Chullin 89b — the Talmud in English

And we answer: He said

Rav Ashi: How is this so!?

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

there,

with the shofar and lulav, the reason that one has not fulfilled [the mitzva] is not because he derived benefit from something prohibited for benefit, but rather, since with the shofar and lulav

the measure is required,

for they have a measure as to how large they must be, and this shofar

and

this lulav of

idolatry—

its measure is crushed away!

For it is as though it has been crushed and its measure lost, since the law of idolatry is that it must be burned, and anything destined to be burned is considered as though burned. But

here,

with the covering of the blood,

the more it is crushed,

the more burned and crushed it is—

the better [

preferable]

for covering

with it. Therefore, it is possible to cover with the ash of the burning of an idolatrous city.

We have completed the chapter “The Covering of the Blood.”

Mishna:

The prohibition of eating

the sciatic nerve applies:

Mezhdu

Both in the Land of Israel and

both

outside the Land of Israel.

Both

when the Temple stood,

at the time when the Temple was extant,

and

both

when the Temple did not stand.

Both

in unconsecrated animals and

both

in consecrated animals.

And it applies —

to domesticated animals and wild animals,

both to the nerve that is

in the right thigh and

both to the nerve that is

in the left thigh.

But it does not apply to a bird, because it has no spoon-shaped joint!

For the flesh surrounding the thigh bone in a bird is not round like a spoon, as it is in a domesticated animal, but is flat across its width; therefore it is not included in the prohibition. For concerning the sciatic nerve it is stated, “which is upon the spoon-shaped joint of the thigh

”.

And it applies to a fetus!

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

And

not only is the sciatic nerve of a fetus permitted for eating, but also

its fat

of the fetus

is permitted

for eating, since we read in it, “Everything that is in the animal — you may eat

”!

And the slaughterers are not trusted concerning the sciatic nerve

to say that they removed it from the thigh of the animal, because it is labor for them to search after it and remove it properly,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

the slaughterers are trusted

concerning it.

And

the slaughterers are likewise trusted concerning the fat, to say that they removed the fat and took it out of the flesh of the animal.

Gemara:

And we raise a question concerning it: Why does the tanna of our Mishna need to say that the sciatic nerve applies to

consecrated animals?

But is it not

obvious?

For is it that

because he consecrated it

the animal,

the prohibition of the nerve departs

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

from it?

And if you would say

that the tanna came to teach us that one who eats the sciatic nerve of consecrated animals receives lashes also because of eating consecrated animals, and that there are two innovations in the matter:

a.

The tanna of our Mishna holds that sinews impart flavor!

For the sinew has flavor in it, and therefore the prohibition of eating consecrated animals applies to the sciatic nerve, since there is benefit in this eating. But if the sinew had no flavor, one would not transgress on account of eating consecrated animals. [The prohibition of 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 of eating consecrated animals, and we hold that one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition, nevertheless

the prohibition of consecrated animals comes and takes effect upon the prohibition of the nerve,

since the prohibition of consecrated animals is severe, and a severe prohibition can take effect upon a lighter prohibition.

It is impossible to say this, for if so,

this

tanna should not have said, “The sciatic nerve applies to consecrated animals,” but

“consecrated animals apply to the nerve” is what he should have said,

since the principal innovation is that there is a prohibition of eating consecrated animals in the sciatic nerve?

Rather, he holds

the tanna of the Mishna:

sinews do not impart flavor. And

therefore,

in

the sciatic nerve of

consecrated animals,

only

the prohibition of the nerve exists,

but

the prohibition of consecrated animals does not exist!

And thus the words of the Mishna are interpreted: the prohibition of “the sciatic nerve” alone “applies to consecrated animals,” and no more!

And we object:

And

does

the tanna of our Mishna hold

that

sinews do not impart flavor?!

But we learned

in our chapter:

a thigh in which the sciatic nerve was cooked,

for he did not remove the sciatic nerve from the thigh but cooked it with it,

if it contains imparted flavor,

meaning that the quantity of the nerve is of such a measure that it can impart flavor to the thigh,

then

this thigh

is forbidden!

And from here it is proven that the tanna of the Mishna of our chapter holds that sinews impart flavor!?

And we answer:

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

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], and there is no problem of one prohibition taking effect upon another, because

he holds that the sciatic nerve

applies to a fetus!

For from the beginning of its formation, while it is still a fetus, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve has already taken effect upon it.

And he holds that the offspring of consecrated animals

even while they are

in their mothers’ wombs are consecrated,

for the sanctity also begins from the time of the animal’s formation in its mother’s womb. It follows

that the prohibition of the nerve and the prohibition of consecrated animals come together,

and therefore both take effect at once.

And we object:

Can you establish it

as teaching that the sciatic nerve applies

to a fetus? But since it teaches in the conclusion

of the Mishna

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

For if the beginning, which teaches “and in consecrated animals,” came to teach that the sciatic nerve applies to a fetus, why did the tanna need to teach this again in the conclusion?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying

the tanna in the conclusion:

this matter

that we said in the beginning, that the sciatic nerve applies even to a fetus, is not the opinion of everyone, but

it is the dispute of Rabbi Judah and the Rabbis

!

And we object:

Can you say that

in the offspring of consecrated animals the prohibition of the nerve and the prohibition of consecrated animals

come together?

But we learned: “For these impurities the nazirite shaves,”

for a nazirite who became impure in the middle of his naziriteship thereby has his naziriteship invalidated, and must shave his hair and begin counting everything anew. But not every impurity by which the nazirite becomes impure invalidates his naziriteship, for he is obligated to shave and count anew only for impurity by which he became impure

through a corpse and through an olive-bulk from a corpse

alone

! And we find it difficult

: Why does he need to teach two things? For if

through an olive-bulk from a corpse

from which the nazirite became impure he

shaves, through

the

corpse

in its entirety, all the more so!? And Rabbi Yohanan said: It was not necessary

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

except for an intact stillborn,

an entire one,

whose

limbs

have not yet become joined by sinews,

for then presumably there is not even an olive-bulk of flesh in it, and it does not impart impurity by the law of an olive-bulk from a corpse, but by the law of an entire corpse, since there is here a complete “corpse.”