Talking Talmud

The discussion of the gid ha-nasheh leads into some lovely aggadic passages. First of all, did the sciatic nerve have to be in the right thigh to be prohibited at the Torah level or not? (Hint: It's a machloket). The Gemara breaks down the wrestling between Jacob and the angel from Genesis, to ensure that the injury would be in the right leg. But, again, not everyone thought that was necessary, and for that view, the sciatic nerve in each leg is equally prohibited. With further details about keeping a non-Jew, with whom one might be expected to spar, on the right side, and conversely, one must stay clear of the right side of the Torah scholar. Also, other midrashim/aggadot about Jacob -- how the stones became one larger stone to be his pillow, as it were (solving for a contradiction in the text). Plus, going back to that fight with the angel, and the ambiguities in that text. And the hint to exile and the leadership in both exile and the land of Israel.

More on the sciatic nerve -- the prohibition against the "gid ha-nasheh" applies only to the sacrificial animals that are consumed (not a burnt-offering, but a peace-offering, for example). Though there are those who note that if you eat from a sacrificial animal that shouldn't be eaten from - that will still be lashes, as compared to a fully-burnt offering, which would not levy a penalty for not removing the gid ha-nasheh. And note that a removed gid ha-nasheh would not be brought on the altar. Also, the gid ha-nasheh from the peace-offering -- it should be swept to the drain, while the burnt-offering would entail putting it on the pile of ash in the middle of the altar. Which leads into a discussion of exaggeration in the Torah, by the prophets, and by the sages. But this was not the norm, and the Gemara provides the specific list of the exaggerations from these three sources.

Beginning with some aggadic material - with Abraham claiming about himself that he is nothing but dust and ashes, and that he and his descendants have 2 mitzvot. Which 2 mitzvot is a matter of discussion. The discussion leads to the color of "tekhelet" -- the blue thread in tzitzit, the ritual fringes, and what makes them distinctive. Plus, an encounter with Nimrod. Also, chapter 7! With a new mishnah, and the wrestling between Jacob and the angel, which leads to the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, the "gid ha-nasheh," and the many details pertaining to it.

Blood that splatters and blood that's left on the knife also need to be covered, with a verse to make that point. As long as there's no other blood there at the same time. But if the life-blood was covered, then these other extra locations of blood do not to be covered. Also, a new mishnah - with a long list of substances that can be used for covering the blood, including that which can make plants grow. Plus, defining "fine sand," as a possible blood-coverer. Also, what do you use if you're in a situation where there's no material that will support the sprouting of seeds after covering the blood?

2 mishnayot! 1 - What if one is obligated to cover the blood after the slaughter of a non-domesticated animal or a bird and does not do it? A passerby who sees it should then cover the blood, but if the blood had been covered and it became uncovered, then there's no longer an obligation to cover. If the wind covered it, the obligation remains. But in a story of someone who covered the blood before the slaughterer had a chance to do so, the person who covered the blood had to pay (in gold) the slaughterer -- with a question as to why exactly he's penalized. Plus, another story of Sadducees and the dynamic in Rome between Jewish sects and the drama of Birkat HaMazon. 2 - If the blood that is supposed to be covered is mixed with water or wine or the blood of an animal that doesn't need to be covered -- if the mixture has the appearance of blood, it still needs to be covered, for example. And the solution itself, including the proportion of blood therein matters less than the appearance.