Gemara Clarity

Chullin 101a

חולין ק״א ע״א

Learn Chullin 101a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Chullin 101a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

The גיד הנשה of a non-kosher animal and of a נבלה, and when one prohibition can take hold on another (איסור כולל, איסור חמור), proven from a טמא who eats impure קדשים.

Overview

The amud opens with the end of a ברייתא: רבי שמעון exempts someone who eats the גיד הנשה of a non-kosher animal. The גמרא challenges this with a מה נפשך argument. רבא answers that sinews have no meat-taste, and a פסוק limits the גיד prohibition to animals whose meat is permitted. Next, רב יהודה quotes רב about the גיד of a נבלה: רבי מאיר says the eater is liable twice, and the חכמים say only once. The חכמים agree, though, that the גיד of an עולה or a שור הנסקל brings two punishments. רבא says this split view belongs to רבי יוסי הגלילי, and he proves it from a משנה about a טמא who eats impure קדשים. He explains that they argue only when the meat became impure first: the חכמים use איסור כולל (מגו), and רבי יוסי הגלילי rejects it. Finally the גמרא asks why the stricter טומאת הגוף does not take hold anyway. רב אשי answers that טומאת בשר may be the stricter one, since impure meat can never be purified in a מקוה.

Opening lines

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts him.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מָה נַפְשָׁךְ?

But Rabbi Shimon, whichever way you look at it?

אִי אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר –

If a prohibition takes hold on a prohibition,

לִיחַיַּיב נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם גִּיד,

let him be liable also because of the sciatic nerve;

The steps (15)

  1. Statementרבי שמעון exempts the eater of a non-kosher animal's sciatic nerve
  2. ChallengeWhichever way you look at it, רבי שמעון should make him liable
  3. Resolutionרבא: sinews have no meat-taste, and the verse limits the sciatic nerve to permitted animals
  4. StatementEating the sciatic nerve of a נבלה: two liabilities or one
  5. StatementThe חכמים agree: an עולה or a שור הנסקל brings two punishments
  6. QuestionWhich תנא holds this two-part rule?
  7. Responseרבא: it is רבי יוסי הגלילי
  8. ProofProof from a משנה about an impure person eating קדשים
  9. ChallengeThe חכמים push back: a טמא who eats pure meat also makes it impure
  10. ChallengeThe חכמים' argument looks convincing
  11. ResolutionIf the person became impure first, everyone agrees he is liable
  12. ResolutionThe real argument: meat impure first, and the חכמים' reasoning
  13. Resolutionרבי יוסי הגלילי does not accept the "since" reasoning
  14. ChallengeShouldn't the stricter prohibition take effect anyway?
  15. ResolutionMaybe the meat's impurity is the stricter one