This source sheet is part of a series of source sheets providing background for Mishnayos Chullin. The series can be found here.
Chapter 7
The seventh chapter of Meseches Chullin discusses the prohibition against eating the Gid Hanasheh. Following their epic battle, Esau's archangel harms Ya'akov by injuring his hip causing him to limp. As a result, the Torah prohibits Bnei Yisroel from eating the Gid Hanasheh:
עַל־כֵּ֡ן לֹֽא־יֹאכְל֨וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אֶת־גִּ֣יד הַנָּשֶׁ֗ה אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־כַּ֣ף הַיָּרֵ֔ךְ עַ֖ד הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּ֤י נָגַע֙ בְּכַף־יֶ֣רֶךְ יַעֲקֹ֔ב בְּגִ֖יד הַנָּשֶֽׁה׃
Our Perek will describe extent of the prohibition and many practical realities of the marketplace and interpersonal relationships arising from this prohibition.
Sources for Mishnah 7:1
Our Mishnah describes a dispute whether a butcher can be trusted to attest as to his having fully removed the Gid Hanasheh; his self interest potentially usurping his integrity. We find similar concerns throughout the Mishnah, including in the case of attesting to the cause of a blemish in a Bechor animal.
(ד) הָיָה בְכוֹר רוֹדְפוֹ, וּבְעָטוֹ וְעָשָׂה בוֹ מוּם, הֲרֵי זֶה יִשְׁחוֹט עָלָיו. כָּל הַמּוּמִין הָרְאוּיִין לָבוֹא בִידֵי אָדָם, רוֹעִים יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֱמָנִים, וְרוֹעִים כֹּהֲנִים אֵינָן נֶאֱמָנִים. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, נֶאֱמָן הוּא עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל עַצְמוֹ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, הֶחָשׁוּד עַל דָּבָר, לֹא דָנוֹ וְלֹא מְעִידוֹ:
(4) If a first born was running after him and he kicked it and thereby blemished it, he may slaughter it on account of this. Any blemish which might have been made by a person, Israelite shepherds are trustworthy whereas shepherds who are priests are not trustworthy. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: he is trustworthy with regard to somebody else's first born, but he is not trustworthy with regard to his own. Rabbi Meir says: one who is suspected of neglecting a religious matter must not issue judgment on it or give evidence concerning it.
We find another example of self-interest preventing a person from trstifying in Yevamos 15:4
(ד) הַכֹּל נֶאֱמָנִים לַהֲעִידָהּ, חוּץ מֵחֲמוֹתָהּ, וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ, וְצָרָתָהּ, וִיבִמְתָּהּ, וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ. מַה בֵּין גֵּט לְמִיתָה, שֶׁהַכְּתָב מוֹכִיחַ. עֵד אוֹמֵר מֵת, וְנִשֵּׂאת, וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר לֹא מֵת, הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵצֵא. עֵד אוֹמֵר מֵת, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת, תֵּצֵא. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים מֵת, וְעֵד אוֹמֵר לֹא מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת, תִּנָּשֵׂא:
(4) All are believed to testify for her [concerning her husband’s death] except for her mother-in-law, the daughter of her mother-in-law, her rival wife, her sister-in-law and her husband’s daughter. Why is [the bringing of] a letter of divorce different [from testifying regarding] death?The written document provides the proof. If one witness stated, “he is dead”, and his wife married again, and another came and stated “he is not dead”, she need not leave [her new husband]. If one witness said “he is dead” and two witnesses said “he is not dead”, even if she married again, she must leave him. If two witnesses stated, “he is dead”, and one witness stated, “he is not dead”, even if she had not married, she may do so.
In explaining how the prohibition of Gid Hanasheh applied to Korbonos, the RAV explains for a Korban Olah, after carrying the animal up to the top of the Mizbeach, they would cut out the Gid Hanasheh and throw it onto the pile of ash that was sitting on the Mizbeach. This pile was called the Tapuach. It is described in Tamid 2:2.
(ב) הֵחֵלּוּ מַעֲלִין בָּאֵפֶר עַל גַּבֵּי הַתַּפּוּחַ. וְתַפּוּחַ הָיָה בְאֶמְצַע הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, פְּעָמִים עָלָיו כִּשְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת כּוֹר. וּבָרְגָלִים לֹא הָיוּ מְדַשְּׁנִין אוֹתוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נוֹי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מִיָּמָיו לֹא נִתְעַצֵּל הַכֹּהֵן מִלְּהוֹצִיא אֶת הַדָּשֶׁן:
(2) They then began to throw the ashes on to the heap (tapuah). This heap was in the middle of the altar, and sometimes there was as much as three hundred kor on it. On festivals they did not use to clear away the ash because it was reckoned an ornament to the altar. It never happened that the priest was neglectful in taking out the ashes.
Sources for Mishnah 7:2
The Meforshim discuss whether Gid Hanasheh is Assur in Hana'ah. As the Tosfos Yom Tov, points out it would seem from our Mishnah that despite the prohibition on eating the Gid Hanasheh, which generally would encompass any Hana'ah (See Kiddushin 2:9), nevertheless there is no Issur Hana'ah for the Gid Hanasheh.
(ט) הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּעָרְלָה, בְּכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם, בְּשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, וּבְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, בְּצִפֳּרֵי מְצֹרָע, וּבִשְׂעַר נָזִיר, וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר, וּבָשָׂר בְּחָלָב, וְחֻלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בָעֲזָרָה, אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. מְכָרָן וְקִדֵּשׁ בִּדְמֵיהֶן, מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת:
(9) If he betroths [a woman] with orlah, or kilayim of the vineyard, or an ox condemned to be stoned, or the heifer whose neck is to be broken, or a leper’s bird-offerings, or a nazirite’s hair, or the first-born of a donkey, or meat [boiled] in milk, or non-sacred meat slaughtered in the Temple court, she is not betrothed. If he sells them and betroths [her] with the proceeds, she is betrothed.
Sources for Mishnah 7:3
Our Mishnah notes that f you eat a complete Gid Hanasheh, even if its mass is less than a Kazayis, you have, nonetheless, violated the prohibition. This is similar to eating an entire ant, despite it being far smaller than a Kazayis.
(ב) הַטָּמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְהַבָּא אֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא, וְהָאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב, וְדָם, וְנוֹתָר, וּפִגּוּל, וְטָמֵא, הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמַּעֲלֶה בַחוּץ, וְהָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח, וְהָאוֹכֵל וְהָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת, וְהַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, וְהָאוֹכֵל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים. אָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. כַּמָּה יֹאכַל מִן הַטֶּבֶל וִיהֵא חַיָּב, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר כָּל שֶׁהוּא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כַּזַּיִת. אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אֵין אַתֶּם מוֹדִים לִי בְּאוֹכֵל נְמָלָה כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כִבְרִיָּתָהּ. אָמַר לָהֶן, אַף חִטָּה אַחַת כִּבְרִיָּתָהּ:
(2) An unclean person who ate holy meat (Leviticus 7:20, 12:4); One who entered the sanctuary while unclean (Leviticus 12:4, Numbers 5:3, 19:13); One who ate forbidden fat or blood (Leviticus 3:16, 7:23-27); Or leftover sacrificial meats (Leviticus 19:6-8); Or sacrifices that had been offered up with improper intention (Leviticus 7:18); Or [an offering] that has became unclean (Leviticus 7:19); One who slaughters, or offers up a sacrifice, outside the Temple precincts (Leviticus 17:4); One who ate leavened [bread] during Passover (Exodus 12:15,; One who partakes of food [or drink] or does work on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-31); One who puts together the ingredients for the [anointing] oil, or the ingredients for the incense, or anoints with the oil for anointing (Exodus 30:22-28): One who eats an animal that died a natural death (Deuteronomy 14:21); Or was improperly slaughtered (Exodus 22:30); Or any of the [creatures deemed] ‘abominable’ and ‘teeming’ (Leviticus 11:11,. One who eats non-tithed produce, or first-tithe from which heave offering has not been removed, or unredeemed second-tithe, or unredeemed sanctified property. How much untithed produce is one to eat to become liable? Rabbi Shimon says: “Any amount.” The Sages say: “An olive's size.” Rabbi Shimon said to them: “Do you not admit that if one ate the minutest ant that he would be liable? They said to him: “[Only] because it is a whole creature.” He said to them: “Even a grain of wheat is a whole entity.”
Sources for Mishnah 7:4
In describing how to assess whether the Gid Hanasheh imparts taste to the meat, our Mishnah teaches that you measure it as if the Gid Hanasheh is the meat and the meat is a turnip and if the meat would flavor the turnip than the mixture is prohibited. Turnips are mentioned throughout Mishanyos, e.g., Kilayim 1:3.
(ג) הַלֶּפֶת וְהַנָּפוּץ, וְהַכְּרוּב וְהַתְּרוֹבְתוֹר, הַתְּרָדִים וְהַלְּעוּנִים, אֵינָם כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָזֶה. הוֹסִיף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הַשּׁוּם וְהַשּׁוּמָנִית, הַבָּצָל וְהַבְּצַלְצוּל, וְהַתֻּרְמוֹס וְהַפְּלַסְלוֹס, אֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָזֶה:
(3) Turnips and the cabbage turnip, cabbage and cauliflower, beet and rumex do not constitute kilayim one with the other. Rabbi Akiva added: garlic and small wild garlic, onion and small wild onion, lupine and wild lupine do not constitute kilayim one with the other.
Sources for Mishnah 7:6
Our Mishnah notes a dispute regarding the origin of the prohibition of Gid Hanasheh. Rabi Yehudah, looking at the verses in the Torah, understands that the prohibition came into being at the time of the incident with Ya'akov and the angel. The Chachomim argue, that all prohibitions have their origin at Sinai, and the Torah merely placed the prohibition in the story for context.
Most references to Sinai in the Mishnah are to those Halachos that are designated as Halochos Moshe M'Sinai. Meaning, these mitzvos and prohibitions are not explicit in the Torah but rather transmitted orally. The Mishnah in Shevuot 3:6 seems to make a more direct reference to prohibitions originating at Sinai.
(ו) נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְלֹא בִטֵּל, פָּטוּר. לְקַיֵּם וְלֹא קִיֵּם, פָּטוּר. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין, שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא, מָה אִם הָרְשׁוּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֻשְׁבָּע עָלֶיהָ מֵהַר סִינַי, הֲרֵי הוּא חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ, מִצְוָה שֶׁהוּא מֻשְׁבָּע עָלֶיהָ מֵהַר סִינַי, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִשְׁבוּעַת הָרְשׁוּת, שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהֵן, תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁבוּעַת מִצְוָה שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָהּ לָאו כְּהֵן, שֶׁאִם נִשְׁבַּע לְבַטֵּל וְלֹא בִטֵּל, פָּטוּר:
(6) If he swore to annul a commandment, and did not annul it, he is exempt. [If he swore] to fulfill [a commandment], and did not fulfill it, he is exempt. For it would have been logical [in the second instance] that he should have been liable, as is the opinion of Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra. [For] Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said, “Now, if for [swearing with regards to] an optional matter, for which he is not adjured from Mount Sinai, he is liable [should he not fulfill his oath], for [swearing with regards to] a commandment, for which he is adjured from Mount Sinai, he should most certainly be liable [should he not fulfill his oath]! They said to him: “No! If you say that for an oath with regards to an optional matter [he is liable], it is because [Scripture] has in that case made negative equal to positive [for liability]; But how can you say that for an oath [to fulfill] a commandment [he is liable], since [Scripture] has not in that case made negative equal to positive, for if he swore to annul [a commandment], and did not annul it, he is exempt!