Talking Talmud

2 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?

The 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.

A 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.

If 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.

First, 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.