Chullin 89b (פט:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer: He said,

Rav Ashi: Is that so?!

The covering of the blood is not comparable to shofar and lulav! For

there,

with regard to shofar and lulav, the reason that one has not fulfilled his obligation is not that he derived benefit from a prohibited substance , but rather, since with shofar and lulav

a measure is required

, as they have a prescribed measure determining how large they must be, and this shofar

and

lulav belonging to

idolatry

—

its measure is crushed away! For it is considered as though it has been crushed and its measure lost, since the halakha of an object of idolatry is that it must be burned, and anything destined to be burned is considered as though it has already been burned . But

here,

with regard to covering the blood,

the more it is crushed

, the more burned and pulverized it is—

the better

it is

for covering

with it. Therefore, it is possible to cover the blood with the ashes of the burning of an apostate city .

We shall return to you, chapter “Covering the Blood.”

Mishna:

The prohibition against eating

the sciatic nerve applies:

Whether

in the Land of Israel,

whether

outside the Land of Israel.

Whether

when the Temple stood,

at the time when the Temple was in existence,

or

whether

when the Temple did not stand.

Whether

in non-sacred meat,

whether

in consecrated meat.

And it applies—

to domesticated animals and undomesticated animals,

both to the sinew

in the right thigh

and to the sinew

in the left thigh.

But it does not apply to a bird, because it has no rounded thigh socket!

The flesh surrounding the thigh bone in a bird is not rounded like a palm, as it is in a domesticated animal; rather, it is broad and flat, and therefore it is not included in the prohibition. For regarding the sciatic nerve it is stated: “that is upon the socket of the thigh.”

And it applies to a fetus!

It is forbidden to eat the sciatic nerve of a fetus that is alive in its mother’s womb after she has been slaughtered.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus!

And

not only is the sciatic nerve of a fetus permitted to be eaten, but even

its fat,

the fat of a fetus,

is permitted

to be eaten, for we interpret the verse, “Everything in the animal—you may eat”!

But the butchers are not believed concerning the sciatic nerve

to say that they removed it from the animal’s thigh, because it is laborious for them to search for it and remove it properly,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

But the Sages say:

The butchers are believed

concerning it. And

the butchers are likewise believed concerning

the forbidden fat

to say that they removed the fat and extracted it from the flesh of the animal.

Gemara:

We raise the following question: Why does the tanna of the Mishna need to state that the sciatic nerve applies to

consecrated meat,

when

it is obvious

that it does? Is it so that

because he consecrated

the animal,

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve is removed

from it, although that prohibition existed even before its consecration, from the beginning of the animal’s formation,

from it?

And if you would say

that the tanna intended to teach us that one who eats the sciatic nerve of consecrated meat is flogged also for eating consecrated meat, and that there are two novel points here:

a.

The tanna of our Mishna holds that sinews impart flavor!

The sinew has flavor, and therefore the prohibition against eating consecrated meat applies to the sciatic nerve, since this eating provides benefit. But if the sinew had no flavor, one would not violate the prohibition against eating consecrated meat by eating it. [The prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve, however, applies even if it has no flavor, since the Torah prohibited the sciatic nerve as it is].

b. Although the prohibition of the sciatic nerve preceded the prohibition against eating consecrated meat, and we maintain that one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition, nevertheless

the prohibition of consecrated meat comes and takes effect upon the prohibition of the sciatic nerve,

since the prohibition of consecrated meat is more severe, and a more severe prohibition can take effect upon a lesser prohibition.

It is impossible to say this, for if so,

this

tanna should not have said, “The sciatic nerve applies to consecrated meat”; rather,

he should have said, “The prohibition of consecrated meat applies to the sciatic nerve,”

since the principal novelty is that the prohibition against eating consecrated meat applies to the sciatic nerve?

Rather, he holds

that the tanna of the Mishna holds:

Sinews do not impart flavor. And

therefore

in

the sciatic nerve of

consecrated meat,

there is only

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve,

but

there is no prohibition of consecrated meat!

The Mishna is thus to be understood as follows: The prohibition of “the sciatic nerve” alone “applies to consecrated meat,” and nothing more!

We object:

And

does

the tanna of our Mishna hold

that

sinews do not impart flavor?!

But we learned

in this chapter:

If a thigh in which the sciatic nerve was cooked

—meaning that the sciatic nerve was not removed from the thigh, but was cooked together with it—

if it contains sufficient

of the nerve’s quantity to impart flavor to the thigh,

then

the thigh

is forbidden!

This proves that the tanna of our Mishna holds that sinews impart flavor!?

We answer:

Rather, here we are dealing with the offspring of consecrated animals!

We are dealing with a consecrated animal that gave birth, and the tanna came to teach us that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to this offspring [which is consecrated]. There is no problem of one prohibition taking effect upon another, because

he holds

that the sciatic nerve

applies to a fetus!

From the beginning of its formation, while it was still a fetus, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve already took effect upon it.

And he holds that the offspring of consecrated animals

even while

in their mothers’ wombs, are consecrated,

meaning that their sanctity also begins from the time the animal is formed in its mother’s womb. It follows

that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve and the prohibition of consecrated meat come simultaneously,

and therefore both take effect at once.

We object:

Can you establish it

as teaching that the sciatic nerve applies

to a fetus? But since the latter clause states

of the Mishna

“it applies to a fetus,” it follows that the first clause is not dealing with a fetus!

For if the first clause, which states “and to consecrated meat,” came to teach that the sciatic nerve applies to a fetus, why did the tanna need to repeat this in the latter clause?

We answer:

This is what

the tanna says in the latter clause:

This matter

that we stated in the first clause, that the sciatic nerve applies even to a fetus, is not universally accepted; rather,

it is the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis!

It is their dispute.

We object:

Can you say that

with regard to the offspring of consecrated animals, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve and the prohibition of consecrated meat

come simultaneously?

But we learned: “For these forms of ritual impurity the nazirite shaves,”

meaning that when a nazirite becomes impure in the middle of his naziriteship, that impurity invalidates the naziriteship, and he must shave his hair and begin counting everything anew. However, not every impurity that affects a nazirite invalidates his naziriteship; he is required to shave and begin counting anew only when he becomes impure

through a corpse or through an olive-bulk of a corpse

alone.

And we ask:

Why does the Mishna need to state both? For if, when he becomes impure

through an olive-bulk of a corpse,

the nazirite

shaves, then

for

an entire corpse, is it not all the more so? And Rabbi Yohanan said: It was necessary

for the Mishna to teach that he shaves for an entire corpse

only in the case of a stillborn,

an entire one,

whose

limbs

have not yet been joined by sinews,

for presumably it does not contain even an olive-bulk of flesh and does not impart impurity under the law of an olive-bulk of a corpse; rather, it imparts impurity under the law of an entire corpse, since there is an intact “corpse” here.