Chullin 76

On today’s daf we learn from a mishnah:

When the bone of an animal’s limb was broken and the limb was not completely severed and the animal was subsequently 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.

The discussion on today’s daf concerns identifying an animal as a treifa — one that is disqualified from consumption, even if slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law. Fatal injuries render an animal a treifa. Given that in this era a broken bone was often (though not always) fatal for a domestic animal, it makes sense for the Gemara to spend some time considering exactly which breaks are likely to lead to death.
As it is prone to do, the Gemara cites a beraita that is similar, but not identical, to the mishnah:

The sages taught: 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.
 
In this case, a small amount of bone protrusion does not disqualify the animal from consumption — provided that the skin and flesh still cover a majority of the bone.

Naturally, the Gemara is curious about how we define “majority of the bone.” Rav Dimi reports that Rabbi Yohanan says that it means a majority of its width. An alternate tradition suggests that Rabbi Yohanan taught that it is a majority of its circumference. The distinction is slight, but enough to concern the rabbis.
Faced with two different traditions and no clear way to determine what Rabbi Yohanan actually taught, Rav Pappa suggests that we adopt both:

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.

Putting aside the competing Rabbi Yohanan traditions, we still have the concern of reconciling the mishnah and beraita. It’s possible to read them in opposition to each other: The mishnah says an animal with a broken bone can still be kosher if the bone is completely covered by flesh (muscle and fat); the beraita deems it kosher if more than half of it is covered by muscle and skin (some commentators say muscle or skin).

It is also possible to read them as if they were talking about totally different things. That is, the beraita is talking about a case when the bone pokes through the flesh of the animal and the mishnah is referring to cases when it does not. When the bone remains inside, according to the mishnah, it is sufficient that the muscle be intact, even if the bone is visible. If the bone protrudes, however, the beraita rules that we require it to be mostly covered for the meat of the animal to be permitted.

Later legal scholars are divided. Some point to a tension between the sources; others suggest they are not at odds.
 
How did the tradition respond to this ambiguity? Jewish practice became stricter over time. According to the 16th-century legal commentator Rabbi Moshe Isserles (known as the Rema):
 
“It has become the custom to declare an animal unkosher … even if skin and flesh surround the area on all sides and there is no perforation whatsoever. This is because there are many differing opinions regarding the law of flesh covering and few are expert in the matter.”
 
Isserles rules strictly but allows for exceptions to be made under the guidance of a religious authority, presumably to prevent a significant financial loss. In most cases, however, due to the lack of a clear standard from the Talmud and the legal commentators that followed, he sets a strict standard: A broken bone prohibits the ritual slaughter of an animal.  

Read all of Chullin 76 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on July 15, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.