חולין צג

חולין צג

חלב שהבשר חופה אותו מותר אלמא שעל הכסלים אמר רחמנא ולא שבתוך הכסלים הכא נמי שעל הכליות אמר רחמנא ולא שבתוך הכליות

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.

גופא אמר רבי אבא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חלב שהבשר חופה אותו מותר איני והאמר רבי אבא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל האי תרבא דתותי מתני אסיר

§ 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’t 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?

אמר אביי בהמה בחייה פרוקי מיפרקא אמר ר’ יוחנן אנא לאו טבחא אנא ולאו בר טבחא אנא ונהירנא דהכי הוו אמרי בי מדרשא בהמה בחייה פרוקי מיפרקא

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 Yoḥanan 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.

אמר רבי אבא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חלב שעל המסס ובית הכוסות אסורין וענוש כרת וזהו חלב שעל הקרב אמר ר’ אבא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל האי תרבא דקליבוסתא אסור וענוש כרת וזהו חלב שעל הכסלים

§ 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).

ואמר רבי אבא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חוטין שביד אסורין אמר רב ספרא משה מי אמר רחמנא לא תיכול בישרא אמר רבא משה מי אמר רחמנא אכול דמא חתכיה ומלחיה אפילו לקדירה נמי שפיר דמי

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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל ריש מעיא באמתא בעי גרירה וזהו חלב שעל הדקין

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.

ואמר רב יהודה חוטין שבעוקץ אסורין חמשא חוטי אית ביה בכפלא תלתא מימינא ותרתי משמאלא תלתא מפצלי לתרי תרי תרי מפצלי לתלתא תלתא נפקא מינה דאי שליף להו עד דחמימי משתלפי ואי לא בעי חטוטי בתרייהו

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.

אמר אביי ואיתימא רב יהודה חמשא חוטי הוו תלתא משום תרבא ותרין משום דמא דטחלי ודכפלי ודכוליתא משום תרבא דידא ודלועא משום דמא

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.

למאי נפקא מינה הני דמשום דמא אי מחתך להו ומלח להו שפיר דמי הנך לית להו תקנתא

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.

אמר רב כהנא ואיתימא רב יהודה חמשא קרמי הוו תלתא משום תרבא ותרי משום דמא דטחלי דכפלי ודכוליתא משום תרבא דביעי ודמוקרא משום דמא

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.

רב יהודה בר אושעיא הוה קא קליף ליה טחלא ללוי בריה דרב הונא בר חייא הוה קא גאים ליה מעילאי א”ל חות ביה טפי אתא אבוה אשכחיה אמר ליה הכי אמר אבוה דאמך משום דרב ומנו רב ירמיה בר אבא לא אסרה תורה אלא שעל הדד בלבד

The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya was peeling the membranes from a spleen for Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya. 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’s father, Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, came and found him as Levi was saying this to Rav Yehuda. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him: This is what your mother’s father said in the name of Rav; and who was Levi’s mother’s 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.

איני והאמר רב המנונא תנא קרום שעל הטחול אסור ואין חייבים עליו היכי דמי אילימא שעל הדד אמאי אין חייבין עליו אלא דכוליה אמר ליה אי תניא תניא

Levi asked: Is that so? But didn’t 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 Ḥiyya said to his son, Levi: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it.

גופא אמר רב המנונא תנא קרום שעל הטחול אסור ואין חייבין עליו קרום שעל גבי כוליא אסור ואין חייבין עליו והתניא חייבין עליו

§ 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’t it taught in a baraita that one is liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen or the kidney?

טחול אטחול לא קשיא הא כנגד הדד הא שלא כנגד הדד

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.

כוליא אכוליא נמי לא קשיא הא בעילאה הא בתתאה

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.

ביעי חשילתא רב אמי ורב אסי חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר

§ 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

מדלא קא בריין הני אבר מן החי נינהו מאן דשרי מדלא קא מסרחן הני חיותא אית בהו

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.

ואידך האי דלא קא מסרחן דלא קא שליט בהו אוירא ואידך האי דלא בריין כחישותא הוא דנקט להו

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.

א”ל רבי יוחנן לרב שמן בר אבא הני ביעי חשילתא שריין ואת לא תיכול משום (משלי א, ח) ואל תטוש תורת אמך

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: These crushed testicles are permitted for consumption, but you should not eat them due to the dictum: “And do not forsake the Torah of your mother” (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.

אמר מר בר רב אשי הני ביעי דגדיא עד תלתין יומין שריין בלא קליפה מכאן ואילך אי אזרען אסורין ואי לא אזרען שריין מנא ידעינן אי אית בהו שורייקי סומקי אסירן לית בהו שורייקי סומקי שריין

§ 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.

אומצי ביעי ומזרקי פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא בכל התורה כולה רבינא לקולא ורב אחא לחומרא והלכתא כרבינא לקולא לבר מהני תלת דרב אחא לקולא ורבינא לחומרא והלכתא כרב אחא לקולא

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 Aḥa 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 Aḥa 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 Aḥa is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa to be lenient.

אומצא דאסמיק חתכה ומלחה אפילו לקדרה נמי שפיר דמי תלייה נמי בשפודא דאיב דמא אגומרי פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר משאב שאיבי ליה וחד אמר מצמת צמתי ליה וכן ביעי וכן מזרקי

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 Aḥa 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 Aḥa disagree with regard to testicles placed on coals, and similarly with regard to the large veins of the neck that were placed on coals.

רישא בכיבשא אותביה אבית השחיטה דייב דמא ושרי אצדדין מיקפא קפי ואסור אותביה אנחיריה דץ ביה מידי שרי ואי לא אסיר

§ 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.

איכא דאמרי אנחיריה ואבית השחיטה דאיב אצדדין אי דץ ביה מידי שרי ואי לא אסיר

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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שני גידין הן הפנימי סמוך לעצם אסור וחייבין עליו חיצון סמוך לבשר אסור ואין חייבין עליו

§ 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.

והתניא פנימי סמוך לבשר אמר רב אחא אמר רב כהנא איקלודי מיקליד

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the inner nerve, which is forbidden by Torah law, is next to the flesh? The Gemara answers: Rav Aḥa said that Rav Kahana said: The inner nerve is next to the bone, but it bores into the flesh as well.

והא תניא חיצון הסמוך לעצם אמר רב יהודה היכא דפרעי טבחי

The Gemara challenges: But isn’t 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.

איתמר טבח שנמצא חלב אחריו רב יהודה אמר בכשעורה רבי יוחנן אמר בכזית

§ 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 Yoḥanan says that the butcher is held liable only if there is forbidden fat remaining that is the size of an olive-bulk.

אמר רב פפא ולא פליגי כאן להלקותו כאן לעברו

Rav Pappa said: Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Yoḥanan are referring to two different levels of liability, and they do not disagree. Here, when Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אמר מר זוטרא כשעורה במקום אחד כזית אפילו בב’ ובג’ מקומות והלכתא להלקותו בכזית לעברו בכשעורה:

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.

אין הטבחין נאמנין [וכו’]: א”ר חייא בר אבא א”ר יוחנן חזרו לומר נאמנין

§ 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 Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אמר רב נחמן אכשור דרי מעיקרא דהוו סברי לה כרבי מאיר לא הוו מהימני ולבסוף סברי כרבי יהודה

Rav Naḥman 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.

איכא דמתני לה אסיפא וחכמים אומרים נאמנין עליו ועל החלב אמר ר’ חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן חזרו לומר אין נאמנין אמר רב נחמן בזמן הזה נאמנין

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 Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They subsequently retracted this opinion and said that butchers are not deemed credible. Rav Naḥman says: Today the butchers are deemed credible.

אכשור דרי מעיקרא סברוה כרבי יהודה הדר סברוה כרבי מאיר

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.

כמה דהוו דכירי לה לדרבי יהודה לא מהימני והשתא דאנשיוה לדרבי יהודה מהימני:

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.

ועל החלב: חלב מאן דכר שמיה הכי קאמר אין נאמנין עליו ועל החלב וחכמים אומרים נאמנין עליו ועל החלב:

§ 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.

מתני’ שולח אדם ירך לעובד כוכבים שגיד הנשה בתוכה מפני שמקומו ניכר:

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.

גמ׳ שלמה אין חתוכה לא במאי עסקינן אילימא במקום שאין מכריזין

GEMARA: The mishna’s 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.