Masechet Chullin Daf 15
Dec. 12th, 2018 08:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
seekingferretI got an email this morning that because of credible anti-semitic threats on social media, the Bronfman Center at NYU was going to shut down until further notice. I got a second email in the early afternoon that they are reopening after having evaluated the security situation and decided that it is now safe.
Bronfman was a second home for me while I was in college, and it is one of the most vibrant and exciting and diverse Jewish communities I've ever seen. I went back this summer for the first time in several years to see a former roommate give a shiur and it was so nice to walk in and feel like I was back home again, inside this building where I spent so many hours praying and learning and singing and eating and spending time with friends. I'm terribly relieved that nothing more serious has happened. And terribly unsettled all the same.
Daf 15
As mentioned yesterday, Rav prohibited eating meat shechted on Shabbos or Yom Kippur ON Shabbos. It was taught that he did this in the name of Rabbi Yehudah, and the Gemara is exploring which specific ruling of Rabbi Yehudah Rav looked to.
Reminder: Rav lived in Babylonia in the early 3rd Century CE. Rabbi Yehuda is Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai and he lived in Eretz Yisrael in the early 2nd Century CE. Rabbi Yehuda was one of the teachers of Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, who wrote the Mishna, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the teacher of Rav.
Rav ruled that meat shechted on Shabbos is forbidden to be eaten. In tracing this ruling back to Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara explores various rulings of Rabbi Yehuda that relate to different subcategories of muktze and tries to see if this case falls under any of those rulings, but also if it falls under any of the categories.
Let me just link to this page, it illustrates just how many subcategories of muktze there are. https://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Muktzeh
It started yesterday by arguing that it's a case of Nolad (Items That Came into Existence on Shabbat). The cow was a cow before Shabbos, when it was shechted it became meat, and therefore it's issur. They compare it to a case of a cow that dies of natural causes on Shabbos. It is a neveila and is thus forbidden to be eaten, but you are allowed to feed a neveila to an animal. But Rabbi Yehuda rules that it is muktze as Nolad, apparently because yesterday it was a cow and now it's a neveilah. But Abaye objects that really what Rabbi Yehuda means is that yesterday it had the status of potential meat designated for a human to eat, and now it has the status of meat designated for an animal to eat, and therefore it's not comparable to the case of Rav.
The Gemara objects back that perhaps Rabbi Yehuda believes in the concept of berera, retroactive designation, whereby we can say that although yesterday the meat was designated for multiple potential purposes, now that it is a neveilah we can say that it was always designated for this purpose. Then the Gemara goes into a tangent that eventually establishes that Rabbi Yehuda does not believe in berera.
Daf 15 begins with asking if it's a case of Muktze Machamat issur. The cow was muktze from the start because the only use of a cow on Shabbos is to violate an issur. But they run into trouble here because even though they can establish a statement of Rabbi Yehuda that seems compatible with this approach, the statement is one that is incompatible with Rav, so Rav would not have cited this Rabbi Yehuda statement in support of his ruling.
Therefore, eventually the Gemara concludes that it's not a question of muktze at all! It's a different rule, a general rule of Shabbos about how to handle the result of food that was produced by violating Shabbos, for example food that was cooked on Shabbos.
There is a three-way disagreement between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yochanan Hasandlar.
[Of course I need to do a little tangent of our own here to talk about Rabbi Yochanan Hasandlar, because he has one of my favorite names in Shas. Because Hasandlar means the Sandal-maker. (Well, Wikipedia says that some people say it means the Alexandrian, but I hold by Shoemaker). I really like the implicit message that one can be both an important religious thinker and leader and also a tradesman who takes sufficient pride in his identity to take it as a byname. Also, it proves that Adam Hasandler has a Jewish last name.]
Aaaannnyway. Rabbi Meir says that if one inadvertently cooks on Shabbos, they may eat the food that has been cooked, but if the violation was on purpose, they may not eat the food. Rabbi Yehuda says that if one inadvertently cooks on Shabbos, they may not eat the food until after Shabbos, but if the violation was on purpose, they may never eat the food. And Rabbi Yochanan Hasandlar takes the strictest approach and says that if the food was cooked inadvertently, the food may be eaten by other people after Shabbos but not by the violator, and if the violation was on purpose, nobody can ever eat it.
Clearly Rabbi Yehuda's position is the closest to Rav's ruling, as long as we assume that Rav was talking about a situation where one shechted on Shabbos b'shogeg. Thus, this was the comparison being drawn all the way back at the beginning of Daf 14 amud Alef.
Still, even though we dismissed muktze earlier, it seems that in most cases the shechted animal will be muktze, just not because it was illicitly shechted on Shabbos. But there are weird cases involving pikuach nefesh where it would not be muktze, and so Rav's ruling is that even in those cases, the meat can't be eaten. I think, at least. This was a very complicated discussion and I don't feel all that competent in my summary.
Bronfman was a second home for me while I was in college, and it is one of the most vibrant and exciting and diverse Jewish communities I've ever seen. I went back this summer for the first time in several years to see a former roommate give a shiur and it was so nice to walk in and feel like I was back home again, inside this building where I spent so many hours praying and learning and singing and eating and spending time with friends. I'm terribly relieved that nothing more serious has happened. And terribly unsettled all the same.
Daf 15
As mentioned yesterday, Rav prohibited eating meat shechted on Shabbos or Yom Kippur ON Shabbos. It was taught that he did this in the name of Rabbi Yehudah, and the Gemara is exploring which specific ruling of Rabbi Yehudah Rav looked to.
Reminder: Rav lived in Babylonia in the early 3rd Century CE. Rabbi Yehuda is Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai and he lived in Eretz Yisrael in the early 2nd Century CE. Rabbi Yehuda was one of the teachers of Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, who wrote the Mishna, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the teacher of Rav.
Rav ruled that meat shechted on Shabbos is forbidden to be eaten. In tracing this ruling back to Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara explores various rulings of Rabbi Yehuda that relate to different subcategories of muktze and tries to see if this case falls under any of those rulings, but also if it falls under any of the categories.
Let me just link to this page, it illustrates just how many subcategories of muktze there are. https://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Muktzeh
It started yesterday by arguing that it's a case of Nolad (Items That Came into Existence on Shabbat). The cow was a cow before Shabbos, when it was shechted it became meat, and therefore it's issur. They compare it to a case of a cow that dies of natural causes on Shabbos. It is a neveila and is thus forbidden to be eaten, but you are allowed to feed a neveila to an animal. But Rabbi Yehuda rules that it is muktze as Nolad, apparently because yesterday it was a cow and now it's a neveilah. But Abaye objects that really what Rabbi Yehuda means is that yesterday it had the status of potential meat designated for a human to eat, and now it has the status of meat designated for an animal to eat, and therefore it's not comparable to the case of Rav.
The Gemara objects back that perhaps Rabbi Yehuda believes in the concept of berera, retroactive designation, whereby we can say that although yesterday the meat was designated for multiple potential purposes, now that it is a neveilah we can say that it was always designated for this purpose. Then the Gemara goes into a tangent that eventually establishes that Rabbi Yehuda does not believe in berera.
Daf 15 begins with asking if it's a case of Muktze Machamat issur. The cow was muktze from the start because the only use of a cow on Shabbos is to violate an issur. But they run into trouble here because even though they can establish a statement of Rabbi Yehuda that seems compatible with this approach, the statement is one that is incompatible with Rav, so Rav would not have cited this Rabbi Yehuda statement in support of his ruling.
Therefore, eventually the Gemara concludes that it's not a question of muktze at all! It's a different rule, a general rule of Shabbos about how to handle the result of food that was produced by violating Shabbos, for example food that was cooked on Shabbos.
There is a three-way disagreement between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yochanan Hasandlar.
[Of course I need to do a little tangent of our own here to talk about Rabbi Yochanan Hasandlar, because he has one of my favorite names in Shas. Because Hasandlar means the Sandal-maker. (Well, Wikipedia says that some people say it means the Alexandrian, but I hold by Shoemaker). I really like the implicit message that one can be both an important religious thinker and leader and also a tradesman who takes sufficient pride in his identity to take it as a byname. Also, it proves that Adam Hasandler has a Jewish last name.]
Aaaannnyway. Rabbi Meir says that if one inadvertently cooks on Shabbos, they may eat the food that has been cooked, but if the violation was on purpose, they may not eat the food. Rabbi Yehuda says that if one inadvertently cooks on Shabbos, they may not eat the food until after Shabbos, but if the violation was on purpose, they may never eat the food. And Rabbi Yochanan Hasandlar takes the strictest approach and says that if the food was cooked inadvertently, the food may be eaten by other people after Shabbos but not by the violator, and if the violation was on purpose, nobody can ever eat it.
Clearly Rabbi Yehuda's position is the closest to Rav's ruling, as long as we assume that Rav was talking about a situation where one shechted on Shabbos b'shogeg. Thus, this was the comparison being drawn all the way back at the beginning of Daf 14 amud Alef.
Still, even though we dismissed muktze earlier, it seems that in most cases the shechted animal will be muktze, just not because it was illicitly shechted on Shabbos. But there are weird cases involving pikuach nefesh where it would not be muktze, and so Rav's ruling is that even in those cases, the meat can't be eaten. I think, at least. This was a very complicated discussion and I don't feel all that competent in my summary.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 03:03 am (UTC)I have a giant urge to dig into the daf to see how on earth you can shect b'shogeg. "He ran into my knife in a very specific way. He ran into my knife in a very specific way one time."
...Okay probably I guess it means you got the time of shabbos starting/ending wrong?
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 03:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 03:23 am (UTC)I am very very far from being a scholar of these matters, so this is the first time I've heard of there being an exception like this to pikuach nefesh. I'm trying to wrap my head around it and not really succeeding.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 03:34 am (UTC)One possibility is that you shechted an animal, believing that they were dying, but by the time you got to feed them, they had recovered, so pikuach nefesh is no longer at stake.
Or another possibility discussed is that you shechted the animal to feed to the sick person, and the question is whether, since there is enough meat for more than one person, are you allowed to use the rest of the meat to feed other people who weren't sick?
It's pretty confusing in any case, and I may be getting some of the details wrong. Also a lot of the Rishonim explain this passage differently and I may be combining different incompatible explanations of different Rishonim and leading to extra confusion.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 04:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 03:03 pm (UTC)Person A is deathly ill immediately before Shabbos starts. Because of the hectic preparations for Shabbos and the new burdens presented by the illness, Person B, their caretaker, does not have time to shecht before Shabbos, but they make a machshava that they intend to shecht on Shabbos because of pikuach nefesh to provide meat for Person A. Thus, the animal has been designated for a valid use on Shabbos and starts Shabbos not muktze.
Shabbos starts. Person B goes to shecht the animal. While this is happening, Person A has a miraculous recover and is no longer in danger of death. Thus, the pikuach nefesh rationale no longer applies, however Person B does not know it. They shecht b'shogeg. (There is a machlokess about whether they also salted the meat b'shogeg. Some say yes, the case requires that they did. Others say that since the meat is going to be consumed raw, it does not need to have been salted, as cooking is what releases the blood in unsalted meat. The whole eating meat raw thing is a whole other issue I'm going to skip talking about.)
So since the meat was designated for shechting before Shabbos, in this one weird case it is not muktze by any of the formal mechanisms of muktze. But there is no longer a pikuach nefesh issue associated with it and in fact, when it was shechted, there was no pikuach nefesh issue. So may it be eaten? Rav rules, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, that it may be eaten but not until after Shabbos. I think this is a matter of moral hazard. There's no mechanical halakhic reason why the meat wouldn't be kosher, but we don't want to encourage people to be too lenient about being mechalel Shabbos in borderline cases.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-19 02:27 pm (UTC)Also, I am very, very sorry to hear that evil people threatened your community. I'm glad it was only a threat.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-19 03:00 pm (UTC)And I'm also glad it was only a threat. But seeing all my communities, which already had fortifications and security measures I hoped were unnecessary, talking about how to add even more security measures, is an unsettling process to live through.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 04:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-13 03:54 pm (UTC)