## Chullin Daf 76b

###### Chullin 76b:1
[Chullin 76b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:1)

מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּזִיגִי – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חִוָּורֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 76b:2
[Chullin 76b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:2)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*.


###### Chullin 76b:3
[Chullin 76b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:3)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 76b:4
[Chullin 76b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 76b:5
[Chullin 76b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:5)

טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא תְּרֵי, הָא לֵיכָּא תְּרֵי – לָא, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבְנַאי, דְּאָמַר רַבְנַאי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: צוֹמֶת הַגִּידִים, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר בָּהּ אֶלָּא כְּחוּט הַסַּרְבָּל – כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 76b:6
[Chullin 76b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 76b:7
[Chullin 76b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:7)

נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chullin 76b:8
[Chullin 76b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 76b:9
[Chullin 76b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:9)

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בֵּין לְמַעְלָה בֵּין לְמַטָּה, אִם רוֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – זֶה וָזֶה מוּתָּר, אִם לָאו – אֵבֶר אָסוּר, וּבְהֵמָה מוּתֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 76b:10
[Chullin 76b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:10)

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״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?**


###### Chullin 76b:11
[Chullin 76b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא, אֵבֶר שֶׁחָיָה מִמֶּנָּה מוּטָּל בָּאַשְׁפָּה, וּמוּתֶּרֶת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Chullin 76b:12
[Chullin 76b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:12)

שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, הֲדוּר שְׁלַחוּ: כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, הֲדוּר שְׁלַחוּ: כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, וְאֵבֶר עַצְמוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַשָּׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*.


###### Chullin 76b:13
[Chullin 76b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:13)

מֵתִיב רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא, אִם טִיהֲרָה שְׁחִיטַת טְרֵפָה אוֹתָהּ וְאֶת הָאֵבֶר הַמְדוּלְדָּל בָּהּ – דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ, תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָעוּבָּר – דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוּפָהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 76b:14
[Chullin 76b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: הַדּוֹרֵי אַפִּירְכֵי לְמָה לָךְ? אוֹתֵיב מִמַּתְנִיתִין! נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּהֵמָה – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בְּדָמֶיהָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 76b:15
[Chullin 76b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַתְנִיתִין אִיכָּא לְדַחוֹיֵי, כִּדְדָחֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 76b:16
[Chullin 76b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:16)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 76b:17
[Chullin 76b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:17)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.**


###### Chullin 76b:18
[Chullin 76b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:18)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chullin 76b:19
[Chullin 76b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:19)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי [אָמַר עוּלָּא], אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר מִצְטָרֵף לְבָשָׂר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְעוּלָּא: וְלֵימָא מָר עוֹר מַשְׁלִים לְבָשָׂר לְחוּמְרָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 76b:20
[Chullin 76b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:20)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 76b:21
[Chullin 76b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/76b:21)

הָנְהוּ גִּידִין רַכִּין דַּאֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, אָמַר רַבָּה: לְמַאי לֵיחוּשׁ לְהוּ? חֲדָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גִּידִין שֶׁסּוֹפָן לְהַקְשׁוֹת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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,**