Chullin 90a (צ.) — the Talmud in English

We can now learn from Rabbi Yohanan’s words that at the beginning of the formation of the fetus’s flesh, it still has no sinews.

Evidently, the prohibition of consecrated meat

which took effect from the beginning of its formation [upon the flesh that would later become the sinew—see Tosafot]

preceded

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, since the sinew becomes a sinew only afterward. This is difficult, for we said that the two prohibitions come simultaneously?

We answer:

Although the prohibition of consecrated meat preceded

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve in the offspring of consecrated animals, nevertheless

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve comes

and

takes effect upon it,

that is, upon the prohibition of consecrated meat, since the prohibition of the sciatic nerve is more severe,

as its prohibition applies

even

to the descendants of Noah.

For even before the giving of the Torah, when the Children of Israel were still considered descendants of Noah, the sciatic nerve had already been forbidden to them. For so it is written after the angel struck Jacob’s thigh: “Therefore the Children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic nerve.”

We object:

Whom do you hear

who holds

this view,

that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve began with the descendants of Jacob?

Rabbi Yehuda! [For the Sages hold that the sciatic nerve was prohibited only from the giving of the Torah].

[Mudretsy zhe schitayut, chto sedalishchnyy nerv byl zapreshchen tolko s momenta darovaniya Tory].

And

the Mishna

of ours

necessarily follows

not Rabbi Yehuda’s view. For it states

in it:

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

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

We answer:

This tanna,

the tanna of the Mishna,

agrees with him

with Rabbi Yehuda

in one matter:

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

But he disagrees with him in one matter,

for he holds that it applies to both thighs.

We object:

You may say that you hear from Rabbi Yehuda

that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect upon another prohibition because it is severe, as it applies to the descendants of Noah, only

in

a

non-kosher animal.

For Rabbi Yehuda holds below that the sciatic nerve applies to a non-kosher animal. Although the prohibition of a non-kosher animal preceded the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, nevertheless the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect upon the prohibition of a non-kosher animal, because

the

prohibition against eating the flesh of a non-kosher animal is merely

a prohibition carrying lashes,

and therefore the severity of the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, which applies to the descendants of Noah, is sufficient to cause the prohibition of the sciatic nerve to take effect upon the prohibition of a non-kosher animal.

But our Mishna, which we established as referring to the offspring of

consecrated animals, whose prohibition carries karet,

since through consecrated meat one can come to a prohibition carrying karet if one eats it in a state of ritual impurity or as piggul or notar—

do you hear

that Rabbi Yehuda would say that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect upon the more severe prohibition against eating consecrated meat?

We answer:

Rather, here

our Mishna

is dealing with an animal giving birth to a firstborn.

This is a non-sacred animal that gave birth to a firstborn. For the firstborn is not consecrated from within its mother’s womb; rather,

when

it emerges from the

womb

it becomes

consecrated.

The tanna comes to teach us that although in the case of other offspring of consecrated animals the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply, since the prohibition of consecrated meat preceded it and the prohibition of the sciatic nerve cannot take effect upon it, nevertheless, in the case of a firstborn the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies. For the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect first, while it is still in its mother’s womb, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn takes effect only afterward, at birth. [And according to the one who says that the sciatic nerve does not apply to a fetus but only from birth, the two prohibitions take effect simultaneously].

And if you wish, say instead:

Our Mishna is indeed speaking of the offspring of consecrated animals. And it is not difficult that the prohibition of consecrated meat preceded the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, because this tanna holds that

the offspring of consecrated animals become consecrated only upon their coming into being!

That is, their sanctity takes effect only from the time they are formed and born. Therefore, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to them, since its prohibition began earlier, while the offspring was still in its mother’s womb, and it did not subsequently lapse from it [and according to the one who says that the sciatic nerve does not apply to a fetus, the two prohibitions take effect simultaneously].

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said:

With regard to that which the Mishna states, that the sciatic nerve applies to consecrated meat,

they taught

this

only

with regard to

consecrated animals that are eaten,

such as a sin-offering, a guilt-offering, and a peace-offering.

But with regard to consecrated animals that are not eaten,

such as a burnt-offering,

the prohibition 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 sciatic 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 sciatic nerve applies to them, refers

to having him flog

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

here,

what Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said, that the prohibition does not apply to them, refers

to placing it upon the altar.

It is permitted to place the burnt-offering upon the altar together with its sciatic nerve, because the prohibition applies only to eating and not to sacrificing.

Some say: Rav Pappa said: They do not disagree!

Here,

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

to removing it,

meaning that it is unnecessary to remove the nerve from the thigh before placing the burnt-offering upon the altar; rather, he sacrifices it together with the nerve.

Here,

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

to placing it upon the altar

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

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

They do disagree! And their disagreement concerns

placing it upon the altar:

whether

they disagree

about whether it is permitted to place the nerve 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 placed upon the altar.

We find that tanna’im disagreed about this.

As it was taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning the burnt-offering:

“And the koen shall burn the whole upon the altar.”

And we expound the word “whole”: -

To include

the

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

and the horns and the hooves,

so that these too shall be burned upon the altar.

One might have thought that once they became separated

from the flesh, they should be burned by themselves.

The verse therefore states: “And you shall offer your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood”!

These, which are neither flesh nor blood, may not be placed upon the altar.

If

only

flesh and blood

may be placed upon it,

one might have thought that he should remove

—separate

the sinews and bones

from the flesh—

and place

only the

flesh upon the altar. The verse therefore states: “And the koen shall burn the whole upon the altar”!

We have already learned from this that the sinews and bones too are to be placed upon it.

How so?

The verse seemingly contradicts itself. In one place it says that only flesh and blood are to be placed upon the altar, while elsewhere it says that bones and sinews are also to be placed upon it.

Rather, this is certainly how the matter is resolved: One verse is speaking of bones and sinews when they are

attached

to the flesh; they indeed

are placed

with the flesh. The other verse is speaking of bones that have

become separated

and are now by themselves. In their case, the law is that

even if

they were placed and are now

on top of the altar,

they must be removed!

We explain:

And who is the

etim

tanna from whom you hear that he says that once they have become separated

from the flesh, even if the bones have reached the top of the altar

they must be removed? Rabbi

and not the Rabbis.

As it was taught: “And the koen shall burn the whole”—

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

if they

became separated

from the flesh; he burns them by themselves.

And how do I understand

what is stated,

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

Does the meaning of this verse indicate that only flesh and blood are to be burned, and not bones and sinews? It is not stated with regard to bones and sinews that became separated; rather, it refers

to pieces that fell away!

There is a law concerning the burning of a sacrifice that if, during its burning upon the altar, one of the limbs being burned falls [that is, flies out] from the fire of the arrangement, it must be returned to the arrangement. This law does not apply to bones and sinews.

How so? The consumed portions of flesh,

that is, flesh of a burnt-offering that has not been consumed, that has not been completely burned by the fire of the altar—if it falls from the arrangement,

you return

it to the arrangement to complete its burning.

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

that fell from the arrangement. Although sinews and bones are initially burned upon the altar, even when they are by themselves, once their burning has begun they are not subject to the law requiring the return of pieces that fall away. This is what we learn from “And you shall offer your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood”: only the flesh is returned to the arrangement.

Rabbi says: One verse states, “And the koen shall burn the whole,”

and thereby it

included

even the bones.

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

and thereby it

excluded

them.

How so?

If the bones were

attached

to the flesh,

they are placed upon the altar!

But if they

became separated—

even

if they are

on top of the altar, they must be removed!

Thus, Rabbi is the tanna whom we find holding that if they became separated, they must be removed.

The Gemara now explains the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi, and from this it will emerge that they also disagree with regard to the sciatic nerve:

And the Rabbis,

who include, from “And the koen shall burn the whole,” even bones and sinews that became separated, hold as follows:

A verse was not needed to include those that are attached,

for they are placed together with the flesh, and this was already known

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

which is sacrificed whole despite the many bones it contains. Necessarily,

when the verse was needed, it was needed to include

bones and sinews that

became separated,

for it is they that are burned by themselves.