THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
CHULIN 101-102 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
1) DOES THE "GID HA'NASHEH" HAVE A TASTE
QUESTION: Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav says that Rebbi Meir and the
Chachamim argue with regard to one who eats the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Neveilah.
Rebbi Meir maintains that one is Chayav for both the Isur of eating the Gid
ha'Nasheh and the Isur of eating Neveilah, even though the Isur of Gid
ha'Nasheh was already present when the Isur of Neveilah took effect. The
Chachamim maintain that he is Chayav only for the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh.
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 8:6) rules that one who eats the Gid
ha'Nasheh of a Neveilah (or Tereifah or Korban Olah) is Chayav for both the
Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh and the Isur of Neveilah (like Rebbi Meir), because
the second Isur that takes effect is an "Isur Kolel" -- it prohibits not
only the Gid, but the rest of the animal as well.
The Rambam's ruling implies that the Gid ha'Nasheh has a taste, because if
it does not have a taste, then the Isur of Neveilah should not apply to it.
However, the Rambam elsewhere seems to contradict this. The Rambam (Hilchos
Ma'achalos Asuros 15:17) rules that when a Gid ha'Nasheh is cooked with a
permitted food, the mixture is permitted as long as the actual Gid is
removed. The taste of the Gid does not permit the mixture, because the Gid
has no taste. Similarly, the Rambam (ibid. 8:5) rules that one who eats the
Gid ha'Nasheh of a non-Kosher animal does not transgress the Isur, because
the prohibition of Gid ha'Nasheh applies to a Kosher animal. The reason why
the person who eats the Gid ha'Nasheh is not Chayav for eating the meat of a
non-Kosher animal is because the Gid ha'Nasheh has no taste and thus is not
Since the Rambam rules that the Gid ha'Nasheh is not considered meat, how
can he rule that one is Chayav for eating Neveilah when he eats the Gid
ha'Nasheh of a Neveilah? What is the difference between the Gid ha'Nasheh of
a non-Kosher animal (Behemah Teme'ah) and the Gid ha'Nasheh of a Neveilah?
ANSWER: The ROSH YOSEF explains that Gid ha'Nasheh generally is not
considered meat, according to the RAMBAM, because it has no taste. However,
when the prohibition of eating the Gid ha'Nasheh does apply, it is evident
that the Torah views the Gid ha'Nasheh as food. Since the Torah considers
the Gid ha'Nasheh to be food, the prohibitions of Neveilah and Tereifah also
apply to it.
In contrast, in the case of a non-Kosher animal, the Torah does not prohibit
the Gid ha'Nasheh. Consequently, it is not considered food at all, and one
who eats it is not Chayav for eating the meat of a non-Kosher animal.
2) COMPARING SHABBOS AND YOM KIPUR
QUESTION: The Gemara (101a) suggests that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that
an Isur cannot take effect on a pre-existing Isur ("Ein Isur Chal Al Isur")
even when the second Isur is an "Isur Kolel" and includes more objects than
the first Isur includes. If meat of Kodshim became Tamei, and then the Kohen
became Tamei and ate the meat of Kodshim, he does not receive an additional
punishment for eating Kodshim while his body is Tamei, even though that Isur
is an Isur Kolel, since it includes both Tamei and Tahor food of Kodshim
(see RASHI 101a, DH Hachi Garsinan d'Chulei Alma).
3) THE TIME AT WHICH THE PROHIBITION OF "GID HA'NASHEH" TOOK EFFECT
The Gemara challenges the assertion that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili does not agree
with the principle of "Isur Kolel." A Beraisa states that when a person
performs Melachah unintentionally (b'Shogeg) on Yom Kipur when it occurs on
Shabbos, he is obligated to bring a Korban Chatas both for transgressing the
Isur of Melachah on Shabbos and the Isur of Melachah on Yom Kipur. (Rashi
explains that Yom Kipur is considered an Isur Kolel with regard to Shabbos,
because the Isur of Shabbos includes only Melachah, while the Isur of Yom
Kipur includes eating as well; since Yom Kipur causes a new Isur (eating) to
take effect, the Isur of Melachah also takes effect, even though Melachah is
already Asur because of the Isur of Shabbos.)
The Gemara's question is not clear. The Beraisa does not necessarily
contradict the view of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili. Perhaps the reason why one who
performs Melachah on Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbos is not because Yom
Kipur is an Isur Kolel, but rather because the Isur of Shabbos and the Isur
of Yom Kipur take effect simultaneously! The Gemara in Yevamos (33a)
discusses whether or not one is Chayav for both Isurim when the two Isurim
took effect simultaneously. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 17:8) rules
that one is Chayav for both Isurim when the two Isurim took effect at the
(a) RASHI (DH Shalach) answers that the Gemara indeed could have answered
that Rebbi Yosi maintains that one is Chayav for both Isurim in a case when
the two Isurim took effect simultaneously. However, Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi
Chanina, who gives a different answer in the Gemara, maintains that the
opinion that disagrees with the principle of "Isur Kolel" also disagrees
with the principle of "Isur Bas Achas" and maintains that one is *not*
Chayav for both Isurim (but only for one Isur), even when they took effect
at the same time.
(b) TOSFOS (101a, DH v'Isur) disagrees with Rashi. Tosfos answers that
Shabbos and Yom Kipur are not considered to be two Isurim that take effect
at the same time. Rather, the Isur is Shabbos is considered to take effect
before the Isur of Yom Kipur. This is because the day on which Shabbos falls
was established at the end of the six days of Creation, while the day on
which Yom Kipur falls was determined by Beis Din (at the time that they
establish the new month based on testimony of witnesses who saw the new
(c) The RITVA answers that even according to the conclusion of the Gemara in
Yevamos -- that even those who disagree with "Isur Kolel" agree with "Isur
Bas Achas" -- nevertheless Shabbos and Yom Kipur are not considered to be
"Isur Bas Achas," because Yom Kipur itself is described by the Torah as
"Shabbos" (Vayikra 23:32). Accordingly, Shabbos and Yom Kipur are considered
to have the same essence of Kedushah and are considered to be the same Isur.
(It is worth nothing, however, that Shabbos bears a more severe punishment
for its desecration than Yom Kipur. Intentional desecration of Shabbos is
punishable with Misah at the hands of Beis Din, while intentional
desecration of Yom Kipur is punishable with Kares. The greater importance of
Shabbos is also reflected in the Halachah that on Shabbos, seven people are
called to the Torah, while on Yom Kipur, only six people are called to the
We may answer another question based on the approach of the Ritva. The
Beraisa here quotes Rebbi Akiva who says that one who performed Melachah on
Yom Kipur that occurred on Shabbos is Chayav for only one Isur. However, we
find that Rebbi Akiva himself (116a) maintains that "Isur Chal Al Isur"
(when one eats a mixture of milk cooked with the meat of Neveilah, he is
Chayav for two Isurim -- meat and milk, and Neveilah). Why, then, does Rebbi
Akiva say that one is Chayav for only one Isur when he performs Melachah on
Yom Kipur that occurs on Shabbos?
According to the Ritva's approach, there is no contradiction. Rebbi Akiva
maintains that one is Chayav for only one Isur when he performs Melachah on
Yom Kipur that occurs on Shabbos, because Shabbos and Yom Kipur are so
similar that they are considered to be one Isur. (See also TOSFOS DH Rebbi
Akiva, and RAMBAN here.) (D. Bloom)
OPINIONS: In the Mishnah (100b), Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim argue
whether the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh was given to Benei Noach at the time of
Yakov Avinu, or whether it was given only to Jews at the time the Torah was
given at Sinai. The Beraisa explains that the Chachamim prove their view
from the verse, "Therefore, the Benei Yisrael may not eat the Gid ha'Nasheh"
(Bereishis 32:33). At that time, the sons of Yakov were called "Benei Yakov"
and not "Benei Yisrael." It must be that the Torah is referring to the
Jewish people after Matan Torah, which shows that the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh
was given only at that time.
Rava asks that we find that Yakov's sons were called "Benei Yisrael" even
before Matan Torah. When the verse describes the family's descent to
Mitzrayim, it says, "And Yakov arose from Be'er Sheva, and the *Benei
Yisrael* carried Yakov their father..." (Bereishis 46:5). The Gemara answers
that by that time, Yakov's name had already been changed to Yisrael, and
thus it was appropriate to call his sons "Benei Yisrael."
Rav Acha asks Rav Ashi that perhaps the Gid ha'Nasheh was prohibited "from
that time" onwards. To which point is Rav Acha referring?
(a) RASHI (DH meha'Hi Sha'ata) and TOSFOS (DH l'Achar Ma'aseh) explain that
Rav Acha is referring to the point at which the sons of Yakov were called
"Benei Yisrael" -- that is, at the time that they carried him to Mitzrayim.
Rav Acha cannot be referring to the time at which Yakov's name was changed
to Yisrael, because the Gemara answers his question by saying, "The Torah
was not given piecemeal! That moment was not the moment of the incident (at
which Yakov's Gid ha'Nasheh was wounded), nor was it the time the Torah was
given." This implies that Rav Acha was referring to a time after the
incident, and before Matan Torah. (The reason why we know that the Isur did
not take effect at the time of the incident is because, as the Gemara
explained earlier, the sons of Yakov were not yet called "Benei Yisrael.")
(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH questions the explanation of Rashi and Tosfos. How
can Rav Acha ask that the Gid ha'Nasheh should have become prohibited at the
time that the "Benei Yisrael," the sons of Yakov, carried their father to
Mitzrayim? They had no way of knowing that the Torah would refer to them as
"Benei Yisrael," thereby forbidden them from eating the Gid ha'Nasheh!
The Tosfos ha'Rosh explains instead that Rav Acha is referring to the point
at which Hashem told Yakov that his name was being changed to Yisrael
(Bereishis 35:10). At that point, the Isur should have taken effect.
The Gemara answers, "That moment (the moment at which Yakov's name was
changed) was not the moment of the incident," because Yakov's Gid ha'Nasheh
was wounded before his name was formally changed (see Rashi DH l'Achar