Chullin 90a — the Talmud in English

And now we have learned from Rabbi Yohanan’s words that at the beginning of the formation of the fetus’s flesh there are still no sinews in it.

Apparently, the prohibition of consecrated animals

which took effect from the beginning of the formation [upon the flesh that later becomes a sinew — see Tosafot

’]

preceded the prohibition of the nerve. For the sinew becomes a sinew only afterward, and this is difficult concerning what we said, that both of them come together?

And we answer:

Although the prohibition of consecrated animals preceded

in the offspring of consecrated animals, nevertheless

the prohibition of the nerve comes and

takes effect upon it,

the prohibition of consecrated animals, since the prohibition of the sciatic nerve is severe,

for its prohibition applies

even

to Noahides.

For even before the giving of the Torah, when the Children of Israel were considered Noahides, the sciatic nerve was already forbidden to them. For so it is written after the angel touched Jacob’s thigh: “Therefore the Children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic nerve

”.

And we object:

Whom do you hear

who holds

this reasoning,

that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve began with the sons of Jacob —

Rabbi Judah! [For the Sages hold that the sciatic nerve was forbidden only from the giving of the Torah

].

And

but

our Mishna

necessarily proceeds

not according to Rabbi Judah. For it teaches

in it

“It applies to a domesticated animal and a wild animal, to the right thigh and to the left thigh.”

But Rabbi Judah holds that the sciatic nerve applies only to one of the animal’s thighs?

And we answer:

This tanna

of the Mishna

holds like him

like Rabbi Judah

in one matter,

that the sciatic nerve was forbidden to the sons of Jacob.

And he disagrees with him in one matter,

that it applies to both thighs.

And we object:

You may say that you hear from Rabbi Judah

that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect upon another prohibition, since it is severe, for it applies to Noahides, only

in

an

impure animal.

For Rabbi Judah holds below that the sciatic nerve applies to an impure animal. And although the prohibition of an impure animal preceded the prohibition of the nerve, nevertheless the prohibition of the nerve takes effect upon the prohibition of an impure animal because

the

prohibition of eating the flesh of an impure animal is

merely a negative-commandment prohibition,

and therefore the severity that the prohibition of the nerve applies to Noahides is effective to make the prohibition of the sciatic nerve take effect upon the prohibition of an impure animal.

But our Mishna, which we established as dealing with the offspring of

consecrated animals, where there is a prohibition of excision,

for through consecrated animals one can come to a prohibition of excision if he eats it in impurity or as piggul or notar —

do you hear

from Rabbi Judah that he would say that the prohibition of the nerve takes effect upon the severe prohibition of eating consecrated animals?

And we answer:

Rather, here,

in our Mishna,

we are dealing with a firstborn animal.

With an unconsecrated animal that gave birth to a firstborn. For the firstborn is not consecrated from its mother’s womb, but

when

it emerges from the

womb

it becomes

consecrated.

And the tanna came to teach us that although in the other offspring of consecrated animals the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply, since the prohibition of consecrated animals preceded it and the prohibition of the nerve cannot take effect upon it, nevertheless in a firstborn there is the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. For the prohibition of the nerve takes effect earlier, while it is still in its mother’s womb, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn takes effect only afterward, at the time of birth. [And according to the one who says that the sciatic nerve does not apply to a fetus, the two prohibitions take effect at the same time

].

And if you wish, say:

that our Mishna is indeed speaking of the offspring of consecrated animals. And do not object that the prohibition of consecrated animals preceded the prohibition of the nerve, because this tanna holds that

the offspring of consecrated animals become consecrated at their coming into being!

That is, only from the time that they came into being and were born does sanctity take effect upon them. Therefore, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to them, since its prohibition began earlier, when the offspring was still in its mother’s womb, and afterward did not depart from it [and according to the one who says that the sciatic nerve does not apply to a fetus, the two prohibitions take effect at the same time

].

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said:

this that the Mishna teaches that the sciatic nerve applies to consecrated animals,

was taught

so

only in

consecrated animals that are eaten, such as a sin-offering, a guilt-offering, and peace-offerings.

But consecrated animals that are not eaten,

such as a burnt-offering,

the prohibition of the nerve

of the sciatic nerve

does not apply to them!

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Both consecrated animals that are eaten and consecrated animals that are not eaten —

the prohibition of the nerve applies to them!

Rav Pappa said: They do not disagree

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef. Rather,

here,

what Rabbi Yohanan said, that the prohibition of the nerve applies to them, is

in order to administer lashes to him

who eats the sciatic nerve of a burnt-offering. Whereas

here,

what Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said, that the prohibition of the nerve does not apply to them, is

with regard to bringing it up.

It is permitted to bring the burnt-offering upon the altar together with the sciatic nerve within it, because the prohibition is only in eating and not in offering.

There are those who say: Rav Pappa said: They do not disagree!

Here,

the one who says that it does not apply to a burnt-offering means

with regard to removing it,

that it is not necessary to remove the nerve from the thigh before bringing the burnt-offering upon the altar; rather, he offers it together with the nerve.

Here,

the one who says that it applies to a burnt-offering means

with regard to bringing it up

by itself. If the nerve became separated from the thigh, it is forbidden to bring it up upon the altar by itself.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

They do disagree! And with regard to

bringing it up

is where they

disagree,

whether it is permitted to bring the nerve up upon the altar while it is still attached to the thigh of the burnt-offering, or whether it must be removed from the thigh before it is brought up upon the altar.

And we find that the tannaim disagreed about this.

For it was taught:

It is stated in the section of the burnt-offering

“And the priest shall burn all of it upon the altar.”

And we expound “all of it” — —

to include

the

bones and the sinews [which are permitted, and not specifically the sciatic nerve],

and the horns and the hooves,

that he shall also burn them upon the altar.

One might have thought that even if they became separated

from the flesh, he should burn them by themselves.

The verse says: “And you shall make your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood”!

And these, which are neither flesh nor blood, shall not go up upon the altar.

If

only

flesh and blood

shall go up,

one might have thought he should remove,

separate

the sinews and bones

from the flesh,

and bring up

only the

flesh to the altar? The verse says: “And the priest shall burn all of it upon the altar”!

And we have already learned from here that the sinews and bones also go up.

How so?

For the verse apparently contradicts itself. In one place it says to bring up only flesh and blood, and in another place it says to bring up also bones and sinews.

Rather, certainly this is the resolution of the matter: one verse speaks concerning bones and sinews when they are

attached

to the flesh, and they indeed

go up

with the flesh. And the second verse speaks concerning bones that

became separated

and are now by themselves, concerning which the law is that

even if they went up and are now

vozvedeny i teper nahodyatsya

at the top of the altar —

they must come down!

And we explain:

And who is the

tanna

from whom you hear that he says, “If they became separated”,

the bones from the flesh, even if they went up to the top of the altar —

they must come down!? It is Rabbi!

And not the Rabbis.

For it was taught: “And the priest shall burn all of it” —

to include the bones and the sinews and the horns and the hooves, and even

if they

became separated

from the flesh, he shall burn them by themselves.

And how do I understand

what is stated,

“And you shall make your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood”?

For the meaning of this verse is that he shall burn only flesh and blood and not bones and sinews? It was not said concerning bones and sinews that became separated, but

concerning pieces that fall off!

For there is a law concerning the burning of the offering that if, during its burning upon the altar, one of the limbs being burned falls off [that is, flies out and leaves] the fire of the arrangement, he must return it to the arrangement. And this law was not said concerning bones and sinews.

How so? The consumed portions of flesh,

that is, flesh of a burnt-offering that was not consumed, that was not completely burned in the fire of the altar, if it falls from the arrangement,

you return

it to the arrangement in order to complete its burning.

But you do not return the consumed portions of sinews and bones

that fell from the arrangement. For although sinews and bones are initially burned upon the altar, even when they are by themselves, nevertheless, after their burning has begun, they do not have the law of returning “pieces that fall off.” And this we learn from “And you shall make your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood” — only the flesh do you return to the arrangement.

Rabbi says: One verse says, “And the priest shall burn all of it”

and thereby it

included

even the bones for burning.

And one verse says, “And you shall make your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood”

and thereby it

excluded

them.

How so? If the bones were

attached

to the flesh,

they

go up!

But if they

became separated —

even if they are

at the top of the altar,

they must come down!

And therefore, Rabbi is the tanna whom we find to hold that if they became separated, they must come down.

And now the Gemara explains the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi, and from this it is heard that they also disagree concerning the sciatic nerve:

And the Rabbis,

who include from “And the priest shall burn all of it” also bones and sinews that became separated, their reason is that

for those that are attached, a verse was not needed to include them,

for they go up with the flesh, and this matter was already known,

as is the case with the head of a burnt-offering,

which they offer whole, even though there are many bones in it. And necessarily,

when the verse is needed, it is needed for

bones and sinews that

became separated,

which are burned by themselves; it is for this that it is needed.