ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 76
CHULIN 76-78 - sponsored by Dr. Lindsay A. Rosenwald of Lawrence NY, in
honor of his father, David ben Aharon ha'Levy Rosenwald of blessed memory.
(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.
(b) He also rules that one whose ...
2. ... from the Arkuvah upwards is a Tereifah.
1. ... Tzomes ha'Gidin (the nerve junction [comprising three nerves] that is
situated on the hind legs) has been removed - is Tereifah too.
(c) The broken limb itself, he says - is forbidden anyway, based on the
pasuk "u'Basar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu".
2. ... hind leg has a broken bone - is Kasher, but only as long as the
majority of the flesh is still intact.
(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
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.
(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).
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).
(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.
(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
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'.
(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
(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.
(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.
(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.
2. ... the two thin ones snapped - the majority of Gidin have gone, and the
animal is a Tereifah.
(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
(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
(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
(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.