If one has meat and he didn’t watch it, it’s possible a raven came and swapped it with another piece of non kosher meat. However one can rely on saying he/she recognizes that it was the same piece or by identifiable features (simanim). In what situations do we trust one who claims to recognize something more than one who uses simanim to identify? In what areas of halacha do we not allow one to claim he/she recognizes it? Does one need to remove the entire nerve or just the part near the “spoon of the thigh”? Does one need to eat an olive bulk in order to receive lashes? If the nerve was cooked with the thigh, it forbids the thigh if the flavor permeated. How does one assess? What if the scitic nerve was cooked with other permitted nerves?
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:


Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Chullin 96
ืืื ืืืืจืื ื ืืืืืขืืช ืขืื ื ืืฉืชื ืืฉืืขืชืื ืื ืืื ื ืฉืืขืชืชื ืืืื ื ืืืืขืืช ืขืื ื ืขืืืคื
but we do not return a lost item to one who claims to be its owner based solely on visual recognition. But now that I have heard these statements pertaining to meat or sky-blue wool that were obscured from sight and then permitted based upon visual recognition, I say that visual recognition is preferable to a distinguishing mark.
ืืื ืื ืชืืื ืืื ืืืื ืกืืื ืืืชืจ ืืืฉืชื ืืื ื ืืื ืืื ืืืชืจืื ืื ืฉืืชืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืืืขืืช ืขืื ื ืืงืื ืืื ื ืื ืืืืืขืืช ืขืื ื
Furthermore, one must hold that sensory recognition is reliable even without identifying marks, for if you do not say so, how is it that a blind man permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife despite the fact that he cannot identify her by means of her identifying marks? And similarly, how are any men permitted to engage in intercourse with their wives at night, when it is dark and they cannot see their wivesโ identifying marks? Rather, one must say that they identify their wives based on voice recognition. Here too, in these cases of lost meat and sky-blue wool, they remain permitted based on visual recognition.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืฆืืง ืืจืื ืืจื ืืฉืจืฉืื ืชืืข ืืืืื ืืชื ืืชืจื ืืืืจื ืคืื ืื ืืืื ืกืืื ืื ืืืื ืกืืื ืื ืงืื ื ืคืฉื ืื ืงืืืื ื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืจื ืืืช ืื ืืืืขืืช ืขืื ื ืืืืื ืงืืืื ื ืืื
Rav Yitzแธฅak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, said: You can know that visual recognition is preferable to a distinguishing mark, because if two witnesses come to court and say: So-and-so, who has this distinguishing mark and that distinguishing mark, killed a person, we would not kill him based on this testimony. But if the two witnesses say: We have visual recognition of him, and they confirm that the accused individual committed murder, we kill him based on their testimony.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืฉื ืชืืข ืืืืื ื”ื ืืื ืืฉ ืืฉืืืืื ืงืจืืื ืืคืื ืื ืืืื ืกืืื ืื ืืืื ืกืืื ืื ืกืคืง ืืืข ืืื ืกืคืง ืื ืืืข ืืื ืืืืื ืืืช ืืื ืืืืขืืช ืขืื ื ืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืข ืืื:
Rav Ashi said: You can know that visual recognition is preferable to a distinguishing mark, because if a man says to his agent: Call so-and-so, who has this distinguishing mark and that distinguishing mark, it is uncertain whether the agent will recognize him and know whom to call or whether he will not know him. But if he has visual recognition of him, when he sees him he will know it is him.
ืืชื ืืณ ืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืฉื ืฆืจืื ืฉืืืื ืืช ืืืื ืจ’ ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืืื ืืงืืื ืื ืืฆืืช ื ืืืื
MISHNA: One who removes the sciatic nerve must scrape away the flesh in the area surrounding the nerve to ensure that he will remove all of it. Rabbi Yehuda says: Scraping is not required; it is sufficient to excise it from the area above the rounded protrusion in order to thereby fulfill the mitzva of removal of the sciatic nerve.
ืืืืื ืืืื ืื ืฉื ืืืืช ืกืืคื ืืจืืขืื ืืืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืช ืกืืคื ืฉืืื ืื ืจ’ ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืืื ื ืกืืคื ืืื ืืจืืขืื:
One who eats an olive-bulk of the sciatic nerve incurs forty lashes. If one eats an entire sciatic nerve and it does not constitute an olive-bulk, he is nevertheless liable to receive lashes, because a complete sciatic nerve is a complete entity. If one ate an olive-bulk from this sciatic nerve in the right leg, and an olive-bulk from that sciatic nerve in the left leg, he incurs [sofeg] eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes, for eating the olive-bulk from the right leg, and he is exempt for eating the olive-bulk from the left leg.
ืืืณ ืืจ ืคืืืื ืืื ืงืื ืงืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืงื ืื ืงืจ ืืืื ืืื ืงื ืืืื ืืื ื”ื ืืืช ืืื ืืคื ืืฉืชื ืื ืืืืชื ืกืคืืชื ืื ืืืกืืจื
GEMARA: A man known as bar Peyoli was standing before Shmuel and was removing the sciatic nerve from the leg of an animal. He was cutting out the nerve without scraping away the surrounding flesh, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Shmuel said to him: Go down further and scrape away the flesh in order to remove the entire nerve. Now, if I would not have seen you and instructed you in the process of removing the sciatic nerve, you would have fed me forbidden meat.
ืืืจืชืช ื ืคื ืกืืื ื ืืืืื ื”ื ืื ืชืืจืชืช ืืืืจื ืื ืืจืื ืืืืื ืืืจื ืื
Bar Peyoli became afraid due to Shmuelโs rebuke and the knife fell from his hand. Shmuel said to him: Do not be afraid. I do not think that you are an ignoramus or a wicked person. You are removing the sciatic nerve as you were taught; the person who taught you must hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and this is how he taught you to remove the sciatic nerve. But I hold that the entire sciatic nerve must be removed, in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna.
ืืืจ ืจื ืฉืฉืช ืืื ืืฉืงื ืืจ ืคืืืื ืืืืจืืืชื ืืจืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืฉืืืจ ืืจืื ื ืืจ’ ืืืืื ืืื ืืืืจื ืืื ืืืื ืืืจื ืืื
Rav Sheshet said in explanation of this incident: That which bar Peyoli removed was the section of the sciatic nerve one is required to remove by Torah law according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: Based upon this statement, one can derive by inference that he left behind the section of the sciatic nerve one is required to remove by rabbinic law according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. But if so, in accordance with whose opinion did the person who taught him how to remove the sciatic nerve teach him? Even according to Rabbi Yehuda he would have transgressed a rabbinic prohibition.
ืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืฉืฉืช ืืื ืืฉืงื ืืจ ืคืืืื ืืืืจืืืชื ืืืื ืืฉืืืจ ืืจืื ื ืืจ”ื ืืื ืจืื ืืืืื ืืคืืื ืืืจืื ื ืฉืจื:
Rather, Rav Sheshet said: That which bar Peyoli removed was the section of the sciatic nerve that is forbidden by Torah law. And that which he left over is forbidden by rabbinic law according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as explained above (92b) in a baraita; as if one were to follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the section that bar Peyoli left over is permitted even by rabbinic law.
ืืืืื ืืืื ืื ืฉื [ืืื’]: ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืื ืืกืจื ืชืืจื ืืื ืฉืขื ืืืฃ ืืืื ืฉื ืืืจ (ืืจืืฉืืช ืื, ืื) ืขื ืืฃ ืืืจื
ยง The mishna teaches: One who eats an olive-bulk of the sciatic nerve incurs forty lashes. Shmuel says: The Torah prohibits only the part of the sciatic nerve that is on the rounded protrusion of flesh shaped like a spoon that is near the end of the femur. This is as it is stated in the verse: โTherefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve that is upon the spoon of the thighโ (Genesis 32:33).
ืืืจ ืจื ืคืคื ืืชื ืื ืืืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืช ืืืื ืจืื ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืขื ืฉืืื ืื ืืืืช
Rav Pappa says: This statement of Shmuel is subject to a dispute between tannaโim, as it is taught in a baraita: If one ate the entire sciatic nerve and it did not contain an olive-bulk, he is nevertheless liable to be flogged. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is not liable unless it has a volume of at least an olive-bulk.
ื”ื ืืจืื ื ืืจืื (ืืคื ื ืขืฆืื) ืืื
Rav Pappa explains how this relates to Shmuelโs statement. What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda? They hold that the sciatic nerve is a distinct entity. Therefore, even if one eats less than an olive-bulk it is a significant act of eating, and one is liable.
ืืจ’ ืืืืื ืืืืื ืืชืืื ืืื ืืจืื ื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืช ืืื ืืจืืขื ืืืืฉื ืืืชืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืช ืืืืืื
And what does Rabbi Yehuda hold? He holds that since the term: Eating, is written with regard to the sciatic nerve, and a significant act of eating is generally defined as eating an olive-bulk, one is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk. And what do the Rabbis derive from this term? That usage of the term eating indicates that in a case where the sciatic nerve contains four or five olive-bulks and one ate only one olive-bulk, he is liable. Nevertheless, if one eats the entire sciatic nerve, he is liable even if it contains less than an olive-bulk.
ืืจืื ืืืืื ืืืฉืจ ืขื ืืฃ ืืืจื ื ืคืงื
And according to Rabbi Yehuda, from where is it derived that one is liable for eating one olive-bulk of a larger sciatic nerve? He holds that it is derived from the phrase โthat is upon the spoon of the thigh,โ which indicates that even if one eats only the part of the sciatic nerve that is upon the spoon of the thigh, rather than the entire sciatic nerve, he is liable.
ืืจืื ื ืืืื ืืืืขื ืืื ืืืืฉืืืื ืืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืื ืืกืจื ืชืืจื ืืื ืฉืขื ืืฃ ืืืจื ืืจ’ ืืืืื ืืืจื ืืชืื ืืืืื ืืจื
And how do the Rabbis interpret that phrase? That phrase is necessary to teach the halakha stated by Shmuel, as Shmuel said: The Torah prohibits only the part of the sciatic nerve that is on the rounded protrusion of flesh shaped like a spoon. And what does Rabbi Yehuda hold with regard to the halakha stated by Shmuel? He derives from the fact that it is written: โThe spoon of the thigh,โ that the sciatic nerve of the entire thigh is forbidden, not just the part that is on the rounded protrusion of flesh shaped like a spoon.
ืืจืื ื ืืืื ืืคืฉืื ืืืกืืจืื ืืืืืื ืืจื ืืืคืืงื ืืืฆืื ืืื ืืืขืืื ืฉืขื ืืืฃ
And how do the Rabbis interpret โthe spoon of the thighโ? According to the Rabbis, this expression indicates that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to the nerve that extends throughout the entire thigh, i.e., the inner nerve, which serves to exclude the outer nerve, which is not forbidden by Torah law; but in fact, only the part of the inner nerve that is on the protrusion of flesh shaped like a spoon is forbidden, not the entire inner nerve.
ืืืื ืืฃ ืืืืขื ืืื ืืืขืืื ืขืืฃ ืืืืช ืืื ืืฃ ืชืจื ืืฃ ืืชืืื:
The Gemara objects: But this term โspoonโ is required to exclude the sciatic nerve of a bird, which does not have a rounded protrusion on its thigh bone that can be described as the spoon of the thigh, as taught in the mishna (89b). The Gemara explains: There are two usages of the term โspoonโ written in the verse, and therefore two separate halakhot can be derived from this term.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืจื ืฉื ืชืืฉื ืื ืืื ืื ืฉื ืื ืืฉ ืื ืื ืืชื ืืขื ืืจื ืื ืืกืืจื ืืืฆื ืืฉืขืจืื ืืืชื ืืืฉืจ ืืืคืช
MISHNA: In the case of a thigh that was cooked with the sciatic nerve in it, if there is enough of the sciatic nerve in it to impart its flavor to the thigh, the entire thigh is forbidden for consumption. How does one measure whether there is enough sciatic nerve to impart flavor to the meat of the entire thigh? One relates to it as though the sciatic nerve were meat imparting flavor to a turnip. If meat the volume of the sciatic nerve would impart flavor to a turnip the volume of the thigh when they were cooked together, then the entire thigh is forbidden.
ืืื ืื ืฉื ืฉื ืชืืฉื ืขื ืืืืืื ืืืื ืฉืืืืจื ืื ืืชื ืืขื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืกืืจืื ืืืจืืื ืื ืืชื ืืขื
With regard to a sciatic nerve that was cooked with other sinews, when one identifies the sciatic nerve and removes it, the other sinews are forbidden if the sciatic nerve was large enough to impart flavor. And if he does not identify it, all the sinews are forbidden because each one could be the sciatic nerve; but the broth is forbidden only if the sciatic nerve imparts flavor to the broth.
ืืื ืืชืืื ืฉื ื ืืื ืืื ืืชืืื ืฉื ืื ืืื ืฉื ืชืืฉืื ืขื ืืืชืืืืช ืืืื ืฉืืืืจื ืื ืืชื ืืขื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืกืืจืืช ืืืจืืื ืื ืืชื ืืขื:
And similarly, in the case of a piece of an animal carcass or a piece of non-kosher fish that was cooked with similar pieces of kosher meat or fish, when one identifies the forbidden piece and removes it, the rest of the meat or fish is forbidden only if the forbidden piece was large enough to impart flavor to the entire mixture. And if he does not identify and remove the forbidden piece, all the pieces are forbidden, due to the possibility that each piece one selects might be the forbidden piece; but the broth is forbidden only if the forbidden piece imparts flavor to the broth.
ืืืณ ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืื ืฉื ื ืืื ืฉื ืชืืฉื ืื ืืื ื ืฆืื ืื ืงืืืฃ ืืืืื ืขื ืฉืืืืข ืืืื
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a thigh that was cooked with the sciatic nerve is forbidden if the nerve imparts flavor to the thigh. Shmuel says: The Sages taught that the thigh is entirely forbidden only when it was cooked with the sciatic nerve inside it. But if the sciatic nerve was roasted inside the thigh, one may peel away the meat and eat it until he reaches the sciatic nerve, and then he removes the nerve.
ืืื ื ืืืืืจ ืจื ืืื ื ืืื ืฉืฆืืื ืืืืื ืืกืืจ ืืืืื ืืคืืื ืืจืืฉ ืืื ื
The Gemara challenges: Is that so? But doesnโt Rav Huna say: With regard to a kid that was roasted with its forbidden fat, it is prohibited to eat any part of the animal, even from the top of its ear? This proves that roasting, like cooking, spreads the flavor of the forbidden fat throughout the entire animal.





















