Chullin 101a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Shimon exempts!

As he proceeds to explain.

And we raised it:

But Rabbi Shimon, whichever way you look at it!?

If there is imparted flavor in sinews, then—

If one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition—

he should also be liable on account of the sinew!

If one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition—

he should be liable,

at least,

on account of

the prohibition of

impurity, which preceded it!?

And if there is no imparted flavor in sinews—

he should be liable,

at least,

on account of the sinew!

For if there is no imparted flavor in sinews, there is no prohibition of impurity here, and, if so, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve can take effect.

And we answer:

Rava said: Actually, he holds

Rabbi Shimon

that there is no imparted flavor in sinews,

and therefore there is no prohibition against eating an impure animal here. And the reason that one is not liable on account of the sinew is a different one, for

it is different there,

with regard to the sciatic nerve,

as the verse states: “Therefore the Children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic nerve,”

and we expound:

One whose sinew is prohibited but whose flesh is permitted

is the one whose sciatic nerve it is prohibited to eat,

this one is excluded,

the impure animal, for if we prohibit its sciatic nerve, it will be included in the category of

“one whose sinew is prohibited and whose flesh is prohibited.”

Therefore, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not take effect upon it at all!

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: One who eats the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered carcass—

Rabbi Meir holds him liable for two,

on account of an unslaughtered carcass and on account of the sciatic nerve.

And the Sages say: He is liable only once,

for eating the sciatic nerve, which took effect during the animal’s lifetime and preceded the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass, which takes effect only when it dies; and the Sages hold that one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition in such a case.

And the Sages concede to Rabbi Meir with regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve of a burnt-offering,

for since the prohibition against eating a burnt-offering is more stringent, it can take effect upon the prohibition of the sinew, which is less stringent than it.

And

likewise the Sages concede to Rabbi Meir with regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve

of an ox sentenced to stoning,

for since the prohibition of an ox sentenced to stoning is more stringent than the prohibition of the sinew, as an ox sentenced to stoning is prohibited even in deriving benefit from it, the prohibition of an ox sentenced to stoning takes effect upon the sinew; therefore, one who eats the sciatic nerve of a burnt-offering or of an ox sentenced to stoning

is liable,

even according to the Sages,

for two!

The prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass is a “comprehensive prohibition” with regard to its taking effect upon the sciatic nerve. For when we come to prohibit the sinew with the additional prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass, the sinew alone is not prohibited; rather, it includes with it all the flesh of the animal, which became prohibited for consumption when the animal became an unslaughtered carcass.

With a comprehensive prohibition, there is room to say that since the prohibition takes effect upon the flesh, it also takes effect upon the sinew. Since the additional prohibition does not relate only to the prohibited object, but also takes effect upon a permitted object,

indeed, there are tannaim who hold that one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition, but a comprehensive prohibition is capable of taking effect upon another prohibition.

And here we find that the Sages hold that the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass, although it is a “comprehensive prohibition,” is not capable of taking effect upon the prohibition of the sciatic nerve.

On the other hand, the Sages concede that if the “comprehensive prohibition” is also a “more stringent prohibition”—as in this case, where the prohibition against eating a burnt-offering or an ox sentenced to stoning is also a “comprehensive prohibition” [for when the burnt-offering was consecrated or the ox gored, all the flesh of the animal was prohibited together with the sinew], and also a “more stringent prohibition” [for a burnt-offering and an ox sentenced to stoning are prohibited even in deriving benefit from them, whereas the prohibition of the sinew is only a prohibition against eating]—the comprehensive and more stringent prohibition takes effect upon the prohibition.

And now we raise it:

And who

is

this tanna,

according to the Sages,

who, with regard to a comprehensive prohibition

alone—

does not hold that one prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition!

Whereas

with regard to a comprehensive prohibition that is a more stringent prohibition—

he does hold,

that the comprehensive, more stringent prohibition takes effect upon a prohibition!?

Rava said: It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili!

For we find that he does not hold that one prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition in the case of a lenient comprehensive prohibition, but we do not find that he holds that, in the case of a more stringent prohibition, one prohibition does not take effect upon another when it is both comprehensive and more stringent.

As we learned

in tractate Zevakhim:

A person

who is impure and ate

sacrificial

flesh, whether

that flesh was

impure sacrificial flesh,

or

whether

that flesh was

pure sacrificial flesh—

he is liable

to karet if he ate it intentionally, and to a sin-offering if he ate it unwittingly.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:

A person

who is impure and ate the

sacrificial flesh

that was pure,

only he

is liable

to karet when intentional and to a sin-offering when unwitting, whereas a person

who is impure and ate

the sacrificial flesh that was

impure is exempt

from karet and from a sacrifice, because

he ate only an impure object

of

sacrificial flesh!

They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Behold,

even

a person

who is impure and ate the

sacrificial flesh

that was pure, since he touched it

before he ate it—

he rendered it impure!

And it follows that the Torah made one liable for karet and a sacrifice for eating impure sacrificial flesh!

And we raised it: Surely

the Sages have argued well with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

as it is demonstrated from this that the Merciful One made one liable for karet and a sacrifice for eating sacrificial flesh with bodily impurity, that one is liable even for eating impure flesh, for everyone who eats sacrificial flesh renders it impure before eating it by touching it!

And Rava said: When the person’s body became impure and afterward the flesh became impure, everyone agrees that he is liable,

because

the prohibition involving karet

for eating sacrificial flesh with bodily impurity

preceded

the impurity of the flesh; for Rabbi Yosei concedes that since the impurity of his body preceded the impurity of the flesh, and the impurity of the body did not cease, the prohibition against eating this sacrificial flesh with bodily impurity preceded the prohibition against eating impure sacrificial flesh.

They disagree when the flesh became impure,

and became prohibited because of the negative commandment against eating impure sacrificial flesh, which does not involve karet,

and afterward the body became impure

and became prohibited from eating sacrificial flesh because of bodily impurity.

The Sages hold that there is a comprehensive prohibition,

which has the power to take effect upon another prohibition, and they say

that since he becomes liable

when his body becomes impure

for pure pieces

of sacrificial flesh

in general, he also becomes liable

for eating with bodily impurity

a piece

of sacrificial flesh

that is impure,

even though it had already been prohibited because of the impurity of the piece.

But Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not hold of a “comprehensive prohibition”; since

he becomes liable for this one, he also becomes liable for this one,

we do not say!

And we raise it according to the position of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, although he does not hold of a comprehensive prohibition

taking effect upon another prohibition, nevertheless here,

in the case of a lenient prohibition,

why does he not say—

let a more stringent prohibition come

and

take effect upon a lenient prohibition!?

And we explain:

And what is

a “more stringent prohibition”?

Bodily impurity,

for eating sacrificial flesh with bodily impurity is

punishable by karet!

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: Who can tell us that bodily impurity is more stringent

because it is punishable by karet?

Perhaps the impurity of the flesh is more stringent

than it,

for it does not have

the impurity of the flesh

purification in a ritual bath!