Chullin

You may even say that he did not remove it at once, but this is a case of one kind being mixed with a like kind and also with a different kind,1 and wherever one kind is mixed with a like and also with a different kind you must disregard the like kind as if it were not present, and if the different kind is more [than the forbidden substance] it will neutralize it.2 MISHNAH. IT3 APPLIES TO CLEAN ANIMALS BUT NOT TO UNCLEAN.4 R. JUDAH SAYS, EVEN TO UNCLEAN ANIMALS. R. JUDAH ARGUED, WAS NOT THE SCIATIC NERVE PROHIBITED FROM THE TIME OF THE SONS OF JACOB, AND AT THAT TIME UNCLEAN ANIMALS WERE STILL PERMITTED TO THEM?5 THEY REPLIED, THIS LAW WAS ORDAINED AT SINAI BUT WAS WRITTEN IN ITS PROPER PLACE.6 GEMARA. Is R. Judah of the opinion that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition?7 Surely it has been taught: R. Judah says: I might have thought that the carcass of an unclean bird whilst in the gullet should render clothes unclean,8 the verse therefore reads: That which dieth of itself or is not of beasts he shall not eat to defile himself therewith,9 that is to say, this10 applies only to that [carcass] which bears the prohibition of eating nebelah but not to that which does not bear the prohibition of eating nebelah but the prohibition of eating what is unclean!11 Should you, however, say that he [R. Judah] is of the opinion that nerves do not impart a flavour, so that in the case [where one ate the nerve] of an unclean animal there is only the prohibition of the nerve but not the prohibition of [eating] what is unclean;12 but are we right in assuming that R. Judah is of the opinion that nerves do not impart a flavour? Behold it has been taught: If a person ate the sciatic nerve of an unclean animal, R. Judah declares that he has incurred guilt twice;13 but R. Simeon holds that he has not incurred guilt at all?14 — In truth he [R. Judah] is of the opinion that nerves do impart a flavour, but he also holds that it [sc. the prohibition of the sciatic nerve] applies to a foetus too, so that the prohibition of the nerve and the prohibition on account of uncleanness come into force simultaneously.15 But how can you assume [that R. Judah holds] it applies to a foetus? Behold we have learnt: It16 also applies to a foetus; but R. Judah says: It does not apply to a foetus. And its fat is permitted! — That is so only with regard to a clean animal concerning which the Divine Law declares: Everything . . . in the beast ye may eat,17 but with regard to an unclean animal the prohibition of the nerve applies. But again how can you assume that both [prohibitions] come into force simultaneously? Behold we have learnt:18 By reason of uncleanness contracted from the following sources the Nazirite must shave [his head]: a corpse, an olive's bulk of [the flesh of] a corpse, [etc.] And the question was asked: If he must shave [his head] on account of an olive's bulk of a corpse, then surely he must shave [his head] on account of an entire corpse! But R. Johanan answered that it was only necessary [to mention the corpse itself] for the case of an abortion whose limbs were not yet knit together by nerves. Hence we see that the prohibition of uncleanness comes first!19 — Notwithstanding the fact that the prohibition of uncleanness comes first the prohibition of the nerve can indeed be superimposed, because this latter prohibition is binding even upon the sons of Noah.20 And this is precisely implied [in the teaching of the Mishnah]: R. JUDAH ARGUED, WAS NOT THE SCIATIC NERVE PROHIBITED FROM THE TIME OF THE SONS OF JACOB, AND AT THAT TIME UNCLEAN ANIMALS WERE STILL PERMITTED TO THEM? The [above] text [stated]: ‘If a person ate the sciatic nerve of an unclean animal, R. Judah declares that he has incurred guilt twice; as nebelah), and broth and spices (permitted substances of a different kind). pieces in the pot as being of like kind, we must nevertheless be satisfied, in order that the mixture be permitted, that the broth contains sixty times as much as the forbidden piece plus the first permitted piece, which, as we have seen, is regarded as the nebelah itself. though he would be liable on account of eating meat of an unclean animal (provided, of course, it is held that nerves are considered as meat). the patriarchal epoch there was no distinction between the clean and unclean, all were permitted. And the prohibition as it was then continued in force even subsequent to the giving of the Torah at Sinai when the distinction was made between clean and unclean beasts. of Jacob's strife with the angel (Gen. XXXII, 25ff) which provided the reason for the subsequent prohibition. imply that he who eats the nerve of an unclean animal incurs guilt on two counts, viz., for eating the sciatic nerve and for eating of an unclean animal. it renders unclean the clothes of the person who eats of it, and only while he is in the act of swallowing it. prohibition of an unclean bird tasteless and hard as wood. one is liable for the transgression of both. according to R. Judah. This verse applies only to clean beasts, i.e., those which may be eaten, but not to unclean beasts. prohibition, it can be superimposed upon the latter. And the sciatic nerve (as stated by R. Judah in the Mishnah) was forbidden to all the sons of Noah, for it was declared forbidden even before the giving of the Torah at Sinai to the sons of Jacob who at that time were deemed sons of Noah.