More Discussions for this daf
1. Rav Papa's decision to rule with universalistic stringency 2. Rav Yehudah in the Name of Rav, First Explanation
DAF DISCUSSIONS - CHULIN 76

Mitchell A. Morgenstern asks:

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 Necht'chu means that the legs are 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 T'reifah).

I do not understand this for two reasons. 1) There appears to be Tzomes in the Metatarsus - Arcuvah Hanimkeris and perhaps this is where the Tzomes are cut or severed. 2) You still need this for a case where the Tzomes are severed but the bone is still attached.

I saw in your translation how you tried to wiggle out of this question, but I think it is still a problem.

I am viewing cut and severed as two different cases.

Mitchell A. Morgenstern, Chicago, USA

The Kollel replies:

1) Yes, there are Tzomes ha'Gidin in the metatarsus, but there would certainly not be any problem of Tereifah so low down in the leg. A Tereifah means that an animal cannot live for 12 months as a result of this, so even if the leg was amputated totally below what is equvalent to the ankle in a human being, this would not threaten its life. This is stated by Rashi (in the 13th wide line), "b'Etzem ha'Tachton Vadai Kesherah" -- any cuts or breaks "in the bottom bone are certainly Kosher."

2) The word "Nechtechu" is always translated as "cut," but Rashi (5th wide line) writes that Nechtechu implies that they were totally severed. We learn from Rashi that "cut" means "totally severed," so one cannot view cut and severed as two different cases, as you suggested.

3) You write that "you still need this for a case where the Tzomes are severed but the bone is still attached." This is in fact what Rav Yehudah answered to Ula: "v'Tzomes ha'Gidin v'Lo Rekuvah"; i.e., the Tzomes have been severed but the bone is still attached. However, Ula had an answer to this argument, as we see in the Sugya.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom