1)

(a)The Tana rules that an animal whose hind legs are severed ...

1. ... from the Arkuvah downwards - is Kasher.

2. ... from the Arkuvah upwards is a Tereifah.

(b)He also rules that one whose ...

1. ... Tzomes ha'Gidin (the nerve junction [comprising three nerves] that is situated on the hind legs) has been removed - is T'reifah.

2. ... hind leg has a broken bone - is Kasher, but only as long as the majority of the flesh is still intact.

(c)The broken limb itself - he declares forbidden anyway, based on the Pasuk "u'Basar ba'Sadeh T'reifah Lo Socheilu".

(d)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav quoting Rebbi Chiya, describes the Arkuvah in our Mishnah as the one that is sold together with the head - which refers to the lowest of the three bones that comprise the leg (the one that corresponds to the ankle bone).

(e)And he defines ...

1. ... Lematah min ha'Arkuvah that is Kasher, as - immediately below the knee-bone (commonly known as the middle bone) which joins it with the calf (the Shok).

2. ... Lema'alah min ha'Arkuvah that is T'reifah as - immediately above the knee-bone.

2)

(a)Ula Amar Rebbi Hoshaya explains Arkuvah as the one that can be seen protruding from the front of a camel's leg, which is - the joint that joins the calf to the thigh-bone (the Yerech).

(b)And he ...

1. ... explains Lematah and Lema'alah min ha'Arkuvah to mean - the middle bone and the thigh bone respectively.

2. ... queries Rav Yehudah, based on the continuation of our Mishnah ve'Chein she'Nital Tzomes ha'Gidin - which implies that the bone corresponding to the Tzomes ha'Gidin is Kasher (otherwise it would be unnecessary to mention it, seeing as it must have been severed).

(c)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).

(d)Rav Yehudah had no answer. And he rejected his own suggestion that perhaps the Tana means Lematah min ha'Arkuvah but Lema'alah mi'Tzomes ha'Gidin - inasmuch as the Tana said 'min ha'Arkuvah u'Lema'alah' (and not 'min ha'Tzomes u'Lema'alah').

3)

(a)Rav Papa quotes Rav Yehudah Amar Rav ... (Lematah ... and Lema'alah ... ) as - Lematah min ha'Arkuvah u'mi'Tzomes ha'Gidin, and Lema'alah mi'Tzomes ha'Gidin, to conform to Ula Amar Rebbi Hoshaya.

(b)Rav Yehudah is now referring - to the Arkuvah Elyonah.

(c)Lema'alah ... therefore refers to the thigh-bone, and Lematah ... - the lower bone (which is completely permitted).

(d)Regarding the middle (calf)-bone, he now holds that - if the part that corresponds to Tzomes ha'Gidin breaks, it is T'reifah (ve'Chein Nital Tzomes ha'Gidin), whilst should it break above that point, it is Kasher.

4)

(a)The problem with Ula Amar Rebbi Hoshaya is that - if the leg above the Tzomes ha'Gidin is Kasher (as we just explained), how can the Tzomes ha'Gidin be T'reifah?

(b)Rav Ashi (whom we quoted a number of times in Eilu T'reifos) answers that - we cannot compare one case of T'reifus to another; like we see here, that lower down is T'reifah, whereas higher up is Kasher.

(c)We rule like Rav Yehudah in the first Lashon, seeing as we do not find that Rav Yehudah Amar Rav retracted.

(d)Consequently, anywhere above the knee-bone that is severed is T'reifah, and so is Nital ha'Tzomes.

5)

(a)Rabah Amar Rav Ashi (or Rav Asi) defines the Tzomes as de'Agr'ma u'le'Bar. Given that the knee-bone above the joint is devoid of flesh ...

1. ... Rabah must mean that - in the space of the first three Etzba'os that the Gidin leave the bone, they are still attached to it; from then on, they separate from the bone but are still merged into one. That is when they are called Tzomes ha'Gidin, until they separate into three separate entities.

2. ... Rabah bar Rav Huna who says de'Agr'ma u'le'Gev means that - it is in the space of the first three Tefachim that the Gidin are attached to the bone that they are called Tzomes ha'Gidin.

(b)Rava b'rei de'Rabah bar Rav Huna Amar Rav Ashi considers the three Gidin to be Tzomes ha'Gidin all the way from just above the lower knee-bone (the Arkuma) up to the point where the three Gidin separate.

(c)When a certain Talmid-Chacham declared that the Tzomes ha'Gidin corresponding to the actual Arkom is T'reifah, Rebbi Aba commented that - the people should take no notice of him, because he had gone too far.

6)

(a)Rebbi Aba quoted Rav Yehudah, who gave the Shi'ur as from the point where the butcher flays the animal - either to porge the leg of the Chalavim and to remove the nerves under discussion, or because that is where the butchers tend to begin the flaying process.

(b)Rav Yehudah's opinion conforms - to that of Rava b'rei de'Rabah bar Rav Huna (de'Iluy Arkuma).

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel defined the Tzomes ha'Gidin as Tzomsin - as long as the three Gidin are joined and look like one Gid.

7)

(a)A certain Talmid-Chacham quoting Rav Yehudah, gave the Shi'ur for that as from the place where the Gidin fuse, up to the point where they separate. Rav Yehudah heard that - from Shmuel.

(b)Abaye defines this Shi'ur as - four finger-breadths ...

(c)... and it pertains - only to large animals.

(d)Abaye gives four signs by which to recognize the Tzomes ha'Gidin of a small animal; if they protrude from the flesh, if they are hard, if they are thick - and if they are white.

(e)Mar bar Rav Ashi comments that - if they are transparent, it is as they are white.

8)

(a)Based on the fact that one of the three Gidin is thick, and the other two, thin, Ameimar in the name of Rav Z'vid rules that in a case where...

1. ... the thick one snaps - 'the majority of the building has collapsed', and the animal is a T'reifah.

2. ... the two thin ones snap - the majority of Gidin have gone, and the animal is a T'reifah, too.

(b)According to Mar bar Rav Ashi - as long as either the thick Gid or the two thin ones remain intact, the animal is Kasher.

(c)The Halachah is like Mar bar Rav Ashi, as it always is, with the exception of two cases, as we learned in Sanhedrin (see also Tosfos DH 'Mar bar Rav Ashi').

(d)The Halachah regarding the Shi'ur of Tzomes ha'Gidin - is le'Chumra like the most stringent opinion (like it is in all cases of unresolved Machlokos in d'Oraysos, to which category T'reifos belongs). Consequently, from above the Arkom up to the point where the Gidin separate is considered Tzomes ha'Gidin.

9)

(a)A bird has - sixteen Gidin.

(b)If one of them snaps - the bird is a T'reifah.

(c)When Mar bar Rav Ashi's father found only fifteen Gidin in a chicken instead of sixteen, he saw his father - split open a Gid that looked a little thicker that the others to reveal that it comprised two Gidin.

(d)When Rav Yehudah informed Shmuel of Rav's ruling, declaring an animal a T'reifah if the majority of one Gid snaps, the latter objected - on the grounds that even if one entire Gid has snapped, the two remaining ones form a majority, so why should the animal be declared a T'reifah?

(e)In any event, according to Rav Yehudah, even Shmuel requires a majority of two Gidin to remain intact. Ravna'i Amar Shmuel disagrees with this - in that he declares the animal Kasher if even the thickness of the thread with which one ties the neck of a woolen cloak (Chut ha'Sarbol) of each Gid remains intact.

10)

(a)Others explain Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement Tzomes ha'Gidin she'Amru be'Rubo - to mean the majority of the Gidin must snap for the animal to be a T'reifah.

(b)This time, Shmuel objected on the grounds that - as long as a third of the Gidin remains intact, it will suffice ...

(c)... on which we comment that - this in fact supports Ravna'i Amar Shmuel, who says that even if only the thickness of a Chut ha'Sarbol remains, the animal is Kasher. Note, that to conform to Mar bar Rav Ashi, we will have to establish Shmuel by either the thick Gid (even though the two thin ones are completely severed), or vice-versa.

11)

(a)Commenting on the final case in our Mishnah (Nishbar ha'Etzem ... ) Rav rules that as long as the majority of the flesh remains intact, both the animal and the limb are permitted. Assuming that it is not, he declares both the bone and the animal forbidden if the middle bone (the calf) is broken, but permits the animal if the fracture is in the lower one.

(b)According to Shmuel - either way, the animal is Kasher.

(c)When Rav Nachman asked Rav Acha bar Rav Huna how it is possible according to Shmuel, for the bone to be thrown on to the trash-heap and the animal to be Kasher, he retorted that - he (Rav Nachman) could have asked the same Kashya on Rav (with regard to the lower bone) ...

(d)... to which he replied that - what he meant to ask was how it is possible for a bone on which the animal's life depends to be thrown on to the trash-heap, and the animal remains Kasher.

12)

(a)In Eretz Yisrael, they had difficulty in deciding the Halachah. They finally ruled - like Rav ...

(b)... adding that the bone itself is Metamei be'Masa (renders the person who carries it Tamei, even though he does not actually touch it) - because Shechitah Osah Nipul.

13)

(a)Rav Chisda queries the previous ruling from the Beraisa that we discussed earlier, where Rebbi Meir asked the Rabbanan 'Lo, Im Tiharah Shechitas T'reifah Osah, v'es ha'Eiver ha'Meduldal ... ?' - indicating that Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul.

(b)Rabah queries Rav Chisda from the Mishnah earlier 'Nishch'tah, Huchsh'ru be'Damehah', Divrei Rebbi Meir; Rebbi Shimon Omer 'Lo Huchsh'ru' - which also seems to hold 'Ein Shechitah Osah Nipul' (otherwise why would the Eiver require Hechsher) for Tum'as Ochlin? In that case, why did Rav Chisda not rather ask from a Mishnah than from a Beraisa?

(c)Rav Chisda replied - by establishing Huchsh'ru in the Mishnah (like we did earlier) with regard to the Basar (which is subject to Tum'as Ochlin, but not to Eiver min ha'Chai), and not with regard to the Eiver. That is why he preferred to ask from the Beraisa.

14)

(a)When, upon his arrival from Bavel, Rebbi Zeira heard Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba repeating the distinction that Rav made between a fracture on the middle hind-leg bone and one on the lower one, he exclaimed - 'Yeyasher', because that is what Shmuel said in Bavel.

(b)He referred to Shmuel as Aryoch - because we rule like Shmuel in money-matters, and this is hinted in the Pasuk in Vayeira (in connection with the battle of the kings) "Aryoch Melech Elasar", whose acronym is 'Aryoch Melech, ve'Al Isur' (Aryoch is the king, but not in matters concerning Isur).

(c)Shmuel did indeed argue with Rav over this point, initially, but (presumably on account of Rav Nachman's Kashya) - he later retracted and ended up agreeing with him.

15)

(a)The Beraisa rules that, in a case where the lower leg-bone fractures and protrudes from the flesh, it will be permitted - provided most of it is covered by flesh and skin.

(b)Rav Dimi quoting Rebbi Yochanan, gives the Shi'ur as Rov Avav - only a minority of the fractured bone (the cavity) protrudes, whilst the majority is surrounded by flesh and skin.

(c)Others say - that as long as the majority of the flesh and skin that surround the bone at the location of the fracture is intact (Rov Hekeifo), the bone is permitted, even if the majority of the cavity protrudes from a small hole in the skin.

(d)Rav Papa therefore rules that - the bone is only permitted with a combination of Rov Avav and Rov Hekeifo.

16)

(a)Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan ruled 'Or, Harei hu ke'Basar', which means - (with regard to the precious Halachah) that - the skin is as good as the flesh. When Rav Nachman asked why he did not say 'Or Mitztaref le'Basar', he meant that - surely the skin is only effective if it combines with the flesh (half flesh, and half skin), but not that it can replace it?

(b)Ula refuted Rav Nachman's proof from the Lashon of the Beraisa 'Im Or u'Basar Chofin es Rubo' (implying that it only combines with the flesh, as he explained), inasmuch as his version of the text was 'Im Or O Basar Chofin es Rubo ... ' (implying that it can even replace it).

17)

(a)According to the second Lashon, where Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan originally stated 'Or Mitztaref le'Basar', Rav Nachman asked him - whether he should not have said 'Or Mashlim le'Basar' (which means that skin will only help to supplement the flesh, if the flesh comprises the majority of what covers the fracture).

(b)In response, Ula cited an incident that took place with Rebbi Yitzchak, when they brought before Rebbi Yochanan a duck with a fractured bone that protruded from the leg, where most of it was covered half by skin and half by flesh - and which Rebbi Yochanan declared Kasher.

(c)Rav Nachman however, refuted Ula's proof from there on the grounds that - a duck is different, because its skin is soft, and is therefore comparable to flesh.