Chullin 94a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

What are we dealing with? If you say, in a place where they do not announce

that today a tereifa animal was found in one of the butcher shops, then in that place it is forbidden ever to buy meat from a gentile, because perhaps on that day it was indeed a tereifa, and the meat in his possession is from what was sold to him from that animal; and if so, a thigh

that is cut should also be sent to him

by the Jew to the gentile, even without removing the sciatic nerve from it, since there is no concern that perhaps he will sell it to a Jew,

for they do not come

Jews

to buy from him

from the gentile, because of the concern of tereifa?

Rather, [we are dealing] in a place where they announce

a tereifa if one was found today, and in that place it is permitted to buy meat from a gentile on that day when nothing was announced, since if there were a tereifa in the city, they would announce [this is referring to a place where all those who slaughter animals are Jews, and the gentile does not slaughter himself]; therefore, one may not send a cut thigh to a gentile, because perhaps the Jew will buy it from the gentile. But still it is difficult: a thigh

that is whole should also not be sent to him

to the gentile unless he removes the sciatic nerve from it, for even though, while it is whole, it is recognizable that the nerve was not removed from it, nevertheless there is concern

that he will cut it

the gentile

and sell it

to a Jew. And the Jew will think that the nerve was removed from it since it is cut, and will come to eat it with the nerve?

And we answer:

If you wish, say

the Mishna is speaking

in a place where they announce. And if you wish, [say that it is] in a place where they do not announce.

And we explain:

If you wish, say [that it is] in a place where they announce

and there is no difficulty that we should be concerned lest the gentile cut the thigh, because

the cutting of a gentile—

is readily recognizable!

For the gentile cuts the thigh in a manner different from the Jew. [For the Jew cuts the thigh along the sciatic nerve so that he can remove it from the thigh], and through this the Jew recognizes that it was the gentile who cut the thigh, and they will not come to err and think that the nerve was removed from it.

And if you wish, say

it is speaking

in a place where they do not announce,

and nevertheless it is forbidden to send a cut thigh to a gentile.

A decree lest he give it to him

the Jew

in the presence of another Jew,

and that other Jew will hear how the Jew who gives it says to the gentile that he has already removed the sciatic nerve from it, and will think that it is a permissible thigh, and will come to buy the thigh from him, and eat it without removing the nerve [according to Tosafot, below, s.v. Amar].

And if you wish, say

the reason for the Mishna, that it is forbidden to send a cut thigh to a gentile without removing the sciatic nerve from it, is

because he deceives him regarding his understanding

of the gentile! For the gentile thinks that the Jew loves him very much, that he exerted himself to remove the nerve from the thigh and only after it became fit for himself did he send it to him, and he is grateful to the Jew on account of this. Whereas in reality, the Jew did not remove the nerve at all, and did not exert himself for the gentile.

For Shmuel said: It is forbidden to deceive people regarding their understanding, and even the understanding of a gentile!

And this statement of Shmuel was not stated explicitly, but was stated by implication,

from an incident that occurred it was possible to learn that this was Shmuel’s view.

For Shmuel was crossing on a ferry,

a ferry boat.

He said to

Shmuel

his attendant,

his servant:

Appease the ferryman!

Give the [gentile] owner of the ferry his payment.

He appeased him,

the attendant,

and Shmuel became angry.

Shmuel.

What is the reason that he became angry

Shmuel?

Abaye said: It was a tereifa chicken, and he gave it to him

to the owner of the ferry

with the manner of a slaughtered one,

as though it were permissible.

Rava said: He said to him, “Anfaka,” to give him to drink,

for Shmuel told the attendant to give the gentile wine,

but he gave him diluted wine!

And the attendant gave him wine diluted with water, whereas the gentile thought that it was undiluted wine. Thus Shmuel was particular that he had deceived the gentile regarding his understanding.

And we raise an objection:

But what [difference is there] if it was by implication?!

What do we care whether Shmuel said this explicitly or not, since from the story it is implied that this was indeed his view?

And we answer: Because it is possible to reject this and say that Shmuel’s anger was not on account of deceiving the gentile regarding his understanding, but for another reason.

According to the one who says

Abaye

that it was a tereifa,

it is possible to say that

he said to him

Shmuel to his attendant:

“Why did you delay a forbidden item?”

That is, why did you keep the tereifa in your possession until now?

And

according to the one who says: He said to him, “Anfaka,” to give him to drink,

it can be said that Shmuel was angry at the attendant because he transgressed his instruction. For

“anfaka”

means undiluted,

undiluted wine and not diluted, whereas he gave him diluted wine.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir would say: A person should not press

urge

his fellow to dine with him when he knows that he does not dine

with other people, because there is deception of his understanding in this. For his fellow is grateful to him for nothing, because he thinks that he urged him on account of friendship.

And he should not increase gifts for him,

presents,

when he knows that he does not accept.

And he should not open for him barrels sold to a shopkeeper!

A producer who sells wines to shopkeepers, and the wine is kept in sealed barrels, when an important person comes he opens a sealed barrel for him in order to serve him strong wine. But if this barrel has already been sold to a shopkeeper, there is deception of his understanding in opening the barrel. For the guest thinks that he is so important in the eyes of the host that he is willing to incur a loss for his sake, by opening a barrel, even though the wine may spoil. Whereas in reality he has no loss, since the shopkeeper is going to take it and open it immediately for his customers

unless he informed him

the guest that the barrel was sold, and that he has no loss in opening it.

And he should not say to him: Anoint yourself with oil from an empty flask!

When he knows that the other will refuse to anoint himself, and thereby deceives his fellow regarding his understanding, for he thinks that there is oil in the flask.

And if

he did so

for his honor

of the guest, to show people that he is beloved by him—it is permitted to say so.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? But Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Yehuda. He opened for him

Rav Yehuda

barrels sold to a shopkeeper!?

And we answer:

He informed him

Rav Yehuda informed Ulla that the barrels had been sold to a gentile.

And if you wish, say: Ulla is different, for he was beloved to Rav Yehuda. For even without that,

even if the barrels had not been sold to a shopkeeper,

he would likewise have opened them for him,

and there is no deception of his understanding here.

The Sages taught in a beraita: A person should not go to the house of a mourner with a jug that rattles,

jugs of wine that are not full, and the mourner thinks that they are full.

And he should not fill it with water

to complete what is lacking [see Maharsha and Rashash]

because he misleads him

to think that it is entirely wine.

And if there is there a communal scholar

many people, and he intends to raise the mourner’s esteem in their eyes, so that they will think that he brought full jugs of wine in his honor—

it is permitted.

The Sages taught in a beraita: A person should not sell his fellow a sandal

made of the hide

of

an animal that

died

by itself

as

[in the status of]

of

an animal

alive,

healthy,

slaughtered, for two reasons:

One reason—

one—

because he misleads him,

for the hide of a slaughtered animal is stronger than the hide of an animal that died.

And one reason—

one—

because of danger,

lest the animal died from the bite of a snake and the venom remained in the hide.

And a person should not send his fellow a barrel of wine with oil floating on its mouth,

for his fellow thinks that the barrel is full of oil and goes and invites guests, and in the end he has no oil for them.

And there was an incident involving one who sent his fellow a barrel of wine, with oil floating on its mouth. And he went and invited guests on its account, and they entered

to dine. In the end

he found that it was of wine, and strangled himself

from great shame, because he had nothing with which to feed them.

And the guests are not permitted to give from what is before them to the son or daughter of the master of the house,

lest he have no other food to give them and come to shame,

unless they received permission from the master of the house.

And there was an incident involving one who invited three guests during years of famine, and he had no

food

to place before them except

bread

of

the measure

of three eggs. The son of the master of the house came, took one of them,

from the guests,

his portion and gave it to him. And likewise

did the

second guest, and likewise

the

third. The father of the child came and found him clutching,

closing one portion

in his mouth, and two

holding

in his hands. He struck him against the ground

for he was angry at him because he had nothing else to give the guests,

and he died. When his mother saw this, she went up to the roof and fell and died. He too went up to the roof and fell, and died.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: Over this matter three Jewish souls were killed!

And we consider the matter:

What does he teach us

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

And we answer: The tanna of the beraita teaches us

that all of it is [the statement of] Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

For the tanna who arranged the beraita initially forgot to mention his name, and returned and mentioned his name [according to Rashi below, 104b].

The Sages taught in a beraita: One who sends a thigh to his fellow,

if it is

whole—

he need not remove the sciatic nerve from it,

for it is recognizable that he did not remove the nerve from the thigh, and his fellow will not stumble by eating it without removing it. And if it is

cut—

he must remove the sciatic nerve from it,

for his fellow may think that the nerve has already been removed from it and eat it without removing the nerve.

And when

sending to a

gentile—

whether it is cut or whether it is whole, he need not remove the sciatic nerve from it.

And below the reason will be explained.

And for two reasons they said that one may not sell carcasses and tereifot to a gentile.

One, because he misleads him,

for he thinks that the meat is permissible, and permissible meat is superior to tereifa meat.

And one, lest he return and sell it to another Jew.

And a person should not say to a gentile: Buy for me

purchase for me

with this dinar meat, for two reasons.