Chullin 93b — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

The one who forbids,

his reason is:

since they do not develop,

the fact that they are not sufficiently fit for eating is a sign that their nourishment from the animal has ceased. Therefore,

these—

are a limb from a living creature!

The one who permits,

his reason is:

since they do not putrefy,

this is proof that

these—

have vitality in them

by virtue of the animal, and they are not considered a limb detached from a living creature.

And the other one,

the one who forbids, holds that

this fact that they do not putrefy

is because

the air does not prevail over them,

since they were inside the animal, sealed off from the external air.

And the other one,

the one who permits, holds: Nothing can be proven from the fact that the loosened eggs are not fit for eating.

This fact that they do not develop—

is merely weakness that has seized them!

A defect occurred in them, and not because they lack vitality.

Rabbi Yohanan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: These loosened eggs—

are permitted!

But

you, do not eat

from them

because of: “And do not abandon the Torah of your mother”!

For you are from Babylonia, and there they followed the practice of forbidding them for eating.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: These goat eggs

not specifically, but those of every animal

until thirty days

from the day of birth

are permitted without peeling!

There is no need to peel the membrane covering them, since they still contain no blood.

From this point onward, if they have been seeded

if they contain seed,

they are forbidden,

for certainly they contain blood.

And if they have not been seeded—

they are permitted!

From where do we know

whether they contain seed or not?

If there are red threads in them

red strands—

they are forbidden!

And if

there are no red threads in them—

they are permitted!

Pieces of meat, eggs, and neck veins

will be explained below; in these three cases

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree.

Throughout the entire Torah,

where Ravina and Rav Aḥa disagree,

Ravina is lenient,

he is the one who is lenient,

and Rav Aḥa is stringent,

he is the one who is stringent.

And the halakha

in all those disagreements is

in accordance with Ravina—

leniently!

Except for these three

that we mentioned,

for Rav Aḥa is lenient and Ravina is stringent. And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Aḥa, leniently!

And now we explain:

Meat that has reddened,

meat that became red from the concentration of blood as a result of a blow that the animal received there during its lifetime—if

he cuts it

he makes many cuts in it

and salts it—

even for

cooking in a

pot, it is entirely proper!

For the salt drew out the blood.

If

he also suspends it on a spit,

inside the oven, and it is roasted there, it is permitted without cutting and salting, since

the blood flows out!

For the blood concentrated in the meat flows outward, since it is suspended.

But if he placed it

on coals,

on the embers,

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree.

One said: The coals draw it out,

the fire of the coals draws out the blood.

And one said: They congeal it,

the fire strengthens the meat, so that the blood does not emerge from it but is absorbed within it.

And likewise eggs

of an animal after thirty days.

And likewise neck veins,

the veins of the neck, which contain a great deal of blood; also concerning them Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree when they are placed on the coals.

The head in hot ashes:

One who buries the animal’s head in the ash of the coals

if he placed it on the slaughtering place,

since the slaughtering place is below—

the blood flows

through the cut

and it is permitted!

And if he placed it

on its sides,

on the cheek—

it congeals,

the blood hardens within it because it has no place to emerge—

and it is forbidden!

And if

he placed it on its nostrils,

so that the nostril openings are below [and the slaughtering place is above]—

if he inserted something into it,

if he inserted something into the nostril opening so that it would not become sealed—

it is permitted!

Because the blood emerges through the opening.

And if not—

it is forbidden!

Some say: If he placed it

on its

nostrils

or placed it

on the slaughtering place—

the blood flows out

and it is permitted even without inserting anything.

If he placed it

on its sides, if he inserted something into it

in the nostrils,

it is permitted,

for even when the head is resting on its side, the blood can emerge through the nostril opening.

And if not—

it is forbidden!

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: There are two sinews

in the sciatic nerve:

The

inner one,

which is found on the inner side of the thigh, that is, on the side nearer the other thigh, and

adjacent to the bone,

that sinew being adjacent to the thighbone—

is forbidden

by Torah law,

and one is liable for it

to lashes. The

outer one,

which is found on the outer side of the thigh, and

adjacent to the flesh,

embedded in the flesh of the thigh—

is forbidden

by rabbinic law, and one is not

liable for it

to lashes.

And we challenge this:

But it was taught in a beraita: The inner one—

is adjacent to the flesh!

And how did Rav Yehuda say in the name of Shmuel that the inner one is adjacent to the bone?

And we resolve:

Rav Aḥa said in the name of Rav Kahana: It is folded and folded!

The inner sinew returns and enters the flesh [in the form of a key in a lock], and therefore it is called in the beraita “adjacent to the flesh,” although ordinarily it is adjacent to the bone.

We again challenge Rav Yehuda, who said in the name of Shmuel that the outer one is adjacent to the flesh:

But it was taught in a beraita: The outer one—

is the one adjacent to the bone!

For it is exposed and is not embedded in the flesh?

And we resolve: Rav Yehuda said:

Where the butchers open it!

In the place where the butchers cut the thigh, there it is adjacent to the bone.

It was stated: A butcher behind whom fat was found,

after he had removed the fat from the meat:

Rav Yehuda said:

Its measure is

the size of a barley grain. Rabbi Yohanan said: The size of an olive.

And it proceeds to explain with regard to what they disagree.

Rav Pappa said: They do not disagree,

Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Yohanan.

Here,

what Rabbi Yohanan said, that it must be the size of an olive, is

in order to flog him,

the butcher.

Here,

what Rav Yehuda said, that it must be the size of a barley grain, is

in order to disqualify him,

to remove him from his trade so that he will no longer sell meat, for if fat is found even in the amount of a barley grain, they remove him.

Mar Zutra said:

That is not the explanation of their statements. Rather, the reason they do not disagree is that

the size of a barley grain

mentioned by Rav Yehuda applies specifically when it is

in one place.

Whereas

the size of an olive

mentioned by Rabbi Yohanan applies even when it is

in two or three places.

And the halakha is: In order to flog him—

the size of an olive! In order to disqualify him—

the size of a barley grain!

We learned in the Mishna:

Butchers are not trusted

concerning the sciatic nerve; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: They are trusted concerning it.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They returned to say: They are trusted

the butchers!

Rav Naḥman said:

From the words of Rabbi Yohanan it is implied that formerly they ruled the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Meir and the butchers were not trusted, and they returned to rule in accordance with the Sages.

And it is astonishing: Is it that

the generations have become fit

so that the butchers of today are more trustworthy than those of the past?!

And we resolve:

At first, they held in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who said [above, 90b] that the sciatic nerve requires probing after it, and this involves exertion; therefore

they were not trustworthy,

but it was necessary to inspect after them.

And ultimately, they held in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

for they returned to say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is not necessary to probe after it; therefore they are trusted, since there is no exertion in the matter.

There are those who teach it with regard to the latter clause

of the Mishna, which teaches:

And the Sages say: They are trusted concerning it and concerning the fat!

And concerning this

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They returned to say—

They are not trusted

concerning the nerve, for the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

Rav Naḥman said: In the present time they are trusted

the butchers.

And we challenge: Is it that

the generations have become fit?!

And we resolve:

At first, they held in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

that there was no need to probe after the sciatic nerve; therefore they ruled in accordance with the Sages, that the butchers are trusted.

They then returned and held in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

they returned to rule in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who says that it is necessary to probe after the sciatic nerve. And

as long as they remembered Rabbi Yehuda,

as long as the butchers followed the previous practice of not probing after the sciatic nerve, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

they were not trustworthy,

for the halakha had already been decided that it is necessary to probe, and they did not probe [and this is what Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, that they returned to say that they are not trusted].

And now, when they have forgotten Rabbi Yehuda,

the old practice was forgotten, and now they practice probing—

they are trustworthy

and this is what Rav Naḥman said: In the present time they are trusted.

We learned in the Mishna: And the Sages say: They are trusted concerning it,

and concerning the fat.

And we consider this:

“Fat”—who mentioned its name?!

For Rabbi Meir did not speak about fat at all, so why did the Sages mention it?

And we resolve:

This is what Rabbi Meir is saying: They are not trusted concerning it and

not

concerning the fat!

For there is also exertion involved in removing it.

And the Sages say: They are trusted concerning it and concerning the fat!

Mishna:

A person may send a thigh to a gentile with the sciatic nerve inside it,

and he need not be concerned lest the gentile sell the thigh to a Jew and the Jew eat it with the nerve,

because its place is recognizable.

Since the thigh is whole, the Jew sees that the sciatic nerve was not removed from it. For had it been removed, the place of the nerve, where the thigh had been probed, would be recognizable.

Gemara:

And we consider this: Since it teaches that a person may send a “thigh,” it implies

whole.

Yes,

for this applies specifically when it is a whole thigh, but

a cut one, no,

he may not send it to the gentile without first removing the nerve from it, lest the Jew who purchases the thigh from the gentile think that the nerve had already been removed, for surely the Jew cut it in order to remove the nerve from it.