Chullin 100b (ק:) — the Talmud in English

Rava said:

Even if you say that he did not precede it and remove it

forbidden, the piece of neveila does not have the power to forbid all the permitted pieces through the principle of min be-mino, and they become forbidden only by virtue of the first permitted piece, which absorbed material from the piece of neveila.

For initially, the mixture consisted of a piece of neveila, a kosher piece, broth, and sediment; and at that time the pot contained a mixture of

a species and its own kind

(neveila and kosher meat)

and another substance

(broth and sediment).

And every

mixture containing a combination of

a species, its own kind, and another substance,

is subject to the rule:

remove its own kind

[the permitted substance], and regard it

as though it does not exist

in the mixture at present;

and that which is not its own kind

of the forbidden substance

is more numerous than it, and nullifies it!

That is, since the permitted substance, which is the same species as the forbidden substance, does not nullify the prohibition, while at the same time it does not add to its forbidden status, we regard the permitted substance that is of the same species as though it had been removed from the pot, and the prohibition is nullified by the majority of the permitted broth and sediment, which are not of the same species.

Here too, when the neveila became mixed with the kosher piece, and there were also broth and spices in the pot, which constituted the majority, the piece of neveila should have been nullified by the majority of the permitted broth and spices, were it not for the fact that its expelled material was absorbed by the permitted piece adjacent to it. Now that the permitted piece has absorbed the expelled material of the piece of neveila, the permitted piece, which is considered neveila, joins the piece of neveila, as though there were two pieces of neveila here. And although additional permitted pieces, water, and sediment are added to the pot, the two pieces [the neveila and the piece that became neveila] are not nullified by the majority, because the water and sediment do not constitute sixty times the volume of the two pieces. And the permitted pieces that were added cannot nullify the two pieces even if they contain sixty times their volume, since they are of the same species as them!

Mishna:

The prohibition against the sciatic nerve

applies to a pure animal, but does not apply to an impure animal!

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It applies

even to an impure animal!

Rabbi Yehuda said: Is it not the case that from the time of Jacob’s sons

onward

the sciatic nerve was prohibited

to the Children of Israel,

while an impure animal

was

permitted to them

the Children of Israel, since they were not prohibited from eating it until the revelation at Mount Sinai? If so, why was the sciatic nerve of an impure animal not also prohibited from that time? How does it differ from the sciatic nerve of a pure animal!?

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Yehuda: The prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve was

stated at Sinai

only,

but it was written

[after it had been stated at Sinai]

in its place,

in the passage concerning the encounter between the angel and Jacob our forefather.

And this is how the verse is interpreted: Therefore, at Mount Sinai, the Children of Israel were warned not to eat the sciatic nerve.

Gemara:

It might have been thought that when Rabbi Yehuda obligates one for eating the sciatic nerve of an impure animal, he obligates him twice: both for eating an impure animal and for eating the sciatic nerve.

And we raise an objection:

And

if

Rabbi Yehuda holds

that

one prohibition can take effect upon another prohibition!?

For the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect only from the time the animal is born, whereas the prohibition of an impure animal takes effect while it is still in its mother’s womb; consequently, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect upon the prohibition of an impure animal. Is that indeed Rabbi Yehuda’s view?

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: One might have thought that the carcass of an impure bird renders the garments

of the person eating it impure, just as the eating of the carcass of a pure bird does, when it is

in the throat?

The verse states: “A carcass or a torn animal he shall not eat”—

“to become impure through it,”

teaching you that only

that whose prohibition is due to “He shall not eat a carcass,”

namely, the carcass of a pure bird, renders the garments of the person eating it impure when it is in his throat.

This excludes this one,

the carcass of an impure bird,

whose prohibition is not due to “He shall not eat a carcass,”

namely, the carcass of a pure bird, which renders the garments of the person eating it impure when it is in his throat; this one, the carcass of an impure bird, is excluded, since its prohibition is not due to “He shall not eat a carcass”

but rather to “He shall not eat an impure creature”!

This proves that the prohibition of a carcass does not take effect upon the prohibition against eating an impure creature, because according to Rabbi Yehuda one prohibition does not take effect upon another. If so, the question arises: How can the prohibition of the sciatic nerve take effect upon the prohibition against eating an impure animal?

And if you would say

that Rabbi Yehuda holds

that the sinews do not impart flavor,

but are merely like wood, and therefore they were not prohibited at all because of eating an impure animal, but only because of the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve, which is what the Torah prohibited;

and in an impure animal too

there is only

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve

the sciatic nerve

present, whereas

there is no

prohibition

of eating

impurity

in the nerve.

This cannot be used as a resolution!

For

and

if

Rabbi Yehuda holds

that

the sinews do not impart flavor?

But it was taught in a beraita:

With regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve of an impure animal,

Rabbi Yehuda obligates him twice,

for the prohibition of an impure animal and for the prohibition of the sciatic nerve;

and Rabbi Shimon exempts him

entirely, as the Gemara will explain his reasoning below.

This proves that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sinews do impart flavor. And the question returns to its place: How can the prohibition of the sciatic nerve take effect upon the prohibition of an impure animal?

And we answer:

Actually, he holds

that Rabbi Yehuda

the sinews do impart flavor,

but

he holds

that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve

applies

even

to an unborn animal,

while it is in its mother’s womb;

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve and the prohibition of impurity take effect simultaneously!

And we ask:

Can you really say

that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve

applies to an unborn animal?

But didn’t we learn

that the sciatic nerve

applies to an unborn animal. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to an unborn animal, and its fat is permitted!?

And we resolve:

That statement applies

that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply to an unborn animal according to Rabbi Yehuda only

with regard to

an unborn animal of a

pure

animal, because its permissibility for consumption is due to

the Torah having stated: “Everything that is in an animal—

you may eat,”

and even its fat and even the sciatic nerve of an unborn animal are permitted, for from this verse we learn that everything found in an animal at the time of slaughter is permitted for consumption.

But in

an unborn animal of an

impure

animal, to which the permission of “Everything that is in an animal you may eat” does not apply,

the prohibition

of the sciatic nerve applies even to an unborn animal. Consequently, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve and the prohibition of an impure animal take effect simultaneously.

We raise an objection concerning this resolution:

Can you really say that both take effect simultaneously,

at the time they come into existence, meaning that their formation takes place at the same time?

But didn’t we learn: For these forms of impurity the nazirite shaves

if he becomes overshadowed by them:

for a corpse and for an olive-bulk of a corpse!

And we found this difficult: If he shaves for an olive-bulk of a corpse, is it not all the more so that he shaves for an entire corpse!?

And Rabbi Yohanan said: It was necessary

to teach that he shaves for an entire corpse

only with regard to a stillborn, whose limbs had not yet become joined

still

by sinews,

and whose entire body does not contain an olive-bulk of flesh; nevertheless, it imparts impurity through a tent, because it is a complete corpse. Therefore, a nazirite who becomes overshadowed by it interrupts his naziriteship.

Apparently,

the formation of the limbs precedes that of the sinews, and learn from this that the status of impurity takes effect upon the fetus even before the sinews have formed in it. If so,

the prohibition of impurity,

concerning eating the limbs of the fetus of an impure animal,

precedes

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, which comes into existence only afterward. And the question returns to its place: How can the prohibition of the sciatic nerve take effect upon the prohibition against eating an impure animal!?

And we answer:

Although the prohibition of impurity precedes

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, nevertheless

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve comes

and

takes effect upon it. For the prohibition

of the sciatic nerve is a severe prohibition, which

applies

even

to Noahides, according to Rabbi Yehuda; and a severe prohibition has the power to take effect upon a lesser prohibition.

according to Rabbi Yehuda, and a stringent prohibition has the power to take effect upon a less stringent prohibition.

This is also precise,

that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is that he holds that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve is severe, since it applies to Noahides, and therefore it takes effect upon the prohibition of impurity,

as it is taught

in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: Is it not the case that from the time of Jacob’s sons the sciatic nerve was prohibited, while an impure animal was still permitted to them!

This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda came to explain why the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect upon the prohibition of impurity, and he said that the reason is that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve is severe, since it applies also to Noahides, as he derives it from Jacob’s sons, who, before the giving of the Torah, had the status of “Noahides.”

The substance of the matter: One who eats the sciatic nerve of an impure animal—

Rabbi Yehuda obligates him twice,

for eating an impure animal and for eating the sciatic nerve.