Chullin 101b — the Talmud in English

And we object:

And

when

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not hold that a comprehensive prohibition

which has the power to take effect upon another prohibition

!? But it was taught:

if there was

Shabbat and Yom Kippur, and he unwittingly performed labor

on that Shabbat upon which Yom Kippur occurred,

from where [do we know] that he is liable

a sin-offering

for this itself and for that itself,

that is, that he is liable to bring two separate sin-offerings, one for desecrating Shabbat and the other for desecrating Yom Kippur, even though he performed only one act of labor

? The verse says

with regard to Shabbat —

“It is Shabbat

for the Lord”! This teaches you that if there is an additional prohibition on that Shabbat, he is to be held liable for desecrating Shabbat

And likewise it is said with regard to Yom Kippur:

“It is Yom Kippur,”

to teach you that if there is an additional prohibition on that Yom Kippur, he is liable for desecrating Yom Kippur,

the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Therefore, if Shabbat and Yom Kippur occurred on the same day, he is liable for each one of them, on the basis of the special amplification stated with regard to each one of them.

Rabbi Akiva says: He is liable for only one!

For since a prohibition does not take effect upon a prohibition, it is impossible to hold him liable for more than one sin-offering, even though the prohibition of Shabbat and the prohibition of Yom Kippur must take effect simultaneously, at the beginning of the day

And this is how we infer from the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

Granted, if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds, with regard to a comprehensive prohibition or an additive prohibition, that a prohibition takes effect upon a prohibition, it is properly possible to hold him liable for two sin-offerings for Shabbat and Yom Kippur. For if it were possible for Yom Kippur to take effect upon Shabbat one after the other, he would be liable for performing labor on that day for two sin-offerings, because the prohibition of Yom Kippur is considered a “comprehensive prohibition” with regard to the prohibition of Shabbat, since it includes additional prohibitions that do not apply on Shabbat, for Yom Kippur is also prohibited in eating and drinking, besides the prohibition of labor.

And likewise, if it were possible for Shabbat to take effect upon Yom Kippur one after the other, there would be liability for two sin-offerings, because Shabbat is considered an “additive prohibition” in relation to Yom Kippur, as Shabbat adds to it liability for stoning; for one who performs labor on Yom Kippur is not liable for stoning, but only for karet, whereas one who performs labor on Shabbat is liable for stoning.

Therefore, he is properly liable for two for Shabbat and Yom Kippur when they occurred simultaneously, since they have the power to take effect upon one another, by virtue of a comprehensive prohibition or by virtue of an additive prohibition.

But if you say, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, that with regard to a comprehensive prohibition and an additive prohibition they do not take effect upon other prohibitions, then when Shabbat and Yom Kippur come on one day, why do both take effect? For how can a prohibition take effect upon a prohibition

And we answer:

Ravin sent word in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: Thus

it is certainly

the formulation of

the

Mishna,

that is, this is indeed how it was taught, in the Tosefta of tractate Keritot, the beraita that says that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds liable for two [sin-offerings] one who performs a single act of labor on Yom Kippur that occurred on Shabbat. But it is mistaken — and

reverse

the statements of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, and say that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is the one who holds liable for only one, and Rabbi Akiva is the one who holds liable for two.

And we say:

Rav Yitzḥak bar Yaakov bar Giyorei sent word in the name of [

in the name of ]

Rabbi Yoḥanan: According to the words of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, in accordance with what we reversed,

that we established that one who performs labor on Yom Kippur that occurred on Shabbat is liable for only one [sin-offering], now if

he was unwitting with regard to Shabbat,

as he forgot that this day was Shabbat,

but acted intentionally with regard to the

prohibition of

Yom Kippur,

as he knew that this day was Yom Kippur, only then is he

liable

for a sin-offering.

But if

he acted intentionally with regard to Shabbat,

as he knew that the day was Shabbat,

and was unwitting with regard to Yom Kippur —

he is exempt

from a sin-offering altogether.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that he is exempt

Abaye said:

Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the sole sin-offering that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili requires him to bring is only for Shabbat and not for Yom Kippur. Therefore, when he acted intentionally with regard to Shabbat, he is exempt from a sin-offering and does not bring a sin-offering for his unwittingness with regard to Yom Kippur.

And the reason for this matter is that

Shabbat —

is fixed and established,

and there is no need for the court’s sanctification in order for the sanctity of Shabbat to take effect, whereas the sanctity of

Yom Kippur —

the court

that sanctifies the month is the one

that establishes it,

and therefore the sanctity of Yom Kippur cannot take effect upon the sanctity of Shabbat, which is fixed and established.

Rava said

to Abaye:

Ultimately, both

sanctities, that of Shabbat and that of Yom Kippur,

come together,

and here there is no sanctity that needs to take effect upon sanctity that has already taken effect. So why should he not be liable for two? Rather, necessarily, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s reason is that a comprehensive and additive prohibition does not take effect upon prohibitions. Therefore, even when they occur simultaneously, it is impossible for him to be liable on account of two prohibitions, but only on account of one prohibition [and we do not define what that prohibition is, except that he cannot be liable for two sin-offerings for one act of labor on this day]. Therefore, if he acted intentionally with regard to one of them, whether Shabbat or Yom Kippur, and was unwitting with regard to the other, he is liable for one

Rather, Rava said:

The matter that Rav Yitzḥak sent, that he is exempt with regard to Yom Kippur, was not said according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. For it was when

there was a time of persecution,

when the idolaters decreed that Yom Kippur was not to be observed, and they were compelled to abolish Yom Kippur at that time. And it was not speaking of Yom Kippur occurring on Shabbat; rather, it occurred in the middle of the week. But so that the law of Yom Kippur would not be forgotten,

they sent from there: The Yom Kippur of this year

they would not observe it at its proper time, in the middle of the week, but

it would be Shabbat,

so that on Shabbat they would observe the practices of Yom Kippur, not at its proper time, in order that they would remember the law of Yom Kippur. And the enemies would not understand that they were commemorating Yom Kippur, because on Shabbat they would practice resting.

And likewise, when Ravin came, and all those who went down —

they stated it in accordance with Rava!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: But was it not from the time of the sons of Jacob

that the sciatic nerve was prohibited, while an impure animal was still permitted to them?

It was taught: They said to Rabbi Yehuda: And was it stated, “Therefore the sons of Jacob shall not eat

the sciatic nerve,” so that you should say that already at the time when they were called only “the sons of Jacob,” the sciatic nerve was prohibited to them

But was it not stated only, “the sons of Israel,” and they were not called “the sons of Israel” until

the receiving of the Torah at the mountain of

Sinai!

Rather,

it is proven that only

at Sinai was stated

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve,

but it was written

in the Torah

in its place,

in the passage of Jacob’s wrestling with the angel,

in order to know for what reason it was prohibited to them

eating the sciatic nerve! Thus far is the language of the beraita.

Rava raises an objection:

but is it not written

“And the sons of Israel carried Jacob their father,”

and it is proven from this verse that even before receiving the Torah at Sinai they were called “the sons of Israel.” And what did the Sages say to Rabbi Yehuda, that they were not called “the sons of Israel” until Sinai

And we answer: At the time when the struggle with the angel occurred, they were not yet called the sons of Israel, but only

after

a long time after that

event [

when the Lord appeared to Jacob and said to him, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, and so on.”]

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:

If so,

from that time

when they were called “the sons of Israel

should it not have been prohibited!?

And why do you say that it was prohibited only at Sinai because it was from then that they were called “the sons of Israel”? For now we are proving from this verse that they were called “the sons of Israel” even before Sinai

He said to him

Rav Ashi to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava:

Was the Torah given on multiple occasions!?

And after all,

that time

when the Lord appeared to Jacob and called him Israel

was neither the time of the event nor the time of the giving of the Torah,

and therefore it is impossible that at that time the sciatic nerve was prohibited.

The Sages taught:

the prohibition against eating

a limb from a living creature applies to a domesticated animal, a wild animal, and a bird, whether impure or pure; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar.

And the Sages say: It applies only to pure [animals]!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them expounded one verse!

As it is written

“Only be firm not to eat the blood, for the blood is the soul,