Chullin 91a (צא.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said:

what the Mishna teaches, “and the sinews”

was necessary

with regard to the sciatic nerve itself, and therefore nothing can be inferred from it concerning Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.

Rather, with regard to its fat

of the sciatic nerve it was necessary.

As it was taught in a beraita: Its fat

of the sciatic nerve

is permitted. But the holy people of Israel adopted the practice of prohibiting it!

And since one cannot eat it because of the custom, it necessarily remains after its appointed time. Nevertheless, one is obligated to burn it, since by Torah law it is permitted to eat, and it is therefore included in the category of notar.

Ravina said: It was necessary only for the statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel, as Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: There are two nerves

in the sciatic nerve:

The inner one,

which is located on the inner side of the thigh, that is, on the side nearer the other thigh, and

adjacent

to that nerve

to the bone

of the thigh—

is prohibited

by Torah law,

and one is liable for it

to lashes.

The outer one,

which is located on the outer side of the thigh, and

adjacent to the flesh

of the thigh—

is prohibited

by rabbinic law,

but one is not liable for it

to lashes.

And as for that outer nerve, since it is prohibited to eat, it remains until after the time for eating, and then one is obligated to burn it, since by Torah law it is permitted [and according to all the explanations, this resolves why the tanna taught in the Mishna “sinews” separately and did not include them under “notar”: since this differs from ordinary notar, which becomes notar accidentally after its appointed time, whereas in all these cases they are initially destined to become notar and subsequently be burned].

Come and hear,

to resolve the dilemma whether it was obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the right thigh is the prohibited one, or whether this matter was uncertain to him.

As we learned:

If one ate

from both sciatic nerves,

from this one

that is in the animal’s right thigh—

an olive-bulk, and from this one

that is in the left thigh—

an olive-bulk, he receives eighty lashes

two sets of lashes, since he violated the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve twice.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He receives only forty

lashes, since only one of them is prohibited.

Granted, if you say that it was obvious to him,

to Rabbi Yehuda,

well,

he receives one set of lashes for the nerve in the right thigh.

But if you say that it was uncertain to him,

then he should not have been liable to lashes at all, since when he was warned before eating each of the two sciatic nerves not to transgress the prohibition,

it would be an uncertain warning,

because perhaps this nerve is not prohibited,

and we have heard that Rabbi Yehuda says: An uncertain warning is not considered a warning!

And consequently, it is impossible to obligate him to receive lashes for either of the two nerves.

As it was taught in a beraita,

that Rabbi Yehuda holds that an uncertain warning is not considered a warning.

A person whose father is uncertain—whether it is this man or another man—

struck this one and then went back and struck that one,

that is, he struck both men concerning whom there is uncertainty as to which of them is his father, one after the other. Or he

cursed this one and then went back and cursed that one,

or he

struck

both of

both of them at once

with a single blow,

or cursed

both of

both of them at once. He is liable

to death, because he struck or cursed his father, since one of them is certainly his father.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Only if he struck or cursed both of them

at once is he liable,

because there is here a definite warning. But

if he did so one after the other, he is exempt

because each blow is preceded by a separate warning, which is an uncertain warning: perhaps this man is not his father, and there is no act here that makes him liable to death. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that an uncertain warning is not considered a warning.

And we reject this: Rabbi Yehuda may indeed be uncertain, and the question should not arise as to why Rabbi Yehuda obligates one to receive lashes for the sciatic nerve when this is an uncertain warning. This is because

this tanna

who teaches Rabbi Yehuda’s statement concerning the sciatic nerve

holds in accordance with the other tanna who reports Rabbi Yehuda, who says that an uncertain warning is considered a warning!

The tannaim disagree concerning Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, whether he holds that an uncertain warning is considered a warning or not.

As it was taught in a beraita: “You shall not leave any of it until morning,

and whatever is left of it until morning you shall burn in fire”;

the verse comes to establish a positive commandment

to burn the notar in the morning,

after

one has transgressed

a prohibition

of “You shall not leave any of it.”

To say that one does not receive lashes for it

for this prohibition, since it is a prohibition whose violation is rectified by a positive commandment, and one does not receive lashes for any prohibition whose violation is rectified by a positive commandment,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

And this tanna holds concerning Rabbi Yehuda that an uncertain warning is considered a warning. For were it not for the reason that the prohibition is rectified by a positive commandment, Rabbi Yehuda would obligate one to receive lashes for notar, even though its warning is an uncertain warning, because when one warns him, “Do not leave it over,” it is not certain at that moment that he is transgressing the prohibition, since perhaps he will eat the offering by the end of the night.

Rabbi Yaakov says: This is not the reason!

It is not because the prohibition is rectified by a positive commandment that he is exempt in the case of notar.

Rather, it is a prohibition that does not involve an action!

For one who leaves the offering over performs no action; rather, it becomes notar on its own.

And one does not receive lashes for any prohibition that does not involve an action! Come and hear

to resolve the dilemma concerning Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion:

If one ate two nerves

of the sciatic nerve

from two thighs, from two animals, he receives eighty lashes!

Two sets of lashes for the two nerves that he ate.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He receives only forty!

And we analyze:

From the fact that

the first tanna

said, “from two thighs, from two animals,”

and not from two thighs of one animal,

it is obvious that both are prohibited!

That is, the two thighs were right thighs, and both were prohibited. Therefore, the tanna specified two animals, since each one has a right thigh; had the case involved one right thigh and one left thigh, he could have stated the case with one animal.

And for Rabbi Yehuda it was necessary,

since he holds that the prohibition applies only to the right thigh. Therefore, he specified two right thighs, to teach us that even so Rabbi Yehuda does not obligate one to receive two sets of lashes, but only one, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Learn from this that it was obvious to him

to Rabbi Yehuda. For if he were uncertain which thigh was prohibited, he would not obligate one to receive even one set of lashes when he ate from two right thighs, since perhaps both are permitted. And we conclude:

Learn from this!

And we raise an objection:

And if it was obvious to him, why does he receive only forty lashes and no more? Let him receive eighty lashes,

since he ate two prohibited nerves?

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here? With a case where one of them does not contain an olive-bulk

of the two nerves. Only one of them contains an olive-bulk, while the other does not. Therefore, he is liable only for the nerve that contains an olive-bulk. And the first tanna holds that one who eats an entire sciatic nerve is liable even if it does not contain an olive-bulk, since it is a complete entity, which does not require a minimum measure.

As it was taught in a beraita: If one ate it

the sciatic nerve when it was whole

and it did not contain an olive-bulk—

he is liable

for lashes, because it is a complete entity!

Rabbi Yehuda says:

He is not liable

until it contains an olive-bulk,

because the sciatic nerve is not considered a complete entity.

And we raise a question:

And what is the reason?

From where did Rabbi Yehuda learn that the nerve in the right thigh is the prohibited nerve?

And we answer:

Rava said: The verse states, “the thigh,”

with the definite article, to teach that it is the nerve of

the stronger of the thighs.

And the Rabbis,

who hold that both thighs are prohibited, derive from “the thigh” that specifically

the one whose prohibition is evident throughout the entire thigh,

that is, the inner nerve, which is large and extends throughout the entire thigh, is prohibited,

to exclude

the

outer

nerve, which is short,

which is not

included in the prohibition.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

Rabbi Yehuda learned it from here:

As the verse states, “

and the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated

when he wrestled with him,” like a person who embraces his fellow

from in front,

and his

right hand encircles him from behind and

reaches

to

his fellow’s right thigh.

So, too, the angel struck the right thigh of Jacob. And the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, which resulted from that striking, was stated specifically with regard to the right thigh.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said:

Rabbi Yehuda learned it from here: For the angel who wrestled with Jacob

appeared to him as a gentile.

Jacob thought that he was a gentile,

as the Master said: If a Jew is joined by a gentile on the road—

he places him on his right!

So that if the gentile wishes to attack him, the Jew can extend his nearer right hand and seize him. Consequently, the angel struck Jacob’s thigh that was nearer to him, namely, the right thigh.

Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa said before Rav Pappa in the name of Rava bar Ulla:

Rabbi Yehuda learned it from here: For the angel

appeared to him as a Torah scholar. As the Master said: One who walks to the right of his teacher

is an ignoramus!

He lacks knowledge of proper conduct, since it is an honor for the teacher to be on the right. And Jacob honored the angel as though he were his teacher and walked to his left; the angel was on his right and struck Jacob’s right thigh.

And the Rabbis,

who prohibit both thighs, hold that

from behind him

Jacob

the angel came

and

struck both of them!

He struck both of his thighs.

And we raise a question:

And as for the Rabbis, this phrase, “when he wrestled with him,”

from which we derive that the angel struck his right thigh,

what do they derive from it?

And we answer:

They need it for the other

interpretation

of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This teaches that they raised dust from their feet

while they wrestled—

up to the Throne of Glory!

For it is

written here, “when he wrestled with him,” and it is written there,

concerning the Almighty,

“and a cloud of dust is beneath His feet.”

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Why is it called “the sciatic nerve”? Because it was dislocated,

the nerve jumped

from its place and rose!

And so it says: “Their might is dislocated; they have become like women.”

Their might departed from them, and they became weak like women.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A word the Lord sent against Jacob, and it fell upon Israel”?

Its explanation

“A word He sent against Jacob”—

this is the sciatic nerve,

which happened to Jacob.

“And it fell upon Israel”—

that its prohibition spread

of the sciatic nerve

throughout all Israel.

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written

concerning Joseph and his brothers, when Joseph said to the one in charge of the household,

“Slaughter an animal and prepare it,”

its explanation:

Expose

reveal

to them

to Joseph’s brothers

the slaughtering-house

so that they would see that it had been slaughtered.

“And prepare it”—

Remove the sciatic nerve in their presence!

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, holds

in accordance with the one who says that the sciatic nerve was prohibited to the descendants of Noah,

that is, to the sons of Jacob before the giving of the Torah, when they still had the status of descendants of Noah.

“And Jacob was left alone.”

Rabbi Elazar said: He remained behind for the sake of small jugs.

For he had already transported the valuable utensils across the Jabbok stream, as it is written: “And he transported that which was his.” But he had not managed to transport the small jugs.

From here

a proof

that the possessions of the righteous are dearer to them than their bodies!

And why so much?

Because they do not stretch out their hands to theft.

“And a man wrestled with him until the break of dawn.”

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From here it is derived that a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night.

For Jacob was harmed because he remained alone at night.

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: From here

we learn this: