Podcast
Talking Talmud
Hosted by Yardaena Osband & Anne Gordon · EN
Learning the daf? We have something for you to think about. Not learning the daf? We have something for you to think about! (Along with a taste of the daf...)
Join the conversation with us!
92episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Hullin 96: The Flavor of the Sciatic Nerve
Yesterday00:14:53Tap to summarize2 mishnayot! 1 - Which part of the sciatic nerve incurs a violation of the prohibition? And how much would one need to eat to be liable? Including a dispute and the distinction between what was prohibited at the biblical level of prohibition and what was prohibited at the rabbinic level. With an acceptance of diversity in the practice of kashrut that seems radical for many in this day and age. 2 - What happens when the gid ha-nasheh is imparting flavor to your meat? If it were not imparting flavor, you might well be able to eat that meat. But if it does, then you have to treat it as prohibiting the meat as well. But how do you know whether the sciatic nerve is providing flavor?
Transcribe →Hullin 95: Keeping Kosher
2d ago00:19:03Tap to summarizeThe case of meat that is held by a non-Jew: what if it wasn't supervised continually? According to Rav - that's prohibited as a caution against the possibility that the kosher meat was swapped out for non-kosher meat. Which leads to a discussion of that likelihood, as the Gemara argues against Rav. Also, if the meat were unsupervised at any time, was it a stringency to not eat it, or was that required? With a story about a ferry and a festival. Which leads into discussion of how the sages used portents -- not quite divination, but some inference from "signs" that are established three times.
Transcribe →Hullin 94: False Pretenses and a Town of Kosher Meat
3d ago00:23:01Tap to summarizeA new mishnah! When a Jew makes a gift or sale of meat to a non-Jew that includes the gid ha-nasheh, because the process of "nikor" hadn't happened. Specifically, in the case of the whole thigh. Note that in some communities, all of the slaughterers were Jewish, and all meat was then presumed to be kosher (if sold by a non-Jew, presumably already purchased from the Jewish slaughterer). And announcements were made when non-kosher meat was on the market on a given day. But in a place without that kind of announcement, then purchasing from a non-Jew would not be permitted. Also, if the non-Jew cut the thigh that had gid ha-nasheh in it, then it might deceive Jewish buyers, which would obviously be problematic. Which leads to a discussion of false pretenses, even when nothing. Plus, other actions a person should not do because they are misleading, even if no other wrong-doing is taking place. Except possibly if it's to demonstrate that one's guest is worthy of honor, as per the cases of wine and oil on this daf. Plus, the horrible outcome of violating a policy of not giving food received from one's host to the host's children, in this case, the matter of 3 eggs. Also, in a town of all kosher slaughterers, how would the Jews make the announcement that there was non-kosher food on the given day, without it being obnoxious in the faces of the non-Jews? They made the genteel effort to refer to soldiers, for example. Note that self-deception isn't the same problem as false pretenses.
Transcribe →Hullin 93: Trustworthy Butchers
3d ago00:17:09Tap to summarizeIf the head of an offering is buried in hot ash to singe off the hair, and if that was in the place of the slaughtering in an upright position, the blood flows out (yes, very gory) and after it is removed, the meat can be eaten. Plus, attention to the inner and outer sinews of the animal's thigh, and the difference between a rabbinic vs. a Torah-level prohibition (the inner one being the gid ha-nasheh). But can the butchers be trusted in what they have to say about the kashrut of the meat, about the removal of the sciatic nerve? In the end, the conclusion is that they are trustworthy. But it's a complicated process and with more and less taxing elements, which might influence their credibility.
Transcribe →Hullin 92: The Righteous Who Uphold the World
5d ago00:13:30Tap to summarizeFirst, housekeeping note... Also, 7 interpretations of Yosef and the gifts God gave to the Jewish people. Plus, the 15 pieces of silver that God acquired for the people, i an allusion to the 15th day of Nisan and the exodus from Egypt and another allusion to 45 (or 30...) righteous people, without whom the world would not exist. Or understand the 30 as the commandments that the Noachides apparently took upon themselves - that many more than the 7. But they keep only 3, including not writing a marriage contract for males -- a difficult passage for modern ears. Plus, more on the gid ha-nasheh, and the surprising notion that one shouldn't be culpable for eating it to begin with.
Transcribe →Hullin 91: Wrestling with the Angel
6d ago00:16:21Tap to summarizeThe discussion of the gid ha-nasheh leads into some lovely aggadic passages. First of all, did the sciatic nerve have to be in the right thigh to be prohibited at the Torah level or not? (Hint: It's a machloket). The Gemara breaks down the wrestling between Jacob and the angel from Genesis, to ensure that the injury would be in the right leg. But, again, not everyone thought that was necessary, and for that view, the sciatic nerve in each leg is equally prohibited. With further details about keeping a non-Jew, with whom one might be expected to spar, on the right side, and conversely, one must stay clear of the right side of the Torah scholar. Also, other midrashim/aggadot about Jacob -- how the stones became one larger stone to be his pillow, as it were (solving for a contradiction in the text). Plus, going back to that fight with the angel, and the ambiguities in that text. And the hint to exile and the leadership in both exile and the land of Israel.
Transcribe →Hullin 90: The Very Large Pile of 300 Kor of Ash on the Altar
1w ago00:18:44Tap to summarizeMore on the sciatic nerve -- the prohibition against the "gid ha-nasheh" applies only to the sacrificial animals that are consumed (not a burnt-offering, but a peace-offering, for example). Though there are those who note that if you eat from a sacrificial animal that shouldn't be eaten from - that will still be lashes, as compared to a fully-burnt offering, which would not levy a penalty for not removing the gid ha-nasheh. And note that a removed gid ha-nasheh would not be brought on the altar. Also, the gid ha-nasheh from the peace-offering -- it should be swept to the drain, while the burnt-offering would entail putting it on the pile of ash in the middle of the altar. Which leads into a discussion of exaggeration in the Torah, by the prophets, and by the sages. But this was not the norm, and the Gemara provides the specific list of the exaggerations from these three sources.
Transcribe →Hullin 89: The Beautiful Blue of the Heavens and the Sea
1w ago00:12:18Tap to summarizeBeginning with some aggadic material - with Abraham claiming about himself that he is nothing but dust and ashes, and that he and his descendants have 2 mitzvot. Which 2 mitzvot is a matter of discussion. The discussion leads to the color of "tekhelet" -- the blue thread in tzitzit, the ritual fringes, and what makes them distinctive. Plus, an encounter with Nimrod. Also, chapter 7! With a new mishnah, and the wrestling between Jacob and the angel, which leads to the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, the "gid ha-nasheh," and the many details pertaining to it.
Transcribe →Hullin 88: Ecological Benefits of Covering the Blood
1w ago00:14:17Tap to summarizeBlood that splatters and blood that's left on the knife also need to be covered, with a verse to make that point. As long as there's no other blood there at the same time. But if the life-blood was covered, then these other extra locations of blood do not to be covered. Also, a new mishnah - with a long list of substances that can be used for covering the blood, including that which can make plants grow. Plus, defining "fine sand," as a possible blood-coverer. Also, what do you use if you're in a situation where there's no material that will support the sprouting of seeds after covering the blood?
Transcribe →Hullin 87: A Family of Heretics
1w ago00:19:13Tap to summarize2 mishnayot! 1 - What if one is obligated to cover the blood after the slaughter of a non-domesticated animal or a bird and does not do it? A passerby who sees it should then cover the blood, but if the blood had been covered and it became uncovered, then there's no longer an obligation to cover. If the wind covered it, the obligation remains. But in a story of someone who covered the blood before the slaughterer had a chance to do so, the person who covered the blood had to pay (in gold) the slaughterer -- with a question as to why exactly he's penalized. Plus, another story of Sadducees and the dynamic in Rome between Jewish sects and the drama of Birkat HaMazon. 2 - If the blood that is supposed to be covered is mixed with water or wine or the blood of an animal that doesn't need to be covered -- if the mixture has the appearance of blood, it still needs to be covered, for example. And the solution itself, including the proportion of blood therein matters less than the appearance.
Transcribe →