Chullin — Daf 101b

ורבי יוסי הגלילי לית ליה איסור כולל

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

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

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

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

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:

אמר רבי יהודה והלא מבני יעקב [וכו']:

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

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

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי מההיא שעתא ליתסר

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

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

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

And does R. Jose the Galilean hold the view that a comprehensive prohibition cannot [be superimposed upon an existing prohibition]? 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;3 so R. Jose the Galilean. 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.5 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. 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.7 Said Raba to him: But in fact both [prohibitions] set in simultaneously! — Rather explained Raba:8 It was a time of religious persecution,9 and they sent word from there [Palestine] that the Day of Atonement of that year should be observed on a Sabbath.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’? Surely it says: Therefore the children of Israel eat not.11 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!12 — That was after the incident.13 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 was neither the time of the incident nor the time of the giving of the Law.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. 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; 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? 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. 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. special ease that arose because of religious persecution. day can only be considered as a transgression of the Sabbath but not as a transgression of the Day of Atonement. children of Israel’ before the giving of the Law at mount Sinai. before Sinai, at the occurrence of the event that gave rise to that law, but at no other period.