Chullin 90b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi

says to you: for

the attached permitted parts

indeed

the verse was not needed to include them,

rather,

when the verse was needed—

for the sciatic nerve!

for even though it is forbidden for consumption, nevertheless,

while

it is still

attached

to the flesh of the burnt-offering, it ascends with it to the altar; but when they have separated, even those that are permitted do not ascend.

And the Rabbis

hold that there is no basis for including the sciatic nerve so that it should ascend, since it is stated concerning sacrifices:

“From the drink of Israel,”

and we interpret it: only

from what is permitted

for consumption

to Israel

do we offer upon the altar; and the sciatic nerve is forbidden for consumption. Therefore, it cannot be said that the verse came to include it for offering, even while it is still attached; rather, it must be removed from the thigh before the offering.

Rather, certainly the verse came to include permitted bones and sinews, even when they have separated.

And Rabbi

says to you: this exclusion of “from the drink of Israel” was stated only with regard to an animal with a fatal defect, which is disqualified for offering. But a fit animal—we offer all of it, even the parts forbidden for consumption, such as the sciatic nerve.

Just as is the case with the fat and blood

of the sacrifice: even though they are forbidden for consumption, nevertheless we offer them upon the altar.

And the Rabbis

say: there is no proof from fat and blood! Since

their mitzva is precisely so—

that is different!

For the fat and blood are the principal part of the sacrifice, and the sciatic nerve is not comparable to them.

Thus, we find that the dispute of the amoraim above concerning the sciatic nerve [according to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak] is the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi: according to the Rabbis, the sciatic nerve is not offered at all, even while it is attached to the flesh, whereas according to Rabbi, it is offered while it is attached.

Rav Huna said: The sciatic nerve of a burnt-offering—

he removes it

from the thigh before the burning and throws it

onto the tapuaḥ!

Into the pile of ash that accumulated from the burning of the sacrifices; they would rake the ash to the middle of the altar, and it appeared there like an apple.

Rav Ḥisda said: Master of this teaching!

The author of this statement—understand your words

! Is it written

concerning the sciatic nerve

“Therefore the altar shall not eat,”

so that you say that the sciatic nerve is forbidden to be offered upon the altar? But

“Therefore the Children of Israel shall not eat” is written!?

And Rav Huna,

who forbids its offering, because it is written

“From the drink of Israel,”

and we expound:

“From what is permitted to Israel,”

you offer, and not from what is forbidden!

An objection was raised

against Rav Huna from that which was taught:

The sciatic nerve of a peace-offering

he removes it [and eats the thigh according to the law of peace-offerings], and he need not burn it after it becomes notar [for he will not eat it]. Since it is not fit for consumption, it does not become notar; rather,

he honors it [

he throws it ], the nerve

to the channel

of water that was in the Temple courtyard.

And

the sciatic nerve

of a burnt-offering—

he brings it up

onto the altar!

And we infer:

What, is it not that “he brings it up”

the nerve of the burnt-offering

and burns it

upon the altar? And this is difficult for Rav Huna, who forbids offering the sciatic nerve?

And we answer:

No!

Rather, this is what it says:

he brings it up

the thigh to the top of the altar with the nerve inside it,

and

there

he removes it

the nerve from the thigh, and does not offer it with it.

And we ask:

And since he removes it—

why does he bring it up

initially?

And we answer:

Because it is stated: “Present it, please, to your governor,”

for the sacrifice must be attractive and honored, and it is disgraceful to bring to the altar a thigh cut at the place of the nerve; therefore, he brings it up whole and then removes it.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Huna:

The sciatic nerve of a peace-offering—

he honors it by [throwing it into] the channel. And that of a burnt-offering—

he removes it onto the tapuaḥ!

We learned there: There was a tapuaḥ in the middle of the altar. At times, there were upon it approximately three hundred kor

of ash.

Rava said: An exaggeration

it is! For it never reached three hundred kor, since that place could not contain such a large quantity of ash. Rather, when the refuse was abundant, they would remove it from the altar to outside the city.

And likewise that which we learned:

They gave

the sacrifice

the daily-offering to drink from a golden cup

before its slaughter, so that the hide would be removed easily—also concerning this

Rava said

that it is

an exaggeration

for in fact they did not give it to drink from a golden cup, but from an ordinary cup.

Rabbi Ami said:

we find that

the Torah spoke in the language of exaggeration,

that is, by way of exaggeration. And likewise we find that

the Prophets spoke in the language of exaggeration

and likewise we find that

the Sages spoke in the language of exaggeration.

And where do we find this?

“The Sages spoke in the language of exaggeration—

that which we said

concerning the tapuaḥ and the golden cup.

“The Torah spoke in the language of exaggeration—

as it is written:

“Great cities and fortified up to the heavens.”

“The Prophets spoke in the language of exaggeration—

as it is written:

“And the earth split at their sound,”

for the sound of the crowd was heard forcefully, as though the earth were splitting.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani said that Shmuel said: In three places the Sages spoke in the language of exaggeration. These are: the tapuaḥ, the vine, and the curtain [

but “golden cup” is not an exaggeration, for they conducted themselves in the Temple in an affluent manner].

The tapuaḥ—

that which we said.

The vine—

for we learned: A golden vine

a structure made of gold in the form of a vine

stood at the entrance of the Sanctuary, and was supported [

leaning ]

upon poles. And whoever would donate

to the Temple

a berry or a cluster

of gold

would bring it and hang it upon it.

Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok said: An incident occurred, and three hundred kohanim were counted for it

in order

to move it

from place to place! And this is the exaggeration: there were not three hundred kohanim there; rather, the tanna intended to say that there was so much gold upon the vine that, because of its weight, a large number of kohanim were needed to move it from its place.

The curtain—

for we learned: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the deputy:

the

curtain

was

one handbreadth thick. And upon seventy-two heddles [

weaving units ]

it was woven. And each thread

every thread was twisted from

twenty-four strands.

Its length—

forty cubits. And its width—

twenty cubits

according to the dimensions of the Sanctuary, where the curtain was suspended to separate between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.

And from eighty-two myriad

threads it

was made [

another explanation: eighty-two rivot—young women were occupied with weaving it].

And two

curtains

they would make in

every

year, and three hundred kohanim would immerse it

when it became impure! And this number of kohanim too is an exaggeration; rather, it comes to teach us that the curtain’s weight was extremely great.

We learned in the Mishna: And it applies

to the right thigh and to the left thigh.

And we say:

The Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda!

For it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says:

the sciatic nerve

applies only to

one

thigh

of the animal’s thighs,

and reason inclines

to forbid

the

nerve

of the right side.

They raised a dilemma:

whether

it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda

that the right nerve is the forbidden one,

and what is the meaning of “reason

inclines,” which he says

— the reason of Torah!

for he learned this from the meaning of the verse.

Or perhaps it is doubtful to Rabbi Yehuda

which nerve is forbidden,

and what is the meaning of “reason”—

a leaning reason!

for it somewhat appears that it is the right thigh [since it stands to reason that the angel touched Jacob’s right thigh, because the manner of one wrestling with his fellow is that he embraces him from in front, and with his right hand encircles his fellow from behind, reaching his right thigh].

Come and hear:

from that which was taught:

The bones and the sinews

of the Paschal offering that remained after the time of eating,

and the

flesh that

remained

from it—

they shall be burned on

the day

the sixteenth

of Nisan, and not immediately on the morning of the first day of the festival.

And we raise concerning it: What is the function of these sinews?

Which sinews are being discussed?

If

they are

flesh-sinews

that are found in the flesh and are soft and fit for consumption,

let him eat them

at their time; and why did he leave them?

And if they remained

by chance, it is difficult, for

that is “notar”

which is taught afterward and includes everything fit for consumption that remained?

Rather,

perhaps you will say that it is referring to

neck sinews

which are hard and unfit for consumption; still it is difficult, for

if they are not flesh

why is it necessary to burn them,

let him throw them

into the refuse!? For the mitzva of burning applies only to notar that was fit for consumption.

And Rav Ḥisda said: It was necessary

for the Mishna to teach

only concerning the sciatic nerve, and according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says: it applies only to one

as he proceeds to explain.

And we conclude toward resolving the dilemma:

If you say, it is understandable, that it is doubtful to Rabbi Yehuda

to Rabbi Yehuda,

well

you have said. Because of the doubt, he cannot eat either of the two nerves, neither the right nor the left, and after the eating time he burns both of them. For indeed the forbidden nerve is not subject to burning, but since he does not know which one it is, he must burn both [and therefore it is taught separately, for it differs from ordinary notar: here, initially, he leaves it, against his will].

But if you say that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda

to Rabbi Yehuda that the prohibition of the nerve applies to the right side, it is difficult: why does he not say that the nerve

that is permitted,

the nerve, the left one, which is permitted for consumption,

he should eat [

and [if it remained by chance, it is already included in the “notar” of the Mishna], and

that is forbidden,

the right nerve, which is forbidden for consumption—

he should throw it away!

For there is no mitzva of burning it, since it is not fit for consumption!?

And we reject this:

Rav Ika bar Ḥanina said: Actually, I can say to you that it is obvious to him. And here, with what are we dealing? When they were identified!

For initially he recognized which was the forbidden right nerve and which was the permitted left one,

but afterward they became mixed up,

and he does not know which is the right one and which is the left one; therefore he cannot eat either of them, but after the time he burns both of them because of the doubt.