Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 28, 2019 | 讻状讙 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 93

聽What parts of the animal are forbidden because of forbidden fats? And what parts are forbidden due to blood? Can butchers be trusted that they removed the sciatic nerve and the forbidden fats?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讞诇讘 砖讛讘砖专 讞讜驻讛 讗讜转讜 诪讜转专 讗诇诪讗 砖注诇 讛讻住诇讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖讘转讜讱 讛讻住诇讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖注诇 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖讘转讜讱 讛讻诇讬讜转

The fat that is covered by the flesh is permitted. Apparently, when the Merciful One states in the Torah that the fat that is upon the loins is prohibited (see Leviticus 3:4), it is referring only to the fat above the loins but not the fat that is inside the loins. Here also, the Merciful One states in the Torah that the fat that is upon the kidneys is prohibited (see Leviticus 3:4), but this does not include the fat that is inside the kidneys.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇讘 砖讛讘砖专 讞讜驻讛 讗讜转讜 诪讜转专 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 转专讘讗 讚转讜转讬 诪转谞讬 讗住讬专

搂 The Gemara addresses the matter itself cited in the discussion above: Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat that is covered by the flesh is permitted. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This fat that is under the loins is forbidden, even though it is covered by flesh?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 驻专讜拽讬 诪讬驻专拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗谞讗 诇讗讜 讟讘讞讗 讗谞讗 讜诇讗讜 讘专 讟讘讞讗 讗谞讗 讜谞讛讬专谞讗 讚讛讻讬 讛讜讜 讗诪专讬 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 驻专讜拽讬 诪讬驻专拽讗

The Gemara answers that Abaye said: When an animal is alive its limbs separate at the joints as it walks, so that the fat under the loins is not covered by flesh. Therefore, even after it has been slaughtered this fat is forbidden and does not have the status of fat that is covered by flesh. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: I am not a butcher and I am not the son of a butcher, i.e., I am not expert in the anatomy of animals, but I remember that this is what they would say in the study hall: When an animal is alive its limbs separate at the joints as it walks, so that the fat under the loins is exposed.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讛诪住住 讜讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讝讛讜 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讛拽专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 转专讘讗 讚拽诇讬讘讜住转讗 讗住讜专 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讝讛讜 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讛讻住诇讬诐

Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat that is on the omasum and the reticulum is forbidden, and its consumption is punishable by karet. And this is the fat that is referred to in the Torah as being upon the innards (see Leviticus 3:3). Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This fat of the coccygeal bone is forbidden, and its consumption is punishable by karet. And this is the fat that is referred to in the Torah as being upon the loins (see Leviticus 3:4).

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讜讟讬谉 砖讘讬讚 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诪砖讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 讘讬砖专讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻讜诇 讚诪讗 讞转讻讬讛 讜诪诇讞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚讬专讛 谞诪讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

And Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The veins that are in the foreleg of an animal are forbidden. Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba: Moses! Did the Merciful One say in the Torah: Do not eat meat? The veins of the foreleg are part of the meat and are not forbidden. Rava said: Moses! Did the Merciful One say in the Torah: Eat blood? The reason that these veins are forbidden is that they are filled with blood. Therefore, if one cuts the foreleg open and salts it to remove the blood, it is permitted even to cook it in a pot; and it is certainly permitted to roast it over a fire, which also draws out the blood.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 专讬砖 诪注讬讗 讘讗诪转讗 讘注讬 讙专讬专讛 讜讝讛讜 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讛讚拽讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat on the top cubit of the small intestine requires scraping, i.e., it is forbidden and must be removed. And this is the fat referred to by the Sages (see 49b) as the fat that is on the small intestine.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讜讟讬谉 砖讘注讜拽抓 讗住讜专讬谉 讞诪砖讗 讞讜讟讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘讻驻诇讗 转诇转讗 诪讬诪讬谞讗 讜转专转讬 诪砖诪讗诇讗 转诇转讗 诪驻爪诇讬 诇转专讬 转专讬 转专讬 诪驻爪诇讬 诇转诇转讗 转诇转讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 砖诇讬祝 诇讛讜 注讚 讚讞诪讬诪讬 诪砖转诇驻讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬 讞讟讜讟讬 讘转专讬讬讛讜

And Rav Yehuda says: The sinews that are in the tailbone are forbidden for consumption, because they contain forbidden fat. There are five sinews in the tail: Three on the right and two on the left. The three on the right each split into two, and the two on the left each split into three. The practical difference, i.e., the reason the Gemara describes this in detail, is that if one draws them out while they are still warm soon after slaughter they are drawn out easily, but if not, he is required to scrape around them, i.e., dig into the flesh to remove them. It is important to know how many there are to ensure that one removes them all.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞诪砖讗 讞讜讟讬 讛讜讜 转诇转讗 诪砖讜诐 转专讘讗 讜转专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗 讚讟讞诇讬 讜讚讻驻诇讬 讜讚讻讜诇讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 转专讘讗 讚讬讚讗 讜讚诇讜注讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗

Abaye said, and some say that Rav Yehuda said: There are five strands that are forbidden for consumption; three of them are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat, and two are forbidden because they contain blood. The ligaments of the spleen and of the tail and of the kidneys are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat. And the veins of the foreleg and of the pharynx, i.e., the carotid artery, are forbidden because they contain blood.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛谞讬 讚诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗 讗讬 诪讞转讱 诇讛讜 讜诪诇讞 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛谞讱 诇讬转 诇讛讜 转拽谞转讗

The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether they are forbidden due to fat or due to blood? The Gemara answers: With regard to these veins and arteries that are forbidden because they contain blood, if one cuts them open and then salts them to remove the blood they are permitted. But those strands that contain forbidden fat have no rectification and can never be eaten.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞诪砖讗 拽专诪讬 讛讜讜 转诇转讗 诪砖讜诐 转专讘讗 讜转专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗 讚讟讞诇讬 讚讻驻诇讬 讜讚讻讜诇讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 转专讘讗 讚讘讬注讬 讜讚诪讜拽专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗

Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Rav Yehuda who said: There are five membranes that are forbidden for consumption; three of them are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat, and two are forbidden because they contain blood. The membranes of the spleen and of the tail and of the kidneys are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat. And the membranes of the testicles and of the brain are forbidden because they contain blood.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 拽诇讬祝 诇讬讛 讟讞诇讗 诇诇讜讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 讙讗讬诐 诇讬讛 诪注讬诇讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讜转 讘讬讛 讟驻讬 讗转讗 讗讘讜讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讱 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 砖注诇 讛讚讚 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya was peeling the membranes from a spleen for Levi, son of Rav Huna bar 岣yya. He was cutting them only from the upper surface of the spleen. Levi said to Rav Yehuda: Go down further, i.e., remove the fat that is lower down as well. Levi鈥檚 father, Rav Huna bar 岣yya, came and found him as Levi was saying this to Rav Yehuda. Rav Huna bar 岣yya said to him: This is what your mother鈥檚 father said in the name of Rav; and who was Levi鈥檚 mother鈥檚 father? It was Rav Yirmeya bar Abba. He said: The Torah prohibits only the membranes that are on the thick, upper surface of the spleen.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 转谞讗 拽专讜诐 砖注诇 讛讟讞讜诇 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖注诇 讛讚讚 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

Levi asked: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Hamnuna say that it was taught in a baraita that the membrane that is on the spleen is forbidden, but one is not liable to receive the punishment of karet for eating it? Levi clarifies: What are the circumstances referred to in the baraita? If we say that it is referring to the membranes that are on the thick, upper surface of the spleen, why is one not liable to the punishment of karet for eating it? Rather, it must be referring to the membranes on all sides of the spleen, even the underside. Rav Huna bar 岣yya said to his son, Levi: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 转谞讗 拽专讜诐 砖注诇 讛讟讞讜诇 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 拽专讜诐 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讻讜诇讬讗 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself mentioned above: Rav Hamnuna said that it was taught in a baraita: The membrane that is on the spleen is forbidden, but one is not liable to receive karet for eating it. The membrane that is on the kidney is forbidden, but one is not liable to receive karet for eating it. The Gemara challenges this statement: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one is liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen or the kidney?

讟讞讜诇 讗讟讞讜诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻谞讙讚 讛讚讚 讛讗 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛讚讚

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the baraita that states that one is not liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen and the baraita that states that one is liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen is not difficult: This baraita that states that one is liable is referring to the membrane on the thick, upper part of the spleen, whereas that baraita that states that one is not liable is referring to the membrane that is not on the thick part of the spleen.

讻讜诇讬讗 讗讻讜诇讬讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘注讬诇讗讛 讛讗 讘转转讗讛

Likewise, the apparent contradiction between the baraita that states that one is not liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the kidney and the baraita that states that one is liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the kidney is not difficult: This baraita that states that one is liable is referring to the membrane on the upper part of the kidney, whereas that baraita that states that one is not liable is referring to the membrane on the lower part of the kidney.

讘讬注讬 讞砖讬诇转讗 专讘 讗诪讬 讜专讘 讗住讬 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专

搂 With regard to testicles that were crushed while the animal was alive but were still attached to their cords in the scrotum, there is a dispute between Rav Ami and Rav Asi. One of them prohibits eating the testicles after the animal is slaughtered and one of them permits eating them. The Gemara clarifies: The one who prohibits them holds that

诪讚诇讗 拽讗 讘专讬讬谉 讛谞讬 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 诪讚诇讗 拽讗 诪住专讞谉 讛谞讬 讞讬讜转讗 讗讬转 讘讛讜

since these testicles do not heal, they are considered a limb severed from a living animal even though they are still attached to the animal. Consequently, they are forbidden even after the animal is slaughtered. And the one who permits eating crushed testicles holds that since they do not rot, there is vitality in them, and they are not considered to have been detached from the animal.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪住专讞谉 讚诇讗 拽讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛讜 讗讜讬专讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讘专讬讬谉 讻讞讬砖讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讟 诇讛讜

And the other opinion, which holds that crushed testicles are forbidden, holds that the reason the testicles do not rot is not because they have vitality but rather because air does not penetrate the scrotum, and it is contact with air that would cause them to rot. And the other opinion, which holds that crushed testicles are permitted, holds that the fact that they do not heal is because they have been struck with weakness, but not because they are entirely devoid of vitality. Consequently, they should not be considered detached from the body.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讛谞讬 讘讬注讬 讞砖讬诇转讗 砖专讬讬谉 讜讗转 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讜讗诇 转讟砖 转讜专转 讗诪讱

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: These crushed testicles are permitted for consumption, but you should not eat them due to the dictum: 鈥淎nd do not forsake the Torah of your mother鈥 (Proverbs 1:8). Since Rav Shemen bar Abba was from Babylonia, where it was customary to be stringent, it was prohibited for him to eat crushed testicles even when he was in Eretz Yisrael.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛谞讬 讘讬注讬 讚讙讚讬讗 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 砖专讬讬谉 讘诇讗 拽诇讬驻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬 讗讝专注谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讝专注谉 砖专讬讬谉 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 讗讬转 讘讛讜 砖讜专讬讬拽讬 住讜诪拽讬 讗住讬专谉 诇讬转 讘讛讜 砖讜专讬讬拽讬 住讜诪拽讬 砖专讬讬谉

搂 The Gemara cites other halakhot related to testicles. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: With regard to these testicles of goats, from the time the goat is born until the goat is thirty days old, its testicles are permitted without peeling off the membrane that encloses them, because they are presumed not to contain blood. From this point forward, if they contain semen they are forbidden, but if they do not contain semen they are permitted. The Gemara asks: How can we know whether or not they contain semen? The Gemara answers: If they have red streaks in them they are forbidden. If they do not have red streaks in them they are permitted.

讗讜诪爪讬 讘讬注讬 讜诪讝专拽讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专讘 讗讞讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚专讘 讗讞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讗讞讗 诇拽讜诇讗

The Gemara quotes a related discussion pertaining to three cases: With regard to raw meat that is eaten without being salted, testicles of an animal, and the large veins of the neck, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree about the halakha. The Gemara points out: In all of their disputes with regard to other realms of the Torah where it is not clear which of them holds which opinion, the opinion of Ravina is lenient, and the opinion of Rav A岣 is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina to be lenient. This applies to all their disputes except for these three, in which Rav A岣 is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 to be lenient.

讗讜诪爪讗 讚讗住诪讬拽 讞转讻讛 讜诪诇讞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚专讛 谞诪讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 转诇讬讬讛 谞诪讬 讘砖驻讜讚讗 讚讗讬讘 讚诪讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘讬 诇讬讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪爪诪转 爪诪转讬 诇讬讛 讜讻谉 讘讬注讬 讜讻谉 诪讝专拽讬

The Gemara explains: With regard to raw meat that became red from the blood inside it, if one cut it and salted it, it is permitted even to cook it in a pot, because the salt removes blood from meat. It is also permitted if one hung it on a spit in order to roast it, because the blood is drawn out by the heat of the fire. With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree about the halakha: One says that the coals draw out the blood from the meat, and one says that the coals cause the meat to shrivel and harden, trapping the blood inside. And similarly Ravina and Rav A岣 disagree with regard to testicles placed on coals, and similarly with regard to the large veins of the neck that were placed on coals.

专讬砖讗 讘讻讬讘砖讗 讗讜转讘讬讛 讗讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讚讬讬讘 讚诪讗 讜砖专讬 讗爪讚讚讬谉 诪讬拽驻讗 拽驻讬 讜讗住讜专 讗讜转讘讬讛 讗谞讞讬专讬讛 讚抓 讘讬讛 诪讬讚讬 砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗住讬专

搂 Apropos raw meat placed on coals, the Gemara discusses a related topic. In a case where one wants to remove the hair from the head of an animal by placing it in hot ashes, if one placed it with the neck down so that the location of the slaughter is in the ashes, the blood is drawn out by the heat and the meat is permitted. But if one placed the head in the ashes on one of its sides, the blood congeals inside the head and cannot flow out, and therefore the head is forbidden for consumption. In a case where one placed the head down on its nostrils, if he inserted something into the nostrils to keep them open and allow the blood to flow out, the meat is permitted, but if he did not do so it is forbidden.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讞讬专讬讛 讜讗讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讚讗讬讘 讗爪讚讚讬谉 讗讬 讚抓 讘讬讛 诪讬讚讬 砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗住讬专

There are those who say: If the head was placed on its nostrils or on the location of the slaughter, the blood is drawn out and the meat is permitted. If he placed it on one of its sides, then if he inserted something into it in order to allow the blood to flow out, it is permitted, and if not it is forbidden.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬 讙讬讚讬谉 讛谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇注爪诐 讗住讜专 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讬爪讜谉 住诪讜讱 诇讘砖专 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜

搂 The Gemara returns to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: There are two nerves included in the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. The inner nerve, which is next to the bone, is forbidden by Torah law, and one is liable to be flogged for eating it. The outer nerve, which is next to the flesh, is forbidden by rabbinic law, and therefore one is not liable to be flogged for eating it.

讜讛转谞讬讗 驻谞讬诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇讘砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬拽诇讜讚讬 诪讬拽诇讬讚

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the inner nerve, which is forbidden by Torah law, is next to the flesh? The Gemara answers: Rav A岣 said that Rav Kahana said: The inner nerve is next to the bone, but it bores into the flesh as well.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讞讬爪讜谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇注爪诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讻讗 讚驻专注讬 讟讘讞讬

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The outer nerve is next to the bone? The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda said: This is referring to the spot where the butchers cut the leg open and reveal the nerve, and at that point in the leg the outer nerve is closest to the bone.

讗讬转诪专 讟讘讞 砖谞诪爪讗 讞诇讘 讗讞专讬讜 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讻砖注讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讻讝讬转

搂 It was stated: With regard to a butcher who removed the forbidden fats of the animal, and yet forbidden fat was found after he completed his work, Rav Yehuda says that the butcher is held liable if there is forbidden fat remaining that is the size of a barley grain. Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the butcher is held liable only if there is forbidden fat remaining that is the size of an olive-bulk.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讻讗谉 诇注讘专讜

Rav Pappa said: Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Yo岣nan are referring to two different levels of liability, and they do not disagree. Here, when Rabbi Yo岣nan said he is liable only if there is an olive-bulk of forbidden fat remaining, he was referring to flogging him. There, when Rav Yehuda said he is liable even he leaves forbidden fat the size of a barley grain, he was referring to removing him from his position as a butcher.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讻砖注讜专讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讻讝讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讻讝讬转 诇注讘专讜 讘讻砖注讜专讛

Mar Zutra said an alternative explanation: If the butcher left forbidden fat the size of a barley grain in one place he is liable, and if he left forbidden fat the size of an olive-bulk, he is liable even if it is spread out in two or three places. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to flogging him, the butcher is liable only if he left forbidden fat the size of an olive-bulk. With regard to removing him, the butcher is liable even if he left forbidden fat the size of a barley grain.

讗讬谉 讛讟讘讞讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 谞讗诪谞讬谉

搂 The mishna stated (89b): Butchers are not deemed credible to say that the sciatic nerve was removed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The Rabbis initially held that butchers are not deemed credible about the sciatic nerve, and subsequently they retracted and said that butchers are deemed credible in this regard.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讻砖讜专 讚专讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讛讜讜 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讛讜讜 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: Have the later generations improved such that butchers are more reliable than they were in earlier generations? The Gemara answers: Initially, when the Rabbis held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one must scrape around the flesh in order to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, butchers were not deemed credible, due to the exertion involved in this process. But later the Rabbis held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that it is unnecessary to scrape around the flesh. Consequently, removing the sciatic nerve is not especially arduous, and butchers are deemed credible to say that they removed it.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉

There are those who teach this discussion with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, as follows: And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They subsequently retracted this opinion and said that butchers are not deemed credible. Rav Na岣an says: Today the butchers are deemed credible.

讗讻砖讜专 讚专讬 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专讜讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讚专 住讘专讜讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: Have the later generations improved such that butchers are more reliable than they were in earlier generations? The Gemara answers: Initially they held that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that one is not required to scrape around the flesh to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, and therefore butchers were deemed credible to say that they removed it. The Rabbis then reversed their opinion and held that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one is required to scrape around the flesh.

讻诪讛 讚讛讜讜 讚讻讬专讬 诇讛 诇讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗谞砖讬讜讛 诇讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讬诪谞讬

As long as the butchers remembered the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and did not scrape around the flesh to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, they were not deemed credible to say that they removed it; but now that they have forgotten the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and have grown accustomed to scraping around the flesh to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, they are deemed credible.

讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 讞诇讘 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘

搂 The mishna teaches that the Rabbis maintain that butchers are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat. The Gemara asks: Who mentioned anything about forbidden fat? The topic of discussion in the mishna until this point is the sciatic nerve, not forbidden fat; why do the Rabbis mention forbidden fat? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: The butchers are not deemed credible about the sciatic nerve or about the forbidden fat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis say: The butchers are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜诇讞 讗讚诐 讬专讱 诇讙讜讬 砖讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讘转讜讻讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪拽讜诪讜 谞讬讻专

MISHNA: Although it is prohibited for Jews to eat the sciatic nerve, a Jewish person may send the thigh of an animal to a gentile with the sciatic nerve in it, without concern that the gentile will then sell the thigh to a Jew and the Jew will eat the sciatic nerve. This leniency is due to the fact that the place of the sciatic nerve is conspicuous in the thigh.

讙诪壮 砖诇诪讛 讗讬谉 讞转讜讻讛 诇讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻专讬讝讬谉

GEMARA: The mishna鈥檚 statement that a Jew may send a thigh to a gentile indicates that if it is whole, yes, a Jew may send it to a gentile, but if the thigh has been cut, a Jew may not send it to a gentile. The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that the mishna is referring to a place where all the butchers are Jewish but they do not announce publicly when they have sold to a gentile an animal that turns out to have a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], then it is prohibited for Jews to purchase any meat from gentiles, due to the possibility that it was from an animal that was a tereifa.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 93

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 93

讞诇讘 砖讛讘砖专 讞讜驻讛 讗讜转讜 诪讜转专 讗诇诪讗 砖注诇 讛讻住诇讬诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖讘转讜讱 讛讻住诇讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖注诇 讛讻诇讬讜转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖讘转讜讱 讛讻诇讬讜转

The fat that is covered by the flesh is permitted. Apparently, when the Merciful One states in the Torah that the fat that is upon the loins is prohibited (see Leviticus 3:4), it is referring only to the fat above the loins but not the fat that is inside the loins. Here also, the Merciful One states in the Torah that the fat that is upon the kidneys is prohibited (see Leviticus 3:4), but this does not include the fat that is inside the kidneys.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇讘 砖讛讘砖专 讞讜驻讛 讗讜转讜 诪讜转专 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 转专讘讗 讚转讜转讬 诪转谞讬 讗住讬专

搂 The Gemara addresses the matter itself cited in the discussion above: Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat that is covered by the flesh is permitted. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This fat that is under the loins is forbidden, even though it is covered by flesh?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 驻专讜拽讬 诪讬驻专拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗谞讗 诇讗讜 讟讘讞讗 讗谞讗 讜诇讗讜 讘专 讟讘讞讗 讗谞讗 讜谞讛讬专谞讗 讚讛讻讬 讛讜讜 讗诪专讬 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 驻专讜拽讬 诪讬驻专拽讗

The Gemara answers that Abaye said: When an animal is alive its limbs separate at the joints as it walks, so that the fat under the loins is not covered by flesh. Therefore, even after it has been slaughtered this fat is forbidden and does not have the status of fat that is covered by flesh. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: I am not a butcher and I am not the son of a butcher, i.e., I am not expert in the anatomy of animals, but I remember that this is what they would say in the study hall: When an animal is alive its limbs separate at the joints as it walks, so that the fat under the loins is exposed.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讛诪住住 讜讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讝讛讜 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讛拽专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 转专讘讗 讚拽诇讬讘讜住转讗 讗住讜专 讜注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讝讛讜 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讛讻住诇讬诐

Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat that is on the omasum and the reticulum is forbidden, and its consumption is punishable by karet. And this is the fat that is referred to in the Torah as being upon the innards (see Leviticus 3:3). Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This fat of the coccygeal bone is forbidden, and its consumption is punishable by karet. And this is the fat that is referred to in the Torah as being upon the loins (see Leviticus 3:4).

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讜讟讬谉 砖讘讬讚 讗住讜专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诪砖讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 讘讬砖专讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖讛 诪讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻讜诇 讚诪讗 讞转讻讬讛 讜诪诇讞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚讬专讛 谞诪讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

And Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The veins that are in the foreleg of an animal are forbidden. Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba: Moses! Did the Merciful One say in the Torah: Do not eat meat? The veins of the foreleg are part of the meat and are not forbidden. Rava said: Moses! Did the Merciful One say in the Torah: Eat blood? The reason that these veins are forbidden is that they are filled with blood. Therefore, if one cuts the foreleg open and salts it to remove the blood, it is permitted even to cook it in a pot; and it is certainly permitted to roast it over a fire, which also draws out the blood.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 专讬砖 诪注讬讗 讘讗诪转讗 讘注讬 讙专讬专讛 讜讝讛讜 讞诇讘 砖注诇 讛讚拽讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat on the top cubit of the small intestine requires scraping, i.e., it is forbidden and must be removed. And this is the fat referred to by the Sages (see 49b) as the fat that is on the small intestine.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讜讟讬谉 砖讘注讜拽抓 讗住讜专讬谉 讞诪砖讗 讞讜讟讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘讻驻诇讗 转诇转讗 诪讬诪讬谞讗 讜转专转讬 诪砖诪讗诇讗 转诇转讗 诪驻爪诇讬 诇转专讬 转专讬 转专讬 诪驻爪诇讬 诇转诇转讗 转诇转讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 砖诇讬祝 诇讛讜 注讚 讚讞诪讬诪讬 诪砖转诇驻讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬 讞讟讜讟讬 讘转专讬讬讛讜

And Rav Yehuda says: The sinews that are in the tailbone are forbidden for consumption, because they contain forbidden fat. There are five sinews in the tail: Three on the right and two on the left. The three on the right each split into two, and the two on the left each split into three. The practical difference, i.e., the reason the Gemara describes this in detail, is that if one draws them out while they are still warm soon after slaughter they are drawn out easily, but if not, he is required to scrape around them, i.e., dig into the flesh to remove them. It is important to know how many there are to ensure that one removes them all.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞诪砖讗 讞讜讟讬 讛讜讜 转诇转讗 诪砖讜诐 转专讘讗 讜转专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗 讚讟讞诇讬 讜讚讻驻诇讬 讜讚讻讜诇讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 转专讘讗 讚讬讚讗 讜讚诇讜注讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗

Abaye said, and some say that Rav Yehuda said: There are five strands that are forbidden for consumption; three of them are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat, and two are forbidden because they contain blood. The ligaments of the spleen and of the tail and of the kidneys are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat. And the veins of the foreleg and of the pharynx, i.e., the carotid artery, are forbidden because they contain blood.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讛谞讬 讚诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗 讗讬 诪讞转讱 诇讛讜 讜诪诇讞 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讛谞讱 诇讬转 诇讛讜 转拽谞转讗

The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether they are forbidden due to fat or due to blood? The Gemara answers: With regard to these veins and arteries that are forbidden because they contain blood, if one cuts them open and then salts them to remove the blood they are permitted. But those strands that contain forbidden fat have no rectification and can never be eaten.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讞诪砖讗 拽专诪讬 讛讜讜 转诇转讗 诪砖讜诐 转专讘讗 讜转专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗 讚讟讞诇讬 讚讻驻诇讬 讜讚讻讜诇讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 转专讘讗 讚讘讬注讬 讜讚诪讜拽专讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讗

Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Rav Yehuda who said: There are five membranes that are forbidden for consumption; three of them are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat, and two are forbidden because they contain blood. The membranes of the spleen and of the tail and of the kidneys are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat. And the membranes of the testicles and of the brain are forbidden because they contain blood.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 拽诇讬祝 诇讬讛 讟讞诇讗 诇诇讜讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 讙讗讬诐 诇讬讛 诪注讬诇讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讜转 讘讬讛 讟驻讬 讗转讗 讗讘讜讛 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讱 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讜诪谞讜 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 砖注诇 讛讚讚 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya was peeling the membranes from a spleen for Levi, son of Rav Huna bar 岣yya. He was cutting them only from the upper surface of the spleen. Levi said to Rav Yehuda: Go down further, i.e., remove the fat that is lower down as well. Levi鈥檚 father, Rav Huna bar 岣yya, came and found him as Levi was saying this to Rav Yehuda. Rav Huna bar 岣yya said to him: This is what your mother鈥檚 father said in the name of Rav; and who was Levi鈥檚 mother鈥檚 father? It was Rav Yirmeya bar Abba. He said: The Torah prohibits only the membranes that are on the thick, upper surface of the spleen.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 转谞讗 拽专讜诐 砖注诇 讛讟讞讜诇 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讜 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖注诇 讛讚讚 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

Levi asked: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Hamnuna say that it was taught in a baraita that the membrane that is on the spleen is forbidden, but one is not liable to receive the punishment of karet for eating it? Levi clarifies: What are the circumstances referred to in the baraita? If we say that it is referring to the membranes that are on the thick, upper surface of the spleen, why is one not liable to the punishment of karet for eating it? Rather, it must be referring to the membranes on all sides of the spleen, even the underside. Rav Huna bar 岣yya said to his son, Levi: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 转谞讗 拽专讜诐 砖注诇 讛讟讞讜诇 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 拽专讜诐 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讻讜诇讬讗 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself mentioned above: Rav Hamnuna said that it was taught in a baraita: The membrane that is on the spleen is forbidden, but one is not liable to receive karet for eating it. The membrane that is on the kidney is forbidden, but one is not liable to receive karet for eating it. The Gemara challenges this statement: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one is liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen or the kidney?

讟讞讜诇 讗讟讞讜诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻谞讙讚 讛讚讚 讛讗 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛讚讚

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the baraita that states that one is not liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen and the baraita that states that one is liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen is not difficult: This baraita that states that one is liable is referring to the membrane on the thick, upper part of the spleen, whereas that baraita that states that one is not liable is referring to the membrane that is not on the thick part of the spleen.

讻讜诇讬讗 讗讻讜诇讬讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘注讬诇讗讛 讛讗 讘转转讗讛

Likewise, the apparent contradiction between the baraita that states that one is not liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the kidney and the baraita that states that one is liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the kidney is not difficult: This baraita that states that one is liable is referring to the membrane on the upper part of the kidney, whereas that baraita that states that one is not liable is referring to the membrane on the lower part of the kidney.

讘讬注讬 讞砖讬诇转讗 专讘 讗诪讬 讜专讘 讗住讬 讞讚 讗住专 讜讞讚 砖专讬 诪讗谉 讚讗住专

搂 With regard to testicles that were crushed while the animal was alive but were still attached to their cords in the scrotum, there is a dispute between Rav Ami and Rav Asi. One of them prohibits eating the testicles after the animal is slaughtered and one of them permits eating them. The Gemara clarifies: The one who prohibits them holds that

诪讚诇讗 拽讗 讘专讬讬谉 讛谞讬 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗谉 讚砖专讬 诪讚诇讗 拽讗 诪住专讞谉 讛谞讬 讞讬讜转讗 讗讬转 讘讛讜

since these testicles do not heal, they are considered a limb severed from a living animal even though they are still attached to the animal. Consequently, they are forbidden even after the animal is slaughtered. And the one who permits eating crushed testicles holds that since they do not rot, there is vitality in them, and they are not considered to have been detached from the animal.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪住专讞谉 讚诇讗 拽讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛讜 讗讜讬专讗 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讘专讬讬谉 讻讞讬砖讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讟 诇讛讜

And the other opinion, which holds that crushed testicles are forbidden, holds that the reason the testicles do not rot is not because they have vitality but rather because air does not penetrate the scrotum, and it is contact with air that would cause them to rot. And the other opinion, which holds that crushed testicles are permitted, holds that the fact that they do not heal is because they have been struck with weakness, but not because they are entirely devoid of vitality. Consequently, they should not be considered detached from the body.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讛谞讬 讘讬注讬 讞砖讬诇转讗 砖专讬讬谉 讜讗转 诇讗 转讬讻讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讜讗诇 转讟砖 转讜专转 讗诪讱

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: These crushed testicles are permitted for consumption, but you should not eat them due to the dictum: 鈥淎nd do not forsake the Torah of your mother鈥 (Proverbs 1:8). Since Rav Shemen bar Abba was from Babylonia, where it was customary to be stringent, it was prohibited for him to eat crushed testicles even when he was in Eretz Yisrael.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛谞讬 讘讬注讬 讚讙讚讬讗 注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 砖专讬讬谉 讘诇讗 拽诇讬驻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬 讗讝专注谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讝专注谉 砖专讬讬谉 诪谞讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讗讬 讗讬转 讘讛讜 砖讜专讬讬拽讬 住讜诪拽讬 讗住讬专谉 诇讬转 讘讛讜 砖讜专讬讬拽讬 住讜诪拽讬 砖专讬讬谉

搂 The Gemara cites other halakhot related to testicles. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: With regard to these testicles of goats, from the time the goat is born until the goat is thirty days old, its testicles are permitted without peeling off the membrane that encloses them, because they are presumed not to contain blood. From this point forward, if they contain semen they are forbidden, but if they do not contain semen they are permitted. The Gemara asks: How can we know whether or not they contain semen? The Gemara answers: If they have red streaks in them they are forbidden. If they do not have red streaks in them they are permitted.

讗讜诪爪讬 讘讬注讬 讜诪讝专拽讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专讘 讗讞讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚专讘 讗讞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讗讞讗 诇拽讜诇讗

The Gemara quotes a related discussion pertaining to three cases: With regard to raw meat that is eaten without being salted, testicles of an animal, and the large veins of the neck, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree about the halakha. The Gemara points out: In all of their disputes with regard to other realms of the Torah where it is not clear which of them holds which opinion, the opinion of Ravina is lenient, and the opinion of Rav A岣 is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina to be lenient. This applies to all their disputes except for these three, in which Rav A岣 is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav A岣 to be lenient.

讗讜诪爪讗 讚讗住诪讬拽 讞转讻讛 讜诪诇讞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚专讛 谞诪讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 转诇讬讬讛 谞诪讬 讘砖驻讜讚讗 讚讗讬讘 讚诪讗 讗讙讜诪专讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖讗讘 砖讗讬讘讬 诇讬讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪爪诪转 爪诪转讬 诇讬讛 讜讻谉 讘讬注讬 讜讻谉 诪讝专拽讬

The Gemara explains: With regard to raw meat that became red from the blood inside it, if one cut it and salted it, it is permitted even to cook it in a pot, because the salt removes blood from meat. It is also permitted if one hung it on a spit in order to roast it, because the blood is drawn out by the heat of the fire. With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree about the halakha: One says that the coals draw out the blood from the meat, and one says that the coals cause the meat to shrivel and harden, trapping the blood inside. And similarly Ravina and Rav A岣 disagree with regard to testicles placed on coals, and similarly with regard to the large veins of the neck that were placed on coals.

专讬砖讗 讘讻讬讘砖讗 讗讜转讘讬讛 讗讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讚讬讬讘 讚诪讗 讜砖专讬 讗爪讚讚讬谉 诪讬拽驻讗 拽驻讬 讜讗住讜专 讗讜转讘讬讛 讗谞讞讬专讬讛 讚抓 讘讬讛 诪讬讚讬 砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗住讬专

搂 Apropos raw meat placed on coals, the Gemara discusses a related topic. In a case where one wants to remove the hair from the head of an animal by placing it in hot ashes, if one placed it with the neck down so that the location of the slaughter is in the ashes, the blood is drawn out by the heat and the meat is permitted. But if one placed the head in the ashes on one of its sides, the blood congeals inside the head and cannot flow out, and therefore the head is forbidden for consumption. In a case where one placed the head down on its nostrils, if he inserted something into the nostrils to keep them open and allow the blood to flow out, the meat is permitted, but if he did not do so it is forbidden.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞讞讬专讬讛 讜讗讘讬转 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讚讗讬讘 讗爪讚讚讬谉 讗讬 讚抓 讘讬讛 诪讬讚讬 砖专讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗住讬专

There are those who say: If the head was placed on its nostrils or on the location of the slaughter, the blood is drawn out and the meat is permitted. If he placed it on one of its sides, then if he inserted something into it in order to allow the blood to flow out, it is permitted, and if not it is forbidden.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬 讙讬讚讬谉 讛谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇注爪诐 讗住讜专 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讬爪讜谉 住诪讜讱 诇讘砖专 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜

搂 The Gemara returns to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: There are two nerves included in the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. The inner nerve, which is next to the bone, is forbidden by Torah law, and one is liable to be flogged for eating it. The outer nerve, which is next to the flesh, is forbidden by rabbinic law, and therefore one is not liable to be flogged for eating it.

讜讛转谞讬讗 驻谞讬诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇讘砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬拽诇讜讚讬 诪讬拽诇讬讚

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the inner nerve, which is forbidden by Torah law, is next to the flesh? The Gemara answers: Rav A岣 said that Rav Kahana said: The inner nerve is next to the bone, but it bores into the flesh as well.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讞讬爪讜谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇注爪诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讻讗 讚驻专注讬 讟讘讞讬

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The outer nerve is next to the bone? The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda said: This is referring to the spot where the butchers cut the leg open and reveal the nerve, and at that point in the leg the outer nerve is closest to the bone.

讗讬转诪专 讟讘讞 砖谞诪爪讗 讞诇讘 讗讞专讬讜 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讘讻砖注讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讻讝讬转

搂 It was stated: With regard to a butcher who removed the forbidden fats of the animal, and yet forbidden fat was found after he completed his work, Rav Yehuda says that the butcher is held liable if there is forbidden fat remaining that is the size of a barley grain. Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the butcher is held liable only if there is forbidden fat remaining that is the size of an olive-bulk.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讻讗谉 诇注讘专讜

Rav Pappa said: Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Yo岣nan are referring to two different levels of liability, and they do not disagree. Here, when Rabbi Yo岣nan said he is liable only if there is an olive-bulk of forbidden fat remaining, he was referring to flogging him. There, when Rav Yehuda said he is liable even he leaves forbidden fat the size of a barley grain, he was referring to removing him from his position as a butcher.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讻砖注讜专讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讻讝讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讘讻讝讬转 诇注讘专讜 讘讻砖注讜专讛

Mar Zutra said an alternative explanation: If the butcher left forbidden fat the size of a barley grain in one place he is liable, and if he left forbidden fat the size of an olive-bulk, he is liable even if it is spread out in two or three places. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to flogging him, the butcher is liable only if he left forbidden fat the size of an olive-bulk. With regard to removing him, the butcher is liable even if he left forbidden fat the size of a barley grain.

讗讬谉 讛讟讘讞讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 谞讗诪谞讬谉

搂 The mishna stated (89b): Butchers are not deemed credible to say that the sciatic nerve was removed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The Rabbis initially held that butchers are not deemed credible about the sciatic nerve, and subsequently they retracted and said that butchers are deemed credible in this regard.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讻砖讜专 讚专讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讛讜讜 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讛讜讜 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜诇讘住讜祝 住讘专讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: Have the later generations improved such that butchers are more reliable than they were in earlier generations? The Gemara answers: Initially, when the Rabbis held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one must scrape around the flesh in order to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, butchers were not deemed credible, due to the exertion involved in this process. But later the Rabbis held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that it is unnecessary to scrape around the flesh. Consequently, removing the sciatic nerve is not especially arduous, and butchers are deemed credible to say that they removed it.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝专讜 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 谞讗诪谞讬谉

There are those who teach this discussion with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, as follows: And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They subsequently retracted this opinion and said that butchers are not deemed credible. Rav Na岣an says: Today the butchers are deemed credible.

讗讻砖讜专 讚专讬 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专讜讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讚专 住讘专讜讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara asks: Have the later generations improved such that butchers are more reliable than they were in earlier generations? The Gemara answers: Initially they held that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that one is not required to scrape around the flesh to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, and therefore butchers were deemed credible to say that they removed it. The Rabbis then reversed their opinion and held that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one is required to scrape around the flesh.

讻诪讛 讚讛讜讜 讚讻讬专讬 诇讛 诇讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗谞砖讬讜讛 诇讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讛讬诪谞讬

As long as the butchers remembered the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and did not scrape around the flesh to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, they were not deemed credible to say that they removed it; but now that they have forgotten the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and have grown accustomed to scraping around the flesh to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, they are deemed credible.

讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 讞诇讘 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讛讞诇讘

搂 The mishna teaches that the Rabbis maintain that butchers are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat. The Gemara asks: Who mentioned anything about forbidden fat? The topic of discussion in the mishna until this point is the sciatic nerve, not forbidden fat; why do the Rabbis mention forbidden fat? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: The butchers are not deemed credible about the sciatic nerve or about the forbidden fat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis say: The butchers are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜诇讞 讗讚诐 讬专讱 诇讙讜讬 砖讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讘转讜讻讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪拽讜诪讜 谞讬讻专

MISHNA: Although it is prohibited for Jews to eat the sciatic nerve, a Jewish person may send the thigh of an animal to a gentile with the sciatic nerve in it, without concern that the gentile will then sell the thigh to a Jew and the Jew will eat the sciatic nerve. This leniency is due to the fact that the place of the sciatic nerve is conspicuous in the thigh.

讙诪壮 砖诇诪讛 讗讬谉 讞转讜讻讛 诇讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻专讬讝讬谉

GEMARA: The mishna鈥檚 statement that a Jew may send a thigh to a gentile indicates that if it is whole, yes, a Jew may send it to a gentile, but if the thigh has been cut, a Jew may not send it to a gentile. The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that the mishna is referring to a place where all the butchers are Jewish but they do not announce publicly when they have sold to a gentile an animal that turns out to have a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], then it is prohibited for Jews to purchase any meat from gentiles, due to the possibility that it was from an animal that was a tereifa.

Scroll To Top