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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 3, 2019 | 讻状讜 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 96

If one has meat and he didn’t watch it, it’s possible a raven came and swapped it with another piece of non聽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”?聽 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聽nerve was cooked with other permitted nerves?


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

讜诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讛砖转讗 讚砖诪注转讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 注讚讬驻讗

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.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讬讗讱 住讜诪讗 诪讜转专 讘讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗讬讱 诪讜转专讬谉 讘谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讚拽诇讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗

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 wives鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 转讚注 讚讗讬诇讜 讗转讜 讘转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 驻诇谞讬讗 讚讛讗讬 住讬诪谞讬讛 讜讛讗讬 住讬诪谞讬讛 拽讟诇 谞驻砖讗 诇讗 拽讟诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讗诪专讬 讗讬转 诇谉 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讘讙讜讬讛 拽讟诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Rav Yitz岣k, 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讚注 讚讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讬砖 诇砖诇讜讞讬讛 拽专讬讬讛 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讚讛讗讬 住讬诪谞讬讛 讜讛讗讬 住讬诪谞讬讛 住驻拽 讬讚注 诇讬讛 住驻拽 诇讗 讬讚注 诇讬讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讘讙讜讬讛 讻讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讬讚注 诇讬讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讟诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讟讜诇 讗转 讻讜诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 诇拽讬讬诐 讘讜 诪爪讜转 谞讟讬诇讛

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.

讛讗讜讻诇 诪讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讻讝讬转 住讜驻讙 讗专讘注讬诐 讗讻诇讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇 诪讝讛 讻讝讬转 讜诪讝讛 讻讝讬转 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜驻讙 讗诇讗 讗专讘注讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 讘专 驻讬讜诇讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜拽讗 诪谞拽专 讗讟诪讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 讙讗讬诐 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讜转 讘讬讛 讟驻讬 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讞讝讬转讱 住驻讬转讗 诇讬 讗讬住讜专讗

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.

讗讬专转转 谞驻诇 住讻讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬专转转 讚讗讜专讬 诇讱 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜专讬 诇讱

Bar Peyoli became afraid due to Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讚砖拽诇 讘专 驻讬讜诇讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻诇诇 讚砖讬讬专 讚专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讚讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讗讜专讬 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讚砖拽诇 讘专 驻讬讜诇讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗讬 讚砖讬讬专 讚专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚专讘谞谉 砖专讬

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.

讛讗讜讻诇 诪讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 砖注诇 讛讻祝 讘诇讘讚 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讻祝 讛讬专讱

搂 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: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve that is upon the spoon of the thigh鈥 (Genesis 32:33).

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗讻诇讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讝讬转

Rav Pappa says: This statement of Shmuel is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讘专讬讛 (讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛) 讛讬讗

Rav Pappa explains how this relates to Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讻转讬讘讛 讘讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讬讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讻讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讝讬转讬诐 讜讗讻诇 讞讚 讻讝讬转 诪讬讞讬讬讘

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗砖专 注诇 讻祝 讛讬专讱 谞驻拽讗

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 鈥渢hat is upon the spoon of the thigh,鈥 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 砖注诇 讻祝 讛讬专讱 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬专讱 讻转讬讘 讚讻讜诇讛 讬专讱

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: 鈥淭he spoon of the thigh,鈥 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讚驻砖讬讟 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讬专讱 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讞讬爪讜谉 讚诇讗 讜诇注讜诇诐 砖注诇 讛讻祝

And how do the Rabbis interpret 鈥渢he spoon of the thigh鈥? 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.

讜讛讗讬 讻祝 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讜祝 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻祝 转专讬 讻祝 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara objects: But this term 鈥渟poon鈥 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 鈥渟poon鈥 written in the verse, and therefore two separate halakhot can be derived from this term.

诪转谞讬壮 讬专讱 砖谞转讘砖诇 讘讛 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讻讬爪讚 诪砖注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讘砖专 讘诇驻转

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.

讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖谞转讘砖诇 注诐 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讻讬专讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛专讜讟讘 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

讜讻谉 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 谞讘诇讛 讜讻谉 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讚讙 讟诪讗 砖谞转讘砖诇讛 注诐 讛讞转讬讻讜转 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讻讬专谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讜讛专讜讟讘 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转讘砖诇 讘讛 讗讘诇 谞爪诇讛 讘讛 拽讜诇祝 讜讗讜讻诇 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讙讬讚

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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讚讬 砖爪诇讗讜 讘讞诇讘讜 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讗砖 讗讝谞讜

The Gemara challenges: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 96

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 96

讜诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讛砖转讗 讚砖诪注转讬谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 注讚讬驻讗

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.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛讬讗讱 住讜诪讗 诪讜转专 讘讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗讬讱 诪讜转专讬谉 讘谞砖讜转讬讛谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讚拽诇讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗

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 wives鈥 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 转讚注 讚讗讬诇讜 讗转讜 讘转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 驻诇谞讬讗 讚讛讗讬 住讬诪谞讬讛 讜讛讗讬 住讬诪谞讬讛 拽讟诇 谞驻砖讗 诇讗 拽讟诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讗诪专讬 讗讬转 诇谉 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讘讙讜讬讛 拽讟诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Rav Yitz岣k, 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讚注 讚讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谞讬砖 诇砖诇讜讞讬讛 拽专讬讬讛 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讚讛讗讬 住讬诪谞讬讛 讜讛讗讬 住讬诪谞讬讛 住驻拽 讬讚注 诇讬讛 住驻拽 诇讗 讬讚注 诇讬讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讘讙讜讬讛 讻讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讬讚注 诇讬讛

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜讟诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 爪专讬讱 砖讬讟讜诇 讗转 讻讜诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 诇拽讬讬诐 讘讜 诪爪讜转 谞讟讬诇讛

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.

讛讗讜讻诇 诪讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讻讝讬转 住讜驻讙 讗专讘注讬诐 讗讻诇讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇 诪讝讛 讻讝讬转 讜诪讝讛 讻讝讬转 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 住讜驻讙 讗诇讗 讗专讘注讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 讘专 驻讬讜诇讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜拽讗 诪谞拽专 讗讟诪讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 讙讗讬诐 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讜转 讘讬讛 讟驻讬 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讞讝讬转讱 住驻讬转讗 诇讬 讗讬住讜专讗

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.

讗讬专转转 谞驻诇 住讻讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 转讬专转转 讚讗讜专讬 诇讱 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜专讬 诇讱

Bar Peyoli became afraid due to Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讚砖拽诇 讘专 驻讬讜诇讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻诇诇 讚砖讬讬专 讚专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讚讗讜专讬 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讗讜专讬 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讗讬 讚砖拽诇 讘专 驻讬讜诇讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讗讬 讚砖讬讬专 讚专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚专讘谞谉 砖专讬

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.

讛讗讜讻诇 诪讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 砖注诇 讛讻祝 讘诇讘讚 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讻祝 讛讬专讱

搂 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: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve that is upon the spoon of the thigh鈥 (Genesis 32:33).

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗讻诇讜 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讝讬转

Rav Pappa says: This statement of Shmuel is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讘专讬讛 (讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛) 讛讬讗

Rav Pappa explains how this relates to Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讻转讬讘讛 讘讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讬讗 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讻讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讝讬转讬诐 讜讗讻诇 讞讚 讻讝讬转 诪讬讞讬讬讘

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗砖专 注诇 讻祝 讛讬专讱 谞驻拽讗

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 鈥渢hat is upon the spoon of the thigh,鈥 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 砖注诇 讻祝 讛讬专讱 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬专讱 讻转讬讘 讚讻讜诇讛 讬专讱

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: 鈥淭he spoon of the thigh,鈥 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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 讚驻砖讬讟 讗讬住讜专讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讬专讱 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讞讬爪讜谉 讚诇讗 讜诇注讜诇诐 砖注诇 讛讻祝

And how do the Rabbis interpret 鈥渢he spoon of the thigh鈥? 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.

讜讛讗讬 讻祝 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讜祝 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻祝 转专讬 讻祝 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara objects: But this term 鈥渟poon鈥 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 鈥渟poon鈥 written in the verse, and therefore two separate halakhot can be derived from this term.

诪转谞讬壮 讬专讱 砖谞转讘砖诇 讘讛 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讛专讬 讝讜 讗住讜专讛 讻讬爪讚 诪砖注专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻讘砖专 讘诇驻转

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.

讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖谞转讘砖诇 注诐 讛讙讬讚讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讻讬专讜 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛专讜讟讘 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

讜讻谉 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 谞讘诇讛 讜讻谉 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讚讙 讟诪讗 砖谞转讘砖诇讛 注诐 讛讞转讬讻讜转 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讻讬专谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讜转 讜讛专讜讟讘 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转讘砖诇 讘讛 讗讘诇 谞爪诇讛 讘讛 拽讜诇祝 讜讗讜讻诇 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇讙讬讚

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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讚讬 砖爪诇讗讜 讘讞诇讘讜 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讗砖 讗讝谞讜

The Gemara challenges: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 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.

Scroll To Top