## Chullin Daf 101a

###### Chullin 101a:1
[Chullin 101a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:1)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and Rabbi Shimon exempts** him entirely.


###### Chullin 101a:2
[Chullin 101a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:2)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר – לִיחַיַּיב נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם גִּיד, אִי אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר – לִיחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה דִּקְדֵים, וְאִי אֵין בְּגִידִין בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – לִיחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם גִּיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** according to **Rabbi Shimon, whichever way you** look at it, it is difficult. **If a prohibition takes effect where** another **prohibition** already exists, **let** Rabbi Shimon **deem** one **liable** for eating non-kosher meat and **also due to** the prohibition of eating the sciatic **nerve.** Conversely, **if a prohibition does not take effect** where another **prohibition** already exists, **let** Rabbi Shimon **deem** one **liable due to the** prohibition of eating meat from **a non-kosher** species, **which preceded** the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. **And if** Rabbi Shimon holds that sciatic **nerves do not impart flavor,** and therefore the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat does not apply, **let** him **deem** one **liable due to** the prohibition of eating the sciatic **nerve.**


###### Chullin 101a:3
[Chullin 101a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:3)

אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר אֵין בְּגִידִים בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם, וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה״, מִי שֶׁגִּידוֹ אָסוּר וּבְשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר, יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁגִּידוֹ אָסוּר וּבְשָׂרוֹ אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** in response: **Actually** Rabbi Shimon **holds** that sciatic **nerves do not impart flavor,** and therefore they are not subject to the prohibition of eating non-kosher meat. **And** the reason the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerves does not apply to non-kosher animals is that **it is different there, because the verse states: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve”** (Genesis 32:33). This teaches that the prohibition applies only to a species **whose** sciatic **nerve is forbidden but whose meat is permitted,** and **excludes this** case of a non-kosher animal, **whose** sciatic **nerve** would be **forbidden and whose meat** would also be **forbidden.**


###### Chullin 101a:4
[Chullin 101a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:4)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: הָאוֹכֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל נְבֵלָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב שְׁתַּיִם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Having discussed the status of the sciatic nerve of a non-kosher animal, the Gemara addresses the status of the sciatic nerve of a kosher animal that did not undergo a proper ritual slaughter. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** With regard to **one who eats the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered carcass, Rabbi Meir deems** him **liable** to receive **two** sets of lashes, **and the Rabbis say: He is liable** to receive **only one** set of lashes.


###### Chullin 101a:5
[Chullin 101a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:5)

וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאוֹכֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל עוֹלָה וְשֶׁל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, שֶׁחַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir** in a case **where one eats the sciatic nerve of a burnt offering or of an ox that is stoned that he is liable** to receive **two** sets of lashes. The prohibitions concerning a burnt offering and an ox that is stoned are more severe than that of the sciatic nerve, in that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from them, whereas the sciatic nerve is merely forbidden for consumption. Consequently, these prohibitions take effect even with regard to the sciatic nerve, despite the fact that the sciatic nerve was already forbidden before the animal was consecrated or before it gored a person and became liable to be stoned.


###### Chullin 101a:6
[Chullin 101a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:6)

וּמַאן הַאי תַּנָּא, דִּבְאִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל – אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר לֵית לֵיהּ, אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל בְּאִיסּוּר חָמוּר – אִית לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And who is this *tanna*** who **does not hold that in** the case of a more **inclusive prohibition,** the **prohibition takes effect where** another **prohibition** already exists, and consequently, according to his opinion the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered animal, which applies to the entire animal, does not take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve. Yet, **he** does **hold** that where the second prohibition is both a more **inclusive prohibition** and a more **stringent prohibition,** it does take effect, and therefore the prohibition of eating a burnt offering or an ox that is stoned does take effect with regard to the sciatic nerve.


###### Chullin 101a:7
[Chullin 101a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:7)

אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הִיא, דִּתְנַן: טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל קֹדֶשׁ, בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ טָמֵא בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ טָהוֹר – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili** who holds that a more inclusive prohibition does not take effect where there is an already existing prohibition. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Zevaḥim* 106a): One who is **ritually impure who ate sacrificial** food, **whether it was ritually impure sacrificial** food **or ritually pure sacrificial** food, is **liable** to receive *karet* if he did so intentionally and to bring a sliding-scale offering if he did so unwittingly.


###### Chullin 101a:8
[Chullin 101a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:8)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּהוֹר – חַיָּיב, טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּמֵא – פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא אֲכַל אֶלָּא דָּבָר טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: An impure** individual **who ate pure** sacrificial food is **liable.** But **an impure** individual **who ate impure** sacrificial food is **exempt, as he merely ate an impure item,** and the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while one is impure does not apply to impure sacrificial food.


###### Chullin 101a:9
[Chullin 101a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:9)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אַף טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַטָּהוֹר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּגַע בּוֹ, טִמְּאָהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis **said to him:** According to your logic, this *halakha* would apply **even** in a case of **an impure** individual **who ate** what had been **pure** sacrificial food, because **once he has touched it, he has** thereby **rendered it impure.** Yet, in such a case, he is certainly liable for eating it. So too, an impure individual who ate impure sacrificial food is liable.


###### Chullin 101a:10
[Chullin 101a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:10)

שַׁפִּיר קָא אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, וְאָמַר רָבָא: בְּנִטְמָא הַגּוּף וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְמָא בָּשָׂר – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּחַיָּיב, דְּאִיסּוּר כָּרֵת קָדֵים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **The Rabbis are saying well to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili;** why does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagree? **And Rava said** in elaboration of the dispute: **In** a case where the person’s **body became impure and** then **afterward** the sacrificial **meat became impure, everyone agrees that** he is **liable** if he eats the meat, **as the prohibition** of eating sacrificial meat while impure, which carries the punishment of ***karet*, preceded** the prohibition of eating impure sacrificial meat.


###### Chullin 101a:11
[Chullin 101a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:11)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּנִטְמָא בָּשָׂר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִטְמָא הַגּוּף. רַבָּנַן אִית לְהוּ אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל, דְּמִגּוֹ דְּמִיחַיַּיב אַחֲתִיכוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא, מִיחַיַּיב נָמֵי אַחֲתִיכָה טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They disagree when** the **meat became impure and** then **afterward the** person’s **body became impure. The Rabbis hold** that a more **inclusive prohibition** takes effect even where there is an already existing prohibition. Consequently, **since** the prohibition for an impure person to eat sacrificial meat is more inclusive than the prohibition for a pure person to eat impure sacrificial meat, **as** an impure person **is liable** for eating even **pure pieces** of sacrificial meat that are permitted to the rest **of the world, he is also liable** for this prohibition when he eats **an impure piece** of sacrificial meat.


###### Chullin 101a:12
[Chullin 101a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:12)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי לֵית לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל, דְּמִגּוֹ לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not** accept the principle that a more **inclusive prohibition** takes effect even where there is an already existing prohibition, **as** he holds that **we do not say that since** it applies to cases that were not yet prohibited it applies to all cases.


###### Chullin 101a:13
[Chullin 101a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:13)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, נְהִי דְּאִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל לֵית לֵיהּ, בְּאִיסּוּר קַל יָבֹא אִיסּוּר חָמוּר יָחוּל עַל אִיסּוּר קַל, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף, שֶׁהֲרֵי טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף בְּכָרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** even according to **Rabbi Yosei** HaGelili, **granted that he does not** hold that a more **inclusive prohibition** always takes effect where there is an already existing prohibition. But **in** the case of an already existing **lenient prohibition,** a more **stringent prohibition should come** and **take effect on** the more **lenient prohibition. And what is** the more stringent prohibition? The prohibition due to the **impurity of** a person’s **body, as** one who eats sacrificial food when he has **impurity of the body** is liable **to *karet*,** whereas a pure person who eats impure sacrificial food is merely liable to be flogged. Consequently, the prohibition of eating sacrificial food while impure should apply even though the meat became impure before the person became impure.


###### Chullin 101a:14
[Chullin 101a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/101a:14)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף חֲמוּרָה, דִּלְמָא טוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר חֲמוּרָה, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ טׇהֳרָה בְּמִקְוֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Who** can **say to us that** the prohibition due to the **impurity of** a person’s **body is** more **stringent? Perhaps** the prohibition due to the **impurity of the meat is** more **stringent, as** impure meat **does not have** the possibility of restoring its state of **purity** via immersion **in a ritual bath,** whereas a ritually impure person can become pure in this manner.