Chullin 96a — the Talmud in English

Rava said: At first I would say

that

recognition by a sign is preferable to visual recognition,

for identification by means of a sign is more certain than identification by means of visual recognition, and there is proof of the matter from the fact that

we return a lost object on the basis of a sign ![](pamud.bmp "

Precise location of the amud")

but we do not return it on the basis of visual recognition. Now that I have heard these teachings,

which permitted the prohibition on the basis of visual recognition alone,

I say that visual recognition is preferable!

And the reason that we do not return a lost object on the basis of visual recognition is that we suspect him of lying].

For if you do not say so,

that it is possible to rely on visual recognition,

how is a blind man permitted with his wife? And how are people permitted with their wives at night?

And they do not fear that perhaps this is not his wife.

Rather,

it is necessarily

visual recognition of the voice,

as he recognizes her voice;

here too

it is possible to rely

on visual recognition.

Rav Yitzhak, son of Rav Mesharsheya, said: Know

that visual recognition is preferable to signs:

for if two witnesses came

two witnesses

and said: So-and-so, who has this sign and this sign, killed a person,

for we do not recognize the killer, but we know his signs,

we do not kill him

on the basis of the signs.

But if they said: We have visual recognition of him,

as we recognize him,

we kill him!

Rav Ashi said: Know! For if a person said to his agent: Call him

go and call

so-and-so, who has this sign and this sign! Perhaps he recognizes him and perhaps he does not recognize him.

For the agent is not certain whom he is meant to call.

But if he has visual recognition of him, when he sees him

the agent sees that man, immediately

he recognizes him,

for he is the man whom he must call.

Mishna:

One who takes the gid ha-nasheh

from within the thigh

must take all of it

to probe after it and remove its roots.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

He need not probe after it; rather, he cuts only what is above the thigh socket

in order to fulfill with it the mitzva of taking.

One who eats an olive-bulk of the gid ha-nasheh receives forty lashes

lashes, because he transgressed the prohibition against eating the gid ha-nasheh.

If he ate it

the entire sinew

and it does not contain an olive-bulk, he is liable

for lashes, because when the gid ha-nasheh is whole, it is a “beria,” for which one is liable even for any amount.

If he ate

from the two gidei ha-nasheh

from this one

of the right thigh

an olive-bulk, and from this one

of the left thigh

an olive-bulk, he receives eighty lashes,

two sets of lashes, for he transgressed the prohibition of the gid ha-nasheh twice.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He receives only forty lashes.

That is, only one set of lashes, because Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition of the gid ha-nasheh applies only to the right thigh.

Gemara:

Bar Piyulei

a person's name]

was standing before Shmuel, and he was removing the sinew from the thigh,

taking the gid ha-nasheh out of the thigh.

He was cutting it off,

he cut only from above and did not probe after it.

He said to him

Shmuel:

Cut down into it more!

Go down and cut also the roots of the sinew that are inside the thigh socket.

Now, had I not seen you,

had I not been present at the time of the act,

you would have caused me to eat a prohibition,

you would have caused me to stumble over the prohibition of the gid ha-nasheh.

He became frightened

Bar Piyulei from Shmuel's rebuke,

the knife fell from his hand! He said to him

Shmuel:

Do not become frightened!

For you too did not act improperly, because the one who

instructed you

to do so

instructed you according to Rabbi Yehuda!

For he holds that it is not necessary to probe after the gid ha-nasheh. But I hold according to Rabbi Meir.

Rav Sheshet said: That which Bar Piyulei took,

that part of the gid ha-nasheh which he took, is forbidden

by Torah law according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And we object:

By inference

you learn from this that what he

left

and did not take is forbidden

rabbinically according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And now this is difficult:

Rather,

whoever

instructed him

Bar Piyulei not to take more than the sinew,

according to whom did he instruct him?!

For even Rabbi Yehuda concedes that the remaining part is forbidden rabbinically.

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Sheshet said: That which Bar Piyulei took

is forbidden

by Torah law

both according to Rabbi Meir and according to Rabbi Yehuda — according to Tosafot].

And that which he left,

is forbidden

rabbinically according to Rabbi Meir.

For the obligation to probe after it according to Rabbi Meir is only rabbinic.

For according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is permitted even rabbinically!

We learned in the Mishna:

One who eats from the gid ha-nasheh

an olive-bulk receives forty lashes.

Shmuel said: The Torah prohibited only

that part of the sinew

that

is found

on the thigh socket alone,

but not what extends from it outside the thigh socket.

As it is stated: “on the thigh socket.”

Rav Pappa said:

Shmuel's words are

like [the dispute between] tannaim!

For it was taught in a beraita:

If he ate it

the entire gid ha-nasheh,

and it does not contain an olive-bulk, he is liable

for lashes.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

He is not liable

until it contains an olive-bulk.

And we discuss it:

What is the reason of the Rabbis?

And we answer: Because they hold: The whole gid ha-nasheh

is a “beria,”

for which one is liable for any amount.