכּוּבָּה אָמְרוּ? בְּאַרְכּוּבָּה הַנִּמְכֶּרֶת עִם הָרֹאשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens with the key ambiguity: which arkuvah did the mishna mean? Rav Yehuda, citing Rav citing Rabbi Chiyya, reads ‘below’ as below the joint and ‘above’ as above it, and identifies the joint as ‘the one sold together with the head’ — the lower joint, between the metatarsus and the tibia. On this reading, a cut anywhere in the middle bone or above renders the animal a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- אַרְכּוּבָּה הַנִּמְכֶּרֶת עִם הָרֹאשׁ = the joint sold with the head — the lower leg joint, between the foot bone and the tibia
- עֶצֶם אֶמְצָעִי = the middle bone (tibia/shank) — the bone between the two joints
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא חולקת
Ulla in Rabbi Oshaya’s name: the joint conspicuous in the camel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּגָמָל נִיכָּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla, citing Rabbi Oshaya, locates the mishna’s joint one story higher: the joint that in most animals is hidden within the body but ‘is conspicuous in the camel’ — the upper joint between the femur and the tibia. On this reading the animal becomes a tereifa only if the upper bone itself was severed; a cut in the middle bone leaves it kosher, except at the tzomet hagiddin.
Key Terms:
- כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּגָמָל נִיכָּר = its counterpart is conspicuous in the camel — the upper joint, visible in a camel’s build
- קוּלִית = the femur, the upper bone of the leg
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Ulla challenges Rav Yehuda: on your reading, what does the tzomet clause add?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ עוּלָּא לְרַב יְהוּדָה: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי דְּאָמֵינָא כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּגָמָל נִיכָּר, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין, אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, מַאי וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla presses the advantage of his reading. On my view, he argues, the mishna’s added clause ‘and likewise if the tzomet hagiddin was removed’ is essential: since severing the middle bone does not make a tereifa, the mishna must teach that at one point on that bone — the convergence of sinews — a cut is fatal. But on your view, that any cut above the lower joint already renders the animal a tereifa, the tzomet clause is redundant: the convergence lies in the middle bone, which your reading already condemns. What does it teach?
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי… אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ = granted according to me… but according to you — the two-sided challenge form
- וְכֵן שֶׁנִּיטַּל = and likewise if it was removed — the clause whose necessity is under debate
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ ודחייה
Rav Yehuda’s answer — two separate cases — is refuted, and he falls silent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְכוּבָּה בְּלֹא צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, וְצוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים בְּלֹא רְכוּבָּה. וְהָא ״נֶחְתְּכוּ״ קָתָנֵי! אִישְׁתִּיק.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda answers that the mishna speaks of two independent cases: a leg severed above the joint without touching the convergence of sinews, and a convergence removed without the leg being severed — so the clause adds a case, not a redundancy. Ulla counters from the mishna’s own language: it teaches ‘nechtechu,’ the legs were severed — a complete cut, which necessarily takes the tzomet with it. Rav Yehuda was silent; the objection stood.
Key Terms:
- נֶחְתְּכוּ קָתָנֵי = it teaches ‘were severed’ — the language implies a complete cut
- אִישְׁתִּיק = he fell silent — conceding, for the moment, that he had no answer
Segment 7
TYPE: הרהור
After Ulla left: why did I not answer him?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְבָתַר דִּנְפַק אֲמַר: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ, ״לְמַטָּה״ – לְמַטָּה מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה, ״לְמַעְלָה״ – לְמַעְלָה מִצּוֹמֶת הַגִּידִין?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara preserves a rare glimpse of a sage’s inner post-mortem. After Ulla left, Rav Yehuda said: why did I not answer that ‘below’ means below the lower joint and ‘above’ means above the tzomet hagiddin — so the middle bone below the tzomet remains kosher, and the clause about the tzomet itself is genuinely needed? On that reading his identification of the joint survives Ulla’s challenge.
Key Terms:
- לְבָתַר דִּנְפַק = after he went out — the retrospective setting
- מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ = why did I not say to him — the scholar’s regret at an answer found too late
Segment 8
TYPE: דחייה עצמית
On second thought: it is good that I did not say it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַר אָמַר: וְלָא אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ, וַאֲמַר לִי: ״נֶחְתְּכוּ״ קָתָנֵי? הָכָא נָמֵי, ״מִן הָאַרְכּוּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה״ קָתָנֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda then rejects his own belated answer: had I offered it, Ulla would have refuted me exactly as before — the mishna teaches ‘from the arkuvah and above,’ which sweeps in the entire middle bone including the region below the tzomet, leaving no room to carve out a kosher zone there. The candor of the passage — an amora auditing his own silence and validating it — is itself a lesson in intellectual honesty.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַר אָמַר = he then said — the second thought
- הָכָא נָמֵי = here too — the same refutation would have applied
Segment 9
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא
Rav Pappa’s version: below both landmarks, above both, and the middle bone by its tzomet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa transmits the whole tradition differently: Rav Yehuda in Rav’s name in Rabbi Chiyya’s name taught — ‘below’ means below both the joint and the convergence of sinews (the lowest bone), where the animal is kosher; ‘above’ means above both (the upper bone), where it is a tereifa; and in the middle bone, everything depends on the tzomet clause: it is a tereifa only if the convergence of sinews was removed. The joint in question is the upper one, as Ulla said in Rabbi Oshaya’s name — conspicuous in the camel.
Key Terms:
- מַתְנֵי הָכִי = teaches it thus — an alternative transmission of the same tradition
- וְאַרְכּוּבָּה גּוּפַהּ = and the joint itself — identified per Ulla as the upper joint
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
The paradox: cut higher and it lives, cut lower and it dies?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי, דְּאִילּוּ מִדְּלֵי פָּסֵיק לֵיהּ וַחֲיָה, מְתַתֵּי פָּסֵיק לֵיהּ וּמֵתָה?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the emerging picture: on Rav Pappa’s reading, severing the middle bone above the convergence of sinews leaves the animal kosher — it can live — while severing lower down, at the tzomet itself, renders it a tereifa. Can it be that a cut further up the leg, closer to the body, is less deadly than a cut further down? The anatomy seems upside down.
Key Terms:
- מִדְּלֵי פָּסֵיק לֵיהּ וַחֲיָה = one severs it higher and it lives
- מְתַתֵּי פָּסֵיק לֵיהּ וּמֵתָה = one severs it lower and it dies — the apparent absurdity
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ (כלל)
Rav Ashi’s principle: tereifot are not compared to one another
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: טְרֵפוֹת קָא מְדַמֵּית לַהֲדָדֵי? אֵין אוֹמְרִין בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וָמֵתָה, חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וְחַיָּה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi answers with a methodological axiom that governs the whole of Hilchot Tereifot: ‘Are you comparing tereifot to each other? One does not say of tereifot that this resembles that — one cuts here and it dies, one cuts there and it lives.’ The laws of tereifa are a received anatomical tradition, not a deductive system; vital structures are where they are, and the tzomet hagiddin is a genuine point of vulnerability even though bone higher up is not.
Key Terms:
- אֵין אוֹמְרִין בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ = one does not say of tereifot that this case resembles that — no analogies between vital points
- חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וָמֵתָה = cut it from here and it dies — the empirical, non-deductive nature of the tradition
Segment 12
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Where does the convergence of sinews begin? Three markers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks for the tzomet’s anatomical boundaries. The sinews cleave to the bare bone at the bottom, then lift off it, then splay apart into the flesh. Three traditions mark the halachically sensitive zone: Rabba in Rav Ashi’s name — from where they leave the bone and outward; Rabba bar Rav Huna in Rav Ashi’s name — while still adjacent to the bone; Rava son of Rabba bar Rav Huna in Rav Asi’s name — lower still, from above the arkum, the small bone seated between the lower and middle bones.
Key Terms:
- דְּאַגַּרְמָא וּלְבַר = from the bone and outward — where the sinews lift off the bone
- עַרְקוּמָא = the arkum — a small bone between the lower and middle leg bones
Segment 13
TYPE: עובדא ופסק
Rabbi Abba silences the stringent voice: where the butchers split the leg
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
One of the sages sitting before Rabbi Abba extended the tzomet further down, to the sinews of the arkum bone itself. Rabbi Abba told his students not to listen to him — the ruling is too stringent — and reported Rav Yehuda’s practical landmark: the tzomet is ‘where the butchers split open the leg.’ The Gemara notes that this coincides with the third view above, that of Rava son of Rabba bar Rav Huna in Rav Asi’s name: above the arkum, but not the arkum itself.
Key Terms:
- לָא תְּצִיתוּ לֵיהּ = do not listen to him — a public rejection of an overreaching ruling
- הֵיכָא דְּפָרְעִי טַבָּחֵי = where the butchers split open the leg — a tradesman’s landmark fixing a halachic boundary
Segment 14
TYPE: מימרא
Shmuel’s definition: from where the sinews converge until where they spread out
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda reports Shmuel’s definition: the tzomet hagiddin is the place where the sinews converge — where the three tendons bind into what looks like a single cord. How far does the zone extend? Rav Yaakov testified from his days in Rav Yehuda’s academy: ‘Hear from me a matter I heard from a great man — Shmuel’: the zone runs from the point where the sinews converge until the point where they spread out and are swallowed into the flesh.
Key Terms:
- מְקוֹם שֶׁהַגִּידִין צוֹמְתִין = the place where the sinews converge — bind together as one
- עַד מְקוֹם שֶׁמִּתְפַּשְּׁטִין = until where they spread out — and are subsumed into the flesh
Segment 15
TYPE: שיעור
Abaye’s measures: four fingerbreadths in an ox; in small animals, by prominence
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכַמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַרְבָּעָה בַּטְדֵי בְּתוֹרָא. בְּדַקָּה מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּלִיטִי – הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, בְּלִיעִי – לָא הָווּ צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye quantifies the zone: in an ox, four fingerbreadths (batdei). For small livestock — sheep and goats — there is no fixed length; the criterion is visual and tactile: where the sinews protrude distinctly (bliti) they are within the tzomet; where they are absorbed into the flesh (bli’i) they are not.
Key Terms:
- אַרְבָּעָה בַּטְדֵי בְּתוֹרָא = four fingerbreadths in an ox — the measured extent of the tzomet
- בְּלִיטִי / בְּלִיעִי = protruding / absorbed — the visible criterion in small animals
Segment 16
TYPE: סימנים
Abaye’s criteria: hard, thick, and white — or not tzomet at all
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye closes the anatomical survey with three paired criteria for whether tissue belongs to the halachic tzomet: hard sinews are tzomet, soft ones are not; thick ones are, thin ones are not; white ones are, non-white ones are not. The tzomet is thus defined not by name but by texture, gauge, and color — the properties of true tendon as against soft tissue.
Key Terms:
- אַשּׁוּנֵי / רַכִּיכֵי = hard / soft — the first criterion
- חִוָּורֵי = white — the color of true tendon within the tzomet
Amud Bet (76b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מימרא
Mar bar Rav Ashi extends the zone: translucent counts as white
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּזִיגִי – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חִוָּורֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar bar Rav Ashi qualifies Abaye’s last criterion: once the sinews have begun to be translucent (zigi), they count as part of the convergence of sinews even if they have not yet whitened fully. The functional transition to tendon, not the finished color, is what matters.
Key Terms:
- זִיגִי = translucent, glassy — sinews beginning to turn to tendon
- אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חִוָּורֵי = even though they are not white
Segment 2
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Three strands — majority of structure versus majority of number
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ameimar in the name of Rav Zevid maps the tzomet’s inner structure: three strands, one thick and two thin. Sever the thick one — the majority of the binyan (structural bulk) is gone, for it outweighs the other two together; sever the two thin ones — the majority of the minyan (count) is gone. Either way, tereifa. Mar bar Rav Ashi teaches the same facts toward leniency: sever the thick one — a majority of the count survives; sever the thin ones — a majority of the structure survives. Either way, kosher.
Key Terms:
- רוֹב בִּנְיָן = the majority of the structure — the bulk of the tissue
- רוֹב מִנְיָן = the majority of the number — the count of strands
Segment 3
TYPE: עובדא
Birds have sixteen strands — and Rav Ashi’s examination found the missing one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
In birds the tzomet has sixteen strands, and the rule is absolute: if even one is severed, the bird is a tereifa. Mar bar Rav Ashi recounts an examination in his father’s court: a bird was brought before Rav Ashi, who checked and found only fifteen strands — until he noticed one that differed from its fellows, teased it apart, and found it to be two strands twined together. The anatomy vindicated the tradition.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיתְּסַר חוּטֵי = sixteen strands — the tzomet of a bird
- נַפְּצֵיהּ וְאַשְׁכַּח תְּרֵי = he pulled it apart and found two — the fifteenth strand was a doubled pair
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא ומשא ומתן
Rav: ‘the majority of it’ — and Shmuel’s rejoinder: two of three remain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda reports Rav’s quantitative rule: the tzomet renders the animal a tereifa when severed ‘in its majority,’ and explains: the majority of one of the sinews. When Rav Yehuda repeated this before Shmuel, Shmuel replied: there are three sinews; even if one of them is severed entirely, two remain — the convergence retains its majority and the animal is kosher. Shmuel thus tolerates a whole severed strand where Rav condemns a majority of one.
Key Terms:
- בְּרוּבּוֹ = in its majority — the threshold of severance for the tzomet
- רוֹב אֶחָד מֵהֶן = the majority of one of them — Rav’s stringent reading
Segment 5
TYPE: דיוק ופלוגתא
The inference — and the clash with Rabbenai’s Shmuel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי, הָא לֵיכָּא תְּרֵי – לָא, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבְנַאי, דְּאָמַר רַבְנַאי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בָּהּ אֶלָּא כְּחוּט הַסַּרְבָּל – כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara squeezes Shmuel’s phrasing: the animal is kosher because two remain — implying that if two do not remain intact it is a tereifa, even though one sinew still stands. And this contradicts what Rabbenai reported in Shmuel’s own name: the tzomet hagiddin — even if nothing remains of it but the thickness of a cloak-string (chut hasarbal), the animal is kosher. Two traditions of Shmuel now stand opposed: two-of-three, or a bare thread.
Key Terms:
- טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי = the reason is that two remain — the inference from Shmuel’s language
- כְּחוּט הַסַּרְבָּל = like the string of a cloak — a bare thread of surviving sinew
Segment 6
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא
The second version: majority of each and every one — and Shmuel supports Rabbenai
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative transmission reverses the roles. Rav’s ‘majority’ means the majority of each and every one of the three sinews must be severed. Shmuel answered: there are three — a third of each and every one remains, and that suffices to keep the animal kosher. On this version Shmuel’s rejoinder supports Rabbenai: as Rabbenai said in Shmuel’s name, even if only a cloak-string’s thickness remains of each sinew, the animal is kosher.
Key Terms:
- רוֹב כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד = the majority of each and every one — the second reading of Rav’s threshold
- מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבְנַאי = supports Rabbenai — the second version aligns Shmuel’s two traditions
Segment 7
TYPE: ציטוט מהמשנה
The Gemara turns to the mishna’s second clause: the broken bone
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם כּוּ׳.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now takes up the mishna’s second ruling — ‘if the bone was broken, if the majority of the flesh is intact, its slaughter renders it pure’ — as the header for the great Rav-Shmuel dispute that follows on the fate of the animal and of the broken limb.
Key Terms:
- נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם = the bone was broken — but the limb not severed
- דיבור המתחיל = the citation-header introducing the Gemara’s discussion of a mishnaic clause
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Rav: above the joint everything hangs on the flesh; below, only the limb
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav divides the broken-bone case by location. Above the arkuvah — in the zone where a full severance would make a tereifa — if the majority of flesh around the break is intact, both animal and limb are permitted; if not, both are forbidden: the limb is as if detached, and the animal, missing its leg at a vital point, is a tereifa. Below the joint — where even a full severance leaves the animal kosher — if the flesh majority fails, the limb alone is forbidden (the slaughter cannot reach a limb reckoned as fallen), but the animal remains permitted.
Key Terms:
- זֶה וָזֶה מוּתָּר = both this and that are permitted — the animal and the limb
- אֵבֶר אָסוּר וּבְהֵמָה מוּתֶּרֶת = the limb is forbidden but the animal permitted
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא חולקת
Shmuel: above or below, the animal is never lost by a mere break
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בֵּין לְמַעְלָה בֵּין לְמַטָּה, אִם רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – זֶה וָזֶה מוּתָּר, אִם לָאו – אֵבֶר אָסוּר, וּבְהֵמָה מוּתֶּרֶת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel levels the distinction: whether the break is above or below the joint, if the flesh majority is intact both are permitted, and if not — the limb is forbidden and the animal permitted. For Shmuel a break, as opposed to a complete severance, never renders the animal a tereifa, even in the upper zone; the animal loses its status only when the leg is actually cut through.
Key Terms:
- בֵּין לְמַעְלָה בֵּין לְמַטָּה = whether above or below — Shmuel erases Rav’s distinction
- נֶחְתַּךְ / נִשְׁבַּר = severed versus broken — the line on which Shmuel’s leniency stands
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Nachman: ‘a limb of it lies in the garbage — and it is permitted?!’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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״!
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman attacks Shmuel with an argument of public perception: people will say, ‘a limb from this animal lies discarded in the garbage, and the animal itself is permitted?’ — and will come to permit even an animal whose leg was truly severed. Rav Acha bar Rav Huna turns the argument on its author: Rav too permits the animal while its limb is discarded, in the below-the-joint case — the same outcry should apply!
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף לַהּ = he objects to it — a forceful challenge
- אֵבֶר מִמֶּנָּה מוּטָּל בָּאַשְׁפָּה = a limb of it lies in the garbage — the scandal of appearances
Segment 11
TYPE: ביאור הקושיא
Rav Nachman sharpens: a limb upon which its life depends
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא, אֵבֶר שֶׁחָיָה מִמֶּנָּה מוּטָּל בָּאַשְׁפָּה, וּמוּתֶּרֶת?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman clarifies that his objection was never about appearances alone: people will say, ‘a limb upon which the animal’s life depends lies in the garbage — and it is permitted?’ Only Shmuel faces this, for he permits the animal when the break is above the joint, where an actual severance would render it a tereifa; onlookers may collapse the distinction between broken and severed. Rav is untouched: he permits the animal only below the joint, where even a complete severance would leave it kosher.
Key Terms:
- אֵבֶר שֶׁחָיָה מִמֶּנָּה = a limb from which it lives — a limb whose loss defines the animal’s viability
- הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא = this is what I meant to say — the sharpened restatement
Segment 12
TYPE: פסק
The rulings from Eretz Yisrael: like Rav — and the limb defiles by carrying
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, הֲדוּר שְׁלַחוּ: כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, הֲדוּר שְׁלַחוּ: כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, וְאֵבֶר עַצְמוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara records the seesaw of rulings sent from Eretz Yisrael: first, the halacha follows Rav; then a second dispatch — it follows Shmuel; then a final dispatch — it follows Rav, with an addendum: the limb itself is not purified by the slaughter but imparts the impurity of a limb from a living animal through carrying, while the animal, though forbidden as a tereifa, is pure of carcass impurity. The final word is stringent on both fronts: the animal forbidden, the limb defiling.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם = they sent from there — rulings dispatched from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel
- מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא = imparts impurity through carrying — the severity of ever min ha-chai
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא מברייתא
Rav Chisda objects: Rabbi Meir purifies the tereifa’s dangling limb
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא, אִם טִיהֲרָה שְׁחִיטַת טְרֵפָה אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת הָאֵבֶר הַמְדוּלְדָּל בָּהּ – דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ, תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָעוּבָּר – דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוּפָהּ?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda challenges the final ruling — that the slaughter does not purify the dangling limb — from the baraita cited on daf 73: Rabbi Meir argued, ‘if the slaughter of a tereifa purifies it and the limb dangling from it — something of its own body — shall it purify the fetus, something not of its own body?’ Rabbi Meir’s a fortiori explicitly assumes that slaughter does purify a dangling limb. How then can the dispatched ruling declare the limb impure as ever min ha-chai?
Key Terms:
- אֵבֶר הַמְדוּלְדָּל = the dangling limb — partially severed but still attached
- דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ = something of its own body — the pivot of Rabbi Meir’s a fortiori
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא ממשנה
Rabba: why hunt baraitot? Object from the mishna itself
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: הַדּוֹרֵי אַפִּירְכֵי לְמָה לָךְ? אוֹתֵיב מִמַּתְנִיתִין! נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba, hearing the objection, faults its method: why chase refutations from baraitot not everyone has mastered? Raise it from a mishna (127b): a limb or flesh dangling from an animal — if the animal was slaughtered, they were rendered susceptible to food impurity by its blood, per Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Shimon says they were not rendered susceptible. Both tannaim agree, at any rate, that the dangling limb needs hechsher — that is, it is food, not an ever min ha-chai that would defile of itself.
Key Terms:
- הַדּוֹרֵי אַפִּירְכֵי לְמָה לָךְ = why do you go around seeking refutations? — prefer the universally studied mishna
- הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ = they were rendered susceptible through its blood
Segment 15
TYPE: דחייה
Rav Chisda: the mishna can be deflected, as we already deflected it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַתְנִיתִין אִיכָּא לְדַחוֹיֵי, כִּדְדָחֵינַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda answers Rabba: the mishna is no proof, for it can be deflected as it was deflected on daf 73 — its dispute over hechsher concerns only the dangling flesh, while the dangling limb may indeed retain the status of a limb from a living animal, defiling in its own right. Hence he preferred the baraita, where Rabbi Meir speaks explicitly of the limb; his objection to the dispatched ruling stands.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא לְדַחוֹיֵי = it can be deflected — the source admits an alternative reading
- כִּדְדָחֵינַן = as we deflected it — the same deflection used earlier in the chapter
Segment 16
TYPE: עובדא
Aryoch in Bavel: Shmuel retracted in favor of Rav
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael he found Rav Yirmeya reciting Rav’s ruling — above the joint with the flesh not intact, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Zeira approved: ‘Well said, and so did Aryoch interpret it in Bavel.’ Who is Aryoch? Shmuel — the lion of the law. But Shmuel disputes that very ruling! The Gemara answers: Shmuel retracted in favor of Rav — resolving the seesaw of dispatches in Rav’s favor with Shmuel’s own concurrence.
Key Terms:
- אַרְיוֹךְ = Aryoch — Shmuel’s honorific, evoking a royal title (or ari, lion) for the master of civil law
- הֲדַר בֵּיהּ = he retracted — Shmuel withdrew his ruling in favor of Rav’s
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא ופסק
The protruding bone: majority of thickness and of circumference — Rav Pappa requires both
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita takes the broken bone one step further: if the bone broke and protruded through the skin, the animal is permitted only if skin and flesh cover the majority of the bone. What counts as its majority? Rav Dimi brought Rabbi Yochanan’s measure — the majority of its thickness; some report it as the majority of its circumference. Since the tradition is double and undecided, Rav Pappa rules that we require both: majority of thickness and majority of circumference.
Key Terms:
- נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְיָצָא לַחוּץ = the bone broke and protruded outward — an open, compound break
- רוֹב עוֹבְיוֹ / רוֹב הֶקֵּיפוֹ = the majority of its thickness / of its circumference — Rav Pappa requires both
Segment 18
TYPE: מימרא ומשא ומתן
First version: skin is like flesh — and the girsa duel over ‘and’ versus ‘or’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla reports Rabbi Yochanan: skin is like flesh — skin alone covering the bone’s majority suffices to permit the animal even where the flesh is gone. Rav Nachman objects from the baraita’s language: it teaches ‘skin AND flesh cover its majority,’ implying that skin merely combines with flesh and cannot stand alone. Ulla answers with a variant text: we learned ‘skin OR flesh’ — either covering alone suffices.
Key Terms:
- עוֹר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָשָׂר = skin is like flesh — skin alone can constitute the required covering
- עוֹר אוֹ בָּשָׂר תָּנֵינַן = we learned ‘skin or flesh’ — the girsa on which the leniency rests
Segment 19
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא
Second version: skin combines with flesh — or merely completes it?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי [אָמַר עוּלָּא], אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר מִצְטָרֵף לְבָשָׂר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְעוּלָּא: וְלֵימָא מָר עוֹר מַשְׁלִים לְבָשָׂר לְחוּמְרָא!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
In the alternative version, Ulla’s report of Rabbi Yochanan is itself the middle position: skin combines with flesh — half flesh and half skin covering the majority suffices. Rav Nachman presses toward stringency: say rather that skin only completes the flesh — the covering must be mostly flesh, with skin allowed to top up the remainder; an even split would not do.
Key Terms:
- עוֹר מִצְטָרֵף לְבָשָׂר = skin combines with flesh — an equal partnership in the covering
- מַשְׁלִים לְבָשָׂר לְחוּמְרָא = completes the flesh, stringently — skin may only supplement a flesh majority
Segment 20
TYPE: ראיה ודחייה
Ulla’s proof from the fledgling — and Rav Nachman’s distinction: soft skin is flesh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla defends his version from a case he knew firsthand: a fledgling in Rabbi Yitzchak’s house broke its leg, the covering was skin combining with flesh, and Rabbi Yochanan himself declared it kosher. Rav Nachman deflects the proof: a fledgling? A fledgling is different — its skin is soft and counts as flesh outright, so the case proves nothing about mature skin combining with flesh.
Key Terms:
- בַּר גּוֹזָלָא = a fledgling — a young bird whose skin is still soft
- דְּרַכִּיךְ שָׁאנֵי = being soft, it is different — soft skin is reckoned as flesh itself
Segment 21
TYPE: עובדא
Soft sinews before Rabba — and the daf ends mid-ruling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנְהוּ גִּידִין רַכִּין דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, אָמַר רַבָּה: לְמַאי לֵיחוּשׁ לְהוּ? חֲדָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גִּידִין שֶׁסּוֹפָן לְהַקְשׁוֹת
English Translation:
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,
קלאוד על הדף:
A final case: soft sinews that, together with flesh, covered the majority of a broken bone came before Rabba. He began: what is there to be concerned about? First, Rabbi Yochanan says that sinews that will ultimately harden — and here the daf breaks off; the completion of the principle, that such sinews are counted (or not) by their end-state, unfolds at the top of daf 77, where the discussion continues.
Key Terms:
- גִּידִין רַכִּין = soft sinews — tissue not yet hardened into tendon
- שֶׁסּוֹפָן לְהַקְשׁוֹת = that will ultimately harden — judged by their end-state, continued on 77a