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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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,