Talmud Bavli Hullin 90a-b - translation by Tzvee

[90a] It then seems [logical to conclude] that the prohibition of the animal as a Holy Thing precedes [the other prohibition]. And even though the prohibition of the animal as a Holy Thing precedes [the other], the prohibition of the sinew comes along and applies to it.

L.            [But we have a principle that a prohibition cannot apply on top of another prohibition. However here the second prohibition is more inclusive and hence can apply in addition to the first.] For this prohibition [of the sinew] does apply [also] to the descendants of Noah.

M.           In accord with whose view do we derive this line of reasoning? It is R. Judah. But our Mishnah-passage cannot accord with the view of R. Judah. For lo it taught on Tannaite authority, It applies (1) to domesticated cattle and to wild beasts, (2) to the right hip and to the left hip [B]. [And according to Judah it applies to only one hip (Rashi).]

N.           [Nevertheless it may be consistent to argue that] this Tannaite authority reasons in accord with R. Judah in one case [i.e., that it applies to the descendants of Noah] and disputes his view in another case [i.e., that it applies to only one hip].

O.            You could say that it is consistent according to the view of R. Judah [that the prohibition of the sinew apply] to an unclean beast because that is [subject only to] a [simple] prohibition. [Concerning] Holy Things [which are subject to] a prohibition [punishable by] extirpation, is it consistent according to his view [to say that the prohibition of the sinew apply to those]?

P.            Rather here it must be that we are dealing with a the birth of a firstling that is made holy by the womb [as it is born. The prohibition of the sinew either applies to the foetus prior to the time the animal is sanctified as a firstling or it applies to the animal at the moment of birth, simultaneous to its sanctification as a firstling (Rashi).]

Q.            And [another possibility] if you prefer it makes sense to say [that we hold the principle] that the offspring of Holy Things are holy when they come into existence [at birth and not while they are foetuses].

I.2

A.            Said R. Hiyya bar Joseph, “They taught this matter with regard to those Holy Things that are eaten [e.g., the sin-offering]. But with regard to those Holy Things that are not eaten [e.g., the burnt-offering], the prohibition of the sinew does not apply to them.”

B.            And R. Yohanan said, “Both with regard to those Holy Things that are eaten and with regard to those Holy Things that are not eaten, the prohibition of the sinew does apply to them.”

C.            And said R. Pappa, “And they do not dispute. Here [where Yohanan said the prohibition does apply, he means it with regard to the obligation] to administer stripes [to one who eats it]. Here [where Hiyya said the prohibition does not apply, he means it with regard to the permission] to offer it up [on the altar with other meat even though eating the sinew is prohibited (Rashi)].”

D.            Others say [an alternative version]: And said R. Pappa, “And they do not dispute. Here [where Hiyya said the prohibition does not apply, he means it with regard to the obligation] to remove it [i.e., the sinew from the thigh]. Here [where Yohanan said the prohibition does apply, he means it with regard to the permission] to offer it up [on the altar by itself because the sinew is prohibited (Rashi)].”

E.            R. Nahman bar Yitzhak said, “[With regard to permission] to offer it up they dispute.” For it was taught on Tannaite authority, “And the priest shall burn the whole on the altar, [as a burnt offering, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord]” (Lev. 1:9). [The term “whole”] includes in the rule the bones, the sinew, the horns and the hooves. You might infer that even if they were separated [from the meat of the animal they may be offered up on the altar]. It comes to teach, “And offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, [on the altar of the Lord your God; the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out on the altar of the Lord your God, but the flesh you may eat]” (Deut. 12:27). If [you reason only in accord with this verse that one may offer] “the flesh and the blood,” you might infer that one must remove the sinews and bones and offer up [only] the meat on the altar. It comes to teach us [to the contrary], “And the priest shall burn the whole on the altar.”

F.             Lo, what is the explanation [for these conflicting verses]? If [the sinews and bones] are attached [to the meat] they may be offered [on the altar]. But if they were separated [from the meat] even if they were up on the altar, they must be taken down.

G.            And in accord with the view of which Tanna is that which states: But if they were separated [from the meat] even if they were up on the altar, they must be taken down? It is [the view of] Rabbi.

H.           For it was taught on Tannaite authority: “And the priest shall burn the whole on the altar, [as a burnt offering, an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the Lord]” (Lev. 1:9). [The term “whole”] includes in the rule the bones, the sinew, the horns and the hooves. [This implies] even if they were separated [from the meat of the animal they may be offered up on the altar]. But lo, how then do I interpret, “And offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, [on the altar of the Lord your God; the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out on the altar of the Lord your God, but the flesh you may eat]” (Deut. 12:27)? [It is a case of that which] dropped off [the altar before it was consumed fully in the fire]. Lo, what is the explanation [of the conflicting verses]? You may replace partially incinerated meat [on the altar]. But you may not replace partially incinerated sinews and bones [on the altar].

I.              Rabbi says, “One verse says, `And the priest shall burn the whole on the altar.' This serves as an inclusionary clause. And one verse says, `And offer your burnt offering, the flesh and the blood.' This serves as an exclusionary clause. Lo, what is the explanation [for these conflicting verses]? If [the sinews and bones] are attached [to the meat] they may be offered [on the altar]. But if they were separated [from the meat] even if they were up on the altar, they must be taken down [F].”

J.              And [what is the view of] our rabbis? For [sinews and bones] that are attached [to the meat of a sacrifice] I do not need a verse to include them [in the rule that permits me to offer them on the altar] because I have [already included them in the rule by analogy with the rule concerning the] head of a burnt-offering. [That part of the animal contains meat, bones and sinews and it must be offered on the altar.] For what case then do I need a verse [to include the sinews and bones in the rule]? For those that were separated [from the meat of the sacrifice].

K.            And [in light of this argument, what then is the view of] Rabbi? [He would argue that for those sinews] that are attached that are permitted [90b] I do not need a verse to include them [in the rule that permits me to offer them on the altar]. For what then do I need a verse [to include it in the rule]? For the sinew of the hip that is attached [to the meat of a sacrifice].

L.            And [in light of this argument, what then is the view of] our rabbis? [They would argue that we exclude the sinew of the hip from the rule based on another verse.] “[And one sheep from every flock of two hundred,] from the families [or pastures, lit.: the liquids] of Israel. [This is the offering for cereal offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement for them, says the Lord God]” (Ezek. 45:15). [This implies that one may offer up only] from whatever is permitted to Israel.

M.           And [what then is the view of] rabbi? [This sinew] is similar to fat and blood [that may not be eaten but may be offered on the altar].

N.           And [in light of this argument, what then is the view of] our rabbis? [They would argue that with regard to sacrifices] because their obligation is fulfilled through [offering] them [i.e., the fat and blood, on the altar], they are different [from the case of the sinew and no inference can be drawn by comparing the cases].

I.3

A.            Said R. Huna, “The sinew of the hip of the burnt-offering — one removes it to place it on the ash-pile [in the middle of the altar to be burned].”

B.            Said R. Hisda, “Consider this, master! Is it written, `Therefore to this day the altar does not consume [the sinew of the hip]?' It is written, `Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat... ' (Gen. 32:32).”

C.            And [in light of this argument, what then is the view of] R. Huna? He derives from the verse, “[And one sheep from every flock of two hundred,] from the families [or pastures, lit.: the liquids] of Israel. [This is the offering for cereal offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement for them, says the Lord God]” (Ezek. 45:15), that only what is permitted to Israel [may be offered on the altar].

I.4

A.            They raised an objection: The sinew of the hip of the peace-offering — they sweep it into the sewer. And that of the burnt-offering they offer up. Is it not the case that they offer it up and burn it? No. It is the case that they offer it up and remove it [and place it on the ash-pile]. But as long as he removes it, why does he offer it up [in the first place]? Because it says, “[When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that no evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that no evil?] Present that to your governor; [will he be pleased with you or show you favor? says the Lord of hosts]” (Mal. 1:8).

B.            There is a Tannaite teaching that accords with the view of R. Huna: The sinew of the hip of the peace-offering — they sweep it into the sewer. And that of the burnt-offering they remove it and place it on the ash-pile.

C.            It was taught elsewhere on Tannaite authority: There was an ash-pile in the middle of the altar. At times there was piled upon it as much as three hundred kor [of ashes] [M. Tamid 2:2 B-C]. Said Raba, “This is an exaggeration.”

D.            They gave [the lamb which was to be] the daily whole offering a drink from a golden cup [M. Tamid 3:4 B]. Said Raba, “This is an exaggeration.”

E.            Said R. Ammi, “The Torah exaggerated. The prophets exaggerated. The sages exaggerated.”

F.             The sages exaggerated as we just stated. The Torah exaggerated [as in this example]: “[Whither are we going up? Our brethren have made our hearts melt, saying, `The people are greater and taller than we;] the cities are great and fortified up to heaven; [and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakim there]'” (Deut. 1:28).

G.            The prophets exaggerated [as in this example]: “[And all the people went up after him, playing on pipes, and rejoicing with great joy,] so that the earth was split by their noise” (I Kings 1:40).

H.           Said R. Yitzhak bar Nahmani, said Samuel: In three places the sages exaggerated. And they are [with regard to the] ash-pile, the vine and the veil. About the ash-pile, as we just stated.

I.              About the vine, as it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: A golden vine was standing at the entrance of the sanctuary, trained over the posts. Whoever gave [b. omits: a leaf or] a berry or a cluster brings it and hangs it on it. Said R. Eleazar bar Sadoq, “There was an incident, and three hundred priests were appointed to clear it [since it was too heavy]” [M. Middot 3:8 F-H].

J.              About the veil, as it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Simeon, [son of] the Prefect, “The veil was a handbreadth thick, and was woven on a loom of seventy-two cords, and each cord was made up of twenty-four threads. It was forty cubits long, and twenty cubits broad. It was made by eighty-two young girls [or: it was made up of eighty-two times ten thousand threads]. And they make two a year. And three hundred priests immerse it.”

II.1

A.            To the right hip and to the left hip [M. 7:1 B]. This Mishnah-passage does not accord with the view of R. Judah. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Judah says, “It applies only to one, and it seems likely that it is the right one” [T. 7:1 C].

B.            They posed a question concerning this: Does R. Judah hold the view that is obvious? And what then does it seems likely mean? It means, likely that this is based on the authority of the Torah. Or does R. Judah hold the view that there is some doubt [concerning his opinion]? And what then does it seems likely mean? It means, likely that this is the preferred opinion.

C.            Come and take note [cf. b. Pes. 83b, C-H parallels Neusner's rendering of the text]: [It was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah:] Bones, sinews, and that which is left over [and not eaten within the stated limits] are to be burned on the sixteenth of Nissan [M. Pes. 7:10 A]. And we bring up the question: Now what can be the character of these sinews? If we say that they are sinews in the category of meat, well, then, let’s eat them. If they had been left over, then they fall into the category of remnants of Holy Things. So they must be sinews of the neck. [Now, there is no problem if I say that they fall into the category of meat, and that’s why they have to be burned.] But if you maintain that they don’t fall into the category of meat, leave them alone [why do they have to be burned?]

D.            Said R. Hisda, “The rule is required only to deal with the sinew of the hip, and it is in accord with the position of R. Judah. For it has been taught on Tannaite authority: R. Judah says, `[The prohibition of the sinew of the hip] pertains only to one, [and it seems likely that it is the right one].'” [Freedman: thus one of the thigh sinews is permitted; we don’t know which, therefore this is classified as left over Holy Things and has to be burned.]

E.            If you say it is consistent [for Judah] to hold that there is some doubt, then this makes perfect sense. [Then you have to draw the conclusion that R. Judah is in doubt as to which is forbidden and which is permitted (Freedman)]. But if you say that [Judah holds] that it is obvious that it [one of the sinews] is permitted, then let’s eat the permitted one and discard [the forbidden one. Why do both have to be burned?]

F.             Said R. Iqa bar Hinnena, “Invariably it makes sense to maintain that [Judah holds] that it is obvious [that one is permitted]. Here what are we dealing with? It involves a case in which to begin with they were distinguished from one another but later on they got mixed up with one another.” [The prohibition applies to the right thigh, but the ones in the Mishnah are mixed up, and we don’t know which is which (Freedman).]