Chullin 91a — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi said:

The phrase in the Mishna, “and the sinews

was necessary

for the sciatic nerve itself, and therefore nothing can be established from it regarding Rabbi Yehuda’s view.

Rather, it was necessary

with regard to the fat of the sciatic nerve.

As it was taught in a beraita:

The fat of the sciatic nerve

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

Since one cannot eat it because of this custom, it necessarily remains after the permitted time for eating. Nevertheless, one is obligated to burn it, since by Torah law it is permitted to eat and is therefore included in the category of sacrificial meat that remained past its permitted time.

Ravina said: It was necessary only for the teaching 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 found on the inner side of the thigh, that is, on the side nearer the other thigh, and

is close

that nerve

to the

thighbone—is

prohibited

by Torah law,

and one is liable to receive lashes for it

of forty lashes.

The outer one,

which is found on the outer side of the thigh and

is close to the flesh

of the thigh—is

prohibited

by rabbinic law,

but one is not liable to receive

lashes for it.

Since that outer nerve is prohibited to eat, it remains until after the permitted time for eating, and one must then 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 rather than including them under the category of sacrificial meat that remained past its permitted time: these cases differ from ordinary sacrificial meat that happens to remain after its permitted time, since in all these cases the meat is initially destined to remain past its permitted time and then be burned.]

Consider the following proof,

to resolve the question whether Rabbi Yehuda was certain that the right thigh is the prohibited one, or whether he was uncertain about it.

As we learned:

One who ate

from the two 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, 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 the two is prohibited.

Granted, if you say that it was completely clear to him

that Rabbi Yehuda held this way,

it is well

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

But if you say that he was uncertain,

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

it was a doubtful warning,

because perhaps this nerve is not prohibited.

And we have heard Rabbi Yehuda say that a doubtful warning is not considered a warning!

It follows that it is impossible to make him liable for lashes for either of the two nerves.

As it was taught in a beraita,

that Rabbi Yehuda holds that a doubtful warning is not considered a warning.

If a person is uncertain who his father is—this man or another man—and he

struck this one and then struck that one,

meaning that he struck both men about whom there is uncertainty as to which one is his father, one after the other; or he

cursed this one and then cursed that one;

or he

struck

both of

them at the same time

with a single blow;

or cursed

both of

them at the same time—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 the same time is he liable,

because in that case there was a definite warning. But

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

because each blow received a separate warning, which was a doubtful warning: perhaps this man was not his father, and therefore the act did not warrant the death penalty. Rabbi Yehuda holds that a doubtful warning is not considered a warning.

The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Yehuda may indeed have been uncertain, and there is no difficulty concerning why Rabbi Yehuda makes one liable for lashes for eating the sciatic nerve, despite the fact that the warning was doubtful. This is because

this tanna

who taught Rabbi Yehuda’s statement concerning the sciatic nerve

agrees with another tanna who reports Rabbi Yehuda as saying that a doubtful warning is considered a warning!

The tannaim disagreed concerning Rabbi Yehuda’s view: whether he holds that a doubtful 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 of it remains until morning you shall burn in fire”;

the verse comes to establish a positive commandment

to burn the sacrificial meat that remained until morning

after

one violated

the prohibition

of “You shall not leave any of it.”

This teaches that one does not receive lashes for it,

for this prohibition is remedied by a positive commandment, and one does not receive lashes for a prohibition that is remedied by a positive commandment.

These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

This tanna holds that according to Rabbi Yehuda a doubtful warning is considered a warning. Were it not for the reason that the prohibition is remedied by a positive commandment, Rabbi Yehuda would make one liable for lashes for sacrificial meat that remained past its permitted time, even though its warning is a doubtful warning. For when one warns him, “Do not leave it,” it is not certain at that moment that he is violating the prohibition, since perhaps he will eat the sacrifice before the end of the night.

Rabbi Yaakov says: This is not the reason!

He is not exempt for sacrificial meat that remained past its permitted time because its prohibition is remedied by a positive commandment.

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

One who leaves the sacrifice does not perform any action; it becomes sacrificial meat that remained past its permitted time on its own.

And one does not receive lashes for a prohibition that does not involve an action! Consider the following proof

to resolve the question concerning Rabbi Yehuda’s view:

One who ate two nerves

of the sciatic nerve

from two thighs of two animals receives eighty lashes!

He receives two sets of lashes for the two nerves that he ate.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He receives only forty!

The Gemara analyzes this:

From the fact that

the first tanna

said, “from two thighs of two animals,”

and not from two thighs of a single animal,

it is obvious that both are prohibited!

That is, the case concerns two right thighs, both of which are prohibited. The tanna therefore specified two animals, since each animal has a right thigh. Had the case involved one right thigh and one left thigh, he could have stated that it involved a single animal.

And this specification was necessary according to Rabbi Yehuda,

because he holds that the prohibition applies only to the right thigh. Therefore, the tanna specified two right thighs, to teach that even so Rabbi Yehuda does not make one liable for two sets of lashes, but only for one, as the Gemara explains.

Learn from this that it was completely clear to him

that Rabbi Yehuda held this way. If he had been uncertain which thigh was prohibited, he would not have made one liable even for a single set of lashes when he ate from two right thighs, since perhaps both were permitted. The Gemara concludes:

Learn from this.

The Gemara asks:

And if it was clear to him, why does he receive only forty lashes and no more? He should receive eighty lashes,

since he ate two prohibited nerves.

The Gemara answers:

What are we dealing with here? With a case in which one of the two does not contain an olive-bulk,

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

As it was taught in a beraita: One who ate it,

the sciatic nerve when it was whole,

and it did not contain an olive-bulk—

is liable

for lashes because it is a complete entity!

Rabbi Yehuda says:

He is not liable

unless it contains an olive-bulk,

because the sciatic nerve is not considered a complete entity.

The Gemara inquires:

And what is the reason?

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

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: The verse states “the thigh,”

using the definite article, to teach that it refers to the nerve of

the more prominent thigh.

And the Rabbis,

who hold that both thighs are prohibited, interpret the word “the thigh” to mean specifically

the one whose prohibition is clearly established throughout the entire thigh,

namely, the inner nerve, which is large and extends throughout the entire thigh; only it is prohibited,

to exclude

the

outer

nerve, which is short,

which is not so

and is not included in the prohibition.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

Rabbi Yehuda learned it from here:

For the verse says, “And the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated

during his wrestling with him,”

like a person who embraces his companion

from in front,

and his

right hand circles him from behind and

reaches

as far as

his companion’s right thigh.

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

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said:

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

appeared to him as a gentile.

Jacob thought that he was a gentile,

for the Master said: When a Jew is joined by a gentile on the road—

he places him to his right!

So that if the gentile wished to harm him, the Jew could extend his nearby right hand and seize him. Therefore, the angel touched 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 Ulai:

Rabbi Yehuda learned it from here: The angel

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

is an ignoramus!

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

And the Rabbis,

who prohibit both thighs, hold that the angel

came from behind

Jacob,

and dislocated both of them!

The angel struck both of his thighs.

He displaced both of them.

He struck both of Jacob’s thighs.

The Gemara inquires:

And according to the Rabbis, what do they interpret from this phrase, “during his wrestling with him,”

from which we derive that the angel touched his right thigh?

What do they derive from it?

The Gemara answers:

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, “during his wrestling with him,” and it is written there,

with regard to the Almighty,

“The cloud of the dust of His feet.”

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

the nerve leaped

from its place and moved upward!

And so it says: “Their strength has departed; they have become like women.”

Their strength leaped away from them, and they became weak like women.

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

Its explanation is:

“He sent a word against Jacob”—

this is the sciatic nerve,

which happened to Jacob.

“And it fell upon Israel”—

that its prohibition spread

to the sciatic nerve

throughout all Israel.

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

regarding Joseph and his brothers, when Joseph said to the man in charge of the household,

“Slaughter an animal and prepare it,”

the explanation is:

Expose

and reveal

to them

to Joseph’s brothers

the slaughterhouse

so that they would see that it had been slaughtered properly.

“And prepare it”—

remove the sciatic nerve in their presence!

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, held

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

meaning to Jacob’s sons before the giving of the Torah, when they had the status of descendants of Noah.

“And Jacob remained alone.”

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

He had already carried the important vessels across the Jabbok stream, as it is written, “And he carried across that which was his.” But he had not yet had time to carry across the small jars.

From here

there is proof

that for the righteous, their property is more precious to them than their bodies!

And why is that so?

Because they do not stretch out their hands to robbery.

“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: