Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 7, 2019 | 诇壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 100

The gemara deals with exceptions to the rule of nullifications in order to explain the cases in the mishna. Is the sciatic nerve forbidden in non聽kosher animals?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘专讬讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers that the sciatic nerve is a distinct entity, and therefore it is different in that it is not subject to nullification.

讜讻谉 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 谞讘诇讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讜转讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗

搂 The mishna states: And similarly, in the case of a piece of an animal carcass or a piece of non-kosher fish that was cooked with similar pieces of kosher meat or fish, when one identifies the forbidden piece and removes it, the rest of the meat or fish is forbidden only if the forbidden piece was large enough to impart flavor to the entire mixture. And if he does not identify and remove the forbidden piece, all the pieces are forbidden, due to the possibility that each piece one selects might be the forbidden piece. The Gemara challenges: Even if the piece of an animal carcass was not removed, let it be nullified by a simple majority, as the majority of the pieces are kosher.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗谞讬 讞转讬讻讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讛转讻讘讚 讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讗讜专讞讬诐

The Gemara clarifies its challenge. This ruling works out well according to the one who said that we learned: Any item whose manner is to be counted, i.e., that is sometimes sold by unit rather than by weight or volume, is considered significant and therefore is not subject to nullification. But according to the one who said that we learned: It is only an item whose manner is exclusively to be counted, i.e., that is always sold by unit, that is considered significant, and is therefore not subject to nullification, what can be said? Since pieces of meat or fish are not always sold by unit, they should be subject to nullification. The Gemara answers: A piece of meat or fish is different, since it is suitable to give honor with it by placing it before guests. Therefore, due to its significance it is not subject to nullification.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讞转讬讻讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara adds: And it was necessary for the mishna to teach both the halakha that the sciatic nerve is not nullified and the halakha that a piece of non-kosher meat or fish is not nullified, as if the mishna had taught us only the case of a sciatic nerve, one might think that it is not nullified because it is a distinct entity, but in the case of a piece of non-kosher meat, say it is not significant, and it is subject to nullification.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讞转讬讻讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讛转讻讘讚 讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讗讜专讞讬诐 讗讘诇 讙讬讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught us the halakha only in the case of a piece of non-kosher meat or fish, one might think that it is not nullified since it is suitable to give honor with it by placing it before the guests. But in the case of a sciatic nerve, say it is not significant, and it is subject to nullification. Therefore it was necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.

讚专砖 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 谞讘诇讛 讜砖诇 讚讙 讟诪讗 讗讬谞讛 讗讜住专转 注讚 砖转转谉 讟注诐 讘专讜讟讘 讜讘拽讬驻讛 讜讘讞转讬讻讜转

Rabba bar bar 岣na taught: A piece of meat of an unslaughtered carcass or of a non-kosher species of fish that fell into a pot of kosher food does not render the contents of the pot forbidden unless it imparts flavor to the broth and to the deposits of food remaining in the pot and to the other pieces of food in the pot.

讗讜拽讬 专讘 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 讟注诐 讘讞转讬讻讛 讞转讬讻讛 注爪诪讛 谞注砖转 谞讘诇讛 讜讗讜住专转 讻诇 讛讞转讬讻讜转 讻讜诇谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讬谞讛

Rav disagreed with Rabba bar bar 岣na and appointed a disseminator to stand before him and teach his statement to a wider audience, and he taught: Once the non-kosher meat or fish has imparted flavor to another piece in the pot, that second piece itself becomes non-kosher. And this second piece renders all the pieces of meat or fish in the pot forbidden, because they are of the same type; therefore, nullification does not apply.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讻讚讬 专讘 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻讬 谞转谉 讟注诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 诇讗 谞转谉 讟注诐 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖拽讚诐 讜住诇拽讜

Rav Safra said to Abaye: Now, in accordance with whose opinion did Rav say his statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. But if so, why does Rav state specifically that the non-kosher meat renders all the pieces forbidden only when it has imparted flavor to another piece? Even if it did not impart flavor to another piece it should render all the contents of the pot forbidden. Abaye said to him: Here we are dealing with a case where he cooked the non-kosher piece with one kosher piece and first removed the non-kosher piece before adding the other pieces. Consequently, the remaining pieces are forbidden only if the non-kosher piece imparted flavor to the piece it was cooked with.

专讘讗 讗诪专

Rava said an alternate answer to Rav Safra鈥檚 challenge of Rav鈥檚 statement:

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住诇拽讜 讛讜讬 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专

You may even say that it is referring to a case where he did not first remove the piece of non-kosher meat or fish. Nevertheless, this is a case of a mixture of one type of food with its own type of food and with something else, i.e., the spices and broth in the pot.

讜讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 住诇拽 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讜砖讗讬谉 诪讬谞讜 专讘讛 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讜

And in any case of a type of forbidden food mixed with its own type of food and with something else, disregard the food that is its own type, as though it is not present in the mixture, and if the amount of permitted food that is not its own type is sixty times greater than the forbidden food, the permitted food nullifies it. Rav鈥檚 ruling applies to a case where the forbidden piece of meat or fish imparts flavor to another piece before the spices and broth are added, and there is a total volume sixty times greater than the original non-kosher piece. Consequently, even if the amount of spices and broth is eventually sixty times greater than the original non-kosher piece of meat or fish, the entire mixture is forbidden, as the spices and broth are not sixty times greater than the two pieces of meat or fish which are now non-kosher.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讜讛讙 讘讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讟诪讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讟诪讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 谞讗住专 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讜转专转 诇讛谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讘住讬谞讬 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 砖谞讻转讘 讘诪拽讜诪讜

MISHNA: The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to a kosher animal and does not apply to a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yehuda says: It applies even to a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yehuda said in explanation: Wasn鈥檛 the sciatic nerve forbidden for the children of Jacob, as it is written: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve鈥 (Genesis 32:33), yet the meat of a non-kosher animal was still permitted to them? Since the sciatic nerve of non-kosher animals became forbidden at that time, it remains forbidden now. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: The prohibition was stated in Sinai, but it was written in its place, in the battle of Jacob and the angel despite the fact that the prohibition did not take effect then.

讙诪壮 讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟诪讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: One might have thought that the carcass of a non-kosher bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, similar to the carcass of a kosher bird.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讟诪讗讛 讘讛 诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讟诪讗讛

Therefore the verse states concerning the impurity of carcasses of birds: 鈥淎 carcass, or that which is torn of animals, he shall not eat to defile himself with it鈥 (Leviticus 22:8). The verse indicates that only those birds that are forbidden specifically due to the prohibition: You shall not eat of a carcass, i.e., kosher birds that died without ritual slaughter, cause impurity in this manner. This serves to exclude any bird that is not forbidden due to the prohibition: You shall not eat of a carcass, but rather due to the prohibition: You shall not eat a non-kosher bird. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the prohibition of eating a carcass does not take effect with regard to a non-kosher bird, because it is already subject to a different prohibition.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讘讟诪讗讛 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara continues with its question: And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor, i.e., they do not have flavor and therefore are not classified as food, and even with regard to a non-kosher animal it is prohibited to eat the sciatic nerve because the general prohibition of eating a sciatic nerve applies, whereas the prohibition of eating non-kosher animals does not apply because the sciatic nerve is not considered food, this is untenable.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

The Gemara explains: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to receive two sets of lashes, one for eating the sciatic nerve and one for eating the meat of a non-kosher animal, and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely from lashes. This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sciatic nerve does have flavor.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讬砖 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜拽住讘专 谞讜讛讙 讘砖诇讬诇 讚讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 讜讗讬住讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬

The Gemara answers: Actually Rabbi Yehuda holds that sciatic nerves do impart flavor, and he also holds that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to the sciatic nerve of an animal fetus. Consequently, although Rabbi Yehuda holds that a prohibition does not take effect where another already exists, one who eats the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal is flogged twice, because the prohibition of eating a sciatic nerve and the prohibition of eating meat from a non-kosher animal come into effect at the same time.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 谞讜讛讙 讘砖诇讬诇 讜讛转谞谉 谞讜讛讙 讘砖诇讬诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘砖诇讬诇 讜讞诇讘讜 诪讜转专

The Gemara challenges this answer: And can you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition of eating a sciatic nerve applies to the sciatic nerve of a fetus? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (89b): The prohibition applies to a late-term fetus in the womb. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus, and similarly the fat of a fetus is permitted?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 讟讛讜专讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讘讘讛诪讛 转讗讻诇讜 讗讘诇 讘讟诪讗讛 谞讜讛讙

The Gemara answers: This statement, that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve does not apply to a fetus, is with regard to a kosher species of animal, because the Merciful One stated in the Torah: 鈥淎nd every animal that divides the hoof, and has the hoof wholly cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the animals [babehema], that you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:6). The term babehema may also be translated as: Inside the animals, indicating that anything inside a kosher animal when it is slaughtered is permitted for consumption, including all parts of a fetus. But with regard to a non-kosher species of animal the prohibition applies.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 讜讛转谞谉 注诇 讗诇讜 讟讜诪讗讜转 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇 讛诪转 讜注诇 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转

The Gemara challenges the assertion that the prohibitions of eating the sciatic nerve and of eating non-kosher meat take effect at the same time. And can you say that they both come into effect at the same time? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nazir 49b): A nazirite shaves for having become impure from these following sources of ritual impurity: For having become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse.

讜拽砖讬讗 诇谉 注诇 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 诪讙诇讞 注诇 讛诪转 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇谞驻诇 砖诇讗 谞转拽砖专讜 讗讘专讬讜 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讗讬住讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讚讬诐

And this poses a difficulty for us: If a nazirite shaves for becoming impure from an olive-bulk of a corpse, is it not obvious that all the more so he must shave for becoming impure from an entire corpse? And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is necessary only with regard to a miscarried fetus whose limbs have not yet become joined to its sinews. Although the fetus does not yet contain an olive-bulk of flesh, since it is a complete entity, it transmits impurity to anything under the same roof. Evidently, the limbs of the body are formed before the nerves and sinews, and therefore the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat takes effect prior to the prohibition of the sciatic nerve.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬住讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讚讬诐 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 讞讬讬诇 注诇讬讛 砖讻谉 讗讬住讜专讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讘谞讬 谞讞

The Gemara answers: Even though the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat takes effect prior to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve also comes and takes effect upon a non-kosher animal because this prohibition applies to descendants of Noah, i.e., to gentiles. Since the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve adds an additional stringency that did not exist with regard to non-kosher meat, it takes effect even though there was an already existing prohibition.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 谞讗住专 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讜转专转 诇讛诐

According to this answer, the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehuda said: Wasn鈥檛 the sciatic nerve forbidden for the children of Jacob, as it is written: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve鈥 (Genesis 32:33), yet the meat of a non-kosher animal was still permitted to them? This indicates that the basis of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is the fact that the sciatic nerve was forbidden to the children of Jacob, who had the status of descendants of Noah.

讙讜驻讗 讛讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐

搂 The Gemara returns to the matter itself cited above. With regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to receive two sets of lashes: One for eating the sciatic nerve and one for eating the meat of a non-kosher animal;

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 100

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 100

讘专讬讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers that the sciatic nerve is a distinct entity, and therefore it is different in that it is not subject to nullification.

讜讻谉 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 谞讘诇讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讜转讘讟讬诇 讘专讜讘讗

搂 The mishna states: And similarly, in the case of a piece of an animal carcass or a piece of non-kosher fish that was cooked with similar pieces of kosher meat or fish, when one identifies the forbidden piece and removes it, the rest of the meat or fish is forbidden only if the forbidden piece was large enough to impart flavor to the entire mixture. And if he does not identify and remove the forbidden piece, all the pieces are forbidden, due to the possibility that each piece one selects might be the forbidden piece. The Gemara challenges: Even if the piece of an animal carcass was not removed, let it be nullified by a simple majority, as the majority of the pieces are kosher.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗转 砖讚专讻讜 诇讬诪谞讜转 砖谞讬谞讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗谞讬 讞转讬讻讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讛转讻讘讚 讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讗讜专讞讬诐

The Gemara clarifies its challenge. This ruling works out well according to the one who said that we learned: Any item whose manner is to be counted, i.e., that is sometimes sold by unit rather than by weight or volume, is considered significant and therefore is not subject to nullification. But according to the one who said that we learned: It is only an item whose manner is exclusively to be counted, i.e., that is always sold by unit, that is considered significant, and is therefore not subject to nullification, what can be said? Since pieces of meat or fish are not always sold by unit, they should be subject to nullification. The Gemara answers: A piece of meat or fish is different, since it is suitable to give honor with it by placing it before guests. Therefore, due to its significance it is not subject to nullification.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讙讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讞转讬讻讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara adds: And it was necessary for the mishna to teach both the halakha that the sciatic nerve is not nullified and the halakha that a piece of non-kosher meat or fish is not nullified, as if the mishna had taught us only the case of a sciatic nerve, one might think that it is not nullified because it is a distinct entity, but in the case of a piece of non-kosher meat, say it is not significant, and it is subject to nullification.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讞转讬讻讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讛转讻讘讚 讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讗讜专讞讬诐 讗讘诇 讙讬讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if the mishna had taught us the halakha only in the case of a piece of non-kosher meat or fish, one might think that it is not nullified since it is suitable to give honor with it by placing it before the guests. But in the case of a sciatic nerve, say it is not significant, and it is subject to nullification. Therefore it was necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.

讚专砖 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 谞讘诇讛 讜砖诇 讚讙 讟诪讗 讗讬谞讛 讗讜住专转 注讚 砖转转谉 讟注诐 讘专讜讟讘 讜讘拽讬驻讛 讜讘讞转讬讻讜转

Rabba bar bar 岣na taught: A piece of meat of an unslaughtered carcass or of a non-kosher species of fish that fell into a pot of kosher food does not render the contents of the pot forbidden unless it imparts flavor to the broth and to the deposits of food remaining in the pot and to the other pieces of food in the pot.

讗讜拽讬 专讘 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 讟注诐 讘讞转讬讻讛 讞转讬讻讛 注爪诪讛 谞注砖转 谞讘诇讛 讜讗讜住专转 讻诇 讛讞转讬讻讜转 讻讜诇谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讬谞讛

Rav disagreed with Rabba bar bar 岣na and appointed a disseminator to stand before him and teach his statement to a wider audience, and he taught: Once the non-kosher meat or fish has imparted flavor to another piece in the pot, that second piece itself becomes non-kosher. And this second piece renders all the pieces of meat or fish in the pot forbidden, because they are of the same type; therefore, nullification does not apply.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讻讚讬 专讘 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻讬 谞转谉 讟注诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 诇讗 谞转谉 讟注诐 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖拽讚诐 讜住诇拽讜

Rav Safra said to Abaye: Now, in accordance with whose opinion did Rav say his statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a type of food mixed with food of its own type is not nullified. But if so, why does Rav state specifically that the non-kosher meat renders all the pieces forbidden only when it has imparted flavor to another piece? Even if it did not impart flavor to another piece it should render all the contents of the pot forbidden. Abaye said to him: Here we are dealing with a case where he cooked the non-kosher piece with one kosher piece and first removed the non-kosher piece before adding the other pieces. Consequently, the remaining pieces are forbidden only if the non-kosher piece imparted flavor to the piece it was cooked with.

专讘讗 讗诪专

Rava said an alternate answer to Rav Safra鈥檚 challenge of Rav鈥檚 statement:

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住诇拽讜 讛讜讬 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专

You may even say that it is referring to a case where he did not first remove the piece of non-kosher meat or fish. Nevertheless, this is a case of a mixture of one type of food with its own type of food and with something else, i.e., the spices and broth in the pot.

讜讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谞讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 住诇拽 讗转 诪讬谞讜 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谞讜 讜砖讗讬谉 诪讬谞讜 专讘讛 注诇讬讜 讜诪讘讟诇讜

And in any case of a type of forbidden food mixed with its own type of food and with something else, disregard the food that is its own type, as though it is not present in the mixture, and if the amount of permitted food that is not its own type is sixty times greater than the forbidden food, the permitted food nullifies it. Rav鈥檚 ruling applies to a case where the forbidden piece of meat or fish imparts flavor to another piece before the spices and broth are added, and there is a total volume sixty times greater than the original non-kosher piece. Consequently, even if the amount of spices and broth is eventually sixty times greater than the original non-kosher piece of meat or fish, the entire mixture is forbidden, as the spices and broth are not sixty times greater than the two pieces of meat or fish which are now non-kosher.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讜讛讙 讘讟讛讜专讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讟诪讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讟诪讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 谞讗住专 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讜转专转 诇讛谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讘住讬谞讬 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 砖谞讻转讘 讘诪拽讜诪讜

MISHNA: The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to a kosher animal and does not apply to a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yehuda says: It applies even to a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yehuda said in explanation: Wasn鈥檛 the sciatic nerve forbidden for the children of Jacob, as it is written: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve鈥 (Genesis 32:33), yet the meat of a non-kosher animal was still permitted to them? Since the sciatic nerve of non-kosher animals became forbidden at that time, it remains forbidden now. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: The prohibition was stated in Sinai, but it was written in its place, in the battle of Jacob and the angel despite the fact that the prohibition did not take effect then.

讙诪壮 讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 谞讘诇转 注讜祝 讟诪讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: One might have thought that the carcass of a non-kosher bird renders the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, similar to the carcass of a kosher bird.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讘诇讛 讜讟专驻讛 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 诇讟诪讗讛 讘讛 诪讬 砖讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转讗讻诇 讟诪讗讛

Therefore the verse states concerning the impurity of carcasses of birds: 鈥淎 carcass, or that which is torn of animals, he shall not eat to defile himself with it鈥 (Leviticus 22:8). The verse indicates that only those birds that are forbidden specifically due to the prohibition: You shall not eat of a carcass, i.e., kosher birds that died without ritual slaughter, cause impurity in this manner. This serves to exclude any bird that is not forbidden due to the prohibition: You shall not eat of a carcass, but rather due to the prohibition: You shall not eat a non-kosher bird. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the prohibition of eating a carcass does not take effect with regard to a non-kosher bird, because it is already subject to a different prohibition.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讘讟诪讗讛 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara continues with its question: And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor, i.e., they do not have flavor and therefore are not classified as food, and even with regard to a non-kosher animal it is prohibited to eat the sciatic nerve because the general prohibition of eating a sciatic nerve applies, whereas the prohibition of eating non-kosher animals does not apply because the sciatic nerve is not considered food, this is untenable.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

The Gemara explains: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to receive two sets of lashes, one for eating the sciatic nerve and one for eating the meat of a non-kosher animal, and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely from lashes. This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sciatic nerve does have flavor.

诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讬砖 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜拽住讘专 谞讜讛讙 讘砖诇讬诇 讚讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 讜讗讬住讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讬

The Gemara answers: Actually Rabbi Yehuda holds that sciatic nerves do impart flavor, and he also holds that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to the sciatic nerve of an animal fetus. Consequently, although Rabbi Yehuda holds that a prohibition does not take effect where another already exists, one who eats the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal is flogged twice, because the prohibition of eating a sciatic nerve and the prohibition of eating meat from a non-kosher animal come into effect at the same time.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 谞讜讛讙 讘砖诇讬诇 讜讛转谞谉 谞讜讛讙 讘砖诇讬诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讘砖诇讬诇 讜讞诇讘讜 诪讜转专

The Gemara challenges this answer: And can you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition of eating a sciatic nerve applies to the sciatic nerve of a fetus? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (89b): The prohibition applies to a late-term fetus in the womb. Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus, and similarly the fat of a fetus is permitted?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 讟讛讜专讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讘讘讛诪讛 转讗讻诇讜 讗讘诇 讘讟诪讗讛 谞讜讛讙

The Gemara answers: This statement, that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve does not apply to a fetus, is with regard to a kosher species of animal, because the Merciful One stated in the Torah: 鈥淎nd every animal that divides the hoof, and has the hoof wholly cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the animals [babehema], that you may eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:6). The term babehema may also be translated as: Inside the animals, indicating that anything inside a kosher animal when it is slaughtered is permitted for consumption, including all parts of a fetus. But with regard to a non-kosher species of animal the prohibition applies.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 讜讛转谞谉 注诇 讗诇讜 讟讜诪讗讜转 讛谞讝讬专 诪讙诇讞 注诇 讛诪转 讜注诇 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转

The Gemara challenges the assertion that the prohibitions of eating the sciatic nerve and of eating non-kosher meat take effect at the same time. And can you say that they both come into effect at the same time? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nazir 49b): A nazirite shaves for having become impure from these following sources of ritual impurity: For having become impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; and for impurity imparted by an olive-bulk of a corpse.

讜拽砖讬讗 诇谉 注诇 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 诪讙诇讞 注诇 讛诪转 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇谞驻诇 砖诇讗 谞转拽砖专讜 讗讘专讬讜 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讗讬住讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讚讬诐

And this poses a difficulty for us: If a nazirite shaves for becoming impure from an olive-bulk of a corpse, is it not obvious that all the more so he must shave for becoming impure from an entire corpse? And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is necessary only with regard to a miscarried fetus whose limbs have not yet become joined to its sinews. Although the fetus does not yet contain an olive-bulk of flesh, since it is a complete entity, it transmits impurity to anything under the same roof. Evidently, the limbs of the body are formed before the nerves and sinews, and therefore the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat takes effect prior to the prohibition of the sciatic nerve.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬住讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讚讬诐 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 讞讬讬诇 注诇讬讛 砖讻谉 讗讬住讜专讜 谞讜讛讙 讘讘谞讬 谞讞

The Gemara answers: Even though the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat takes effect prior to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve also comes and takes effect upon a non-kosher animal because this prohibition applies to descendants of Noah, i.e., to gentiles. Since the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve adds an additional stringency that did not exist with regard to non-kosher meat, it takes effect even though there was an already existing prohibition.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 谞讗住专 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讜注讚讬讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪讜转专转 诇讛诐

According to this answer, the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Rabbi Yehuda said: Wasn鈥檛 the sciatic nerve forbidden for the children of Jacob, as it is written: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve鈥 (Genesis 32:33), yet the meat of a non-kosher animal was still permitted to them? This indicates that the basis of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is the fact that the sciatic nerve was forbidden to the children of Jacob, who had the status of descendants of Noah.

讙讜驻讗 讛讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐

搂 The Gemara returns to the matter itself cited above. With regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to receive two sets of lashes: One for eating the sciatic nerve and one for eating the meat of a non-kosher animal;

Scroll To Top