Chullin 89a

(בראשית יד, כג) אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל זכו בניו לשתי מצות לחוט של תכלת ורצועה של תפילין “That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours” (Genesis 14:23), distancing himself from anything not rightfully his, his children merited two mitzvot: The thread of sky-blue wool worn on ritual fringes and the strap of phylacteries.

בשלמא רצועה של תפילין כתיב (דברים כח, י) וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ותניא ר' אליעזר הגדול אומר אלו תפילין שבראש אלא חוט של תכלת מאי היא The Gemara asks: Granted, the strap of the phylacteries imparts benefit, as it is written: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you; and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is a reference to the phylacteries of the head, upon which the name of God is written. Phylacteries therefore impart the splendor and grandeur of God and are a fit reward. But what is the benefit imparted by the thread of sky-blue wool?

דתניא רבי מאיר אומר מה נשתנה תכלת מכל הצבעונין מפני שתכלת דומה לים וים דומה לרקיע ורקיע דומה לאבן ספיר ואבן ספיר דומה לכסא הכבוד דכתיב (שמות כד, י) ויראו את אלהי ישראל ותחת רגליו וגו' וכתיב (יחזקאל א, כו) כמראה אבן ספיר דמות כסא The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about sky-blue from all other colors such that it was specified for the mitzva of ritual fringes? It is because sky-blue dye is similar in its color to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is similar to the sapphire stone, and the sapphire stone is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10). This verse shows that the heavens are similar to sapphire, and it is written: “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Ezekiel 1:26). Therefore, the throne is similar to the heavens. The color of sky blue dye acts as an indication of the bond between the Jewish people and the Divine Presence.

א"ר אבא קשה גזל הנאכל שאפילו צדיקים גמורים אינן יכולין להחזירו שנאמר (בראשית יד, כד) בלעדי רק אשר אכלו הנערים The Gemara above mentioned that Abraham refused to accept property that did not belong to him. With regard to this, Rabbi Abba says: Difficult is the return of theft that has been consumed, as even the perfectly righteous are unable to return it, as it is stated: “That I will not take a thread nor a shoe strap nor anything that is yours…except only that which the young men have eaten with me” (Genesis 14:23–24). Even the righteous Abraham was unable to return that which the young men had already consumed.

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון כל מקום שאתה מוצא דבריו של רבי אליעזר בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי בהגדה עשה אזניך כאפרכסת (דברים ז, ז) לא מרבכם מכל העמים חשק ה' בכם וגו' אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל חושקני בכם שאפילו בשעה שאני משפיע לכם גדולה אתם ממעטין עצמכם לפני § Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Any place where you find the statements of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in reference to aggada, make your ears like a funnel [ka’afarkeset], i.e., be receptive to his words. As Rabbi Eliezer interpreted the verse: “Not because you are more in number than any people did the Lord desire you and choose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples” (Deuteronomy 7:7), as follows: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: I desire you, since even at a time that I bestow greatness upon you, you diminish, i.e., humble, yourselves before Me.

נתתי גדולה לאברהם אמר לפני (בראשית יח, כז) ואנכי עפר ואפר למשה ואהרן אמר (שמות טז, ז) ונחנו מה לדוד אמר (תהלים כב, ז) ואנכי תולעת ולא איש I granted greatness to Abraham, yet he said before Me: “And I am but dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). I granted greatness to Moses and Aaron, yet Moses said of the two of them: “And what are we” (Exodus 16:7). I granted greatness to David, yet he said: “But I am a worm, and no man” (Psalms 22:7).

אבל עובדי כוכבים אינן כן נתתי גדולה לנמרוד אמר (בראשית יא, ד) הבה נבנה לנו עיר לפרעה אמר (שמות ה, ב) מי ה' לסנחריב אמר (מלכים ב יח, לה) מי בכל אלהי הארצות וגו' לנבוכדנצר אמר (ישעיהו יד, יד) אעלה על במתי עב לחירם מלך צור אמר (יחזקאל כח, ב) מושב אלהים ישבתי בלב ימים But the gentile nations of the world are not so. I granted greatness to Nimrod, yet he said: “Come, let us build a city and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name” (Genesis 11:4). I granted greatness to Pharaoh, yet he said: “Who is the Lord” (Exodus 5:2). I granted greatness to Sennacherib, yet he said: “Who are they among all the gods of the countries that have delivered their country out of my hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand” (II Kings 18:35). I granted greatness to Nebuchadnezzar, yet he said: “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds” (Isaiah 14:14). I granted greatness to Ḥiram, king of Tyre, yet he said: “I sit in the seat of God, in the heart of the seas” (Ezekiel 28:2).

אמר רבא ואיתימא ר' יוחנן גדול שנאמר במשה ואהרן יותר ממה שנאמר באברהם דאילו באברהם כתיב ואנכי עפר ואפר ואילו במשה ואהרן כתיב ונחנו מה ואמר רבא ואיתימא ר' יוחנן אין העולם מתקיים אלא בשביל משה ואהרן כתיב הכא ונחנו מה וכתיב התם (איוב כו, ז) תולה ארץ על בלימה The Gemara relates: Rava says, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Greater is that which is stated with regard to Moses and Aaron than that which is stated with regard to Abraham. As with regard to Abraham it is written: “And I am but dust and ashes,” while with regard to Moses and Aaron it is written: “And what are we,” i.e., we are not even dust and ashes. And Rava says, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The world endures only in the merit of Moses and Aaron. It is written here: “And what are we,” and it written elsewhere: “He hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7). That is, the earth endures in the merit of those who said of themselves that they are nothing, i.e., Moses and Aaron.

אמר רבי אילעא אין העולם מתקיים אלא בשביל מי שבולם את עצמו בשעת מריבה שנאמר תולה ארץ על בלימה רבי אבהו אמר מי שמשים עצמו כמי שאינו שנאמר (דברים לג, כז) ומתחת זרועות עולם With regard to that verse, Rabbi Ile’a says: The world endures only in the merit of one who restrains [shebolem] himself during a quarrel, as it is stated: “He hangs the earth upon nothing [belima]. Rabbi Abbahu says: The world endures only in the merit of one who renders himself as if he were non-existent, as it is stated: “And underneath are the everlasting arms” (Deuteronomy 33:27), i.e., one who considers himself to be underneath everything else is the everlasting arm that upholds the world.

אמר רבי יצחק מאי דכתיב (תהלים נח, ב) האמנם אלם צדק תדברון מישרים תשפטו בני אדם מה אומנותו של אדם בעולם הזה ישים עצמו כאלם יכול אף לדברי תורה תלמוד לומר צדק תדברון יכול יגיס דעתו ת"ל מישרים תשפטו בני אדם Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Do you indeed [ha’umnam] speak as a righteous company [elem]? Do you judge with equity [meisharim] the sons of men” (Psalms 58:2)? The verse is interpreted as follows: What should be a person’s occupation [umanut] in this world? He should render himself silent as a mute [ilem]. If so, one might have thought that he should render himself as a mute even with regard to words of Torah. Therefore, the verse states: “Speak as a righteous company,” indicating that one should speak the righteous words of Torah. If so, he might have thought that one who speaks words of Torah has the right to become arrogant. Therefore, the verse states: “Judge with equity [meisharim] the sons of men.” Even a learned judge must take extra care to judge with equity, and not assume that he will immediately arrive at the correct understanding.

אמר רבי זעירא ואיתימא רבה בר ירמיה מכסין בעפר עיר הנדחת ואמאי איסורי הנאה הוא § The Gemara returns to discuss the mitzva of covering the blood: Rabbi Zeira says, and some say Rabba bar Yirmeya says: One may cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird with the dust of an idolatrous city. The Torah states that the city and anything contained therein must be burned (see Deuteronomy 13:17). The Gemara, assuming the statement of Rabbi Zeira refers to the ashes of a burned idolatrous city, asks: But why may one use these ashes to cover the blood? These ashes are items from which deriving benefit is prohibited, as the verse states: “And there shall cleave none of the banned property to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).

אמר זעירי לא נצרכה אלא לעפר עפרה דכתיב (דברים יג, יז) ואת כל שללה תקבוץ אל תוך רחובה ושרפת מי שאינו מחוסר אלא קביצה ושרפה יצא זה שמחוסר תלישה קביצה ושרפה Ze’eiri said: Rabbi Zeira is not referring to the ashes of the burned city, which may not be used. Rather, his statement is necessary only concerning the dust of its dust, i.e., the dust of the ground of the idolatrous city, from which deriving benefit is not prohibited, as it is written: “And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of the broad place thereof, and shall burn with fire the city” (Deuteronomy 13:17). Accordingly, items lacking only the acts of gathering and burning must be burned. This serves to exclude this dust of the ground, which lacks the acts of removal from the ground, gathering, and burning. The dust must also be removed from the ground before it can be gathered and burned.

ורבא אמר מצות לאו ליהנות ניתנו And Rava says: One can even use the ashes from the idolatrous city to cover the blood, despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive any benefit from them. This is because mitzvot were not given for benefit, that is, the fulfillment of a mitzva is not considered deriving benefit, but the fulfillment of a divine decree.

יתיב רבינא וקאמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה רב רחומי לרבינא שופר של עבודת כוכבים לא יתקע בו מאי לאו אם תקע לא יצא לא אם תקע יצא The Gemara relates that Ravina was sitting and saying this halakha, that one may use the ashes of an idolatrous city to cover the blood. Rav Reḥumi raised an objection to Ravina from a baraita: With regard to a shofar of idol worship, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, one may not blow with it. What, is it not that the baraita means to say that if one blew with it he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that one should not use such a shofar ab initio, but if one blew with it he has fulfilled his obligation.

לולב של עבודת כוכבים לא יטול מאי לאו אם נטל לא יצא לא אם נטל יצא והתניא תקע לא יצא נטל לא יצא Rav Reḥumi persists: It is taught in another baraita that with regard to a lulav of idol worship, one may not take it to perform the mitzva. What, is it not that the baraita means to say that if one took such a lulav he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that one should not use such a lulav ab initio, but if one took it he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if one blew a shofar of idolatry he has not fulfilled his obligation? And isn’t it taught in another baraita that if one took a lulav of idolatry to perform the mitzva he has not fulfilled his obligation?

אמר רב אשי הכי השתא התם Rav Ashi said in response: How can these cases be compared to the case of covering the blood? There, with regard to a shofar and lulav of idol worship, although the use of such items for a mitzva does not constitute benefit, one cannot fulfill his obligation with them, because

שיעורא בעינן ועבודת כוכבים כתותי מכתת שיעורא הכא כל מה דמכתת מעלי לכסוי: we require a minimum measure in order to fulfill these mitzvot. A shofar must be large enough that, when grasped, part of it protrudes from both sides of one’s hand, and a lulav must be at least four handbreadths long. And since an object of idol worship and its effects must be burned, its size as required for the mitzva is seen by halakha as crushed into powder. Since a shofar or lulav of idol worship is destined for burning, it is considered as if it is already burned, and it therefore lacks the requisite measurement for fulfilling the mitzva. By contrast, here, with regard to the ashes used to perform the mitzva of covering the blood, no minimum measure is required to fulfill the mitzva; in fact, the more the ash is crushed, the better it is for the mitzva of covering the blood.

מתני׳ גיד הנשה נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית בחולין ובמוקדשין ונוהג בבהמה ובחיה בירך של ימין ובירך של שמאל ואינו נוהג בעוף מפני שאין לו כף MISHNA: The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of, i.e., the time of, the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and with regard to non-sacred animals and with regard to sacrificial animals. And it applies to domesticated animals and to undomesticated animals, to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg. But it does not apply to a bird, due to the fact that the verse makes reference to the sciatic nerve as being “upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33), and a bird has no spoon of the thigh.

ונוהג בשליל ר' יהודה אומר אינו נוהג בשליל וחלבו מותר And the prohibition applies to a late-term animal fetus [shalil] in the womb. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus; and similarly, its fat is permitted.

ואין הטבחין נאמנין על גיד הנשה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים נאמנין עליו ועל החלב: And 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 and about the forbidden fat.

גמ׳ מוקדשין פשיטא משום דאקדשיה פקע ליה איסור גיד מיניה GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to both non-sacred animals and sacrificial animals. The Gemara asks: Is it not obvious that the prohibition applies to sacrificial animals? Would it be reasonable to suggest that because one consecrated it, he has abrogated the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve from it?

וכי תימא יש בגידין בנותן טעם ואתי איסור מוקדשין וחייל אאיסור גיד האי מוקדשין נוהג בגיד מיבעי ליה אלא קסבר אין בגידין בנותן טעם ובמוקדשין איסור גיד איכא איסור מוקדשין ליכא And if you would say that sciatic nerves have the ability to impart flavor, i.e., they possess flavor, and the mishna is teaching that the prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals comes and takes effect upon the sciatic nerve despite the fact that it is already subject to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, the mishna should have stated: The prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals applies to the sciatic nerve. The Gemara suggests: Rather, the tanna of the mishna holds that the sciatic nerve does not have the ability to impart flavor, and the mishna is teaching that with regard to sacrificial animals there is a prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve but there is no additional prohibition of eating the meat of a sacrificial animal.

וסבר תנא דידן אין בגידין בנותן טעם והתנן ירך שנתבשל בה גיד הנשה אם יש בה בנותן טעם הרי זו אסורה The Gemara challenges this explanation: And does the tanna of our mishna hold that the sciatic nerve does not have the ability to impart flavor? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (96b): In the case of a thigh that was cooked with the sciatic nerve in it, if there is enough of the sciatic nerve in the thigh to impart its flavor to the meat, the entire thigh is forbidden? Consequently, it is clear that the tanna of the mishna holds that the sciatic nerve does possess flavor.

אלא הכא בולדות קדשים עסקינן וקסבר נוהג בשליל וקסבר ולדות קדשים במעי אמן הן קדושים דאיסור גיד ואיסור מוקדשין בהדי הדדי קאתי Rather, in the mishna here we are dealing with offspring of sacrificial animals. And the tanna holds that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies with regard to a fetus, and he also holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals are consecrated even while they are in the womb of their mother. Consequently, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve and the prohibition of eating sacrificial animals come into effect at the same time, and therefore both prohibitions apply and one does not say that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

ומי מצית מוקמת לה בשליל והא מדקתני סיפא נוהג בשליל מכלל דרישא לאו בשליל עסקינן הכי קאמר דבר זה מחלוקת דרבי יהודה ורבנן The Gemara challenges this explanation: Can you interpret this clause of the mishna as referring to a fetus? From the fact that the latter clause teaches: It applies to a late-term fetus, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that it does not apply to a late-term fetus, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are not dealing with a fetus. The Gemara explains: This is what the tanna of the mishna is saying: This matter that was taught in the first clause is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

ומי מצית אמרת דתרוייהו בהדי הדדי קאתו והתנן על אלו טומאות הנזיר מגלח על המת ועל כזית מן המת The Gemara again challenges the explanation that the first clause of the mishna is referring to a fetus: And how can you say that both prohibitions come into effect at the same time? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nazir 49b): A nazirite shaves for having become impure from these sources of ritual impurity: For impurity imparted by a corpse and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse.

וקשיא לן על כזית מן המת מגלח על כולו לא כל שכן ואמר רבי יוחנן לא נצרכה אלא לנפל שלא נקשרו אבריו בגידין And the clause: For impurity imparted by a corpse, is difficult for us, as it seems unnecessary; if a nazirite must shave for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse, is it not all the more so true that he must shave for impurity imparted by an entire corpse? And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is necessary only for a miscarried human fetus whose limbs had not yet become joined to its sinews. Since the spine is complete the fetus is considered a full corpse, but as the limbs have not yet joined to the sinews it does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh.

אלמא איסור מוקדשין קדים Evidently, the limbs of the body are formed before the nerves and sinews, and therefore the prohibition of eating sacrificial animals precedes the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve.

אע"ג דאיסור מוקדשין קדים אתי איסור גיד חייל עלייהו שכן איסורו נוהג בבני נח The Gemara answers: Even though the prohibition of eating sacrificial animals precedes the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve comes and takes effect upon the offspring of consecrated animals, because the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve adds an extra stringency in that it applies also to descendants of Noah. The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was in effect from the time Jacob wrestled with the angel (see Genesis 32:25–33), before the Torah was given. At that time, Jacob and his sons had the status of descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles. Therefore, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve is broader than the prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals, which took effect only when the Torah was given.

מאן שמעת ליה האי סברא ר' יהודה והא מתניתין דלא כרבי יהודה דקתני נוהג בבהמה ובחיה בירך של ימין ובירך של שמאל The Gemara challenges this answer: Whom did you hear holds in accordance with this reasoning? It is Rabbi Yehuda, cited in a later mishna (100b). But the mishna here is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it teaches that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to domesticated animals and to undomesticated animals, to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition applies only with regard to the sciatic nerve in the thigh of one leg (see 90b).

האי תנא סבר לה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא The Gemara explains: The tanna of this mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one halakha, i.e., that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to the descendants of Noah, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one halakha and holds that the prohibition applies to the sciatic nerves of both legs.

אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהודה בטמאה דאיסור לאו קדשים דאיסור כרת מי שמעת ליה The Gemara challenges: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda rules that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve takes effect in addition to the prohibition with regard to a non-kosher animal, which is a prohibition punishable by lashes. Since the prohibition of the sciatic nerve is broader in that it applies to the descendants of Noah, it takes effect even though the animal is already prohibited as being not kosher. But in the case of sacrificial animals, whose consumption by an impure person is a prohibition punishable by karet, did you hear that Rabbi Yehuda considers the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve more stringent, such that it takes effect even though the animal is already prohibited? Therefore, this answer is rejected.

אלא הכא במבכרת עסקינן דברחם קדוש The Gemara offers an alternative answer: Rather, here in the mishna we are dealing with a non-sacred animal giving birth to its firstborn, which becomes sanctified as it leaves the womb. The mishna teaches that although the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve does not apply to the offspring of sacrificial animals, because their sacrificial status renders them prohibited for consumption before the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect, that is not the case with regard to a firstborn. The sanctified status of a firstborn takes effect only as it leaves the womb, which is after the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect.

ואי בעית אימא ולדות קדשים בהווייתן הן קדושים And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is dealing with the offspring of all sacrificial animals, and this tanna holds that such animals are sanctified only when they come into being as independent creatures, i.e., at birth. Consequently, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect before the animal becomes prohibited at the time of its birth; or, according to the opinion that the sciatic nerve is permitted in a fetus, the two prohibitions take effect simultaneously.

אמר רבי חייא בר יוסף לא שנו אלא קדשים הנאכלין אבל קדשים שאינן נאכלין אין איסור גיד נוהג בהן ורבי יוחנן אמר אחד קדשים הנאכלין ואחד קדשים שאין נאכלין איסור גיד נוהג בהן § Having addressed the need for the mishna to state that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies with regard to sacrificial animals, the Gemara discusses which types of sacrificial animals are included in this prohibition. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: The Sages taught that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only with regard to sacrificial animals that are eaten, e.g., sin offerings, guilt offerings and peace offerings; but with regard to sacrificial animals that are not eaten, e.g., burnt offerings, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies both with regard to sacrificial animals that are eaten and with regard to sacrificial animals that are not eaten.

אמר רב פפא ולא פליגי כאן להלקותו כאן להעלותו Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoḥanan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies with regard to flogging one who eats it. There, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply with regard to bringing the meat of the animal up to the altar, i.e., offerings that are burned on the altar are brought up with the sciatic nerve. Burning the sciatic nerve on the altar is not comparable to eating it and is not prohibited.

איכא דאמרי אמר רב פפא ולא פליגי כאן לחלצו וכאן להעלותו There are those who say that Rav Pappa said as follows: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoḥanan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply to burnt offerings, in that one is not required to remove it before burning the offering on the altar. There, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that he prohibition does apply, in that if one did remove the sciatic nerve, it is prohibited to bring it up onto the altar independently.

רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר להעלותו פליגי דתניא (ויקרא א, ט) והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה לרבות העצמות והגידין והקרנים והטלפים Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak disagreed with Rav Pappa and said: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree with regard to whether it is permitted to bring up the sciatic nerve to the altar even when it remains in the thigh. As it is taught in a baraita: In the verse: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9), the term “it all” serves to include the bones, and the sinews, and the horns, and the hooves among those items burned on the altar.

יכול אפילו פרשו ת"ל (דברים יב, כז) ועשית עולותיך הבשר והדם One might have thought that even if they became detached from the flesh of the burnt offering they are burned upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only the flesh and the blood are offered upon the altar.

אי בשר ודם יכול יחלוץ גידים ועצמות ויעלה בשר לגבי מזבח ת"ל (ויקרא א, ט) והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה הא כיצד מחוברין יעלו פרשו אפילו בראשו של מזבח ירדו The baraita continues: If it is only the flesh and the blood that are offered on the altar, one might have thought that a priest must first remove the sinews and bones from an offering and only then may he bring up the flesh to be burned upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,” including the sinews and bones. How can these texts be reconciled? If the sinews and bones are attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they became detached from the flesh, then even if they are already at the top of the altar, they shall descend.

ומאן תנא דשמעת ליה דאמר פרשו ירדו רבי היא דתניא והקטיר הכהן את הכל לרבות העצמות והגידים והקרנים והטלפים ואפילו פרשו The Gemara comments: And who is the tanna that you heard, who said if they became detached from the flesh, they shall descend? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: In the verse that states: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,” the term “it all” serves to include the bones, and the sinews, and the horns, and the hooves among those items burned on the altar, and that is the halakha even if they became detached from the flesh of the offering.

והא מה אני מקיים ועשית עולותיך הבשר והדם בפוקעין הא כיצד עיכולי בשר אתה מחזיר ואי אתה מחזיר עיכולי גידים ועצמות The baraita continues: But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27), which indicates that only the flesh and blood of an offering are offered on the altar? It is referring to parts of the offering that become dislodged from the fire. How so? If the partially consumed flesh of a burnt offering is dislodged from the altar, you return it to the fire, but you do not return the partially consumed sinews and bones that become dislodged.

רבי אומר כתוב אחד אומר והקטיר הכהן את הכל ריבה וכתוב אחד אומר ועשית עולותיך הבשר והדם מיעט הא כיצד מחוברין יעלו פרשו אפילו בראשו של מזבח ירדו The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,” which included sinews and bones. And one verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” which excluded any part other than the flesh and the blood. How can these texts be reconciled? If the sinews and bones were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they became detached from the flesh, then even if they are already on top of the altar, they shall descend.

ורבנן מחוברין לא איצטריך קרא לרבויי מידי דהוה אראשה של עולה כי איצטריך קרא לפרשו The Gemara explains their dispute: And the Rabbis hold that with regard to sinews and bones that are attached to the flesh it was not necessary for a verse to include the obligation to bring them up to the altar. It is clear that they must be brought up, just as it is the halakha that the head of a burnt offering, which contains many bones, is brought up, as stated explicitly in the verse: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, and the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire that is upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:8). When a verse was necessary it was for the case where the sinews and bones became detached from the flesh. Consequently, when the verse uses the inclusive phrase “it all,” it is to include sinews and bones that became detached.

ורבי מחוברין דהיתירא But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that with regard to sinews and bones that are attached to the flesh and that are permitted to be eaten,

לא איצטריך קרא לרבויי כי איצטריך קרא לגיד הנשה במחובר it was not necessary for the verse to include them. When a verse was necessary it was for the sciatic nerve that is still attached to the flesh. The term “it all” teaches that if the sciatic nerve is attached to the flesh it is brought up to the altar.

ורבנן (יחזקאל מה, טו) ממשקה ישראל מן המותר לישראל And the Rabbis would explain their opinion based upon the verse: “And one lamb of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-watered pastures [mimashke] of Israel; for a meal offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make atonement for them, says the Lord God” (Ezekiel 45:15). Since the term mashke also means beverage, which is consumed, the verse is interpreted to mean that offerings may be sacrificed only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people for consumption. Since the sciatic nerve is not permitted for consumption, it may not be sacrificed on the altar. Consequently, the term “it all” is understood to include sinews and bones even if they have become detached from the flesh.

ורבי מידי דהוה אחלב ודם ורבנן מצותן בכך שאני And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would respond that a sciatic nerve that is attached to the flesh may be brought up to the altar, just as it is permitted to sacrifice forbidden fat and blood upon the altar even though they are forbidden for consumption. And the Rabbis would say that forbidden fat and blood are different, because the Torah explicitly states that their mitzva is to be offered on the altar in this way, whereas the Torah never mandates the sacrifice of the sciatic nerve upon the altar. According to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef agrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the sciatic nerve is offered upon the altar together with the rest of the animal, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the sciatic nerve is not offered upon the altar.

אמר רב הונא גיד הנשה של עולה חולצו לתפוח אמר רב חסדא מרי דיכי מי כתיב על כן לא יאכל המזבח (בראשית לב, לג) על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל כתיב § The Gemara cites another discussion with regard to the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering. Rav Huna says: The sciatic nerve of a burnt offering is not placed upon the altar with the rest of the animal. Rather, one removes it and places it on the circular mound of ashes in the center of the altar. Rav Ḥisda said: Master of this [mari dikhi] ruling! Is it written in the Torah: Therefore the altar does not consume the sciatic nerve? This would indicate that it is prohibited to sacrifice the sciatic nerve on the altar. Rather, it is written: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33).

ורב הונא ממשקה ישראל מן המותר לישראל And Rav Huna holds that the phrase: “From the well-watered pastures of Israel,” indicates that offerings may be sacrificed only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people. Since the sciatic nerve is not permitted for consumption, it may not be sacrificed upon the altar.

מיתיבי גיד הנשה של שלמים מכבדו לאמה ושל עולה מעלהו מאי לאו מעלהו ומקטירו The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna’s opinion. It is taught in a baraita: What should one do with the sciatic nerve of a peace offering, since the meat of the offering must be eaten but the sciatic nerve is forbidden? One sweeps it to the Temple courtyard drain. And in the case of the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering, one brings it up to the altar. The Gemara comments: What, is it not that the baraita means that he brings it up to the altar and burns it with the rest of the animal, which contradicts the statement of Rav Huna?

לא מעלהו וחולצו ומאחר שחולצו למה מעלהו משום שנאמר (מלאכי א, ח) הקריבהו נא לפחתך The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that he brings it up to the altar and removes it from the thigh before placing the thigh on the fire. The Gemara asks: But since he removes it from the thigh, why does he bring it up to the altar? The Gemara answers that one cannot bring the thigh up to the altar after the sciatic nerve has been removed because it is stated with regard to one who sacrifices offerings that are damaged or unattractive: “Present it now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you, or will he accept your person? says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:8). Consequently, the leg of the animal must be brought up to the altar while it is whole, and the sciatic nerve must be removed on top of the altar.

תניא כוותיה דרב הונא גיד הנשה של שלמים מכבדו לאמה ושל עולה חולצו לתפוח It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna: With regard to the sciatic nerve of a peace offering, one sweeps it into the Temple courtyard drain; and with regard to the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering, one removes it and places it on the circular mound of ashes in the center of the altar.

תנן התם תפוח היה באמצע המזבח פעמים היה עליו כשלש מאות כור אמר רבא גוזמא We learned in a mishna there (Tamid 28b): There was a circular mound of ashes in the center of the altar, and sometimes there was as much as three hundred kor of ashes upon it. Rava said: This description is an exaggeration [guzma]; the tanna means merely that there was a significant quantity of ashes.

השקו את התמיד בכוס של זהב אמר רבא גוזמא Similarly, it is taught in a mishna (Tamid 30a) that before slaughtering the daily offering the priests gave the lamb selected for the daily offering water to drink in a golden cup, in order to render the animal easier to flay after slaughter. With regard to this mishna, Rava said: It is an exaggeration, as the priests did not actually let the animal drink from a golden vessel.

אמר רבי אמי דברה תורה לשון הואי דברו נביאים לשון הואי דברו חכמים לשון הואי דברו חכמים לשון הואי הא דאמרן The Gemara provides other examples of statements not meant literally. Rabbi Ami says: In some instances, the Torah spoke employing exaggerated [havai] language, the Prophets spoke employing exaggerated language, and the Sages spoke employing exaggerated language. The fact that the Sages spoke employing exaggerated language is evident from that which we stated above, concerning the mound of ashes and the lamb of the daily offering.

דברה תורה לשון הואי (דברים א, כח) ערים גדולות ובצורות בשמים דברו נביאים לשון הואי (מלכים א א, מ) ותבקע הארץ לקולם The Torah spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written: “Hear, Israel: You are passing over the Jordan this day, to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, cities great and fortified up to heaven” (Deuteronomy 9:1), whereas the fortifications obviously did not actually reach up to heaven. The Prophets spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written with regard to the coronation of King Solomon: “And all the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them” (I Kings 1:40), where the verse means merely that the sound was very loud.

אמר ר' יצחק בר נחמני אמר שמואל בשלשה מקומות דברו חכמים לשון הואי אלו הן תפוח גפן ופרוכת תפוח הא דאמרן Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani says that Shmuel says: In three places the Sages spoke in exaggerated language, and they are with regard to the circular mound of ashes on the altar; the vine; and the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies. The case of the circular mound of ashes is that which we said.

גפן דתנן גפן של זהב היתה עומדת על פתחו של היכל ומודלה על גבי כלונסות וכל מי שהיה מתנדב גרגיר או אשכול מביא ותולה בה אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק מעשה היה ונמנו עליה שלש מאות כהנים לפנותה The case of the vine is as we learned in a mishna (Middot 36a): A golden ornament in the form of a vine was standing at the entrance to the Sanctuary, and it was hung upon poles. And whoever would donate an ornamental golden leaf, grape, or cluster of grapes to the Temple would bring it to the Temple and hang it upon the vine. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: There was once an incident, and three hundred priests were enlisted to move the vine because of its immense weight. According to Shmuel, this description is also an exaggeration.

פרוכת דתנן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר משום רבי שמעון הסגן פרוכת עוביה טפח ועל שבעים ושנים נירים נארגת ועל כל נימה ונימה עשרים וארבעה חוטין ארכה ארבעים באמה ורחבה עשרים באמה ומשמונים ושתי רבוא נעשת ושתים עושים בשנה ושלש מאות כהנים מטבילין אותה: The case of the Curtain is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 8:2): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, the deputy High Priest: The Curtain is the thickness of a handbreadth [tefaḥ]. It is woven from seventy-two strands [nirim] of yarn, and each and every strand [nima] of those seventy-two is made from twenty-four threads consisting of six threads each of sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen. Its length is forty cubits, the height of the Sanctuary, and its width is twenty cubits, the width of the entrance. And it is made from eighty-two ten-thousands, i.e., 820,000 dinars. And the overseers of the Temple make two new Curtains every year. And the Curtain was so heavy that when it was immersed, three hundred priests would immerse it.

בירך של ימין ובירך של שמאל: מתני׳ לא כרבי יהודה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר אינו נוהג אלא באחת והדעת מכרעת את של ימין § The mishna teaches that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg. The Gemara says: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only to the sciatic nerve in one of the animal’s thighs, and logic dictates that it is the right thigh.

איבעיא להו מיפשט פשיטא ליה לרבי יהודה ומאי דעת דעת תורה או דלמא ספוקי מספקא ליה ומאי דעת דעת נוטה A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the prohibition applies only to the sciatic nerve in the right thigh, and accordingly, what does he mean when he says that logic dictates? He means the logic of the Torah. Or perhaps he is uncertain as to whether it applies only to the right thigh or only to the left, and accordingly, what does he mean when he says that logic dictates? He means that logic inclines one to believe that the prohibition applies to the right thigh.

ת"ש העצמות והגידים והנותר ישרפו לששה עשר והוינן בה הני גידי מאי עבידתייהו אי גידי בשר ליכלינהו ואי דאייתור היינו נותר אלא גידי צואר אי לאו בשר נינהו לישדינהו The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution based upon the following mishna (Pesaḥim 83a): The bones of the Paschal offering that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is prohibited to break the bones of the Paschal offering; and the sinews; and the leftover meat should all be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan, not on the fifteenth, the first day of Passover. And we discussed it: What are the circumstances in which these sinews must be burned? If we say they are sinews of meat, let one eat them. Why are they burned? And if they are sinews that were left over and not eaten, that is the case of leftover meat; why does the mishna list sinews separately? Rather, the mishna is referring to sinews of the neck, which are different from other sinews and are therefore mentioned separately. But if they are not meat, why do they require burning? Let one simply discard them like other waste.

ואמר רב חסדא לא נצרכא אלא לגיד הנשה ואליבא דרבי יהודה דאמר אינו נוהג אלא באחת And Rav Ḥisda said: The mishna’s mention of sinews is necessary only in order to teach the halakha of the sciatic nerve, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only to the sciatic nerve in one of the animal’s thighs, and not to both.

אי אמרת בשלמא ספוקי מספקא ליה שפיר אלא אי אמרת מיפשט פשיטא ליה דהיתירא ליכליה דאיסורא לשדייה The Gemara explains how this resolves the dilemma: Granted if you say that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain as to whether it is the sciatic nerve of the right or the left thigh, it works out well. Since it is uncertain which thigh may be eaten, one may not eat either of them, and one must burn each of them on the sixteenth due to the possibility that it was the permitted one and now has the status of leftover meat. But if you say that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve of only the right thigh is forbidden, let him eat the sciatic nerve of the permitted left thigh, and let him throw away only the sciatic nerve of the forbidden right thigh. Neither one should be burned.

אמר רב איקא בר חנינא לעולם אימא לך מיפשט פשיטא ליה והכא במאי עסקינן כשהוכרו ולבסוף נתערבו The Gemara responds: Rav Ika bar Ḥanina said: Actually I could say to you that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve of only the right thigh is forbidden. Nevertheless, here we are dealing with a case where the sciatic nerves were identified and removed, but ultimately the sciatic nerves became intermingled and one cannot tell which is from the right thigh and which is from the left thigh. Consequently, they must both be left over until the next day and then burned.

רב אשי אמר לא נצרכא אלא לשמנו דתניא שמנו מותר וישראל קדושים נהגו בו איסור Rav Ashi said: The mishna’s ruling that the sinews must be burned is necessary only with regard to the fat around the sciatic nerve, as it is taught in a baraita: The fat around the sciatic nerve is permitted by Torah law, but the Jewish people are holy and treated it as forbidden. Since it is permitted by Torah law, it has the status of sacrificial meat and may not be simply discarded. Nevertheless, since the Jewish people treat it as forbidden, they do not eat it even from the Paschal offering, despite the mitzva to eat that offering in its entirety. Therefore, it is left until after the time when the meat may be eaten and it is burned as leftover sacrificial meat.

רבינא אמר לא נצרכא אלא לכדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שני גידין הן פנימי סמוך לעצם אסור וחייבין עליו חיצון סמוך לבשר אסור ואין חייבין עליו Ravina said: The mishna’s statement is necessary only with regard to the outer nerve, and it is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There are two nerves included in the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. The inner nerve that is next to the bone is forbidden by Torah law, and one is liable to be flogged for eating it. The outer nerve that is next to the flesh is forbidden by rabbinic law, and therefore one is not liable to be flogged for eating it. In the case of a Paschal offering, since the outer nerve is permitted by Torah law, it assumes the status of leftover sacrificial meat when it is not eaten.

ת"ש אכל מזה כזית ומזה כזית סופג שמונים רבי יהודה אומר אינו סופג אלא ארבעים The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another resolution to the dilemma about Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, from a mishna (96a): If one ate an olive-bulk from this sciatic nerve of the right leg and an olive-bulk from that sciatic nerve of the left leg, he incurs eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes.

אי אמרת בשלמא מיפשט פשיטא ליה שפיר אלא אי אמרת ספוקי מספקא ליה הויא לה התראת ספק ושמעינן ליה לרבי יהודה דאמר התראת ספק לא שמה התראה Granted, if you say it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve of the right thigh is the one forbidden by Torah law, it is well. But if you say he is uncertain, why would he hold that one incurs any lashes? When the individual is forewarned not to partake of each sciatic nerve, which is necessary in order to be liable for incurring lashes, it is an uncertain forewarning, and we have heard about Rabbi Yehuda that he said: An uncertain forewarning is not characterized as forewarning.

דתניא הכה את זה וחזר והכה את זה קלל את זה וחזר וקלל את זה הכה שניהם בבת אחת או שקלל שניהם בבת אחת חייב רבי יהודה אומר בבת אחת חייב בזה אחר זה פטור As it is taught in a baraita: If one is uncertain which of two men is his father and he struck this one and then struck that one, or cursed this one and then cursed that one, or struck both of them simultaneously, or cursed both of them simultaneously, he is liable to receive the death penalty, as he certainly struck or cursed his father. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he struck or cursed both of them simultaneously he is liable, provided he was forewarned that his action will certainly render him liable to receive the death penalty. But if he struck or cursed them one after the other he is exempt. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that one is not punished after uncertain forewarning; since in this case it is impossible to determine which of them is the father, inevitably each forewarning is uncertain. Similarly, if Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain which sciatic nerve is forbidden by Torah law, he should hold that since the forewarning before eating either sciatic nerve is uncertain, one who consumes both should be exempt.

האי תנא סבר לה כאידך תנא דרבי יהודה דאמר התראת ספק שמה התראה The Gemara answers: This tanna of that mishna, on 96a, holds in accordance with the opinion of another tanna with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that Rabbi Yehuda holds that an uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning.

דתניא (שמות יב, י) לא תותירו ממנו עד בקר וגו' בא הכתוב ליתן עשה אחר לא תעשה לומר שאין לוקין עליו דברי ר' יהודה As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the leftover meat after it has taught a prohibition against leaving it over, to say that one is not flogged for violation of the prohibition; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is not flogged for any transgression that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva.

רבי יעקב אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא משום דהוה לאו שאין בו מעשה וכל לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו Rabbi Ya’akov says: This, the halakha that one is not flogged, is not for that reason. Rather, it is because leaving over sacrificial meat is a prohibition that does not involve an action, as one violates the prohibition through failure to take action, and concerning any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation. The forewarning one could receive for this transgression is an uncertain one, because witnesses who forewarn the individual cannot be certain until daybreak that he will leave it over. Nevertheless, this baraita indicates that if not for the fact that leaving over sacrificial meat can be rectified by a positive mitzva, Rabbi Yehuda would hold that one is flogged for leaving over sacrificial meat.

ת"ש אכל ב' גידין מב' ירכות מב' בהמות סופג פ' רבי יהודה אומר אינו סופג אלא ארבעים The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the uncertainty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda from a baraita: If one ate two sciatic nerves from two thighs of two different animals, he incurs eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes.

מדקאמר מב' ירכות מב' בהמות פשיטא דתרוייהו לאיסורא ולרבי יהודה איצטריך ש"מ מיפשט פשיטא ליה ש"מ The Gemara comments: From the fact that the first tanna said that he was referring to two thighs of two different animals, it is obvious that he meant they were both from the right thigh, because if one were from the right thigh and one were from the left thigh it would not matter if they were from two different animals or from the same animal. Consequently, both sciatic nerves are definitely forbidden by Torah law, and according to the first tanna one incurs eighty lashes for eating them. And it was necessary to teach that according to Rabbi Yehuda one incurs only forty lashes, as will be explained. Conclude from this baraita that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that it is the sciatic nerve of the right thigh that is forbidden by Torah law. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

ואי פשיטא ליה אמאי סופג מ' ותו לא לילקי פ' הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דלית בו כזית דתניא אכלו ואין בו כזית חייב רבי יהודה אומר עד שיהא בו כזית The Gemara seeks to clarify the baraita: But if it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve from the right thigh is prohibited by Torah law, why does he incur forty lashes and nothing more? Let him be flogged eighty times. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the volume of one of the sciatic nerves is not an olive-bulk, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that in such a case one is not flogged for its consumption. As it is taught in a baraita: If one ate the entire sciatic nerve and its volume is not an olive-bulk, he is nevertheless liable to be flogged, because he ate a complete, natural unit of forbidden food. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is not liable unless it has a volume of at least an olive-bulk.

וטעמא מאי אמר רבא אמר קרא הירך המיומנת שבירך The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda holds that only the sciatic nerve of the right thigh is forbidden by Torah law? Rava said that it is because the verse states: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve that is upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33). The definite article indicates that this is referring to the most important thigh.

ורבנן ההוא דפשיט איסוריה בכוליה ירך לאפוקי חיצון דלא And the Rabbis, who hold that the sciatic nerves of both the right and left thighs are forbidden by Torah law, explain the definite article as teaching that the prohibition applies to the one whose prohibition spreads through the entire thigh, i.e., the inner nerve. This serves to exclude the outer nerve, which is not prohibited by Torah law.

וריב"ל אמר אמר קרא (בראשית לב, כו) בהאבקו עמו כאדם שחובק את חבירו וידו מגעת לכף ימינו של חבירו And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sciatic nerve of the right thigh is forbidden because the verse states: “And when he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the spoon of his thigh; and the spoon of Jacob’s thigh was strained, as he wrestled with him” (Genesis 32:26). The angel grappled with Jacob like a man who hugs another in order to throw him to the ground, and his hand reaches to the spoon of the right thigh of the other.

רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר כעובד כוכבים נדמה לו דאמר מר ישראל שנטפל לו עובד כוכבים בדרך טופלו לימינו Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: The angel appeared to him as a gentile, as the Master said: A Jew who is joined by a gentile on the road and continues his travels with him should position the gentile to his right, close to one’s dominant hand. This allows the Jew to defend himself against any potential attack. Since Jacob followed this practice, it was therefore Jacob’s right thigh that the angel touched.

רב שמואל בר אחא קמיה דרב פפא משמיה דרבא בר עולא אמר כת"ח נדמה לו דאמר מר המהלך לימין רבו הרי זה בור Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa said before Rav Pappa in the name of Rava bar Ulla that the angel appeared to Jacob as a Torah scholar, and therefore Jacob positioned the angel on his right side, as the Master said: One who walks to the right of his teacher is an ignoramus, in that he does not know how to act with good manners. Consequently, it was Jacob’s right thigh that the angel touched.

ורבנן מאחוריה אתא ונשייה בתרוייהו And the Rabbis, who hold that the sciatic nerves of both thighs are forbidden, understand that the angel came from behind Jacob and hit him on both thighs.

ורבנן האי בהאבקו עמו מאי דרשי ביה מבעי ליה לכאידך דר' יהושע בן לוי דאמר ר' יהושע ב"ל מלמד שהעלו אבק מרגלותם עד כסא הכבוד כתיב הכא בהאבקו עמו וכתיב התם (נחום א, ג) וענן אבק רגליו The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they derive from this phrase: “As he wrestled with him” (Genesis 32:26)? The Gemara answers: They require it for the other interpretation of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This teaches that the dust [avak] from their feet ascended to the throne of glory. It is written here: “As he wrestled [behe’avko] with him,” and it is written there in a description of how God will punish the wicked: “The Lord, in the whirlwind and in the storm is His way, and the clouds are the dust of His feet” (Nahum 1:3).

ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי למה נקרא שמו גיד הנשה שנשה ממקומו ועלה וכן הוא אומר (ירמיהו נא, ל) נשתה גבורתם היו לנשים § The Gemara cites another statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi concerning the sciatic nerve: And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Why is its name called sciatic nerve [gid hanashe]? It is because the sciatic nerve left [nasha] its place and rose. And similarly the verse says: “The mighty men of Babylon have ceased to fight, they remain in their strongholds; their might has left [nashata], they are become as women” (Jeremiah 51:30).

אמר ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו ט, ז) דבר שלח ביעקב ונפל בישראל דבר שלח ביעקב זה גיד הנשה ונפל בישראל שפשט איסורו בכל ישראל The Gemara continues with other expositions pertaining to the sciatic nerve. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Lord sent a word to Jacob, and it has fallen upon Israel” (Isaiah 9:7)? “He sent a word to Jacob”; this is a reference to the sciatic nerve. “And it has fallen upon Israel”; this teaches that its prohibition has been extended to the entire Jewish people.

ואמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מאי דכתיב (בראשית מג, טז) וטבוח טבח והכן פרע להן בית השחיטה והכן טול גיד הנשה בפניהם כמ"ד גיד הנשה נאסר לבני נח And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the steward of his house: Bring the men into the house, and slaughter the animals, and prepare the meat; for the men shall dine with me at noon” (Genesis 43:16)? Joseph commanded his steward: Expose the place of the slaughter on the neck of the animal to them so that the brothers will know that it is being slaughtered correctly. “And prepare” teaches that Joseph instructed the steward to remove the sciatic nerve in their presence so that the brothers would know that it had been fully removed. The Gemara comments that this opinion is according to the one who said that the sciatic nerve was forbidden to the children of Jacob even before the Torah was given, when they still had the status of descendants of Noah.

(בראשית לב, כה) ויותר יעקב לבדו אמר רבי אלעזר שנשתייר על פכין קטנים מכאן לצדיקים שחביב עליהם ממונם יותר מגופם וכל כך למה לפי שאין פושטין ידיהן בגזל The Gemara returns to the verse of Jacob wrestling with the angel. The verse states: “And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day” (Genesis 32:25). Rabbi Elazar says: The reason Jacob remained alone was that he remained to collect some small pitchers that had been left behind. From here it is derived that the possessions of the righteous are dearer to them than their bodies. And why do they care so much about their possessions? It is because they do not stretch out their hands to partake of stolen property.

(בראשית לב, כה) ויאבק איש עמו עד עלות השחר אמר רבי יצחק מכאן לת"ח שלא יצא יחידי בלילה רבי אבא בר כהנא אמר מהכא The verse states: “And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.” Rabbi Yitzḥak says: From here it is derived that a Torah scholar should not go out of his house alone at night, as Jacob went out alone at night and was injured. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said that the source for this instruction is from here:

הנה הוא זורה את גורן השעורים “And now is there not Boaz our kinsman, whose maidens you were with? Behold, he winnows barley tonight in the threshing floor…and it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall mark the place where he shall lie” (Ruth 3:2–3). This teaches that the reason Boaz did not return home from the threshing floor was that a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night.

רבי אבהו אמר מהכא (בראשית כב, ג) וישכם אברהם בבקר ויחבוש את וגו' Rabbi Abbahu said that the source is from here: “And Abraham rose early in the morning, and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went to the place that God had told him” (Genesis 22:3). The fact that Abraham waited until morning and did not set off at night, even though others were traveling with him, indicates that a Torah scholar should not go out at night at all, and certainly not alone.

ורבנן אמרי מהכא (בראשית לז, יד) לך נא ראה את שלום אחיך ואת שלום וגו' And the Rabbis say that the source is from here, the verse that describes when Jacob sent Joseph to his brothers: “And he said to him: Go now, see whether it is well with you brothers and well with the flock; and bring me back word. So he sent him out of the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem” (Genesis 37:14). The verse indicates that Jacob sent Joseph at a time when he could see his brothers, i.e., during the day. This shows that a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night.

רב אמר מהכא (בראשית לב, לב) ויזרח לו השמש Rav said that the source is from here: “And the sun rose for him as he passed over Peniel, and he limped upon his thigh” (Genesis 32:32). This indicates that Jacob remained where he was all night and left in the morning, because a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night.

אמר ר' עקיבא שאלתי את רבן גמליאל ואת רבי יהושע באיטליז של אימאום שהלכו ליקח בהמה למשתה בנו של רבן גמליאל כתיב ויזרח לו השמש וכי שמש לו לבד זרחה והלא לכל העולם זרחה The Gemara cites an incident involving the final verse cited above. Rabbi Akiva says: I asked the following question of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market [be’itliz] of the town Emmaus, where they went to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel’s son: It is written in the verse: “And the sun shone for him when he passed Peniel, and he limped upon his thigh” (Genesis 32:32). But did the sun shine only for him? Didn’t it shine for the entire world?

אמר ר' יצחק שמש הבאה בעבורו זרחה בעבורו דכתיב (בראשית כח, י) ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע וילך חרנה וכתיב ויפגע במקום כי מטא לחרן אמר אפשר עברתי על מקום שהתפללו אבותי ואני לא התפללתי כד יהיב דעתיה למיהדר קפצה ליה ארעא מיד ויפגע במקום Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The verse means that the sun, which set early exclusively for him, also shone early exclusively for him in order to rectify the disparity created by the premature sunset. The Gemara explains when the sun set early for him: As it is written: “And Jacob went out from Beersheba and went toward Haran” (Genesis 28:10). And it is written thereafter: “And he encountered the place, and he slept there, because the sun had set” (Genesis 28:11). When Jacob arrived at Haran, he said: Is it possible that I passed a place where my fathers prayed and I did not pray there? When he set his mind to return, the land contracted for him. Immediately the verse states: “And he encountered the place,” indicating that he arrived there miraculously.

כד צלי בעי למיהדר אמר הקב"ה צדיק זה בא לבית מלוני ויפטר בלא לינה מיד בא השמש When he had finished praying and he wanted to return to Haran, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: This righteous man came to my lodging place and he will depart without remaining overnight? Immediately, the sun set before its proper time so that Jacob would stay overnight in that place.

כתיב (בראשית כח, יא) ויקח מאבני המקום וכתיב ויקח את האבן אמר רבי יצחק מלמד שנתקבצו כל אותן אבנים למקום אחד וכל אחת ואחת אומרת עלי יניח צדיק זה ראשו תנא וכולן נבלעו באחד The Gemara cites another exposition of Rabbi Yitzḥak to explain an apparent contradiction between two verses pertaining to this incident. It is written: “And he took of the stones of the place, and placed them under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep” (Genesis 28:11). And it is written: “And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and he took the stone that he had placed under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it” (Genesis 28:18). The first verse indicates that Jacob took several stones, whereas the latter verse indicates that he took only one stone. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: This teaches that all those stones gathered to one place and each one said: Let this righteous man place his head upon me. And it was taught: And all of them were absorbed into one large rock.

(בראשית כח, יב) ויחלום והנה סולם מוצב ארצה תנא כמה רחבו של סולם שמונת אלפים פרסאות דכתיב (בראשית כח, יב) והנה מלאכי אלהים עולים ויורדים בו עולים שנים ויורדים שנים וכי פגעו בהדי הדדי הוו להו ארבעה The Gemara expounds other verses pertaining to the same incident. The verse states: “And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it” (Genesis 28:12). It was taught: How wide was the ladder? It was eight thousand parasangs [parsaot], as it is written: “And behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.” The word “ascending [olim],” written in plural, indicates that there were two angels ascending simultaneously. Likewise, the term “and descending [veyordim],” also in the plural, indicates that two angels were descending simultaneously. And when they met one another they were a total of four in one place, so the ladder must have been wide enough to accommodate four angels.

וכתיב ביה במלאך (דניאל י, ו) וגויתו כתרשיש וגמירי דתרשיש תרי אלפי פרסי הוו And it is written in a verse with regard to an angel: “His body was like Tarshish” (Daniel 10:6). And it is learned as a tradition that the city of Tarshish was two thousand parasangs. Consequently, in order to accommodate four angels, the ladder must have been eight thousands parasangs wide.

תנא עולין ומסתכלין בדיוקנו של מעלה ויורדין ומסתכלין בדיוקנו של מטה בעו לסכוניה מיד (בראשית כח, יג) והנה ה' נצב עליו אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש אלמלא מקרא כתוב אי אפשר לאמרו כאדם שמניף על בנו It was taught that the angels were ascending and gazing at the image of [bidyokeno] Jacob above, engraved on the Throne of Glory, and descending and gazing at his image below. The angels subsequently became jealous of Jacob, and wanted to endanger his life. Immediately Jacob received divine protection, as the verse states: “And behold, the Lord stood over him” (Genesis 28:13). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Were it not written in a verse it would be impossible to utter it, in deference to God, since it describes God as standing over Jacob to protect him from the angels like a man who waves a fan over his son to cool him down.

(בראשית כח, יג) הארץ אשר אתה שוכב עליה וגו' מאי רבותיה אמר רבי יצחק מלמד שקפלה הקב"ה לכל ארץ ישראל והניחה תחת יעקב אבינו שתהא נוחה ליכבש לבניו The Gemara explains another verse from Jacob’s dream. “And behold, the Lord stood over him and said: I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land upon which you lie, to you will I give it, and to your seed” (Genesis 28:13). The Gemara asks: What is the greatness of this promise, i.e., why is it expressed in this way despite the fact that in a literal sense Jacob was lying on a very small amount of land? Rabbi Yitzḥak says: This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, folded up the entirety of Eretz Yisrael and placed it under Jacob, our patriarch, so that it would be easy for his children to conquer.

(בראשית לב, כז) ויאמר שלחני כי עלה השחר אמר לו גנב אתה או קוביוסטוס אתה שמתיירא מן השחר אמר לו מלאך אני ומיום שנבראתי לא הגיע זמני לומר שירה עד עכשיו The Gemara returns to the verses that describe Jacob wrestling with the angel. “And he said: Let me go, for the dawn has risen. And he said: I will not let you go until you bless me” (Genesis 32:27). Jacob said to the angel: Are you a thief, or are you a gambler [kuveyustus], who is afraid of dawn? The angel said to him: I am an angel, and from the day I was created my time to recite a song before God has not arrived, until now. Now I must ascend so that I can sing songs of praise to God.

מסייע ליה לרב חננאל אמר רב דאמר רב חננאל אמר רב שלש כתות של מלאכי השרת אומרות שירה בכל יום אחת אומרת קדוש ואחת אומרת קדוש ואחת אומרת קדוש ה' צבאות The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rav Ḥananel when he related what Rav said. As Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: Three groups of ministering angels recite a song every day from the verse “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord”; one says: “Holy,” and another one says: “Holy,” and another one says: “Holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3).

מיתיבי חביבין ישראל לפני הקב"ה יותר ממלאכי השרת שישראל אומרים שירה בכל שעה ומלאכי השרת אין אומרים שירה אלא פעם אחת ביום ואמרי לה פעם אחת בשבת ואמרי לה פעם אחת בחודש ואמרי לה פעם אחת בשנה ואמרי לה פעם אחת בשבוע ואמרי לה פעם אחת ביובל ואמרי לה פעם אחת בעולם The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: The Jewish people are more dear to the Holy One, Blessed be He, than the ministering angels, as the Jewish people may recite a song of praise to God at any time, but ministering angels recite a song of praise only one time per day. And some say that the ministering angels recite a song of praise one time per week. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time per month. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time per year. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time in every seven years. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time per Jubilee. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time in the entire history of the world.

וישראל מזכירין את השם אחר שתי תיבות שנאמר (דברים ו, ד) שמע ישראל ה' וגו' ומלאכי השרת אין מזכירין את השם אלא לאחר ג' תיבות כדכתיב (ישעיהו ו, ג) קדוש קדוש קדוש ה' צבאות And furthermore, the Jewish people mention the name of God after two words, as it is stated: “Hear, Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). But the ministering angels mention the name of God only after three words, as it is written: “And one called unto another, and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3).

ואין מה"ש אומרים שירה למעלה עד שיאמרו ישראל למטה שנאמר (איוב לח, ז) ברן יחד כוכבי בקר והדר ויריעו כל בני אלהים And the ministering angels do not recite their song above until the Jewish people recite their song below, on earth, as it is stated: “When the morning stars sang together” (Job 38:7), referring to the Jewish people, who are compared to stars; and only then does the verse state: “And all the sons of God shouted for joy,” which is a reference to the angels. This baraita teaches that the angels mention the name of God only after three words, i.e., after saying the word “holy” three times, whereas according to what Rav Ḥananel stated that Rav said, the third group of angels says the word “holy” once and then immediately mentions the name of God.

אלא אחת אומרת קדוש ואחת אומרת קדוש קדוש ואחת אומרת קדוש קדוש קדוש ה' צבאות והאיכא ברוך The Gemara emends Rav Ḥananel’s statement citing Rav: Rather, Rav said that one group of ministering angels says: “Holy,” and another one says: “Holy, holy,” and another one says: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.” The Gemara challenges the statement of the baraita that the angels mention the name of God only after three words: But there is the verse: “Then a spirit lifted me up, and I heard behind me the voice of a great rushing: Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His place” (Ezekiel 3:12). In this praise, “Blessed be the glory of the Lord,” the word “Lord” appears as the third Hebrew word, apparently uttered by the ministering angels.

ברוך אופנים הוא דאמרי ליה ואיבעית אימא כיון דאתיהיב רשותא אתיהיב The Gemara answers that it is the ofanim who say the verse: “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His place,” as the next verse mentions “the noise of the ofanim” (Ezekiel 3:13), and Rav Ḥanina’s statement citing Rav was referring not to ofanim but to ministering angels. And if you wish, say that once permission has been given to them to mention the name of God after three words when they say: “Holy, holy, holy,” permission is also given to them to mention the name of God again while praising Him even after fewer than three words.

(הושע יב, ה) וישר אל מלאך ויוכל בכה ויתחנן לו איני יודע מי נעשה שר למי כשהוא אומר (בראשית לב, כט) כי שרית עם אלהים הוי אומר יעקב נעשה שר למלאך The Gemara continues to discuss Jacob wrestling with the angel. The prophet states: “So he strove [vayyasar] with an angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication to him; at Beth El he would find him, and there he would speak with us” (Hosea 12:5). From this verse I do not know who became master [sar], i.e., was victorious, over whom. When another verse states: “And he said: Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with angels and with men, and have prevailed” (Genesis 32:29), you must say that Jacob became master over the angel.

בכה ויתחנן לו איני יודע מי בכה למי כשהוא אומר ויאמר שלחני הוי אומר מלאך בכה ליעקב The verse in Hosea states: “He wept, and made supplication to him.” From this verse I do not know who cried to whom. When another verse states: “And he said: Let me go, for the dawn has risen” (Genesis 32:27), you must say that the angel cried to Jacob.

כי שרית [עם אלהים ועם אנשים] אמר רבה רמז רמז לו שעתידים שני שרים לצאת ממנו ראש גולה שבבבל ונשיא שבארץ ישראל מכאן רמז לו גלות The verse states: “And he said: Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with angels [elohim] and with men, and have prevailed” (Genesis 32:29). Rabba says: The angel intimated to Jacob that in the future two princes would emerge from him: They are the Exilarch who is in Babylonia and the Nasi who is in Eretz Yisrael. And from here he also intimated to Jacob that there would be an exile.

(בראשית מ, י) ובגפן שלשה שריגים אמר רב חייא בר אבא אמר רב אלו ג' שרי גאים היוצאים מישראל בכל דור ודור פעמים ששנים כאן ואחד בארץ ישראל פעמים ששנים בארץ ישראל ואחד כאן יהיבו רבנן עינייהו ברבנא עוקבא ורבנא נחמיה בני ברתיה דרב Similarly, with regard to the dream of Pharaoh’s butler, the verse states: “And in the vine were three branches [sarigim]; and as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth, and its clusters brought forth ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rav says: These three branches refer to the three proud princes [sarei ge’im] who emerge from the Jewish people in each and every generation. There are times when two are here in Babylonia and one is in Eretz Yisrael, and there are times when two are in Eretz Yisrael and one is here in Babylonia. When this was stated in the study hall, the Sages present turned their eyes toward Rabbana Ukva and Rabbana Neḥemya, the sons of the daughter of Rav, who were from the family of the Exilarch and were two leaders of the generation who resided in Babylonia.

רבא אמר אלו שלשה שרי גוים שמלמדים זכות על ישראל בכל דור ודור Rava says a different explanation of the verse: These three branches [sarigim] are the three ministering angels appointed to oversee the gentiles [sarei goyim], who plead in favor of the Jewish people in each and every generation.

תניא רבי אליעזר אומר גפן זה העולם שלשה שריגים זה אברהם יצחק ויעקב והיא כפורחת עלתה נצה אלו האמהות הבשילו אשכלותיה ענבים אלו השבטים It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says an alternate interpretation of the verse. “Vine”; this is a reference to the world. “Three branches”; this is a reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. “And as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth”; these are the matriarchs. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the twelve tribes, i.e., the twelve sons of Jacob.

אמר לו רבי יהושע וכי מראין לו לאדם מה שהיה והלא אין מראין לו לאדם אלא מה שעתיד להיות אלא גפן זה תורה שלשה שריגים אלו משה ואהרן ומרים והיא כפורחת עלתה נצה אלו סנהדרין הבשילו אשכלותיה ענבים אלו הצדיקים שבכל דור ודור Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: But is a person shown in a dream what was in the past? Isn’t it true that one is shown only what will be in the future? Since the patriarchs, matriarchs, and sons of Jacob were all born prior to this dream, the dream was not alluding to them. Rather, the verse should be interpreted as follows: “Vine”; this is a reference to the Torah. “Three branches”; these are Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “And as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth”; these are the members of the Sanhedrin. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the righteous people who live in each and every generation.

אמר ר"ג עדיין צריכין אנו למודעי דמוקים ליה כוליה בחד מקום רבי אלעזר המודעי אומר גפן זה ירושלים שלשה שריגים זה מקדש מלך וכהן גדול והיא כפורחת עלתה נצה אלו פרחי כהונה הבשילו אשכלותיה ענבים אלו נסכים Rabban Gamliel said: In order to understand this verse (Genesis 40:10) we still need the explanation of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i, who is an expert in matters of aggada, as he interprets all of the phrases in the verse as referring to one location. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: “Vine”; this is a reference to Jerusalem. “Three branches”; this is a reference to the Temple, the king and the High Priest. “And as it was budding [poraḥat], its blossoms shot forth”; these are the young priests [pirḥei khehunna]. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the wine libations.

רבי יהושע בן לוי מוקים לה במתנות דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי גפן זו תורה שלשה שריגים זה באר עמוד ענן ומן והיא כפורחת עלתה נצה אלו הבכורים הבשילו אשכלותיה ענבים אלו נסכים Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi interprets it with reference to the gifts that God gave the Jewish people, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: “Vine”; this is a reference to the Torah. “Three branches”; this is a reference to the miraculous items that accompanied the Jewish people in the wilderness and sustained and protected them: The well, the pillar of cloud, and the manna. “And as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth”; these are the first fruits that are brought to the Temple. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the wine libations.

רבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר גפן אלו ישראל וכן הוא אומר (תהלים פ, ט) גפן ממצרים תסיע שלשה שריגים אלו שלשה רגלים שישראל עולין בהן בכל שנה ושנה והיא כפורחת עלתה נצה הגיע זמנן של ישראל לפרות ולרבות וכן הוא אומר (שמות א, ז) ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: “Vine”; this is a reference to the Jewish people, and similarly another verse states: “You plucked up a vine out of Egypt; You drove out the nations and planted it” (Psalms 80:9). “Three branches”; these are the three pilgrimage Festivals, on which the Jewish people ascend to Jerusalem every year. “And as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth,” means that the time has arrived for the Jewish people to be fruitful and multiply, and similarly another verse states: “And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and became exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them” (Exodus 1:7).

עלתה נצה הגיע זמנן של ישראל ליגאל וכן הוא אומר (ישעיהו סג, ג) ויז נצחם על בגדי וכל מלבושי אגאלתי הבשילו אשכלותיה ענבים הגיע זמנה של מצרים לשתות כוס התרעלה “Its blossoms [nitzah] shot forth” means that the time has arrived for the Jewish people to be redeemed. And similarly another verse states: “And their eternity [nitzḥam] is dashed against My garments, and I have redeemed all My raiment” (Isaiah 63:3). “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes” means that the time has arrived for Egypt to drink the cup of fury, i.e., to receive its punishment.

והיינו דאמר רבא שלשה כוסות האמורות במצרים למה אחד ששתה בימי משה ואחד ששתה בימי פרעה נכה ואחד שעתידה לשתות עם כל העובדי כוכבים And this is as Rava said: Why are there three cups stated with regard to Egypt in the dream of Pharaoh’s butler (see Genesis 40:11)? They are an allusion to three cups of misfortune that would later befall Egypt: One that Egypt drank in the days of Moses during the ten plagues and the Exodus; one that Egypt drank in the days of Pharaoh Nekho, the king of Egypt defeated by Nebuchadnezzar; and one that Egypt will drink in the future with all the other nations, when they are punished in the time of the Messiah.

אמר ליה רבי אבא לרבי ירמיה בר אבא כי דריש להו רב להני קראי באגדתא כוותך דריש להו Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba: When Rav interpreted these verses homiletically he interpreted them according to the way in which you have interpreted them, and not according to any of the other opinions cited above.

אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש אומה זו כגפן נמשלה זמורות שבה אלו בעלי בתים אשכולות שבה אלו תלמידי חכמים עלין שבה אלו עמי הארץ קנוקנות שבה אלו ריקנים שבישראל Similar to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba’s interpretation of the word vine as an allusion to the Jewish people, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This nation is likened to a vine. The branches of the vine support the clusters of grapes, the leaves, and the tendrils; these are represented among the Jewish people by the homeowners, who provide financial support for the entire nation. The clusters of grapes on the vine, these are the Torah scholars. The leaves on the vine, which protect the grapes, these are the ignoramuses, who protect the Torah scholars. The tendrils of the vine, which do not directly serve the grapes themselves, these are the empty ones of the Jewish people.

והיינו דשלחו מתם ליבעי רחמים איתכליא על עליא דאילמלא עליא לא מתקיימין איתכליא And this is the meaning of the instruction that they sent from there, i.e., from Eretz Yisrael: Let the clusters of grapes pray for the leaves, as were it not for the leaves, the clusters of grapes would not survive.

(הושע ג, ב) ואכרה לי בחמשה עשר כסף א"ר יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יהוצדק אין כירה אלא לשון מכירה שנאמר (בראשית נ, ה) בקברי אשר כריתי לי § The Gemara cites homiletical interpretations of other verses that pertain to the leaders of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia. The verse states: “So I bought her [va’ekkereha] to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and a ḥomer of barley, and a half-ḥomer of barley” (Hosea 3:2). Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The term kira, which forms the basis of the verb va’ekkereha, is nothing other than language referring to a sale [mekhira], as it is stated that Joseph said: “My father made me swear, saying: Lo, I die; in my grave that I have acquired [kariti] for me in the land of Canaan, there shall you bury me” (Genesis 50:5).

בחמשה עשר זה ט"ו בניסן שבו נגאלו ישראל ממצרים כסף אלו צדיקים וכן הוא אומר (משלי ז, כ) צרור הכסף לקח בידו Rabbi Yoḥanan continues: “For fifteen pieces of silver”; this is a reference to the fifteenth of Nisan, the date on which the Jewish people were redeemed from Egypt. “Silver”; these are the righteous people. And similarly, another verse states: “He has taken the bag of silver with him” (Proverbs 7:20), a reference to God taking the righteous away prior to the destruction of the First Temple (see Sanhedrin 96b).

חומר שעורים ולתך שעורים אלו מ"ה צדיקים שהעולם מתקיים בהם ואיני יודע אם שלשים כאן וט"ו בארץ ישראל ואם שלשים בארץ ישראל וט"ו כאן כשהוא אומר (זכריה יא, יג) ואקחה שלשים הכסף ואשליך אותו בית ה' אל היוצר הוי אומר שלשים בארץ ישראל וט"ו כאן The verse states: “A ḥomer of barley, and a half-ḥomer of barley.” A ḥomer equals thirty se’a, and a half-ḥomer equals fifteen se’a, totaling forty-five se’a; these are the forty-five righteous individuals in whose merit the world continues to exist. And although the verse alludes to the fact that thirty of these righteous individuals are in one place and fifteen are elsewhere, I do not know if thirty are here in Babylonia and fifteen are in Eretz Yisrael, or if thirty are in Eretz Yisrael and fifteen are here in Babylonia. When it says in a different verse: “And I took the thirty pieces of silver and cast them into the treasury, in the house of the Lord” (Zechariah 11:13), you must say that thirty of the righteous individuals are in Eretz Yisrael and fifteen are here in Babylonia.

אמר אביי ורובייהו משתכחי בבי כנישתא דתותי אפתא והיינו דכתיב (זכריה יא, יב) ואומר אליהם אם טוב בעיניכם הבו שכרי ואם לא חדלו וישקלו את שכרי שלשים כסף Abaye said: And most of the fifteen righteous individuals in Babylonia are found in the synagogue under the upper room. And this is the meaning of that which is written: “And I said to them: If it is good in your eyes, give me my hire; and if not, refrain. And they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver” (Zechariah 11:12).

רבי יהודה אומר אלו שלשים צדיקי אומות העולם שאומות העולם מתקיימים עליהם עולא אמר אלו שלשים מצות שקבלו עליהם בני נח ואין מקיימין אלא שלשה אחת Rabbi Yehuda says: These are the thirty righteous individuals among the nations of the world, in whose merit the nations of the world continue to exist. Ulla says: These are the thirty mitzvot that the descendants of Noah initially accepted upon themselves; but they fulfill only three of them. One of these three mitzvot is

שאין כותבין כתובה לזכרים ואחת שאין שוקלין בשר המת במקולין ואחת שמכבדין את התורה: that they do not write a marriage contract for a wedding between two males; although they violate the prohibition against engaging in homosexuality, they are not so brazen as to write a marriage contract as for a regular marriage. And one of the three mitzvot is that although they are suspected of eating human beings, they do not weigh the flesh of the dead in butcher shops [bemakkulin] and sell it publicly; and one is that they honor the Torah.

ואינו נוהג בעוף: והא קא חזינן דאית ליה אית ליה ולא עגיל § The mishna teaches (89b) that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve does not apply to a bird due to the fact that the verse is referring to the sciatic nerve as being “upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33), and a bird has no spoon of the thigh. The Gemara challenges: But we see that it does have a protrusion of flesh on its thigh. The Gemara answers: It has a protrusion, but that protrusion is not rounded.

בעי רבי ירמיה אית ליה לעוף ועגיל אית ליה לבהמה ולא עגיל מאי בתר דידיה אזלינן או בתר מיניה אזלינן תיקו: Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If a bird has a protrusion on its thigh bone and it is rounded, or an animal has a protrusion on its thigh bone but it is not rounded, what is the halakha? Do we follow it, i.e., does the status of the sciatic nerve depend upon the physical properties of each particular animal, or do we follow its species, so that the sciatic nerve of an animal is always forbidden and that of a bird is always permitted? The Gemara responds: The question shall stand unresolved.

ונוהג בשליל: אמר שמואל וחלבו מותר לדברי הכל § The mishna states that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to a late-term animal fetus in the womb. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus; and its fat is permitted. Shmuel says: When the mishna states: And its fat is permitted, that is according to everyone.

חלבו דמאי אילימא דשליל והא מיפלג פליגי ביה דתניא נוהג בשליל וחלבו אסור דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר אינו נוהג בשליל וחלבו מותר The Gemara asks: The fat of what? If we say that it is referring to the fat of a fetus, don’t the tanna’im disagree about it, as it is taught in a baraita: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to a late-term fetus, and its fat is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply to a late-term fetus, and its fat is permitted.

ואמר ר' אלעזר אמר ר' אושעיא מחלוקת בבן תשעה חי והלך ר"מ לשיטתו ורבי יהודה לשיטתו And Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says in explanation of the baraita: This dispute applies to a nine-month-old, i.e., a full-term, fetus that remains alive after its mother has been slaughtered. And Rabbi Meir followed his general opinion in this regard (see 74a), that this fetus is considered a live animal independent of its mother. Consequently, it must undergo ritual slaughter in order for its meat to be permitted for consumption, and its fats and sciatic nerve are forbidden like those of any other animal. And Rabbi Yehuda followed his general opinion that such a fetus is not considered a live animal but rather part of its mother. Consequently, it does not require ritual slaughter, and its fats and sciatic nerve are permitted.

ואלא חלבו דגיד הא מיפלג פליגי בה דתניא גיד הנשה מחטט אחריו בכל מקום שהוא וחותך שמנו מעיקרו דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר גוממו עם השופי But rather, perhaps Shmuel’s statement was said with regard to the fat of the sciatic nerve. But the tanna’im disagree about this case as well, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the sciatic nerve, one scrapes around it to remove it entirely in any place that it is found in the thigh, and one cuts out its fat from its source, i.e., even the fat that is embedded in the flesh; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: One cuts out the nerve and fat so that they are level with the flesh [hashufi] of the thigh, but there is no need to scrape out the parts embedded in the flesh. Consequently, there is a dispute about the fat surrounding the sciatic nerve as well.

לעולם חלבו דגיד ומודה שמואל דלר"מ מדרבנן אסור דתניא ושמנו מותר וישראל קדושים נהגו בו איסור מאי לאו ר"מ היא דאמר מותר מן התורה ואסור מדרבנן The Gemara answers: Actually, Shmuel was referring to the fat of the sciatic nerve, and Shmuel concedes that according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir the fat surrounding the sciatic nerve is forbidden by rabbinic law but permitted by Torah law. As it is taught in a baraita: Its fat is permitted by Torah law, but the Jewish people are holy and treated it as forbidden. The Gemara infers: What, is it not that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that the fat is permitted by Torah law but forbidden by rabbinic law?

ממאי דילמא רבי יהודה היא אבל לרבי מאיר מדאורייתא נמי אסיר The Gemara challenges this: From where can it be proven that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir it is even forbidden by Torah law.

לא ס"ד דתניא גיד הנשה מחטט אחריו בכל מקום שהוא ושמנו מותר מאן שמעת ליה דאית ליה חטיטה ר"מ וקאמר שמנו מותר The Gemara rejects this challenge: It would not enter your mind that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the sciatic nerve, one scrapes around it to remove it entirely from any place that it is found in the thigh, and its fat is permitted. The Gemara explains: Whom have you heard who holds that scraping is required? It is Rabbi Meir. And the baraita states that its fat is permitted. Consequently, Rabbi Meir must hold that the fat surrounding the sciatic nerve is permitted by Torah law and forbidden by rabbinic law.

אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא אמר רב לא אסרה תורה אלא קנוקנות שבו עולא אמר עץ הוא והתורה חייבה עליו § With regard to the sciatic nerve Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says that Rav says: The Torah prohibited only its thin, tendril-like nerve fibers [kenokanot] that branch off and run alongside the sciatic nerve, under the flesh. By contrast, the sciatic nerve itself, which is inedible and has no flavor, is therefore considered like wood rather than food, and is not forbidden. Conversely, Ulla says: The sciatic nerve is inedible and has no flavor, like wood, but nevertheless the Torah rendered one liable for eating it.

אמר אביי כוותיה דעולא מסתברא דאמר רב ששת אמר רב אסי חוטין שבחלב אסורין ואין חייבין עליהן אלמא חלב אמר רחמנא ולא חוטין הכא נמי גיד אמר רחמנא ולא קנוקנות Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, because Rav Sheshet said that Rav Asi said: The strands of veins that are in the forbidden fat are forbidden, but one is not liable for eating them. Apparently, when the Merciful One states in the Torah that it is prohibited to eat fat, the prohibition applies only to the fat itself but not to the strands of veins. Here also, the Merciful One states in the Torah that it is prohibited to eat the sciatic nerve, but that does not include the tendril-like nerve fibers.

גופא אמר רב ששת אמר רב אסי חוטין שבחלב אסורין ואין חייבין עליהן שבכוליא אסורין ואין חייבין עליהן לובן כוליא רבי ורבי חייא חד אסר וחד שרי § The Gemara now returns to the matter itself cited in the discussion above: Rav Sheshet said that Rav Asi said: The strands of veins that are in the forbidden fat are forbidden, but one is not liable for eating them. The strands of veins that are in the kidney are forbidden, but one is not liable for eating them. With regard to the white fat of the kidney, there is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya: One of them prohibits its consumption, because it is similar to the fats that are prohibited by the Torah; and one of them permits eating it.

רבה ממרטט ליה ר' יוחנן ממרטט ליה רבי אסי גאים ליה אמר אביי כוותיה דרבי אסי מסתברא דאמר רבי אבא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל The Gemara relates that Rabba would scrape every remnant of white fat away from the kidney. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan would scrape it away from the kidney. By contrast, Rabbi Asi would cut it from the surface of the kidney but would not scrape out the rest of it. Abaye said: It stands to reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Asi, because Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

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.

חתוכה נמי לישדר ליה דהא לא אתו למזבן מיניה אלא במקום שמכריזין שלימה נמי לא לישדר ליה דחתיך ליה ומזבין ליה Consequently, it should also be permitted to send to a gentile a thigh that has been cut, because Jews will not come to purchase it from him. Rather, if the mishna is referring to a place where all the butchers are Jewish, and they announce every time they sell a tereifa to a gentile, in which case Jews may purchase meat from the local gentiles when such an announcement is not made, one should not be permitted to send even a whole thigh to a gentile, due to the concern that he might cut it up and sell it to Jews who would not realize that it still contains the sciatic nerve.

אי בעית אימא במקום שמכריזין ואי בעית אימא במקום שאין מכריזין The Gemara offers two answers: If you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a place where they announce every time they sell a tereifa; and if you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a place where they do not announce every time they sell a tereifa.

איבעית אימא במקום שמכריזין חיתוכא דעובד כוכבים מידע ידיע The Gemara explains: If you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a place where they announce every time they sell a tereifa, and nevertheless it is permitted to send a whole thigh of meat to a gentile. There is no concern that the gentile will sell the thigh to a Jew, because the Jew would know that it is non-kosher by the manner of cutting of the gentile. Jewish butchers would cut the meat in a distinctive manner that would not be replicated by a gentile who cut the meat.

ואיבעית אימא במקום שאין מכריזין גזירה שמא יתננה לו בפני ישראל אחר And if you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a place where they do not announce every time they sell a tereifa, and nevertheless it is prohibited to give the gentile a thigh that has been cut up. The Sages issued a decree against doing so, lest he give it to the gentile in the presence of another Jew, who will think that it is kosher and purchase it from the gentile.

ואי בעית אימא משום דקא גניב ליה לדעתיה דאמר שמואל אסור לגנוב דעת הבריות ואפילו דעתו של עובד כוכבים And if you wish, say that there is an entirely different reason why one may not send a gentile a cut-up thigh without removing the sciatic nerve: Because he thereby deceives the gentile. The gentile will think that the Jew has exerted himself to cut up the leg and remove the sciatic nerve and that although the Jew could have eaten the meat himself he decided to send it to the gentile. The gentile will therefore be more appreciative of the gift than he would be if he realized that the sciatic nerve had not been removed. This is as Shmuel said: It is prohibited to deceive people, and even to deceive a gentile.

והא דשמואל לאו בפירוש איתמר אלא מכללא איתמר דשמואל הוה קא עבר במברא א"ל לשמעיה פייסיה למבוריה פייסיה ואיקפד And the Gemara points out that this ruling of Shmuel was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference, i.e., it was inferred based upon the following incident: Shmuel was once crossing a river in a ferry [mavra]. He said to his attendant: Compensate the ferryman with an appropriate gift. The attendant compensated him, but Shmuel became angry with his attendant.

מ"ט איקפד אמר אביי תרנגולת טרפה הואי ויהבה ניהליה במר דשחוטה רבא אמר אנפקא אמר ליה לאשקויי ואשקייה חמרא מזיגא The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Shmuel became angry? Abaye said: The compensation that the attendant gave the ferryman was a chicken that was a tereifa, and he gave it to him as though it were a slaughtered, kosher chicken. Rava said: Shmuel told him to give the ferryman wine for drinking in an anpaka, i.e., a utensil that holds a quarter-log and which was generally used for undiluted wine, but he gave him diluted wine for drinking. According to both Abaye and Rava, Shmuel was upset that his attendant deceived the gentile ferryman.

וכי מכללא מאי למ"ד טרפה הואי א"ל אמאי תשהא איסורא The Gemara asks: And if Shmuel’s opinion was derived by inference, what of it? The story clearly demonstrates that according to Shmuel it is prohibited to deceive a gentile. The Gemara answers that it cannot be ascertained with certainty that this is the reason Shmuel became angry. According to the one who said it was a chicken that was a tereifa that was given as compensation, perhaps Shmuel became angry and said to his attendant: Why did you retain in your possession an animal that is forbidden for consumption? This could have led to a Jew accidentally eating it.

למ"ד אנפקא א"ל לאשקויי אנפקא חייא משמע Similarly, according to the one who said that Shmuel told him to give the ferryman wine to drink in an anpaka, since anpaka indicates undiluted wine and the attendant gave the ferryman diluted wine, perhaps Shmuel became angry simply because his attendant disobeyed his instruction.

תניא היה ר' מאיר אומר אל יסרהב אדם לחבירו לסעוד אצלו ויודע בו שאינו סועד ולא ירבה לו בתקרובת ויודע בו שאינו מקבל § Apropos the prohibition against acting deceitfully, the Gemara cites other statements on this topic. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: A person may not importune [yesarhev] another to eat with him, making it seem as though he genuinely wants his company, but in reality he entreats him only because he knows that the other will not eat with him, i.e., will not accept the invitation. And similarly, one may not send another person many gifts merely because he knows that the other will not accept them.

ולא יפתח לו חביות המכורות לחנוני אא"כ הודיעו ולא יאמר לו סוך שמן מפך ריקן ואם בשביל כבודו מותר And one may not open barrels of wine for a guest if they have already been sold to a storekeeper, unless he notifies the guest beforehand that the barrel had been sold. And he may not say to another: Anoint yourself with oil, and place an empty jug before him with the knowledge that he will not attempt to anoint himself. But if he does so for the guest’s honor, to show that he holds his guest in high esteem, rather than to deceive the guest so that he will feel indebted to him, it is permitted.

איני והא עולא איקלע לבי רב יהודה פתח לו חביות המכורות לחנוני אודועי אודעיה ואיבעית אימא שאני עולא דחביב ליה לרב יהודה דבלאו הכי נמי פתוחי מפתח ליה The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Ulla happen to come to the house of Rav Yehuda, and Rav Yehuda opened barrels of wine for Ulla that had already been sold to a storekeeper? The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda notified Ulla that he was not opening the barrels especially for him. And if you wish, say that Ulla is different from an ordinary guest because he was very dear to Rav Yehuda, so that even without this, i.e., even if he had not already sold the barrels to a storekeeper, Rav Yehuda would have opened the barrels for him.

ת"ר לא ילך אדם לבית האבל ובידו לגין המתקשקש ולא ימלאנו מים מפני שמתעהו ואם יש שם חבר עיר מותר The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not go to a house of mourning with a wine jug [lagin] in his hand that is mostly empty and where the small amount of wine rattles about, because the mourner will think that his visitor is bringing him a full jug of wine. And he may not fill up that jug of wine with water, because he thereby misleads the mourner into thinking he has brought him a full jug of undiluted wine. But if there is a crowd of people [ḥever ir] and the guest wants to honor the mourner in their presence, it is permitted.

ת"ר לא ימכור אדם לחבירו סנדל של מתה בכלל של חיה שחוטה מפני ב' דברים א' מפני שמתעהו וא' מפני הסכנה The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may not sell to another a sandal made from the hide of an animal that died of natural causes as though it were a sandal made from the hide of a healthy animal that was slaughtered. This is prohibited due to two factors: One, because he misleads the customer into thinking that the leather is of higher quality than it really is; and another, because of the danger involved, as it is possible that the animal died from a snakebite and the poison seeped into the part of the animal’s hide from which the sandal is made.

ולא ישגר אדם לחבירו חבית של יין ושמן צף על פיה ומעשה באחד ששיגר לחבירו חבית של יין ושמן צף על פיה והלך וזימן עליה אורחין ונכנסו מצאה שהיא של יין וחנק את עצמו And furthermore a person may not send a barrel of wine to another with oil floating at its mouth, such that the recipient thinks that it is a barrel of oil. There was an incident involving a certain individual who sent a barrel of wine to another with oil floating at its mouth, and that recipient, thinking it was a barrel of oil, went and invited guests to share it with him, and the guests arrived. When the host went to bring them oil, he found that it was a barrel of wine rather than oil, and in his shame at not having oil for them, he hanged himself and died.

ואין האורחין רשאין ליתן ממה שלפניהם לבנו ולבתו של בעה"ב אא"כ נטלו רשות מבעה"ב The baraita continues: And guests are not permitted to give some of the food that is placed before them to the son or to the daughter of the host unless they first receive permission from the host.

ומעשה באחד שזמן ג' אורחין בשני בצורת ולא היה לו להניח לפניהם אלא כשלש ביצים בא בנו של בעה"ב נטל אחד מהן חלקו ונתנו לו וכן שני וכן שלישי בא אביו של תינוק מצאו שעוזק א' בפיו ושתים בידו חבטו בקרקע ומת כיון שראתה אמו עלתה לגג ונפלה ומתה אף הוא עלה לגג ונפל ומת And there was an incident involving a certain individual who invited three guests during years of famine, and he had enough to place only three eggs before them. The son of the host came, and one of the guests took his portion and gave it to the son. And similarly the second guest gave his portion to the son, and similarly the third guest. The father of the child came and found that his son was holding one egg in his mouth and two in his hand. The father became so angry with his son for taking all the food that he hit the son to the ground, and the son died. When his mother saw what had happened, she ascended to the roof and fell down to the ground and died. And when the father saw that both his son and his wife were dead he also ascended to the roof and fell down to the ground and died.

א"ר אליעזר בן יעקב על דבר זה נהרגו ג' נפשות מישראל מאי קמ"ל דכולה ר"א בן יעקב היא Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: For this matter of giving food to the child of the host, three Jewish souls were killed. The Gemara asks: What does this statement teach us? It is obvious from the incident that three people were killed. The Gemara answers: It teaches that the entire baraita is taught by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

ת"ר השולח ירך לחבירו שלימה אינו צריך שיטול הימנה גיד הנשה חתוכה צריך ליטול הימנה גיד הנשה ובעובד כוכבים בין חתוכה ובין שלימה א"צ ליטול הימנה גיד הנשה § The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who sends a whole thigh of an animal to another, he is not required to first remove the sciatic nerve from it. This is because the recipient can see that it has not yet been removed and will not eat it until he removes the sciatic nerve himself. But if one sends a thigh that has been cut up, he is required to first remove the sciatic nerve from it so that the recipient does not eat it unwittingly. And in the case of one who sends a thigh to a gentile, regardless of whether it is cut or whole he is not required to remove the sciatic nerve from it.

ומפני ב' דברים אמרו אין מוכרין נבילות וטרפות לעובד כוכבים אחד מפני שמתעהו ואחד שמא יחזור וימכרנה לישראל אחר And it was due to two factors that the Sages said that one may not sell meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot to a gentile: One, because it misleads him, as he thinks that it is kosher meat, which is more desirable; and another factor is the concern lest the gentile then sell the meat to another Jew, who will think it is kosher since it originally was sold by a Jew.

ולא יאמר אדם לעובד כוכבים קח לי בדינר זה בשר מפני ב' דברים And similarly, a person may not say to a gentile: Purchase meat for me from a Jewish butcher with this dinar, due to two factors:

אחד מפני האנסין ואחד שמא מוכרין לו נבלות וטרפות One factor is because of the oppressors, i.e., the concern that perhaps the gentile will keep the money for himself and force the merchant to give him the meat without payment. And another factor is lest the merchant sell him meat from unslaughtered carcasses or tereifot without realizing that the gentile is purchasing the meat on behalf of a Jew.

אמר מר ובעובד כוכבים בין שלימה בין חתוכה אינו צריך ליטול הימנה גיד הנשה במאי עסקינן אילימא במקום שמכריזין חתוכה אמאי אינו צריך ליטול הימנה גיד הנשה כיון דלא אכרוז אתי למיזבן מיניה The Master said in the baraita: And in the case of one who sends a thigh to a gentile, regardless of whether it is cut or whole he is not required to remove the sciatic nerve from it. The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that it is referring to a place where all the butchers are Jewish and they announce every time they sell non-kosher meat to a gentile, then in the case of a thigh that has been cut, why is one not required to remove the sciatic nerve? Since it was not announced that they sold non-kosher meat, a Jew might come to purchase it from a gentile without realizing that it still contains the sciatic nerve.

אלא פשיטא במקום שאין מכריזין אימא מציעתא מפני שני דברים אמרו אין מוכרין נבלות וטרפות לעובד כוכבים אחד מפני שמטעהו ואחד שמא יחזור וימכרנה לישראל אחר Rather, it is obvious that it is referring to a place where they do not announce every time they sell non-kosher meat, and in such a place a Jew would not purchase meat from a gentile. But say the middle clause of the baraita: And it was due to two factors that the Sages said that one may not sell meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses or tereifot to a gentile: One is because it misleads him; and another is the concern lest the gentile then sell the meat to another Jew, who will think it is kosher since it originally was sold by a Jew.

ואי במקום שאין מכריזין הא לא אתי למיזבן מיניה אלא פשיטא במקום שמכריזין But if the baraita is referring to a place where they do not announce every time they sell non-kosher meat to a gentile, a Jew will not come to purchase the meat from the gentile. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a place where they announce every time they sell non-kosher meat.

אימא סיפא לא יאמר אדם לעובד כוכבים קח לי בדינר זה בשר מפני שני דברים אחד מפני האנסין ואחד שמא מוכרין לו נבילות וטרפות ואי במקום שמכריזין אי איתא דהוה טרפה אכרוזי הוו מכרזי But say the latter clause: And similarly, a person may not say to a gentile: Purchase meat for me with this dinar, due to two factors. One factor is because of the oppressors, and another factor is lest the merchant sell him meat from unslaughtered carcasses or tereifot without realizing that the gentile is purchasing the meat on behalf of a Jew. But if it is referring to a place where they announce every time non-kosher meat is sold, if it would happen that it was a tereifa the butchers would have announced the fact, and the Jew would know not to eat that meat.

אלא פשיטא במקום שאין מכריזין רישא וסיפא במקום שאין מכריזין מציעתא במקום שמכריזין Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a place where they do not announce every time non-kosher meat is sold. But is it possible that the first clause and the latter clause of the baraita are referring to a place where they do not announce every time non-kosher meat is sold but the middle clause is referring to a place where they do announce every time non-kosher meat is sold?

אמר אביי אין רישא וסיפא במקום שאין מכריזין מציעתא במקום שמכריזין Abaye said: Yes, the first clause and the latter clause of the baraita are referring to a place where they do not announce every time non-kosher meat is sold, and the middle clause is referring to a place where they do announce every time non-kosher meat is sold.

רבא אמר כולה במקום שמכריזין רישא וסיפא שהכריזו מציעתא שלא הכריזו Rava said: The entire baraita is referring to a place where they announce every time non-kosher meat is sold. The first clause and the latter clause are referring to days when they announced that non-kosher meat had been sold, and the middle clause is referring to a day when they did not announce that non-kosher meat had been sold.

רב אשי אמר כולה במקום שאין מכריזין ומציעתא גזירה שמא ימכרנה בפני ישראל Rav Ashi said: The entire baraita is referring to a place where they do not announce every time non-kosher meat is sold. And the reason that the middle clause teaches that it is prohibited to sell meat from unslaughtered carcasses or tereifot to a gentile is due to a rabbinic decree lest the Jew sell it to the gentile in the presence of another Jew, who will think that this particular piece of meat is kosher.

היכי מכרזינן אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף נפל בישרא לבני חילא § The Gemara noted that there were places where they would announce whenever non-kosher meat was sold to a gentile. The Gemara asks: How do we announce that non-kosher meat has been sold? The Gemara answers that Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said: Meat has fallen into our possession for the soldiers, i.e., the gentiles.

ולימא נפל טריפתא לבני חילא לא זבני The Gemara objects: But let them say: A tereifa has fallen into our possession for the soldiers. The Gemara answers that if a butcher would publicize the fact that it is a tereifa, the gentiles would not purchase it from him because they would not want an animal rejected by the Jews.

והא קמטעי להו אינהו הוא דקמטעו נפשייהו The Gemara asks: But if the announcement is made in a way that obscures from the gentiles the fact that the animal is a tereifa, doesn’t this deceive them? The Gemara answers: It is they who deceive themselves, because the seller does not specify which kind of meat he is selling.

כי הא דמר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן הוה קאזיל מסיכרא לבי מחוזא ורבא ורב ספרא הוו קא אתו לסיכרא פגעו אהדדי הוא סבר לאפיה הוא דקאתו אמר להו למה להו לרבנן דטרוח ואתו כולי האי א"ל רב ספרא אנן לא הוה ידעינן דקאתי מר אי הוה ידעינן טפי הוה טרחינן The Gemara cites proof that it is permitted to allow others to mislead themselves. It is like this incident when Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, was going from the city of Sikhra to the city of Bei Meḥoza, and at the same time Rava and Rav Safra were going to Sikhra. They met each other, and Mar Zutra thought they were coming out to greet him. He said to them: Why did the Rabbis exert themselves and come all this way to greet me? Rav Safra said to him: We did not know that the Master was coming; if we would have known we would have exerted ourselves more.

א"ל רבא מ"ט אמרת ליה הכי דאחלישתיה לדעתיה א"ל והא קא מטעינן ליה איהו הוא דקא מטעי נפשיה Rava said to Rav Safra: What is the reason that you said this to Mar Zutra? By telling him that we were not coming to greet him you upset him. Rav Safra said to Rava: But if I would not have said so we would have misled him. Rava responded: Mar Zutra misled himself, since we never said we were coming to greet him.

ההוא טבחא דא"ל לחבריה § The Gemara returns to the topic of selling non-kosher meat to a gentile. There was a certain Jewish butcher who said to another individual:

אי הוות פייסת מינאי מי לא ספיי לך משור של פטם דעבדי אתמול א"ל אכלי משופרי שופרי א"ל מנלך א"ל דזבן פלוני עובד כוכבים וספא לי א"ל תרי עבדי וההוא טרפה הוה If you would have made peace with me yesterday, wouldn’t I have given you a cut from the fattened bull that I prepared yesterday? The other individual said to him: Nevertheless I ate from the finest of the fine of that bull that you prepared. The butcher said to him: From where did you get a piece? The other said to him: So-and-so the gentile bought it and fed it to me. The butcher said to him: I prepared two bulls yesterday. One was kosher, but that one you ate was a tereifa, which is why I sold it to a gentile.

אמר רבי בשביל שוטה זה שעשה שלא כהוגן אנו נאסור כל המקולין Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said when he heard of this incident: Because of this imbecile who acted improperly and sold non-kosher meat to the gentile butcher without publicizing that he did so, should we forbid all of the meat from gentile butcher shops in the city?

רבי לטעמיה דאמר מקולין וטבחי ישראל בשר הנמצא ביד עובד כוכבים מותר The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile, i.e., in a gentile’s butcher shop, is permitted. There is no concern that the meat is from an animal that was a tereifa, because the Jewish butcher would not have sold it to a gentile to sell in his butcher shop.

איכא דאמרי אמר רבי מפני שוטה זה דאיכוון לצעוריה לחבריה אנו נאסור כל המקולין The Gemara presents an alternate version of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s reaction to the incident cited above: There are those who say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Because of this imbecile, who intended only to cause distress to his fellow, should we forbid all of the meat from gentile butcher shops? That butcher was presumably lying about the meat having been from a tereifa.

טעמא דאיכוון לצעוריה לחבריה הא לאו הכי אסור והתניא רבי אומר מקולין וטבחי ישראל בשר הנמצא ביד עובד כוכבים מותר שאני הכא דאיתחזק איסורא The Gemara notes that the reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi considers the meat to be kosher is that the butcher intended only to cause distress to his fellow. This indicates that if that were not so, all the meat in the gentile butcher shops would be forbidden. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted? The Gemara answers: It is different here because it has been established that there is forbidden meat being sold in the butcher shops. Since it is known that a Jewish butcher sold non-kosher meat to a gentile proprietor of a butcher shop, one must be concerned that this was not an isolated incident.

אמר רב בשר כיון שנתעלם מן העין אסור מיתיבי רבי אומר מקולין וטבחי ישראל בשר הנמצא ביד עובד כוכבים מותר נמצא ביד עובד כוכבים שאני § Apropos meat in the possession of a gentile, the Gemara cites a related discussion. Rav says: Once meat is obscured from sight and unsupervised, it is forbidden, as one must be concerned that it was exchanged for non-kosher meat. The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: If there are butcher shops in a city and Jewish butchers prepare the meat, any meat found in the possession of a gentile is permitted. The Gemara answers: Meat found in the possession of a gentile is different, because the meat was not left unsupervised.

תא שמע תשע חנויות כולן מוכרות בשר שחוטה ואחת מוכרת בשר נבלה ולקח מאחת מהן ואינו יודע מאיזה מהן לקח ספקו אסור ובנמצא הלך אחר הרוב הכא נמי בנמצא ביד עובד כוכבים The Gemara raises another objection to the statement of Rav. Come and hear the following baraita: With regard to nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and an individual purchased meat from one of the stores and he does not know from which store he purchased the meat, in this case of uncertainty, the meat is forbidden. But in the case of meat found outside, follow the majority. Consequently, since most of the stores sell kosher meat, it may be assumed that the meat found outside is kosher, which contradicts Rav’s statement that meat that was left unsupervised is forbidden. The Gemara answers: Here also the baraita is referring to a case where the meat was not unsupervised but rather was found in the possession of a gentile.

תא שמע מצא בה בשר (אם חי) הלך אחר רוב טבחים ואם מבושל הלך אחר רוב אוכלי בשר The Gemara cites another challenge to the opinion of Rav: Come and hear the following mishna (Makhshirin 2:9): If one found meat in a city inhabited by both Jews and gentiles, if the meat is raw, follow the majority of butchers, so that if the majority of the butchers are Jewish, the meat is presumed to be kosher. And if the meat is cooked, follow the majority of meat eaters, because even if the majority of the butchers are Jewish, if the meat was cooked by a gentile it is forbidden. This mishna indicates that there are circumstances when the meat is permitted even though it was obscured from sight.

וכי תימא הכא נמי בנמצא ביד עובד כוכבים מבושל הלך אחר רוב אוכלי בשר ונחזי אי דעובד כוכבים נקיט ליה אי דישראל נקיט ליה הכא במאי עסקינן בעומד ורואהו And if you would say that here also it is referring to a case where the meat is found in the possession of a gentile, why does the baraita state that if the meat is cooked, one should follow the majority of meat eaters? Let us see whether a gentile is holding it or a Jew is holding it. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the meat was on the ground but someone was standing and watching it from the time it was dropped on the ground, so that it was never left unsupervised. Yet, the person watching does not know whether it was dropped by a Jew or a gentile, and therefore a determination must be made based upon the majority of the people in the city.

תא שמע נמצא בגבולין אברים נבלות חתיכות מותרות וכי תימא הכא נמי בעומד ורואהו אברים נבלות אמאי The Gemara cites another challenge to the opinion of Rav from a mishna (Shekalim 19a). Come and hear: With regard to meat found in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, if it is found as whole limbs, the meat presumably comes from carcasses of animals that were not properly slaughtered, as carcasses were generally cut up into full limbs and fed to dogs or sold to gentiles. But if it is in small pieces, it is presumably kosher and permitted to be eaten, as kosher meat was ordinarily cut up into small pieces. This mishna indicates that even though the meat was obscured from sight, it remains permitted. And if you would say that here also it is referring to a case where someone was standing and watching it, why is it assumed to be from a carcass if it is cut into whole limbs?

מידי הוא טעמא אלא לרב הא איתמר עלה רב אמר מותרות משום נבלה ולוי אמר מותרות באכילה The Gemara answers: This mishna requires explanation only according to Rav, but wasn’t it stated with regard to that mishna: Rav says that the correct version of the mishna is that the small pieces of meat are permitted, in that they are not considered impure and that one who eats them is not liable to be flogged, as would be the case if it were meat from a carcass. But it is not actually permitted to eat the meat, due to the fact that it was obscured from sight. And Levi says: The mishna means to say that the small pieces of meat are even permitted to be eaten.

והא דרב לאו בפירוש אתמר אלא מכללא אתמר דרב הוה יתיב אמברא דאישתטית חזיא לההוא גברא דהוה קא The Gemara comments: And this statement of Rav, that meat that was obscured from sight is forbidden, was not stated explicitly by Rav. Rather, it was stated that he held this opinion based on an inference from a different statement of Rav. As, Rav was once sitting on the ford of the Ishtetit River. He saw a certain man who was

מחוור רישא נפל מיניה אזל אייתי סילתא שדא אסיק תרין אמר רב עבדי נמי הכי אסרינהו ניהליה cleaning the head of an animal in the river. The head fell from him. He went and brought a basket, cast the basket into the river, and pulled out two animal heads. Rav said to him: Does it commonly happen this way that one loses one item and finds two? Just as one of the animal heads is not the one you dropped, it is possible that neither of them is the one you dropped. Therefore, Rav rendered both of them forbidden to him.

אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב דאיסורא שכיחי דהתירא לא שכיחי אמר להו דאיסורא שכיחי טפי Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Is forbidden meat common but permitted meat not common? Most of the meat in this general location is kosher, so why did you forbid the two animal heads? He said to them: Forbidden meat is more common. From this incident the Sages derived that according to Rav, meat that has been obscured from sight becomes forbidden due to the possibility that the meat one finds now was actually deposited by ravens, who transported it from a location where the majority of the meat is forbidden.

וכי מכללא מאי פרוותא דעובדי כוכבים הואי תדע דקאמר להו דאיסורא שכיחי טפי The Gemara asks: And what does it matter if this opinion of Rav is known by inference based on this incident, rather than by an explicit statement made by Rav? The Gemara answers: There is room to say that this incident cannot serve as a precedent for a general policy, because that location was a port of gentiles, where most of the meat was non-kosher. Know that this is the case, as Rav said to Rav Kahana and Rav Asi: Forbidden meat is more common. Consequently, it is possible that Rav would not have prohibited the meat in a location where the majority of the meat is kosher.

אלא רב היכי אכל בשרא בשעתיה דלא עלים עיניה מיניה איבעית אימא בציירא וחתומא ואי נמי בסימנא כי הא דרבה ב"ר הונא מחתך ליה אתלת קרנתא The Gemara asks: But how did Rav ever eat meat if he holds that meat becomes forbidden if it is unsupervised for even a short time? The Gemara answers: Rav ate meat only in its time, i.e., shortly after it was slaughtered, when it had not been obscured from his sight from the time of the slaughter until he ate it. Alternatively, if you wish, say that Rav ate meat that was tied and sealed in a way that proved it had not been swapped for non-kosher meat. Or alternatively, he ate meat that could be recognized by a distinguishing mark, like that practice of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who would cut meat into pieces with three corners, i.e., triangles, before he would send it to his family members.

רב הוה קאזיל לבי רב חנן חתניה חזי מברא דקאתי לאפיה אמר מברא קאתי לאפי יומא טבא לגו The Gemara relates that Rav was going to the home of Rav Ḥanan, his son-in-law. He saw that the ferry was coming toward him just when he arrived at the riverbank. He said: The ferry is coming toward me even though I did not arrange for it to come now; this is a sign that a good day, i.e., a festive meal, awaits me in the place where I am going.

אזל קם אבבא אודיק בבזעא דדשא חזי חיותא דתליא טרף אבבא נפוק אתו כולי עלמא לאפיה אתא טבחי נמי לא עלים רב עיניה מיניה אמר להו איכו השתא ספיתו להו איסורא לבני ברת לא אכל רב מההוא בישרא After crossing the river on the ferry, Rav went and stood at the gate of Rav Ḥanan’s home. He looked through a crack in the door and saw an animal that was hanging and ready to be cooked. He knocked on the gate, and everyone went out to greet him, and the butchers also came out to greet him. Rav did not remove his eyes from the meat that the butchers were preparing. He said to them: If you had eaten the meat based upon the supervision you provided now, you would have fed forbidden meat to the sons of my daughter because no one apart from me was watching the meat when you all came out to greet me. And despite the fact that he had kept the meat in his sight Rav did not eat from that meat.

מ"ט אי משום איעלומי הא לא איעלים אלא דנחיש The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav did not eat the meat? If one suggests that he was concerned because it had been obscured from sight, that cannot be the reason, as Rav kept watching it so that it was not obscured from sight. Rather, Rav did not eat because he divined, i.e., he saw the arrival of the ferry as a good omen. This is prohibited, and therefore Rav penalized himself and abstained from the meat.

והאמר רב כל נחש שאינו כאליעזר עבד אברהם וכיונתן בן שאול אינו נחש אלא סעודת הרשות הואי ורב לא מתהני מסעודת הרשות The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav say that any divination that is not like the divination of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, when he went to seek a bride for Isaac (see Genesis 24:14), or like the divination of Jonathan, son of Saul, who sought an omen as to whether he and his arms bearer would defeat the Philistines (see I Samuel 14:8–12), is not divination? Since Rav did not rely on the omen in his decision making, he did not violate the prohibition against divination, and there was no reason for him to penalize himself. The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason Rav did not eat the meat is that it was an optional feast, rather than a feast associated with a mitzva, and Rav would not derive pleasure from an optional feast.

רב בדיק במברא ושמואל בדיק בספרא רבי יוחנן בדיק בינוקא Having mentioned Rav’s reaction to the ferry in the incident cited above, the Gemara states that Rav would check whether to travel based upon the ferry; if it came quickly he would take the ferry, but otherwise he would not. And Shmuel would check what would happen to him by opening a scroll and reading from wherever it was open to. Rabbi Yoḥanan would check what was in store for him by asking a child to recite the verse he was learning.

כולהו שני דרב הוה כתב ליה רבי יוחנן לקדם רבינו שבבבל כי נח נפשיה הוה כתב לשמואל לקדם חבירינו שבבבל אמר לא ידע לי מידי דרביה אנא כתב שדר ליה עיבורא דשיתין שני אמר השתא חושבנא בעלמא ידע The Gemara relates an incident when Rabbi Yoḥanan checked his luck based on a child’s verse. During all the years when Rav lived in Babylonia, Rabbi Yoḥanan, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, would write to him and begin with the greeting: To our Master who is in Babylonia. When Rav died, Rabbi Yoḥanan would write to Shmuel and begin with the greeting: To our colleague who is in Babylonia. Shmuel said: Does Rabbi Yoḥanan not know any matter in which I am his master? Shmuel wrote and sent to Rabbi Yoḥanan the calculation of the leap years for the next sixty years. Rabbi Yoḥanan was not impressed by this and said: Now he has merely demonstrated that he knows mathematics, which does not make him my master.

כתב שדר ליה תליסר גמלי ספקי טריפתא אמר אית לי רב בבבל איזיל איחזייה א"ל לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקיך אמר ליה (שמואל א כח, ג) ושמואל מת אמר ש"מ נח נפשיה דשמואל Shmuel then wrote and sent to Rabbi Yoḥanan explications of uncertainties pertaining to tereifot that had to be transported on thirteen camels. Rabbi Yoḥanan was impressed by this and said: I have a Master in Babylonia; I will go and see him. Before departing on his journey, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to a child: Recite to me your verse that you studied today. The child recited the following verse to Rabbi Yoḥanan: “Now Samuel was dead” (I Samuel 28:3). Rabbi Yoḥanan said to himself: Learn from this that Shmuel has died. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan did not go to see Shmuel.

ולא היא לא שכיב שמואל אלא כי היכי דלא ליטרח רבי יוחנן The Gemara comments: But it was not so; Shmuel had not died. Rather, the reason Rabbi Yoḥanan was given this sign was so that Rabbi Yoḥanan would not trouble himself to embark on the long and arduous journey from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia.

תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בית תינוק ואשה אף על פי שאין נחש יש סימן It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to one who is successful with his first business transaction after he has built a home, after the birth of a child, or after he marries a woman, even though he may not use this as a means of divination to decide upon future courses of action, it is an auspicious sign that he will continue to be successful. Conversely, if his first transaction is not successful he may take that as an inauspicious sign.

אמר ר' אלעזר והוא דאיתחזק תלתא זימני דכתיב (בראשית מב, לו) יוסף איננו ושמעון איננו ואת בנימין תקחו Rabbi Elazar said: But this is provided that the sign has been established by repeating itself three times. This is based on a verse, as it is written: “And Jacob their father said to them: Me you have bereaved of my children: Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and you will take Benjamin away; upon me are all these things come” (Genesis 42:36). If calamity were to befall Benjamin, that would establish a pattern of three tragedies.

בעא מיניה רב הונא מרב בחרוזין מהו א"ל אל תהי שוטה בחרוזין הרי זה סימן איכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא אמר רב בחרוזין הרי זה סימן § The Gemara returns to discuss distinguishing marks that prevent meat from being prohibited despite its having been obscured from sight. Rav Huna inquired of Rav: If pieces of meat were strung together and then were obscured from sight, what is the halakha? Rav said to him: Do not be an imbecile; of course if the meat is strung together it is considered to be a distinguishing mark, and the meat is permitted. There are those who say this halakha as follows: Rav Huna said that Rav said: If pieces of meat are strung together it is a distinguishing mark, and the meat remains permitted even if it is obscured from sight.

רב נחמן מנהרדעא איקלע לגבי רב כהנא לפום נהרא במעלי יומא דכפורי אתו עורבי שדו כבדי וכוליתא אמר ליה שקול ואכול האידנא דהיתרא שכיח טפי The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman of Neharde’a arrived at the home of Rav Kahana in Pum Nahara on the eve of Yom Kippur, which is a day when people commonly eat meat. Ravens came and dropped livers and kidneys. Rav Kahana said to Rav Naḥman: Take these livers and kidneys and eat them, as they are not forbidden, even though they were obscured from sight. This is because at this time permitted meat is more common than forbidden meat, since Jews slaughter many animals on this day.

רב חייא בר אבין איתבד ליה כרכשא (בי דינא) אתא לקמיה דרב הונא אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה א"ל לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin lost a cut of meat from an animal intestine among the barrels of wine in his wine cellar. When he found it, he came before Rav Huna to ask whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Huna said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: No. Rav Huna asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: Yes. Rav Huna said: If so, go and take it and eat it.

רב חנינא חוזאה איתבד ליה גבא דבשרא אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה אמר ליה לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a lost a side of meat. When he found it, he came before Rav Naḥman and asked him whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Naḥman said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said to him: No. Rav Naḥman asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said to him: Yes. Rav Naḥman said: If so, go and take it and eat it.

רב נתן בר אביי איתבד ליה קיבורא דתכלתא אתא לקמיה דרב חסדא אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה אמר ליה לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול Rav Natan bar Abaye lost a skein of sky-blue wool prepared for use in ritual fringes. He searched for it and found it. He came before Rav Ḥisda to ask whether the wool was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight and may have become confused with other blue wool that is not valid for ritual fringes. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark in it so that you can identify it? Rav Natan bar Abaye said to him: No. Rav Ḥisda asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Natan bar Abaye said to him: Yes. Rav Ḥisda said: If so, go and take it, and you may use it for ritual fringes.

אמר רבא מרישא הוה אמינא סימנא עדיף מטביעות עינא דהא מהדרינן אבידתא בסימנא Rava said: At first I would say that a distinguishing mark is preferable to visual recognition, because we return a lost item to its owner based on a distinguishing mark,