Chullin 92b — the Talmud in English

One - ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

that they do not write a marriage contract for a male,

for even though they designate a male for intercourse, in any event they do not treat the matter lightly until they write a marriage contract for them.

And one -

that they do not weigh the meat of a dead person in the butcher shop

for even though they eat human flesh, they do not sell it in the butcher shop publicly [another explanation—the flesh of an animal that died on its own, they do not sell in the butcher shop].

And one -

that they honor the Torah.

We learned in the Mishna:

and it does not apply to a bird

because it does not have a thigh socket.

And we object:

But we see that it has one

a thigh socket, for there is flesh surrounding the bone of its thigh?

And we answer:

It has one,

but

it is not round!

For the surrounding flesh is not round but flat across, and it does not resemble a thigh socket; and concerning the gid ha-nasheh it is stated, “which is upon the thigh socket.” Therefore it does not apply to a bird.

Rabbi Yirmeya inquired: If a bird has one and it is round,

if a bird happened to be found whose thigh socket is round, or

if an animal has one but it is not round,

if an animal happened to be found whose thigh socket is not round—

what?

Is it that

we follow its own nature,

each bird and each animal being judged according to what it is, so that the gid ha-nasheh of that bird whose thigh socket is round is forbidden, while the gid ha-nasheh of the animal whose thigh socket is not round is not forbidden,

or

perhaps

we follow its species.

And since ordinarily a bird does not have a round thigh socket, whereas an animal has a round thigh socket, the entire species of bird is permitted and the entire species of animal is forbidden?

And we conclude:

teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

and it applies to a fetus.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus, and its fat is permitted.

Shmuel said:

“and its fat is permitted,”

which is taught at the end of our Mishna, is not the conclusion of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, but

according to everyone

it is.

And we considered this:

“Its fat”—of what?

Which fat is being discussed concerning which everyone agrees?

If you say

the fat

of the fetus, but they explicitly disagree concerning it,

the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda?

As it was taught:

The gid ha-nasheh

applies to a fetus, and its fat

of the fetus

is forbidden! These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus, and its fat

of the fetus

is permitted! And Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda

is concerning a

fetus

of nine

months that was found

alive

in the animal’s womb after it was slaughtered,

and Rabbi Meir followed his own view!

For since he holds that a nine-month-old live fetus is not permitted through the slaughter of its mother, like every fetus found in its mother’s womb after her slaughter, but is like an animal in its own right and requires slaughter, therefore its gid ha-nasheh and its fat are also forbidden.

And Rabbi Yehuda followed his own view!

For Rabbi Yehuda holds that even a nine-month-old live fetus is permitted through the slaughter of its mother, and it is not like an animal in its own right but like one of its mother’s limbs; therefore there is no prohibition of gid ha-nasheh in it, and its fat is permitted.

But rather

perhaps you will say that our Mishna is speaking of

the fat of the gid,

the fat of the gid ha-nasheh [in every animal, not in a fetus], and concerning this Shmuel said that it is permitted according to everyone. This is difficult, for

do they not explicitly disagree concerning it?

As it was taught: One searches after the gid ha-nasheh wherever it is,

when removing it from the thigh,

and cuts its fat

the fat of the gid

from its root,

even where it is embedded and rooted in the flesh,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He removes it,

he cuts it

flush with the smooth surface,

in a straight line with the thigh socket; only the fat protruding upon the socket must be cut because of appearances, but the roots of the fat [and also of the gid] within the flesh are permitted for eating.

It follows that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree, and according to Rabbi Meir the fat of the gid is forbidden!

And we answer:

Actually

it is speaking of

the fat of the gid,

and what Shmuel said—that it is permitted according to everyone—means that by Torah law even Rabbi Meir agrees that it is permitted; rather, he forbids it by rabbinic law.

And Shmuel agrees that according to Rabbi Meir it is forbidden by rabbinic law.

As it was taught,

as we learned in a beraita, that according to Rabbi Meir it is forbidden only by rabbinic law. As it was taught:

And its fat

of the gid ha-nasheh

is permitted. But Israel, who are holy, adopted the practice of forbidding it!

And we infer:

Is it not

this beraita

that is Rabbi Meir’s?

For Rabbi Yehuda permits the fat entirely, even with regard to the practice. If so, it is proven that it is Rabbi Meir’s,

who says

that the fat is

permitted by Torah law and forbidden

only

by rabbinic law!

And we object:

From where

is it Rabbi Meir’s?

Perhaps it is Rabbi Yehuda’s [and what Rabbi Yehuda permits is permitted according to the basic law, but forbidden on account of the practice].

and what Rabbi Yehuda permits is permitted as a matter of basic law, but forbidden as a matter of practice].

But according to Rabbi Meir, it is also forbidden by Torah law

the fat of the gid?

And we answer:

That cannot be

that Rabbi Meir forbids it by Torah law.

As it was taught: One searches after the gid ha-nasheh wherever it is, and its fat is permitted! Who is it that you have heard holds

that the gid ha-nasheh requires

searching? Rabbi Meir!

For he said so above in the beraita.

And he says, “Its fat is permitted”!

It follows that Rabbi Meir permits the fat of the gid, and necessarily what he forbids elsewhere is only by rabbinic law.

Rav Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta said that Rav said: The Torah forbade

concerning the gid ha-nasheh

only its tendrils!

The thin sinews that branch off from the gid ha-nasheh, which are soft and have flavor; but the gid itself upon the thigh socket is not forbidden, since it is hard and has no flavor, but is merely like wood.

Ulla said: Even though the gid

Although the nerve

is wood,

nevertheless

the Torah imposed liability for it! [and the tendrils are permitted, as will be stated below].

whereas the slender branches are permitted, as will be stated below].

Abaye said: It is reasonable according to Ulla! For Rav Sheshet said that Rav Asi said: The threads

that are thin

in the fat are forbidden

by rabbinic law

and one is not liable for them

for karet on account of fat.

It follows

that we say:

“Fat,” the Merciful One said, and not threads! Here too, “gid,” the Merciful One said, and not tendrils!

The essential matter: Rav Sheshet said that Rav Asi said: The threads in the fat are forbidden, and one is not liable for them. The threads

The strands

in the kidney are forbidden, and one is not liable for them.

The white substance of the kidney

found in the groove in the kidney and penetrating into the kidney—the matter is disputed by

Rabbi and Rabbi Hiyya: One forbids

on account of fat,

and one permits.

Rabba strips it

he removes it completely down to the root, and likewise

Rabbi Yohanan strips it. Rav Asi cuts it

he cut only the white substance upon the kidney, but what penetrated into the kidney he ate.

Abaye said: It is reasonable according to Rabbi Asi! For Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: