Chullin Daf 90 (חולין דף צ׳)
Daf: 90 | Amudim: 90a – 90b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (90a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא (המשך מדף פט:)
The conclusion of the Nazir proof: the consecration prohibition precedes the gid prohibition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַלְמָא אִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין קָדֵים!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This clinches the challenge carried over from 89b. Rabbi Yochanan’s teaching about the nefel whose limbs were not yet bound by sinews proves that a fetus’s body forms before its gidin do. If so, in offspring of consecrated animals the issur mukdashin (present from the womb) precedes the issur gid (which arrives only when the sinews form) — and the earlier prohibition should block the later one from taking effect. The ‘simultaneous arrival’ defense of the mishna collapses.
Key Terms:
- אַלְמָא (alma) = ‘evidently’ — the formula drawing the conclusion from a cited proof
- אִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין קָדֵים (issur mukdashin kadim) = the consecration prohibition comes first — undermining the simultaneity answer
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
The gid prohibition takes effect anyway, because it is broader — it applies even to descendants of Noach
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיסּוּר מוּקְדָּשִׁין קָדֵים, אָתֵי אִיסּוּר גִּיד חָיֵיל עֲלַיְיהוּ, שֶׁכֵּן אִיסּוּרוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rescues the mishna with the principle of issur mosif (or here, issur kollel in scope): a later prohibition can land atop an earlier one if it is broader in some dimension. The gid prohibition dates from Yaakov’s struggle with the angel (Bereishit 32:25-33), before Sinai, when Yaakov’s household had the status of bnei Noach — so it binds even descendants of Noach, a reach the consecration prohibition lacks. That extra breadth lets it take hold even on already-consecrated flesh.
Key Terms:
- נוֹהֵג בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ (noheg bivnei Noach) = ‘applies to descendants of Noach’ — the gid prohibition predates Sinai
- אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר (issur chal al issur) = a broader prohibition can take effect atop an existing one
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
That reasoning is Rabbi Yehuda’s — but our mishna contradicts Rabbi Yehuda on both thighs!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְהָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּקָתָנֵי: נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה, בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל!
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies the fingerprint: the view that the gid prohibition applies to bnei Noach is Rabbi Yehuda’s, taught in the mishna on 100b. But our mishna cannot simply be Rabbi Yehuda, for it rules that the prohibition covers both the right and left thighs, while Rabbi Yehuda (cited later on this very daf) restricts it to one thigh. The attribution seems internally inconsistent.
Key Terms:
- מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ (man sham’at leih) = ‘whom did you hear say this?’ — tracing an anonymous position to its author
- דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה (d’la k’Rabbi Yehuda) = ‘not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’ — the clash with the both-thighs ruling
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
The tanna agrees with Rabbi Yehuda in one point and disputes him in the other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is a familiar tannaitic pattern: our tanna adopts Rabbi Yehuda’s view that the gid prohibition binds bnei Noach (giving it the breadth to land atop consecration), yet parts company on the thigh question, holding it applies to both legs. A mishna need not swallow a colleague’s position whole; it may hold like him in one halacha and against him in another (savar lah k’vateih b’chada u’palig aleih b’chada).
Key Terms:
- סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא (savar lah k’vateih b’chada) = ‘holds like him in one matter’ — partial alignment between tannaim
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Rabbi Yehuda’s breadth argument is known for a lav — but kodashim is a karet prohibition!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בִּטְמֵאָה, דְּאִיסּוּר לָאו, קָדָשִׁים דְּאִיסּוּר כָּרֵת – מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara sharpens the objection: where do we find Rabbi Yehuda invoking the bnei-Noach breadth? Regarding a non-kosher animal, whose prohibition is an ordinary lav punishable by lashes; there the broader gid prohibition can plausibly add itself. But the flesh of kodashim eaten in impurity carries karet — a far weightier prohibition. There is no evidence Rabbi Yehuda would let the gid prohibition climb atop a karet-level issur. The answer is rejected.
Key Terms:
- אִיסּוּר לָאו (issur lav) = a standard negative prohibition, punishable by lashes
- כָּרֵת (karet) = excision — the severe penalty attached to sacrificial-meat violations
- אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ (eimar d’sham’at leih) = ‘say you heard him only in case X’ — limiting a cited precedent to its context
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
The mishna speaks of a firstborn-bearing animal, sanctified only at the womb’s exit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, הָכָא בִּמְבַכֶּרֶת עָסְקִינַן, דְּבָרֶחֶם קָדוֹשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new setting: the mishna’s mukdashin clause concerns a mevakeret, a non-sacred animal delivering its firstborn. Bechor sanctity attaches barechem kadosh — as the animal leaves the womb — whereas the gid formed weeks earlier in utero. Here the gid prohibition genuinely precedes the consecration, so it needs no special license to coexist with it; the mishna teaches that such an animal’s gid remains forbidden despite its bechor status.
Key Terms:
- מְבַכֶּרֶת (mevakeret) = an animal giving birth to its firstborn
- בְּכוֹר (bechor) = a firstborn male animal, automatically sanctified
- דְּבָרֶחֶם קָדוֹשׁ (d’varechem kadosh) = sanctified at the womb — bechor sanctity begins only at emergence
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ נוסף
Alternatively: offspring of consecrated animals are sanctified only at birth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָויָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative resolution: the mishna can even concern ordinary veldot kodashim, if this tanna holds bahavayatan hen kedoshim — offspring become holy only when they come into existence as born creatures, not in the womb. On that view the gid prohibition (formed in utero) precedes the consecration (at birth), or on the view that the gid of a fetus is permitted, the two arrive together at birth. Either way the mishna’s ruling stands without invoking Rabbi Yehuda’s bnei-Noach breadth.
Key Terms:
- בַּהֲוָויָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים (bahavayatan hen kedoshim) = ‘sanctified at their coming-into-being’ — consecration attaches at birth, not in the womb
- אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא (i ba’it eima) = ‘if you wish, say instead’ — an alternative resolution
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Does the gid prohibition apply to offerings that are not eaten? Rabbi Chiyya bar Yosef vs. Rabbi Yochanan
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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 Hiyya 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 Yohanan 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns from the mishna’s derivation to its scope within kodashim. Rabbi Chiyya bar Yosef limits the gid prohibition to offerings that are eaten (chatat, asham, shelamim); for offerings wholly consumed on the altar, like the olah, it does not apply. Rabbi Yochanan applies it to both. The coming segments will spend considerable effort determining what, precisely, is at stake between them.
Key Terms:
- קֳדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין (kodashim hane’echalin) = offerings whose meat is eaten — sin, guilt, and peace offerings
- עוֹלָה (olah) = the burnt offering, entirely consumed on the altar
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ (רב פפא)
Rav Pappa: no dispute — one speaks of lashes, the other of bringing to the altar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, כָּאן – לְהַלְקוֹתוֹ, כָּאן – לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yohanan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi Yohanan says that the prohibition of the sciatic nerve applies with regard to flogging one who eats it. There, Rabbi Hiyya 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa harmonizes: the two Amoraim address different questions. Rabbi Yochanan speaks l’halkoto — one who eats the gid even of an olah is flogged, for the eating prohibition applies everywhere. Rabbi Chiyya bar Yosef speaks l’ha’aloto — regarding bringing the animal up to the altar, the gid prohibition imposes no bar: the olah ascends whole, gid included, since burning is not eating.
Key Terms:
- לְהַלְקוֹתוֹ (l’halkoto) = with regard to flogging one who eats it
- לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ (l’ha’aloto) = with regard to bringing it up to the altar
Segment 10
TYPE: איכא דאמרי
A second version of Rav Pappa: one speaks of removal, the other of offering it separately
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְלָא פְּלִיגִי – כָּאן לְחׇלְצוֹ, וְכָאן לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ.
English Translation:
There are those who say that Rav Pappa said as follows: Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yohanan do not disagree; they are merely referring to different cases. Here, Rabbi Hiyya 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 Yohanan 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternate transmission refines the harmony: Rabbi Chiyya bar Yosef means l’chaltzo — there is no obligation to excise the gid before burning an olah; Rabbi Yochanan means l’ha’aloto — if the gid was removed, one may not bring it up to the altar on its own. The two versions of Rav Pappa differ subtly over what each Amora concedes, setting up Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s dissent.
Key Terms:
- לְחׇלְצוֹ (l’chaltzo) = to remove/excise it — whether the gid must be taken out before burning
- אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי (ika d’amri) = ‘some say’ — an alternate version of an Amora’s statement
Segment 11
TYPE: רב נחמן בר יצחק (וברייתא)
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: they genuinely dispute bringing it up; the baraita on ‘it all’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ פְּלִיגִי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם.
English Translation:
Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak disagreed with Rav Pappa and said: Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef and Rabbi Yohanan 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects the harmonizations: the Amoraim genuinely dispute whether the attached gid ascends with the thigh. He grounds the question in a baraita on ‘v’hiktir hakohen et hakol hamizbecha’ — ‘the priest shall make it all smoke on the altar’ (Vayikra 1:9): ‘it all’ includes the bones, the sinews, the horns, and the hooves in the burning. The baraita’s own dialectic, unfolding over the next segments, will supply the tannaitic backbone for the amoraic dispute.
Key Terms:
- וְהִקְטִיר… אֶת הַכֹּל (v’hiktir et hakol) = ‘shall make it all smoke’ (Vayikra 1:9) — the inclusive term for burning the whole olah
- קְרָנַיִם וּטְלָפַיִם (kernayim u’tlafayim) = horns and hooves — included in ‘it all’
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Perhaps even detached parts are burned? ‘The flesh and the blood’ excludes them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פֵּרְשׁוּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita tests the reach of ‘it all’: one might think bones and sinews are burned even if they became detached from the flesh. The verse ‘and you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood’ (Devarim 12:27) pulls in the other direction — only flesh and blood belong on the altar. The two verses now stand in tension, awaiting reconciliation.
Key Terms:
- פֵּרְשׁוּ (pareshu) = ‘they became detached’ — separated from the flesh of the offering
- הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם (habasar v’hadam) = ‘the flesh and the blood’ (Devarim 12:27) — the restrictive verse
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
The reconciliation: attached parts ascend; detached parts descend even from atop the altar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita completes its dialectic: if only flesh and blood are offered, perhaps the priest must strip out sinews and bones before burning? ‘It all’ forbids that dismemberment. The resolution assigns each verse its domain: mechubarin ya’alu — attached parts ascend with the flesh; pareshu yerdu — detached parts descend, even if already carried to the top of the altar. The offering ascends as an organic whole or not at all.
Key Terms:
- מְחוּבָּרִין יַעֲלוּ (mechubarin ya’alu) = ‘attached — they ascend’ — parts joined to the flesh are burned with it
- פֵּרְשׁוּ יֵרְדוּ (pareshu yerdu) = ‘detached — they descend’ — even from atop the altar
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא (זיהוי התנא)
Who holds ‘detached parts descend’? It is Rabbi — as shown by the opposing baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר פֵּרְשׁוּ יֵרְדוּ? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ פֵּרְשׁוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks whose voice spoke that resolution and answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The proof is a second baraita in which the first tanna expounds ‘it all’ to include bones, sinews, horns, and hooves even if they became detached — the very position our first baraita rejected. Against that tanna, Rabbi will articulate the attached/detached distinction; the coming segments lay out both sides.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי (Rabbi) = Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, redactor of the Mishna
- וַאֲפִילּוּ פֵּרְשׁוּ (va’afilu pareshu) = ‘and even if detached’ — the opposing tanna’s expansive reading of ‘it all’
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
The Rabbis’ reading of ‘the flesh and the blood’: dislodged flesh is returned, dislodged sinews are not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא, מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״? בְּפוֹקְעִין. הָא כֵּיצַד? עִיכּוּלֵי בָשָׂר – אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִיכּוּלֵי גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The expansive tanna must now accommodate the restrictive verse. He assigns ‘the flesh and the blood’ to pokin — parts dislodged from the altar fire: partially consumed flesh that falls off is returned to the flames, but partially consumed sinews and bones are not. On this view the restrictive verse governs only the returning of fallen pieces, leaving ‘it all’ free to include even detached parts in the initial burning.
Key Terms:
- פּוֹקְעִין (pokin) = parts that spring or fall off the altar fire
- עִיכּוּלֵי גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת (ikkulei gidim va’atzamot) = partially consumed sinews and bones — not returned to the fire
Segment 16
TYPE: שיטת רבי
Rabbi: one verse included, one excluded — attached ascend, detached descend
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi’s position is now stated in his own name: ‘it all’ is a ribui (inclusion), ‘the flesh and the blood’ a miut (exclusion), and the reconciliation is structural — attached parts ascend, detached parts descend even from the altar’s top. This is precisely the resolution of the first baraita, confirming the Gemara’s identification of its author. The stage is set to probe what drives each side.
Key Terms:
- רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט (ribah u’miet) = one verse included, one excluded — the interpretive tension Rabbi resolves
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא (ביאור הרבנן)
The Rabbis: no verse is needed for attached parts — as with the head of the olah; the verse addresses detached ones
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, מְחוּבָּרִין לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי, מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַרֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל עוֹלָה, כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְפֵרְשׁוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the expansive tanna: attached sinews and bones need no scriptural inclusion, for the burnt offering’s head — full of bone — is expressly laid on the fire (Vayikra 1:8); obviously the offering burns whole. The inclusive ‘it all’ must therefore be teaching the non-obvious case: parts that became detached. Hence their reading — even detached parts are burned.
Key Terms:
- מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַרֹאשָׁהּ שֶׁל עוֹלָה (midi d’have arosha shel olah) = ‘just as with the head of the olah’ — attached bone ascends without any special verse
- כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא (ki itztrich kera) = ‘when the verse was needed’ — a verse teaches only the non-obvious case
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא (נמשך לדף צ:)
And Rabbi: attached parts that are permitted need no verse — the sentence completes on amud bet
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי, מְחוּבָּרִין דְּהֶיתֵּירָא
English Translation:
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,
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi’s counter-account begins: attached parts that are heteira — permitted for consumption, like ordinary sinews and bones — indeed need no verse; the amud breaks mid-thought, and 90b will complete it: the verse is needed for the gid hanasheh while attached, the one attached part that is forbidden to eat. ‘It all’ thus teaches that even the forbidden gid ascends with the whole thigh.
Key Terms:
- מְחוּבָּרִין דְּהֶיתֵּירָא (mechubarin d’heteira) = attached parts that are permitted to eat — needing no scriptural inclusion
Amud Bet (90b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא (המשך מדף צ.)
Completion: the verse is needed for the attached gid hanasheh — it ascends with the thigh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי, כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה בִּמְחוּבָּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence begun on 90a concludes: for Rabbi, permitted attached parts need no inclusion; the verse ‘it all’ comes for the gid hanasheh in its attached state. Though forbidden to eat, the gid ascends and burns as part of the whole thigh. Rabbi thus reads the inclusion as licensing one forbidden item on the altar — exactly the point the Rabbis will resist with mimashkeh Yisrael.
Key Terms:
- גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה בִּמְחוּבָּר (gid hanasheh bimchubar) = the sciatic nerve still attached to the thigh — Rabbi’s referent for ‘it all’
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא (ביאור הרבנן)
The Rabbis: ‘from the well-watered pastures of Israel’ — only what is permitted to Israel may be offered
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, ״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis’ rejoinder rests on Yechezkel 45:15, mimashkeh Yisrael — read as ‘from that which is permitted [as drink/food] to Israel.’ Offerings must come from what Jews may themselves consume; the gid, forbidden to eat, is thus barred from the altar even while attached. On their reading ‘it all’ cannot include the gid, so it must be teaching detached bones and sinews instead.
Key Terms:
- מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל (mimashkeh Yisrael) = ‘from the well-watered pastures of Israel’ (Yechezkel 45:15) — only what is permitted to Israel is offered
- מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל (min hamutar l’Yisrael) = ‘from what is permitted to Israel’ — the derived offering criterion
Segment 3
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
Rabbi answers from chelev and blood; the Rabbis distinguish: their mitzvah is precisely that
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי, מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַחֵלֶב וָדָם. וְרַבָּנַן, מִצְוָתָן בְּכָךְ שָׁאנֵי.
English Translation:
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 Nahman bar Yitzhak, Rabbi Hiyya 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 Yohanan holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the sciatic nerve is not offered upon the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi deflects mimashkeh Yisrael by analogy: chelev and blood are forbidden to eat yet are offered on the altar — evidently the criterion does not exclude everything inedible. The Rabbis distinguish: mitzvatan b’kach — for chelev and blood the Torah itself mandates altar-offering as their very mitzvah, while it nowhere commands offering the gid. The Gemara closes Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s mapping: Rabbi Chiyya bar Yosef aligns with Rabbi (the gid ascends attached), Rabbi Yochanan with the Rabbis (it does not).
Key Terms:
- חֵלֶב וָדָם (chelev vadam) = forbidden fat and blood — inedible yet offered, Rabbi’s counterexample
- מִצְוָתָן בְּכָךְ (mitzvatan b’kach) = ‘their mitzvah is precisely this’ — the Rabbis’ distinction: the Torah mandates their offering
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא וקושיא
Rav Huna: the olah’s gid is removed onto the ash mound; Rav Chisda’s protest
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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 Hisda 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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna rules a middle course: the gid of a burnt offering is not burned with the animal — one removes it and deposits it on the tapuach, the mound of ashes at the altar’s center. Rav Chisda protests with a flourish (‘Master of this ruling!’): the Torah says ‘the children of Israel shall not eat the gid’ (Bereishit 32:33) — it does not say ‘the altar shall not eat it.’ The eating prohibition binds people, not the fire; why bar the altar from consuming it?
Key Terms:
- תַּפּוּחַ (tapuach) = the rounded mound of accumulated ashes at the center of the altar
- מָרִי דֵּיכִי (mari dikhi) = ‘master of this!’ — Rav Chisda’s exclamation at the ruling
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Huna’s basis: mimashkeh Yisrael — the altar receives only what Israel may eat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב הוּנָא, ״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna’s answer is the Rabbis’ own principle: mimashkeh Yisrael, offerings come only from what is permitted to Israel. The gid, forbidden to Israel, may not feed the altar either — not because the altar ‘eats’ in the prohibited sense, but because the offering criterion filters what reaches the fire. His ruling thus operationalizes the anti-Rabbi position for the practical Temple procedure.
Key Terms:
- מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל (min hamutar l’Yisrael) = the offering-eligibility criterion Rav Huna applies to the gid
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא (מיתיבי)
Objection from a baraita: the olah’s gid ‘is brought up’ — surely to be burned?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים – מְכַבְּדוֹ לָאַמָּה, וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה – מַעֲלֵהוּ. מַאי לָאו, מַעֲלֵהוּ וּמַקְטִירוֹ?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita seems to refute Rav Huna: the gid of a shelamim (whose meat is eaten) is swept to the amah, the courtyard drain; but that of an olah — ma’alehu, ‘one brings it up.’ The Gemara presses the natural reading: brings it up and burns it with the rest of the animal, contradicting Rav Huna’s removal to the ash mound.
Key Terms:
- מְכַבְּדוֹ לָאַמָּה (mechabdo la’amah) = ‘sweeps it to the amah’ — the water channel/drain of the Temple courtyard
- מַעֲלֵהוּ (ma’alehu) = ‘he brings it up’ — the disputed term: up to burn, or up to remove?
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
He brings it up — and removes it there; the thigh must ascend whole because of ‘present it to your governor’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא, מַעֲלֵהוּ וְחוֹלְצוֹ. וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁחוֹלְצוֹ לָמָּה מַעֲלֵהוּ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna’s defense: ma’alehu means bring the thigh up and remove the gid at the top. Why bring it up at all if it will be removed? Because of hakrivehu na l’fechatecha — ‘present it now to your governor’ (Malachi 1:8): an offering must not look mutilated. A thigh with its gid gouged out below would be unseemly on the altar; so the limb ascends intact, and the excision happens on high, out of the realm of presentation.
Key Terms:
- הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ (hakrivehu na l’fechatecha) = ‘present it now to your governor’ (Malachi 1:8) — offerings must be presentable, not visibly mutilated
Segment 8
TYPE: תניא כוותיה
A baraita is taught in accordance with Rav Huna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים – מְכַבְּדוֹ לָאַמָּה, וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה – חוֹלְצוֹ לַתַּפּוּחַ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara closes the discussion with tannaitic support: a baraita rules exactly as Rav Huna — the shelamim’s gid is swept to the drain; the olah’s gid, choltzo latapuach, is removed onto the mound of ashes. Rav Huna’s middle course between burning the gid and discarding it below thus rests on explicit tannaitic footing.
Key Terms:
- תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ (tanya k’vateih) = ‘a baraita is taught in accordance with him’ — tannaitic corroboration of an Amora
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה (תמיד) ורבא
The tapuach ‘sometimes held three hundred kor’ — Rava: an exaggeration
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: תַּפּוּחַ הָיָה בְּאֶמְצַע הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, פְּעָמִים הָיָה עָלָיו כִּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת כּוֹר. אָמַר רָבָא: גּוּזְמָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mention of the tapuach draws in the mishna from Tamid 28b: the ash mound at the altar’s center sometimes held ‘three hundred kor’ of ashes — an enormous quantity. Rava comments: guzma, hyperbole; the tanna meant only that the pile was very large. This opens one of the Talmud’s most self-aware passages on figurative language in canonical texts.
Key Terms:
- כּוֹר (kor) = a large dry measure (30 se’ah); three hundred kor is an impossibly vast quantity
- גּוּזְמָא (guzma) = an exaggeration — a statement not meant literally
Segment 10
TYPE: גוזמא נוספת
The tamid lamb ‘drank from a golden cup’ — Rava again: exaggeration
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִשְׁקוּ אֶת הַתָּמִיד בְּכוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב, אָמַר רָבָא: גּוּזְמָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second example from Tamid (30a): the daily-offering lamb was given water ‘in a golden cup’ before slaughter, to ease flaying. Rava again rules guzma: the priests did not actually use gold for the animal’s drink; the mishna spoke grandly to convey the dignity of Temple procedure. Two mishnaic hyperboles now stand identified, inviting a general principle.
Key Terms:
- תָּמִיד (tamid) = the daily offering, brought each morning and afternoon
- כּוֹס שֶׁל זָהָב (kos shel zahav) = the ‘golden cup’ — grandeur of expression, not inventory
Segment 11
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Ami: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Sages all spoke in exaggerated language
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי, דִּבְּרוּ נְבִיאִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי, דִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי. דִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ami generalizes: dibra Torah lashon havai — Scripture itself, the Prophets, and the Sages all employ hyperbole. The Sages’ examples are the two just cited. The principle is hermeneutically weighty: recognizing a canonical statement as figurative is not a diminution of its truth but a correct identification of its genre.
Key Terms:
- לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי (lashon havai) = exaggerated, hyperbolic language
- דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה (dibra Torah) = ‘the Torah spoke’ — even Scripture uses recognized figures of speech
Segment 12
TYPE: דוגמאות
The Torah’s ‘cities fortified up to heaven’; the Prophets’ ‘the earth split at their sound’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי – ״עָרִים גְּדוֹלוֹת וּבְצוּרוֹת בַּשָּׁמַיִם״, דִּבְּרוּ נְבִיאִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי – ״וַתִּבָּקַע הָאָרֶץ לְקוֹלָם״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The prooftexts: the Torah describes Canaanite cities as ‘great and fortified up to heaven’ (Devarim 9:1) — no wall reaches heaven; and at Shlomo’s coronation ‘the earth split at their sound’ (I Melachim 1:40) — the earth did not literally split. Both are vivid amplifications the reader is expected to decode, establishing that hyperbole is a native register of sacred speech.
Key Terms:
- בְּצוּרוֹת בַּשָּׁמַיִם (betzurot bashamayim) = ‘fortified up to heaven’ (Devarim 9:1) — the Torah’s hyperbole
- וַתִּבָּקַע הָאָרֶץ (vatibaka ha’aretz) = ‘the earth split’ (I Melachim 1:40) — the Prophets’ hyperbole
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
Shmuel: in three places the Sages spoke in hyperbole — the ash mound, the vine, and the Curtain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת דִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים לְשׁוֹן הֲוַאי, אֵלּוּ הֵן: תַּפּוּחַ, גֶּפֶן, וּפָרוֹכֶת. תַּפּוּחַ – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yitzhak bar Nahmani 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzchak bar Nachmani reports Shmuel’s canonical list: three mishnaic hyperboles — tapuach (the ash mound), gefen (the golden vine), and parochet (the Curtain). The list both licenses and limits the category: these descriptions are figurative, but the implicit claim is that mishnaic language elsewhere is to be taken at its word. The next two segments cite the vine and Curtain texts.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת (bishlosha mekomot) = ‘in three places’ — a closed list of mishnaic hyperboles
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה (מדות)
The golden vine at the Sanctuary entrance — three hundred priests to move it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The vine: a golden vine stood at the Heichal entrance, trained on poles, and donors would hang golden leaves, grapes, or clusters upon it (Middot). Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Tzadok recounted that three hundred priests were once assigned to clear it. Per Shmuel, the three hundred is guzma — conveying immense weight and the accumulated generosity of the people, not a headcount.
Key Terms:
- גֶּפֶן שֶׁל זָהָב (gefen shel zahav) = the golden vine at the Sanctuary entrance, hung with donated golden fruit
- כְּלוֹנְסוֹת (klonsot) = the poles on which the vine was trained
Segment 15
TYPE: משנה (שקלים)
The Curtain: a tefach thick, woven of seventy-two strands, immersed by three hundred priests
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פָּרוֹכֶת, דִּתְנַן: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַסְּגָן – פָּרוֹכֶת עוֹבְיָהּ טֶפַח, וְעַל שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם נִירִים נֶאֶרֶגֶת, 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.
English Translation:
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 [tefah]. 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Curtain (parochet) between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies: a tefach thick, woven on seventy-two strands, each of twenty-four threads; forty amot long, twenty wide; made at a cost of 820,000 dinars, two produced yearly, and ‘three hundred priests would immerse it.’ The recurring ‘three hundred’ marks the hyperbolic register — the mishna communicates staggering scale and sanctity, and Shmuel teaches us to read the figure as rhetoric.
Key Terms:
- פָּרוֹכֶת (parochet) = the Curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies
- נִירִים (nirim) = the heddle-strands of the loom on which the Curtain was woven
- טֶפַח (tefach) = a handbreadth — the Curtain’s stated thickness
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Back to the mishna: ‘both thighs’ — against Rabbi Yehuda, who holds one thigh, logic favoring the right
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. מַתְנִיתִין לָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת, וְהַדַּעַת מַכְרַעַת אֶת שֶׁל יָמִין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s clause that the prohibition covers the right and left thighs, and notes it contradicts Rabbi Yehuda’s baraita: eino noheg ela b’achat — the prohibition applies to only one thigh, ‘and the da’at (reasoning) determines it is the right.’ The struggle at Penuel touched one hip; Rabbi Yehuda reads the prohibition as tracking that single point of contact.
Key Terms:
- אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת (eino noheg ela b’achat) = ‘it applies only to one’ — Rabbi Yehuda’s single-thigh position
- הַדַּעַת מַכְרַעַת (hada’at machra’at) = ‘reasoning determines’ — the ambiguous phrase the Gemara now interrogates
Segment 17
TYPE: בעיא
Is Rabbi Yehuda certain (Torah logic) or in doubt (inclination)?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וּמַאי דַּעַת? דַּעַת תּוֹרָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, וּמַאי דַּעַת? דַּעַת נוֹטָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara poses a precise dilemma about Rabbi Yehuda’s epistemic state. Is he certain the right thigh is forbidden, his da’at being da’at Torah — a scripturally grounded determination? Or is he in genuine doubt which thigh is forbidden, his da’at being merely da’at noteh — an inclination of reasoning toward the right? The practical difference will surface immediately: what may one eat, and what must one burn?
Key Terms:
- דַּעַת תּוֹרָה (da’at Torah) = a definitive, Torah-grounded determination
- דַּעַת נוֹטָה (da’at noteh) = an inclining opinion — plausible reasoning short of certainty
- אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ (ibaya lehu) = ‘a dilemma was raised’ — the formula opening an analytic inquiry
Segment 18
TYPE: תא שמע
Proof from Pesachim: the bones, the sinews, and the leftover are burned on the sixteenth — which sinews?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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?
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution based upon the following mishna (Pesahim 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara seeks resolution from the mishna in Pesachim (83a): the bones, sinews, and notar of the korban Pesach are burned on the sixteenth of Nisan. The Gemara there asked: what sinews? Edible sinews should be eaten; leftover ones are simply notar, already listed; neck sinews, if not meat, should be discarded, not burned. The unexplained category demands an identification — which Rav Chisda will supply.
Key Terms:
- נוֹתָר (notar) = sacrificial meat left beyond its eating time, which must be burned
- יִשָּׂרְפוּ לְשִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר (yisarfu l’shisha asar) = ‘burned on the sixteenth’ — after the first festival day
- גִּידֵי צַוָּאר (gidei tzavar) = neck sinews — the rejected identification
Segment 19
TYPE: רב חסדא
The sinews are the gid hanasheh, per Rabbi Yehuda who forbids only one thigh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת.
English Translation:
And Rav Hisda 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda identifies the mishna’s sinews as the gid hanasheh, and specifically according to Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids only one thigh’s gid. On that view there exists a gid that might be permitted — creating exactly the ambiguous item whose disposal the mishna must legislate. The identification converts the Pesachim mishna into a window onto Rabbi Yehuda’s epistemic state.
Key Terms:
- לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא… (lo nitzrecha ela) = ‘it is needed only for…’ — pinpointing the case a text comes to teach
- אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה (aliba d’Rabbi Yehuda) = ‘according to Rabbi Yehuda’ — the ruling read through his position
Segment 20
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
If he is in doubt — burning both makes sense; if certain — eat one and discard the other!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּהֶיתֵּירָא – לֵיכְלֵיהּ, דְּאִיסּוּרָא – לִשְׁדְּיֵיהּ!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The inference is drawn: if Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain which thigh’s gid is forbidden, the mishna works perfectly — neither gid may be eaten (each might be the forbidden one), and each must be burned on the sixteenth (each might be the permitted one, hence notar). But if he is certain the right is forbidden, the left gid should be eaten and the right discarded — neither would need burning. The mishna seems to prove sappukei mesappeka leih — he is in doubt.
Key Terms:
- סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ (sappukei mesappeka leih) = ‘he is in doubt’ — the reading the Pesachim mishna appears to prove
- מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ (mifshat peshita leih) = ‘it is obvious to him’ — the certainty reading under attack
Segment 21
TYPE: תירוץ (נמשך לדף צא.)
Rav Ika bar Chanina: he may well be certain — the case is where the gidin were identified and then mixed up
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁהוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Rav Ika bar Hanina 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ika bar Chanina rescues the certainty reading: Rabbi Yehuda may indeed be sure that only the right gid is forbidden, and the Pesachim mishna concerns gidin that were huchru ul’basof nitarvu — identified when removed, then intermingled beyond recognition. Since neither can now be told from the other, both are barred from eating, and both are burned on the sixteenth (the permitted one being possible notar). The daf ends with the dilemma alive, and the discussion continues on 91a.
Key Terms:
- הוּכְּרוּ וּלְבַסּוֹף נִתְעָרְבוּ (huchru ul’basof nitarvu) = ‘identified and afterward mixed up’ — a known pair rendered indistinguishable
- לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ (l’olam eima lach) = ‘actually, I can tell you’ — reasserting a reading against an objection