Chullin 93b (צג:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

The one who prohibits,

his reason is:

because they do not develop properly,

which indicates that they are not sufficiently fit for eating and that their nourishment from the animal has ceased. Therefore,

these—

are limbs taken from a living animal!

The one who permits

explains his position:

because they do not become putrid,

this is proof that

these—

contain vitality

from the animal and are not considered a limb detached from a living creature.

And the other one,

the one who prohibits, holds that

the fact that they do not become putrid

is because

the air does not affect them,

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

And the other one,

the one who permits, reasons that nothing can be proved from the fact that the loosened eggs are unfit for eating.

The fact that they do not develop properly

is merely because emaciation has taken hold of them!

They have deteriorated, and not because they lack vitality.

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

are permitted!

But

you shall not eat

of them

because of: “Do not forsake your mother’s teaching”!

You are from Babylonia, where the practice was to prohibit eating them.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: These eggs of a kid

not specifically; rather, eggs of any 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 that point onward, if they have developed seed

if they contain seed,

they are prohibited,

for they certainly contain blood.

But if they have not developed seed—

they are permitted!

How do we know

whether they contain seed or not?

If there are reddish veins in them,

red strands,

they are prohibited!

But if

there are no reddish veins in them—

they are permitted!

With regard to pieces of meat, eggs, and jugular veins,

as will be explained below, in all three cases

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree.

Throughout the entire Torah,

wherever Ravina and Rav Aḥa disagree,

Ravina is lenient,

he is the one who rules leniently,

and Rav Aḥa is stringent,

he is the one who rules stringently.

And the halakha

in all those disputes is

in accordance with Ravina—

leniently!

Except for these three

cases that we mentioned,

where 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 because blood collected as a result of a blow that the animal received there during its lifetime: if

he cuts it

makes many incisions in it,

and salts it—

even if he

cooks it in a

pot, it is entirely acceptable!

For the salt extracted the blood.

If

he also hangs it on a spit,

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

the blood drains out!

The blood collected in the meat flows outward, since it is hanging.

But if he placed it

on embers,

on coals,

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree.

One says: The coals draw out the blood,

the fire of the coals draws out the blood.

And one says: They seal it in,

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

And likewise with eggs

of an animal after thirty days.

And likewise with jugular veins,

the neck veins, which contain much blood; here too Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree when they are placed on the coals.

As for a head placed in the coals,

when the animal’s head is buried in the ashes of the coals [to remove the hair], if

he places it over the place of slaughter,

since the place of slaughter is below,

the blood drains

through the cut,

and it is permitted!

But if he places it

on its sides,

on the cheek,

the blood congeals,

it hardens within it because it has no place to escape—

and it is prohibited!

And if

he places it over its nostrils,

so that the nostril openings are below [and the place of slaughter is above]—if

he inserts something into it

to prevent the nostril from becoming blocked,

it is permitted!

The blood emerges through the opening.

But if he does not—

it is prohibited!

Some say: If he places it

over its nostrils,

or places it

over

the place of slaughter—

the blood drains,

and it is permitted even without inserting anything.

If he places it

on its sides, if he inserts something into it

in the nostrils,

it is permitted,

since even when the head rests on its side, the blood can emerge through the nostril opening.

But if he does not—

it is prohibited!

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

with regard to 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 thigh bone,

is prohibited

by Torah law,

and one is liable to lashes for it.

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 prohibited

by rabbinic law, and one is not

liable to lashes for it.

.

And we raise an objection:

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

is adjacent to the flesh!

How, then, did Rav Yehuda say in the name of Shmuel that the inner one is adjacent to the bone?

And we answer:

Rav Aḥa said in the name of Rav Kahana: It is folded back upon itself!

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

We raise another objection to Rav Yehuda, who said in the name of Shmuel that the outer one is adjacent to the flesh:

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

is the one adjacent to the bone!

Since it is exposed and not embedded in the flesh?

And we answer: Rav Yehuda said:

Where the butchers expose it!

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

It was stated: If a butcher has forbidden fat found behind him,

after he 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 the Gemara 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 the measure is the size of an olive, refers

to lashing him,

the butcher.

Here,

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

to disqualifying him,

removing him from his trade so that he may no longer sell meat; if forbidden fat is found, even the size of a barley grain, he is removed.

Mar Zutra said:

That is not the correct explanation of their words. Rather, they do not disagree because the

barley-grain measure

mentioned by Rav Yehuda applies specifically when it is

in one place.

Whereas the

olive-size measure

mentioned by Rabbi Yohanan applies even when it is

in two or three places.

And the halakha: To lash him—

for the size of an olive! To disqualify him—

for the size of a barley grain!

We learned in the Mishna:

Butchers are not deemed credible

with regard to the sciatic nerve; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say that they are deemed credible concerning it.

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

the butchers!

Rav Naḥman said:

Rabbi Yohanan’s words indicate that in the past they ruled in accordance with Rabbi Meir, and the butchers were not deemed credible, but they returned to rule in accordance with the Sages.

And this is puzzling: Is it because

the generations have become more worthy

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

And we answer:

Initially, they held in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who said [above, 90b] that one must search thoroughly after the sciatic nerve, which entails exertion; therefore

they were not deemed credible,

but it was necessary to inspect after them.

Ultimately, they held in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who returned to say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is unnecessary to search thoroughly after it; therefore they are deemed credible, since the matter entails no exertion.

Some teach this discussion with regard to the latter clause

of the Mishna, which states:

And the Sages say: They are deemed credible concerning it and concerning the forbidden fat!

And concerning this

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

They are not deemed credible

with regard to the nerve, since the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir.

Rav Naḥman said: In the present era, they are deemed credible,

the butchers.

And we raise an objection: Is it because

the generations have become more worthy?!

And we answer:

Initially, they held in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that it is unnecessary to search thoroughly after the sciatic nerve; consequently, they ruled in accordance with the Sages, that the butchers are deemed credible.

Later, they held in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

returning to rule in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who says that one must search thoroughly after the sciatic nerve.

As long as they remembered Rabbi Yehuda,

for as long as the butchers followed the earlier practice of not searching thoroughly after the sciatic nerve, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

they were not deemed credible,

since the halakha had already been established that one must search thoroughly, and they did not do so [and this is what Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, that they returned to say that they are not deemed credible].

But now, since they have forgotten Rabbi Yehuda,

the old practice has been forgotten and they now search thoroughly,

they are deemed credible

[and this is what Rav Naḥman said, that in the present era they are deemed credible].

We learned in the Mishna: And the Sages say that they are deemed credible concerning it,

and concerning the forbidden fat.

We inquire into this:

“Forbidden fat”—who mentioned it?

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

And we answer:

This is what Rabbi Meir said: They are not deemed credible concerning it or

not

concerning the forbidden fat!

Since removing it also entails exertion.

And the Sages say: They are deemed credible concerning it and concerning the forbidden fat!

Mishna:

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

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

because its location is recognizable.

Since the thigh is whole, the Jew will see that the sciatic nerve was not removed from it. Had it been removed, it would be evident from the place of the nerve that the thigh had been thoroughly cleaned there.

Gemara:

We inquire into this: Since it states that a person may send a “thigh,” it indicates that it is

whole—

yes,

only if it is a whole thigh; but

if it is cut, he may not

send it to the gentile without first removing the nerve, because perhaps the Jew who purchases the thigh from the gentile will assume that the nerve had already been removed, since surely a Jew would have cut it in order to remove the nerve from it.