A. Reverting to the body of the prior text [I.1 C]: He who eats of the sinew of the hip of an unclean animal — R. Judah declares him liable on two counts. [101a] And R. Simeon declares him exempt.
B. But [according to the view of] R. Simeon any way you look at the matter [he should be liable]. If he reasons in accord with the view that one prohibition can apply on top of another, let him be liable also on account of [eating] the sinew. If he reasons in accord with the view that one prohibition does not apply on top of another, let him be liable on account [violating] the uncleanness that preceded [the prohibition]. And it he reasons in accord with the view that, The principle of imparting a flavor does not apply to sinews, let him be liable on account of [eating] the sinew [even if it is not deemed to be meat].
C. Said Raba, “Invariably he reasons in accord with the view that, The principle of imparting a flavor does not apply to sinews. But here a different rule applies. For scripture said, `Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the sinew of the thigh, [because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh on the sinew of the hip]' (Gen. 32:32). [This rule applies to] that [animal] whose sinew is prohibited but whose meat is permitted. This excludes [from the rule] that [animal] whose sinew is prohibited and whose meat is prohibited.”
A. Said R. Judah, said Rab, “One who eats the sinew of the hip of carrion — R. Meir declares him liable on two counts. And the sages say, `He is only liable on one count.' And the sages agree with R. Meir that one who eats the sinew of the hip of a whole burnt-offering or of an ox condemned to stoning that he would be liable on two counts. [These latter two are more inclusive and severe and would apply on top of the prohibition of the sinew].
B. And who is the Tannaite authority who does not [state the principle that] for just a more inclusive prohibition, [that] one prohibition applies on top of another prohibition, but who does [state the principle that] for a more inclusive prohibition that is also a more severe prohibition [as above, one prohibition applies on top of another]?
C. Said Raba, “It is R. Yosé the Galilean [who states this principle].” As it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority: An unclean person who ate either unclean Holy Things or clean Holy Things, is liable. R. Yosé the Galilean says, “An unclean person who ate clean [Holy Things] is liable. But an unclean person who ate unclean [Holy Things] is free [of liability]. For he ate only something [of Holy Things] which [in any event] is unclean.” They said to him, “Also: The unclean person who ate clean [Holy Things], since he touched it, has rendered it unclean” [M. Zeb. 13:2 A-D].
D. What our rabbis said to R. Yosé the Galilean makes perfect sense. And said Raba, “Where first his body became unclean and then the meat became unclean, no one disputes that he is liable [to extirpation for eating Holy Things in a state of uncleanness]. For the prohibition subject to extirpation takes precedence. Where do they dispute the matter? Where first the meat became unclean and then his body became unclean. Here you have a more inclusive prohibition. Our rabbis accept that this is a case of a more inclusive prohibition. For since [after he becomes unclean] he would be liable for eating clean pieces [of Holy Things] in general, he would be liable also [through the same prohibition] for eating an unclean piece.
E. “And R. Yosé the Galilean does not accept that this is a case of a more inclusive prohibition. For he does say we do not employ the logic of, `Since he would be X, he would be Y.'” [Thus he would be liable only for eating clean pieces of Holy Things.]
F. So we may allow that R. Yosé the Galilean does not accept that this is a case of a more inclusive prohibition that would apply on top of a less severe prohibition. Let [him accept that this is a case that entails] the more severe prohibition coming to apply on top of the less severe prohibition. And what is it [that is more severe]? Uncleanness of the body. For lo, [one who eats Holy Things while in the status of] uncleanness of the body is liable to the punishment of extirpation.
G. Said R. Ashi, “On what basis will you maintain that uncleanness of the body is more severe? Perhaps the uncleanness of the meat [of Holy Things] is more severe. For it cannot be rendered clean in an immersion pool.”
H. [101b] And [referring back to E, according to] R. Yosé the Galilean is there not [elsewhere] a case of a more inclusive prohibition? For lo, it was taught on Tannaite authority: “The Sabbath and the Day of Atonement [fell on the same day] — if he inadvertently performed labor [on that day], on what basis do we derive that he is liable [to a sacrifice] for this one on its own, and for this one on its own? It comes to teach, `[Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day] is a Sabbath [of solemn rest, a holy convocation; you shall do no work; it is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwellings' (Lev. 23:3); `[On the tenth day of this seventh month] is the Day of Atonement; [it shall be for you a time of holy convocation, and you shall afflict yourselves and present an offering by fire to the Lord]' (Lev. 23:27),” the words of R. Yosé the Galilean. R. Aqiba says, “He is liable for only one [sacrifice].” [Cf. T. Ker. 2:17.][The Sabbath is more severe since the penalty for violating it is death. The Day of Atonement is more inclusive since it imposes additional prohibitions. Yosé stipulates liability for both.]
I. Rabin sent in the name of R. Yosé b. R. Hanina, “This was the proposed teaching. But, reverse the attributions.”
J. R. Yitzhak bar Jacob bar Giyori sent in the name of R. Yohanan, “According to the words of R. Yosé the Galilean, now that we have reversed the attributions, [on a day that is both the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement] if one inadvertently violated the Sabbath and deliberately violated the Day of Atonement, he is liable. If he deliberately violated the Sabbath and inadvertently violated the Day of Atonement, he is free from liability.”
K. What is the basis for these decisions? Said Abayye, “The Sabbath is set and permanent. The Day of Atonement is set by the [declaration of the new moon by the] court.”
L. Said to him Raba, “In the final analysis both [prohibitions] come into play at the same time.”
M. Rather, said Raba, “There was at the time oppression. And they sent word from there that the Day of Atonement of that year would be observed on the Sabbath [even though that was not the actual day for its observance].” And so too when Rabin came [from Israel] with all those who accompanied him they stated the matter in accord with Raba.
A. Said R. Judah, “And is it not so that the sinew of the hip was prohibited to the children of Jacob, while an unclean beast still was permitted to them?” They said to him, “At Sinai was [the law] stated, but it was written down in its [present] place” [M. 7:6 C-D]. It was taught on Tannaite authority: They said to R. Judah, “It does not say, `Therefore the children of Jacob, Reuben and Simeon,' will not eat the sinew of the thigh, but, `the children of Israel' — those who were present before Mount Sinai. So why does he [Moses] write it there [in the setting of Jacob]? To tell you on what account it is prohibited” [T. 7:8 D-E].
B. Raba posed a question: “[Then Jacob set out from Beer-sheba;] and the children of Israel carried Jacob their father, [their little ones, and their wives, in the wagons which Pharaoh had sent to carry him]” (Gen. 46:5) [This indicates that they were called `children of Israel' before Sinai.] [The answer is:] This was after the event [itself of Jacob's struggle with the angel took place].
C. Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi, “From that time [that they were called `children of Israel'] it should have been prohibited [for them to eat the sinew].” He [Ashi] said to him, “But was the Torah given at many different times? That time was neither the time of the event itself nor the time of the giving of the Torah [at Sinai].”
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: He who eats a limb from a living animal, whether from beast or wild animal or clean fowl, [in any measure at all, he is liable] [T. Zabim 5:12 A-C]. “[It applies] to both unclean and clean [species],” the words of R. Judah and R. Eleazar. And the sages say, “It applies only to clean [species].”