Talmud Bavli Hullin 76a-b - translation by Tzvee

4:6 [76a]

                A.            A beast, the [hind] legs of which are cut off below the knee, is valid.

                B.            [If they are cut off] above the knee, it is invalid.

                C.            And so [if] the juncture of the thigh sinews was removed [it is invalid].

                D.           [If] the bone broke [but was not cut off], if most of the meat remains, slaughtering it renders it [the broken leg] clean.

                E.            And if not, slaughtering it does not render it clean [and the broken leg cannot be eaten, but the rest of the beast is valid].

I.1

A.            Said R. Judah, said Rab, said R. Hiyya, “Below, [means] below the knee. Above, [means] above the knee. About which [part of the leg beneath the] joint did they speak? The [part of the leg beneath the] joint that is sold with the head [as waste].” [See Cashdan, p. 419, for a discussion of the anatomical reference.]

B.            Ulla said [to] R. Oshaia, “[It is the joint] whose location is recognizable in a camel.”

C.            Said Ulla to R. Judah, “It makes perfect sense, in accord with my view, for I maintain that, `[It is the joint] whose location is recognizable in a camel,' that it is taught [in M. 4:6 C], And so [if] the juncture of the thigh sinews was removed [it is invalid]. But in accord with your view, what is the purpose of [teaching], And so [if] the juncture of the thigh sinews was removed [it is invalid]?”

D.            He said to him, “[We need to specify this for the cases where] the bone [was removed] but not the juncture of the thigh sinews, or where the juncture of the thigh sinews [was removed] but not the bone.”

E.            [Ulla replied,] “But lo it was taught [in M.], cut off.” He [Judah] was silent. After he [Ulla] departed, he [Judah] said, “On what basis did I not say to him, `Below, [means] below the knee. Above, [means] above the juncture of the thigh sinews'? He further said, 'Did I not say [something] to him? And he said to me, It was taught, cut off. Here too [he would say to me], It was taught [in B of M.], [If they are cut off] above the knee, it is invalid.'”

F.             R. Pappa taught [a version of A] as follows: Said R. Judah, said Rab, said R. Hiyya, “Below, [means] below the knee and the juncture of the thigh sinews. Above, [means] above the knee and the thigh sinews. And so too if the juncture of the thigh sinews was removed.”

G.            And [the identification of] the knee itself is in accord with Ulla in the name of R. Oshaia [B].

H.           But is there such a case where if he cuts it off [on the leg] higher, it lives. But if he cuts it off lower, it dies?

I.              Said R. Ashi, “Can you compare [defects that render animals] terefot to one another? We do not say concerning [defects that render animals] terefot that this one resembles that one. For lo you may cut from this place [on the animal] and it will die. You may cut from here [an identical amount in another place on the animal] and it will live [b. 48b, XIV.1 I].”

II.1

A.            And this is the juncture of the thigh sinews. [Said] Rabbah, said R. Ashi, “Beyond the point of adhesion [of the sinews to the bone up to the place the sinews separate (Rashi)].” [Said] Rabbah bar R. Huna, said R. Ashi, “Within the point of adhesion [of the sinews to the bone up to the joint].” [Said] Raba the son of Rabbah bar R. Huna, said R. Assi, “That part above the heel.”

B.            A certain rabbi was sitting before R. Abba and he sat and stated [that the juncture of the thigh sinews included the sinews on] the heel itself. Said to him R. Abba, “Pay him no heed! [He is too strict (Rashi).] This is what R. Judah said, `Where the butchers separate them [the sinews from the bone, i.e., above the heel].'” And likewise: [Said] Rabbah the son Rabbah bar R. Huna, said R. Assi.

C.            Said R. Judah, said Samuel, “The juncture of the thigh sinews that they spoke of is the place where they sinews join up to what point?” Said a certain rabbi to him, and R. Jacob was his name, “When I was in the house of R. Judah he said to us, `Hear from me a matter that I heard from a great man. And who was this? Samuel. The juncture of the thigh sinews that they spoke of is the place where they sinews join. And from the point they join up to the place that they spread apart.'”

D.            And how far is this? Said Abayye, “Four fingers in an ox.” And in a small animal what is the measure? Said Abayye, “Where they protrude, that is the juncture of the thigh sinews. Where they recede, that is not the juncture of the thigh sinews. Where they are hard, that is the juncture of the thigh sinews. Where they are soft, that is not the juncture of the thigh sinews. Where they are thick, that is the juncture of the thigh sinews. Where they are thin, that is not the juncture of the thigh sinews. Where they are white, that is the juncture of the thigh sinews. Where they are not white, that is not the juncture of the thigh sinews.”

E.            [76b] Mar bar R. Ashi said, “Wherever they are clear, even if they are not white [that is the juncture of the thigh sinews].”

F.             Said Amemar in the name of R. Zebid, “[The juncture of the thigh sinews consists of] three tendons. One is thick and two are thin. If the thick one is severed, the major part of the thigh structure is gone. If the thin ones are severed, the majority of the thigh tendons are gone. [In either case it is terefah.]”

G.            Mar bar R. Ashi taught this matter as a lenient rule: If the thick one is severed, lo there is still a majority [of the tendons intact]. If the thin ones are severed, lo there is still the major part [of the thigh structure intact]. [In either case it is valid.]

II.2

A.            In fowl — [the juncture of the thigh sinews consists of] sixteen tendons. If one of them is severed, it is terefah.

B.            Said Mar bar R. Ashi, “I was attending my father and they brought before him a bird [for a ruling]. And he inspected it and found fifteen tendons. One of them was different from the rest of them. He split it open and found that it was two [tendons cleaving together].”

II.3

A.            Said R. Judah, said Rab, “The juncture of the thigh sinews about which they spoke [render the animal terefah if they sever] the major part of them. What does `the major part' mean? The major part of one of them. When I spoke of these matters before Samuel he said to me, “What is the case? There are three [tendons]. If one is severed completely, lo, there are two. The basis for this reasoning is that there are two [remaining]. Lo, if there are not two remaining, then no [it would not be valid].”

B.            And this is in dispute with the view of Rabbinai. For said Rabbinai, said Samuel, “The juncture of the thigh sinews — even if there remained intact only as much as a [the thickness of a] wool strand, it is valid.”

C.            And there is another version: What does `the major part' mean? The major part of each one of them. When I spoke of these matters before Samuel, he said to me, “What is the case? There are three [tendons]. [Even if the major part of each is severed] lo there is one third of each one [intact].”

D.            And this supports the view of Rabbinai. For said Rabbinai, said Samuel, “The juncture of the thigh sinews — even if there remained intact only as much as a [the thickness of a] wool strand, it is valid.”

III.1

A.            [If] the bone broke [but was not cut off], if most of the meat remains, slaughtering it renders it [the broken leg] clean [M. 4:6 D]. Said Rab, “[If it broke] above the knee, if most of the flesh is intact, both [the limb and the animal] are permitted. And if not, both are prohibited. [If it broke] below the knee, if most of the flesh is intact, both are permitted. And if not, the limb is prohibited, but the [rest of the] animal is permitted.”

B.            And Samuel said, “[If it broke] whether above or below [the knee], if most of the flesh is intact, both are permitted. And if not, the limb is prohibited, but the [rest of the] animal is permitted.”

C.            R. Nahman raised a contradiction to the view of Samuel: They will say, “Its limb is in the garbage and yet it is permitted!”

D.            Said R. Aha bar R. Huna to R. Nahman, “In accord with the view of Rab they may also say, `Its limb is in the garbage and yet it is permitted!'”

E.            He said to him, “Here is what it makes sense to say, `Its vital limb is in the garbage and yet it is permitted!'”

F.             They sent from there [Israel]: The law follows in accord with the view of Rab. Subsequently they sent that it was in accord with the view of Samuel. Subsequently they sent that it was in accord with the view of Rab and that the limb itself renders unclean through carriage.

G.            R. Hisda posed an objection [to this last statement]: [This argument was advanced in the course of a discussion above,] `No, [your argument is not consistent]. If the slaughter of a terefah-animal renders clean it and a limb that is dangling from it, [that is,] something that is part of the body [of the animal], should it render clean the [protruding limb of the] foetus, something that is not part of the body' [b. 73a, M. 4:4, III.1 E]? [Based on this we should conclude that the dangling limb should not render unclean through carriage.]

H.           Said to him Rabbah, “Why go so far in search of questions? You may pose an objection from the rule of the Mishnah: `[If] the cattle is slaughtered, they are deemed prepared through its blood [to receive uncleanness],' the words of R. Meir. And R. Simeon says, `They are not deemed prepared [to receive uncleanness, since the act of slaughter, not blood, renders meat susceptible, and these are unaffected by slaughter (M. 2:5)]' [M. 9:7 C-D].”

I.              He said to him, “You could rebut this objection based on the Mishnah as it was rebutted.” [See above, b. 73b, M. 4:4, IV.2.]

J.              When R. Zira departed [for Israel] he found R. Jeremiah sitting and stating this tradition [of Rab in A]. He said to him, “Very well! So too did Arioch proclaim in Babylonia!”

K.            Who is Arioch? Samuel. But lo, he disputed [the view of Rab]! Samuel retracted his view so as to accord with that of Rab.

IV.1

A.            Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: If the bone was broken and it extrudes [through the skin], if the hide and the flesh cover the major part of it, it is permitted. And if not, it is prohibited.

B.            And how much is the major part? When R. Dimi came, [he brought this teaching:] said R. Yohanan, “The major part in thickness.” And some say concerning it, “The major part of its circumference.” Said R. Pappa, “Therefore they require the major part of its thickness and the major part of its circumference.”

C.            Said Ulla, said R. Yohanan, “The hide, lo it is the same as the flesh.” Said R. Nahman to Ulla, “But why does the master not say that the hide combines together with the flesh? For lo, it was taught [in A], `The hide and the flesh.'” He [Ulla] said to him, “We taught the version, `The hide or the flesh.”

D.            Another version: Said Ulla, said R. Yohanan, “The hide, lo it is the same as the flesh.” Said R. Nahman to Ulla, “But why does the master not say that the we deem that the hide completes [the minimum prescribed measure] together with the flesh in order to render a strict ruling?”

E.            He [Ulla] said to him, “I know of a case of a young pigeon that was in the house of R. Yitzhak [that had a bone extruding through the skin and hide and flesh covered it] and it was a case where the hide combined with the flesh [to make the minimum measure]. And they brought it before R. Yohanan [for a ruling]. And he declared it valid.”

F.             He [Nahman] said to him, “You stated that it was a young pigeon. A [case of a] young pigeon that is tender is a different circumstance.”

G.            [A bird that had a bone extruding through the skin and flesh covered it together with] these tender sinews. They brought it before Rabbah [=Raba] [for a ruling]. Said Rabbah [=Raba], “What should we suspect? First of all, R. Yohanan said that [one who eats] sinews that are going to become hard [from the Paschal lamb of a certain fellowship] [77a] are counted [as having been part of the group] of that Paschal lamb on account of [eating] it. [That implies that the sinews are deemed to be flesh, cf. b. Pes 84a.]