Chullin 202

Chapter 202

א ורבי יוסי הגלילי לית ליה איסור כולל

1 And does R'Jose the Galilean hold the view that a comprehensive prohibition cannot [be superimposed upon an existing prohibition]?

ב והתניא שבת ויוה"כ שגג ועשה מלאכה מנין שחייב על זה בעצמו ועל זה בעצמו תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כג, ג) שבת היא (ויקרא כג, כז) יום הכפורים הוא דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי רבי עקיבא אומר אינו חייב אלא אחת

2 Behold it has been taught: If the Day of Atonement happened to fall on the Sabbath and a person inadvertently did work thereon, whence do we know that he is guilty for each separately?1 Because it is written: It is a sabbath,2 and also: It is the day of atonement;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 27. Here the prohibitions of the Sabbath and of the Day of Atonement come into force simultaneously, i.e., on the Friday evening after sunset; nevertheless R. Jose regards the person guilty for transgressing both prohibitions. Now if R. Jose were to hold that a comprehensive prohibition or one that involves a graver penalty can be superimposed upon an existing prohibition, then it is clear to understand his view here with regard to simultaneous prohibitions; since whichever of the two prohibitions were to set in first the other could be superimposed. For the Sabbath involves a graver penalty than that of the Day of Atonement (the former death and the latter kareth) ; and, on the other hand, the prohibition of the Day of Atonement is more comprehensive than that of the Sabbath (on the Sabbath only work is prohibited whilst on the Day of Atonement eating is also prohibited) . If, however, R. Jose were to hold that a comprehensive prohibition or one that involves a graver penalty cannot be superimposed upon an existing prohibition, what is his reason here for holding that two prohibitions can come into force simultaneously?');">3 so R'Jose the Galilean.

ג שלח רבין משום דרבי יוסי בר' חנינא כך הצעה של משנה ואיפוך

3 R'Akiba says: He has only incurred guilt once.4 - Rabin sent [from Palestine the following message] in the name of R'Jose son of R'Hanina: The construction of the teaching is as stated save that the authorities must be reversed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it was R. Jose who said that the offender had only incurred guilt once; for according to R. Jose in no circumstances can a prohibition be superimposed upon another prohibition, whether both come into force simultaneously or the later one is a comprehensive prohibition or one that involves a graver penalty.');">5

ד שלח רב יצחק בר יעקב בר גיורי משום דרבי יוחנן לדברי רבי יוסי הגלילי למאי דאפכן שגג בשבת והזיד ביום הכפורים חייב הזיד בשבת ושגג ביום הכפורים פטור

4 R'Isaac B'Jacob B'Giori sent the following in the name of R'Johanan: According to the view of R'Jose the Galilean, now that we have reversed the authorities, if a person being unaware that it was the Sabbath but knowing full well that it was the Day of Atonement [did work thereon] he is liable,6 if [he did so] knowing full well that it was the Sabbath but being unaware that it was the Day of Atonement, he is not liable.

ה מאי טעמא אמר אביי שבת קביעא וקיימא יום הכפורים בי דינא דקא קבעי ליה

5 What is the reason [for this distinction]? - Abaye answered: The Sabbath is fixed and determined from all time, but the Day of Atonement is determined by the Beth Din.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is therefore considered as if the Sabbath set in first, so that the prohibition of the Day of Atonement cannot be superimposed upon the existing prohibition of the Sabbath. Consequently the only prohibition that enters into consideration is that of the Sabbath, and if a person did work knowing full well that it was the Sabbath, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering, for no offering may be brought for a deliberate transgression.');">7 Said Raba to him: But in fact both [prohibitions] set in simultaneously! - Rather explained Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original statement of R. Isaac b. Jacob had no reference to the opinion of R. Jose the Galilean, but dealt with a special ease that arose because of religious persecution.');">8 It was a time of religious persecution,9

ו אמר ליה רבא סוף סוף תרוייהו בהדי הדדי קאתו אלא אמר רבא שמדא הוה ושלחו מתם דיומא דכפורי דהא שתא שבתא הוא וכן כי אתא רבין וכל נחותי אמרוה כרבא:

6 and they sent word from there [Palestine] that the Day of Atonement of that year should be observed on a Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although that day was not the correct date of the Day of Atonement. Consequently any breach of the sanctity of that day can only be considered as a transgression of the Sabbath but not as a transgression of the Day of Atonement.');">10 When Rabin came and also all those who came down [from Palestine to Babylon], they explained it as Raba did. R'JUDAH ARGUED, WAS NOT THE SCIATIC NERVE FORBIDDEN FROM THE TIME OF THE SONS OF JACOB? etc. It was taught: [The Rabbis] said to R'Judah: Does it say [in the Torah], 'Therefore the children of Jacob eat not'?

ז אמר רבי יהודה והלא מבני יעקב [וכו']:

7 Surely it says: Therefore the children of Israel eat not.11

ח תניא אמרו לו לר' יהודה וכי נאמר על כן לא יאכלו בני יעקב והלא לא נאמר אלא בני ישראל ולא נקראו בני ישראל עד סיני אלא בסיני נאמר אלא שנכתב במקומו לידע מאיזה טעם נאסר להם

8 Now they were first styled the children of Israel only at [the giving of the law at] Sinai; therefore [we must say that] the law [of the sciatic nerve] was given at Sinai, but was written in its present place to indicate the reason why it was prohibited. Raba raised an objection against this. It is written: And the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XLVI,5. The reference is to the children of Jacob carrying their father to Egypt; thus they are styled 'the children of Israel' before the giving of the Law at mount Sinai.');">12 - That was after the incident.13

ט מתיב רבא (בראשית מו, ה) וישאו בני ישראל את יעקב אביהם לאחר מעשה

9 R'Aha the son of Raba said to R'Ashi: Then it should be prohibited from that time14 onwards, should it not? - He replied: Was the Torah given at various times? And that time15

י אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי מההיא שעתא ליתסר

10 was neither the time of the incident nor the time of the giving of the Law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A particular law could have been ordained either generally at the giving of the Law at Sinai, or specially, even before Sinai, at the occurrence of the event that gave rise to that law, but at no other period.');">16 Our Rabbis taught: The [prohibition of eating a] limb [severed] from a living creature applies to cattle, wild beasts and to birds, whether they be clean or unclean: so R'Judah and R'Eleazar; but the Sages say: It applies only to the clean animals.

יא אמר ליה וכי תורה פעמים פעמים ניתנה ההוא שעתא לאו שעת מעשה הואי ולא שעת מתן תורה הואי

11 Said R'Johanan: Both views were inferred from the same verse, viz. , Only be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood is the life;

יב ת"ר אבר מן החי נוהג בבהמה חיה ועוף בין טמאין ובין טהורין דברי רבי יהודה ורבי אלעזר וחכמים אומרים אינו נוהג אלא בטהורין

יג אמר ר' יוחנן ושניהן מקרא אחד דרשו (דברים יב, כג) רק חזק לבלתי אכול הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש

Previous Chapter Next Chapter