Chullin 93a (צג.) — the Talmud in English

The fat that the meat

of the loins

covers is permitted!

Apparently

we say:

The Merciful One said that the fat upon the loins

is forbidden,

but not

the fat

within the loins! Here too,

we say: The fat

upon the kidneys the Merciful One said is forbidden, but not the fat within the kidneys!

The fundamental statement: Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat that the meat covers is permitted!

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? But Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This fat beneath the loins,

the fat upon the loins, which is beneath the flanks,

is forbidden!

This indicates that even though it is covered by the meat of the flanks, it is forbidden?

And we answer:

Abaye said: While an animal is alive—

it is constantly in motion!

When it walks, its limbs move, and the loins and flanks move apart from one another. At that point, the fat upon the loins is exposed and is not covered by the flanks.

As Rabbi Yohanan said: I—

am neither a slaughterer nor the son of a slaughterer. And I remember

I remember

that this is what they would say in the beit-midrash: While an animal is alive—

it is constantly in motion!

Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat upon the omasum and the reticulum—

is forbidden, and one who eats it is liable to karet

the person who eats them.

And this is the fat upon the stomach!

That is, it too is included within the category of fat upon the stomach, even though it is not the principal fat upon the stomach [see Rashi].

And Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This fat of the klivusta bone,

the fat upon the bone called klivusta—

is forbidden, and one who eats it is liable to karet. And this is the fat upon the loins!

And Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The sinews in the foreleg,

in the animal’s shoulder,

are forbidden.

Rav Safra said: Moshe!

That is, I am astonished that a Torah scholar such as you forbade the sinews in the foreleg, for

did the Merciful One say: Do not eat meat?!

Rava said: Moshe!

He expressed astonishment at Rav Safra:

Did the Merciful One say: Eat blood?!

They are forbidden on account of the blood they contain.

And if

he cuts and salts

these sinews, thereby removing the blood from them,

even to

cook them

in a pot as well [

and not only roast them]

it is entirely permitted!

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The beginning of the intestines, in the cubit

the first cubit of the intestines, at the beginning of their emergence from the stomach—

requires scraping!

The fat upon them must be scraped off there.

And this is the fat upon the small intestines,

concerning which the tannaim disagreed earlier [49b] as to whether it is forbidden as fat.

And Rav Yehuda said: The sinews in the tail,

in the tail,

, are forbidden

as fat.

And he explains:

There are five sinews in the tail:

in the tail:

three on the right

of the animal

and two on the left.

These

three

on the right

split

each

into two.

And these

two

on the left

split

each

into three.

And there is

a practical difference

in knowing all the divisions:

For if one pulls them out while they are still warm—

they come out.

While the meat is still warm, immediately after slaughter, all the sinews and their branches can be pulled out easily.

But if not, they require probing after them

after all the branches of the sinews.

Abaye said, and some say Rav Yehuda: There are five sinews.

There are sinews in five places in the animal that are forbidden.

Three

of them are forbidden

as fat,

fat.

And two

of them are forbidden

as blood.

And these are they:

Those of the spleen,

the sinews of the spleen,

those of the tail

of the tail,

and those of the kidney

of the kidney—are forbidden

as fat.

Those of the foreleg,

the sinews of the foreleg,

and those of the cheek

of the cheek—are forbidden

as blood.

What practical difference is there

as to the reason they are forbidden? For

those that are

forbidden

as blood—

if one cuts and salts them, it is entirely permitted,

since the blood has left them. Whereas

those other ones

that are forbidden as fat—

have no remedy!

Rav Kahana said, and some say Rav Yehuda: There are five membranes.

There are forbidden membranes in five places.

Three

are forbidden

as fat, and two as blood.

And these are they:

Those of the spleen, those of the tail, and those of the kidney,

all these membranes are forbidden

as fat.

Those of the testicles,

the membrane upon the male animal’s testicles,

and that of the brain

and the one upon the brain are forbidden

as blood.

Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya was peeling it

the membrane upon the

spleen, for Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya. He was cutting it from above

he was peeling only the upper part of the spleen.

He said to him,

Levi said to Rav Yehuda:

Go down into it further!

Lower it and peel it from below as well.

His father came

Levi’s father,

found him, and said to him

to Levi:

Thus said your mother’s father in the name of Rav—and who was he? Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba: The Torah forbade only the membrane

that is

upon the teat alone!

upon the thick part of the spleen, which is above.

And Levi raises an objection to his father:

Is that so? But Rav Hamnuna said: A tanna taught: The membrane upon the spleen is forbidden, but one is not liable for it

for karet on account of fat!

And we inquire:

What are the circumstances? If you say

the membrane

upon the teat, why is one not liable for it?

After all, this is the fat of the stomach.

Rather,

certainly

it is all of it.

The membrane covering the entire spleen, which is forbidden even though one is not liable for it. If so, how can you wish to permit, ab initio, the membrane that is not upon the teat?

He said to him

Levi’s father

: If it was taught, it was taught!

The fundamental statement: Rav Hamnuna said: A tanna taught: The membrane upon the spleen is forbidden, but one is not liable for it. The membrane upon the kidney is forbidden, but one is not liable for it.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught: One is liable for it,

both for the membrane upon the spleen and for the membrane upon the kidney?

And we answer:

With regard to spleen and spleen, there is no difficulty: This

for which one is liable is the membrane

opposite the teat. This

for which one is not liable is

not opposite the teat.

With regard to kidney and kidney as well, there is no difficulty: This

for which one is liable is

the upper one,

the upper membrane upon the kidney, which is actual fat.

This

for which one is not liable is

the lower one,

the lower membrane.

With regard to torn-off testicles

the testicles of a male animal that have been torn away and remain loosely attached to the animal’s body—the matter is disputed by

Rav Ami and Rav Asi.

One prohibited them,

for eating them even after the animal’s slaughter, as they are considered as though they had been completely torn away from the animal while it was still alive, and the slaughter of the animal was of no benefit to them, since they are a limb severed from a living animal.

And one permitted them,

since they are still slightly attached to the animal, they are considered part of it and are rendered permitted through the animal’s slaughter.