Chullin 100b — the Talmud in English

Rava said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

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

from the prohibition, the piece of nevela does not have the power to prohibit all the pieces of permitted food by the law of same species, and they become prohibited only by means of the first piece of permitted food that absorbed [the prohibited substance] from the piece of nevela.

For initially the mixture consisted of a piece of nevela, a permitted piece, sauce, and sediment, and at that time there was in that pot a mixture of

same species

[the nevela with the permitted piece]

and another thing

[the sauce and sediment],

and every

mixture that contains a combination of

a species and its same species and another thing,

we say:

remove its same species

[the permitted one] and consider it

as though it does not exist

now in the mixture,

and that which is not its same species

of the prohibition

increases over it and nullifies it!

That is, since the permitted species, which is the same species as the prohibited one, does not nullify the prohibition, while on the other hand it does not add to its prohibition, we consider the permitted substance that is its same species as though it had been removed from the pot, and the prohibition is nullified by the majority of the permitted substance that is not its same species!

Here too, when the nevela became mixed with the permitted piece, and there were also sauce and spices in the pot, and they were the majority, the piece of nevela should have been nullified by the majority of the permitted sauce and spices, had its emission not been absorbed into the permitted piece adjacent to it. And now that the permitted piece absorbed the emission of the piece of nevela, the permitted piece that is considered nevela joins the piece of nevela, as though there were here two pieces of nevela. And although further permitted pieces, further water, and sediment join the pot, the two pieces [the nevela and the piece that became nevela] are not nullified by the majority, because the water and sediment do not constitute a majority of sixty against the two pieces. But the permitted pieces that joined it, even if they contain sixty against both of them, do not have the power to nullify the two pieces, since they are of the same species!

Mishna:

The prohibition of the sciatic nerve

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

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It applies

also to an impure animal!

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

and onward

the sciatic nerve was prohibited

for the Children of Israel to eat,

and an impure animal was still

permitted

to them

for 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? In what way is it different from a pure animal!?

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Yehuda: Only

at Sinai was it stated

that eating the sciatic nerve is prohibited;

but it was written

[after it had been stated at Sinai]

in its place,

in the passage concerning the encounter of the angel with our father Jacob.

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

Gemara:

It entered our minds that when Rabbi Yehuda makes one liable for eating the sciatic nerve of an impure animal, he makes him liable twice: both because of eating an impure animal and because of eating the sciatic nerve.

And we raised 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 upon it already while it is in its mother’s womb. It follows that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect upon the prohibition of an impure animal?

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, analogous to eating the carcass of a pure bird, when it is

in the house of swallowing?

The verse states: “He shall not eat a carcass or a torn animal

to become impure through it,”

teaching you that only

one whose prohibition is because of “he shall not eat a carcass,”

that is, the carcass of a pure bird, only it renders the garments of the person eating it impure when it is in the house of swallowing.

This one is excluded,

the carcass of an impure bird,

whose prohibition is not because of “he shall not eat a carcass,”

that is, the carcass of a pure bird, which renders the garments of the person eating it impure when it is in the house of swallowing; this one is excluded, the carcass of an impure bird, whose prohibition is not because of “he shall not eat a carcass,”

but because of “he shall not eat an impure thing”!

And it is proven that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition of a carcass does not take effect upon the prohibition of eating an impure thing, because one prohibition does not take effect upon another according to Rabbi Yehuda. If so, it is difficult: how does the prohibition of the sciatic nerve take effect, according to his words, upon the prohibition of eating an impure thing?

And if you would say

that Rabbi Yehuda holds

that the sinews do not impart flavor,

but are merely wood, and therefore they were not prohibited at all because of eating an impure animal, but only because of the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, for this is how the Merciful One prohibited it,

and in an impure animal too

only

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve

the sciatic nerve

exists, while

whereas

the prohibition

of eating

impurity does not exist

in the nerve.

This cannot be used to resolve it!

For

and

if

Rabbi Yehuda holds

that

the sinews do not impart flavor?

And it was taught in a beraita:

One who eats the sciatic nerve of an impure animal—

Rabbi Yehuda makes him liable for two,

because of an impure animal and because of the sciatic nerve,

and Rabbi Shimon exempts him

entirely, as he explains the reason for his position below.

And it is proven that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sinews do impart flavor. And the question returns to its place: how does the prohibition of the sciatic nerve take effect upon the prohibition of an impure thing?

And we answer:

Actually, he holds

Rabbi Yehuda that

the sinews do impart flavor,

but

he holds,

that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve

applies

even

to a fetus,

while it is in its mother’s womb,

for the prohibition of the nerve and the prohibition of impurity come together!

And we ask:

Can you really say

that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve

applies to a fetus?

But did we not learn:

The sciatic nerve

applies to a fetus. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus, and its fat is permitted!?

And we answer:

These words

that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply to a fetus, according to Rabbi Yehuda, apply only

with regard to

a fetus of a

pure

animal, because the permission to eat it is because

the Merciful One said: “Everything that is in an animal

you shall eat,”

and even its fat and even the nerve of a fetus are permitted, for from this verse we learn that everything found in the animal at the time of slaughter is permitted for eating.

But in

a fetus of an

impure

animal, in which the permission of “everything that is in an animal you shall eat” was not stated,

the prohibition

of the sciatic nerve applies even to a fetus. It follows that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve and the prohibition of an impure animal take effect together.

And we raise an objection concerning this resolution:

Can you really say that both of them come together,

at the time they come into being, meaning that their formation is simultaneous?

But we learned: For these impurities the nazirite shaves

if he overshadowed them:

for a dead person, and for an olive-bulk from a dead person!

And it is difficult for us: for an olive-bulk from a dead person he shaves; for an entire dead person, is it not all the more so!?

And Rabbi Yohanan said: It was necessary

to teach us that he shaves for an entire dead person

only because of a stillborn, whose

limbs had not yet been joined

by sinews,

and there is not an olive-bulk of flesh in its entirety, and nevertheless it renders [one] impure through overshadowing, because it is a “complete dead person”; therefore, the nazirite who overshadowed it interrupts his nazirite status.

Evidently,

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

the prohibition of impurity,

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

precedes

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

And we answer:

Even though the prohibition of impurity precedes

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, nevertheless

the prohibition of the nerve comes

and

takes effect upon it. For the prohibition

of the sciatic nerve is a stringent prohibition, which

applies

even

to the descendants of Noah,

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

It is precise as well

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

as it teaches

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!

And it implies that Rabbi Yehuda came to give a reason for his words: why the prohibition of the nerve takes effect upon the prohibition of impurity. And he said that the reason for the matter is that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve is a stringent prohibition because it also applies to the descendants of Noah, for he derives it from the sons of Jacob, who, before the giving of the Torah, were in the category of “descendants of Noah.”

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

Rabbi Yehuda makes him liable for two,

because of eating an impure animal and because of eating the sciatic nerve.