Chullin 96b (צו:) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yehuda

holds:

“eating” is written with regard to it in the prohibition of the gid ha-nasheh.

And the unspecified term “eating” refers only to an olive-bulk.

And the Rabbis

hold:

that “eating”

comes to teach us

that when there are

in the gid ha-nasheh

four or five olive-bulks,

meaning that it is large,

and one eats one olive-bulk

of it,

he is liable

even though he did not eat all of it. But if he ate all of it, he is liable for it even if it is less than an olive-bulk.

And Rabbi Yehuda

could say to you: The fact that one is liable for the gid ha-nasheh even if he did not eat all of it

is derived from “which is on the hollow of the thigh.”

This implies that even if he ate only the part that is on the hollow of the thigh, he is liable [although the entire gid ha-nasheh is prohibited], provided that the portion eaten bears the status of “eating,” meaning that it is an olive-bulk. And the Torah did not need to write the term “eating” for this purpose. Rather, it certainly comes to teach us that even if one ate an entire gid ha-nasheh, he is not liable for it if it does not contain an olive-bulk.

And the Rabbis

hold:

that

the verse “which is on the hollow of the thigh”

is needed for that which Shmuel said: The Torah prohibited only that which is on the hollow of the thigh.

And it is not superfluous in order to teach that one is liable even for eating part of the gid ha-nasheh. Rather, this is derived from the term “eating.”

And Rabbi Yehuda

disagrees with Shmuel’s ruling itself, because

“the thigh” is written.

This implies [from the superfluous definite article] that

the entire thigh

of the gid ha-nasheh is prohibited, and not only what is on the hollow of the thigh. If so, the verse “which is on the hollow of the thigh” is superfluous, and it teaches that eating part of the gid ha-nasheh is prohibited.

And the Rabbis

expound “the thigh” to mean specifically

that one whose prohibition extends throughout the entire thigh,

namely, the inner tendon, which is large and extends throughout the thigh; only it is prohibited.

To exclude

the

outer

tendon, which is short,

not so.

It is not included in the prohibition.

And in any event,

it is possible to uphold Shmuel’s ruling, that only what is

on the hollow

of the thigh is prohibited.

Thus, we have found that the tannaim disagree concerning this ruling of Shmuel.

And we challenge both the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda, who expound “which is on the hollow”:

And

does

this term “hollow” not serve to exclude a bird,

in which the prohibition of the gid ha-nasheh does not apply, because

it does not have a hollow?

And we answer:

Two occurrences of “hollow” are written!

There are two instances in the passage from which to derive two homiletic interpretations.

Mishna:

a.

The thigh

of an animal

in which

the

gid ha-nasheh

was cooked,

together with the thigh—

if it contains

the flavor of the gid ha-nasheh, meaning that the flavor of the gid ha-nasheh is discernible in it,

it is prohibited

to eat, because of the flavor of the gid ha-nasheh discernible in it.

How is it measured

whether it contains the requisite flavor or not?

By

the proportion of

meat

that imparts flavor

to a turnip!

That is, we regard the thigh as though it were a turnip, and the tendon as though it were meat. We assess the proportion between the tendon and the thigh according to the proportion at which meat equivalent in size to the tendon imparts flavor to a turnip equivalent in size to the thigh.

b.

A gid ha-nasheh that was cooked together with tendons

that are permitted—

When he recognizes it,

the gid ha-nasheh, he removes and discards it, and assesses the flavor it imparted

according to whether it imparts flavor

to the permitted tendons.

But if not,

meaning that he does not recognize the gid ha-nasheh mixed among the permitted tendons, then the tendons are

all prohibited,

as one must be concerned that each tendon may be the gid ha-nasheh, and it is not nullified by the majority because it has the status of a “whole entity,” which is not nullified by the majority [by rabbinic decree]!

And

if

the sauce

in which the gid ha-nasheh and the other tendons were cooked were assessed

according to whether it imparts flavor,

meaning, whether the gid ha-nasheh has the capacity to impart flavor to all the pieces together with the sauce

.

c.

And similarly, a piece of unslaughtered animal carcass, and similarly a piece of non-kosher fish, that was cooked together with pieces

of permitted food—

When he recognizes

the prohibited pieces, he removes and discards them, and assesses

according to whether it imparts flavor,

meaning, whether the prohibited piece has the capacity to impart flavor to the permitted pieces.

But if not,

meaning that he does not recognize the prohibited pieces, then

all of them are prohibited,

because “a piece fit to be served to honored guests” is not nullified by the majority [by rabbinic decree], and with regard to every piece one must consider that it may be the prohibited piece.

And the sauce

in which the permitted and prohibited pieces were cooked is assessed

according to whether it imparts flavor:

if the prohibited piece has the capacity to impart flavor to all the pieces together with the sauce, then everything is prohibited. But if not, the sauce is permitted.

Gemara:

Shmuel said: They taught

that if the gid ha-nasheh has the capacity to impart flavor throughout the entire thigh, the thigh is prohibited

only when it was cooked in it,

as cooking carries the flavor of the tendon throughout the thigh.

But

if it was roasted in it,

the tendon becomes sealed within it and neither diffuses nor enters the meat. Therefore, the meat of the thigh is not prohibited; rather, one

peels

away the meat of the thigh—

and eats until he reaches the tendon!

He does not eat the tendon itself.

And we challenge this:

Is that so? But Rav Huna said: If one roasted a kid goat in its milk-fat,

meaning that he did not remove the kidney fat from it before roasting, and he roasted it together with the fat—

it is prohibited to eat it even from the tip of its ear,

as we assume that the fat within it diffuses and reaches even the ear! It is proven from this that the fat spreads throughout the entire animal even during roasting. Why, then, do we say with regard to the gid ha-nasheh that during roasting it does not impart flavor but rather becomes sealed within it?!

This proves that the fat spreads throughout the entire animal even during roasting. Why, then, do we say concerning the sciatic nerve that when it is roasted it does not impart flavor but rather becomes fixed in place?!