חולין 101:1 — Soncino English Talmud

but R. Simeon holds that he has not incurred guilt at all’. But whatever you think is the opinion of R. Simeon [there is always a difficulty]! If he holds that one prohibition can be superimposed upon a pre-existing prohibition, then he should have incurred guilt on account of the nerve too; and if he holds that one prohibition cannot be superimposed upon a pre-existing prohibition, then he should have incurred guilt on account of uncleanness, for that came first; and if he holds that nerves do not impart a flavour, then he should have incurred guilt [at least] on account of the nerve! — Raba answered: In truth he holds that nerves do not impart a flavour, but it is different in that case for the verse says: Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerves, that is, the nerve is forbidden but the flesh permitted; this case therefore must be excluded since the nerve would be forbidden and the flesh forbidden too. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: If a person ate the sciatic nerve of a nebelah he has, according to R. Meir, incurred guilt twice; but the Sages hold that he has incurred guilt once only. The Sages, however, agree with R. Meir that if a person ate the sciatic nerve of a burnt-offering or of an ox that was condemned to be stoned he would have incurred guilt twice. Who is this authority who holds that a comprehensive prohibition alone cannot be superimposed upon an existing prohibition whereas a comprehensive prohibition which also imposes a graver penalty can? — Raba said: It is R. Jose the Galilean. For we have learnt: If a person that was unclean ate either unclean or clean consecrated food, he is liable. R. Jose the Galilean says: If a person that was unclean ate clean consecrated food he is liable, but if he ate unclean consecrated food he is not liable, for he has only eaten what was unclean. They replied to him: Even where he that was unclean ate what was clean, as soon as he touched it he has rendered it unclean! [Now it was asked thereon]: The Rabbis have surely replied well to R. Jose the Galilean? And Raba explained that where the person was rendered unclean and only later the meat was rendered unclean, all agree that he is liable, for the prohibition involving the penalty of kareth came first. They differ only where the meat was first rendered unclean and later the person became unclean. The Rabbis adopt the principle of a comprehensive prohibition, arguing thus: Since he would now be liable for [eating] any piece of [consecrated] food that was clean he is also liable for [eating] a piece that was unclean. R. Jose the Galilean does not adopt the principle of a comprehensive prohibition, for he does not accept the argument ‘since’. But according to R. Jose the Galilean, even though he holds that the comprehensive prohibition which involves only a light penalty cannot [be superimposed upon an existing prohibition], surely the comprehensive prohibition which involves a graver penalty ought to be superimposed upon the prohibition with the light penalty! And what is [the gravity] here? It is in respect of the uncleanness of the person, since it involves the penalty of kareth! — R. Ashi replied: But who shall say that it is in respect of the uncleanness of the person that the gravity lies, perhaps the gravity is in respect of the uncleanness of the meat, since it can never be rendered clean by [immersion in] a mikweh?16^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:Namely, while it was still an embryo in the womb before the formation of the nerves; v. supra n. 1.
^ᵇnote:And consequently he is not liable for eating the meat of an unclean animal.
^ᶜnote:In the case of an unclean animal.
^ᵈnote:Gen. XXXII, 33.
^ᵉnote:And this was not intended by the verse. Hence the sciatic nerve of an unclean animal is not forbidden qua nerve; neither is it forbidden as part of an unclean animal, for R. Simeon is of the opinion that nerves are tasteless and hard as wood.
^ᶠnote:For the prohibition of nebelah, which only comes into force when the animal has died, cannot be superimposed upon the already existing prohibition of the sciatic nerve, even though the later prohibition is more comprehensive than the first, in that it applies to every part of the animal.
^ᵍnote:The prohibition of a burnt-offering or of an ox condemned to be stoned (for having killed a human being, cf. Ex. XXI, 28) can be superimposed upon the existing prohibition of the sciatic nerve, for in the first place it is more comprehensive than the existing prohibition in that it applies to every part of the animal, whereas the existing prohibition applied only to the nerve, and secondly, it imposes a graver restriction, for now the sciatic nerve of the animal is forbidden for all purposes ( vtbvc ruxt) whereas before it was only forbidden to be eaten.
^ʰnote:The opinion expressed above as that of ‘the Sages’.
^ⁱnote:To the penalty of kareth (cf. Lev. VII, 20, 21) if he did so deliberately, or to bring a sin-offering if he did so inadvertently.
^ʲnote:And for eating consecrated food that was unclean there is only the penalty of stripes but not kareth.
^ᵏnote:And yet he is liable. V. Zeb. 106a.
^ˡnote:V. p. 60, n. 4.
^ᵐnote:As soon as a person has become unclean he is precluded from eating consecrated food under the penalty of kareth, and this restriction enforced by the penalty of kareth is not removed even if the consecrated meat has subsequently become unclean.
^ⁿnote:When consecrated meat is rendered unclean all are precluded from eating it under the penalty of stripes, and if subsequently a person becomes unclean he is still precluded from eating the unclean meat but now under the penalty of kareth; moreover, the restriction in his ease now is comprehensive in that he is now precluded from all consecrated food, clean as well as unclean.
^ᵒnote:Sc. the person that is unclean.
^ᵖnote:Whereas the unclean person would become clean after immersion in a ritual bath (vuen). The position therefore is that although R. Jose maintains generally that a comprehensive prohibition cannot be superimposed upon an existing prohibition there is no reason to suppose that he would hold this view in respect of a comprehensive prohibition involving a graver restriction. Thus he is in agreement with the view of ‘the Sages’ supra.