![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Masechet Chullin Daf 101/102/103
Mar. 11th, 2019 08:53 amDaf 101
This was a tremendously difficult to understand daf mostly about complicated formal rules of law: When a single action transgresses multiple prohibitions, which penalties apply? This is not the case of, say, eating bacon-topped shrimp, where eating the bacon and eating the shrimp are separate actions even if you do it in the same bite. Rather, this is a case of doing a single act that is multiply prohibited, such as eating a gid hanasheh from a non-kosher animal. Is this two issurim that you've violated, subjecting you to two penalties? We discussed on the previous daf this question in non-formalistic, midrashic terms, now the Gemara tries to define formalistic rules for how to understand this question in general.
There's an idea of priority in timing, that if one issur applied earlier, it has priority over the other, and the other prohibition wouldn't take effect. But what if both issurim apply at the same moment? Then, maybe they both apply and maybe they don't. A concept called issur klal is introduced, which means that if the second prohibition in some way has greater scope of application than the other, it also applies. This makes abstract sense- the idea is something like that the variation in scope means that the two issurim are not proximately acting in the same way.
In context of this discussion, the Gemara cites a story about a time in Babylonia where Shabbos fell on Yom Kippur and one was chiyuv for doing melacha on Shabbos but not on Yom Kippur and tries to tease out the scenario that meets these formal rules. Several idea are suggested, the most fascinating of which is that it wasn't really Yom Kippur. Sometimes, apparently, the Babylonian authorities would ban Yom Kippur as a retaliation against or effort to suppress the Jews, and when that happened, the Rabbis would declare that everyone should fast and observe the halachos of Yom Kippur on the nearest Shabbos. But of course if one transgressed this fake Yom Kippur one wouldn't be liable for it, just for violating Shabbos.
Daf 102
Continuing on the lines of this discussion of issur klal and the formalistic rules of combining issurim, the Gemara explores ever min hachai and whether IT also applies to nonkosher animals. Which is strange, obviously it does! At least for non-Jews, since ever min hachai is one of the Sheva B'Nei Noach. But the consensus seems to be that applying this concept of issur klal, ever min hachai does not have greater scope than the prohibition on eating nonkosher meat, so there is no issur for Jews on eating ever min hachai from a nonkosher animal, although the issur of eating nonkosher animals still applies.
There's a sort of basic sense of 'does this actually matter' throughout these formalistic discussions, this leads to a discussion of the differences in kazayit for different issurim. General eating prohibitions are based around a kazayit of meat- but ever min hachai at least according to some is based around a kazayit of combined meat plus bone, or maybe even less than a kazayit if you eat a full limb in its entirety.
Rebbi also introduces a slightly stranger formalistic concept that you can consider an animal that is still alive as already sort of consisting of a bunch of limbs you could eat alive. This matters for the question of whether eating a whole live animal in one act violates ever min hachai or not. Rava teaches based on this that whether one trangresses ever min hachai in this situation depends on your machshava, your intention. If you thought of the animal as separated limbs, you violate, if you thought of it as a whole animal, you don't. Abaye thinks this is terrible, he prefers here a formal rule that applies in all situations and doesn't require determining machshava. In any case, you do violate basar min hachai if you eat more than a kazayit of meat while eating the whole animal.
Daf 103
We wrap up the perek with more tricky formal laws of eating. What if you chew up the ever min hachai into pieces while eating it, and so you never swallow a single piece of ever that is bigger than a kazayit, but the overall amount you eat was bigger than a kazayit? According to Rabbi Yochanan, they are still chayiv, according to Resh Lakish they are patur. But if you cut up the ever before eating, all agree you are patur.
Rabbi Linzer was trying to develop a theory, based on some of the Rishonim, that there should be a somewhat broader concept of 'the process of eating' as opposed to 'the moment of eating' when the food actually enters the throat, so maybe cutting up the meat would not totally save you. But it's not so straightforward, a lot of the Gemara seems to suggest it's almost impossible to actually transgress ever min hachai on these terms.
Next chapter is on milk and meat!
This was a tremendously difficult to understand daf mostly about complicated formal rules of law: When a single action transgresses multiple prohibitions, which penalties apply? This is not the case of, say, eating bacon-topped shrimp, where eating the bacon and eating the shrimp are separate actions even if you do it in the same bite. Rather, this is a case of doing a single act that is multiply prohibited, such as eating a gid hanasheh from a non-kosher animal. Is this two issurim that you've violated, subjecting you to two penalties? We discussed on the previous daf this question in non-formalistic, midrashic terms, now the Gemara tries to define formalistic rules for how to understand this question in general.
There's an idea of priority in timing, that if one issur applied earlier, it has priority over the other, and the other prohibition wouldn't take effect. But what if both issurim apply at the same moment? Then, maybe they both apply and maybe they don't. A concept called issur klal is introduced, which means that if the second prohibition in some way has greater scope of application than the other, it also applies. This makes abstract sense- the idea is something like that the variation in scope means that the two issurim are not proximately acting in the same way.
In context of this discussion, the Gemara cites a story about a time in Babylonia where Shabbos fell on Yom Kippur and one was chiyuv for doing melacha on Shabbos but not on Yom Kippur and tries to tease out the scenario that meets these formal rules. Several idea are suggested, the most fascinating of which is that it wasn't really Yom Kippur. Sometimes, apparently, the Babylonian authorities would ban Yom Kippur as a retaliation against or effort to suppress the Jews, and when that happened, the Rabbis would declare that everyone should fast and observe the halachos of Yom Kippur on the nearest Shabbos. But of course if one transgressed this fake Yom Kippur one wouldn't be liable for it, just for violating Shabbos.
Daf 102
Continuing on the lines of this discussion of issur klal and the formalistic rules of combining issurim, the Gemara explores ever min hachai and whether IT also applies to nonkosher animals. Which is strange, obviously it does! At least for non-Jews, since ever min hachai is one of the Sheva B'Nei Noach. But the consensus seems to be that applying this concept of issur klal, ever min hachai does not have greater scope than the prohibition on eating nonkosher meat, so there is no issur for Jews on eating ever min hachai from a nonkosher animal, although the issur of eating nonkosher animals still applies.
There's a sort of basic sense of 'does this actually matter' throughout these formalistic discussions, this leads to a discussion of the differences in kazayit for different issurim. General eating prohibitions are based around a kazayit of meat- but ever min hachai at least according to some is based around a kazayit of combined meat plus bone, or maybe even less than a kazayit if you eat a full limb in its entirety.
Rebbi also introduces a slightly stranger formalistic concept that you can consider an animal that is still alive as already sort of consisting of a bunch of limbs you could eat alive. This matters for the question of whether eating a whole live animal in one act violates ever min hachai or not. Rava teaches based on this that whether one trangresses ever min hachai in this situation depends on your machshava, your intention. If you thought of the animal as separated limbs, you violate, if you thought of it as a whole animal, you don't. Abaye thinks this is terrible, he prefers here a formal rule that applies in all situations and doesn't require determining machshava. In any case, you do violate basar min hachai if you eat more than a kazayit of meat while eating the whole animal.
Daf 103
We wrap up the perek with more tricky formal laws of eating. What if you chew up the ever min hachai into pieces while eating it, and so you never swallow a single piece of ever that is bigger than a kazayit, but the overall amount you eat was bigger than a kazayit? According to Rabbi Yochanan, they are still chayiv, according to Resh Lakish they are patur. But if you cut up the ever before eating, all agree you are patur.
Rabbi Linzer was trying to develop a theory, based on some of the Rishonim, that there should be a somewhat broader concept of 'the process of eating' as opposed to 'the moment of eating' when the food actually enters the throat, so maybe cutting up the meat would not totally save you. But it's not so straightforward, a lot of the Gemara seems to suggest it's almost impossible to actually transgress ever min hachai on these terms.
Next chapter is on milk and meat!
