מהו המקרה במשנה שעליו מדובר שנוהג גיד הנשה במוקדשים? הגמרא מנסה להבין מהו המחלוקת (או האם יש מחלוקת בכלל) בין ר’ חייא בר אבא ור’ יוחנן בקשר לגיד הנשה על המזבח. הגמרא מסיימת עם דיון בשיטת ר’ יהודה שחולק על תנא קמא בעניין גיד הנשה בשני הצדדים או רק בצד אלחד – ובאיזה צד.
רוצה להקדיש לימוד?
חולין צ
אַלְמָא אִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין קָדֵים!
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.
אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין קָדֵים, אָתֵי אִיסּוּר גִּיד חָיֵיל עֲלַיְיהוּ, שֶׁכֵּן אִיסּוּרוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ.
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 32:25–33), 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.
מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּקָתָנֵי: נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה, בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל!
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).
הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
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.
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בִּטְמֵאָה, דְּאִיסּוּר לָאו, קָדָשִׁים דְּאִיסּוּר כָּרֵת – מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?
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.
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בִּמְבַכֶּרֶת עָסְקִינַן, דְּבָרֶחֶם קָדוֹשׁ.
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.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָויָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא קֳדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין, אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – אֵין אִיסּוּר גִּיד נוֹהֵג בָּהֶן. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֶחָד קָדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין וְאֶחָד קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָלִין – אִיסּוּר גִּיד נוֹהֵג בָּהֶן.
§ 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 Ḥiyya 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 Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, כָּאן – לְהַלְקוֹתוֹ, כָּאן – לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ.
Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoḥanan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies with regard to flogging one who eats it. There, Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי – כָּאן לְחׇלְצוֹ, וְכָאן לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ.
There are those who say that Rav Pappa said as follows: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoḥanan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Yoḥanan 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.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ פְּלִיגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak disagreed with Rav Pappa and said: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoḥanan 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: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9), the term “it all” serves to include the bones, and the sinews, and the horns, and the hooves among those items burned on the altar.
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פֵּרְשׁוּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״.
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: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only the flesh and the blood are offered upon the altar.
אִי בָּשָׂר וָדָם, יָכוֹל יַחְלוֹץ גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת וְיַעֲלֶה בָּשָׂר לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּרְשׁוּ, אֲפִילּוּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – יֵרְדוּ.
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: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,” 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.
וּמַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר פֵּרְשׁוּ יֵרְדוּ? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ פֵּרְשׁוּ.
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: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,” the term “it all” 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.
וְהָא, מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״? בְּפוֹקְעִין. הָא כֵּיצַד? עִיכּוּלֵי בָשָׂר – אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִיכּוּלֵי גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת.
The baraita continues: But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God” (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.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״ – רִיבָּה, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – מִיעֵט, הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּרְשׁוּ – אֲפִילּוּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ יֵרְדוּ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,” which included sinews and bones. And one verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” 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.
וְרַבָּנַן, מְחוּבָּרִין לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי, מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַרֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל עוֹלָה, כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְפֵרְשׁוּ.
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: “And Aaron’s 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” (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 “it all,” it is to include sinews and bones that became detached.
וְרַבִּי, מְחוּבָּרִין דְּהֶיתֵּירָא
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,
לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי, כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה בִּמְחוּבָּר.
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 “it all” teaches that if the sciatic nerve is attached to the flesh it is brought up to the altar.
וְרַבָּנַן, ״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
And the Rabbis would explain their opinion based upon the verse: “And 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” (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 “it all” is understood to include sinews and bones even if they have become detached from the flesh.
וְרַבִּי, מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַחֵלֶב וָדָם. וְרַבָּנַן, מִצְוָתָן בְּכָךְ שָׁאנֵי.
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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the sciatic nerve is not offered upon the altar.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל עוֹלָה חוֹלְצוֹ לַתַּפּוּחַ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מָרִי דֵּיכִי, מִי כְּתִיב ״עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״? ״עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ כְּתִיב.
§ 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 Ḥisda 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: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33).
וְרַב הוּנָא, ״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
And Rav Huna holds that the phrase: “From the well-watered pastures of Israel,” 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.
מֵיתִיבִי: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים – מְכַבְּדוֹ לָאַמָּה, וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה – מַעֲלֵהוּ. מַאי לָאו, מַעֲלֵהוּ וּמַקְטִירוֹ?
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna’s 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?
לֹא, מַעֲלֵהוּ וְחוֹלְצוֹ. וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁחוֹלְצוֹ לָמָּה מַעֲלֵהוּ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ״.
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: “Present it now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you, or will he accept your person? says the Lord of hosts” (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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים – מְכַבְּדוֹ לָאַמָּה, וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה – חוֹלְצוֹ לַתַּפּוּחַ.
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.
תְּנַן הָתָם: תַּפּוּחַ הָיָה בְּאֶמְצַע הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, פְּעָמִים הָיָה עָלָיו כִּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת כּוֹר. אָמַר רָבָא: גּוּזְמָא.
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.
הִשְׁקוּ אֶת הַתָּמִיד בְּכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב, אָמַר רָבָא: גּוּזְמָא.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי, דִּבְּרוּ נְבִיאִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי, דִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי. דִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
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.
דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי – ״עָרִים גְּדוֹלוֹת וּבְצוּרוֹת בַּשָּׁמַיִם״, דִּבְּרוּ נְבִיאִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי – ״וַתִּבָּקַע הָאָרֶץ לְקוֹלָם״.
The Torah spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written: “Hear, 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” (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: “And 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” (I Kings 1:40), where the verse means merely that the sound was very loud.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת דִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי, אֵלּוּ הֵן: תַּפּוּחַ, גֶּפֶן, וּפָרוֹכֶת. תַּפּוּחַ – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani 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.
גֶּפֶן – דִּתְנַן: גֶּפֶן שֶׁל זָהָב הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת עַל פִּתְחוֹ שֶׁל הֵיכָל, מוּדְלָה עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלוֹנְסוֹת, וְכׇל מִי שֶׁהָיָה מִתְנַדֵּב גַּרְגֵּיר אוֹ אֶשְׁכּוֹל – מֵבִיא וְתוֹלֶה בָּהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק: מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה, וְנִמְנוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת כֹּהֲנִים לְפַנּוֹתָהּ.
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.
פָּרוֹכֶת, דִּתְנַן: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַסְּגָן – פָּרוֹכֶת עוֹבְיָהּ טֶפַח, וְעַל שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם נִירִים נֶאֱרֶגֶת, וְעַל כׇּל נִימָה וְנִימָה עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חוּטִין. אׇרְכָּהּ אַרְבָּעִים בָּאַמָּה, וְרׇחְבָּהּ עֶשְׂרִים בְּאַמָּה, וּמִשְּׁמוֹנִים וּשְׁתֵּי רִבּוֹא נַעֲשֵׂת, וּשְׁתַּיִם עוֹשִׂים בְּשָׁנָה, ושְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת כֹּהֲנִים מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ.
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 [tefaḥ]. 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.
בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. מַתְנִיתִין לָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת, וְהַדַּעַת מַכְרַעַת אֶת שֶׁל יָמִין.
§ 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’s thighs, and logic dictates that it is the right thigh.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּמַאי דַּעַת? דַּעַת תּוֹרָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, וּמַאי דַּעַת? דַּעַת נוֹטָה.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַנּוֹתָר יִשָּׂרְפוּ לְשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: הָנֵי גִּידֵי מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיְיהוּ? אִי גִּידֵי בָשָׂר – לֵיכְלִינְהוּ, וְאִי דְּאִיַּיתּוּר – הַיְינוּ נוֹתָר! אֶלָּא גִּידֵי צַוָּאר, אִי לָאו בָּשָׂר נִינְהוּ – לִישְׁדִּינְהוּ?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution based upon the following mishna (Pesaḥim 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.
וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת.
And Rav Ḥisda said: The mishna’s 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’s thighs, and not to both.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּהֶיתֵּירָא – לֵיכְלֵיהּ, דְּאִיסּוּרָא – לִשְׁדְּיֵיהּ!
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.
אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁהוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ.
The Gemara responds: Rav Ika bar Ḥanina 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.
לעקוב 
חדשה בלימוד הגמרא?
זה הדף הראשון שלך? איזו התרגשות עצומה! יש לנו בדיוק את התכנים והכלים שיעזרו לך לעשות את הצעדים הראשונים ללמידה בקצב וברמה שלך, כך תוכלי להרגיש בנוח גם בתוך הסוגיות המורכבות ומאתגרות.
פסיפס הלומדות שלנו
גלי את קהילת הלומדות שלנו, מגוון נשים, רקעים וסיפורים. כולן חלק מתנועה ומסע מרגש ועוצמתי.
אמא שלי למדה איתי ש”ס משנה, והתחילה ללמוד דף יומי. אני החלטתי שאני רוצה ללמוד גם. בהתחלה למדתי איתה, אח”כ הצטרפתי ללימוד דף יומי שהרב דני וינט מעביר לנוער בנים בעתניאל. במסכת עירובין עוד חברה הצטרפה אלי וכשהתחלנו פסחים הרב דני פתח לנו שעור דף יומי לבנות. מאז אנחנו לומדות איתו קבוע כל יום את הדף היומי (ובשבת אבא שלי מחליף אותו). אני נהנית מהלימוד, הוא מאתגר ומעניין
רננה הלמן
עתניאל, ישראל
התחלתי בסיום הש”ס, יצאתי באורות. נשברתי פעמיים, ובשתיהם הרבנית מישל עודדה להמשיך איפה שכולם בסבב ולהשלים כשאוכל, וכך עשיתי וכיום השלמתי הכל. מדהים אותי שאני לומדת כל יום קצת, אפילו בחדר הלידה, בבידוד או בחו”ל. לאט לאט יותר נינוחה בסוגיות. לא כולם מבינים את הרצון, בפרט כפמניסטית. חשה סיפוק גדול להכיר את המושגים וצורת החשיבה. החלום זה להמשיך ולהתמיד ובמקביל ללמוד איך מהסוגיות נוצרה והתפתחה ההלכה.
קרן וינגרטן שרינגטון
מודיעין, ישראל
הצטרפתי ללומדות בתחילת מסכת תענית. ההתרגשות שלי ושל המשפחה היתה גדולה מאוד, והיא הולכת וגוברת עם כל סיום שאני זוכה לו. במשך שנים רבות רציתי להצטרף ומשום מה זה לא קרה… ב”ה מצאתי לפני מספר חודשים פרסום של הדרן, ומיד הצטרפתי והתאהבתי. הדף היומי שינה את חיי ממש והפך כל יום- ליום של תורה. מודה לכן מקרב ליבי ומאחלת לכולנו לימוד פורה מתוך אהבת התורה ולומדיה.
נעה רוזן
חיספין רמת הגולן, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד גמרא בבית הספר בגיל צעיר והתאהבתי. המשכתי בכך כל חיי ואף היייתי מורה לגמרא בבית הספר שקד בשדה אליהו (בית הספר בו למדתי בילדותי)בתחילת מחזור דף יומי הנוכחי החלטתי להצטרף ובע”ה מקווה להתמיד ולהמשיך. אני אוהבת את המפגש עם הדף את "דרישות השלום ” שמקבלת מקשרים עם דפים אחרים שלמדתי את הסנכרון שמתחולל בין התכנים.
אריאלה ביגמן
מעלה גלבוע, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד בשנת המדרשה במגדל עוז, בינתיים נהנית מאוד מהלימוד ומהגמרא, מעניין ומשמח מאוד!
משתדלת להצליח לעקוב כל יום, לפעמים משלימה קצת בהמשך השבוע.. מרגישה שיש עוגן מקובע ביום שלי והוא משמח מאוד!
אוריה קסנר
חיפה , ישראל
התחלתי מחוג במסכת קידושין שהעבירה הרבנית רייסנר במסגרת בית המדרש כלנה בגבעת שמואל; לאחר מכן התחיל סבב הדף היומי אז הצטרפתי. לסביבה לקח זמן לעכל אבל היום כולם תומכים ומשתתפים איתי. הלימוד לעתים מעניין ומעשיר ולעתים קשה ואף הזוי… אך אני ממשיכה קדימה. הוא משפיע על היומיום שלי קודם כל במרדף אחרי הדף, וגם במושגים הרבים שלמדתי ובידע שהועשרתי בו, חלקו ממש מעשי
אביגיל כריסי
ראש העין, ישראל
לפני 15 שנה, אחרי עשרות שנים של "ג’ינגול” בין משפחה לקריירה תובענית בהייטק, הצטרפתי לשיעורי גמרא במתן רעננה. הלימוד המעמיק והייחודי של הרבנית אושרה קורן יחד עם קבוצת הנשים המגוונת הייתה חוויה מאלפת ומעשירה. לפני כשמונה שנים כאשר מחזור הדף היומי הגיע למסכת תענית הצטרפתי כ”חברותא” לבעלי. זו השעה היומית שלנו ביחד כאשר דפי הגמרא משתלבים בחיי היום יום, משפיעים ומושפעים, וכשלא מספיקים תמיד משלימים בשבת
יודי אסקוף
רעננה, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד את הדף היומי מעט אחרי שבני הקטן נולד. בהתחלה בשמיעה ולימוד באמצעות השיעור של הרבנית שפרבר. ובהמשך העזתי וקניתי לעצמי גמרא. מאז ממשיכה יום יום ללמוד עצמאית, ולפעמים בעזרת השיעור של הרבנית, כל יום. כל סיום של מסכת מביא לאושר גדול וסיפוק. הילדים בבית נהיו חלק מהלימוד, אני משתפת בסוגיות מעניינות ונהנית לשמוע את דעתם.
אלירז בלאו
מעלה מכמש, ישראל
שמעתי על הסיום הענק של הדף היומי ע”י נשים בבנייני האומה. רציתי גם.
החלטתי להצטרף. התחלתי ושיכנעתי את בעלי ועוד שתי חברות להצטרף. עכשיו יש לי לימוד משותף איתו בשבת ומפגש חודשי איתן בנושא (והתכתבויות תדירות על דברים מיוחדים שקראנו). הצטרפנו לקבוצות שונות בווטסאפ. אנחנו ממש נהנות. אני שומעת את השיעור מידי יום (בד”כ מהרב יוני גוטמן) וקוראת ומצטרפת לסיומים של הדרן. גם מקפידה על דף משלהן (ונהנית מאד).
ליאת סיטרון
אפרת, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי אחרי שחזרתי בתשובה ולמדתי במדרשה במגדל עוז. הלימוד טוב ומספק חומר למחשבה על נושאים הלכתיים ”קטנים” ועד לערכים גדולים ביהדות. חשוב לי להכיר את הגמרא לעומק. והצעד הקטן היום הוא ללמוד אותה בבקיאות, בעזרת השם, ומי יודע אולי גם אגיע לעיון בנושאים מעניינים. נושאים בגמרא מתחברים לחגים, לתפילה, ליחסים שבין אדם לחברו ולמקום ולשאר הדברים שמלווים באורח חיים דתי 🙂
גאיה דיבו
מצפה יריחו, ישראל
הצטרפתי ללומדות בתחילת מסכת תענית. ההתרגשות שלי ושל המשפחה היתה גדולה מאוד, והיא הולכת וגוברת עם כל סיום שאני זוכה לו. במשך שנים רבות רציתי להצטרף ומשום מה זה לא קרה… ב”ה מצאתי לפני מספר חודשים פרסום של הדרן, ומיד הצטרפתי והתאהבתי. הדף היומי שינה את חיי ממש והפך כל יום- ליום של תורה. מודה לכן מקרב ליבי ומאחלת לכולנו לימוד פורה מתוך אהבת התורה ולומדיה.
נעה רוזן
חיספין רמת הגולן, ישראל
כבר סיפרתי בסיום של מועד קטן.
הלימוד מאוד משפיעה על היום שלי כי אני לומדת עם רבנית מישל על הבוקר בזום. זה נותן טון לכל היום – בסיס למחשבות שלי .זה זכות גדול להתחיל את היום בלימוד ובתפילה. תודה רבה !
שרה ברלוביץ
ירושלים, ישראל
אני לומדת גמרא כעשור במסגרות שונות, ואת הדף היומי התחלתי כשחברה הציעה שאצטרף אליה לסיום בבנייני האומה. מאז אני לומדת עם פודקסט הדרן, משתדלת באופן יומי אך אם לא מספיקה, מדביקה פערים עד ערב שבת. בסבב הזה הלימוד הוא "ממעוף הציפור”, מקשיבה במהירות מוגברת תוך כדי פעילויות כמו בישול או נהיגה, וכך רוכשת היכרות עם הסוגיות ואופן ניתוחם על ידי חז”ל. בע”ה בסבב הבא, ואולי לפני, אצלול לתוכו באופן מעמיק יותר.
יעל ביר
רמת גן, ישראל
. לא תמיד נהניתי מלימוד גמרא כילדה.,בל כהתבגרתי התחלתי לאהוב את זה שוב. התחלתי ללמוד מסכת סוטה בדף היומי לפני כחמש עשרה שנה ואז הפסקתי.הגעתי לסיום הגדול של הדרן לפני שנתיים וזה נתן לי השראה. והתחלתי ללמוד למשך כמה ימים ואז היתה לי פריצת דיסק והפסקתי…עד אלול השנה. אז התחלתי עם מסכת ביצה וב”ה אני מצליחה לעמוד בקצב. המשפחה מאוד תומכת בי ויש כמה שגם לומדים את זה במקביל. אני אוהבת שיש עוגן כל יום.
רבקה דרשן
בית שמש, ישראל
אמא שלי למדה איתי ש”ס משנה, והתחילה ללמוד דף יומי. אני החלטתי שאני רוצה ללמוד גם. בהתחלה למדתי איתה, אח”כ הצטרפתי ללימוד דף יומי שהרב דני וינט מעביר לנוער בנים בעתניאל. במסכת עירובין עוד חברה הצטרפה אלי וכשהתחלנו פסחים הרב דני פתח לנו שעור דף יומי לבנות. מאז אנחנו לומדות איתו קבוע כל יום את הדף היומי (ובשבת אבא שלי מחליף אותו). אני נהנית מהלימוד, הוא מאתגר ומעניין
רננה הלמן
עתניאל, ישראל
אחרי שראיתי את הסיום הנשי של הדף היומי בבנייני האומה זה ריגש אותי ועורר בי את הרצון להצטרף. לא למדתי גמרא קודם לכן בכלל, אז הכל היה לי חדש, ולכן אני לומדת בעיקר מהשיעורים פה בהדרן, בשוטנשטיין או בחוברות ושיננתם.
רבקה שלוס
בית שמש, ישראל
My explorations into Gemara started a few days into the present cycle. I binged learnt and become addicted. I’m fascinated by the rich "tapestry” of intertwined themes, connections between Masechtot, conversations between generations of Rabbanim and learners past and present all over the world. My life has acquired a golden thread, linking generations with our amazing heritage.
Thank you.
סוזן כשדן
חשמונאים, Israel
סיום השס לנשים נתן לי מוטביציה להתחיל ללמוד דף יומי. עד אז למדתי גמרא בשבתות ועשיתי כמה סיומים. אבל לימוד יומיומי זה שונה לגמרי ופתאום כל דבר שקורה בחיים מתקשר לדף היומי.
קרן פוגל
רתמים, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד גמרא בבית הספר בגיל צעיר והתאהבתי. המשכתי בכך כל חיי ואף היייתי מורה לגמרא בבית הספר שקד בשדה אליהו (בית הספר בו למדתי בילדותי)בתחילת מחזור דף יומי הנוכחי החלטתי להצטרף ובע”ה מקווה להתמיד ולהמשיך. אני אוהבת את המפגש עם הדף את "דרישות השלום ” שמקבלת מקשרים עם דפים אחרים שלמדתי את הסנכרון שמתחולל בין התכנים.
אריאלה ביגמן
מעלה גלבוע, ישראל
התחלתי ללמוד דף יומי לפני שנתיים, עם מסכת שבת. בהתחלה ההתמדה היתה קשה אבל בזכות הקורונה והסגרים הצלחתי להדביק את הפערים בשבתות הארוכות, לסיים את מסכת שבת ולהמשיך עם המסכתות הבאות. עכשיו אני מסיימת בהתרגשות רבה את מסכת חגיגה וסדר מועד ומחכה לסדר הבא!
אילנה שכנוביץ
מודיעין, ישראל
חולין צ
אַלְמָא אִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין קָדֵים!
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.
אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין קָדֵים, אָתֵי אִיסּוּר גִּיד חָיֵיל עֲלַיְיהוּ, שֶׁכֵּן אִיסּוּרוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ.
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 32:25–33), 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.
מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּקָתָנֵי: נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה, בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל!
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).
הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
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.
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בִּטְמֵאָה, דְּאִיסּוּר לָאו, קָדָשִׁים דְּאִיסּוּר כָּרֵת – מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?
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.
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בִּמְבַכֶּרֶת עָסְקִינַן, דְּבָרֶחֶם קָדוֹשׁ.
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.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָויָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא קֳדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין, אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין – אֵין אִיסּוּר גִּיד נוֹהֵג בָּהֶן. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֶחָד קָדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין וְאֶחָד קָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָלִין – אִיסּוּר גִּיד נוֹהֵג בָּהֶן.
§ 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 Ḥiyya 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 Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, כָּאן – לְהַלְקוֹתוֹ, כָּאן – לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ.
Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoḥanan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies with regard to flogging one who eats it. There, Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי – כָּאן לְחׇלְצוֹ, וְכָאן לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ.
There are those who say that Rav Pappa said as follows: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoḥanan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Yoḥanan 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.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ פְּלִיגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak disagreed with Rav Pappa and said: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yoḥanan 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: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9), the term “it all” serves to include the bones, and the sinews, and the horns, and the hooves among those items burned on the altar.
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פֵּרְשׁוּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״.
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: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only the flesh and the blood are offered upon the altar.
אִי בָּשָׂר וָדָם, יָכוֹל יַחְלוֹץ גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת וְיַעֲלֶה בָּשָׂר לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּרְשׁוּ, אֲפִילּוּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – יֵרְדוּ.
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: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,” 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.
וּמַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר פֵּרְשׁוּ יֵרְדוּ? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ פֵּרְשׁוּ.
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: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,” the term “it all” 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.
וְהָא, מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״? בְּפוֹקְעִין. הָא כֵּיצַד? עִיכּוּלֵי בָשָׂר – אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִיכּוּלֵי גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת.
The baraita continues: But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God” (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.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״ – רִיבָּה, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – מִיעֵט, הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּרְשׁוּ – אֲפִילּוּ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ יֵרְדוּ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: “And the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar,” which included sinews and bones. And one verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” 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.
וְרַבָּנַן, מְחוּבָּרִין לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי, מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַרֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל עוֹלָה, כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְפֵרְשׁוּ.
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: “And Aaron’s 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” (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 “it all,” it is to include sinews and bones that became detached.
וְרַבִּי, מְחוּבָּרִין דְּהֶיתֵּירָא
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,
לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי, כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה בִּמְחוּבָּר.
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 “it all” teaches that if the sciatic nerve is attached to the flesh it is brought up to the altar.
וְרַבָּנַן, ״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
And the Rabbis would explain their opinion based upon the verse: “And 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” (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 “it all” is understood to include sinews and bones even if they have become detached from the flesh.
וְרַבִּי, מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַחֵלֶב וָדָם. וְרַבָּנַן, מִצְוָתָן בְּכָךְ שָׁאנֵי.
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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, Rabbi Ḥiyya 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 Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the sciatic nerve is not offered upon the altar.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל עוֹלָה חוֹלְצוֹ לַתַּפּוּחַ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מָרִי דֵּיכִי, מִי כְּתִיב ״עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״? ״עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ כְּתִיב.
§ 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 Ḥisda 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: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33).
וְרַב הוּנָא, ״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
And Rav Huna holds that the phrase: “From the well-watered pastures of Israel,” 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.
מֵיתִיבִי: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים – מְכַבְּדוֹ לָאַמָּה, וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה – מַעֲלֵהוּ. מַאי לָאו, מַעֲלֵהוּ וּמַקְטִירוֹ?
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna’s 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?
לֹא, מַעֲלֵהוּ וְחוֹלְצוֹ. וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁחוֹלְצוֹ לָמָּה מַעֲלֵהוּ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ״.
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: “Present it now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you, or will he accept your person? says the Lord of hosts” (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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים – מְכַבְּדוֹ לָאַמָּה, וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה – חוֹלְצוֹ לַתַּפּוּחַ.
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.
תְּנַן הָתָם: תַּפּוּחַ הָיָה בְּאֶמְצַע הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, פְּעָמִים הָיָה עָלָיו כִּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת כּוֹר. אָמַר רָבָא: גּוּזְמָא.
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.
הִשְׁקוּ אֶת הַתָּמִיד בְּכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב, אָמַר רָבָא: גּוּזְמָא.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי, דִּבְּרוּ נְבִיאִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי, דִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי. דִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
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.
דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי – ״עָרִים גְּדוֹלוֹת וּבְצוּרוֹת בַּשָּׁמַיִם״, דִּבְּרוּ נְבִיאִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי – ״וַתִּבָּקַע הָאָרֶץ לְקוֹלָם״.
The Torah spoke employing exaggerated language, as it is written: “Hear, 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” (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: “And 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” (I Kings 1:40), where the verse means merely that the sound was very loud.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת דִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי, אֵלּוּ הֵן: תַּפּוּחַ, גֶּפֶן, וּפָרוֹכֶת. תַּפּוּחַ – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani 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.
גֶּפֶן – דִּתְנַן: גֶּפֶן שֶׁל זָהָב הָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת עַל פִּתְחוֹ שֶׁל הֵיכָל, מוּדְלָה עַל גַּבֵּי כְּלוֹנְסוֹת, וְכׇל מִי שֶׁהָיָה מִתְנַדֵּב גַּרְגֵּיר אוֹ אֶשְׁכּוֹל – מֵבִיא וְתוֹלֶה בָּהּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק: מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה, וְנִמְנוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת כֹּהֲנִים לְפַנּוֹתָהּ.
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.
פָּרוֹכֶת, דִּתְנַן: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַסְּגָן – פָּרוֹכֶת עוֹבְיָהּ טֶפַח, וְעַל שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם נִירִים נֶאֱרֶגֶת, וְעַל כׇּל נִימָה וְנִימָה עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חוּטִין. אׇרְכָּהּ אַרְבָּעִים בָּאַמָּה, וְרׇחְבָּהּ עֶשְׂרִים בְּאַמָּה, וּמִשְּׁמוֹנִים וּשְׁתֵּי רִבּוֹא נַעֲשֵׂת, וּשְׁתַּיִם עוֹשִׂים בְּשָׁנָה, ושְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת כֹּהֲנִים מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ.
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 [tefaḥ]. 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.
בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. מַתְנִיתִין לָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת, וְהַדַּעַת מַכְרַעַת אֶת שֶׁל יָמִין.
§ 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’s thighs, and logic dictates that it is the right thigh.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּמַאי דַּעַת? דַּעַת תּוֹרָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, וּמַאי דַּעַת? דַּעַת נוֹטָה.
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.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַנּוֹתָר יִשָּׂרְפוּ לְשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר. וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: הָנֵי גִּידֵי מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיְיהוּ? אִי גִּידֵי בָשָׂר – לֵיכְלִינְהוּ, וְאִי דְּאִיַּיתּוּר – הַיְינוּ נוֹתָר! אֶלָּא גִּידֵי צַוָּאר, אִי לָאו בָּשָׂר נִינְהוּ – לִישְׁדִּינְהוּ?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution based upon the following mishna (Pesaḥim 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.
וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת.
And Rav Ḥisda said: The mishna’s 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’s thighs, and not to both.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּהֶיתֵּירָא – לֵיכְלֵיהּ, דְּאִיסּוּרָא – לִשְׁדְּיֵיהּ!
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.
אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁהוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ.
The Gemara responds: Rav Ika bar Ḥanina 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.
לעקוב
