Chullin

whereas we do not return it [to anyone who recognizes it] by mere general impressions.1 But now, having heard the above decisions, I maintain that [identification by] general impression is the more reliable. For should you not say so, how is it that a blind man is permitted [to cohabit] with his wife, or all people with their wives at night? It is only by recognition of the voice; so in all cases general impression [is reliable]. R. Isaac, son of R. Mesharsheya said: You may know it from this too; for if two witnesses were to come and say: ‘So-and-so who has this or that distinguishing mark killed a person’,2 we should not put him to death, but if they were to say: ‘We recognize him’, we would put him to death. R. Ashi said: You may also know it from this; for if a man were to say to his messenger. ‘Call So-and-so who has this or that distinguishing mark’, there is a doubt whether he would know him or not, but if he [the messenger] is able to recognize him, when he sees him he would certainly know him. MISHNAH. WHEN A PERSON REMOVES THE SCIATIC NERVE HE MUST REMOVE ALL OF IT.3 R. JUDAH SAYS, ONLY SO MUCH AS IS NECESSARY TO FULFIL THE PRECEPT OF REMOVING IT.4 IF A PERSON ATE AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE SCIATIC NERVE, HE HAS INCURRED FORTY STRIPES. IF HE ATE THE WHOLE OF IT AND IT WAS NOT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE'S BULK, HE IS NEVERTHELESS LIABLE.5 IF HE ATE AN OLIVE'S BULK OF IT FROM ONE THIGH AND ANOTHER OLIVE'S BULK OF IT FROM THE OTHER THIGH, HE HAS INCURRED EIGHTY STRIPES. R. JUDAH SAYS, HE HAS INCURRED ONLY FORTY STRIPES.6 GEMARA. Bar Piuli was standing in the presence of Samuel and was porging7 a side of meat. He was only cutting away the surface [of the nerve], so Samuel said to him, ‘Go down deeper; had I not seen you, you might have given me forbidden meat to eat’. He was alarmed at this, and the knife fell out of his hand. Said Samuel to him, ‘Be not alarmed, for he who taught you this taught you according to the view of R. Judah’. R. Shesheth said: That part which Bar Piuli had removed, is according to R. Judah forbidden by the Torah. Then it follows, does it not, that the part which he [Bar Piuli] did not remove, is according to R. Judah forbidden Rabbinically? If so, according to whose view was he [Bar Piuli] taught this?8 — R. Shesheth therefore said: That part which Bar Piuli had removed, is [according to R. Meir]9 forbidden by the Torah, but that part which he did not remove, is forbidden Rabbinically, only according to R. Meir, for according to R. Judah it is permitted even Rabbinically.10 IF A PERSON ATE AN OLIVE'S BULK OF THE SCIATIC NERVE etc. Samuel said: The Torah forbade only that part [of the nerve] which is on the spoon,11 for it is written: Which is upon the spoon of the thigh.12 R. Papa said: This [statement of Samuel] is the subject of dispute between Tannaim; for it was taught: If a person ate [the whole of] it and it was not as much as an olive's bulk, he is nevertheless liable. R. Judah Says, [He is not liable] unless it was as much as an olive's bulk. What is the reason of the Rabbis? — Because it is a complete entity in itself. 13 in its entirety less than the size of an olive, e.g., an ant, one incurs the penalty for eating the whole of it. be removed if only by Rabbinic injunction. The question therefore is: Whose view did Bar Piuli adopt by cutting away only the surface? sciatic nerve which runs in these muscles, says Samuel, is prohibited.