Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah now discusses the Tereifus connected with the hind legs. The Tana rules that an animal whose legs are severed ...

1. ... from the 'Arkuvah downwards - is Kasher.
2. ... from the Arkuvah upwards is a Tereifah.

(b) He also rules that one whose ...

1. ... Tzomes ha'Gidin (the nerve junction [comprising three nerves] that is situated on the hind legs) has been removed - is Tereifah too.
2. ... hind leg has a broken bone - is Kasher, but only as long as the majority of the flesh is still intact.

(c) The broken limb itself, he says - is forbidden anyway, based on the pasuk "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu".

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav quoting Rebbi Chiya, describes the 'Arkuvah' in our Mishnah as the one that is sold together with the head - which refers to the lowest of the three bones that comprise the leg (the one that corresponds to the ankle bone).

(e) And he interprets ...

1. ... 'Lematah min ha'Arkuvah' that is Kasher, to mean - immediately below the knee-bone (that joins that bone with the calf [otherwise known as the middle bone]).
2. ... 'Lema'alah min ha'Arkuvah' that is Tereifah to mean - immediately above the knee-bone.

(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Hoshaya explains 'Arkuva' as the one that can be seen protruding from the front of a camel's leg - which is in fact - the joint that joins the calf to the thigh-bone.

(b) And he ...

1. ... explains 'Lematah and Lema'alah min ha'Arkuvah to mean - the middle bone and the thigh bone respectively.
2. ... queries Rav Yehudah, based on the continuation of our Mishnah 've'Chein she'Nital Tzomes ha'Gidin' - which implies that the bone corresponding to the Tzomes ha'Gidin is Kasher (otherwise it would be unecessary to mention it, seeing as it must have been severed).

(c) Ula rejected Rav Yehudah's answer (making two cases out of a cut in the leg and the removal of the Tzomes ha'Gidim), since 'Nechtechu' means that the legs were completely severed, including the Tzomes ha'Gidin (which he did not need to mention, now that the removal of the Tzomes alone renders the animal Tereifah).

(d) Rav Yehudah had no answer. And he rejected his own suggestion that perhaps the Tana means 'Lematah min ha'Arkuvah but Lema'alah mi'Tzomes ha'Gidin' - by the same token, since the Tana said 'min ha'Arkuvah u'Lema'alah' (and not 'min ha'Tzomes u'Lema'alah').

(a) Rav Papa quotes Rav Yehudah Amar Rav ... ('Lematah ... ' and 'Lema'alah ... ') as saying - 'Lematah min ha'Arkuvah u'mi'Tzomes ha'Gidin, and 'Lema'alah' 'min ha'Arkuvah u'Lema'alah mi'Tzomes ha'Gidin', to conform with Ula Amar Rebbi Hoshaya.

(b) Rav Yehudah is now referring - to the Arkuva Elyonah.

(c) 'Lema'alah ... ' therefore refers to the thigh-bone, and 'Lematah ... ' - the lower bone (which is completely permitted).

(d) Regarding the middle (calf)-bone, he now holds - that if the part that corresponds to Tzomes ha'Gidin breaks, it is Tereifah ('ve'Chen Nital Tzomes ha'Gidin), whilst should it break above that point, it is Kasher.

(a) The problem with Ula Amar Rebbi Hoshaya is - that if the part above the Tzomes ha'Gidin is Kasher (as we just explained), how can the Tzomes ha'Gidin be Tereifah?

(b) Rav Ashi (whom we quoted a number of times in 'Eilu Tereifos') answer - that we cannot compare one case of Tereifus to another; like we see here, that lower down is Tereifah, whereas higher up is Kasher.

(c) We rule like Rav Yehudah in the first Lashon, seeing as we do not find that Rav Yehudah Amar Rav retracted.

(d) Consequently, anywhere above the knee-bone that is severed is Tereifah, and so is Nital ha'Tzomes.

(a) Rabah Amar Rav Ashi (or Rav Asi) defines the Tzomes as 'de'Agrema u'le'Bar'. Given that the knee-bone above the joint is devoid of flesh ...

1. ... Rabah means - that in the space of the first three Etzba'os that the Gidin leave the bone, they are still attached to it; from then on, they separate from the bone but are still merged into one. That is when they are called 'Tzomes ha'Gidin', until they separate into three separate entities.
2. ... Rabah bar Rav Huna who says 'de'Agrema u'le'Gev' means - that it is during the three Tefachim that the Gidin are attached to the bone that they are called 'Tzomes ha'Gidin'.

(b) Rava b'rei de'Rabah bar Rav Huna Amar Rav Ashi is the most stringent of them all. He considers the three Gidin 'Tzomes ha'Gidin' all the way from just above the lower knee-bone (te Arkuma) up to the point where the three Gidin separate.

(c) When a certain Talmid-Chacham declared that the Tzomes ha'Gidin corresponding to the actual Arkom is Tereifah, Rebbi Aba commented - that the people should take no notice of him, because he had gone too far.

(a) Rebbi Aba quoted Rav Yehudah, who gave the Shi'ur as from the point where the butcher flays the animal - either to porge the leg of the Chalavim and to remove the nerves under discussion, or because that is where the butchers tend to begin the flaying process.

(b) Rav Yehudah's opinion conforms - with that of Rava b'rei de'Rabah bar Rav Huna ('de'Iluy Arkuma').

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel defined the Tzomes ha'Gidin as 'Tzomsin', by which he meant - as long as the three Gidin are joined and look like one Gid.

(d) A certain Talmid-Chacham quoting Rav Yehudah, gave the Shiur for that as from the place where the Gidin fuse, up to the point where they separate. Rav Yehudah heard that - from Shmuel.

(e) Abaye defines this Shi'ur as - four finger-breadths.

(a) This Shi'ur pertains - only to large animals.

(b) Abaye gives four signs by which to recognize the Tzomes ha'Gidin of a small animal. As long as they still protrude from the flesh, and if they are hard and thick, they are considered Tzomes ha'Gidin. The four signs by which one know that the nerves are not part of Tzomes ha'Gidin are therefore - if they are absorbed in the flesh, and they are soft, thin and colorless.

(c) The fourth Siman of Tzomes ha'Gidin is that they are colored white, on which Mar bar Rav Ashi comments - that if they are transparent, it is as they are white.

8)

(a) Based on the fact that one of the three Gidin is thick, and the other two, thin, Ameimar in the name of Rav Z'vid rules that in a case where...

1. ... the thick one snapped - the majority of the 'building' has collapsed, and the animal is Tereifah.
2. ... the two thin ones snapped - the majority of Gidin have gone, and the animal is a Tereifah.

(b) Mar bar Rav Ashi is more lenient than Ameimar. *He* says - that even if the former is no longer there, the latter is (and vice-versa), and the animal is Kasher.

(c) The Halachah is like Mar bar Rav Ashi, as it always is, with the exception of two cases, as we learned in Sanhedrin (see also Tosfos DH 'Mar bar Rav Ashi').

(d) The Halachah regarding the Shi'ur of Tzomes ha'Gidin - is le'Chumra like the most stringent opinion (like it is in all cases of unresolved Machlokos in d'Oraysos, to which category Tereifos belongs). Consequently, from above the Arkom up to the point where the Gidin separate is considered Tzomes ha'Gidin.

(a) A bird has sixteen Gidin. If one of them snaps - the bird is Tereifah.

(b) When Mar bar Rav Ashi's father found only fifteen Gidin in a chicken instead of sixteen, he saw his father - split open a Gid that looked a little thicker that the others to reveal that it comprised two.

(c) When Rav Yehudah informed Shmuel of Rav's ruling, declaring an animal Tereifah if the majority of one Gid snaps, the latter objected - on the grounds that even if one entire Gid has snapped, the two remaining ones form a majority, so why should the animal be declared a Tereifah?

(d) In any event, according to Rav Yehudah, even Shmuel requires a majority of two Gidin to remain intact. Ravna'i Amar Shmuel disagrees with this - in that he declares the animal Kasher if even the thickness of the thread with which one ties the neck of a woolen cloak ('Chut ha'Sarbol') of each Gid remains.

(a) Others explain Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement 'Tzomes ha'Gidin she'Amru be'Rubo' - to mean the majority of the Gidin must snap for the animal to be a Tereifah.

(b) This time, Shmuel objects on the grounds - that as long as a third of the Gidin remains intact, it will suffice ...

(c) ... on which we comment - that this in fact supports Ravna'i Amar Shmuel, who says that even if only the thickness of a Chut ha'Sarbol remains, the animal is Kasher. Note, that to conform with Mar bar Rav Ashi, we will have to establish Shmuel by either the thick Gid (even though the two thin ones are completely severed), or vice-versa.

(a) Commenting on the final case in our Mishnah ('Nishbar ha'Etzem ... ') Rav rules that as long as the majority of the flesh remains intact, both the animal and the limb are permitted. Assuming that it is not, he declares both the bone and the animal forbidden if the middle bone (the calf) is broken, but permits the animal if the fracture is in the lower one.

(b) According to Shmuel - either way, the animal is Kasher, too.

(c) When Rav Nachman asked how it is possible according to Shmuel, for the bone to be thrown on to the trash-heap and the animal to be Kasher, Rav Acha bar Rav Huna retorted - that he could have asked the same Kashya on Rav (with regard to the lower bone).

(d) Rav Nachman replied - that what he meant to ask was how it is possible for a bone on which the animal's life depends to be thrown on to the trash-heap, and the animal remains Kasher.

(a) In Eretz Yisrael, they had difficulty in deciding the Halachah. They finally ruled - like Rav ...

(b) ... adding that the bone itself is Metamei be'Masa (renders the person who carries it Tamei, even though he does not actually touch it) - because 'Shechitah Osah Nipul'.

(a) Rav Chisda queries the previous ruling from the Beraisa that we discussed earlier, where Rebbi Meir asked the Rabbanan 'Lo, Im Tiharah Shechitas Tereifah Osah ve'es ha'Eiver ha'Meduldal ... ' - a clear proof that 'Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul'.

(b) Rabah queries Rav Chisda from the Mishnah earlier 'Nishchetah be'Damehah Divrei Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Shimon Omer Lo Huchsheru' - which also seems to hold 'Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul' (otherwise why would the Eiver require Hechsher) for Tum'as Ochlin? In that case, why did Rav Chisda not rather ask from a Mishnah than from a Beraisa?

(c) Rav Chisda replied - by establishing 'Huchsheru' in the Mishnah (like we did earlier) with regard to the Basar (which is subject to Tum'as Ochlin, but not to Eiver min ha'Chai) and not with regard to the Eiver. That is why he chose to ask from the Beraisa.

(a) When, upon his arrival from Bavel, Rebbi Zeira heard Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba repeating the distinction that Rav made between a fracture on the middle hind-leg bone and one on the lower one, he declared 'Yeyasher', because that is what Shmuel said in Bavel.

(b) Rebbi Zeira referred to Shmuel as 'Aryoch' - because of the Pasuk in Vayeira (in connection with the battle of the kings "Aryoch Melech Elasar', and we rule like Shmuel in money-matters [in fact this is what the Pasuk hints at - Aryoch the king, but not regarding Isur, 'Al Isur').

(c) Shmuel did indeed argue with Rav over this point, initially, but (presumably on account of Rav Nachman's Kashya), he later retracted.

(a) The Beraisa rules that in a case where the lower leg-bone fractures and protrudes from the flesh, it will be permitted - provided most of it is covered by flesh and skin.

(b) Rav Dimi quoting Rebbi Yochanan, gives the Shi'ur as 'Rov Avav' - meaning that only a minority of the fractured bone (i.e. the cavity) protrudes, whilst the majority is surrounded by flesh and skin.

(c) Others say - that as long as the majority of the flesh and skin that surround the bone at the location of the fracture is intact (Rov Hekeifo), the bone is permitted, even if the majority of the cavity protrudes from a small hole in the skin.

(d) Rav Papa therefore rules - that the bone is only permitted with a combination of Rov Avav and Rov Hekeifo.

(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules 'Or, Harei He ke'Basar', which means - that (with regard to the precious Halachah), the skin is as good as the flesh. When Rav Nachman asks why he did not say 'Or Mitztaref le'Basar', he means - that surely the skin is only effective if it combines with the flesh (i.e. half flesh, and half skin), but not it replaces it.

(b) Ula refutes Rav Nachman's proof from the Lashon of the Beraisa 'Im Or u'Basar Chofin es Rubo' (implying that it only combines with the flesh, as he explained). *He* reads the Beraisa - 'Im Or O Basar Chofin es Rubo' (implying that it can even replace it).

(a) According to the second Lashon, where Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan originally stated 'Or Mitztaref le'Basar', Rav Nachman asked Ula - whether he should not have said 'Or Mashlim le'Basar' (which means that skin will only help to supplement the flesh, if the flesh comprises the majority of what covers the fracture).

(b) In response, Ula cited an incident that took place with Rebbi Yitzchak, who brought before Rebbi Yochanan a duck with a fractured leg that protruded from the leg, where most of it was covered half by skin and half by flesh - and which Rebbi Yochanan permitted.

(c) Rav Nachman however, refuted Ula's proof from that incident - on the grounds that a duck is different, because its skin is soft, and is therefore comparable to flesh.