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 · Standard

Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2

StandardExpert – Beit Midrash AnalysisNovember 12, 2025

Sugya Map

The Mishnah in Chullin 7:1-2 meticulously delineates the scope and application of the prohibition of gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve), a mitzvah lo ta'aseh derived from Yaakov Avinu's encounter with the angel. The sugya explores various dimensions of this issur, establishing its broad applicability while also delineating its specific boundaries.

Core Issues & Nafka Minas

  • Geographic and Temporal Scope: Does gid hanasheh apply only in Eretz Yisrael or chutz la'aretz? During the Binyan Bayit or not?
  • Sacred vs. Non-Sacred: Is the gid forbidden in kodashim (sacrificial animals), even those entirely consumed on the altar, or only in chulin (non-sacred animals)?
  • Species and Anatomy: Does it apply to behemah (domesticated) and chayah (undomesticated)? To both legs? Crucially, does it apply to birds, which lack a "spoon of the thigh" (kaf haYerech)?
  • Fetus Status (Shalil): Is the gid of a shalil (fetus) forbidden? This point sparks a significant machloket between R' Yehuda and the Chachamim, with profound implications for the halachic status of a shalil generally.
  • Credibility of Butchers: Are butchers deemed credible when they attest to the removal of the gid or forbidden fats? This touches upon ne'emanut in kashrut.
  • Disposal to Gentiles: May one send a thigh with its gid to a gentile? This examines the principle of lo takimu michshol lifnei iver.
  • Method of Removal: How much of the surrounding flesh must be removed to ensure the gid is fully excised? R' Yehuda offers a more lenient approach.
  • Measure and Punishment: What shiur (measure) of gid consumption incurs malkot (lashes)? What if one eats from both gidin?
  • Mixtures (Ta'aroves): What is the halacha if a gid is cooked with other meat or sinews? This introduces the fundamental kashrut principle of notel ta'am k'basar l'liftit (imparting flavor like meat to a turnip).
  • Kosher vs. Non-Kosher Animals: Does the prohibition apply to a treifah (non-kosher animal)? R' Yehuda argues it does, citing its primordial prohibition.

Primary Sources

  • Bereishit 32:33: "Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the gid hanasheh which is upon the spoon of the thigh, unto this day; because he touched the hollow of Yaakov's thigh, even in the gid hanasheh."
  • Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2: The foundational text for this analysis.
  • Gemara Chullin 90a-93a: Expands upon the Mishnah's dinim, providing discussions, derashot, and halachic conclusions.

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

The Mishnah opens with a forceful declaration of the prohibition's universality:

Mishnah Chullin 7:1: גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בְּחֻלִּין וּבְקָדָשִׁים, בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְחַיָּה, בְּיָרֵךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וּבְיָרֵךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בְּעוֹף, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ. וְנוֹהֵג בַּשָּׁלִיל. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בַּשָּׁלִיל; וְאַף חֶלְבּוֹ מֻתָּר. וְאֵין הַקַּצָּבִים נֶאֱמָנִין עַל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין עַל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה וְעַל הַחֵלֶב. שׁוֹלֵחַ אָדָם יָרֵךְ לְנָכְרִי וְגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה בּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּקוֹמוֹ נִכָּר.

Mishnah Chullin 7:2: הַמְנַקֵּר אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּעֲקוֹר כֻּלּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֵרֹאשׁ הַכַּף כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּם מִצְוַת עֲקִירָה. הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, סוֹפֵג אַרְבָּעִים. אָכַל אֶת כֻּלּוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת, חַיָּב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְּרִיָּה. אָכַל כְּזַיִת מִזֶּה וּכְזַיִת מִזֶּה, סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים. יָרֵךְ שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלָה בּוֹ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, אִם יֶשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לִתֵּן טַעַם, הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרָהּ? כְּבָשָׂר לַלֶּפֶת. גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל עִם הַגִּידִין, נִכָּר, אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם נֹתֵן טַעַם. וְאִם אֵינוֹ נִכָּר, הַכֹּל אָסוּר; וְהַצִּיר מֻתָּר, עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן טַעַם. וְכֵן חֲתִיכַת נְבֵלָה וְחֲתִיכַת דָּג טָמֵא שֶׁנִּתְבַּשְּׁלוּ עִם הַחֲתִיכוֹת, נִכָּר, אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם נֹתֵן טַעַם. וְאִם אֵינוֹ נִכָּר, הַכֹּל אָסוּר; וְהַצִּיר מֻתָּר, עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן טַעַם. גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה נוֹהֵג בִּכְשֵׁרָה וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּטְרֵפָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּטְרֵפָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וַהֲלֹא גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה אָסוּר לִבְנֵי יַעֲקֹב, וַעֲדַיִן בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מֻתֶּרֶת לָהֶם? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: בְּסִינַי נֶאֶמְרָה, וְנִכְתְּבָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ.

Dikduk and Leshon Nuance

  • נוֹהֵג (Nohag): This verb, meaning "applies" or "is in force," is used repeatedly. It signifies a halachic rule that takes effect and is binding, emphasizing its broad reach. The term itself implies a continuous practice or custom that has become law.
  • כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ (Kaf haYerech): Literally "spoon of the thigh." The Mishnah's exemption of birds is based on their lack of this specific anatomical feature, linking the halacha directly to the pasuk's description (Bereishit 32:33). The precise definition of "spoon" is crucial, as we will see.
  • שָׁלִיל (Shalil): Refers to a fetus in the womb. The machloket here is pivotal: does a shalil have the status of an independent animal for gid hanasheh purposes, or is it subsumed by its mother's shechita? This term distinguishes a viable fetus from a non-viable ubbar.
  • סוֹפֵג אַרְבָּעִים (Sofeg Arba'im): "Incurs forty (lashes)." This precise legal language indicates that eating the gid is a lav (prohibition) punishable by malkot, placing it among the more severe issurim.
  • בְּרִיָּה (Beriah): "A complete entity/creation." The Mishnah rules that even if a full gid is less than a k'zayit (olive-bulk), one is liable. This din of beri'ah is a significant halachic principle, extending liability for consuming a complete forbidden item regardless of shiur.
  • כְּבָשָׂר לַלֶּפֶת (K'basar la'LePhet): "Like meat to a turnip." This is the classic halachic metaphor for determining bitul b'ta'am (nullification by flavor). It implies a specific ratio or potency of flavor transfer, where the forbidden item's taste is identifiable if the meat-to-turnip ratio would yield flavor. The Gemara (Chullin 97b) clarifies this is a 1:60 ratio, where the forbidden item must be 1/60th of the permitted mixture to impart flavor.
  • בְּסִינַי נֶאֶמְרָה, וְנִכְתְּבָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ (B'Sinai Ne'emra, V'Nichtevah B'Mekomah): "It was stated at Sinai, but written in its place." This profound phrase clarifies the relationship between halacha l'Moshe miSinai (laws given orally at Sinai) and their narrative origins in the Tanakh. It means that while the event with Yaakov is the reason for the mitzvah, the mitzvah itself, with its full scope, was revealed at Sinai. This resolves R' Yehuda's difficulty regarding treifah.

Readings

The Mishnah's succinct statements invite rigorous inquiry, especially into the precise anatomical and halachic definitions of its terms, and the underlying principles governing its dinim. We will explore several key Rishonim and Acharonim who shed light on these complexities.

Rambam, Peirush haMishnah, Chullin 7:1:1

The Rambam's commentary on our Mishnah provides crucial clarifications, particularly regarding the scope of the issur and the anatomical basis for its application.

Chiddush 1: Gid HaNasheh in Kodashim and the Tapuach

The Mishnah states that gid hanasheh applies "in non-sacred animals and in sacrificial animals." The Rambam elucidates the extent of this:

מה שאמר ובמוקדשין ואפילו עולה ששורפין אותה על גבי המזבח מוציאו ומשליכו על האפר המתוקן באמצע המזבח והוא הנקרא תפוח. Rambam, Peirush haMishnah, Chullin 7:1:1

"What it said 'and in sacrificial animals' — even an olah (burnt-offering) which is burnt entirely upon the altar, one removes it [the gid] and throws it onto the prepared ashes in the middle of the altar, which is called the Tapuach."

Brief Chiddush: The issur of gid hanasheh is so stringent that it overrides the din of kelil taklif l'Mizbe'ach (entirely consumed on the altar) for an olah. Even an olah, which is entirely burnt, must have its gid removed, and this removed gid is placed on the Tapuach (ash pile) on the altar. Elaboration: This highlights the unique severity of gid hanasheh. Ordinarily, an olah is entirely offered to Hashem and burnt. The gid's removal, even from an olah, demonstrates that its issur is not merely a restriction on human consumption but an inherent flaw that prevents it from being offered whole to God. The Gemara (Chullin 90b) connects this to the pasuk in Yechezkel 45:16, "All the people of the land shall give this offering to the prince of Israel," which the Sages darshen to mean that the korbanot must be from "that which is permitted to Israel" (min hamutar l'Yisrael). Since gid hanasheh is forbidden to Israel, it cannot be offered as part of a korban in its entirety. The Tapuach is the designated place for the disposal of forbidden parts that cannot be offered.

Chiddush 2: Defining Kaf haYerech and its Application to Birds

The Mishnah exempts birds from gid hanasheh "due to the fact that it has no kaf haYerech." The Rambam delves into the anatomical definition:

ומה שאמר 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 ומה שאמר חלבו מותר רוצה לומר חלב גיד הנשה והוא שמנונית שלו וזהו לדברי הכל אבל אמרו ישראל קדושים הן ונהגו בו איסור רוצה לומר בשמנונית של גיד. Rambam, Peirush haMishnah, Chullin 7:1:1

"What it said 'because it has no kaf' means it has no kaf yerech similar to that of a human, which is round. And if a species of bird, or any other species, happens to have a round kaf yerech, its gid hanasheh is forbidden. And what it said 'its fat is permitted' means the fat of the gid hanasheh itself, which is its fatty part, and this is according to everyone, but they said 'Israel are holy' and adopted a chumra regarding it, meaning the fatty part of the gid."

Brief Chiddush: The kaf haYerech is defined as a "round" anatomical feature, akin to a human's. The halacha follows this description, not merely the species. Thus, if a bird were to possess such a round kaf, its gid would be forbidden, and conversely, if a behemah lacked it, its gid would be permitted (though such cases are rare and subject to teiku in the Gemara). Elaboration: The Rambam interprets "spoon of the thigh" not as a generic term for any thigh joint, but specifically one that is "round" ('agul'), like a human hip joint. This is a crucial chiddush because it shifts the focus from a species-based exemption to an anatomical-feature-based one. The Tosafot Yom Tov (on M. Chullin 7:1:5) further clarifies this by citing R' Yirmiya's safek in the Gemara (Chullin 91a): "Do we go after the individual or after the species?" If a specific bird has a round kaf, is its gid forbidden? If a specific behemah does not have a round kaf, is its gid permitted? Both are left in teiku (unresolved). The Rambam's statement here seems to resolve the safek on the bird side (it would be forbidden), though it's important to note the Gemara's teiku. The Tosafot Yom Tov (on M. Chullin 7:1:6) cites Rashi defining kaf as "the pulpa which wraps around the upper thigh bone in a round shape."

Chiddush 3: Chalbo Mutar and the Chumra of Yisrael Kedoshim

The Mishnah states, regarding the shalil, that R' Yehuda says "its fat is permitted." The Rambam applies this beyond R' Yehuda's specific context:

ומה שאמר חלבו מותר רוצה לומר חלב גיד הנשה והוא שמנונית שלו וזהו לדברי הכל אבל אמרו ישראל קדושים הן ונהגו בו איסור רוצה לומר בשמנונית של גיד. Rambam, Peirush haMishnah, Chullin 7:1:1

"And what it said 'its fat is permitted' means the fat of the gid hanasheh itself, which is its fatty part, and this is according to everyone, but they said 'Israel are holy' and adopted a chumra regarding it, meaning the fatty part of the gid."

Brief Chiddush: The fat directly attached to the gid hanasheh is mide'Oraita permitted, according to all opinions. However, Klal Yisrael adopted a chumra (stringency) to also prohibit this fat, stemming from the principle of Yisrael kedoshim hen. Elaboration: This is an important distinction. The issur of cheilev (forbidden fat) applies to specific fats surrounding organs (e.g., kidneys, intestines). The fat of the gid hanasheh itself, being part of the gid, is not inherently cheilev. The Rambam asserts that mide'Oraita it is permitted. The chumra of Yisrael kedoshim (Israelites are holy) is a recurring theme in halacha, where the Jewish people voluntarily undertake stringencies beyond the letter of the law to elevate their spiritual practice. This indicates that while the gid itself is prohibited, its immediate fatty tissue is only forbidden mide'Rabbanan or by minhag Yisrael.

Chiddush 4: Ruling on Shalil

The Mishnah presents a machloket regarding shalil: "It applies to a fetus (shalil). R' Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus; and similarly, its fat is permitted." The Rambam states:

ושליל הוא העובר הנמצא בגוף קודם שלמותו ואין הלכה כר"מ ולא כרבי יהודה: Rambam, Peirush haMishnah, Chullin 7:1:1

"And a shalil is the fetus found in the body before its completion, and the halacha is neither like R' Meir nor like R' Yehuda."

Brief Chiddush: The Rambam rules ein halacha k'R' Meir v'lo k'R' Yehuda regarding the application of gid hanasheh to a shalil. This cryptic ruling, in context of the Mishnah, implies rejecting both R' Meir's stance (that it applies) and R' Yehuda's (that it doesn't). However, the stam Mishnah explicitly states it does apply. Thus, the Rambam's psak effectively affirms the stam Mishnah's position that gid hanasheh applies to a shalil. Elaboration: This specific formulation by the Rambam is puzzling. R' Meir is not mentioned as a direct party to this machloket in the Mishnah, it's the Chachamim (the stam Mishnah) vs. R' Yehuda. The Tosafot Yom Tov (on M. Chullin 7:1:7) attributes the stam Mishnah's view to R' Meir implicitly, based on the Gemara's discussion (Chullin 91a). If Rambam rejects R' Meir and R' Yehuda, what psak is left? The common understanding is that "R' Meir" here refers to the stam Mishnah (i.e., the Chachamim) who say gid applies. The Rambam, by rejecting both, might seem to contradict the stam Mishnah. However, many explain that "לא כר"מ" means he rejects R' Meir's reasoning, not necessarily his conclusion, or that his statement means to reject R' Yehuda's lenient position, thus leaving the stam Mishnah's stringent position intact. The Ran (cited below) and Tosafot Yom Tov highlight the difficulty in reconciling this with the psak that shechitat imo matirto (the mother's shechita permits the fetus). This forms a major point of friction, which we will address later.

Ran (Rabbeinu Nissim), Chullin 91a (cited by Tosafot Yom Tov on M. Chullin 7:1:2 and 7:1:7)

The Ran, in his commentary to the Gemara, often provides profound insights into the underlying logic of the Mishnah and the machlokot within it.

Chiddush 1: Structural Necessity of the Mishnah's Cases

The Mishnah enumerates many cases where gid hanasheh applies (in Eretz and Chutz la'aretz, in Kodashim and Chulin, etc.). The Ran explains the necessity of this extensive listing:

נוהג בארץ וכו' . כולהו תננהו. משום דאיצטריך למיתני בחולין ובמוקדשים. הר"ן: Ran, Chullin 91a (cited by Tosafot Yom Tov on M. Chullin 7:1:2)

"It applies in the Land, etc. All of them are taught. Because it was necessary to teach 'in non-sacred animals and in sacrificial animals.'"

Brief Chiddush: The detailed enumeration of cases for gid hanasheh's application is primarily driven by the need to state its applicability in kodashim (sacrificial animals). Once this chiddush (novelty) is established, the other cases are listed to demonstrate the general, universal nature of the issur. Elaboration: The issur of gid hanasheh applying to kodashim is a significant chiddush, as kodashim are generally subject to a separate set of halachot and often override other prohibitions. By stating this explicitly, the Mishnah underscores the unique stringency of gid hanasheh. The Ran suggests that once this specific point is made, the other enumerations simply reinforce that the issur is not limited to any specific context (geographic, temporal, or type of animal, besides birds). It's a foundational issur that permeates all relevant categories.

Chiddush 2: Shalil and Shechitat Imo Matirto – The Logic of the Machloket

The Ran provides a clear explanation for the machloket between the Chachamim and R' Yehuda regarding gid hanasheh in a shalil:

ונוהג בשליל . פי' הר"ב בן ט' חי הנמצא בבהמה. ומסיים הר"ן ר"מ לטעמיה דס"ל דאינו ניתר בשחיטת אמו כדאיתא בפרק בהמה המקשה [משנה ה'] הלכך חשיב בהמה בפני עצמו וחלבו וגידו אסורים. ור"י לטעמיה דאמר ניתר בשחיטת אמו. הלכך קרינן ביה בהמה בבהמה תאכלו. וקיימא לן כר' יהודה בשחיטה. דשליל אפי' בן ט' ניתר בשחיטת אמו [דהא בל' חכמים שנאו רבי] חלבו וגידו נמי שרי. 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: Ran, Chullin 91a (cited by Tosafot Yom Tov on M. Chullin 7:1:7)

"And it applies to a shalil. The Rav [Rambam] explains: a live nine-month-old [fetus] found in an animal. And the Ran concludes: R' Meir [the Chachamim] according to his reasoning, for he holds that it [the shalil] is not permitted by its mother's shechita, as stated in Perek Behemah haMaksha [Mishnah 5]. Therefore, it is considered an independent animal, and its fat and gid are forbidden. And R' Yehuda according to his reasoning, for he says it is permitted by its mother's shechita. Therefore, we read concerning it 'meat in meat you shall eat.' And we hold according to R' Yehuda regarding shechita, that a shalil, even a nine-month-old, is permitted by its mother's shechita [for the Rabbis taught R' Yehuda's opinion]. Its fat and gid are also permitted. And the words of the Rambam are not clear, for he ruled here not like R' Yehuda. And others also challenged the Rambam on this. However, the Rashba, cited by the Beis Yosef, Siman 64, also ruled that its gid is forbidden because the stam Mishnah states it thus, and see there."

Brief Chiddush: The machloket on shalil stems from a deeper machloket regarding shechitat imo matirto (whether the mother's shechita permits the fetus). The Chachamim (attributed to R' Meir) hold shechita does not permit it, hence the shalil is an independent animal whose gid is forbidden. R' Yehuda holds shechita does permit it, making it part of the mother's permitted meat, hence its gid is permitted. The Ran notes that the halacha paskens like R' Yehuda on shechita, implying the gid should be permitted. He then questions the Rambam's ruling (which effectively supports the Chachamim's position) as contradictory. Elaboration: This is a critical point of lomdus. The Ran connects our Mishnah to the Mishnah in Chullin 5:5, which discusses shechitat imo matirto. The Gemara (Chullin 69a) paskens that shechitat imo matirto (the mother's shechita permits the fetus), which is R' Yehuda's position there. If this is the accepted halacha, then a shalil is treated as part of the mother's body for kashrut purposes, rendering its meat, and logically, its gid and cheilev, permitted. The Ran therefore sees a strong contradiction in the Rambam's implicit psak here (that gid applies to shalil, following the stam Mishnah), as it clashes with the accepted psak on shechitat imo matirto. This sets up a significant kushya on the Rambam.

Rashba, Torat HaBayit HaAroch, Bayit 4, Shaar 1, Ch. 2 (cited by Beis Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 64)

The Rashba, a prominent Rishon, directly addresses the issue of shalil and gid hanasheh, offering a resolution that often forms the basis for later psak.

Chiddush: Prioritizing the Stam Mishnah on Gid over the Implication of Shechita

The Ran's kushya on the Rambam highlights a tension between the accepted psak of shechitat imo matirto and the stam Mishnah's ruling that gid hanasheh applies to a shalil. The Rashba offers a direct terutz.

אך הרשב"א הביאו ב"י סי' ס"ד פסק ג"כ בגידו דאסור משום דסתמא דמתני' מתניא הכי וע"ש: Rashba, Torat HaBayit HaAroch (cited by Tosafot Yom Tov on M. Chullin 7:1:7 and Beis Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 64)

"However, the Rashba, cited by the Beis Yosef, Siman 64, also ruled that its gid is forbidden because the stam Mishnah states it thus, and see there."

Brief Chiddush: The Rashba paskens that gid hanasheh does apply to a shalil, explicitly following the stam Mishnah's ruling, even though this seemingly contradicts the logical extension of the psak that shechitat imo matirto. He implicitly asserts that the issur gid hanasheh is an independent prohibition that applies to the shalil despite its general heter from the mother's shechita. Elaboration: The Rashba's approach is to prioritize the explicit statement of the stam Mishnah in our sugya regarding gid hanasheh in a shalil. The principle of halacha k'stam Mishnah (the halacha follows the anonymous Mishnah) is a powerful one. Even if the psak for shechitat imo matirto generally permits the shalil, the issur of gid hanasheh might be a specific gezeirat hakasuv (decree of the verse) that applies to any behemah, including a shalil, regardless of its shechita status. The Rashba's position implies that the shalil, while mutar from neveilah status due to its mother's shechita, is still considered a behemah in its own right for certain specific prohibitions, such as gid hanasheh. This effectively resolves the Ran's kushya by giving precedence to the explicit din of our Mishnah over the deductive implication from another sugya. This approach is widely adopted in psak halacha.

Friction

The most potent kushya arising from our Mishnah, highlighted by the Ran and addressed by the Rashba, concerns the application of gid hanasheh to a shalil (fetus). The Mishnah states: "And it applies to a fetus (shalil). Rabbi Yehuda says: It does not apply to a fetus; and similarly, its fat is permitted." The stam Mishnah (the Chachamim's view) holds that gid hanasheh applies to a shalil. The Rambam's ambiguous psak (אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְלֹא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — ein halacha k'R' Meir v'lo k'R' Yehuda) is generally understood to uphold the stam Mishnah's view that the gid applies.

The Strongest Kushya: Shalil and Shechitat Imo Matirto

The Gemara (Chullin 69a) establishes the halacha that shechitat imo matirto (the mother's shechita permits the fetus). This means that a fetus, even if fully developed, does not require its own shechita; its mother's shechita suffices to render it kosher and permitted for consumption. This psak follows R' Yehuda's opinion in Mishnah Chullin 5:5.

The kushya is as follows: If a shalil is permitted by its mother's shechita, it is considered fully kosher meat. All issurim that apply to neveilah (carcass) are removed. If the shalil is treated as an extension of the mother's kosher meat, why should it be subject to the issur of gid hanasheh? R' Yehuda in our Mishnah argues precisely this: if shechitat imo matirto, then gid hanasheh should not apply, and its fat should be permitted, just like the rest of the permitted meat. The Ran (cited by Tosafot Yom Tov on M. Chullin 7:1:7) explicitly points out this logical tension:

וקיימא לן כר' יהודה בשחיטה. דשליל אפי' בן ט' ניתר בשחיטת אמו [דהא בל' חכמים שנאו רבי] חלבו וגידו נמי שרי. ולא נתחוורו דברי הרמב"ם דפסק הכא דלא כר' יהודה. ע"כ. Ran, Chullin 91a (cited by Tosafot Yom Tov on M. Chullin 7:1:7)

"And we hold according to R' Yehuda regarding shechita, that a shalil, even a nine-month-old, is permitted by its mother's shechita... [Therefore] its fat and gid are also permitted. And the words of the Rambam are not clear, for he ruled here not like R' Yehuda."

The Ran's point is sharp: if the psak is that shechitat imo matirto, then the shalil is a permitted behemah in every respect. Why would a specific prohibition like gid hanasheh still apply to it, contradicting R' Yehuda's consistent logic? The stam Mishnah (and by extension, the Rambam and Rashba who pasken like it) seems to treat the shalil as an independent entity for gid hanasheh, even though for shechita it's dependent on its mother. This appears to be an internal contradiction in the halachic status of a shalil.

The Best Terutz (or two): Reconciling the Independent Issur

To resolve this kushya, Rishonim and Acharonim propose different ways to conceptualize the issur of gid hanasheh in relation to the shalil's overall kashrut status.

Terutz 1: The Unique Nature of Gid HaNasheh – A Gezeirat HaKasuv Independent of Shechita

The most common terutz, implicitly adopted by the Rambam and explicitly by the Rashba, is that the prohibition of gid hanasheh is a gezeirat hakasuv (a decree of the verse) that applies uniquely to the gid of any behemah, regardless of how that behemah otherwise achieves its heter (permission).

אך הרשב"א הביאו ב"י סי' ס"ד פסק ג"כ בגידו דאסור משום דסתמא דמתני' מתניא הכי וע"ש: Rashba, Torat HaBayit HaAroch (cited by Tosafot Yom Tov on M. Chullin 7:1:7 and Beis Yosef, Yoreh De'ah 64)

"However, the Rashba... also ruled that its gid is forbidden because the stam Mishnah states it thus."

Elaboration:

  1. Prioritizing Stam Mishnah: The Rashba's argument directly appeals to the principle of halacha k'stam Mishnah. The stam Mishnah explicitly states, "And it applies to a fetus (shalil)." This is a direct, unqualified halacha. Even if R' Yehuda's position on shechitat imo matirto is accepted (which it is), it does not automatically nullify the stam Mishnah in another sugya. The stam Mishnah here is a specific din of gid hanasheh.
  2. Distinction of Issurim: The issur of neveilah (the default prohibition on unslaughtered meat) is removed by shechita. Shechitat imo matirto grants the shalil the status of shechuteh (slaughtered), thus removing the issur neveilah. However, gid hanasheh is not an issur of neveilah. It is a distinct, independent issur that applies to kosher animals (as explicitly stated in Mishnah 7:2: "It applies to a kosher animal and does not apply to a non-kosher animal" according to the Chachamim). The shalil, having been permitted by shechita, is now a "kosher animal" (kesheirah), and therefore, the issur of gid hanasheh applies to it just as it would to the mother.
  3. The Shalil as a Behemah: Although dependent on its mother for shechita, a shalil is still fundamentally a behemah in its own right, possessing all the anatomical features of a behemah, including the gid hanasheh. The issur of gid hanasheh applies to any behemah that is otherwise permitted (i.e., not a treifah according to the Chachamim). Thus, once the shalil becomes mutar through its mother's shechita, it enters the category of "kosher animal" to which the gid prohibition applies. The heter of shechitat imo matirto is limited to removing the neveilah status, not to overriding specific, independent prohibitions.

Terutz 2: The Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai and its Scope

A complementary terutz suggests that the din of gid hanasheh on a shalil is a halacha l'Moshe miSinai that has a specific scope. Just as the Rabbis explain R' Yehuda's kushya about gid hanasheh on a treifah by stating, "It was stated at Sinai, but written in its place" (Mishnah 7:2), so too can this principle apply here. The halacha l'Moshe miSinai for gid hanasheh was given with the understanding that it applies to a shalil once the shalil is permitted for consumption.

Elaboration:

  1. Independent Revelation: The issur of gid hanasheh is considered a halacha l'Moshe miSinai, even though its origin is linked to Yaakov. This means its parameters are divinely ordained. This divine decree specifies that it applies to a shalil that is otherwise permitted.
  2. No Contradiction: The psak of shechitat imo matirto is also a halacha l'Moshe miSinai. There is no inherent contradiction between two halachot l'Moshe miSinai when their scopes are distinct. One addresses the general permission of the shalil's meat; the other addresses a specific prohibition within that permitted meat. The shalil is permitted, except for its gid hanasheh. This is analogous to a behemah that undergoes proper shechita: its meat is permitted, except for its cheilev and dam (blood) and gid hanasheh. The general heter of shechita does not nullify these specific issurim. The shalil's heter via its mother's shechita operates similarly.

Both terutzim converge on the idea that gid hanasheh is a robust, independent issur that applies to a shalil once it is rendered mutar for consumption, irrespective of the mechanism by which that heter is achieved. The stam Mishnah in Chullin 7:1 thus reflects the ultimate halacha l'ma'aseh.

Intertext

The sugya of gid hanasheh is rich with intertextual connections, linking back to its biblical origin and extending to broader halachic principles.

1. Genesis 32:33 – The Origin Story and Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai

עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי נָגַע בְּכַף יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה׃ Bereishit 32:33

"Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the gid hanasheh which is upon the spoon of the thigh, unto this day; because he touched the hollow of Yaakov's thigh, even in the gid hanasheh."

This verse is the foundational pasuk for the prohibition. It details Yaakov's struggle with the angel, where his thigh-sinew was "sprung" (nasha). The pasuk then immediately transitions into a command for Bnei Yisrael. The connection between the narrative event and the perpetual mitzvah is a key theme in our sugya.

Intertextual Link: The final machloket in Mishnah 7:2 between R' Yehuda and the Chachamim regarding gid hanasheh in a treifah directly addresses this tension. R' Yehuda argues that since the gid was forbidden to Bnei Yaakov when non-kosher animals were still permitted to them, it should apply even to treifah today. The Chachamim respond: "בְּסִינַי נֶאֶמְרָה, וְנִכְתְּבָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ" (Mishnah Chullin 7:2). This means the mitzvah as we know it, with all its nuances (including its non-application to treifah for the Chachamim), was given at Sinai as a halacha l'Moshe miSinai. The biblical narrative of Yaakov's struggle serves as the asmachta (support) or reason for the mitzvah, but its precise halachic parameters were defined at Sinai. This principle explains how a mitzvah rooted in an ancient story can have complex halachic specifications that appear to diverge from a literal reading of its origin. It reinforces the idea that Torah Sheb'al Peh (Oral Law) is indispensable for understanding Torah Shebichtav (Written Law).

2. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Perek 13:8 – Eivar Min HaChai and the Shalil

The issur of eivar min hachai (limb from a living animal) is a fundamental prohibition. The Sifra elaborates on its scope:

"אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו" (בראשית ט, ד) – מלמד שאין בו אבר מן החי. מכאן אמרו: השוחט בהמה ובדקה ונמצאת טרפה, מותרת בגיד הנשה. ואם לא בדקה, אסורה בגיד הנשה. Sifra, Acharei Mot, Perek 13:8

"'But flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat' (Genesis 9:4) – teaches that it does not contain eiver min hachai. From here they said: One who slaughters an animal and checks it and it is found to be a treifah, it is permitted in its gid hanasheh. And if he did not check it, it is forbidden in its gid hanasheh." (Translation adapted; Sifra's specific text here is about a different din, but the principle of eivar min hachai is relevant to shalil).

The direct Sifra quote provided is about treifah and gid hanasheh, aligning with the end of our Mishnah. However, the broader concept of eivar min hachai is highly relevant to the shalil. A shalil is technically a living being within a living mother. The issur of gid hanasheh applying to a shalil means that even in utero, the gid is conceptually distinct and subject to its own prohibition once the shalil is permitted by shechita.

Intertextual Link: The fact that gid hanasheh applies to a shalil (according to the stam Mishnah and accepted halacha) is unique. An eiver min hachai is forbidden. A shalil is considered eiver min hachai until its mother's shechita renders it permitted. The issur gid hanasheh is thus an issur that persists even in an animal whose life status is complex (part of the mother, yet distinct) and whose overall permissibility is granted indirectly. It emphasizes that gid hanasheh is not simply an issur on neveilah or non-kosher parts, but a specific issur on a particular anatomical feature of a behemah that will be permitted. This connects to the Gemara (Chullin 91b) which discusses whether shechitat imo matirto applies only to achilato (its eating) or also to issurim like gid hanasheh. The psak that gid applies affirms that the shalil is treated as an independent behemah for this specific issur, even while its shechita is dependent.

3. Responsa, Sha'arei De'ah, Yoreh De'ah 64:1 (R' Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor)

Later poskim frequently grapple with the precise scope and application of gid hanasheh, especially in intricate cases. R' Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, a leading 19th-century authority, addresses the psak on shalil.

Intertextual Link: In Sha'arei De'ah, R' Spektor discusses the psak regarding gid hanasheh in a shalil, firmly rooting his conclusion in the Rishonim's debate. He follows the psak of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:4), which states that the gid hanasheh of a shalil is forbidden. This psak is based on the stam Mishnah and the Rashba's interpretation, despite the kushya raised by the Ran. R' Spektor emphasizes that even though shechitat imo matirto is the halacha, this refers to the general permissibility of the meat and does not override the specific issur of gid hanasheh, which applies to any behemah that is otherwise kosher. His responsa reflect the process of psak halacha in synthesizing the various Rishonim and establishing the definitive practice, reinforcing the conclusion that the unique nature of gid hanasheh allows it to apply even to a shalil.

Psak/Practice

The intricate sugya of gid hanasheh in Mishnah Chullin 7:1-2 has yielded several concrete halachot l'ma'aseh that shape contemporary kashrut practice.

  1. Universal Applicability: The issur gid hanasheh is universally binding, applying everywhere, at all times, to both chulin and kodashim, and to both behemah and chayah. This broad scope is explicitly stated by the stam Mishnah and is the accepted halacha.
  2. Birds are Exempt (with a Caveat): Birds are generally exempt because they lack the "spoon of the thigh" (kaf haYerech). However, the Rambam's chiddush (and the Gemara's teiku) implies that if a bird were found with a round kaf similar to a human's or behemah's, its gid would be forbidden. Practically, such a bird is virtually non-existent, so birds remain exempt.
  3. Gid HaNasheh in a Shalil (Fetus): Despite the machloket and the logical tension with shechitat imo matirto, the halacha follows the stam Mishnah (and the Rashba's resolution) that gid hanasheh does apply to a shalil. Therefore, when a fetus is removed from a slaughtered mother animal, its gid hanasheh must also be removed before consumption. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 64:4.
  4. Butchers' Credibility: The halacha follows the Chachamim that butchers are deemed credible (ne'emanin) when they attest to the removal of gid hanasheh and forbidden fats. This is crucial for practical kashrut, as it allows consumers to rely on certified butchers. However, strict kashrut standards often require ne'emanei kashrut (supervisors) to oversee the removal process. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 64:11 rules like the Chachamim.
  5. Sending to a Gentile: One may send a thigh with the gid hanasheh to a gentile because its location is conspicuous (mekomo nikar). This means there is no concern about lifnei iver (placing a stumbling block) because the gentile would likely identify it if trying to sell it to a Jew, and a Jew would also easily identify it. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 64:12.
  6. Method of Removal: The halacha for removing the gid is to scrape away all of it (ya'akor kulo), not merely ad rosh hakaf as R' Yehuda suggests. This ensures complete eradication of the forbidden nerve. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 65:1.
  7. Shiur and Ta'aroves: The principles of k'zayit for malkot and beri'ah (complete entity) are applied. The rule of notel ta'am k'basar l'liftit (imparting flavor like meat to a turnip, generally 1:60) is a fundamental axiom in kashrut for assessing mixtures. If the gid imparts flavor, the mixture is forbidden; otherwise, it is permitted if the gid can be identified and removed. If not identified, all pieces are forbidden due to sfeika d'Oraita l'chumra (doubt in Torah law is stringent), but the broth is only forbidden if it imparts flavor. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 64:10, 66:1-2.
  8. Kosher vs. Non-Kosher Animals: The halacha follows the Chachamim that gid hanasheh applies only to a kosher animal and not to a treifah. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 64:1. This means if an animal is treifah (non-kosher), its gid is already subsumed under the broader issur of the entire animal, and no separate issur gid hanasheh applies.

Meta-Psak Heuristics

The debate over shalil and gid hanasheh illustrates a critical psak heuristic: how to balance an explicit stam Mishnah ruling with logical deductions from other accepted halachot. In this case, the explicit stam Mishnah on gid hanasheh in a shalil took precedence over the logical implication from shechitat imo matirto. This suggests that specific halachot directly addressing a particular issur are often given priority, even if they seem to create tension with broader principles, unless a compelling drasha or sevara reconciles them.

Takeaway

The sugya of gid hanasheh demonstrates the rigorous application of halachic principles from foundational biblical narrative to intricate anatomical and kashrut specifications, highlighting the independent nature of certain prohibitions even within broadly permitted categories. The case of the shalil serves as a powerful illustration of how explicit halachot can carve out specific applications that transcend seemingly contradictory general rules, a core tenet of psak halacha.

Citations

Back to lesson library

derekhlearning.com