Chullin 101b (קא:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

And

if

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili does not accept the principle of a comprehensive prohibition,

by which one prohibition can take effect upon another prohibition, how can this be!?

But it was taught in a beraita:

If it was

Shabbat and Yom Kippur, and he unwittingly performed labor

on that Shabbat on which Yom Kippur fell,

from where is it derived that he is liable

a sin-offering

for this one independently and for that one independently,

that is, that he must 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 states

with regard to Shabbat:

“It is Shabbat

for the Lord,” teaching you that if there is an additional prohibition on that Shabbat, he is liable for desecrating Shabbat.

And similarly it is stated with regard to Yom Kippur:

“It is Yom Kippur,”

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

the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Accordingly, if Shabbat and Yom Kippur occur on the same day, he is liable for each one, by virtue of the special derivation stated with regard to each of them.

Rabbi Akiva says: He is liable for only one!

Since one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition, he can be liable for only one sin-offering, even though the prohibition of Shabbat and the prohibition of Yom Kippur would have to take effect simultaneously, at the onset of the day.

And this is how we analyze the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

Granted, if Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that, in the case of a comprehensive prohibition or an augmenting prohibition, one prohibition takes effect upon another, it is well that one should be liable for two sin-offerings for Shabbat and Yom Kippur. For if it were possible for Yom Kippur to take effect upon Shabbat consecutively, 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, as it includes additional prohibitions that do not apply on Shabbat: Yom Kippur is also prohibited with regard to eating and drinking, in addition to the prohibition against labor.

And likewise, if it were possible for Shabbat to take effect upon Yom Kippur consecutively, there would be liability for two sin-offerings, because Shabbat is considered an “augmenting prohibition” with regard to Yom Kippur: Shabbat adds to it liability for stoning, since one who performs labor on Yom Kippur is liable only to karet, whereas one who performs labor on Shabbat is liable to stoning.

Accordingly, it is well that he is liable for two on account of Shabbat and Yom Kippur when they occur simultaneously, since they have the capacity to take effect one upon the other, either by virtue of a comprehensive prohibition or by virtue of an augmenting prohibition.

But if you say, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, that a comprehensive prohibition and an augmenting prohibition do not take effect upon other prohibitions, then when Shabbat and Yom Kippur arrive on one day, why do both take effect? How can one prohibition take effect upon another!?

And we answer:

Ravin sent the following in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: This

is certainly

the version of the

the

Mishna,

that is, this is indeed how it was taught in the Tosefta in tractate Keritot, the beraita stating that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds one liable for two when he performs a single act of labor on Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbat. But it is erroneous—and

reverse

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

And we say:

Rav Yitzḥak bar Yaakov bar Giyorei sent in the name [

in the name of]

of Rabbi Yoḥanan: According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as we have reversed it,

that we established that one who performs labor on Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbat is liable for only one: If he

was unwitting with regard to Shabbat,

having forgotten that the day was Shabbat,

and was intentional regarding the

prohibition of

Yom Kippur,

knowing that the day was Yom Kippur, only then is he

liable

to bring a sin-offering.

But if he

was intentional with regard to Shabbat,

knowing 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 single sin-offering for which Rabbi Yosei HaGelili requires him to bring is for Shabbat and not for Yom Kippur. Therefore, when he was intentional with regard to Shabbat, he is exempt from a sin-offering and does not bring a sin-offering for his unwitting violation of Yom Kippur.

And the reason for this is that

Shabbat is

fixed and established,

and there is no need for the court to sanctify it for the sanctity of Shabbat to take effect, whereas the sanctity of

Yom Kippur is established by

the court

that sanctifies the month,

which 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,

arrive together,

and there is no sanctity here that needs to take effect upon a sanctity that had already taken effect; why, then, should he not be liable for two? Rather, necessarily, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s reason is that a comprehensive and augmenting prohibition do not take effect upon other prohibitions. Accordingly, even when they take effect simultaneously, it is impossible for him to be liable on account of two prohibitions; he is liable only on account of one prohibition [and we do not define which that prohibition is; rather, he cannot be liable for two sin-offerings for one act of labor on this day]. Therefore, if he was intentional with regard to either of them, whether Shabbat or Yom Kippur, and was unwitting with regard to the other, he is liable for one!

Rather, Rava said:

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

there was a time of persecution,

when the gentiles decreed that Yom Kippur not be observed, and they were compelled to abolish Yom Kippur at that time. It was not referring to Yom Kippur that fell on Shabbat; rather, it fell in the middle of the week. But so that the laws of Yom Kippur would not be forgotten,

they sent word from there: “The Yom Kippur of this year

should not be observed at its proper time, in the middle of the week; rather,

it was Shabbat,

and they should observe the practices of Yom Kippur on Shabbat, not at its proper time, so that they would remember the laws of Yom Kippur. And the enemies would not understand that they were commemorating Yom Kippur, because on Shabbat they customarily refrained from labor.

And likewise, when Ravin arrived, and all those who descended—

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 in a beraita: They said to Rabbi Yehuda: Is it stated, “Therefore the sons of Jacob shall not eat

the sciatic nerve,” so that you can say that already when they were called only “the sons of Jacob” they were prohibited from eating the sciatic nerve?

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

the giving of the Torah at Mount

Sinai!

Rather,

it is evident that only

at Sinai was

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve stated;

rather, it was written

in the Torah

in its place,

in the account of Jacob’s struggle with the angel,

to make known for what reason its consumption was prohibited to them

—this is the language of the beraita.

Rava raises an objection:

But it is written:

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

which proves from this verse that even before the giving of the Torah at Sinai they were called “the sons of Israel.” What, then, 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 still not called the sons of Israel, but only

after

a long time had passed from when 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!?

Why did you say that they were prohibited only at Sinai because it was from then that they were called “the sons of Israel”? We have now demonstrated from this verse that they were called “the sons of Israel” even before Sinai!?

Rav Ashi said

to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava:

Was the Torah given more than once!?

For

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 the sciatic nerve was prohibited at that time.

The Sages taught:

The prohibition against eating

a limb from a living animal applies to domesticated animals, undomesticated animals, and birds, whether impure or pure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar.

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them expounded the same verse!

As it is written:

“Only be steadfast not to eat the blood. For the blood is the life,