Parashat Hashavua DevarimHaftarah Isaiah 1:1-27Daf Yomi Chullin 77929 Judges 19 (230)Daily Mishnah Mishnah Kelim 17:16-17Daily Rambam Leavened and Unleavened Bread 7Daily Rambam (3 Chapters) Sacrificial Procedure 16-18Daf a Week Nedarim 90Halakhah Yomit Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 224:4-6Arukh HaShulchan Yomi Orach Chaim 318:47-54Tanakh Yomi Proverbs Seder 8Chok LeYisrael DevarimTanya Yomi 2 AvYerushalmi Yomi Jerusalem Talmud Bava Metzia 31

Daily Mishnah · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · On-Ramp

Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2

On-RampExpert – Beit Midrash AnalysisNovember 12, 2025

Sugya Map

The sugya of Gid HaNasheh (the sciatic nerve) in Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2 meticulously delineates the scope and application of this unique mitzvah lo ta'aseh.

  • Core Issue: The prohibition against consuming the Gid HaNasheh, derived from Yaakov Avinu's encounter with the angel (Bereishit 32:33).
  • Nafka Mina(s):
    • Scope of Application: Does it apply universally (Eretz/Chul, Mikdash/Churban, Chullin/Kodshim, behema/chaya) or only specifically?
    • Exclusions: Why birds are exempt ("אין לו כף הירך"), and the debate regarding a shalil (fetus).
    • Practicalities of Removal: Credibility of butchers in attesting to its removal, the requirement to scrape around it, and the concept of mekom nikar (conspicuous place) for sending meat to a nochri.
    • Punishment & Shiur: The shiur for malkot (forty lashes for an kezayit), the chiddush of chazi kamo (liable even if less than kezayit if consumed whole), and the debate over safeg shmonim for two kezaytim.
    • Bitul B'rov: Rules for bitul (nullification) when cooked with other items, using the analogy of "בשר בלפת" (meat cooked with turnips).
    • Non-Kosher Animals: The debate between the Rabbis and R' Yehuda about whether the Gid HaNasheh applies to non-kosher animals, touching upon the fundamental principle of "נאמר בסיני ונכתב במקומו."
  • Primary Sources: Bereishit 32:33 (Genesis 32:33), Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2 (Mishnah Chullin 7:1–2), Gemara Chullin (Chullin 74a).

Full Experience in the App

Listen. Chat. Go deeper.

Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.

Download on the App Store

Text Snapshot

Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2 (Mishnah Chullin 7:1–2):

גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בְּחֻלִּין וּבְמוּקְדָּשִׁין, בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה. וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בָּעוֹף, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ. וְנוֹהֵג בַּשָּׁלִיל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בַּשָּׁלִיל, וְחֶלְבּוֹ מֻתָּר.

וְאֵין הַקַּצָּבִים נֶאֱמָנִים עַל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, נֶאֱמָנִים עַל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה וְעַל הַחֵלֶב. שׁוֹלֵחַ אָדָם יָרֵךְ לְנָכְרִי וְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה בּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּקוֹמוֹ נִכָּר. הַמְּנַקֵּר אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּנַקֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מְעֻקָּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּם בּוֹ מִצְוַת נִקּוּר. הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, סוֹפֵג אַרְבָּעִים. אָכַל אֶת כֻּלּוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת, חַיָּב. אָכַל כְּזַיִת מִזֶּה וּכְזַיִת מִזֶּה, סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים.

יָרֵךְ שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלָה בּוֹ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, אִם יֶשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְתֵן טַעַם, הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּרוֹ, כְּבָשָׂר בְּלֶפֶת. גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הַגִּידִין, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכִּירוֹ, אוֹסֵר בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וְאִם לָאו, הַכֹּל אָסוּר, וְהַצִּיר מֻתָּר אִם אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְתֵן טַעַם. וְכֵן חֲתִיכַת נְבֵלָה וַחֲתִיכַת דָּג טָמֵא שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלוּ עִם הַחֲתִיכוֹת, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכִּירוֹ, אוֹסֵר בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. וְאִם לָאו, הַכֹּל אָסוּר, וְהַצִּיר מֻתָּר אִם אֵין בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְתֵן טַעַם.

נוֹהֵג בְּכָשֵׁר וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּטָרֵף. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף בְּטָרֵף. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וַהֲלֹא גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה הָיָה אָסוּר לִבְנֵי יַעֲקֹב, וַעֲדַיִן בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מֻתֶּרֶת לָהֶם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, נֶאֱמַר בְּסִינַי וְנִכְתַּב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ.

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

  • "נוהג" (applies): This term, appearing repeatedly, signifies the broad applicability of the issur, establishing its enduring nature across diverse contexts, unlike mitzvot tied to specific times or places.
  • "כף הירך" (spoon of the thigh): The precise anatomical descriptor from Bereishit 32:33 (Genesis 32:33) is the linchpin for excluding birds. Rishonim (e.g., Rashi, Rambam) elaborate on its meaning, emphasizing the roundness of the thigh bone joint.
  • "שליל" (fetus): The debate about its status introduces the complex question of whether a fetus has an independent halachic identity regarding issurim or if its status is subsumed by its mother.
  • "מעוקר" (uprooted/scraped out): R' Yehuda's differing view on nikkur (removal) highlights a nuanced understanding of kashrut precision vs. bitul mitzvah. The term implies not just cutting but thoroughly dislodging.
  • "חייב" (liable): When referring to eating the whole gid even if less than a kezayit, this introduces the concept of chazi kamo (it is considered as if it were a kezayit because it is a complete entity). This is a chiddush often applied to issurim which are inherently small and significant in their entirety (cf. sheketz or sheretz).
  • "סופג שמונים" (incurs eighty lashes): This phrasing for eating from both thighs indicates two distinct prohibitions, implying that each gid hanasheh constitutes a separate lav, leading to double malkot. R' Yehuda's dissent (eino sofeg ela arba'im) suggests he views them as a single issur or quantity.
  • "נאמר בסיני ונכתב במקומו" (stated at Sinai but written in its place): This profound hermeneutic principle explains how an issur observed pre-Matan Torah (by Yaakov's children) is actually a Sinaitic mitzvah, emphasizing the oral tradition's role in interpreting scripture.

Readings

Rambam, Peirush HaMishnayot, Chullin 7:1:1

The Rambam provides foundational clarity on several points in the Mishnah. He explains the Mishnah's statement, "ובמוקדשין" (and with regard to sacrificial animals), clarifying: "ואפילו עולה ששורפין אותה על גבי המזבח מוציאו ומשליכו על האפר המתוקן באמצע המזבח והוא הנקרא תפוח" (Mishnah Chullin 7:1:1 s.v. גיד הנשה נוהג בארץ ובח"ל בפני הבית ושלא כו'). Even an olah (burnt offering), which is entirely consumed on the altar, requires the Gid HaNasheh to be removed and discarded onto the tapuach (pile of ashes on the altar). This chiddush teaches that the prohibition of Gid HaNasheh is so absolute that it overrides the kedusha of the korban itself, which is typically entirely kadosh. The rationale, explored in the Gemara (Yoma 58b), is min hamutar l'Yisrael – only that which is permitted to Jews in general may be offered on the altar. Regarding birds, the Rambam expounds on "מפני שאין לו כף": "רוצה לומר אין לו כף ירך דומה לשל אדם שהוא עגול ואם יזדמן מין עוף או אחד מאיזה מין שיהיה שכף ירכו עגול הרי זה גיד הנשה שלו אסור" (Mishnah Chullin 7:1:1 s.v. גיד הנשה נוהג בארץ ובח"ל בפני הבית ושלא כו'). The "spoon of the thigh" refers to a round, human-like thigh joint. If, hypothetically, a bird or any other animal were found with such a round kaf hayarech, its Gid HaNasheh would be forbidden. This demonstrates that the halacha hinges on the anatomical feature, not merely the species classification. Crucially, on the debate regarding shalil, the Rambam states: "ושלל הוא העובר הנמצא בגוף קודם שלמותו ואין הלכה כר"מ ולא כרבי יהודה" (Mishnah Chullin 7:1:1 s.v. גיד הנשה נוהג בארץ ובח"ל בפני הבית ושלא כו'). He defines shalil as a fetus before full development. His psak that halacha is neither like R' Meir (who says assur) nor R' Yehuda (who says mutar) for the Gid HaNasheh of a shalil is perplexing, as we will see in the friction section.

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Chullin 7:1

The Tosafot Yom Tov (TYT) provides crucial commentary, often citing earlier Rishonim and highlighting halachic disagreements.

  • On "נוהג בארץ וכו'": TYT cites the Ran (Mishnah Chullin 7:1:2 s.v. נוהג בארץ וכו'), explaining that the Mishnah enumerates all these cases (Eretz/Chul, Mikdash/Churban, etc.) because it needed to teach the chiddush that it applies "בחולין ובמוקדשים" (to non-sacred and sacrificial animals). The other clauses simply reinforce its broad applicability once this chiddush is established.
  • On "ובמוקדשין": TYT expands on the Rambam's point about olah, citing the Gemara (Yoma 58b) for the source of "ממותר לישראל" (Mishnah Chullin 7:1:3 s.v. ובמוקדשין). He further details the practical halacha: "דמשום הקריבהו נא לפחתך א"א להעלות הירך כשהיא מפורעת. הלכך מעלהו כמות שהיא שלמה ואח"כ חולצו בראש המזבח" (Mishnah Chullin 7:1:3 s.v. ובמוקדשין). Because it is forbidden to offer a korban that is "disfigured" ("הקריבהו נא לפחתך" – Malachi 1:8, referring to a blemished offering), the thigh is offered whole, and only then is the Gid HaNasheh removed on top of the altar. This demonstrates the tension between the prohibition of Gid HaNasheh and the halachot of korbanot.
  • On "מפני שאין לו כף": TYT brings a critical safek (doubt) raised by R' Yirmiya in the Gemara (Chullin 90a): "דבעי רבי ירמיה אי בתר דידיה אזלינן אי בתר מיניה וקאי בתיקו. ומיבעי ליה נמי. בבהמה ולא עגיל. וקאי נמי בתיקו" (Mishnah Chullin 7:1:5 s.v. מפני שאין לו כף). R' Yirmiya asks whether we follow the specific animal's anatomy (battar didei) or the species' general anatomy (battar minei). Thus, if a bird is found with a round kaf (like a behema), or a behema without one, the halacha remains in teiku (unresolved doubt). TYT also cites Rashi's anatomical definition of kaf: "פולפ"א הנכרכת סביבות עצם הקולית העליונה סביב סביב בעיגול" (Mishnah Chullin 7:1:6 s.v. כף), referring to the round head of the femur.
  • On "ונוהג בשליל": TYT highlights a major point of friction with the Rambam: "ולא נתחוורו דברי הרמב"ם דפסק הכא דלא כר' יהודה. ע"כ. וגם אחרים השיבו על הרמב"ם בזה. אך הרשב"א הביאו ב"י סי' ס"ד פסק ג"כ בגידו דאסור משום דסתמא דמתני' מתניא הכי וע"ש" (Mishnah Chullin 7:1:7 s.v. ונוהג בשליל). TYT explains that R' Meir holds shalil is assur because it's not permitted by its mother's shechita (thus an independent animal), while R' Yehuda holds it's mutar because it is permitted by its mother's shechita. Since halacha k'R' Yehuda is generally accepted that a shalil is nitpar b'shechitas imo (permitted by the mother's shechita), its gid and cheilev should also be permitted. TYT explicitly states that the Rambam's psak (that halacha is neither like R' Meir nor R' Yehuda, implying assur for gid) is problematic and that "others also challenged the Rambam on this." However, he notes that the Rashba (cited by Beit Yosef Yoreh De'ah 64) rules that the gid of a shalil is forbidden, based on the stam Mishnah here which states "ונוהג בשליל" (and it applies to a fetus), taking precedence over the general halacha k'R' Yehuda regarding shalil's shechita. This sets up a profound machloket.

Friction

The Enigma of the Shlil: Rambam vs. Most Rishonim

The most significant kushya arising from these readings revolves around the halachic status of the Gid HaNasheh in a shalil (fetus). The Mishnah states "ונוהג בשליל" (and it applies to a fetus), seemingly aligning with R' Meir's view. R' Yehuda then states "אינו נוהג בשליל" (it does not apply to a fetus, and its fat is permitted). The Gemara (Chullin 74a) generally concludes that halacha k'R' Yehuda in the case of a shalil that is nitpar b'shechitas imo (permitted by the mother's shechita), meaning its meat is permitted. Logically, if the meat is permitted, its cheilev (forbidden fat) and Gid HaNasheh should also be permitted, as their prohibition is typically contingent on the animal being kosher itself.

Yet, the Rambam, in his Peirush HaMishnayot, states: "ואין הלכה כר"מ ולא כרבי יהודה" (Mishnah Chullin 7:1:1 s.v. גיד הנשה נוהג בארץ ובח"ל בפני הבית ושלא כו'). This psak is highly unusual and, as Tosafot Yom Tov points out, problematic. If halacha k'R' Yehuda regarding shalil's shechita, then its gid should be permitted. Why would Rambam issue such a unique psak?

Best Terutz (and counter-terutz)

A leading terutz to defend Rambam's position, as implied by the Rashba (cited by TYT), is to suggest that the stam Mishnah "ונוהג בשליל" has particular weight for Gid HaNasheh. The prohibition of Gid HaNasheh is unique, stemming from a specific historical event and possessing a distinct kedusha (holiness/significance). It's possible that while the general halacha for shalil (e.g., regarding shechita or cheilev) follows R' Yehuda, the Gid HaNasheh is treated as an independent issur that applies even to a shalil whose meat is otherwise permitted. The Mishnah explicitly listing shalil under the nohag (applies) category might indicate a specific gezeirat haketuv (scriptural decree) for Gid HaNasheh that is not overridden by the general principle of shechita nullifying other issurim in a shalil. The Rashba's view that the stam Mishnah takes precedence for gid on shalil supports this interpretation.

However, many Rishonim, and the Tosafot Yom Tov, vehemently disagree with Rambam on this point. Their counter-terutz is straightforward: if halacha k'R' Yehuda that a shalil is nitpar b'shechitas imo, then it is considered a full-fledged permitted animal upon its mother's shechita. Therefore, all prohibitions, including cheilev and Gid HaNasheh, should be lifted. The stam Mishnah could be interpreted as referring to a shalil not permitted by shechita (e.g., if born via C-section or if its mother was treifa), or simply that R' Yehuda's opinion, though a minority in the Mishnah, is the accepted halacha from the Gemara. The general rule of halacha k'R' Yehuda on shalil is strong, and to make an exception for Gid HaNasheh without a clear Gemara source is difficult. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:4, 65:5) ultimately rules that if the shalil is nitpar b'shechitas imo, then its cheilev and Gid HaNasheh are permitted, thus siding with R' Yehuda and against the Rambam's unique psak in the Peirush HaMishnayot.

Intertext

Bereishit 32:33 – The Source of the Prohibition

The foundational text for the Gid HaNasheh prohibition is Bereishit 32:33 (Genesis 32:33): "עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי נָגַע בְּכַף יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה." This verse not only establishes the prohibition but also provides its rationale – commemorating Yaakov's struggle with the angel. The phrase "על כף הירך" (upon the spoon of the thigh) is the precise anatomical detail that excludes birds from the mitzvah. This direct biblical source underscores the min haTorah nature of the issur and its unique historical origin, setting it apart from other kashrut laws.

"נאמר בסיני ונכתב במקומו" – The Nature of Oral Torah

The Mishnah's concluding dialogue between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis regarding Gid HaNasheh on a non-kosher animal provides a crucial insight into the nature of Torah Sheb'al Peh. R' Yehuda argues that since Gid HaNasheh was forbidden to Yaakov's children while non-kosher animals were still permitted to them, it should apply even to non-kosher animals today. The Rabbis retort: "נֶאֱמַר בְּסִינַי וְנִכְתַּב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ" (Mishnah Chullin 7:2:9). This principle, found in various contexts in Chazal (e.g., Sanhedrin 56b, Megillah 19b, Rashi on Shemot 21:1), means that while the mitzvah was observed or alluded to historically (like Gid HaNasheh with Yaakov, or sheva mitzvot Bnei Noach), its formal, complete, and binding halachic status, including its precise scope and limitations, was fully articulated and codified at Matan Torah (the Giving of the Torah at Sinai). Thus, even if Yaakov's children were forbidden Gid HaNasheh on non-kosher animals pre-Sinai (a contentious point itself), the Sinaitic revelation defined the issur as applying only to kosher animals. This hermeneutic device highlights the primacy of the Oral Law in interpreting and completing the Written Law, and allows for apparent contradictions between historical narratives and codified halacha.

Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 7:1 – The Codified Halacha

The Rambam's Mishneh Torah codifies the halachot of Gid HaNasheh. In Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 7:1 (Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 7:1), he summarizes the Mishnah's scope: "גיד הנשה נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ בין בפני הבית בין שלא בפני הבית בחולין ובקדשים בבהמה ובחיה בין בירך ימין בין בירך שמאל ונוהג בכל הבהמות הכשרות בין טהורות בין טמאות ואינו נוהג בעופות מפני שאין להם כף הירך." Note that Rambam here states it applies to "בהמות הכשרות בין טהורות בין טמאות," which appears to contradict the stam Mishnah in Chullin 7:2 that it applies to kosher and not taref. This might be a textual variant or a nuanced interpretation, but it highlights the importance of checking the codified halacha for the final psak. Later, in 7:10 (Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 7:10), he specifies regarding shalil: "גיד הנשה נוהג בשלל ואסור אם לא נשחטה האם כדי שתהיה מותרת בשחיטתה" – aligning with the stam Mishnah but allowing for permission if the mother's shechita permits it. This later psak in Mishneh Torah seems to walk back his earlier Peirush HaMishnayot comment that halacha is neither like R' Meir nor R' Yehuda, and instead aligns more with the understanding that shalil can be permitted through its mother, though the gid itself is still assur if not removed.

Psak/Practice

The halacha l'ma'aseh regarding Gid HaNasheh largely follows the stam Mishnah as understood by most Rishonim, with some nuances. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65) provides the definitive psak:

  • Scope: Gid HaNasheh is assur min haTorah (Yoreh De'ah 65:1). It applies to all kosher behema and chaya, both thighs, in all places and times, for both chullin and kodshim. It does not apply to birds (Yoreh De'ah 65:4) due to the absence of kaf hayarech.
  • Shlil: If a shalil is nitpar b'shechitas imo (permitted by the mother's shechita), its Gid HaNasheh and cheilev are permitted (Yoreh De'ah 65:5). This aligns with R' Yehuda, implicitly rejecting the Rambam's unique psak from his Peirush HaMishnayot.
  • Butchers' Credibility: Butchers are not deemed credible to testify that they removed the Gid HaNasheh (Yoreh De'ah 65:2). This reflects a general chashash (concern) about their reliability unless they are known experts (ummanim).
  • Removal: One must scrape around the gid to ensure complete removal, not merely cut it (Yoreh De'ah 65:3).
  • Mekom Nikar: It is permitted to send a thigh with the Gid HaNasheh to a non-Jew because its location is conspicuous, minimizing the concern that the non-Jew would sell it back to a Jew who might unwittingly eat it (Yoreh De'ah 65:6).
  • Shiur & Malkot: Eating a kezayit incurs malkot. Eating the entire gid, even if less than a kezayit, also incurs malkot due to chazi kamo (Yoreh De'ah 65:7). Eating a kezayit from each gid results in 80 lashes, following the stam Mishnah against R' Yehuda (Yoreh De'ah 65:8).
  • Bitul: If cooked with other meat, the gid forbids the mixture if it imparts flavor (1:60 ratio, basar b'lefet). If the gid is identifiable, it is removed, and the rest is permitted if the gid did not impart flavor. If not identifiable, the entire mixture is forbidden (Yoreh De'ah 65:9-10).
  • Non-Kosher Animals: The prohibition applies only to kosher animals, not non-kosher ones, following the Rabbis' view of "נאמר בסיני ונכתב במקומו" (Yoreh De'ah 65:1).

Takeaway

The sugya of Gid HaNasheh uniquely illustrates the blend of historical narrative and Sinaitic legislation in halacha, emphasizing the Oral Law's role in defining the precise scope of mitzvot. The intricate debate surrounding the shalil further highlights the rigor and complexity of psak, requiring careful arbitration between stam Mishnah, individual opinions, and overarching halachic principles.

Citations

Back to lesson library

derekhlearning.com