Chullin Daf 76

All right, daf ayin vav. Today we start the mission at the top of ayin vav. Today is much more of an aelu treifus type of a day. We're going to get pretty technical and books with pictures, including ArtScroll, will be pretty helpful in understanding what's going on. But the major piece of biology you must know is that that the back leg of any behema has three bones. You've got the bottom bone, which terminates at a hoof, and working your way up you have that cannon bone called the metatarsus. Then you have the middle bone, the tibia, or the shank bone. And then you have the top one, the thigh bone. Now that thigh bone really is inside the body. You don't really see that. When you're looking at le mashal a cow, you really only see those bottom two bones. That top bone, which is the thigh bone, is really inside the body of the cow. So those three bones have two joints that connect those bones. Now at the base of the lower of the two joints, you'll have the same as a gidden, where you have this convergence of all these different sinews of the animal that comes together. So zukt the mishna, behema shinichtichu raglahum min arkuba ulmata. Let's say the back leg of an animal got chopped off, but it was min arkuba ulmata, below that joint. And since the word arkuba could mean one of two different joints, the gemara is going to need to explain what joint we're talking about. But the halacha is if it was cut below that joint, arkuba ulmata, it'll be kasher, but min arkuba ulmaala, it'll be pasul. Vehaish shinital same as a gidden. Also, regarding that same as a gidden that we mentioned, if that's removed, then it will treif up the animal. Nishbar haetzem. This is a different halacha. Let's say there was a broken bone that went through the skin, but it's still there. So the question is, is that going to make it into a treifa? Well, im rav habasar kayem, if the rav basar, which we'll have to see what that means in the gemara, is still there, then shchitaso metarasai. Im lav, ein shchitaso metarasai. And we'll talk about that in the gemara. Zukt the gemara, Omar Rav Yehuda Omar Rav, Omar Rebbi Chiya, lemata, when the mishna says it's lemata, it means lemata min arkuba, right below the joint. And lemaala is lemaala min arkuba. So simply stated, if you chop off the leg anywhere below the joint, it will be kasher, but above it'll be a treifa. But the gemara needs to clarify, be'eizu arkuba amru? Which one of these joints we're talking about? But arkuba hadim karasim araish? Is it that joint which is sold with the head? Cuz the derech in the day was that they used to sell the head with that lower bottom part of the leg, part that would go all the way down to the hoof. And therefore, the mishna is telling us that if the leg was chopped off above that bottom bone, it would be a treifa. But Ulla Amar Reish Lakish, "K'negda is b'gomo nikra." The mishna is talking about the joint which on a camel, you'd be able to see it. Because a camel has these legs completely exposed, so you can actually see the different bones. And the only time the animal is going to be a treifa is if it's chopped off on the thigh bone, meaning that top part, above the higher of the two joints. So, Amar Reish Lakish, Ulla Amar Reish Lakish, "B'shlama l'didi, nice and high up to amina k'negda b'gomo nikra." that you would see it on a camel, meaning it's the upper one of the two joints. "Hani d'ktani b'heini d'tzuma d'gidim." That's why the mishna says also if you remove the tzuma d'gidim, it's not going to be kosher. Because the mishna is saying even though that if the leg was cut off below the joint, it would be kosher, but if you remove the tzuma d'gidim, it'll make it a treifa. Now, there is a mishna reads properly, but "Amar Reish Lakish, but according to you, the mishna is talking about the lower one." So, "Mai v'chein sh'nei tzu tzuma d'gidim?" You've already included that by saying that the leg was chopped off. So, why would the mishna even have to tell me the halacha of the tzuma d'gidim? "Amar Reish Lakish, Rabbi Yehuda, back to Ulla." "V'churva l'tzuma d'gidim." The mishna is telling us that it's shiyach to have the bone cut without the tzuma d'gidim being cut. "V'tzuma d'gidim b'lo r'chuvah." In other words, these two things are independent. It's not like a b'chulam t'aim mona necessarily. "V'Ulla frech t'Ulla v'hu nach t'chu k'tani." It was cut off. How can you tell me that the bone was cut, but not the tzuma d'gidim? It was cut off. To that, Rabbi Yehuda was eshtik. "V'basar d'nafta k'amar." After Ulla left, Rabbi Yehuda said, "Oh man, mai t'aim Ulla amar lei?" Why didn't I tell him that "L'matah is l'matah m'arkuvah." Below just means that if it was cut below the arkuvah and below the tzuma d'gidim, that's when the animal is kosher. But "L'ma'alah is l'ma'alah m'tzuma d'gidim." And when it said above, it meant above that lower joint and above the tzuma d'gidim, that's when it's going to be a treifa. So, that's why the mishna then could have been saying that the animal is also going to be a treifa if the animal's leg was cut directly above that lower joint, which is right inside that tzuma d'gidim itself. "Tzu hadar Ulla eshtik." So, afterwards, Rabbi Yehuda said to himself, "You know what? It's good v'lo amar lei that I didn't tell this idea to Ulla cuz he would have been able to slug it up. Because "V'amar lei nach t'chu k'tani." "L'ma'aseh, he tells me, doesn't it say in the mishna that it was t'chu, that it was cut?" Because the pashut of the Mishna is the whole thing is cut off. So, if I would have said that lema'alah from the means below that lower joint, then the Mishna says above the joint, which sounds like for the pashut, it's really being cut above there. And therefore, Ulla still would have had a ta'ana on me that there would still be no reason to say anything about the so I'm glad I didn't ta'ana this back to Ulla. And now another version of the for Papa must be this is how he learned it. When the Mishna says below, that's lema'atah min Ulla. It means way down below, below that upper joint and the and lema'alah is lema'alah and when we talk about lema'alah, we're talking about above the upper joint and the when we talk about way below or way above. Also, if you remove the it's going to make the animal to a therefore, the Mishna is telling us that cutting the leg anywhere on the bottom bone is going to make the animal kosher and anywhere on that thigh bone on the top part is going to make it not kosher. But we weren't talking about that middle bone, that shank bone. If you remove the that that makes the animal to a that's talking about that middle area, that cutting it above that is still going to make the animal kosher. And according to this version, when said the that joint, talking about version, that's talking about that upper joint. According to and this second if that middle bone is severed at the bottom, meaning at the that connects the bottom two bones, then it's going to be a but if it's cut higher up, it's going to be kosher. So, it's kind of an ironic thing. The higher up you cut, the more kosher the animal will be. possibly and possibly it's ironic. If you chop off a bigger chunk of the animal, the animal will live and if you chop off a smaller part of the animal, the animal will die. It seems counterintuitive. And this we brought up several times in this and this we brought up in this but this is the locus classicus. This is where it's from. And if you chop off a bigger chunk of the animal, the animal will live and if you chop off a smaller part of the animal, the animal will die. It seems counterintuitive. And this we brought up several times in this and this we brought up in this but this is the locus classicus. This is where it's from. And if you chop off a bigger chunk of the animal, the animal will live and if you chop off how it works. And therefore you can't have cashes like that. You're right. If you chop off a bigger chunk of the animal higher up on the leg and it will therefore live. The Raj has an important casher over here. That says chopped off the lower part of the leg and that's going to make it treif. So the Raj so if the Shakh knows what he's doing let him just chop off more of the animal and let's now be machshir the animal. To which the Raj says he can. Until he does that the animal is a treif. But if he acts quickly he can be machshir this treif. Kind of amazing. But there's a machlokes about this. The Rosh argue and the get into the act that this perhaps could be part of the whole siman and sibah shailah of treifus or perhaps the treif is like a bal mum that once it has this kind of a halacha you can't undo it. So there's an important machlokes Rishonim that comes out of this Gemara. And now continues the Gemara of where exactly is the area of the and what point by taking it away will make it into a treif. So Rabba Omar Rav Ashi which is a little bit difficult that Rabba would be quoting Rav Ashi since Rav Ashi lived way after Rabba. It could be that there's multiple Rav Ashis. Someone to change the girsa here. But way. So after Rabba Omar Rav Ashi the where these sinews kind of move away from the bone. That's where the is. The hitting inward to the Rabba the Rabba the area above the take a look at the pictures for more clarity on that. The that area of the itself is also part of the Omar the he's being way too he of Yehuda he the starts at the point where the cut the leg when they flay it cutting into that hide. That's right above that right so we have established that starts right above the so now how far up does it go? That's where all of those sinews join together. We're going to see there's these multiple sinews that kind of join into one tighter cable. So how far up does it go? Omar Rav Omar and you have in the room I heard from the Gavar Rabbenu Shmuel that the times I get in Shamru where they join together with it goes up from the place where they're joined together until the place where they separate they diverge apart and now become how much space is there between these two different points it's four in the case of a Tyra in the case of an ox that's how Rashi learns Rambam says it's four much more what about a small animal like a sheep or a goat how long is the believe they have a when they stick out part of that but believe if they're submerged and absorbed into the then we have a assume they have a if they're hard that's called but they're soft it's not part of the only may have a if it's thick it's part of the and if they're thin they're not part of the if it's white it's part of the same but they're not white they're not part of the turning over to my base as long as they are pale even if it's not actually white they're still considered part of the a member to lesser who they have it there are three of these lines of sinews in the one of them is if the thick one gets cut so as the right opinion and most of the opinion most of the of this have now been lost and also if also the two thin ones are cut now you have lost the of the minion of these sinews and therefore you've also up your how's that because if if the thick one is cut I still have a numerical of but if the but if the thin ones are cut then I have cuz then I still have the of the thicker ones either way the animal still be kosher in either of those but if I what about my birds there are 16 different strands of sinews in the same as a gideon. Even if one of them is cut, the bird is a treif. I was by my father of Ashiva I still look at my life and such a child that the bird was brought to him who bought the he was able to count 15 of these sinews still intact. One of them was a little thicker than the other ones. He went in there and carefully was able to separate them and he saw stuck at two of these sinews together and therefore all of them are intact and therefore the bird is kosher. That's the rule by so my rule by when we talk about the right that's going to treif up the same as a gideon. Right the rule of one of those sinews that that will make the whole thing into a treif. When I said this to him he said till there's only three of these things in the same as a gideon. So even if one of them is completely cut you still have two. So don't talk to me about the rule of one of them making it into a treif. Even if it's totally cut it will be kosher. Now tell me the reason why it's kosher is because there's still two intact ones. If there wouldn't be at least two intact ones it would not be kosher. Even if there's only the thickness of the drawstring that you would use to close the neckline of a bag. Still be kosher. Or if you could tell me my rule by what does it mean by rule by of it being cut will make it into a treif. That's rule rule of each one of these different sinews. But if less than all three of them are cut then the animal will be kosher. So tell me the rule by of the same as a gideon. When I said this to him he said well there's three of these things. So there's still a third of each one that's still there and that will be enough to make the animal still kosher and not be a treif. So tell me the rule of the same as a gideon. The same as a gideon rule of the same as a gideon will be kosher. That was the other version of that conversation. Then the mission had said let's say the bone is broken and the bone is sticking out of the body. So the mission had said if rule of the bosses on there then the of the animal will still make that a ver kosher to eat. But if the rib of the buster is not on there, then then the shchita will not take care of that messed up aver. So, Omar Rav, "L'ma'alah min ha'arkuvah, if this broken bone is l'ma'alah min ha'arkuvah, where the animal would be a treifah had it been totally cut off, im reiva basser kayem, then zeh v'zeh mutar." Then the gantz animal and that aver itself are going to be okay. "V'im lav, but if reiva basser does not remain there, zeh v'zeh assur." L'mattah min ha'arkuvah, let's say it's below where it would not treif up the animal, "im reiva basser kayem, zeh v'zeh mutar. V'im lav, but if the reiva of the basser is not there, aver assur, u'b'heimah muteres." But the animal itself is not a treifah and therefore it will still stay mutar. "V'Shmuel omer, no, it's not true. B'eil ma'alah, b'eil mattah, im reiva basser kayem, zeh v'zeh mutar. Im lav, aver assur, u'b'heimah muteres." It's never going to ruin the actual animal itself. Maskif Rav Nachman, "How could Shmuel say that?" "L'Shmuel, y'eimru aver mimenu mutal b'ashpah muteres." According to Shmuel, people are going to say that you're taking the animal, you're chopping off this aver, tossing it in the trash cuz you're not allowed to eat it, and eating the main animal. That is like an it's like a maris ayin problem. People are going to look at this and say, "You're cutting off the problematic part that made the animal into a treifah ostensibly, and now you're eating the animal?" That's not a good way to act. "Omer lei Rav Nachman bar Rav Huna l'Rav Nachman, "Well, l'Rav Nachman, you can make the same kind of a problem. Y'eimru aver mimenu mutal b'ashpah muteres." Because even according to Rav, where the bone is sticking out below the arkuvah, l'mattah, that Rav essentially said the same halacha, that you can toss that problematic aver and eat the rest of the animal, you're also going to have the same maris ayin problem. "Omer lei," Rav Nachman said back to Rav Nachman bar Rav Huna, "Oh, reika amina. Aver she'kayem mimenu mutal b'ashpah muteres." According to Shmuel, people are going to say, "This aver on which the animal's life depends on it." That doesn't make any sense to throw that kind of an aver away and eat the rest of the animal. That looks like you're just discarding that which made it into a treifah and eating the rest of it. So, it's only really a kosher on Shmuel because it's kayem mimenu, but not Rav. "Shalchu mi'tam," they sent a halacha from Eretz Yisrael, "Halacha k'Rav Assi d'Rav." "Hadar shalchu, k'Rav Assi d'Shmuel." And then "Hadar shalchu, k'Rav Assi d'Rav." "V'aver atzmi mitamei b'masah." And they said also that aver itself is not only assur to eat, but it also has tumas nevelah. Most of Rav Chisda, now we're going to ask on that last halacha from the sugias that we learned over Shabbos about the aver of the uber that's sticking out of the mother, whether or not the shita is going to take care of the tuma of that Aver. And we have a case between the that said that there is no tuma and of mayor had said in tiara straight for and had said back in that brisa loy empty as treif if the shita of the treif takes care of the animal itself and also should take care of the dangling Aver that's going to be gufa that's only for something in its own body but the tire is a Uber in a gufa that was tiny back in the as you remember. But you see from this in this discussion that from Israel that there should be tuma on the Aver itself and Rabba of had said why are you asking me from a brisa I see me you should ask from the actual mishna which is the mishna that we're going to talk about later on that says if the animals and both the Aver and the buser are for tuma because of the dam of the animal itself that's but Shimon that that animal is not for tuma but what does he say from the mishna that both according to and Shimon the Aver that is is not kind of tuma so what are you asking me from a brisa ask me from a mishna so he said back to Rabba and he said I could have been that mishna like we were earlier back on but my question in the is much more clear from the brisa that you can't have the same you had earlier on he said he was teaching this of Rabba that if the is broken above the and has the whole animal can't be eaten so he said to him the sky is clear. Because also said it and who is he talking about when he says that's I but argued with Rabba but ultimately and went like Rabba and we're going to call it here and pick it up with the Rabbonim for tomorrow's daf.