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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 8, 2019 | 讗壮 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 101

Different opinions are brought for various cases where there are 2 things forbidden – is one obligated in both – like the sciatic nerve in non聽kosher animals or the sciatic nerve in a kosher animal that died on its own.


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

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讬讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讬讚 讗讬 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讚拽讚讬诐 讜讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讙讬讚

The Gemara objects: But according to Rabbi Shimon, whichever way you look at it, it is difficult. If a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, let Rabbi Shimon deem one liable for eating non-kosher meat and also due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. Conversely, if a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, let Rabbi Shimon deem one liable due to the prohibition of eating meat from a non-kosher species, which preceded the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. And if Rabbi Shimon holds that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor, and therefore the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat does not apply, let him deem one liable due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬诐 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 注诇 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 诪讬 砖讙讬讚讜 讗住讜专 讜讘砖专讜 诪讜转专 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讙讬讚讜 讗住讜专 讜讘砖专讜 讗住讜专

Rava said in response: Actually Rabbi Shimon holds that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor, and therefore they are not subject to the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat. And the reason the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerves does not apply to non-kosher animals is that it is different there, because the verse states: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve鈥 (Genesis 32:33). This teaches that the prohibition applies only to a species whose sciatic nerve is forbidden but whose meat is permitted, and excludes this case of a non-kosher animal, whose sciatic nerve would be forbidden and whose meat would also be forbidden.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 谞讘诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

搂 Having discussed the status of the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal, the Gemara addresses the status of the sciatic nerve of a kosher animal that did not undergo a proper ritual slaughter. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered carcass, Rabbi Meir deems him liable to receive two sets of lashes, and the Rabbis say: He is liable to receive only one set of lashes.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 砖讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐

And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in a case where one eats the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering or of an ox that is stoned that he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. The prohibitions concerning a burnt offering and an ox that is stoned are more severe than that of the sciatic nerve, in that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from them, whereas the sciatic nerve is merely forbidden for consumption. Consequently, these prohibitions take effect even with regard to the sciatic nerve, despite the fact that the sciatic nerve was already forbidden before the animal was consecrated or before it gored a person and became liable to be stoned.

讜诪讗谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讘讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: And who is this tanna who does not hold that in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, the prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and consequently, according to his opinion the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered animal, which applies to the entire animal, does not take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve. Yet, he does hold that where the second prohibition is both a more inclusive prohibition and a more stringent prohibition, it does take effect, and therefore the prohibition of eating a burnt offering or an ox that is stoned does take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 拽讚砖 讘讬谉 拽讚砖 讟诪讗 讘讬谉 拽讚砖 讟讛讜专 讞讬讬讘

Rava said: It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili who holds that a more inclusive prohibition does not take effect where there is an already existing prohibition. As we learned in a mishna (Zeva岣m 106a): One who is ritually impure who ate sacrificial food, whether it was ritually impure sacrificial food or ritually pure sacrificial food, is liable to receive karet if he did so intentionally and to bring a sliding-scale offering if he did so unwittingly.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讞讬讬讘 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛讟诪讗 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讗讻诇 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讟诪讗

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: An impure individual who ate pure sacrificial food is liable. But an impure individual who ate impure sacrificial food is exempt, as he merely ate an impure item, and the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while one is impure does not apply to impure sacrificial food.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗祝 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讙注 讘讜 讟诪讗讛讜

The Rabbis said to him: According to your logic, this halakha would apply even in a case of an impure individual who ate what had been pure sacrificial food, because once he has touched it, he has thereby rendered it impure. Yet, in such a case, he is certainly liable for eating it. So too, an impure individual who ate impure sacrificial food is liable.

砖驻讬专 拽讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讟诪讗 讘砖专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 讚讗讬住讜专 讻专转 拽讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili; why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagree? And Rava said in elaboration of the dispute: In a case where the person鈥檚 body became impure and then afterward the sacrificial meat became impure, everyone agrees that he is liable if he eats the meat, as the prohibition of eating sacrificial meat while impure, which carries the punishment of karet, preceded the prohibition of eating impure sacrificial meat.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞讟诪讗 讘砖专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 专讘谞谉 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讚诪讙讜 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讞转讬讻讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 讗讞转讬讻讛 讟诪讗讛

They disagree when the meat became impure and then afterward the person鈥檚 body became impure. The Rabbis hold that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect even where there is an already existing prohibition. Consequently, since the prohibition for an impure person to eat sacrificial meat is more inclusive than the prohibition for a pure person to eat impure sacrificial meat, as an impure person is liable for eating even pure pieces of sacrificial meat that are permitted to the rest of the world, he is also liable for this prohibition when he eats an impure piece of sacrificial meat.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讚诪讙讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not accept the principle that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect even where there is an already existing prohibition, as he holds that we do not say that since it applies to cases that were not yet prohibited it applies to all cases.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 谞讛讬 讚讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 砖讛专讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 讘讻专转

The Gemara objects: But even according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, granted that he does not hold that a more inclusive prohibition always takes effect where there is an already existing prohibition. But in the case of an already existing lenient prohibition, a more stringent prohibition should come and take effect on the more lenient prohibition. And what is the more stringent prohibition? The prohibition due to the impurity of a person鈥檚 body, as one who eats sacrificial food when he has impurity of the body is liable to karet, whereas a pure person who eats impure sacrificial food is merely liable to be flogged. Consequently, the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while impure should apply even though the meat became impure before the person became impure.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 讞诪讜专讛 讚诇诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讞诪讜专讛 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛

Rav Ashi said: Who can say to us that the prohibition due to the impurity of a person鈥檚 body is more stringent? Perhaps the prohibition due to the impurity of the meat is more stringent, as impure meat does not have the possibility of restoring its state of purity via immersion in a ritual bath, whereas a ritually impure person can become pure in this manner.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili not hold that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect where there is an already existing prohibition?

讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讘转 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讙讙 讜注砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘转 讛讬讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: When Shabbat and Yom Kippur occur on the same day, if one acted unwittingly and performed prohibited labor, from where is it derived that he is liable for this by itself and for that by itself, i.e., he is liable to bring two sin offerings, for having transgressed both Shabbat and Yom Kippur? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do no manner of work; it is a Shabbat for the Lord in all your dwellings鈥 (Leviticus 23:3), and another verse states: 鈥淚t is Yom Kippur鈥 (Leviticus 23:27). The term 鈥渋t is鈥 in each verse teaches that each of these days is considered independently even when it occurs together with another holy day. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: He is liable to bring only one sin offering because a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻讱 讛爪注讛 砖诇 诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara answers that on this topic Ravin sent a letter citing a statement in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina: This is the correct presentation of this teaching [hatza鈥檃 shel mishna], i.e., the opinions in this baraita are accurate, but one must reverse the attributions of each opinion so that the first opinion is that of Rabbi Akiva and the second opinion is that of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Consequently, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that two prohibitions do not take effect at the same time even if one is more inclusive or stringent than the other.

砖诇讞 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬注拽讘 讘专 讙讬讜专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诇诪讗讬 讚讗驻讻谉 砖讙讙 讘砖讘转 讜讛讝讬讚 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讛讝讬讚 讘砖讘转 讜砖讙讙 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专

The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rav Yitz岣k bar Ya鈥檃kov bar Giyorei sent a letter citing a statement in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as stated in the baraita once the attributions have been reversed, if one unwittingly performed a forbidden labor on a Yom Kippur that occurred on Shabbat, he is obligated to bring one sin offering. If he acted unwittingly with regard to the fact that it was Shabbat, i.e., he forgot that it was Shabbat, but acted intentionally with regard to Yom Kippur, he is obligated to bring a sin offering. But if he acted intentionally with regard to Shabbat but unwittingly with regard to Yom Kippur, he is exempt from bringing any offering.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讘转 拽讘讬注讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚拽讗 拽讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement? Abaye said: Shabbat is established and permanent, i.e., it always occurs on the seventh day of the week, whereas in the case of Yom Kippur, it is the court that establishes it, as the Sages determine the New Moon. Consequently, Shabbat is considered to have preceded Yom Kippur, and the prohibition to perform labor on Yom Kippur does not apply, due to the fact that labor is already prohibited because it is Shabbat. Since one brings a sin offering only due to unwitting transgression, he is obligated to bring a sin offering only if he performed labor without realizing it was Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 住讜祝 住讜祝 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪讚讗 讛讜讛 讜砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讚讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 讚讛讗 砖转讗 砖讘转讗 讛讜讗 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讜讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讗诪专讜讛 讻专讘讗

Rava said to Abaye: Ultimately both of them, i.e., Shabbat and Yom Kippur, come into effect at the same time. Since both take effect at the beginning of the calendar day, it cannot be said that Shabbat precedes Yom Kippur. Rather Rava said a different explanation. It was a time of religious persecution, and they sent from there, i.e., from Eretz Yisrael, a directive stating that Yom Kippur of this year will not be observed on its proper day but rather on Shabbat. Rabbi Yo岣nan was merely stating that on that particular year one who would unwittingly transgress Yom Kippur would be exempt from bringing a sin offering. And similarly, when Ravin and all those who descended from Eretz Yisrael came to Babylonia, they said that the true explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 [讜讻讜壮]

搂 The mishna teaches: 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.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 注诇 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 谞拽专讗讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讚 住讬谞讬 讗诇讗 讘住讬谞讬 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 砖谞讻转讘 讘诪拽讜诪讜 诇讬讚注 诪讗讬讝讛 讟注诐 谞讗住专 诇讛诐

It is taught in a baraita that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But is it stated in the verse: Therefore the children of Jacob do not eat the sciatic nerve? Isn鈥檛 it true that it is stated only that: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve?鈥 And the Jewish people were not called 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 until they received the Torah at Mount Sinai. Rather, this terminology indicates that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was stated to the Jewish people at Sinai, but was written in its place, after the incident of Jacob wrestling with the angel, to allow the Jewish people to know the reason the sciatic nerve was forbidden to them. Since the prohibition came into effect only at Sinai, there is no proof that it ever applied with regard to non-kosher animals.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜讬砖讗讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讬注拽讘 讗讘讬讛诐 诇讗讞专 诪注砖讛

Rava raises an objection to this baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd Jacob rose up from Beersheba; and the children of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives in the wagons that Pharaoh had sent to carry him鈥 (Genesis 46:5). This occurred before the Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore proves that the title 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 was in use before the Torah was given. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, this occurred after the incident, i.e., after Jacob wrestled with the angel and after the prophetic vision in which God changed Jacob鈥檚 name to Israel (Genesis 35:10).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 诇讬转住专

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: In that case, the sciatic nerve should be understood as having become forbidden to them from that time when they were first called the children of Israel. Since this was before the giving of the Torah, this would be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not that of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转讜专讛 驻注诪讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 谞讬转谞讛 讛讛讜讗 砖注转讗 诇讗讜 砖注转 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗讬 讜诇讗 砖注转 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讛讜讗讬

Rav Ashi said to him: Was the Torah given piecemeal, on numerous different occasions? It was given at Sinai. Rather, that time when the title 鈥渃hildren of Israel鈥 was first used was not the time when the incident of Jacob wrestling with the angel occurred and also was not the time of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the prohibition took effect at that time.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 谞讜讛讙 讘讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讘讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讟讛讜专讬谉

搂 The mishna taught a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. The Gemara now cites a similar dispute between them with regard to eating a limb from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies whether the limb comes from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and whether it is from a non-kosher species or from a kosher species; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar. But the Rabbis say: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only to a limb from a kosher species.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛谉 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 专拽 讞讝拽 诇讘诇转讬 讗讻诇 讛讚诐 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讛谞驻砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And both of them, i.e., the Rabbis as well as Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, derived their opinions from one verse: 鈥淥nly be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood is the life;

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 101

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 101

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专

and Rabbi Shimon exempts him entirely.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讬讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讙讬讚 讗讬 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讚拽讚讬诐 讜讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 诇讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 讙讬讚

The Gemara objects: But according to Rabbi Shimon, whichever way you look at it, it is difficult. If a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, let Rabbi Shimon deem one liable for eating non-kosher meat and also due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. Conversely, if a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, let Rabbi Shimon deem one liable due to the prohibition of eating meat from a non-kosher species, which preceded the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. And if Rabbi Shimon holds that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor, and therefore the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat does not apply, let him deem one liable due to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讘讙讬讚讬诐 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讜砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 注诇 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 诪讬 砖讙讬讚讜 讗住讜专 讜讘砖专讜 诪讜转专 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讙讬讚讜 讗住讜专 讜讘砖专讜 讗住讜专

Rava said in response: Actually Rabbi Shimon holds that sciatic nerves do not impart flavor, and therefore they are not subject to the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat. And the reason the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerves does not apply to non-kosher animals is that it is different there, because the verse states: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve鈥 (Genesis 32:33). This teaches that the prohibition applies only to a species whose sciatic nerve is forbidden but whose meat is permitted, and excludes this case of a non-kosher animal, whose sciatic nerve would be forbidden and whose meat would also be forbidden.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 谞讘诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

搂 Having discussed the status of the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal, the Gemara addresses the status of the sciatic nerve of a kosher animal that did not undergo a proper ritual slaughter. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to one who eats the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered carcass, Rabbi Meir deems him liable to receive two sets of lashes, and the Rabbis say: He is liable to receive only one set of lashes.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讗讜讻诇 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇 砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 砖讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐

And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in a case where one eats the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering or of an ox that is stoned that he is liable to receive two sets of lashes. The prohibitions concerning a burnt offering and an ox that is stoned are more severe than that of the sciatic nerve, in that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from them, whereas the sciatic nerve is merely forbidden for consumption. Consequently, these prohibitions take effect even with regard to the sciatic nerve, despite the fact that the sciatic nerve was already forbidden before the animal was consecrated or before it gored a person and became liable to be stoned.

讜诪讗谉 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讘讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讘讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: And who is this tanna who does not hold that in the case of a more inclusive prohibition, the prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, and consequently, according to his opinion the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered animal, which applies to the entire animal, does not take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve. Yet, he does hold that where the second prohibition is both a more inclusive prohibition and a more stringent prohibition, it does take effect, and therefore the prohibition of eating a burnt offering or an ox that is stoned does take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve.

讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 拽讚砖 讘讬谉 拽讚砖 讟诪讗 讘讬谉 拽讚砖 讟讛讜专 讞讬讬讘

Rava said: It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili who holds that a more inclusive prohibition does not take effect where there is an already existing prohibition. As we learned in a mishna (Zeva岣m 106a): One who is ritually impure who ate sacrificial food, whether it was ritually impure sacrificial food or ritually pure sacrificial food, is liable to receive karet if he did so intentionally and to bring a sliding-scale offering if he did so unwittingly.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讞讬讬讘 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛讟诪讗 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讗讻诇 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讟诪讗

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: An impure individual who ate pure sacrificial food is liable. But an impure individual who ate impure sacrificial food is exempt, as he merely ate an impure item, and the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while one is impure does not apply to impure sacrificial food.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗祝 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛讟讛讜专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞讙注 讘讜 讟诪讗讛讜

The Rabbis said to him: According to your logic, this halakha would apply even in a case of an impure individual who ate what had been pure sacrificial food, because once he has touched it, he has thereby rendered it impure. Yet, in such a case, he is certainly liable for eating it. So too, an impure individual who ate impure sacrificial food is liable.

砖驻讬专 拽讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讟诪讗 讘砖专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘 讚讗讬住讜专 讻专转 拽讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili; why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagree? And Rava said in elaboration of the dispute: In a case where the person鈥檚 body became impure and then afterward the sacrificial meat became impure, everyone agrees that he is liable if he eats the meat, as the prohibition of eating sacrificial meat while impure, which carries the punishment of karet, preceded the prohibition of eating impure sacrificial meat.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘谞讟诪讗 讘砖专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讟诪讗 讛讙讜祝 专讘谞谉 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讚诪讙讜 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讞转讬讻讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 讗讞转讬讻讛 讟诪讗讛

They disagree when the meat became impure and then afterward the person鈥檚 body became impure. The Rabbis hold that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect even where there is an already existing prohibition. Consequently, since the prohibition for an impure person to eat sacrificial meat is more inclusive than the prohibition for a pure person to eat impure sacrificial meat, as an impure person is liable for eating even pure pieces of sacrificial meat that are permitted to the rest of the world, he is also liable for this prohibition when he eats an impure piece of sacrificial meat.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讚诪讙讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not accept the principle that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect even where there is an already existing prohibition, as he holds that we do not say that since it applies to cases that were not yet prohibited it applies to all cases.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 谞讛讬 讚讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讘讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讬讘讗 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讬讞讜诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 砖讛专讬 讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 讘讻专转

The Gemara objects: But even according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, granted that he does not hold that a more inclusive prohibition always takes effect where there is an already existing prohibition. But in the case of an already existing lenient prohibition, a more stringent prohibition should come and take effect on the more lenient prohibition. And what is the more stringent prohibition? The prohibition due to the impurity of a person鈥檚 body, as one who eats sacrificial food when he has impurity of the body is liable to karet, whereas a pure person who eats impure sacrificial food is merely liable to be flogged. Consequently, the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while impure should apply even though the meat became impure before the person became impure.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讟讜诪讗转 讛讙讜祝 讞诪讜专讛 讚诇诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讘砖专 讞诪讜专讛 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛

Rav Ashi said: Who can say to us that the prohibition due to the impurity of a person鈥檚 body is more stringent? Perhaps the prohibition due to the impurity of the meat is more stringent, as impure meat does not have the possibility of restoring its state of purity via immersion in a ritual bath, whereas a ritually impure person can become pure in this manner.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili not hold that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect where there is an already existing prohibition?

讜讛转谞讬讗 砖讘转 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讙讙 讜注砖讛 诪诇讗讻讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讜注诇 讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘转 讛讬讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: When Shabbat and Yom Kippur occur on the same day, if one acted unwittingly and performed prohibited labor, from where is it derived that he is liable for this by itself and for that by itself, i.e., he is liable to bring two sin offerings, for having transgressed both Shabbat and Yom Kippur? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall do no manner of work; it is a Shabbat for the Lord in all your dwellings鈥 (Leviticus 23:3), and another verse states: 鈥淚t is Yom Kippur鈥 (Leviticus 23:27). The term 鈥渋t is鈥 in each verse teaches that each of these days is considered independently even when it occurs together with another holy day. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: He is liable to bring only one sin offering because a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻讱 讛爪注讛 砖诇 诪砖谞讛 讜讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara answers that on this topic Ravin sent a letter citing a statement in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina: This is the correct presentation of this teaching [hatza鈥檃 shel mishna], i.e., the opinions in this baraita are accurate, but one must reverse the attributions of each opinion so that the first opinion is that of Rabbi Akiva and the second opinion is that of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Consequently, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that two prohibitions do not take effect at the same time even if one is more inclusive or stringent than the other.

砖诇讞 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬注拽讘 讘专 讙讬讜专讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诇诪讗讬 讚讗驻讻谉 砖讙讙 讘砖讘转 讜讛讝讬讚 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讛讝讬讚 讘砖讘转 讜砖讙讙 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专

The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rav Yitz岣k bar Ya鈥檃kov bar Giyorei sent a letter citing a statement in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as stated in the baraita once the attributions have been reversed, if one unwittingly performed a forbidden labor on a Yom Kippur that occurred on Shabbat, he is obligated to bring one sin offering. If he acted unwittingly with regard to the fact that it was Shabbat, i.e., he forgot that it was Shabbat, but acted intentionally with regard to Yom Kippur, he is obligated to bring a sin offering. But if he acted intentionally with regard to Shabbat but unwittingly with regard to Yom Kippur, he is exempt from bringing any offering.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讘转 拽讘讬注讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚拽讗 拽讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement? Abaye said: Shabbat is established and permanent, i.e., it always occurs on the seventh day of the week, whereas in the case of Yom Kippur, it is the court that establishes it, as the Sages determine the New Moon. Consequently, Shabbat is considered to have preceded Yom Kippur, and the prohibition to perform labor on Yom Kippur does not apply, due to the fact that labor is already prohibited because it is Shabbat. Since one brings a sin offering only due to unwitting transgression, he is obligated to bring a sin offering only if he performed labor without realizing it was Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 住讜祝 住讜祝 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 拽讗转讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 砖诪讚讗 讛讜讛 讜砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讚讬讜诪讗 讚讻驻讜专讬 讚讛讗 砖转讗 砖讘转讗 讛讜讗 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讜讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讗诪专讜讛 讻专讘讗

Rava said to Abaye: Ultimately both of them, i.e., Shabbat and Yom Kippur, come into effect at the same time. Since both take effect at the beginning of the calendar day, it cannot be said that Shabbat precedes Yom Kippur. Rather Rava said a different explanation. It was a time of religious persecution, and they sent from there, i.e., from Eretz Yisrael, a directive stating that Yom Kippur of this year will not be observed on its proper day but rather on Shabbat. Rabbi Yo岣nan was merely stating that on that particular year one who would unwittingly transgress Yom Kippur would be exempt from bringing a sin offering. And similarly, when Ravin and all those who descended from Eretz Yisrael came to Babylonia, they said that the true explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 [讜讻讜壮]

搂 The mishna teaches: 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.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 注诇 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘谞讬 讬注拽讘 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 谞拽专讗讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讚 住讬谞讬 讗诇讗 讘住讬谞讬 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 砖谞讻转讘 讘诪拽讜诪讜 诇讬讚注 诪讗讬讝讛 讟注诐 谞讗住专 诇讛诐

It is taught in a baraita that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But is it stated in the verse: Therefore the children of Jacob do not eat the sciatic nerve? Isn鈥檛 it true that it is stated only that: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve?鈥 And the Jewish people were not called 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 until they received the Torah at Mount Sinai. Rather, this terminology indicates that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was stated to the Jewish people at Sinai, but was written in its place, after the incident of Jacob wrestling with the angel, to allow the Jewish people to know the reason the sciatic nerve was forbidden to them. Since the prohibition came into effect only at Sinai, there is no proof that it ever applied with regard to non-kosher animals.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜讬砖讗讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讬注拽讘 讗讘讬讛诐 诇讗讞专 诪注砖讛

Rava raises an objection to this baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd Jacob rose up from Beersheba; and the children of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives in the wagons that Pharaoh had sent to carry him鈥 (Genesis 46:5). This occurred before the Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore proves that the title 鈥渢he children of Israel鈥 was in use before the Torah was given. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, this occurred after the incident, i.e., after Jacob wrestled with the angel and after the prophetic vision in which God changed Jacob鈥檚 name to Israel (Genesis 35:10).

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讛讛讬讗 砖注转讗 诇讬转住专

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: In that case, the sciatic nerve should be understood as having become forbidden to them from that time when they were first called the children of Israel. Since this was before the giving of the Torah, this would be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not that of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转讜专讛 驻注诪讬诐 驻注诪讬诐 谞讬转谞讛 讛讛讜讗 砖注转讗 诇讗讜 砖注转 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗讬 讜诇讗 砖注转 诪转谉 转讜专讛 讛讜讗讬

Rav Ashi said to him: Was the Torah given piecemeal, on numerous different occasions? It was given at Sinai. Rather, that time when the title 鈥渃hildren of Israel鈥 was first used was not the time when the incident of Jacob wrestling with the angel occurred and also was not the time of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the prohibition took effect at that time.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 谞讜讛讙 讘讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讘讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讟讛讜专讬谉

搂 The mishna taught a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis with regard to the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve. The Gemara now cites a similar dispute between them with regard to eating a limb from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies whether the limb comes from a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and whether it is from a non-kosher species or from a kosher species; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar. But the Rabbis say: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies only to a limb from a kosher species.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛谉 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 专拽 讞讝拽 诇讘诇转讬 讗讻诇 讛讚诐 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讛谞驻砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: And both of them, i.e., the Rabbis as well as Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, derived their opinions from one verse: 鈥淥nly be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood is the life;

Scroll To Top