## Chullin Daf 96a

###### Chullin 96a:1
[Chullin 96a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:1)

וְלָא מַהְדְּרִינַן בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא. הַשְׁתָּא דִּשְׁמַעְתִּינְהוּ לְהָנֵי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא, אָמֵינָא: טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא עֲדִיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**but we do not return** a lost item to one who claims to be its owner based solely **on visual recognition.** But **now that I have heard these statements** pertaining to meat or sky-blue wool that were obscured from sight and then permitted based upon visual recognition, **I say** that **visual recognition is preferable** to a distinguishing mark.


###### Chullin 96a:2
[Chullin 96a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:2)

דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, הֵיאַךְ סוֹמֵא מוּתָּר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וּבְנֵי אָדָם אֵיךְ מוּתָּרִין בִּנְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן בַּלַּיְלָה? אֶלָּא בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא דְּקָלָא, הָכָא נָמֵי בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, one must hold that sensory recognition is reliable even without identifying marks, **for if you do not say so, how is** it that **a blind** man **permitted to** engage in sexual intercourse with **his wife** despite the fact that he cannot identify her by means of her identifying marks? **And** similarly, **how are** any **men permitted to** engage in intercourse with **their wives at night,** when it is dark and they cannot see their wives’ identifying marks? **Rather,** one must say that they identify their wives **based on voice recognition. Here too,** in these cases of lost meat and sky-blue wool, they remain permitted **based on visual recognition.**


###### Chullin 96a:3
[Chullin 96a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:3)

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: תֵּדַע, דְּאִילּוּ אָתוּ בִּתְרֵי וְאָמְרִי: פְּלָנְיָא, דְּהַאי סִימָנֵיהּ וְהַאי סִימָנֵיהּ, קְטַל נַפְשָׁא – לָא קָטְלִינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִילּוּ אָמְרִי: אִית לַן טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ – קָטְלִינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Mesharshiyya, said:** You can **know** that visual recognition is preferable to a distinguishing mark, **because if two** witnesses **come** to court **and say: So-and-so, who has this distinguishing mark and that distinguishing mark, killed a person, we** would **not kill him** based on this testimony. **But if** the two witnesses **say: We have visual recognition of him,** and they confirm that the accused individual committed murder, **we kill him** based on their testimony.


###### Chullin 96a:4
[Chullin 96a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:4)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: תֵּדַע, דְּאִילּוּ אָמַר לֵיהּ אִינִישׁ לִשְׁלוּחֵיהּ: קַרְיֵיהּ לִפְלָנְיָא, דְּהַאי סִימָנֵיהּ וְהַאי סִימָנֵיהּ – סָפֵק יָדַע לֵיהּ, סָפֵק לָא יָדַע לֵיהּ, וְאִילּוּ אִית לֵיהּ טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא בְּגַוֵּיהּ – כִּי חָזֵי לֵיהּ, יָדַע לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** You can **know** that visual recognition is preferable to a distinguishing mark, **because if a man says to his agent: Call so-and-so, who** has **this distinguishing mark and that distinguishing mark, it is uncertain** whether the agent will recognize him and **know** whom to call or whether he will **not know him. But if he has visual recognition of** him, **when he sees him he will know** it is **him.**


###### Chullin 96a:5
[Chullin 96a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַנּוֹטֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אֶת כּוּלּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּים בּוֹ מִצְוַת נְטִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who removes the sciatic nerve must** scrape away the flesh in the area surrounding the nerve to ensure **that he will remove all of it. Rabbi Yehuda says:** Scraping is not required; it is sufficient to excise it from the area above the rounded protrusion **in order to** thereby **fulfill the mitzva of removal** of the sciatic nerve.


###### Chullin 96a:6
[Chullin 96a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:6)

הָאוֹכֵל מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה כְּזַיִת – סוֹפֵג אַרְבָּעִים. אֲכָלוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת – חַיָּיב. אָכַל מִזֶּה כְּזַיִת וּמִזֶּה כְּזַיִת – סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One who eats an olive-bulk of the sciatic nerve incurs forty** lashes. If **one eats** an entire sciatic nerve **and it does not** constitute **an olive-bulk,** he is nevertheless **liable** to receive lashes, because a complete sciatic nerve is a complete entity. If **one ate an olive-bulk from this** sciatic nerve in the right leg, **and an olive-bulk from that** sciatic nerve in the left leg, **he incurs [*sofeg*] eighty** lashes. **Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty** lashes, for eating the olive-bulk from the right leg, and he is exempt for eating the olive-bulk from the left leg.


###### Chullin 96a:7
[Chullin 96a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** בַּר פָּיוֹלֵי הֲוָה קָאֵי קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְקָא מְנַקַּר אַטְמָא. הֲוָה קָא גָאֵים לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חוֹת בֵּיהּ טְפֵי, הַשְׁתָּא לָא חֲזֵיתָךְ – סְפֵית לִי אִיסּוּרָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** A man known as **bar Peyoli was standing before Shmuel and was removing** the sciatic nerve from the **leg** of an animal. **He was cutting** out the nerve without scraping away the surrounding flesh, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Shmuel **said to him: Go down further** and scrape away the flesh in order to remove the entire nerve. **Now,** if I would **not have seen you** and instructed you in the process of removing the sciatic nerve, **you would have fed me forbidden** meat.


###### Chullin 96a:8
[Chullin 96a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:8)

אִירְתַת, נְפַל סַכִּינָא מִידֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא תִּירְתַת, דְּאוֹרִי לָךְ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹרִי לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Bar Peyoli became **afraid** due to Shmuel’s rebuke and **the knife fell from his hand.** Shmuel **said to him: Do not be afraid.** I do not think that you are an ignoramus or a wicked person. You are removing the sciatic nerve as you were taught; the person **who taught you** must hold **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** and this is how **he taught you** to remove the sciatic nerve. But I hold that the entire sciatic nerve must be removed, in accordance with the opinion of the first *tanna*.


###### Chullin 96a:9
[Chullin 96a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:9)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַאי דִּשְׁקַל בַּר פָּיוֹלֵי – דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. מִכְּלָל דְּשַׁיַּיר – דְּרַבָּנַן, לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אֶלָּא, דְּאוֹרִי לֵיהּ כְּמַאן אוֹרִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said** in explanation of this incident: **That which bar Peyoli removed was** the section of the sciatic nerve one is required to remove **by Torah law according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** The Gemara asks: Based upon this statement, one can derive **by inference that he left** behind the section of the sciatic nerve one is required to remove **by rabbinic law according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda. But** if so, **in accordance with whose** opinion did the person **who taught him** how to remove the sciatic nerve **teach him?** Even according to Rabbi Yehuda he would have transgressed a rabbinic prohibition.


###### Chullin 96a:10
[Chullin 96a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:10)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מַאי דִּשְׁקַל בַּר פָּיוֹלֵי – דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמַאי דְּשַׁיַּיר – דְּרַבָּנַן, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר; דְּאִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – אֲפִילּוּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Sheshet said: That which bar Peyoli removed** was the section of the sciatic nerve that is forbidden **by Torah law. And that which he left** over is forbidden **by rabbinic law according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** as explained above (92b) in a *baraita*; **as if** one were to follow the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** the section that bar Peyoli left over **is permitted even by rabbinic law.**


###### Chullin 96a:11
[Chullin 96a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:11)

הָאוֹכֵל מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁעַל הַכַּף בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **One who eats** an olive-bulk **of the sciatic nerve** incurs forty lashes. **Shmuel says: The Torah prohibits only** the part of the sciatic nerve **that is on the** rounded protrusion of flesh shaped like **a spoon** that is near the end of the femur. This is **as it is stated** in the verse: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve that is **upon the spoon of the thigh”** (Genesis 32:33).


###### Chullin 96a:12
[Chullin 96a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:12)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּתַנָּאֵי, אֲכָלוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says:** This statement of Shmuel is **subject to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it is taught in a *baraita*: If **one ate** the entire sciatic nerve and **it did not contain an olive-bulk, he is** nevertheless **liable** to be flogged. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** He is not liable **unless it has** a volume of at least **an olive-bulk.**


###### Chullin 96a:13
[Chullin 96a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/96a:13)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? בְּרִיָּה (בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ) הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa explains how this relates to Shmuel’s statement. **What is the reason** for the opinion **of the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda? They hold that the sciatic nerve **is a distinct entity.** Therefore, even if one eats less than an olive-bulk it is a significant act of eating, and one is liable.