Chullin 90b (צ:) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi

said to you: For

the attached parts that are permitted

indeed

no verse was needed to include them,

but

when a verse was needed—

it was for the sciatic nerve (gid hanashe)!

For although it is forbidden to eat, nevertheless,

while

it is still

attached

to the flesh of the burnt offering, it ascends with it to the altar; but once they have become detached, even those parts 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 offerings,

“From the food of Israel,”

and we interpret this to mean: only

from that which is permitted

for consumption

by Israel

may one offer upon the altar, whereas the sciatic nerve is forbidden to eat. Therefore, it cannot be said that the verse comes 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 comes to include the bones and sinews that are permitted, even if they have become detached.

And Rabbi

said to you: This exclusion, “from the food of Israel,” was stated only with regard to an animal with a fatal defect, which is disqualified for offering. But a fit animal is offered in its entirety, even its parts that are forbidden to eat, such as the sciatic nerve,

just as is the case with the forbidden fat and blood

of the offering, which, although they are forbidden to eat, are nevertheless offered upon the altar.

And the Rabbis

said: There is no proof from the forbidden fat and blood! Since

their mitzva is performed in that manner—

it is different!

For the fat and blood are the essential components of the offering, and the sciatic nerve is not comparable to them.

It is thus found that the dispute among 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 never offered, even while it is still attached to the flesh; whereas according to Rabbi, it is offered when 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 ashes that had accumulated from the burning of the offerings. They would rake the ashes to the center of the altar, and it appeared there like an apple.

Rav Ḥisda said: Master of this teaching!

The master of this statement, understand your words!

Is it written

with regard to the sciatic nerve,

“Therefore the altar shall not eat”?

How can you say that the sciatic nerve is forbidden to be offered upon the altar? Is it not

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

And Rav Huna,

who forbids offering it, derives this from the fact that it is written,

“From the food of Israel,”

and we interpret it:

From that which is permitted to Israel

you may offer, but not from that which is forbidden!

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rav Huna from that which is taught in a beraita:

The sciatic nerve of a peace offering

is removed—and one eats the thigh according to the law of peace offerings—and one need not burn it after it becomes notar [since one would not eat it]. Since it is not fit for eating, it does not become notar. Rather,

one sweeps it away

[throws it]—the nerve—

into 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 analyze this:

Does it not mean: 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 is saying:

He brings it up

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

and

there

he removes it

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

And we challenge this:

And since he removes it—

why does he bring it up

in the first place?

And we answer:

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

for the offering must be beautiful and dignified. It is disgraceful to bring to the altar a thigh that has been cut where the nerve was; therefore, he brings it up whole and removes the nerve there.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rav Huna:

The sciatic nerve of a peace offering—

he sweeps it away into the channel. And that of a burnt offering—

he removes it onto the tapuaḥ!

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

of ashes upon it.

Rava said: It is an exaggeration.

It never reached three hundred kor, since that place could not contain such a large quantity of ashes. Rather, when the ashes were abundant, they would remove them from the altar to outside the city.

And similarly, with regard to that which we learned:

They gave

the daily offering

water in a golden cup

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

Rava said

that it was

an exaggeration: In practice, they did not give it water in a golden cup, but in an ordinary cup.

Rabbi Ami said: We find that

the Torah spoke in exaggerated language,

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

the Prophets spoke in exaggerated language

and similarly, we find that

the Sages spoke in exaggerated language.

And where do we find this?

The Sages spoke in exaggerated language—

this is that which we said

concerning the tapuaḥ and the golden cup.

The Torah spoke in exaggerated language—

as it is written:

“Great cities fortified up to the heavens.”

The Prophets spoke in exaggerated language—

as it is written:

“And the earth split at their cry,”

for the voice of the multitude was heard with great force, as though the earth had split.

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani said that Shmuel said: In three places the Sages spoke in exaggerated language. These are: the tapuaḥ, the vine, and the curtain [but “the golden cup” is not an exaggeration, for they conducted themselves in the Temple in an affluent manner].

The tapuaḥ—

this is that which we said.

The vine—

as we learned: There was a golden vine

a structure made of gold in the form of a vine

standing at the entrance of the Sanctuary, and suspended

[leaning]

on poles. And anyone who made a donation

to the Temple

of a grape or a cluster

of gold

would bring it and hang it on it.

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

in order

to move it

from one place to another! This is the exaggeration: There were not actually three hundred priests there. Rather, the tanna intended to say that there was so much gold on the vine that, due to its weight, a great many priests were needed to move it from its place.

The curtain—

as we learned: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the deputy High Priest:

The

curtain

was

a handbreadth thick. And it was woven on seventy-two looms

[units of weaving]

And each and every thread

each strand was twisted from

twenty-four threads.

Its length—

forty cubits. And its width—

twenty cubits,

corresponding to the dimensions of the Sanctuary, where the curtain was suspended to separate the Holy from the Holy of Holies.

And from eighty-two myriad

threads it was

made [another interpretation: eighty-two girls were engaged in weaving it].

And two

curtains were

made in

each

year, and three hundred priests immersed it

when it became impure! This number of priests, too, is an exaggeration; rather, it teaches us that the curtain was extremely heavy.

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!

As it is taught in a beraita: 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 thigh.

They raised a dilemma:

Does

it follow plainly to Rabbi Yehuda

that the right nerve is the forbidden one,

and what does he mean by

“reason

inclines”?

The Torah’s meaning—that he learned this from the implication of the verse.

Or perhaps it remains uncertain to him

which nerve is forbidden,

and what does he mean by

“reason”?

A plausible opinion: It seems somewhat likely that it is the right thigh [since it is reasonable that the angel touched Jacob’s right thigh, because when one wrestles with another, one embraces him from the front, and with his right hand encircles the other from behind and reaches his right thigh].

Come and hear:

From that which is taught in a beraita:

The bones and sinews

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

and the

flesh that

remained

of it—

shall be burned on

the day

of the sixteenth

of Nisan, and not immediately in the morning of the first day of the Festival.

And we considered 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 eating,

let him eat them

at the proper time; why did he leave them?

And if they were left over

by happenstance, the difficulty is:

that is “notar”

which it subsequently teaches, and which includes everything fit for eating that remained.

Rather,

perhaps it is referring to

neck sinews,

which are hard and unfit for eating. The difficulty still remains:

if they are not flesh,

why must they be burned?

Let him throw them

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

And Rav Ḥisda said: It was necessary

for the Mishna to teach us

only with regard to the sciatic nerve, and in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says: It applies only to one,

as he proceeds to explain.

And we conclude toward resolving the dilemma:

Granted, if you say that it remains uncertain to him

Rabbi Yehuda,

it is well

that you have said so. Due to the uncertainty, he cannot eat either of the two nerves, neither the right nor the left, and after the time for eating has passed, he burns both of them. Although the forbidden nerve is not subject to burning, since he does not know which one it is, he must burn both [and therefore it is taught separately, since it differs from ordinary notar: here, from the outset, he leaves it over against his will].

But if you say that it follows plainly to him

that according to Rabbi Yehuda the prohibition of the nerve applies to the right one, the difficulty is: Why does the beraita not say that

the permitted one,

the left nerve, which is permitted to eat,

let him eat it [and if it happened to remain, it is already included in the “notar” of the Mishna], whereas

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

the forbidden one,

the right nerve, which is forbidden to eat—

let him throw it away!

For there is no mitzva to burn it, since it is not fit for eating?

And we reject this:

Rav Ika bar Ḥanina said: I can still say that it follows plainly to him. And here, what are we dealing with? When they had been identified!

At first, he knew which was the forbidden right nerve and which was the permitted left one,

but ultimately they became mixed up,

and he no longer knows which is the right one and which is the left. Therefore, he cannot eat either of them; rather, after the time has passed, he burns both because of the uncertainty.