Chullin Daf 93 (חולין דף צ״ג)
Daf: 93 | Amudim: 93a – 93b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (93a)
Segment 1
TYPE: סיום הראיה
Fat covered by flesh is permitted — ‘upon’ the loins and kidneys, not within them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֵלֶב שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אוֹתוֹ מוּתָּר, אַלְמָא שֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְלֹא שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכְּסָלִים, הָכָא נָמֵי שֶׁעַל הַכְּלָיוֹת אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְלֹא שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכְּלָיוֹת.
English Translation:
The fat that is covered by the flesh is permitted. Apparently, when the Merciful One states in the Torah that the fat that is upon the loins is prohibited (see Leviticus 3:4), it is referring only to the fat above the loins but not the fat that is inside the loins. Here also, the Merciful One states in the Torah that the fat that is upon the kidneys is prohibited (see Leviticus 3:4), but this does not include the fat that is inside the kidneys.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens completing Abaye’s proof from 92b for Rabbi Asi’s practice with the kidney’s white fat. Shmuel’s principle: fat that the flesh covers is permitted. The Torah forbade the fat ‘upon the loins’ (Vayikra 3:4) — upon, and not within; so too ‘upon the kidneys’ — upon, and not within. The fat buried inside the kidney is therefore outside the Torah prohibition, which is why Rabbi Asi’s cutting-level practice suffices and full scraping is a stringency only.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁעַל… וְלֹא שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ = ‘upon — and not within’ — the Torah’s preposition limits the prohibition to surface fat
- חֵלֶב שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אוֹתוֹ = fat that the flesh covers — permitted, per Shmuel
Segment 2
TYPE: גופא וקושיא
Shmuel’s principle cited in full — and contradicted by his own ruling on the fat beneath the loins
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֵלֶב שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אוֹתוֹ – מוּתָּר. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי תַּרְבָּא דְּתוּתֵי מָתְנֵי – אֲסִיר!
English Translation:
§ The Gemara addresses the matter itself cited in the discussion above: Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat that is covered by the flesh is permitted. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Abba say that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This fat that is under the loins is forbidden, even though it is covered by flesh?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara examines the principle itself: Rabbi Abba quoted Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel — fat covered by flesh is permitted. But the same chain transmitted: the fat beneath the loins (tarba d’tutei matnei) is forbidden — though flesh covers it! Shmuel appears to contradict himself within a single line of transmission.
Key Terms:
- תַּרְבָּא דְּתוּתֵי מָתְנֵי = the fat beneath the loins — forbidden despite being covered by flesh
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye: in life, the animal’s joints spread and expose that fat — Rabbi Yochanan’s study-hall memory concurs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ פָּרוֹקֵי מִיפַּרְקָא. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲנָא לָאו טַבָּחָא אֲנָא וְלָאו בַּר טַבָּחָא אֲנָא, וּנְהִירְנָא דְּהָכִי הֲווֹ אָמְרִי בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא: בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ פָּרוֹקֵי מִיפַּרְקָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers that Abaye said: When an animal is alive its limbs separate at the joints as it walks, so that the fat under the loins is not covered by flesh. Therefore, even after it has been slaughtered this fat is forbidden and does not have the status of fat that is covered by flesh. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I am not a butcher and I am not the son of a butcher, i.e., I am not expert in the anatomy of animals, but I remember that this is what they would say in the study hall: When an animal is alive its limbs separate at the joints as it walks, so that the fat under the loins is exposed.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye resolves the contradiction anatomically: a living animal’s limbs separate as it walks — behema b’chayeha parokei mifarka — so the fat beneath the loins is exposed in life, and ‘covered’ only in the carcass’s posture. Coverage is judged by the living animal. Rabbi Yochanan adds a charming corroboration: I am no butcher nor a butcher’s son, but I remember that this is what they said in the study hall — the identical principle. The halachic anatomy of the kosher animal is fixed by its living gait.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ פָּרוֹקֵי מִיפַּרְקָא = a living animal’s joints spread apart — ‘covered’ status follows the living posture
- לָאו טַבָּחָא אֲנָא = ‘I am no butcher’ — Rabbi Yochanan’s disclaimer before confirming the tradition
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרות
Shmuel identifies the Torah’s fats: the omasum and reticulum fat is ‘upon the innards’; the coccygeal fat is ‘upon the loins’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת (אסורין) [אָסוּר], וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְזֶהוּ חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַקֶּרֶב. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַאי תַּרְבָּא דִּקְלִיבוּסְתָּא אָסוּר, וְעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְזֶהוּ חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים.
English Translation:
§ Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat that is on the omasum and the reticulum is forbidden, and its consumption is punishable by karet. And this is the fat that is referred to in the Torah as being upon the innards (see Leviticus 3:3). Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This fat of the coccygeal bone is forbidden, and its consumption is punishable by karet. And this is the fat that is referred to in the Torah as being upon the loins (see Leviticus 3:4).
קלאוד על הדף:
Two identifications from the same chain of transmission, each carrying karet. The fat upon the omasum (hemses) and the reticulum (beit hakosot) is forbidden with karet — this is the Torah’s ‘fat that covers the innards’ (Vayikra 3:3). And the fat of the kelibusta — the coccygeal bone at the tail’s base — is forbidden with karet: this is the Torah’s ‘fat upon the loins’ (3:4). The sacrificial verses are being mapped, organ by organ, onto the butcher’s table.
Key Terms:
- הֶמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת = the omasum and reticulum — the third and second stomachs of a ruminant
- תַּרְבָּא דִּקְלִיבוּסְתָּא = the fat of the coccygeal bone — identified as the Torah’s ‘fat upon the loins’
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא ותגובות
The foreleg veins are ‘forbidden’ — Moshe! — because of blood; cut and salted, they are permitted even for the pot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חוּטִין שֶׁבַּיָּד אֲסוּרִין. אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: מֹשֶׁה, מִי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״לָא תֵּיכוֹל בִּישְׂרָא״? אָמַר רָבָא: מֹשֶׁה, מִי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״אֲכוֹל דְּמָא״? חַתְכֵיהּ וּמַלְחֵיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ לִקְדֵירָה נָמֵי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Abba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The veins that are in the foreleg of an animal are forbidden. Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba: Moses! Did the Merciful One say in the Torah: Do not eat meat? The veins of the foreleg are part of the meat and are not forbidden. Rava said: Moses! Did the Merciful One say in the Torah: Eat blood? The reason that these veins are forbidden is that they are filled with blood. Therefore, if one cuts the foreleg open and salts it to remove the blood, it is permitted even to cook it in a pot; and it is certainly permitted to roast it over a fire, which also draws out the blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel’s next ruling — the veins in the foreleg are forbidden — draws astonished protest. Rav Safra: Moshe! Did the Merciful One say ‘do not eat meat’? Rava mirrors him: Moshe! Did the Merciful One say ‘eat blood’? The exclamations frame the resolution: the veins are not forbidden as flesh but as vessels of blood. Cut open and salted, the foreleg is permitted even for the pot. The ‘prohibition’ is a processing requirement — the first appearance of the daf’s kashrut-craft theme.
Key Terms:
- מֹשֶׁה! = ‘Moshe!’ — an exclamation of astonishment, invoking the greatest teacher
- חַתְכֵיהּ וּמַלְחֵיהּ = cut it and salt it — blood-removal renders the veins permitted even for cooking
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא
The first cubit of the intestine requires scraping — this is ‘the fat upon the small intestine’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: רֵישׁ מְעַיָּא בְּאַמְּתָא בָּעֵי גְּרִירָה, וְזֶהוּ חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַדַּקִּין.
English Translation:
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The fat on the top cubit of the small intestine requires scraping, i.e., it is forbidden and must be removed. And this is the fat referred to by the Sages (see 49b) as the fat that is on the small intestine.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda quotes Shmuel: the head of the intestine, for one cubit from the stomach, requires scraping (gerira) — its surface fat is forbidden. This identifies the ‘fat upon the small intestine’ (dakin) mentioned by the Sages earlier in the masechet (49b). Another landmark on the map of the forbidden fats.
Key Terms:
- רֵישׁ מְעַיָּא בְּאַמְּתָא = the first cubit of the intestine — whose surface fat must be scraped away
- גְּרִירָה = scraping — removal of the adhering forbidden fat
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
The tail sinews: five strands, their branching pattern, and the warm-removal trick
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: חוּטִין שֶׁבָּעוֹקֶץ אֲסוּרִין. חַמְשָׁא חוּטֵי אִית בֵּיהּ בְּכַפְלָא, תְּלָתָא מִיַּמִּינָא וְתַרְתֵּי מִשְּׂמָאלָא. תְּלָתָא מִפַּצְלִי לִתְרֵי תְּרֵי, תְּרֵי מִפַּצְלִי לִתְלָתָא תְּלָתָא. נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ, דְּאִי שָׁלֵיף לְהוּ עַד דְּחַמִּימֵי – מִשְׁתַּלְּפִי, וְאִי לָא – בָּעֵי חַטּוֹטֵי בָּתְרַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
And Rav Yehuda says: The sinews that are in the tailbone are forbidden for consumption, because they contain forbidden fat. There are five sinews in the tail: Three on the right and two on the left. The three on the right each split into two, and the two on the left each split into three. The practical difference, i.e., the reason the Gemara describes this in detail, is that if one draws them out while they are still warm soon after slaughter they are drawn out easily, but if not, he is required to scrape around them, i.e., dig into the flesh to remove them. It is important to know how many there are to ensure that one removes them all.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda continues: the sinews in the tailbone region are forbidden because of their fat. The anatomy is precise: five strands in the flank — three on the right, each splitting in two; two on the left, each splitting in three. The practical yield of the detail: removed while the carcass is still warm, they slip out whole; once cold, one must scrape after every branch. Knowing the count ensures none is missed — Talmudic anatomy in the service of the deveiner’s craft.
Key Terms:
- חוּטִין שֶׁבָּעוֹקֶץ = the sinews of the tailbone region — forbidden on account of fat
- עַד דְּחַמִּימֵי מִשְׁתַּלְּפִי = while warm they slip out — the practical window for easy removal
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Five forbidden strands: three for fat — spleen, flank, kidneys; two for blood — foreleg and jaw
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יְהוּדָה: חַמְשָׁא חוּטֵי הָווּ, תְּלָתָא מִשּׁוּם תַּרְבָּא, וּתְרֵין מִשּׁוּם דְּמָא. דִּטְחָלֵי וּדְכַפְלֵי וּדְכוּלְיָתָא – מִשּׁוּם תַּרְבָּא, דִּידָא וּדְלוֹעָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּמָא.
English Translation:
Abaye said, and some say that Rav Yehuda said: There are five strands that are forbidden for consumption; three of them are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat, and two are forbidden because they contain blood. The ligaments of the spleen and of the tail and of the kidneys are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat. And the veins of the foreleg and of the pharynx, i.e., the carotid artery, are forbidden because they contain blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye (or Rav Yehuda) systematizes: five strands are forbidden — three because of forbidden fat and two because of blood. The fat-strands: of the spleen, of the flanks, and of the kidneys. The blood-strands: of the foreleg and of the jaw (the large vessels). The classification is not academic — the next segment turns it into practice.
Key Terms:
- מִשּׁוּם תַּרְבָּא / מִשּׁוּם דְּמָא = on account of fat / on account of blood — the two grounds of prohibition
Segment 9
TYPE: נפקא מינה
The difference: blood-strands are rectified by cutting and salting; fat-strands have no remedy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ – הָנֵי דְּמִשּׁוּם דְּמָא, אִי מְחַתֵּךְ לְהוּ וּמָלַח לְהוּ – שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, הָנָךְ – לֵית לְהוּ תַּקַּנְתָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether they are forbidden due to fat or due to blood? The Gemara answers: With regard to these veins and arteries that are forbidden because they contain blood, if one cuts them open and then salts them to remove the blood they are permitted. But those strands that contain forbidden fat have no rectification and can never be eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
Why classify? Because the remedy differs. The strands forbidden for blood can be rectified: cut them open, salt them, and they are permitted. The strands forbidden for fat have no rectification — takanta — ever: forbidden fat cannot be salted away; it must be physically removed. The classification thus drives the deveiner’s knife: what may be treated, and what must be excised.
Key Terms:
- לֵית לְהוּ תַּקַּנְתָּא = they have no remedy — fat-based prohibitions cannot be cured by salting
Segment 10
TYPE: מימרא
Five forbidden membranes: three for fat — spleen, flank, kidneys; two for blood — testicles and brain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יְהוּדָה: חַמְשָׁא קְרָמֵי הָווּ, תְּלָתָא מִשּׁוּם תַּרְבָּא, וּתְרֵי מִשּׁוּם דְּמָא. דִּטְחָלֵי דְּכַפְלֵי וּדְכוּלְיָתָא מִשּׁוּם תַּרְבָּא, דְּבֵיעֵי וּדְמוֹקְרָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמָא.
English Translation:
Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Rav Yehuda who said: There are five membranes that are forbidden for consumption; three of them are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat, and two are forbidden because they contain blood. The membranes of the spleen and of the tail and of the kidneys are forbidden because they contain forbidden fat. And the membranes of the testicles and of the brain are forbidden because they contain blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Kahana (or Rav Yehuda) adds the parallel list of membranes (keramim): five are forbidden — those of the spleen, flanks, and kidneys because of fat; those of the testicles and the brain because of blood. Together with the strands, the daf is assembling the complete checklist of nikkur — the removal of forbidden fats and vessels that still governs kosher butchery.
Key Terms:
- קְרָמֵי = membranes — the thin skins over organs, five of them forbidden
- דְּבֵיעֵי וּדְמוֹקְרָא = of the testicles and of the brain — membranes forbidden on account of blood
Segment 11
TYPE: מעשה
Peeling the spleen for Levi: ‘go deeper!’ — and the grandfather’s tradition: only the thick surface is Torah-forbidden
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא הֲוָה קָא קָלֵיף לֵיהּ טְחָלָא לְלֵוִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא, הֲוָה קָא גָאֵים לֵיהּ מֵעִילַּאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חוֹת בֵּיהּ טְפֵי. אֲתָא אֲבוּהּ אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דְּאִמָּךְ מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב, וּמַנּוּ רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל הַדַּד בִּלְבָד.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya was peeling the membranes from a spleen for Levi, son of Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya. He was cutting them only from the upper surface of the spleen. Levi said to Rav Yehuda: Go down further, i.e., remove the fat that is lower down as well. Levi’s father, Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, came and found him as Levi was saying this to Rav Yehuda. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to him: This is what your mother’s father said in the name of Rav; and who was Levi’s mother’s father? It was Rav Yirmeya bar Abba. He said: The Torah prohibits only the membranes that are on the thick, upper surface of the spleen.
קלאוד על הדף:
A workshop scene: Rav Yehuda bar Oshaya was peeling the spleen’s membrane for Levi son of Rav Huna bar Chiyya, trimming only the upper, thick side (the dad). Levi urged him: go deeper. His father arrived and corrected him with a family tradition: so said your mother’s father — Rav Yirmeya bar Abba — in the name of Rav: the Torah forbade only the membrane on the thick surface of the spleen. The stringency Levi demanded exceeds the law as his own grandfather transmitted it.
Key Terms:
- דַּד הַטְּחוֹל = the thick, breast-like surface of the spleen — the only part whose membrane-fat is Torah-forbidden
- אֲבוּהּ דְּאִמָּךְ = ‘your mother’s father’ — the family chain of transmission invoked mid-butchery
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Levi objects from Rav Hamnuna’s baraita — ‘if it is taught, it is taught’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: תָּנָא קְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַטְּחוֹל אָסוּר, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִים עָלָיו. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא שֶׁעַל הַדַּד – אַמַּאי אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו? אֶלָּא דְּכוּלֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא – תַּנְיָא.
English Translation:
Levi asked: Is that so? But didn’t Rav Hamnuna say that it was taught in a baraita that the membrane that is on the spleen is forbidden, but one is not liable to receive the punishment of karet for eating it? Levi clarifies: What are the circumstances referred to in the baraita? If we say that it is referring to the membranes that are on the thick, upper surface of the spleen, why is one not liable to the punishment of karet for eating it? Rather, it must be referring to the membranes on all sides of the spleen, even the underside. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said to his son, Levi: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Levi counters with Rav Hamnuna’s baraita: the membrane on the spleen is forbidden, but one is not liable for it. If that meant the thick surface, why no liability — that part is real chelev! It must cover the entire spleen, even the underside — so the whole membrane is forbidden at least rabbinically, beyond the grandfather’s ruling. His father yields with the classic formula: if it is taught, it is taught — a baraita outranks a family tradition.
Key Terms:
- אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא = ‘if it is taught, it is taught’ — an amora yields to a tannaitic source he cannot dispute
Segment 13
TYPE: גופא וקושיא
Rav Hamnuna’s baraita in full — and a contradicting baraita imposing liability
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: תָּנָא, קְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַטְּחוֹל אָסוּר וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו, קְרוּם שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי כּוּלְיָא אָסוּר וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו. וְהָתַנְיָא: חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו!
English Translation:
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself mentioned above: Rav Hamnuna said that it was taught in a baraita: The membrane that is on the spleen is forbidden, but one is not liable to receive karet for eating it. The membrane that is on the kidney is forbidden, but one is not liable to receive karet for eating it. The Gemara challenges this statement: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that one is liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen or the kidney?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites Rav Hamnuna’s teaching in full: the membrane on the spleen — forbidden without liability; the membrane on the kidney — forbidden without liability. Against it, another baraita: one IS liable for them. Two tannaitic sources, flatly opposed on both organs — the next two segments resolve them one organ at a time.
Key Terms:
- אָסוּר וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו = forbidden without liability — rabbinic-level prohibition
- חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו = one is liable for it — karet-level, true chelev
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Spleen versus spleen: liable on the thick side, exempt off the thick side
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טְחוֹל אַטְּחוֹל לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא כְּנֶגֶד הַדַּד, הָא שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַדַּד.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the baraita that states that one is not liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen and the baraita that states that one is liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the spleen is not difficult: This baraita that states that one is liable is referring to the membrane on the thick, upper part of the spleen, whereas that baraita that states that one is not liable is referring to the membrane that is not on the thick part of the spleen.
קלאוד על הדף:
The spleen contradiction dissolves by location: the baraita imposing liability speaks of the membrane over the dad — the thick upper surface, whose fat is true chelev with karet; the baraita denying liability speaks of the membrane elsewhere on the spleen — forbidden only rabbinically. Precisely the geography of Rav’s tradition in the Levi story: the Torah’s prohibition sits on the thick surface alone.
Key Terms:
- כְּנֶגֶד הַדַּד = over the thick surface — where the spleen’s membrane carries karet
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Kidney versus kidney: the upper membrane liable, the lower exempt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כּוּלְיָא אַכּוּלְיָא נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּעִילָּאָה, הָא בְּתַתָּאָה.
English Translation:
Likewise, the apparent contradiction between the baraita that states that one is not liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the kidney and the baraita that states that one is liable to receive karet for eating the membrane on the kidney is not difficult: This baraita that states that one is liable is referring to the membrane on the upper part of the kidney, whereas that baraita that states that one is not liable is referring to the membrane on the lower part of the kidney.
קלאוד על הדף:
The kidney contradiction dissolves the same way: the baraita imposing liability speaks of the upper membrane — continuous with the kidney’s chelev and liable like it; the baraita denying liability speaks of the lower membrane, against the flesh — forbidden without liability. The two-membrane anatomy of the kidney becomes codified halacha: one karet-level skin, one rabbinic-level skin.
Key Terms:
- עִילָּאָה / תַּתָּאָה = the upper / the lower membrane — karet-level versus rabbinic-level
Segment 16
TYPE: מחלוקת (נמשכת)
Crushed testicles: Rav Ami and Rav Asi divide — the forbidding view begins
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בֵּיעֵי חֲשִׁילָתָא, רַב אַמֵּי וְרַב אַסִּי – חַד אָסַר וְחַד שָׁרֵי. מַאן דְּאָסַר,
English Translation:
§ With regard to testicles that were crushed while the animal was alive but were still attached to their cords in the scrotum, there is a dispute between Rav Ami and Rav Asi. One of them prohibits eating the testicles after the animal is slaughtered and one of them permits eating them. The Gemara clarifies: The one who prohibits them holds that
קלאוד על הדף:
A new topic: beiei chashilata — testicles crushed while the animal lived, still attached in the scrotum. After the animal’s slaughter, may they be eaten? Rav Ami and Rav Asi divide — one forbids, one permits. The amud ends mid-sentence presenting the forbidding rationale: since they do not heal… — completed overleaf, where the debate over what counts as ‘severed from the living’ unfolds.
Key Terms:
- בֵּיעֵי חֲשִׁילָתָא = crushed testicles — injured in life, still attached in the scrotum
Amud Bet (93b)
Segment 1
TYPE: השלמת המחלוקת
They do not heal — a limb of the living; they do not rot — vitality remains
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדְּלָא קָא בָרְיָין, הָנֵי אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי נִינְהוּ. מַאן דְּשָׁרֵי, מִדְּלָא קָא מַסְרְחָן, הָנֵי חִיּוּתָא אִית בְּהוּ.
English Translation:
since these testicles do not heal, they are considered a limb severed from a living animal even though they are still attached to the animal. Consequently, they are forbidden even after the animal is slaughtered. And the one who permits eating crushed testicles holds that since they do not rot, there is vitality in them, and they are not considered to have been detached from the animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The rationales complete. The forbidding view: since the crushed testicles never heal, they are dead tissue — ever min hachai, a limb severed from the living, which no subsequent slaughter can permit. The permitting view: since they do not rot, vitality remains in them — they are still living parts of the animal, and its slaughter permits them like any limb.
Key Terms:
- אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי = a limb from the living — tissue that ‘died’ while the animal lived, unaffected by later slaughter
- חִיּוּתָא אִית בְּהוּ = there is vitality in them — the permitting view’s reading of their preservation
Segment 2
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
Each side deflects the other’s proof: no air reaches them; mere weakness seized them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִידָּךְ, הַאי דְּלָא קָא מַסְרְחָן – דְּלָא קָא שָׁלֵיט בְּהוּ אַוֵּירָא, וְאִידָּךְ – הַאי דְּלָא בָּרְיָין, כְּחִישׁוּתָא הוּא דִּנְקַט לְהוּ.
English Translation:
And the other opinion, which holds that crushed testicles are forbidden, holds that the reason the testicles do not rot is not because they have vitality but rather because air does not penetrate the scrotum, and it is contact with air that would cause them to rot. And the other opinion, which holds that crushed testicles are permitted, holds that the fact that they do not heal is because they have been struck with weakness, but not because they are entirely devoid of vitality. Consequently, they should not be considered detached from the body.
קלאוד על הדף:
Each rationale is turned. The forbidding view deflects the no-rot proof: they do not rot only because air does not penetrate the scrotum — preservation without vitality. The permitting view deflects the no-heal proof: they fail to heal because weakness has seized them — debility, not death. The empirical signs are each compatible with both readings, so the dispute stands on principle.
Key Terms:
- לָא שָׁלֵיט בְּהוּ אַוֵּירָא = air does not reach them — preservation explained without vitality
- כְּחִישׁוּתָא הוּא דִּנְקַט לְהוּ = weakness has seized them — failure to heal explained without death
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan to Rav Shemen bar Abba: they are permitted — but you shall not eat them: ‘do not forsake your mother’s Torah’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא: הָנֵי בֵּיעֵי חֲשִׁילָתָא שַׁרְיָין, וְאַתְּ לָא תֵּיכוֹל מִשּׁוּם ״וְאַל תִּטֹּשׁ תּוֹרַת אִמֶּךָ״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: These crushed testicles are permitted for consumption, but you should not eat them due to the dictum: “And do not forsake the Torah of your mother” (Proverbs 1:8). Since Rav Shemen bar Abba was from Babylonia, where it was customary to be stringent, it was prohibited for him to eat crushed testicles even when he was in Eretz Yisrael.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan rules for leniency — crushed testicles are permitted — yet tells Rav Shemen bar Abba: but you shall not eat them, because of ‘do not forsake the Torah of your mother’ (Mishlei 1:8). Rav Shemen came from Bavel, where the custom forbade them; the custom of one’s homeland binds even where the local law is lenient. A community’s accepted practice is ‘the Torah of your mother’ — halachically operative even against the ruling the poseik himself holds.
Key Terms:
- וְאַל תִּטֹּשׁ תּוֹרַת אִמֶּךָ = ‘do not forsake your mother’s Torah’ (Mishlei 1:8) — ancestral custom binds even where the law permits
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא
Mar bar Rav Ashi: kid testicles — under thirty days permitted without peeling; after, the red-streak test
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָנֵי בֵּיעֵי דְּגַדְיָא, עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין שַׁרְיָין בְּלָא קְלִיפָה, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – אִי אזַרְעָן אֲסוּרִין, וְאִי לָא אזַרְעָן שַׁרְיָין. מְנָא יָדְעִינַן? אִי אִית בְּהוּ שׁוּרְיָיקֵי סוּמָּקֵי – אֲסִירָן, לֵית בְּהוּ שׁוּרְיָיקֵי סוּמָּקֵי – שַׁרְיָין.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites other halakhot related to testicles. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: With regard to these testicles of goats, from the time the goat is born until the goat is thirty days old, its testicles are permitted without peeling off the membrane that encloses them, because they are presumed not to contain blood. From this point forward, if they contain semen they are forbidden, but if they do not contain semen they are permitted. The Gemara asks: How can we know whether or not they contain semen? The Gemara answers: If they have red streaks in them they are forbidden. If they do not have red streaks in them they are permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar bar Rav Ashi gives the practical rule for young goats: until thirty days, their testicles are permitted without peeling the enclosing membrane — they are presumed free of blood. Beyond thirty days: if they bear seed they are forbidden, if not, permitted. And the field test: red streaks (shuraikei sumakei) — forbidden; no red streaks — permitted. A dated threshold plus a visual inspection: kashrut as applied craft.
Key Terms:
- בֵּיעֵי דְּגַדְיָא = kid-goat testicles — permitted young, tested when older
- שׁוּרְיָיקֵי סוּמָּקֵי = red streaks — the visual marker of blood/seed that forbids
Segment 5
TYPE: כלל פסיקה
Rav Acha and Ravina: in all the Torah, Ravina is lenient and the halacha follows him — except three, where Rav Acha is lenient and prevails
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוּמְצֵי בֵּיעֵי וּמְזִירְקֵי, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא. בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, רָבִינָא לְקוּלָּא וְרַב אַחָא לְחוּמְרָא, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרָבִינָא לְקוּלָּא, לְבַר מֵהָנֵי תְּלָת דְּרַב אַחָא לְקוּלָּא וְרָבִינָא לְחוּמְרָא, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַב אַחָא לְקוּלָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara quotes a related discussion pertaining to three cases: With regard to raw meat that is eaten without being salted, testicles of an animal, and the large veins of the neck, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree about the halakha. The Gemara points out: In all of their disputes with regard to other realms of the Torah where it is not clear which of them holds which opinion, the opinion of Ravina is lenient, and the opinion of Rav Aḥa is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina to be lenient. This applies to all their disputes except for these three, in which Rav Aḥa is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa to be lenient.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara sets a famous meta-rule of pesak. In their disputes across the whole Torah, Ravina takes the lenient side and Rav Acha the stringent, and the halacha follows Ravina’s leniency — except for these three cases: raw meat, testicles, and the neck veins, where the roles reverse — Rav Acha is lenient, Ravina stringent — and the halacha follows Rav Acha’s leniency. In all four configurations the law lands lenient; the rule encodes which attribution wins.
Key Terms:
- הִלְכְתָא כְּרָבִינָא לְקוּלָּא = the halacha follows Ravina toward leniency — the general rule
- לְבַר מֵהָנֵי תְּלָת = except these three — raw meat, testicles, and neck veins, where Rav Acha’s leniency prevails
Segment 6
TYPE: ביאור
Reddened raw meat: salting or spit-roasting draws the blood; on coals — do they draw or seal?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוּמְצָא דְּאַסְמֵיק, חַתְכַהּ וּמַלְחַהּ – אֲפִילּוּ לִקְדֵרָה נָמֵי שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. תַּלְיַיהּ נָמֵי בְּשַׁפּוּדָא, דָּאֵיב דְּמָא. אַגּוּמְרֵי – פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא: חַד אָמַר: מִשְׁאָב שָׁאיְבִי לֵיהּ, וְחַד אָמַר: מִצְמָת צָמְתִי לֵיהּ. וְכֵן בֵּיעֵי, וְכֵן מְזִירְקֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: With regard to raw meat that became red from the blood inside it, if one cut it and salted it, it is permitted even to cook it in a pot, because the salt removes blood from meat. It is also permitted if one hung it on a spit in order to roast it, because the blood is drawn out by the heat of the fire. With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree about the halakha: One says that the coals draw out the blood from the meat, and one says that the coals cause the meat to shrivel and harden, trapping the blood inside. And similarly Ravina and Rav Aḥa disagree with regard to testicles placed on coals, and similarly with regard to the large veins of the neck that were placed on coals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first of the three cases explained: an umtza — raw meat — that reddened with absorbed blood. Cut and salted, it is permitted even for the pot; hung on a spit, the fire draws the blood out. The dispute concerns coals: one says they draw the blood out (mishab shaivi), one says they seal it in (mitzmat tzamti) — searing contracts the meat and traps the blood. And the same dispute governs testicles on coals and neck veins on coals — per the meta-rule, the halacha is the lenient view: coals draw.
Key Terms:
- אוּמְצָא דְּאַסְמֵיק = raw meat that reddened — suffused with blood
- מִשְׁאָב שָׁאיְבִי / מִצְמָת צָמְתִי = they draw out / they seal in — the two theories of what coals do to blood
Segment 7
TYPE: הלכות מעשיות
Singeing a head in embers: on the neck opening the blood drains; on its side it congeals; on the nostrils — only if propped open
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רֵישָׁא בְּכִיבְשָׁא, אוֹתְבֵיהּ אַבֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה – דָּיֵיב דְּמָא וּשְׁרֵי. אַצְּדָדִין – מִיקְפָּא קָפֵי וַאֲסִיר. אוֹתְבֵיהּ אַנְּחִירֵיהּ, דָּץ בֵּיהּ מִידֵּי – שְׁרֵי, וְאִי לָא – אֲסִיר.
English Translation:
§ Apropos raw meat placed on coals, the Gemara discusses a related topic. In a case where one wants to remove the hair from the head of an animal by placing it in hot ashes, if one placed it with the neck down so that the location of the slaughter is in the ashes, the blood is drawn out by the heat and the meat is permitted. But if one placed the head in the ashes on one of its sides, the blood congeals inside the head and cannot flow out, and therefore the head is forbidden for consumption. In a case where one placed the head down on its nostrils, if he inserted something into the nostrils to keep them open and allow the blood to flow out, the meat is permitted, but if he did not do so it is forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
An adjacent kitchen-law: singeing the hair off an animal’s head in hot embers. Placed on the slaughter-opening, the blood drains through the neck and the head is permitted. On its side, the blood congeals within — forbidden. On its nostrils: if something was inserted to keep the passage open, the blood drains and it is permitted; if not, forbidden. Everything turns on giving the blood an exit.
Key Terms:
- רֵישָׁא בְּכִיבְשָׁא = a head in the embers — singed to remove its hair
- בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה = the slaughter-opening — the neck cut, the natural drain
Segment 8
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא
Another version: nostrils drain like the neck; the side is saved by propping
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַנְּחִירֵיהּ וְאַבֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה – דָּאֵיב, אַצְּדָדִין – אִי דָּץ בֵּיהּ מִידֵּי – שְׁרֵי, וְאִי לָא – אֲסִיר.
English Translation:
There are those who say: If the head was placed on its nostrils or on the location of the slaughter, the blood is drawn out and the meat is permitted. If he placed it on one of its sides, then if he inserted something into it in order to allow the blood to flow out, it is permitted, and if not it is forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second tradition redistributes the cases: placed on the nostrils or on the slaughter-opening, the blood drains — permitted; on its side, it is permitted only if something was inserted to open a passage, and otherwise forbidden. The versions differ on whether unpropped nostrils drain. The two lishnot are both preserved — practical stringency will follow the demands of both.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי = ‘there are those who say’ — an alternative version of the tradition preserved alongside the first
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא
Shmuel: there are two nerves — the inner by the bone with liability; the outer by the flesh, forbidden without liability
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, שְׁנֵי גִּידִין הֵן: הַפְּנִימִי סָמוּךְ לָעֶצֶם – אָסוּר, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו; חִיצוֹן סָמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר – אָסוּר, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara returns to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: There are two nerves included in the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. The inner nerve, which is next to the bone, is forbidden by Torah law, and one is liable to be flogged for eating it. The outer nerve, which is next to the flesh, is forbidden by rabbinic law, and therefore one is not liable to be flogged for eating it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf returns to the gid hanasheh. Rav Yehuda quotes Shmuel: there are two nerves. The inner one, adjacent to the bone — forbidden with liability: this is the Torah’s gid. The outer one, adjacent to the flesh — forbidden, but without liability: rabbinic. This two-tier anatomy, already reflected in the codifiers’ language on 92b, is here given its source.
Key Terms:
- פְּנִימִי סָמוּךְ לָעֶצֶם = the inner nerve, by the bone — the Torah’s gid, with liability
- חִיצוֹן סָמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר = the outer nerve, by the flesh — rabbinically forbidden
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A baraita calls the inner nerve ‘by the flesh’ — it bores into the flesh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: פְּנִימִי סָמוּךְ לַבָּשָׂר! אָמַר רַב אַחָא אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אִיקְּלוֹדֵי מִיקְּלִיד.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the inner nerve, which is forbidden by Torah law, is next to the flesh? The Gemara answers: Rav Aḥa said that Rav Kahana said: The inner nerve is next to the bone, but it bores into the flesh as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita seems reversed: the inner nerve is ‘adjacent to the flesh.’ Rav Acha quotes Rav Kahana: the inner nerve sits by the bone but bores into the flesh (iklodei miklid) — along its course it penetrates the flesh, so both descriptions are true at different points. The anatomy accommodates both texts.
Key Terms:
- אִיקְּלוֹדֵי מִיקְּלִיד = it bores in — the inner nerve penetrates the flesh along its course
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Another baraita calls the outer nerve ‘by the bone’ — at the spot where the butchers open the leg
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא תַּנְיָא: חִיצוֹן הַסָּמוּךְ לָעֶצֶם! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הֵיכָא דְּפָרְעִי טַבָּחֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The outer nerve is next to the bone? The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda said: This is referring to the spot where the butchers cut the leg open and reveal the nerve, and at that point in the leg the outer nerve is closest to the bone.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mirror difficulty: a baraita describes the outer nerve as ‘adjacent to the bone.’ Rav Yehuda answers: that describes the place where the butchers split open the thigh (heicha d’far’ei tabachei) — at that point of the leg, the outer nerve indeed runs closest to the bone. Both baraitot speak truly, each of a different segment of the nerve’s path. The resolution again comes from the butcher’s shop floor.
Key Terms:
- הֵיכָא דְּפָרְעִי טַבָּחֵי = where the butchers lay open the leg — the point at which the outer nerve nears the bone
Segment 12
TYPE: איתמר
A butcher after whom forbidden fat was found: Rav Yehuda says a barley-grain; Rabbi Yochanan says an olive-bulk
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיתְּמַר: טַבָּח שֶׁנִּמְצָא חֵלֶב אַחֲרָיו, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: בְּכִשְׂעוֹרָה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בִּכְזַיִת.
English Translation:
§ It was stated: With regard to a butcher who removed the forbidden fats of the animal, and yet forbidden fat was found after he completed his work, Rav Yehuda says that the butcher is held liable if there is forbidden fat remaining that is the size of a barley grain. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the butcher is held liable only if there is forbidden fat remaining that is the size of an olive-bulk.
קלאוד על הדף:
A professional-accountability dispute: a butcher completed his nikkur, and chelev was found after him. Rav Yehuda says: he is liable for a barley-grain’s worth; Rabbi Yochanan says: for an olive-bulk. The two measures seem to fix different thresholds of the same liability — until Rav Pappa dissolves the conflict.
Key Terms:
- טַבָּח שֶׁנִּמְצָא חֵלֶב אַחֲרָיו = a butcher after whom forbidden fat was found — the standard of professional negligence
- כִּשְׂעוֹרָה / כִּכְזַיִת = a barley-grain / an olive-bulk — the two thresholds
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Pappa: no dispute — an olive-bulk for lashes, a barley-grain for removal from his post
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, כָּאן – לְהַלְקוֹתוֹ, כָּאן – לְעַבְּרוֹ.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said: Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Yoḥanan are referring to two different levels of liability, and they do not disagree. Here, when Rabbi Yoḥanan said he is liable only if there is an olive-bulk of forbidden fat remaining, he was referring to flogging him. There, when Rav Yehuda said he is liable even if he leaves forbidden fat the size of a barley grain, he was referring to removing him from his position as a butcher.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa harmonizes: they address different sanctions. Rabbi Yochanan’s olive-bulk is the threshold for flogging him — makkot require the Torah’s eating-measure. Rav Yehuda’s barley-grain is the threshold for removing him from his position: a professional who leaves even a barley-grain of chelev has shown his work cannot be trusted. Punishment follows the Torah’s measures; professional disqualification follows the standards of the craft.
Key Terms:
- לְהַלְקוֹתוֹ / לְעַבְּרוֹ = to flog him / to remove him — penal versus professional liability
Segment 14
TYPE: סיכום והלכה
Mar Zutra’s alternative — and the ruling: lashes at an olive-bulk, removal at a barley-grain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: כִּשְׂעוֹרָה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, כְּזַיִת – אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁנַיִם וּבִשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת. וְהִלְכְתָא: לְהַלְקוֹתוֹ – בִּכְזַיִת, לְעַבְּרוֹ – בְּכִשְׂעוֹרָה.
English Translation:
Mar Zutra said an alternative explanation: If the butcher left forbidden fat the size of a barley grain in one place he is liable, and if he left forbidden fat the size of an olive-bulk, he is liable even if it is spread out in two or three places. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to flogging him, the butcher is liable only if he left forbidden fat the size of an olive-bulk. With regard to removing him, the butcher is liable even if he left forbidden fat the size of a barley grain.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar Zutra offers a different alignment: a barley-grain in one place, or an olive-bulk even scattered across two or three places. The Gemara closes with the pesak: the halacha is — to flog him, an olive-bulk; to remove him, a barley-grain. The dual standard becomes the codified law of the negligent butcher: criminal liability is narrow, professional accountability strict.
Key Terms:
- וְהִלְכְתָא = and the halacha is — the Gemara’s own closing pesak
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא על המשנה
The mishna’s dispute over butchers’ credibility — Rabbi Yochanan: they retracted and said butchers are believed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין הַטַּבָּחִין נֶאֱמָנִין [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר נֶאֱמָנִין.
English Translation:
§ The mishna stated (89b): Butchers are not deemed credible to say that the sciatic nerve was removed; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Rabbis initially held that butchers are not deemed credible about the sciatic nerve, and subsequently they retracted and said that butchers are deemed credible in this regard.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the mishna (89b): butchers are not believed to say the gid was removed — Rabbi Meir; the Rabbis say they are believed. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba quotes Rabbi Yochanan: they retracted and said they are believed — the initial ruling followed Rabbi Meir’s distrust, and a later court reversed it.
Key Terms:
- חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר = they retracted and said — a later generation’s court reversing an earlier ruling
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rav Nachman: did the generations improve? No — the governing opinion changed from Rabbi Meir to Rabbi Yehuda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אִכַּשּׁוּר דָּרֵי? מֵעִיקָּרָא דַּהֲווֹ סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – לָא הֲווֹ מְהֵימְנִי, וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבְרִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman said to him: Have the later generations improved such that butchers are more reliable than they were in earlier generations? The Gemara answers: Initially, when the Rabbis held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one must scrape around the flesh in order to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, butchers were not deemed credible, due to the exertion involved in this process. But later the Rabbis held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that it is unnecessary to scrape around the flesh. Consequently, removing the sciatic nerve is not especially arduous, and butchers are deemed credible to say that they removed it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman’s sharp question: ikashur darei — have the generations improved, that butchers became trustworthy? The answer: nothing changed in the butchers; the law changed. Initially the Rabbis held like Rabbi Meir that the gid requires laborious scraping — too arduous to trust a busy butcher; later they held like Rabbi Yehuda that trimming level suffices — an easy task a butcher can be believed to have done. Credibility tracks the burden of the task.
Key Terms:
- אִכַּשּׁוּר דָּרֵי = ‘have the generations improved?’ — Rav Nachman’s skeptical byword
- מְהֵימְנִי = they are believed — credibility as a function of the task’s difficulty
Segment 17
TYPE: לישנא אחרינא
Another version reads the retraction into the latter clause: they retracted to say butchers are NOT believed — and Rav Nachman: today they are
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין עָלָיו וְעַל הַחֵלֶב. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה נֶאֱמָנִין.
English Translation:
There are those who teach this discussion with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, as follows: And the Rabbis say: They are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They subsequently retracted this opinion and said that butchers are not deemed credible. Rav Naḥman says: Today the butchers are deemed credible.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative tradition attaches the discussion to the mishna’s latter clause — the Rabbis’ statement that butchers are believed about the gid and the chelev. On this version Rabbi Yochanan reports the reverse retraction: they retracted and said butchers are not believed. And Rav Nachman rules: nowadays, they are believed. The same question will return: what changed?
Key Terms:
- בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה נֶאֱמָנִין = ‘nowadays they are believed’ — Rav Nachman’s ruling for his own era
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Did the generations improve? The law swung from Rabbi Yehuda to Rabbi Meir
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִכַּשּׁוּר דָּרֵי? מֵעִיקָּרָא סַבְרוּהָ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֲדַר סַבְרוּהָ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Have the later generations improved such that butchers are more reliable than they were in earlier generations? The Gemara answers: Initially they held that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that one is not required to scrape around the flesh to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, and therefore butchers were deemed credible to say that they removed it. The Rabbis then reversed their opinion and held that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that one is required to scrape around the flesh.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same challenge, mirrored: have the generations improved? The answer traces the law’s second swing: initially they held like Rabbi Yehuda — trimming suffices, butchers believed; then they adopted Rabbi Meir — full scraping required, and butchers accustomed to the easy standard could not be trusted with the hard one.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַר סַבְרוּהָ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר = they returned to hold like Rabbi Meir — the second swing of the pesak
Segment 19
TYPE: סיום התירוץ
While they remembered the lenient standard they were not believed; once they forgot it, they are believed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כַּמָּה דַּהֲווֹ דְּכִירִי לַהּ לִדְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – לָא מְהֵימְנֵי, וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאִנַּשְׁיוּהָ לִדְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – מְהֵימְנֵי.
English Translation:
As long as the butchers remembered the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and did not scrape around the flesh to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, they were not deemed credible to say that they removed it; but now that they have forgotten the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and have grown accustomed to scraping around the flesh to remove the roots of the sciatic nerve, they are deemed credible.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution of Rav Nachman’s ‘nowadays’: as long as butchers remembered Rabbi Yehuda’s easy standard, they could not be trusted to perform Rabbi Meir’s laborious one — habit would betray them. Now that Rabbi Yehuda’s standard has been forgotten and scraping has become the universal trained practice, butchers are believed. Trust returns not because people improved, but because the stringent practice became second nature.
Key Terms:
- דְּאִנַּשְׁיוּהָ לִדְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה = they have forgotten Rabbi Yehuda’s standard — the stringency has become ingrained habit
Segment 20
TYPE: דיוק במשנה
‘And about the chelev’ — who mentioned it? The mishna’s text is completed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעַל הַחֵלֶב – חֵלֶב, מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמֵיהּ? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין עָלָיו וְעַל הַחֵלֶב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין עָלָיו וְעַל הַחֵלֶב.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that the Rabbis maintain that butchers are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat. The Gemara asks: Who mentioned anything about forbidden fat? The topic of discussion in the mishna until this point is the sciatic nerve, not forbidden fat; why do the Rabbis mention forbidden fat? The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: The butchers are not deemed credible about the sciatic nerve or about the forbidden fat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis say: The butchers are deemed credible about the sciatic nerve and about the forbidden fat.
קלאוד על הדף:
A textual note on the mishna: the Rabbis say butchers are believed ‘about it and about the chelev’ — but who mentioned chelev? The mishna spoke only of the gid. The answer emends the flow: this is what it says — butchers are not believed about the gid or about the chelev, the statement of Rabbi Meir; and the Rabbis say: they are believed about the gid and about the chelev. Both clauses treated both prohibitions all along.
Key Terms:
- מַאן דְּכַר שְׁמֵיהּ = ‘who mentioned its name?’ — the formula flagging an unannounced topic
- הָכִי קָאָמַר = ‘this is what it says’ — the Gemara’s interpretive completion of a mishna’s text
Segment 21
TYPE: משנה
One may send a gentile a thigh with the gid inside, because its place is conspicuous
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שׁוֹלֵחַ אָדָם יָרֵךְ לְגוֹי שֶׁגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה בְּתוֹכָהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּקוֹמוֹ נִיכָּר.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Although it is prohibited for Jews to eat the sciatic nerve, a Jewish person may send the thigh of an animal to a gentile with the sciatic nerve in it, without concern that the gentile will then sell the thigh to a Jew and the Jew will eat the sciatic nerve. This leniency is due to the fact that the place of the sciatic nerve is conspicuous in the thigh.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna: a Jew may send a gentile a thigh with the sciatic nerve still in it, and need not fear that the gentile will pass it to a Jew who will eat the gid — because the gid’s place is conspicuous (mekomo nikar): an intact thigh visibly contains its nerve, and any Jew receiving it would know to remove it. The mishna’s premise — recognizability prevents mishap — becomes the Gemara’s lever.
Key Terms:
- מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּקוֹמוֹ נִיכָּר = because its place is conspicuous — an intact thigh announces that its gid is present
Segment 22
TYPE: דיוק (נמשך)
Whole — yes; cut — no. Where are we? The announcement analysis begins
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ שְׁלֵמָה – אִין, חֲתוּכָה – לָא. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַכְרִיזִין,
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna’s statement that a Jew may send a thigh to a gentile indicates that if it is whole, yes, a Jew may send it to a gentile, but if the thigh has been cut, a Jew may not send it to a gentile. The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that the mishna is referring to a place where all the butchers are Jewish but they do not announce publicly when they have sold to a gentile an animal that turns out to have a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], then it is prohibited for Jews to purchase any meat from gentiles, due to the possibility that it was from an animal that was a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws the inference: whole — yes, one may send it; cut up — no, for once portioned, the gid’s absence cannot be read from the meat, and a Jew buying it from the gentile might eat the gid. The analysis begins locating the case: if in a place where sales of tereifot to gentiles are not announced… — and the daf ends mid-clause, the market-announcement framework unfolding on 94a.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלֵמָה אִין חֲתוּכָה לָא = whole — yes; cut — no: the inference from the mishna’s case
- מַכְרִיזִין = they announce — the public notice that tereifa meat was sold to gentiles, key to the coming analysis