## Chullin Daf 77a

###### Chullin 77a:1
[Chullin 77a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:1)

נִמְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן בַּפֶּסַח, וְעוֹד, הַתּוֹרָה חָסָה עַל מָמוֹנָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**one may be registered** as part of a group that will eat the **Paschal offering on their account,** i.e., even if those sinews are the only part of the lamb he will eat. Evidently, such sinews are regarded as flesh. **And furthermore, the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people,** and one must tend toward leniency.


###### Chullin 77a:2
[Chullin 77a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרַבָּה: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, וְאִיסּוּרָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ: מַאי לֵיחוּשׁ לְהוּ?! אִישְׁתִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Rabba:** But **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan and holds that one may not be registered for those sinews, as they will eventually harden and are therefore not considered flesh. **And** therefore, the broken bone in this case is not covered by flesh and the animal is **prohibited by Torah law** as a *tereifa*, **and** yet **you say: What concern** is there **with** the sinews in **this** case? Rabba **was silent.**


###### Chullin 77a:3
[Chullin 77a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:3)

וְאַמַּאי אִישְׁתִּיק? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And why was** Rabba **silent? But doesn’t Rava say** that **the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish** in his disputes with Rabbi Yoḥanan only **with regard to these three** matters, i.e., three matters that are mentioned in *Yevamot* 36a, and not in other cases? If so, Rabba could simply have replied that the *halakha* is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish with regard to this issue.


###### Chullin 77a:4
[Chullin 77a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:4)

שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דַּהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, בִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here,** with regard to sinews that will ultimately harden, **it is different, as Rabbi Yoḥanan retracted his** ruling **in favor of** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as** when Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised a difficulty against Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: Do not provoke me** by asking questions to refute my opinion that the fact that the sinews will ultimately harden is disregarded, **as I teach it** in explanation of **a lone opinion** (see *Pesaḥim* 84a). Even Rabbi Yoḥanan conceded that the opinion he expressed was only according to one Sage, but is not the *halakha*.


###### Chullin 77a:5
[Chullin 77a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:5)

הָהוּא נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְיָצָא לַחוּץ, דְּאִישְׁתְּקִיל קוּרְטִיתָא מִינֵּיהּ, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, שַׁהֲיֵיהּ תְּלָתָא רִיגְלֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain** case in **which a bone** in an animal’s leg **broke and protruded outward.** This bone was mostly covered with flesh and skin, but **a small piece [*kurtita*]** of the bone **had been removed from it.** The case **came before Abaye,** who **delayed** his response until **three** pilgrimage **Festivals** had passed, when the Sages gathered together and he could ask them.


###### Chullin 77a:6
[Chullin 77a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָא: זִיל קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא, דַּחֲרִיפָא סַכִּינֵיהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר: מִכְּדֵי ״נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְיָצָא לַחוּץ״ תְּנַן, מָה לִי נְפַל, מָה לִי אִיתֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Mattana said to** the owner of the animal: **Go before Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, whose knife is sharp,** i.e., he has insight into halakhic matters and decides matters quickly, and ask him to decide your case. The owner **came before** Rava to seek his opinion. Rava **said** to him: **Since we learned** in the *baraita* (76b): If **the bone broke and protruded outward,** if skin and flesh cover a majority of the bone the animal is permitted, **what** difference is there **to me** if the bone **fell** out, and **what** difference is there **to me** if **it is in** its place? In either case, the animal is permitted.


###### Chullin 77a:7
[Chullin 77a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: מִתְלַקֵּט מַהוּ? מִתְרוֹסֵס מַהוּ? מִתְמַסְמֵס מַהוּ? הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִתְמַסְמֵס? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּל שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא קוֹדְרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to a case where flesh covers the majority of a broken bone, **Ravina said to Rava:** If the flesh was torn in pieces and spread over the area, and if **gathered** it would constitute a majority, **what is** the *halakha*? Similarly, if the flesh was **pulverized** and thin, **what is** the *halakha*? If it was **decomposed, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case in which the flesh is **decomposed? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** This is referring to **any** kind of flesh **that the doctor cuts away [*kodro*]** and removes to enable the surrounding area to heal.


###### Chullin 77a:8
[Chullin 77a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:8)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: נִיקַּב מַהוּ? נִקְלַף מַהוּ? נִסְדַּק מַהוּ? נִיטַּל שְׁלִישׁ הַתַּחְתּוֹן מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If the flesh that covers the bone **was perforated, what is** the *halakha*? Likewise, if the flesh **was peeled** off the bone, **what is** the *halakha*? If it **was cracked, what is** the *halakha*? If **the bottom third** of the width of the flesh, i.e., the part that is adjacent to the bone, **was removed, what is** the *halakha*?


###### Chullin 77a:9
[Chullin 77a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עוֹר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָשָׂר, דִּלְמָא דִּקְנָה מַשְׁכָּא דִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear, as Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Skin is like flesh.** This would appear to indicate that any covering is sufficient. The Gemara refutes this proof: **Perhaps** Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring to a specific case where there was never flesh on the bone, but only skin, e.g., adjacent to the knee, where **the skin holds its own** place close to the bone. This ruling may not apply in an area where there was flesh. Perhaps in such a place the bone must be covered by flesh that is still healthy.


###### Chullin 77a:10
[Chullin 77a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:10)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בֵּי רַב פַּפֵּי, אִיבַּעְיָא לַן: נִקְדַּר כְּמִין טַבַּעַת, מַהוּ? וּפְשַׁטְנָא מֵהָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: דָּבָר זֶה שָׁאַלְתִּי לַחֲכָמִים וְלָרוֹפְאִים, וְאָמְרוּ: מְסָרְטוֹ בְּעֶצֶם וּמַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה, אֲבָל פַּרְזְלָא מִזְרָף זָרֵיף. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְהוּא דִּקְנָה גַּרְמָא דִּידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: While we were** studying **in Rav Pappi’s study hall, we raised a dilemma:** If the flesh and skin were **cut in the shape of a ring** around the break, and yet most of the circumference of the bone is surrounded by flesh, **what is** the *halakha*? **And we resolved** this dilemma **from this** statement that **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: I asked** about **this matter to the Sages and to the doctors,** what to do when a bone breaks and the surrounding flesh has been cut away, **and they said: One makes an incision in it with** a sharp piece of **bone** to help the blood flow and then congeal, **and** in this manner the wound **will heal.** The Gemara notes: **But** one should not make the incision with **an iron** implement, **as it will cause inflammation. Rav Pappa said: And this** advice should be implemented only in a case where one can see that **the bone is holding** firmly onto **its** flesh, as only in such a case will the flesh heal.


###### Chullin 77a:11
[Chullin 77a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ שִׁלְיָא – נֶפֶשׁ הַיָּפֶה תֹּאכְלֶנָּה, וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין וְלֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת. חִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ – מְטַמְּאָה טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, אֲבָל לֹא טוּמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who slaughters an animal and finds a placenta in its** womb, one with **a hearty soul [*nefesh hayafa*],** i.e., who is not repulsed by it, **may eat it,** as its consumption was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. Nevertheless, since generally speaking, people do not consume such placentas, it is not regarded as food **and** so it **cannot become impure** with **the ritual impurity of food** even were it to come into contact with a source of impurity. **And** furthermore, it does **not** impart **the ritual impurity of animal carcasses** as it was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. But if **one intended to** eat **it,** one thereby elevated it to the status of food, and the placenta **becomes impure** with **the ritual impurity of food** if it comes into contact with a source of impurity. **But** even so, it still does **not** impart the **ritual impurity of animal carcasses.**


###### Chullin 77a:12
[Chullin 77a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:12)

שִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצְתָה מִקְצָתָהּ – אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה, סִימַן וָלָד בָּאִשָּׁה וְסִימַן וָלָד בַּבְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **a placenta, part of which emerged** from the womb before the mother was slaughtered, its **consumption** is **prohibited** even after the mother animal is slaughtered because the emergence of the placenta is **an indication of a fetus in a woman and an indication of a fetus in an animal.** Accordingly, there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta, thereby rendering the fetus as having been born, a status that precludes it from being permitted by the slaughter of its mother. Since the offspring is prohibited, its placenta is likewise prohibited.


###### Chullin 77a:13
[Chullin 77a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:13)

הַמְבַכֶּרֶת שֶׁהִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא – יַשְׁלִיכֶנָּה לִכְלָבִים, וּבַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין תִּקָּבֵר, וְאֵין קוֹבְרִין אוֹתָהּ בְּפָרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים, וְאֵין תּוֹלִין אוֹתָהּ בְּאִילָן, מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמוֹרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **an animal that was giving birth to its firstborn expelled a placenta, one may cast it to the dogs,** and one does not need to be concerned that the placenta came from a male fetus that has the consecrated status of a firstborn. **But in** the case of **sacrificial** animals the placenta **must be buried,** because it came from a fetus that is assumed to have been sacred. The mishna adds: **But one may neither bury it at an intersection, nor may one hang it on a tree,** superstitious rites intended to prevent the animal from miscarrying again, **due to** the prohibition against following **the ways of the Amorite,** which prohibits Jews from practicing the superstitious rites observed by gentiles.


###### Chullin 77a:14
[Chullin 77a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כֹּל (בהמה) [בַּבְּהֵמָה] תֹּאכֵלוּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ יָצְתָה מִקְצָתָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתָהּ״ – אוֹתָהּ וְלֹא שִׁלְיָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the ruling that a placenta is permitted by virtue of the mother’s slaughter, the Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived? **As the Sages taught:** “And **every** animal that parts the hoof, and has the hooves wholly cloven in two, and chews the cud, **of the animals, it you may eat”** (Deuteronomy 14:6). The verse is the source of the *halakha* that a fetus is permitted by virtue of the mother’s slaughter (see 69a). The word “every” at the beginning of the verse serves **to include the placenta** as well as the fetus. One **might** have thought that a placenta is permitted **even if part of it emerged** from the womb before slaughter. Therefore, **the verse states: “It** you may eat,” i.e., you may eat **it,** the slaughtered animal, **but not its placenta,** if it partially emerged.


###### Chullin 77a:15
[Chullin 77a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:15)

מִכְּדִי אֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד, לְמָה לִי קְרָא? קְרָא אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Now** the assumption is that there is **no placenta without a fetus.** Therefore, if part of the placenta emerged, there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta, thereby rendering the fetus as having been born. Such a status would preclude it from being permitted by the slaughter of its mother. **Why do I** need a verse to teach this? The Gemara explains: The **verse is a mere support** for the *halakha*, but not the source for it.


###### Chullin 77a:16
[Chullin 77a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/77a:16)

וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַפָּחָא: עוֹר חֲמוֹר שֶׁשְּׁלָקוֹ מַהוּ? לְמַאי? אִי לְטוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין – תְּנֵינָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: **And** a placenta found inside a slaughtered animal **cannot become impure** with the ritual impurity of food and does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses. In a related discussion, **Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Nappaḥa raises a dilemma: A donkey hide that one cooked** and it became softened, **what is** its halakhic status? The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** issue did he raise this dilemma? **If** it was **with regard to the ritual impurity of food, we** already **learn** this *halakha* in a *baraita*,