Chullin 200:1

אפילו תימא לא קדם וסלקו הוי מין ומינו ודבר אחר וכל מין ומינו ודבר אחר סלק את מינו כמי שאינו ושאין מינו רבה עליו ומבטלו:

You may even say that he did not remove it at once, but this is a case of one kind being mixed with a like kind and also with a different kind,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the mixture consists of nebelah (a forbidden substance) , other pieces of meat (permitted substances of like kind as nebelah) , and broth and spices (permitted substances of a different kind) .');">¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נוהג בטהורה ואינו נוהג בטמאה

and wherever one kind is mixed with a like and also with a different kind you must disregard the like kind as if it were not present, and if the different kind is more [than the forbidden substance] it will neutralize it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If then the first permitted piece absorbed the flavour of the forbidden piece, although we may disregard all the other pieces in the pot as being of like kind, we must nevertheless be satisfied, in order that the mixture be permitted, that the broth contains sixty times as much as the forbidden piece plus the first permitted piece, which, as we have seen, is regarded as the nebelah itself.');">²</span>

רבי יהודה אומר

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of the sciatic nerve.');">³</span>

אף בטמאה

APPLIES TO CLEAN ANIMALS BUT NOT TO UNCLEAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if a person were to eat the sciatic nerve of an unclean animal he would not incur guilt on account of the nerve, though he would be liable on account of eating meat of an unclean animal (provided, of course, it is held that nerves are considered as meat) .');">⁴</span>

אמר ר' יהודה

R'JUDAH SAYS, EVEN TO UNCLEAN ANIMALS.

והלא מבני יעקב נאסר גיד הנשה ועדיין בהמה טמאה מותרת להן

R'JUDAH ARGUED, WAS NOT THE SCIATIC NERVE PROHIBITED FROM THE TIME OF THE SONS OF JACOB, AND AT THAT TIME UNCLEAN ANIMALS WERE STILL PERMITTED TO THEM?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sciatic nerve when first prohibited (cf. Gen. XXXII, 33) applied to all animals, clean as well as unclean, for in the patriarchal epoch there was no distinction between the clean and unclean, all were permitted. And the prohibition as it was then continued in force even subsequent to the giving of the Torah at Sinai when the distinction was made between clean and unclean beasts.');">⁵</span>

אמרו לו

THEY REPLIED, THIS LAW WAS ORDAINED AT SINAI BUT WAS WRITTEN IN ITS PROPER PLACE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition was first promulgated at Sinai but was merely recorded in the Torah in connection with the incident of Jacob's strife with the angel (Gen. XXXII, 25ff) which provided the reason for the subsequent prohibition.');">⁶</span>

בסיני נאמר אלא שנכתב במקומו:

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Is R'Judah of the opinion that a prohibition can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Judah states in the Mishnah that it applies EVEN TO UNCLEAN ANIMALS, by which he no doubt meant to imply that he who eats the nerve of an unclean animal incurs guilt on two counts, viz., for eating the sciatic nerve and for eating of an unclean animal.');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וסבר ר' יהודה איסור חל על איסור

Surely it has been taught: R'Judah says: I might have thought that the carcass of an unclean bird whilst in the gullet should render clothes unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The carcass of a bird does not render unclean by the usual media of contact or carrying; its only defiling effect is that it renders unclean the clothes of the person who eats of it, and only while he is in the act of swallowing it.');">⁸</span>

והתניא ר' יהודה אומר

the verse therefore reads: That which dieth of itself or is not of beasts he shall not eat to defile himself therewith,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 8. In the Sifra and in Nid. ');">⁹</span>

יכול תהא נבלת עוף טמא מטמא בגדים בבית הבליעה

that is to say, this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this peculiar and unique form of defilement; v. supra II, 5.');">¹⁰</span>

תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כב, ח) נבלה וטרפה לא יאכל לטמאה בה מי שאיסורו משום בל תאכל נבלה יצא זה שאין איסורו משום בל תאכל נבלה אלא משום בל תאכל טמאה

applies only to that [carcass] which bears the prohibition of eating nebelah but not to that which does not bear the prohibition of eating nebelah but the prohibition of eating what is unclean!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Nid. 42b. It is thus evident that the prohibition of nebelah cannot be superimposed upon the pre-existing prohibition of an unclean bird');">¹¹</span>

וכי תימא קסבר

Should you, however, say that he [R'Judah] is of the opinion that nerves do not impart a flavour, so that in the case [where one ate the nerve] of an unclean animal there is only the prohibition of the nerve but not the prohibition of [eating] what is unclean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sciatic nerve of an unclean animal is only forbidden qua nerve and not as unclean meat, for the nerve is tasteless and hard as wood.');">¹²</span>

אין בגידין בנותן טעם ובטמאה נמי איסור גיד איכא איסור טומאה ליכא וסבר ר' יהודה אין בגידין בנותן טעם

but are we right in assuming that R'Judah is of the opinion that nerves do not impart a flavour?

והתניא

Behold it has been taught: If a person ate the sciatic nerve of an unclean animal, R'Judah declares that he has incurred guilt twice;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously because by eating the nerve he has also eaten of the meat of an unclean animal.');">¹³</span>

האוכל גיד הנשה של בהמה טמאה ר' יהודה מחייב שתים ור"ש פוטר

but R'Simeon holds that he has not incurred guilt at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 22a.');">¹⁴</span>

לעולם קסבר

- In truth he [R'Judah] is of the opinion that nerves do impart a flavour, but he also holds that it [sc. the prohibition of the sciatic nerve] applies to a foetus too, so that the prohibition of the nerve and the prohibition on account of uncleanness come into force simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., at the time of the formation of the embryo in the womb. As both prohibitions come into force simultaneously one is liable for the transgression of both.');">¹⁵</span>

יש בגידין בנותן טעם וקסבר

But how can you assume [that R'Judah holds] it applies to a foetus?

נוהג בשליל דאיסור גיד ואיסור טומאה בהדי הדדי קאתי

Behold we have learnt: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. V. supra folio 89b.');">¹⁶</span>

ומי מצית אמרת נוהג בשליל והתנן

also applies to a foetus; but R'Judah says: It does not apply to a foetus.

נוהג בשליל

And its fat is permitted! - That is so only with regard to a clean animal concerning which the Divine Law declares: Everything.

ר' יהודה אומר

in the beast ye may eat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 6. Every part of the foetus that is within the womb of the dam may be eaten, the nerve as well as fat: so according to R. Judah. This verse applies only to clean beasts, i.e., those which may be eaten, but not to unclean beasts.');">¹⁷</span>

אינו נוהג בשליל וחלבו מותר

but with regard to an unclean animal the prohibition of the nerve applies.

הני מילי גבי טהורה דרחמנא אמר

But again how can you assume that both [prohibitions] come into force simultaneously?

(דברים יד, ו) כל בבהמה תאכלו אבל בטמאה נוהג

Behold we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 89b.');">¹⁸</span>

ומי מצית אמרת דתרוייהו בהדי הדדי קאתו והתנן על אלו טומאות הנזיר מגלח

By reason of uncleanness contracted from the following sources the Nazirite must shave [his head]: a corpse, an olive's bulk of [the flesh of] a corpse, [etc.] And the question was asked: If he must shave [his head] on account of an olive's bulk of a corpse, then surely he must shave [his head] on account of an entire corpse! But R'Johanan answered that it was only necessary [to mention the corpse itself] for the case of an abortion whose limbs were not yet knit together by nerves.

על המת ועל כזית מן המת

Hence we see that the prohibition of uncleanness comes first!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the abortion is forbidden as an unclean animal before the formation of the nerves.');">¹⁹</span>

וקשיא לן

- Notwithstanding the fact that the prohibition of uncleanness comes first the prohibition of the nerve can indeed be superimposed, because this latter prohibition is binding even upon the sons of Noah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the later prohibition is more stringent in that it applies to a larger number of people than the existing prohibition, it can be superimposed upon the latter. And the sciatic nerve (as stated by R. Judah in the Mishnah) was forbidden to all the sons of Noah, for it was declared forbidden even before the giving of the Torah at Sinai to the sons of Jacob who at that time were deemed sons of Noah.');">²⁰</span>

על כזית מן המת מגלח על המת כולו לא כ"ש

And this is precisely implied [in the teaching of the Mishnah]: R'JUDAH ARGUED, WAS NOT THE SCIATIC NERVE PROHIBITED FROM THE TIME OF THE SONS OF JACOB, AND AT THAT TIME UNCLEAN ANIMALS WERE STILL PERMITTED TO THEM?

וא"ר יוחנן

The [above] text [stated]: 'If a person ate the sciatic nerve of an unclean animal, R'Judah declares that h has incurred guilt twice;

לא נצרכא אלא לנפל שלא נתקשרו אבריו בגידין

אלמא

איסור טומאה קדים

אע"ג דאיסור טומאה קדים אתי איסור גיד חייל עליה שכן איסורו נוהג בבני נח

דיקא נמי דקתני א"ר יהודה

והלא מבני יעקב נאסר גיד הנשה ועדיין בהמה טמאה מותרת להם

ופא האוכל גיד הנשה של בהמה טמאה רבי יהודה מחייב שתים