Just Me, Or...?

[debka_notion]

Is it just me, or does the following say something about the theoretical status of the gid hanasheh of a dinosaur (ignoring, for the sake of humor, the fact that a dinosaur wouldn't be kosher anyways, and therefore since the gid hanasheh isn't considered part of the meat, eating it would be patur anyways):  I'm quoting in translation because I'm too lazy to type it in or go find it in Hebrew(and I'm supposed to be doing homework anyways).

The prohibition against gid hanasheh does not apply with regard to a fow, because it does not have a [round] hip-socket.  Instead, its thigh is long [and flat].  If there is a fow whose thigh is shaped like that of the thigh of an animal, i.e. it has a hip-socket, its gid hanasheh is forbidden, but one is not iable for lashes because of it.  SImilarly, when there is an anima whose thigh is long like that of a fowl, its gid hanasheh is forbidden, but one is not liable for lashes for it. 

I remember learning that dinosaurs have the same sorts of hip bones as birds...  

Comments

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

I think those describe the overall shape of the pelvis, not the hip socket in particular. May or may not affect gid hanashe hadinozauri.

[belu.livejournal.com]

Perhaps. The theological stuff was completely over my head.

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

I figured that either it was something one knew, or explaining it was going to make it a much, much longer post than I had time for. The basic background is that there's a tendon in the hip that is forbidden to eat, because traditionally it's the one that Jacob tore when wrestling with the angel. However, in birds, it isn't such a problem, because they have a different hip set-up. The law-code I quoted goes on to say that animals that have hips like birds- eating that tendon is still forbidden, but not punished. Thus- if dinosaurs have hips like birds- they fall into that category. That's really the whole deal. Not so much theology as law-geekery.