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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 25, 2019 | 讻壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 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 90

What is the mishna referring to when it says that the sciatic nerve is relevant for kodashim? The gemara tries to determine what is the difference of opnion (or is there at all a difference of opnion) between Rabbi Chia bar Abba and Rasbbi Yochanan relating to the sciatic nerve on the altar. The gemara ends with a discussion of Rabbi Yehuda’s debate with the rabbis about whether the scitatic nerve is on both sides or only one.


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

讗诇诪讗 讗讬住讜专 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 拽讚讬诐

Evidently, the limbs of the body are formed before the nerves and sinews, and therefore the prohibition of eating sacrificial animals precedes the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬住讜专 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 拽讚讬诐 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 讞讬讬诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 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 sacrificial animals precedes the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve comes and takes effect upon the offspring of consecrated animals, because the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve adds an extra stringency in that it applies also to descendants of Noah. The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was in effect from the time Jacob wrestled with the angel (see Genesis 32:25鈥33), before the Torah was given. At that time, Jacob and his sons had the status of descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles. Therefore, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve is broader than the prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals, which took effect only when the Torah was given.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚拽转谞讬 谞讜讛讙 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讘讞讬讛 讘讬专讱 砖诇 讬诪讬谉 讜讘讬专讱 砖诇 砖诪讗诇

The Gemara challenges this answer: Whom did you hear holds in accordance with this reasoning? It is Rabbi Yehuda, cited in a later mishna (100b). But the mishna here is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it teaches that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to domesticated animals and to undomesticated animals, to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition applies only with regard to the sciatic nerve in the thigh of one leg (see 90b).

讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

The Gemara explains: The tanna of this mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one halakha, i.e., that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to the descendants of Noah, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one halakha and holds that the prohibition applies to the sciatic nerves of both legs.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讟诪讗讛 讚讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讗讬住讜专 讻专转 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda rules that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve takes effect in addition to the prohibition with regard to a non-kosher animal, which is a prohibition punishable by lashes. Since the prohibition of the sciatic nerve is broader in that it applies to the descendants of Noah, it takes effect even though the animal is already prohibited as being not kosher. But in the case of sacrificial animals, whose consumption by an impure person is a prohibition punishable by karet, did you hear that Rabbi Yehuda considers the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve more stringent, such that it takes effect even though the animal is already prohibited? Therefore, this answer is rejected.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讘讻专转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘专讞诐 拽讚讜砖

The Gemara offers an alternative answer: Rather, here in the mishna we are dealing with a non-sacred animal giving birth to its firstborn, which becomes sanctified as it leaves the womb. The mishna teaches that although the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve does not apply to the offspring of sacrificial animals, because their sacrificial status renders them prohibited for consumption before the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect, that is not the case with regard to a firstborn. The sanctified status of a firstborn takes effect only as it leaves the womb, which is after the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讜诇讚讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讛讜讜讬讬转谉 讛谉 拽讚讜砖讬诐

And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is dealing with the offspring of all sacrificial animals, and this tanna holds that such animals are sanctified only when they come into being as independent creatures, i.e., at birth. Consequently, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect before the animal becomes prohibited at the time of its birth; or, according to the opinion that the sciatic nerve is permitted in a fetus, the two prohibitions take effect simultaneously.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讛谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 谞讜讛讙 讘讛谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬诐 讛谞讗讻诇讬谉 讜讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 谞讜讛讙 讘讛谉

搂 Having addressed the need for the mishna to state that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies with regard to sacrificial animals, the Gemara discusses which types of sacrificial animals are included in this prohibition. Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says: The Sages taught that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only with regard to sacrificial animals that are eaten, e.g., sin offerings, guilt offerings and peace offerings; but with regard to sacrificial animals that are not eaten, e.g., burnt offerings, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies both with regard to sacrificial animals that are eaten and with regard to sacrificial animals that are not eaten.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讻讗谉 诇讛注诇讜转讜

Rav Pappa said: Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yo岣nan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies with regard to flogging one who eats it. There, Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply with regard to bringing the meat of the animal up to the altar, i.e., offerings that are burned on the altar are brought up with the sciatic nerve. Burning the sciatic nerve on the altar is not comparable to eating it and is not prohibited.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 诇讞诇爪讜 讜讻讗谉 诇讛注诇讜转讜

There are those who say that Rav Pappa said as follows: Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yo岣nan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply to burnt offerings, in that one is not required to remove it before burning the offering on the altar. There, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he prohibition does apply, in that if one did remove the sciatic nerve, it is prohibited to bring it up onto the altar independently.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诇讛注诇讜转讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 诇专讘讜转 讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讟诇驻讬诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k disagreed with Rav Pappa and said: Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree with regard to whether it is permitted to bring up the sciatic nerve to the altar even when it remains in the thigh. As it is taught in a baraita: In the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:9), the term 鈥渋t all鈥 serves to include the bones, and the sinews, and the horns, and the hooves among those items burned on the altar.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专砖讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐

One might have thought that even if they became detached from the flesh of the burnt offering they are burned upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only the flesh and the blood are offered upon the altar.

讗讬 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讞诇讜抓 讙讬讚讬诐 讜注爪诪讜转 讜讬注诇讛 讘砖专 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讬注诇讜 驻专砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讬专讚讜

The baraita continues: If it is only the flesh and the blood that are offered on the altar, one might have thought that a priest must first remove the sinews and bones from an offering and only then may he bring up the flesh to be burned upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,鈥 including the sinews and bones. How can these texts be reconciled? If the sinews and bones are attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they became detached from the flesh, then even if they are already at the top of the altar, they shall descend.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 驻专砖讜 讬专讚讜 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 诇专讘讜转 讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬诐 讜讛拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讟诇驻讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 驻专砖讜

The Gemara comments: And who is the tanna that you heard, who said if they became detached from the flesh, they shall descend? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: In the verse that states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,鈥 the term 鈥渋t all鈥 serves to include the bones, and the sinews, and the horns, and the hooves among those items burned on the altar, and that is the halakha even if they became detached from the flesh of the offering.

讜讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐 讘驻讜拽注讬谉 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 注讬讻讜诇讬 讘砖专 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 注讬讻讜诇讬 讙讬讚讬诐 讜注爪诪讜转

The baraita continues: But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:27), which indicates that only the flesh and blood of an offering are offered on the altar? It is referring to parts of the offering that become dislodged from the fire. How so? If the partially consumed flesh of a burnt offering is dislodged from the altar, you return it to the fire, but you do not return the partially consumed sinews and bones that become dislodged.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 专讬讘讛 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐 诪讬注讟 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讬注诇讜 驻专砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讬专讚讜

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,鈥 which included sinews and bones. And one verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,鈥 which excluded any part other than the flesh and the blood. How can these texts be reconciled? If the sinews and bones were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they became detached from the flesh, then even if they are already on top of the altar, they shall descend.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗专讗砖讛 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇驻专砖讜

The Gemara explains their dispute: And the Rabbis hold that with regard to sinews and bones that are attached to the flesh it was not necessary for a verse to include the obligation to bring them up to the altar. It is clear that they must be brought up, just as it is the halakha that the head of a burnt offering, which contains many bones, is brought up, as stated explicitly in the verse: 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, and the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire that is upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:8). When a verse was necessary it was for the case where the sinews and bones became detached from the flesh. Consequently, when the verse uses the inclusive phrase 鈥渋t all,鈥 it is to include sinews and bones that became detached.

讜专讘讬 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讚讛讬转讬专讗

But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that with regard to sinews and bones that are attached to the flesh and that are permitted to be eaten,

诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讘诪讞讜讘专

it was not necessary for the verse to include them. When a verse was necessary it was for the sciatic nerve that is still attached to the flesh. The term 鈥渋t all鈥 teaches that if the sciatic nerve is attached to the flesh it is brought up to the altar.

讜专讘谞谉 诪诪砖拽讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 诇讬砖专讗诇

And the Rabbis would explain their opinion based upon the verse: 鈥淎nd one lamb of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-watered pastures [mimashke] of Israel; for a meal offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make atonement for them, says the Lord God鈥 (Ezekiel 45:15). Since the term mashke also means beverage, which is consumed, the verse is interpreted to mean that offerings may be sacrificed only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people for consumption. Since the sciatic nerve is not permitted for consumption, it may not be sacrificed on the altar. Consequently, the term 鈥渋t all鈥 is understood to include sinews and bones even if they have become detached from the flesh.

讜专讘讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讜专讘谞谉 诪爪讜转谉 讘讻讱 砖讗谞讬

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would respond that a sciatic nerve that is attached to the flesh may be brought up to the altar, just as it is permitted to sacrifice forbidden fat and blood upon the altar even though they are forbidden for consumption. And the Rabbis would say that forbidden fat and blood are different, because the Torah explicitly states that their mitzva is to be offered on the altar in this way, whereas the Torah never mandates the sacrifice of the sciatic nerve upon the altar. According to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef agrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the sciatic nerve is offered upon the altar together with the rest of the animal, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the sciatic nerve is not offered upon the altar.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讞讜诇爪讜 诇转驻讜讞 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪专讬 讚讬讻讬 诪讬 讻转讬讘 注诇 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞 注诇 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻转讬讘

搂 The Gemara cites another discussion with regard to the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering. Rav Huna says: The sciatic nerve of a burnt offering is not placed upon the altar with the rest of the animal. Rather, one removes it and places it on the circular mound of ashes in the center of the altar. Rav 岣sda said: Master of this [mari dikhi] ruling! Is it written in the Torah: Therefore the altar does not consume the sciatic nerve? This would indicate that it is prohibited to sacrifice the sciatic nerve on the altar. Rather, it is written: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve鈥 (Genesis 32:33).

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪诪砖拽讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 诇讬砖专讗诇

And Rav Huna holds that the phrase: 鈥淔rom the well-watered pastures of Israel,鈥 indicates that offerings may be sacrificed only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people. Since the sciatic nerve is not permitted for consumption, it may not be sacrificed upon the altar.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讻讘讚讜 诇讗诪讛 讜砖诇 注讜诇讛 诪注诇讛讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪注诇讛讜 讜诪拽讟讬专讜

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion. It is taught in a baraita: What should one do with the sciatic nerve of a peace offering, since the meat of the offering must be eaten but the sciatic nerve is forbidden? One sweeps it to the Temple courtyard drain. And in the case of the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering, one brings it up to the altar. The Gemara comments: What, is it not that the baraita means that he brings it up to the altar and burns it with the rest of the animal, which contradicts the statement of Rav Huna?

诇讗 诪注诇讛讜 讜讞讜诇爪讜 讜诪讗讞专 砖讞讜诇爪讜 诇诪讛 诪注诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛拽专讬讘讛讜 谞讗 诇驻讞转讱

The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that he brings it up to the altar and removes it from the thigh before placing the thigh on the fire. The Gemara asks: But since he removes it from the thigh, why does he bring it up to the altar? The Gemara answers that one cannot bring the thigh up to the altar after the sciatic nerve has been removed because it is stated with regard to one who sacrifices offerings that are damaged or unattractive: 鈥淧resent it now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you, or will he accept your person? says the Lord of hosts鈥 (Malachi 1:8). Consequently, the leg of the animal must be brought up to the altar while it is whole, and the sciatic nerve must be removed on top of the altar.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讻讘讚讜 诇讗诪讛 讜砖诇 注讜诇讛 讞讜诇爪讜 诇转驻讜讞

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna: With regard to the sciatic nerve of a peace offering, one sweeps it into the Temple courtyard drain; and with regard to the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering, one removes it and places it on the circular mound of ashes in the center of the altar.

转谞谉 讛转诐 转驻讜讞 讛讬讛 讘讗诪爪注 讛诪讝讘讞 驻注诪讬诐 讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 讻砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讻讜专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讜讝诪讗

We learned in a mishna there (Tamid 28b): There was a circular mound of ashes in the center of the altar, and sometimes there was as much as three hundred kor of ashes upon it. Rava said: This description is an exaggeration [guzma]; the tanna means merely that there was a significant quantity of ashes.

讛砖拽讜 讗转 讛转诪讬讚 讘讻讜住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讜讝诪讗

Similarly, it is taught in a mishna (Tamid 30a) that before slaughtering the daily offering the priests gave the lamb selected for the daily offering water to drink in a golden cup, in order to render the animal easier to flay after slaughter. With regard to this mishna, Rava said: It is an exaggeration, as the priests did not actually let the animal drink from a golden vessel.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讚讘专讜 谞讘讬讗讬诐 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讚讘专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讚讘专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara provides other examples of statements not meant literally. Rabbi Ami says: In some instances, the Torah spoke employing exaggerated [havai] language, the Prophets spoke employing exaggerated language, and the Sages spoke employing exaggerated language. The fact that the Sages spoke employing exaggerated language is evident from that which we stated above, concerning the mound of ashes and the lamb of the daily offering.

讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 注专讬诐 讙讚讜诇讜转 讜讘爪讜专讜转 讘砖诪讬诐 讚讘专讜 谞讘讬讗讬诐 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讜转讘拽注 讛讗专抓 诇拽讜诇诐

The Torah spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written: 鈥淗ear, Israel: You are passing over the Jordan this day, to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, cities great and fortified up to heaven鈥 (Deuteronomy 9:1), whereas the fortifications obviously did not actually reach up to heaven. The Prophets spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written with regard to the coronation of King Solomon: 鈥淎nd all the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them鈥 (I聽Kings 1:40), where the verse means merely that the sound was very loud.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讚讘专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讗诇讜 讛谉 转驻讜讞 讙驻谉 讜驻专讜讻转 转驻讜讞 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani says that Shmuel says: In three places the Sages spoke in exaggerated language, and they are with regard to the circular mound of ashes on the altar; the vine; and the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies. The case of the circular mound of ashes is that which we said.

讙驻谉 讚转谞谉 讙驻谉 砖诇 讝讛讘 讛讬转讛 注讜诪讚转 注诇 驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 诪讜讚诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讜谞住讜转 讜讻诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪转谞讚讘 讙专讙讬专 讗讜 讗砖讻讜诇 诪讘讬讗 讜转讜诇讛 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诪注砖讛 讛讬讛 讜谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讻讛谞讬诐 诇驻谞讜转讛

The case of the vine is as we learned in a mishna (Middot 36a): A golden ornament in the form of a vine was standing at the entrance to the Sanctuary, and it was hung upon poles. And whoever would donate an ornamental golden leaf, grape, or cluster of grapes to the Temple would bring it to the Temple and hang it upon the vine. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: There was once an incident, and three hundred priests were enlisted to move the vine because of its immense weight. According to Shmuel, this description is also an exaggeration.

驻专讜讻转 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛住讙谉 驻专讜讻转 注讜讘讬讛 讟驻讞 讜注诇 砖讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 谞讬专讬诐 谞讗专讙转 讜注诇 讻诇 谞讬诪讛 讜谞讬诪讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讗专讻讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讜专讞讘讛 注砖专讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讜诪砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜砖转讬 专讘讜讗 谞注砖转 讜砖转讬诐 注讜砖讬诐 讘砖谞讛 讜砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛

The case of the Curtain is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 8:2): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, the deputy High Priest: The Curtain is the thickness of a handbreadth [tefa岣]. It is woven from seventy-two strands [nirim] of yarn, and each and every strand [nima] of those seventy-two is made from twenty-four threads consisting of six threads each of sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen. Its length is forty cubits, the height of the Sanctuary, and its width is twenty cubits, the width of the entrance. And it is made from eighty-two ten-thousands, i.e., 820,000 dinars. And the overseers of the Temple make two new Curtains every year. And the Curtain was so heavy that when it was immersed, three hundred priests would immerse it.

讘讬专讱 砖诇 讬诪讬谉 讜讘讬专讱 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗讞转 讜讛讚注转 诪讻专注转 讗转 砖诇 讬诪讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg. The Gemara says: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only to the sciatic nerve in one of the animal鈥檚 thighs, and logic dictates that it is the right thigh.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讗讬 讚注转 讚注转 转讜专讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讚注转 讚注转 谞讜讟讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the prohibition applies only to the sciatic nerve in the right thigh, and accordingly, what does he mean when he says that logic dictates? He means the logic of the Torah. Or perhaps he is uncertain as to whether it applies only to the right thigh or only to the left, and accordingly, what does he mean when he says that logic dictates? He means that logic inclines one to believe that the prohibition applies to the right thigh.

转讗 砖诪注 讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬诐 讜讛谞讜转专 讬砖专驻讜 诇砖砖讛 注砖专 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讛谞讬 讙讬讚讬 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讙讬讚讬 讘砖专 诇讬讻诇讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 讚讗讬讬转讜专 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讜转专 讗诇讗 讙讬讚讬 爪讜讗专 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖专 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讬砖讚讬谞讛讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution based upon the following mishna (Pesa岣m 83a): The bones of the Paschal offering that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is prohibited to break the bones of the Paschal offering; and the sinews; and the leftover meat should all be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan, not on the fifteenth, the first day of Passover. And we discussed it: What are the circumstances in which these sinews must be burned? If we say they are sinews of meat, let one eat them. Why are they burned? And if they are sinews that were left over and not eaten, that is the case of leftover meat; why does the mishna list sinews separately? Rather, the mishna is referring to sinews of the neck, which are different from other sinews and are therefore mentioned separately. But if they are not meat, why do they require burning? Let one simply discard them like other waste.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗讞转

And Rav 岣sda said: The mishna鈥檚 mention of sinews is necessary only in order to teach the halakha of the sciatic nerve, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only to the sciatic nerve in one of the animal鈥檚 thighs, and not to both.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚讛讬转讬专讗 诇讬讻诇讬讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇砖讚讬讬讛

The Gemara explains how this resolves the dilemma: Granted if you say that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain as to whether it is the sciatic nerve of the right or the left thigh, it works out well. Since it is uncertain which thigh may be eaten, one may not eat either of them, and one must burn each of them on the sixteenth due to the possibility that it was the permitted one and now has the status of leftover meat. But if you say that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve of only the right thigh is forbidden, let him eat the sciatic nerve of the permitted left thigh, and let him throw away only the sciatic nerve of the forbidden right thigh. Neither one should be burned.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬拽讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜

The Gemara responds: Rav Ika bar 岣nina said: Actually I could say to you that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve of only the right thigh is forbidden. Nevertheless, here we are dealing with a case where the sciatic nerves were identified and removed, but ultimately the sciatic nerves became intermingled and one cannot tell which is from the right thigh and which is from the left thigh. Consequently, they must both be left over until the next day and then burned.

  • 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 90

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 90

讗诇诪讗 讗讬住讜专 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 拽讚讬诐

Evidently, the limbs of the body are formed before the nerves and sinews, and therefore the prohibition of eating sacrificial animals precedes the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬住讜专 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 拽讚讬诐 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 讞讬讬诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 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 sacrificial animals precedes the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve comes and takes effect upon the offspring of consecrated animals, because the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve adds an extra stringency in that it applies also to descendants of Noah. The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was in effect from the time Jacob wrestled with the angel (see Genesis 32:25鈥33), before the Torah was given. At that time, Jacob and his sons had the status of descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles. Therefore, the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve is broader than the prohibition of eating meat of sacrificial animals, which took effect only when the Torah was given.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚拽转谞讬 谞讜讛讙 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讘讞讬讛 讘讬专讱 砖诇 讬诪讬谉 讜讘讬专讱 砖诇 砖诪讗诇

The Gemara challenges this answer: Whom did you hear holds in accordance with this reasoning? It is Rabbi Yehuda, cited in a later mishna (100b). But the mishna here is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it teaches that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to domesticated animals and to undomesticated animals, to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg. By contrast, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the prohibition applies only with regard to the sciatic nerve in the thigh of one leg (see 90b).

讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

The Gemara explains: The tanna of this mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one halakha, i.e., that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to the descendants of Noah, and disagrees with his opinion with regard to one halakha and holds that the prohibition applies to the sciatic nerves of both legs.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讟诪讗讛 讚讗讬住讜专 诇讗讜 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讗讬住讜专 讻专转 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda rules that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve takes effect in addition to the prohibition with regard to a non-kosher animal, which is a prohibition punishable by lashes. Since the prohibition of the sciatic nerve is broader in that it applies to the descendants of Noah, it takes effect even though the animal is already prohibited as being not kosher. But in the case of sacrificial animals, whose consumption by an impure person is a prohibition punishable by karet, did you hear that Rabbi Yehuda considers the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve more stringent, such that it takes effect even though the animal is already prohibited? Therefore, this answer is rejected.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讘讻专转 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘专讞诐 拽讚讜砖

The Gemara offers an alternative answer: Rather, here in the mishna we are dealing with a non-sacred animal giving birth to its firstborn, which becomes sanctified as it leaves the womb. The mishna teaches that although the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve does not apply to the offspring of sacrificial animals, because their sacrificial status renders them prohibited for consumption before the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect, that is not the case with regard to a firstborn. The sanctified status of a firstborn takes effect only as it leaves the womb, which is after the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讜诇讚讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讛讜讜讬讬转谉 讛谉 拽讚讜砖讬诐

And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is dealing with the offspring of all sacrificial animals, and this tanna holds that such animals are sanctified only when they come into being as independent creatures, i.e., at birth. Consequently, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve takes effect before the animal becomes prohibited at the time of its birth; or, according to the opinion that the sciatic nerve is permitted in a fetus, the two prohibitions take effect simultaneously.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讛谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 谞讜讛讙 讘讛谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬诐 讛谞讗讻诇讬谉 讜讗讞讚 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讙讬讚 谞讜讛讙 讘讛谉

搂 Having addressed the need for the mishna to state that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies with regard to sacrificial animals, the Gemara discusses which types of sacrificial animals are included in this prohibition. Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says: The Sages taught that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only with regard to sacrificial animals that are eaten, e.g., sin offerings, guilt offerings and peace offerings; but with regard to sacrificial animals that are not eaten, e.g., burnt offerings, the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies both with regard to sacrificial animals that are eaten and with regard to sacrificial animals that are not eaten.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 诇讛诇拽讜转讜 讻讗谉 诇讛注诇讜转讜

Rav Pappa said: Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yo岣nan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies with regard to flogging one who eats it. There, Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply with regard to bringing the meat of the animal up to the altar, i.e., offerings that are burned on the altar are brought up with the sciatic nerve. Burning the sciatic nerve on the altar is not comparable to eating it and is not prohibited.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 诇讞诇爪讜 讜讻讗谉 诇讛注诇讜转讜

There are those who say that Rav Pappa said as follows: Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yo岣nan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply to burnt offerings, in that one is not required to remove it before burning the offering on the altar. There, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he prohibition does apply, in that if one did remove the sciatic nerve, it is prohibited to bring it up onto the altar independently.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诇讛注诇讜转讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 诇专讘讜转 讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讟诇驻讬诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k disagreed with Rav Pappa and said: Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagree with regard to whether it is permitted to bring up the sciatic nerve to the altar even when it remains in the thigh. As it is taught in a baraita: In the verse: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:9), the term 鈥渋t all鈥 serves to include the bones, and the sinews, and the horns, and the hooves among those items burned on the altar.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专砖讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐

One might have thought that even if they became detached from the flesh of the burnt offering they are burned upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only the flesh and the blood are offered upon the altar.

讗讬 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讞诇讜抓 讙讬讚讬诐 讜注爪诪讜转 讜讬注诇讛 讘砖专 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讬注诇讜 驻专砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讬专讚讜

The baraita continues: If it is only the flesh and the blood that are offered on the altar, one might have thought that a priest must first remove the sinews and bones from an offering and only then may he bring up the flesh to be burned upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,鈥 including the sinews and bones. How can these texts be reconciled? If the sinews and bones are attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they became detached from the flesh, then even if they are already at the top of the altar, they shall descend.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 驻专砖讜 讬专讚讜 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 诇专讘讜转 讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬诐 讜讛拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讟诇驻讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 驻专砖讜

The Gemara comments: And who is the tanna that you heard, who said if they became detached from the flesh, they shall descend? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: In the verse that states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,鈥 the term 鈥渋t all鈥 serves to include the bones, and the sinews, and the horns, and the hooves among those items burned on the altar, and that is the halakha even if they became detached from the flesh of the offering.

讜讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐 讘驻讜拽注讬谉 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 注讬讻讜诇讬 讘砖专 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 注讬讻讜诇讬 讙讬讚讬诐 讜注爪诪讜转

The baraita continues: But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:27), which indicates that only the flesh and blood of an offering are offered on the altar? It is referring to parts of the offering that become dislodged from the fire. How so? If the partially consumed flesh of a burnt offering is dislodged from the altar, you return it to the fire, but you do not return the partially consumed sinews and bones that become dislodged.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 专讬讘讛 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐 诪讬注讟 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讬注诇讜 驻专砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讬专讚讜

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,鈥 which included sinews and bones. And one verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,鈥 which excluded any part other than the flesh and the blood. How can these texts be reconciled? If the sinews and bones were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they became detached from the flesh, then even if they are already on top of the altar, they shall descend.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗专讗砖讛 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇驻专砖讜

The Gemara explains their dispute: And the Rabbis hold that with regard to sinews and bones that are attached to the flesh it was not necessary for a verse to include the obligation to bring them up to the altar. It is clear that they must be brought up, just as it is the halakha that the head of a burnt offering, which contains many bones, is brought up, as stated explicitly in the verse: 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall lay the pieces, and the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire that is upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:8). When a verse was necessary it was for the case where the sinews and bones became detached from the flesh. Consequently, when the verse uses the inclusive phrase 鈥渋t all,鈥 it is to include sinews and bones that became detached.

讜专讘讬 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讚讛讬转讬专讗

But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that with regard to sinews and bones that are attached to the flesh and that are permitted to be eaten,

诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讘诪讞讜讘专

it was not necessary for the verse to include them. When a verse was necessary it was for the sciatic nerve that is still attached to the flesh. The term 鈥渋t all鈥 teaches that if the sciatic nerve is attached to the flesh it is brought up to the altar.

讜专讘谞谉 诪诪砖拽讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 诇讬砖专讗诇

And the Rabbis would explain their opinion based upon the verse: 鈥淎nd one lamb of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-watered pastures [mimashke] of Israel; for a meal offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make atonement for them, says the Lord God鈥 (Ezekiel 45:15). Since the term mashke also means beverage, which is consumed, the verse is interpreted to mean that offerings may be sacrificed only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people for consumption. Since the sciatic nerve is not permitted for consumption, it may not be sacrificed on the altar. Consequently, the term 鈥渋t all鈥 is understood to include sinews and bones even if they have become detached from the flesh.

讜专讘讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讜专讘谞谉 诪爪讜转谉 讘讻讱 砖讗谞讬

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would respond that a sciatic nerve that is attached to the flesh may be brought up to the altar, just as it is permitted to sacrifice forbidden fat and blood upon the altar even though they are forbidden for consumption. And the Rabbis would say that forbidden fat and blood are different, because the Torah explicitly states that their mitzva is to be offered on the altar in this way, whereas the Torah never mandates the sacrifice of the sciatic nerve upon the altar. According to Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k, Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef agrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the sciatic nerve is offered upon the altar together with the rest of the animal, whereas Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the sciatic nerve is not offered upon the altar.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讞讜诇爪讜 诇转驻讜讞 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪专讬 讚讬讻讬 诪讬 讻转讬讘 注诇 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞 注诇 讻谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻转讬讘

搂 The Gemara cites another discussion with regard to the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering. Rav Huna says: The sciatic nerve of a burnt offering is not placed upon the altar with the rest of the animal. Rather, one removes it and places it on the circular mound of ashes in the center of the altar. Rav 岣sda said: Master of this [mari dikhi] ruling! Is it written in the Torah: Therefore the altar does not consume the sciatic nerve? This would indicate that it is prohibited to sacrifice the sciatic nerve on the altar. Rather, it is written: 鈥淭herefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve鈥 (Genesis 32:33).

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪诪砖拽讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 诇讬砖专讗诇

And Rav Huna holds that the phrase: 鈥淔rom the well-watered pastures of Israel,鈥 indicates that offerings may be sacrificed only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people. Since the sciatic nerve is not permitted for consumption, it may not be sacrificed upon the altar.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讻讘讚讜 诇讗诪讛 讜砖诇 注讜诇讛 诪注诇讛讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪注诇讛讜 讜诪拽讟讬专讜

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion. It is taught in a baraita: What should one do with the sciatic nerve of a peace offering, since the meat of the offering must be eaten but the sciatic nerve is forbidden? One sweeps it to the Temple courtyard drain. And in the case of the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering, one brings it up to the altar. The Gemara comments: What, is it not that the baraita means that he brings it up to the altar and burns it with the rest of the animal, which contradicts the statement of Rav Huna?

诇讗 诪注诇讛讜 讜讞讜诇爪讜 讜诪讗讞专 砖讞讜诇爪讜 诇诪讛 诪注诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛拽专讬讘讛讜 谞讗 诇驻讞转讱

The Gemara responds: No, the baraita means that he brings it up to the altar and removes it from the thigh before placing the thigh on the fire. The Gemara asks: But since he removes it from the thigh, why does he bring it up to the altar? The Gemara answers that one cannot bring the thigh up to the altar after the sciatic nerve has been removed because it is stated with regard to one who sacrifices offerings that are damaged or unattractive: 鈥淧resent it now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you, or will he accept your person? says the Lord of hosts鈥 (Malachi 1:8). Consequently, the leg of the animal must be brought up to the altar while it is whole, and the sciatic nerve must be removed on top of the altar.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 砖诇 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讻讘讚讜 诇讗诪讛 讜砖诇 注讜诇讛 讞讜诇爪讜 诇转驻讜讞

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna: With regard to the sciatic nerve of a peace offering, one sweeps it into the Temple courtyard drain; and with regard to the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering, one removes it and places it on the circular mound of ashes in the center of the altar.

转谞谉 讛转诐 转驻讜讞 讛讬讛 讘讗诪爪注 讛诪讝讘讞 驻注诪讬诐 讛讬讛 注诇讬讜 讻砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讻讜专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讜讝诪讗

We learned in a mishna there (Tamid 28b): There was a circular mound of ashes in the center of the altar, and sometimes there was as much as three hundred kor of ashes upon it. Rava said: This description is an exaggeration [guzma]; the tanna means merely that there was a significant quantity of ashes.

讛砖拽讜 讗转 讛转诪讬讚 讘讻讜住 砖诇 讝讛讘 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讜讝诪讗

Similarly, it is taught in a mishna (Tamid 30a) that before slaughtering the daily offering the priests gave the lamb selected for the daily offering water to drink in a golden cup, in order to render the animal easier to flay after slaughter. With regard to this mishna, Rava said: It is an exaggeration, as the priests did not actually let the animal drink from a golden vessel.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讚讘专讜 谞讘讬讗讬诐 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讚讘专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讚讘专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

The Gemara provides other examples of statements not meant literally. Rabbi Ami says: In some instances, the Torah spoke employing exaggerated [havai] language, the Prophets spoke employing exaggerated language, and the Sages spoke employing exaggerated language. The fact that the Sages spoke employing exaggerated language is evident from that which we stated above, concerning the mound of ashes and the lamb of the daily offering.

讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 注专讬诐 讙讚讜诇讜转 讜讘爪讜专讜转 讘砖诪讬诐 讚讘专讜 谞讘讬讗讬诐 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讜转讘拽注 讛讗专抓 诇拽讜诇诐

The Torah spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written: 鈥淗ear, Israel: You are passing over the Jordan this day, to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, cities great and fortified up to heaven鈥 (Deuteronomy 9:1), whereas the fortifications obviously did not actually reach up to heaven. The Prophets spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written with regard to the coronation of King Solomon: 鈥淎nd all the people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy, so that the earth rent with the sound of them鈥 (I聽Kings 1:40), where the verse means merely that the sound was very loud.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讚讘专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇砖讜谉 讛讜讗讬 讗诇讜 讛谉 转驻讜讞 讙驻谉 讜驻专讜讻转 转驻讜讞 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉

Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Na岣ani says that Shmuel says: In three places the Sages spoke in exaggerated language, and they are with regard to the circular mound of ashes on the altar; the vine; and the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies. The case of the circular mound of ashes is that which we said.

讙驻谉 讚转谞谉 讙驻谉 砖诇 讝讛讘 讛讬转讛 注讜诪讚转 注诇 驻转讞讜 砖诇 讛讬讻诇 诪讜讚诇讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讜谞住讜转 讜讻诇 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 诪转谞讚讘 讙专讙讬专 讗讜 讗砖讻讜诇 诪讘讬讗 讜转讜诇讛 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 爪讚讜拽 诪注砖讛 讛讬讛 讜谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讻讛谞讬诐 诇驻谞讜转讛

The case of the vine is as we learned in a mishna (Middot 36a): A golden ornament in the form of a vine was standing at the entrance to the Sanctuary, and it was hung upon poles. And whoever would donate an ornamental golden leaf, grape, or cluster of grapes to the Temple would bring it to the Temple and hang it upon the vine. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, said: There was once an incident, and three hundred priests were enlisted to move the vine because of its immense weight. According to Shmuel, this description is also an exaggeration.

驻专讜讻转 讚转谞谉 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛住讙谉 驻专讜讻转 注讜讘讬讛 讟驻讞 讜注诇 砖讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 谞讬专讬诐 谞讗专讙转 讜注诇 讻诇 谞讬诪讛 讜谞讬诪讛 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注讛 讞讜讟讬谉 讗专讻讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讜专讞讘讛 注砖专讬诐 讘讗诪讛 讜诪砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜砖转讬 专讘讜讗 谞注砖转 讜砖转讬诐 注讜砖讬诐 讘砖谞讛 讜砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛

The case of the Curtain is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 8:2): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, the deputy High Priest: The Curtain is the thickness of a handbreadth [tefa岣]. It is woven from seventy-two strands [nirim] of yarn, and each and every strand [nima] of those seventy-two is made from twenty-four threads consisting of six threads each of sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen. Its length is forty cubits, the height of the Sanctuary, and its width is twenty cubits, the width of the entrance. And it is made from eighty-two ten-thousands, i.e., 820,000 dinars. And the overseers of the Temple make two new Curtains every year. And the Curtain was so heavy that when it was immersed, three hundred priests would immerse it.

讘讬专讱 砖诇 讬诪讬谉 讜讘讬专讱 砖诇 砖诪讗诇 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗讞转 讜讛讚注转 诪讻专注转 讗转 砖诇 讬诪讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies to the thigh of the right leg and to the thigh of the left leg. The Gemara says: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only to the sciatic nerve in one of the animal鈥檚 thighs, and logic dictates that it is the right thigh.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讗讬 讚注转 讚注转 转讜专讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 讚注转 讚注转 谞讜讟讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the prohibition applies only to the sciatic nerve in the right thigh, and accordingly, what does he mean when he says that logic dictates? He means the logic of the Torah. Or perhaps he is uncertain as to whether it applies only to the right thigh or only to the left, and accordingly, what does he mean when he says that logic dictates? He means that logic inclines one to believe that the prohibition applies to the right thigh.

转讗 砖诪注 讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬诐 讜讛谞讜转专 讬砖专驻讜 诇砖砖讛 注砖专 讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讛谞讬 讙讬讚讬 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讙讬讚讬 讘砖专 诇讬讻诇讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 讚讗讬讬转讜专 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讜转专 讗诇讗 讙讬讚讬 爪讜讗专 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖专 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讬砖讚讬谞讛讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution based upon the following mishna (Pesa岣m 83a): The bones of the Paschal offering that contain edible marrow but cannot be eaten because it is prohibited to break the bones of the Paschal offering; and the sinews; and the leftover meat should all be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan, not on the fifteenth, the first day of Passover. And we discussed it: What are the circumstances in which these sinews must be burned? If we say they are sinews of meat, let one eat them. Why are they burned? And if they are sinews that were left over and not eaten, that is the case of leftover meat; why does the mishna list sinews separately? Rather, the mishna is referring to sinews of the neck, which are different from other sinews and are therefore mentioned separately. But if they are not meat, why do they require burning? Let one simply discard them like other waste.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讙讬讚 讛谞砖讛 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗讞转

And Rav 岣sda said: The mishna鈥檚 mention of sinews is necessary only in order to teach the halakha of the sciatic nerve, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies only to the sciatic nerve in one of the animal鈥檚 thighs, and not to both.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讚讛讬转讬专讗 诇讬讻诇讬讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇砖讚讬讬讛

The Gemara explains how this resolves the dilemma: Granted if you say that Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain as to whether it is the sciatic nerve of the right or the left thigh, it works out well. Since it is uncertain which thigh may be eaten, one may not eat either of them, and one must burn each of them on the sixteenth due to the possibility that it was the permitted one and now has the status of leftover meat. But if you say that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve of only the right thigh is forbidden, let him eat the sciatic nerve of the permitted left thigh, and let him throw away only the sciatic nerve of the forbidden right thigh. Neither one should be burned.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬拽讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讛讜讻专讜 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞转注专讘讜

The Gemara responds: Rav Ika bar 岣nina said: Actually I could say to you that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve of only the right thigh is forbidden. Nevertheless, here we are dealing with a case where the sciatic nerves were identified and removed, but ultimately the sciatic nerves became intermingled and one cannot tell which is from the right thigh and which is from the left thigh. Consequently, they must both be left over until the next day and then burned.

Scroll To Top