E. Said Raba, “At first I thought that [with regard to the legal status of an object] a sign is preferable to recognition. Because we return a lost object [to its owner] based on [his knowledge of] a sign. [96a] But we do not return it to him if he just recognizes it [without producing a sign]. Now that I have heard these traditions [i.e., B-D] I reason that recognition is preferable [to a sign]. For if you did not maintain this position how would a blind person be permitted to [have relations with] his wife? And how would any person be permitted to [have relations with] his wife at night? It is only by virtue of the recognition of her voice. Here too, recognition [has validity for a legal claim].”
F. Said R. Yitzhak the son of R. Mesharshayya, “You should know [that recognition is stronger than a sign]. For if two [witnesses] came and said that so-and-so, with this sign and that sign killed a person, we do not execute him [on the strength of that testimony]. But if they said we recognize him [as the killer], they execute him [on the basis of that testimony].”
G. Said R. Ashi, “You should know [from everyday experience that recognition is stronger than a sign]. For if a person tells his messenger to go and call so-and-so, with this sign and this sign, there is some doubt as to whether or not he will know [if he is the right person]. But if he recognizes him [to begin with], when he sees him he will know [that he is the right person].”
Unit I.1 clarifies the M.-passage's operative consideration and principle with a story of Samuel's behavior toward gentiles. I.2 develops secondary questions out of the foregoing story based on texts from T. B.B. II.1 cites a variation of the relevant T.-passage and clarifies it. II.2 gives a secondary expansion of the preceding. Finally, II.3-7 provides an independent appendix regarding the status of cuts of meat that vanished from sight.
B. He who removes the sinew of the hip must remove the whole of it.
C. R. Judah says, “[He must remove only enough] to carry out therewith the requirement of removing [the sinew of the hip].”
A. He who eats an olive's bulk of the sinew of the hip incurs forty stripes.
B. [If] he ate it and it does not contain an olive's bulk, he is [nonetheless] liable.
C. [If] he ate an olive's bulk of [the sinew of] this [hip] and an olive's bulk of that one, he incurs eighty stripes.
D. R. Judah says, “He incurs only forty stripes.”
A. Bar Piyuli was attending before Samuel and removing the sinews from [Cashdan: porging] a side of beef by scraping off the top layer. He [Samuel] said to him, “Dig in deeper. Now if I had not seen you [doing this incorrectly] you would have provided for me prohibited meat.” His hand trembled and he dropped the knife. He [Samuel] said to him, “Do not tremble. The one who taught you [to remove the sinews in this manner] taught you in accord with the view of R. Judah.”
B. Said R. Sheshet, “What Bar Piyuli removed [was what had to be removed] in accord with the authority of the Torah according to the view of R. Judah.” May we derive from this that what he left [was prohibited] in accord with the authority of the rabbis according the view of R. Judah? Then the one who taught him [i.e., Bar Piyuli, to remove the sinews in this manner], in accord with whose views did he teach him?
C. Rather [it must be that] said R. Sheshet, “What Bar Piyuli had removed [was what had to be removed] in accord with the authority of the Torah. And what he left [was prohibited] in accord with the authority of the rabbis according to the view of R. Meir. For if [we inquire as to the view of] R. Judah [regarding what was left in, he would say that is] permitted, even in accord with the authority of the rabbis.” [He acted completely in accord with Judah as stated at A.]
A. He who eats an olive's bulk of the sinew of the hip incurs forty stripes [M. 7:3 A]: Said Samuel, “The Torah prohibited only that part [of the sinew] on the spoon-socket [of the thigh, i.e., the sinew that runs through the muscles at the proximal end of the thigh (Cashdan)].” As it says, “[Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the thigh muscle that is] on the hip socket, [because he struck Jacob at the hip socket at the thigh muscle]” (New RSV, Gen. 32:32).
B. Said R. Pappa, “[This matter parallels a dispute of] Tannaite authorities: [If] he ate it and it does not contain an olive's bulk, he is [nonetheless] liable [M. 7:3 B]. R. Judah says, “[He is not liable] until it contains an olive's bulk.”
C. What is the basis for the view of our rabbis? It is another category unto itself [of substance, i.e., not food, and thus not subject to the minimum quantity of an olive's bulk].
D. And [what is the basis for the view of] R. Judah? It is written concerning [the sinew that] eating [it is prohibited: “the Israelites do not eat” and it is subject to the minimum quantity for prohibited foods of an olive's bulk].
E. And [what is the response to this point by] our rabbis? This language “eating” [implies] that if [the sinew] was four or five olive's bulks in all and he ate one olive's bulk, he would be liable [for violating the prohibition].” [But where it was smaller than an olive's bulk in all and he ate the whole thing he also would be liable according to this view (Rashi).]
F. And [on what basis would] R. Judah [derive this last inference]? He would derive it from, “That is on the hip socket.” [If he ate only the sinew that is at this place it would suffice as a violation.]
G. And [what inference do] our rabbis [draw from that language in the verse]? This is needed in accord with the view of Samuel [at A]. For said Samuel, “The Torah prohibited only that part [of the sinew] on the spoon-socket [of the thigh].”
H. And [on what basis does] R. Judah [derive this]? “The thigh muscle” is written. It is all called thigh [and subject to the prohibition].
I. And [what inference do] our rabbis [draw from that language in the verse]? [The following, cf. b. 91a:] This [sinew] is the one whose prohibition extends through the entire hip. This excludes the outer [sinew] that does not [extend that far].
J. Invariably, what “is on the hip socket” [is prohibited]. But is not [the language] “hip socket” needed to exclude a bird that does not have a hip socket [from the prohibition of the sinew]? Two times “hip socket” is written in the verse [one for the former inference and one for the latter exclusion].
Unit I.1 provides a precedent of Samuel based on our M.-passage. II.1 clarifies the prohibition of the M.-passage and its basis.
I A. A thigh with which the sinew of the hip [which was not removed] was cooked, if it [the sinew] is sufficient to impart a flavor [to the thigh], lo, this is prohibited.
B. How do they estimate the matter?
C. Like meat [cooked] with turnips.
II A. The sinew of the hip which was cooked with [other] sinews, and one recognizes it — [it must be removed, and the remainder is prohibited if there is enough] to impart a flavor.
B. And if [one does] not [recognize the presence of the sinew of the hip], all of them are prohibited [for any one might be the sciatic nerve].
C. As to the broth, [it is prohibited if] it imparts a flavor.
III D. And so with a piece of carrion, and so with a piece of unclean fish which were cooked with [other] pieces:
E. When one recognizes their [presence], [they must be removed and the rest are forbidden if there is enough] to impart flavor.
F. And if [one does] not [recognize their presence] they are all forbidden.
G. As to the broth, [it is forbidden only if the carrion or unclean fish] imparts a flavor.
A. Said Samuel, “They taught the matter only if [the sinew] was cooked in it [i.e., the thigh]. But if it was roasted in it, one may trim off meat and eat it until he reaches the sinew.”
B. Is this accurate? But lo, said R. Huna, “A kid that was roasted with its own fat — it is prohibited to eat [any part of] it, even from the tip of its ear.”