Parallel
חולין 90
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Hence [it is possible for] the prohibition of consecrated things to come into force first! — Notwithstanding that the prohibition of consecrated things comes into force first, the prohibition of the nerve can be superimposed upon it, for its prohibition is binding even upon the sons of Noah. Whom did you hear maintain this view? R. Judah, is it not? But our Mishnah cannot be in agreement with R. Judah, for it reads IT APPLIES TO CATTLE AND TO WILD ANIMALS, TO THE RIGHT AND LEFT HIP! — This Tanna [of our Mishnah] agrees with him [R. Judah] on one point and disagrees on the other point. But perhaps you heard R. Judah apply this argument only to the case of an unclean animal since it is forbidden by a prohibition only; but have you heard him apply it also to consecrated things for which there is a penalty of Kareth? — Rather it must be that we are dealing with the case of a firstling which is consecrated only [when it comes forth out of] the womb. Alternatively, you may say that the young of consecrated animals are themselves consecrated only when they come into being. R. Hiyya b. Joseph said: They taught this only concerning consecrated animals that may be eaten, but with regard to consecrated animals that are not eaten the prohibition of the nerve does not apply. But R. Johanan said: The prohibition of the nerve applies both to consecrated animals that may be eaten and to those that are not eaten. Said R. Papa: There is really no dispute between them, for the one refers to the question of stripes whereas the other refers to the question of offering it. Others report R. Papa's statement thus: There is really no dispute between them, for the one refers to the removal thereof whereas the other refers to the offering up of it. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: They disagree about offering it up. For it was taught: And the Priest shall burn the whole upon the altar, this includes bones, nerves, horns and hoofs. I might think that [it is so] even if they were severed, the text therefore states: And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood. But since it is written ‘the flesh and the blood’, I might think that one must first cut away the nerves and bones and then offer the flesh upon the altar, it is therefore written: ‘And the priest shall burn the whole upon the altar’. How [are these verses to be reconciled]? If they are still attached [to the limb], they may be offered up; if they are severed, even if they are already on the top of the altar, they must come down. Now which Tanna have you heard say that if they were severed [and offered up] they must come down? It is Rabbi. For it has been taught: ‘And the priest shall burn the whole’, this includes bones, nerves, horns and hoofs, even if they are severed. And how do I explain the verse: ‘And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood’? With reference to those portions which have jumped off [the altar]; thus, only half-burnt flesh you may replace [if it had jumped off the altar], but you may not replace half-burnt nerves and bones. Rabbi says: One verse reads: ‘And the priest shall burn the whole’, which includes [everything], whilst another verse reads: ‘And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood’, which excludes [everything else]. How [are the verses to be reconciled]? Thus if they are still attached [to the limb], they may be offered up; if they are severed, even if they are on the top of the altar, they must come down. And the Rabbis? — They maintain that when they are still attached [to the limb] no verse is necessary to include them, for they are on the same footing as the head of a burnt-offering; consequently the verse is only necessary to include them when severed. And Rabbi? — [He says,] as regards the permitted parts which are still attached [to the limb, I admit that]
—
no verse is necessary to include them, but a verse is necessary to include the [forbidden] sciatic nerve when still attached [to the thigh]. And the Rabbis? — [They say,] It is written: ‘From the liquor of Israel’, that is, from that which is permitted to Israel. And Rabbi? — [He says,] It is on the same footing as the [forbidden] fat and blood. And the Rabbis? — [They say,] These are on a different footing, since with regard to these there is an express command. R. Huna said: The sciatic nerve of a burnt-offering must be cut away [and thrown] on to the ash-heap. Said to him R. Hisda: O master of this [teaching]! Is it written: ‘Therefore the altar shall not consume’? It is written: Therefore the children of Israel do not eat. And R. Huna? — [He maintains,] It is written: ‘From the liquor of Israel’, that is, from that which is permitted to Israel. An objection was raised from the following: The sciatic nerve of a peace-offering must be swept into the channel, that of a burnt-offering must be offered up. Presumably this means, it must be offered up and burnt! — No, it means, it must be offered up and then cut away. But if he must cut it away why is it necessary to offer it up? Because it is written: Present it now unto thy governor. There was taught a Baraitha which supports R. Huna, viz., The sciatic nerve of a peace-offering must be swept into the channel, and that of a burnt-offering must be cut away [and thrown] on to the ash-heap. We have learnt there: ‘There was an ash-heap in the middle of the altar and sometimes there were on it about three hundred kor [of ashes]’. Said Raba: It is an exaggeration. ‘They gave [the lamb which was to be] the Daily Offering to drink from a cup of gold’. Said Raba: It is an exaggeration. R. Ammi said: The Torah, the prophets, and the Sages sometimes spoke in exaggerated terms. The Sages spoke in exaggerated terms as in the cases we have just quoted. The Torah spoke in exaggerated terms as in the verse: The cities are great and fortified up to heaven. The prophets spoke in exaggerated terms as in the verse: So that the earth rent with the sound of them. R. Isaac b. Nahmani said in the name of Samuel: In three places the Sages spoke in exaggerated terms, namely, about the ash-heap, the vine, and the curtain. About the ash-heap as we have quoted above. About the vine, we have learnt: A golden vine stood at the entrance to the Temple trained over posts, and whosoever presented a leaf or a berry or a cluster would bring it and hang it thereon. R. Eleazar b. R. Zadok said: It once happened that three hundred priests were appointed to clear it. About the curtain we have learnt: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said in the name of R. Simeon the Deputy [High-priest]: The curtain was a handbreadth thick and was woven on seventy-two strands, and each strand consisted of twenty-four threads; ‘its length was forty cubits and its breadth twenty cubits, and was made up out of eighty-two myriads [of threads]. They used to make two every year; and three hundred priests were required to immerse it. TO THE RIGHT AND LEFT HIP. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Judah, for it was taught: R. Judah says: It only applies to one [hip], and reason decides in favour of the right [hip]. It was asked: Was R. Judah certain about it and by ‘reason’ he meant the reasoned interpretation of the Torah, or was he in doubt about it and by ‘reason’ he meant the probable meaning? — Come and hear: It was taught: The bones and nerves [of the Paschal lamb] and also [the flesh] that was left over must be burnt on the sixteenth day. And we argued upon it as follows: What nerves are meant? If you say, the nerves in the flesh, then why does he not eat them? And if they happened to be left over, then they came under the heading of [flesh] ‘that was left over’? And if you say, the nerves of the throat, but surely since they are not like flesh he may throw them away. And R. Hisda suggested: It can only refer to the sciatic nerve, and the Tanna adopts the view of R. Judah who said that it only applies to the one hip. Now if you say that he was in doubt about it, it is well; but if you say that he was certain about it, then he should eat the permitted one and throw away the forbidden one! — R. Ika b. Hanina said: Indeed I maintain that he was certain about it, but here we must suppose that they were first distinguished but subsequently were mixed up.27
—