חולין צו

חולין צו

וְלָא מַהְדְּרִינַן בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא. הַשְׁתָּא דִּשְׁמַעְתִּינְהוּ לְהָנֵי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא, אָמֵינָא: טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא עֲדִיפָא.

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.

דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הֵיאַךְ סוֹמֵא מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וּבְנֵי אָדָם אֵיךְ מוּתָּרִין בִּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן בַּלַּיְלָה? אֶלָּא בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא דְּקָלָא, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא.

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’ 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.

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: תֵּדַע, דְּאִילּוּ אָתוּ בִּתְרֵי וְאָמְרִי: פְּלָנְיָא, דְּהַאי סִימָנֵיהּ וְהַאי סִימָנֵיהּ, קְטַל נַפְשָׁא – לָא קָטְלִינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִילּוּ אָמְרִי: אִית לַן טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ – קָטְלִינַן לֵיהּ.

Rav Yitzḥak, 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.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: תֵּדַע, דְּאִילּוּ אָמַר לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לִשְׁלוּחֵיהּ: קַרְיֵיהּ לִפְלָנְיָא, דְּהַאי סִימָנֵיהּ וְהַאי סִימָנֵיהּ – סָפֵק יָדַע לֵיהּ, סָפֵק לָא יָדַע לֵיהּ, וְאִילּוּ אִית לֵיהּ טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ – כִּי חָזֵי לֵיהּ, יָדַע לֵיהּ.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ הַנּוֹטֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אֶת כּוּלּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּים בּוֹ מִצְוַת נְטִילָה.

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.

הָאוֹכֵל מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה כְּזַיִת – סוֹפֵג אַרְבָּעִים. אֲכָלוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת – חַיָּיב. אָכַל מִזֶּה כְּזַיִת וּמִזֶּה כְּזַיִת – סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים.

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.

גְּמָ׳ בַּר פָּיוֹלֵי הֲוָה קָאֵי קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְקָא מְנַקַּר אַטְמָא. הֲוָה קָא גָאֵים לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חוֹת בֵּיהּ טְפֵי, הַשְׁתָּא לָא חֲזֵיתָךְ – סְפֵית לִי אִיסּוּרָא!

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.

אִירְתַת, נְפַל סַכִּינָא מִידֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא תִּירְתַת, דְּאוֹרִי לָךְ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹרִי לָךְ.

Bar Peyoli became afraid due to Shmuel’s 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.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַאי דִּשְׁקַל בַּר פָּיוֹלֵי – דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. מִכְּלָל דְּשַׁיַּיר – דְּרַבָּנַן, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אֶלָּא, דְּאוֹרִי לֵיהּ כְּמַאן אוֹרִי לֵיהּ?

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.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַאי דִּשְׁקַל בַּר פָּיוֹלֵי – דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמַאי דְּשַׁיַּיר – דְּרַבָּנַן, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר; דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – אֲפִילּוּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן שְׁרֵי.

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.

הָאוֹכֵל מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל הַכַּף בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ״.

§ 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: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve that is upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33).

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּתַנָּאֵי, אֲכָלוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּזַיִת.

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

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? בְּרִיָּה (בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ) הִיא.

Rav Pappa explains how this relates to Shmuel’s 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.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – אֲכִילָה כְּתִיבָה בֵּיהּ, וְרַבָּנַן – הַהִיא אֲכִילָה דְּכִי אִית בֵּיהּ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה זֵיתִים וַאֲכַל חַד כְּזַיִת מִיחַיַּיב.

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.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מֵ״אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ״ נָפְקָא.

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 “that is upon the spoon of the thigh,” 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.

וְרַבָּנַן, הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – ״הַיָּרֵךְ״ כְּתִיב, דְּכוּלַּהּ יָרֵךְ.

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: “The spoon of the thigh,” 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.

וְרַבָּנַן, הַהוּא דְּפָשֵׁיט אִיסּוּרֵיהּ בְּכוּלַּיהּ יָרֵךְ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי חִיצוֹן דְּלָא, וּלְעוֹלָם שֶׁעַל הַכַּף.

And how do the Rabbis interpret “the spoon of the thigh”? 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.

וְהַאי ״כַּף״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמַעוֹטֵי עוֹף, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כַּף! תְּרֵי ״כַּף״ כְּתִיבִי.

The Gemara objects: But this term “spoon” 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 “spoon” written in the verse, and therefore two separate halakhot can be derived from this term.

מַתְנִי׳ יָרֵךְ שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בָּהּ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. כֵּיצַד מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתָהּ? כְּבָשָׂר בְּלֶפֶת.

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.

גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הַגִּידִים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכִּירוֹ – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, וְאִם לָאו – כּוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין, וְהָרוֹטֶב בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.

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.

וְכֵן חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה, וְכֵן חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל דָּג טָמֵא שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלָה עִם הַחֲתִיכוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכִּירָן – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, וְאִם לָאו – כּוּלָּן אֲסוּרוֹת, וְהָרוֹטֶב בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם.

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.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בָּהּ, אֲבָל נִצְלָה בָּהּ – קוֹלֵף וְאוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַגִּיד.

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.

אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: גְּדִי שֶׁצְּלָאוֹ בְּחֶלְבּוֹ – אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ מֵרֹאשׁ אׇזְנוֹ!

The Gemara challenges: Is that so? But doesn’t 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.