Chullin 96b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yehuda

holds:

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

And ordinary eating is only 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,

which is large,

and one eats an 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

can say to you: This matter—that the gid ha-nasheh entails liability even if he did not eat all of it—

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

For it implies that even if he ate only the part that is upon the hollow of the thigh, he is liable [although all of it is prohibited], provided that there is upon it the designation of eating, that is, an olive-bulk. And the Torah did not need to write the expression “eating” for this purpose. Rather, certainly it comes to teach us that even if he 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

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

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

And it is not superfluous to teach that one is liable even for eating part of the gid. Rather, it is from the expression “eating” that this is derived.

And Rabbi Yehuda

disagrees with Shmuel’s basic ruling, because

“the thigh” is written.

For it implies [from the superfluous heh] that the gid ha-nasheh

of the entire thigh

is prohibited, and not only that which is upon the hollow of the thigh. And if so, the verse “which is upon the hollow of the thigh” is superfluous, to teach that eating part of the gid is prohibited.

And the Rabbis

expound “the thigh”: specifically,

that one whose prohibition extends throughout the entire thigh,

that is, the inner gid, which is large and extends throughout the entire thigh—only it is prohibited.

To exclude

the

outer

gid, which is short,

no.

For it is not included in the prohibition.

And in any event,

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

upon the hollow

of the thigh is prohibited.

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

And we raise an objection both against the Rabbis and against Rabbi Yehuda, who expound “which is upon the hollow”:

and

does

this “hollow” not need to exclude a bird

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

it has no hollow?

And we answer:

Two occurrences of “hollow” are written!

In the passage, to expound two expositions.

Mishna:

a.

The thigh

of an animal

in which it was cooked,

together with the thigh,

the gid ha-nasheh—

if it has,

in the thigh,

the capacity to impart flavor,

so that the flavor of the gid ha-nasheh is perceptible in it,

it is prohibited

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

How does one estimate it,

whether it has the capacity to impart flavor or not?

As

the proportion of

meat

that imparts flavor

in a turnip!

That is, one views the thigh as though it were a turnip, and the gid as though it were meat. And one estimates the ratio between the gid and the thigh according to the ratio in which meat of the measure of the gid imparts flavor in a turnip of the measure of the thigh.

b.

A gid ha-nasheh that was cooked with the tendons

that are permitted—

When one recognizes it,

the gid ha-nasheh, he casts away the gid ha-nasheh, and estimates the flavor of its emission

according to its capacity to impart flavor

in the permitted tendons.

But if not,

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

all prohibited,

for with regard to every tendon there is concern that perhaps it is the gid ha-nasheh, and it is not nullified by the majority, since it has the importance of a “creature,” which is not nullified by the majority [by rabbinic law]!

And

if

the sauce

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

according to its capacity to impart flavor,

whether the gid ha-nasheh has the power to impart flavor in all the pieces together with the sauce.

If the flavor of the gid ha-nasheh and the flavor of the other tendons are identical, it is “one species with its own kind,” and the Sages estimated that its nullification is at one in sixty.

c.

And likewise, a piece of an animal carcass, and likewise a piece of a non-kosher fish, that was cooked with the pieces

of permitted food—

When one recognizes them,

the pieces of prohibition, he removes and casts them away, and estimates

according to their capacity to impart flavor,

whether the prohibited piece has the power to impart flavor in the permitted pieces.

But if not,

when he does not recognize the prohibited pieces, then

all of them are prohibited,

because “a piece fit to be served before guests” is not nullified by the majority [by rabbinic law!], and with regard to every piece there is uncertainty whether perhaps it is the prohibited piece.

And the sauce

in which the permitted and prohibited pieces were cooked is estimated

according to its capacity to impart flavor

whether the prohibited piece has the power to impart flavor in 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 power to impart flavor in the entire thigh, it is prohibited,

only when it was cooked in it,

for the cooking carries the flavor of the gid throughout the entire thigh.

But

if it was roasted in it,

the gid becomes congealed within it, and it does not permeate or enter the meat. Therefore, the meat of the thigh is not prohibited; rather, one

peels

from the meat of the thigh—

and eats until he reaches the gid!

For that he does not eat.

And we refute this:

Is that so? But Rav Huna said: A kid that one roasted with its milk-fat,

when he did not remove its kidney-fat before the roasting and roasted it together with the fat—

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

for we assume that the fat within it permeates and reaches even the ear!

And it is demonstrated that the fat spreads throughout it even during roasting; and why, with regard to the gid ha-nasheh, do we say that during roasting it does not impart flavor but rather becomes congealed!?