Talking Talmud

The marrow of a bone - in a sacrificial offering, that was then leftover - leads to impurity, as do the bones themselves. But that can depend on whether they are opened or closed. Also, touching impurity turns out to have the same status as one would have after carrying impurity. And raises the question of the "ohel," tent, for when impurity is transferred as a matter of being there, as per all of the different categories. Also, the "list' of the Mishnah plays out in the Gemara. Plus, defining the impurity of the tent ("ohel").

A new mishnah! But first, procedure about how that which is rendered impure becomes pure again by virtue of an action, though that action is not necessarily needed. Plus, when is the impurity of such an item lasting? Some of the description are very fast, in contrast to some others. Plus, how one applies the cautionary tale of this verse. So, when is nevelah meat a debate? And would one want to prove the nevelah meat, and the correct kinds of all of these losses would happen?

A new mishnah! More on the hide, and how, without flesh, it doesn't transmit impurity. But in the process of flaying the hide, there is a short time when convey impurity is possible. Also, note that impurity can be removed by changes to the item itself, and not just ridding the item of its ritual impurity.

A new mishnah! But a difficult one. Specifically about skin and when it conveys impurity -- with specific reference to creepie-crawlies, but there is also discussion about the skin of other animals, and even of a dead body (human). And the gruesome discussion of skin being used functionally. With a different level of impurity for human skin -- from a Torah level and from a rabbinic level, which is more cautious and stringent than the Torah level (including the question of tanning). Also, a review of different statuses of different kinds of skin, and the potential of imparting impurity.

More on items that join with meat to achieve a volume of food that would lead to the imparting of impurity. Including "allal" - which this daf defines (nuchal ligaments?). With a focus on what aspects can join with meat. Also, if a Jew slaughters a non-kosher animal for a non-Jew's consumption (or the converse) -- the implications of that case, as to when impurity would be imparted, or when there would be halakhic complications to begin with.

When do spices join together with the meat to yield an amount that can impart impurity of food -- even though the spices alone wouldn't get that impurity to begin with, because spices aren't quite food for this purpose. The Gemara clarifies that it really means the scrapings - including meat - at the bottom of the pot. But what if that includes forbidden fats or coagulated blood or the like? Also, liquids that come from foods with special halakhic statuses -- and how those liquids have the special statuses as well.

A pod that has beans that come in contact with a creepy-crawly will not impart impurity (the beans are protected well enough on their own). In contrast to a pod with smaller legumes. What kind of "protections" of the food can come together to make the food large enough to impart impurity? For example, the 3 peels of an onion have different practical implications with regard to this kind of protection.

How handling impure food can become its own issue, and using a handle or an item of protection for the food will have different implications for the impurity and transfer thereof. The connection between the accouterments of food and the food itself is derived from the Torah verses. Also, in the case of something that was impure from a carcass falls on food - then the handle can import or export impurity, depending. Is logic the basis of the conclusion or is that based on the verses? The Gemara provides both.

A new mishnah! Both blood and forbidden fats are prohibited by Torah law, but there are ways in which each is more stringent than the other, and also more lenient than the other. But one would not be liable for the other prohibitions that are more connected to the sacrifices, like "pigul," at that same time. Also, a new chapter (9) with a new mishnah! Parts of an animal that are not edible that can still come together with meat to make a "ke-beitzah," an eggs-worth, the minimum needed to impart impurity from one food to the next.

The distinction between Rabbi Akiva's leniencies regarding cooking undomesticated animals and fowl in milk vs. those of Rabbi Yossi HaGelili's permission and stringency in that regard. Plus, the respect afforded Rabbi Yossi HaGelili's opinion because it was his opinion, in his own region -- even by those who strongly disagreed, like Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Also, a new mishnah! On curdling milk to make cheese -- even when the process is done within the stomach of an animal. With implications when the animal was kosher or non-kosher, and dependent also on whether that "meat" gives flavor to the cheese.

More on the abominable products that are the result of actions that are prohibited -- for example, food that was cooked on shabbat, which violates shabbat and then is itself problematic. Also, the prohibition against benefitting from meat cooked in milk -- an inference that comes not only from the 3-fold repetition about the kid and its mother's milk, but together with the Pesach sacrifice.

How literal is the Torah's phrasing of "mother's milk"? Does it really mean the milk of the mother of the given animal, or all milk? Clearly, all milk - and the Gemara provides the logic for that as well as a verse to teach it too. But why both? Also, how do we know that it is prohibited to consume meat and milk that have been cooked together? The product of that which is prohibited (the cooking) is considered abominable, which would prohibit eating that product. Plus, Rambam's inference that there was once an idolatry where the worship was done via cooking milk and meat together, which was determined to be true, centuries later.

Beginning with a mnemonic to help remember the cases that are exceptions -- for example, the way salting (and rinsing, depending on the order and location) renders some meat kosher. Also, what happens if the blood from one piece of meat can be absorbed elsewhere? And - a new mishnah! What if you have cheese and fowl on the table? Does that violate the meat/milk-on-the-same-table problem? It would seem not, and that it's only prohibited at the rabbinic level. And a second new mishnah - on the 3 statements about not cooking a kid in its mother's milk - and what we learn from them. Plus, the implications with regard to non-domesticated animals and also birds/fowl. And the fact that this statement is repeated in the Torah 3x.

Can you put a jug of salt alongside a jug of kutch - milk and grain reality....? The Gemara seems to say other substances would not be allowed - and that the kutach would not allowed.... depending on whether it was mixed with salt, or maybe vinegar. Also, bread that was used as something under the meat that you're cooking - that bread is a complicated situation, for the blood that emerges from unsalted, but roasted meat and is absorbed by the bread. Plus, other conditions that make it clear that blood was absorbed.

What if you roast a liver with other meat? Over a fire is acceptable, because the blood would be burned out, but an udder is not, because of the milk being absorbed. Except that there's a machloket, where the reverse positions are taken. Also, fish that was put in a meat bowl that doesn't have meat in it at the time -- can that same fish be eaten with kutach (the very dairy sourdough fermented food)? Will that meat give off flavor that would combine (in a prohibited way) with the kutach? Plus, the pressure from the edge of the knife as a factor, and the sharpness of a food itself, like radishes (as compared to cucumbers).

More on the udder. And the different practices with regard to eating udder, as per different places. Plus, the story of Rami bar Dekuli, who went to Sura from Pompedita (where they don't eat udders) on the day before Yom Kippur. But in Sura, they don't eat udder, and so they were shocked when he collected them to eat. Leading to an intensive discussion about minhag, basic practice. Also, more on liver. R. Safra is tasked with asking the sages of the land of Israel how they manage liver -- in terms of preparing to eliminate the blood.

When milk flavor is imparted to a plate of meat -- it's prohibited even if the milk flavor would be squeezed out of it. With a 3-way machloket, on the efficacy of squeezing out the flavor. Also, a new mishnah! On the udder and the heart, filled with milk and blood, respectively. Also, a story of Yalta [Who's Who: Yalta!]. She is clear on the fact that every prohibited area of halakhah has a foil that has a comparable permitted area, and she's looking for the foil to meat and milk cooked together - what has the kosher version of that taste?

A new mishnah! A drop of milk falls on a piece of meat that is cooking in a pot -- is there enough milk to give over some flavor? Note the Torah-level of prohibition regarding the milk. Also, when the milk can be nullified and when it cannot. And likewise, meat, which sometimes disappears against its backdrop, as it were, and sometimes renders a whole pot of meat unkosher.

More on the laws pertaining to the ritual washing of hands: What if you hold the bread via a cloth or gloves or some such and don't wash? What if the reason you don't touch the food with your hands is because you're finicky, and not about ritual washing? Also, a woman who is feeding her child on Yom Kippur and rinses a hand before doing so -- clearly is not in violation of not-washing on Yom Kippur. Shammai the Elder didn't want to wash even one hand, and he was told he must wash both hands -- on Yom Kippur, because he was avoiding doing so inappropriately. OR it was to rid himself of "shivta" on Yom Kippur, for not having washed ritually in the morning. Plus, the question of whether the person eating needs to wash or the person feeding (a child, for example). Also: a new mishnah! Meat and cheese in the same cloth, and guests at an inn who share a table, though one is eating dairy and one meat.

Rav Dimi tells the story of how not washing before the meal in the ceremonial washing that precedes a meal led to a Jew eating pork. Likewise, a story of a woman who ended up divorced because of not washing after the meal. Another version of the story -- replace "pork" with non-kosher meat and "divorce" with death. Also, the difference between ritual washing and washing for cleanliness, or washing for produce. Plus, the proper way to wash your hands for eating regular meat, in contrast to the extra washing done for terumah.

On using bread as a napkin, to wipe your mouth from a given flavor. Also, how long to wait between milk (cheese) and meat -- perhaps no time at all, as it turns out. Though some were known for waiting a full 24 hours, no less, from meat to dairy. Plus, salt from Sodom -- a very fine salt -- that gave rise to the practice of washing one's hands after the given meal. At one point, it was a very widespread practice, though less so nowadays. Which leads into the discussion of washing one's hands first thing in the morning. And other tidbits that seem to be about kashrut, but may really be about customs.

Chapter 8! And the 3 verses that repeat not to cook a kid in its mother's milk. Also 2 mishnayot. 1 - No meat and milk together, not even on the same table, where "meat" refers to domesticated animals, non-domesticated animals, and birds, but not to fish or grasshoppers. 2 - That policy of no meat and milk on the table together is a matter of dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. Note that this is one of the 6 unusual times when Beit Hillel is more stringent than Beit Shammai is, as per a mishnah in Eduyot. Plus, the construction of the mishnah for the sake of mentioning the name of the source, as that is said to bring redemption (and for which the Book of Esther is, perhaps oddly, used for the prooftext).

Finishing chapter 7! But first, a case of several sins in one period of time, including non-kosher meat, and in which it seems that 2 sets of lashes would be sufficient. Or should it be three sets? What is the focal point of this dispute? When did it become a treyfa - quite young, as it turns out. With 3 explanations for the various cases. Plus, a discussion of the measure of eating for a prohibition against certain foods - regardless of whether the food itself gets stuck between a person's teeth. So how does this measure of an olive's worth work? And what if one ingested half an olive's worth? Or what if it were thrown up and reswallowed? Is the measure of benefit for the throat? Or for the stomach?

More on the prohibition of eating a limb from a live animal - which applies to everyone, and regardless of whether the animal itself is kosher or non-kosher (though for Jewish, this prohibition would only apply to kosher animals). Also, the Noahides! Plus, one who has intent to eat a tiny bird - alive - or eating limb by limb... and when that intent has impact on one's liability for the physical prohibited act.

On the sciatic nerve of the carcass of a kosher animal -- is there a way out of the punishment for the forbidden food? What happens when there's more than one prohibition, but they are only tangentially connected? Plus, the Gemara does some digging to determine which sage was partial to which approach. Plus, the order of factors that make a given piece of meat prohibited - that order can make a difference in the consequences as well. Also, Jacob and the angel, again. But is the prohibition contingent on the people being called "the Children of Israel"?!? Was the Torah given piecemeal, or all at once at Sinai?

More on nullifying non-kosher food in a larger amount of kosher food. First, remove the non-kosher food, but what happens if the remnants are giving flavor to the kosher food? That's a problem. [What's What? An "Amora"] And what happens when there's a third category of food there? How does that affect the nullification process? Also, a new mishnah! On the prohibition of the gid ha-nasheh, even at the time when non-kosher meat was still allowed (before the giving of the Torah). Which leads to the discussion of a prohibition on a prohibition. And the extent of the prohibition against the sciatic nerve.

More on nullification of a non-kosher food in the greater quantity of a kosher food. In accord with the view that said 100x more than the non-kosher food was necessary, but the idea that it should be 100x seems off to Abaye -- at least if the claim is that that quantity is necessary for all prohibited food in this kind of mixture, but that's illogical. Also, do sinews contain flavor? Do they impart flavor?

The question of 1 in 60 vs. 1 in 61, and the conundrum of eggs -- where they are all counted, and including in the same food -- depending on the ratio of non-kosher to kosher. The kosher food essentially dwarfs the non-kosher food to nullify it. Also, the source texts from the rulings regarding the nazir. With a question of whether the ration is 1/60 or 1/100.

When foods get mingled, and you need to determine whether you can eat the kosher food, or whether the contamination of the non-kosher with the kosher. Plus, how to pull away the non-kosher/forbidden fat, and leave the kosher meat behind, with no flavor of the forbidden fat added to the taste of the otherwise kosher food. Determining whether the non-kosher food imparts flavor -- one needs a non-Jewish "taster," a gourmand or a chef, who knows the taste of the non-kosher food and has the ability to determine whether that non-kosher taste is present in the kosher food (and therefore rendering it non-kosher). Also, determining how much non-kosher food can be present in a mixture with kosher food, primarily via whether it imparts flavor. Which leads to the discussion of 1/60th of the sum total. And the classic example of a cow's udder, that is meat and has milk in it.

2 mishnayot! 1 - Which part of the sciatic nerve incurs a violation of the prohibition? And how much would one need to eat to be liable? Including a dispute and the distinction between what was prohibited at the biblical level of prohibition and what was prohibited at the rabbinic level. With an acceptance of diversity in the practice of kashrut that seems radical for many in this day and age. 2 - What happens when the gid ha-nasheh is imparting flavor to your meat? If it were not imparting flavor, you might well be able to eat that meat. But if it does, then you have to treat it as prohibiting the meat as well. But how do you know whether the sciatic nerve is providing flavor?

The case of meat that is held by a non-Jew: what if it wasn't supervised continually? According to Rav - that's prohibited as a caution against the possibility that the kosher meat was swapped out for non-kosher meat. Which leads to a discussion of that likelihood, as the Gemara argues against Rav. Also, if the meat were unsupervised at any time, was it a stringency to not eat it, or was that required? With a story about a ferry and a festival. Which leads into discussion of how the sages used portents -- not quite divination, but some inference from "signs" that are established three times.

A new mishnah! When a Jew makes a gift or sale of meat to a non-Jew that includes the gid ha-nasheh, because the process of "nikor" hadn't happened. Specifically, in the case of the whole thigh. Note that in some communities, all of the slaughterers were Jewish, and all meat was then presumed to be kosher (if sold by a non-Jew, presumably already purchased from the Jewish slaughterer). And announcements were made when non-kosher meat was on the market on a given day. But in a place without that kind of announcement, then purchasing from a non-Jew would not be permitted. Also, if the non-Jew cut the thigh that had gid ha-nasheh in it, then it might deceive Jewish buyers, which would obviously be problematic. Which leads to a discussion of false pretenses, even when nothing. Plus, other actions a person should not do because they are misleading, even if no other wrong-doing is taking place. Except possibly if it's to demonstrate that one's guest is worthy of honor, as per the cases of wine and oil on this daf. Plus, the horrible outcome of violating a policy of not giving food received from one's host to the host's children, in this case, the matter of 3 eggs. Also, in a town of all kosher slaughterers, how would the Jews make the announcement that there was non-kosher food on the given day, without it being obnoxious in the faces of the non-Jews? They made the genteel effort to refer to soldiers, for example. Note that self-deception isn't the same problem as false pretenses.

If the head of an offering is buried in hot ash to singe off the hair, and if that was in the place of the slaughtering in an upright position, the blood flows out (yes, very gory) and after it is removed, the meat can be eaten. Plus, attention to the inner and outer sinews of the animal's thigh, and the difference between a rabbinic vs. a Torah-level prohibition (the inner one being the gid ha-nasheh). But can the butchers be trusted in what they have to say about the kashrut of the meat, about the removal of the sciatic nerve? In the end, the conclusion is that they are trustworthy. But it's a complicated process and with more and less taxing elements, which might influence their credibility.

First, housekeeping note... Also, 7 interpretations of Yosef and the gifts God gave to the Jewish people. Plus, the 15 pieces of silver that God acquired for the people, i an allusion to the 15th day of Nisan and the exodus from Egypt and another allusion to 45 (or 30...) righteous people, without whom the world would not exist. Or understand the 30 as the commandments that the Noachides apparently took upon themselves - that many more than the 7. But they keep only 3, including not writing a marriage contract for males -- a difficult passage for modern ears. Plus, more on the gid ha-nasheh, and the surprising notion that one shouldn't be culpable for eating it to begin with.

The discussion of the gid ha-nasheh leads into some lovely aggadic passages. First of all, did the sciatic nerve have to be in the right thigh to be prohibited at the Torah level or not? (Hint: It's a machloket). The Gemara breaks down the wrestling between Jacob and the angel from Genesis, to ensure that the injury would be in the right leg. But, again, not everyone thought that was necessary, and for that view, the sciatic nerve in each leg is equally prohibited. With further details about keeping a non-Jew, with whom one might be expected to spar, on the right side, and conversely, one must stay clear of the right side of the Torah scholar. Also, other midrashim/aggadot about Jacob -- how the stones became one larger stone to be his pillow, as it were (solving for a contradiction in the text). Plus, going back to that fight with the angel, and the ambiguities in that text. And the hint to exile and the leadership in both exile and the land of Israel.

More on the sciatic nerve -- the prohibition against the "gid ha-nasheh" applies only to the sacrificial animals that are consumed (not a burnt-offering, but a peace-offering, for example). Though there are those who note that if you eat from a sacrificial animal that shouldn't be eaten from - that will still be lashes, as compared to a fully-burnt offering, which would not levy a penalty for not removing the gid ha-nasheh. And note that a removed gid ha-nasheh would not be brought on the altar. Also, the gid ha-nasheh from the peace-offering -- it should be swept to the drain, while the burnt-offering would entail putting it on the pile of ash in the middle of the altar. Which leads into a discussion of exaggeration in the Torah, by the prophets, and by the sages. But this was not the norm, and the Gemara provides the specific list of the exaggerations from these three sources.

Beginning with some aggadic material - with Abraham claiming about himself that he is nothing but dust and ashes, and that he and his descendants have 2 mitzvot. Which 2 mitzvot is a matter of discussion. The discussion leads to the color of "tekhelet" -- the blue thread in tzitzit, the ritual fringes, and what makes them distinctive. Plus, an encounter with Nimrod. Also, chapter 7! With a new mishnah, and the wrestling between Jacob and the angel, which leads to the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, the "gid ha-nasheh," and the many details pertaining to it.

Blood that splatters and blood that's left on the knife also need to be covered, with a verse to make that point. As long as there's no other blood there at the same time. But if the life-blood was covered, then these other extra locations of blood do not to be covered. Also, a new mishnah - with a long list of substances that can be used for covering the blood, including that which can make plants grow. Plus, defining "fine sand," as a possible blood-coverer. Also, what do you use if you're in a situation where there's no material that will support the sprouting of seeds after covering the blood?

2 mishnayot! 1 - What if one is obligated to cover the blood after the slaughter of a non-domesticated animal or a bird and does not do it? A passerby who sees it should then cover the blood, but if the blood had been covered and it became uncovered, then there's no longer an obligation to cover. If the wind covered it, the obligation remains. But in a story of someone who covered the blood before the slaughterer had a chance to do so, the person who covered the blood had to pay (in gold) the slaughterer -- with a question as to why exactly he's penalized. Plus, another story of Sadducees and the dynamic in Rome between Jewish sects and the drama of Birkat HaMazon. 2 - If the blood that is supposed to be covered is mixed with water or wine or the blood of an animal that doesn't need to be covered -- if the mixture has the appearance of blood, it still needs to be covered, for example. And the solution itself, including the proportion of blood therein matters less than the appearance.

A new mishnah! If a deaf-mute, someone with cognitive impairment, or a minor slaughtered an animal with supervision, then the slaughtering is kosher shechitah - and there's an obligation to cover the blood, if the animal were a non-domesticated animal or a bird. But not if there was no supervisor there. Likewise, when it comes to slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day. Also, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi on covering the blood, and how far the requirement for taking care of this goes -- how did they figure out the halakhah? And another new mishnah! Slaughtering 100 animals in 1 place requires only 1 act of covering the blood.

A new mishnah! Does the mitzvah of covering the blood apply to an animal that is discovered to be unfit for consumption? Whether because the animal is a treyfa or because the slaughtering was done in the name of idolatry, for example. With sources, and machloket (of course) in the Gemara on the mishnah, with a focus on the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, and then, eventually, the view of Rabbi Meir as well. Plus, Rabbi Meir's opinion and Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's opinion line up for some of the cases, in any case.

More on covering the blood of non-domesticated animals and birds, and how it applies to those animals that are prepared for it -- which itself requires some measure of investigation. Bottom line, only trap an animal when you truly need it for meat. Better to eat vegetables or grain, with specific advice per the money one might have to spend on food. Also, Rabbi Eina was teaching at the entrance to the house of the exilarch. Which leads into the timing of covering the blood of the non-domesticated animal. Apparently, Rabbi Eina's brother jumps in, and the parallel to brit milah (circumcision) is introduced, though the holiday may actually "win" depending on the parameters of when it would be done. Likewise, Rosh Hashanah --

4 events of proclaiming the slaughtering of an animal that was sold as well as the offspring, to help the buyers keep the dates straight. All the dates are connected to holidays, when festive meals would be prepared. Note that the calendar follows the Jewish day. Also, the mitzvah of covering the blood of a non-domestic sacrificial animal.

3 mishnayot on the daf! But first, on Rabbi Yochanan's position, in contrast to that of Resh Lakish, on the "eglah arufah," as listed in the mishnah -- where the position is that this case is not in the mishnah at all -- a bold statement, if nothing else. The first new mishnah! When 2 people purchase the animal and its offspring respectively, they need to be apprised of when the other animal is being slaughtered. Also, one who slaughters an animal and its offspring on the same day would be punished with 40 lashes -- depending on the time period of that slaughtering. And all the more so if the offspring and the offspring's offspring -- that might well entail two sets of lashes (namely, 80). Which raises the question of how many punishments can be visited upon the person who violates multiple prohibitions, and the Gemara introduces all kinds of other, potentially parallel cases, including that of the nazir. Also, the specificity of the Mishnah in general, and the fact that once it teaches a point in one place, it would not need to teach it elsewhere, as the first place is sufficient. Which means the other place must be teaching something else.

More on the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day -- in an effort to determine Rav Hamnuna's take on Rabbi Shimon's approach. Note that the slaughtering of the parent animal makes the slaughtering of the offspring a prohibition, but if the offspring weren't slaughtered, then there's no prohibition in slaughtering the parent animal either. Also, slaughter of an animal that is not fit for consumption independent of the kosher shechitah - such that the kosher slaughtering fundamentally doesn't work - isn't considered "shechitah." And that which is not suitable for kosher shechitah is not eligible for the category of prohibition of "the animal and its offspring," as that depends on the shechitah being shechitah.

More on the koy -- whether a male goat and a female deer or a male deer and a female goat. With all the concomitant ramifications. Also, the biblical passage that prohibits slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day, and the practical implications for the one who violates the prohibition.

The permutations of when a horse and a donkey (male and female and the reverse) mate -- and whether their progeny is allowed to mate. Or are their progeny in violation of "kilayim" -- even the generation later? Also, the "koy" -- is it a creation unto itself or is it kilayim?

Chapter 5! With a focus on the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day, and with a new mishnah. The mishnah goes through the variables of whether the animal is consecrated and the location of slaughtering, but once the offspring is also slaughtered on the same day, it's going to involve lashes for violating the halakhah. Plus, the sages open the question as to whether this is the mother and her offspring only, or also a father and his offspring (and clearly it is the case for male and female offspring, regardless of the above question). And the answer depends on the language in the verse about this case -- and comes to include both male and female animal parents .

In the case of a bone fracture, as long as the greater portion of the bone is covered by flesh and skin, it is acceptable for consumption. With an apparent treatment of regeneration of an animal's limb via another animal's bone, which seems to have been a serious treatment at the time, with consult between the sages and veterinarians. Also, a new mishnah! One who can manage it can each the following potentially stomach-turning delicacies -- including the amniotic sac. Though the partial emergence of the amniotic sac would render all of it not-kosher. Note the practices of the Amorites that were prohibited. Also, when it comes to the idea of giving the placenta to the dogs -- what is the rationale to specify this? Note that the question is based on the potential sanctity of a potential "bekhor" -- first-born -- of the animal. Which leads to the math of how many animals would be first-borns in sanctity.

A new mishnah! Handling the back legs of an animal, if a bone is broken, if the leg is intact... then kosher slaughtering renders the animal permitted for consumption. But where is the severing, with regard to the leg joint? And then the Gemara dives in, raising dispute on those same details -- whether the bone is broken, but the limb is not severed, how much flesh remains? Again, where is the break with regard to the leg joint?

The odd case of the entirety of an animal fetus that is permitted for food after its mother is slaughtered in a kosher way - and the entire fetus is permitted, even though some animal parts are usually prohibited, even with proper slaughtering. The Gemara presents two versions of the passage addressing the different opinions on this case. Also, the case of finding the fetus alive in the womb after kosher shechitah - it doesn't need shechitah, but what's the difference between that and the original case? Whether the ben pakuah (fetus, under these terms) steps on the ground. Also, is the offspring considered the ben pakuah of its father as well as of its mother? But at the rabbinic level, the ben pakuah should be slaughtered anyway. And also the decree was made for the future generations of the ben pakuah. Plus, the informative case of terumah and demai and the possibility of asking whether even an ignoramus has separated properly. [Who's Who: Rabbi Shimon Shazuri]