Separating: Whatcha Say’n’? (VI)

Last week we finished explaining the enigmatic statement of the Gemara (Shabbos 74a) that says, “If you have in front of you types of food: separate and eat, separate and put down.  And don’t separate.  And if you separate, you are chayav chatas”.  This week we will revisit the first two explanations.

As we defined last week, separating is only prohibited if it is done in a way that it is considered separating.  If it can be defined as another action, like eating, then there is no prohibition whatsoever.  We can now understand the first two ideas, that separating for that day or a small amount was permitted.  They were not trying to suggest that this somehow undoes the prohibition.  Rather, they each understood that this would redefine the separating as eating.  Essentially, the gemara rejects this reasoning because eating is an immediate action.  We also understand how Rav Chisdah could give an explanation that was rejected exactly as he rejected the previous explanation.  He understood that it was obvious that later that day is not considered eating.  He just felt that separating small amounts is still considered eating.

Separating: Whatcha Say’n’? (V)

Last week we continued explaining the enigmatic statement of the Gemara (Shabbos 74a) that says, “If you have in front of you types of food: separate and eat, separate and put down.  And don’t separate.  And if you separate, you are chayav chatas”.  This week we will discuss the final explanation.

The fifth and final explanation of this statement is given by Abaye.  He explains, “Separate and eat for immediate [use], separate and put down for immediate [use].  And for later that day, don’t separate, and if you do separate it is as if you separated to [put in the] storehouse and you are chayav chatas”.

Abaye understands that the prohibition of separating is only for use later.  All separating done for immediate use is permitted.  Rashi (ד"ה ובורר ומניח לאלתר) explains that this is not the way of separators.  This explanation of Abaye is the gemara’s final one.  From this explanation, we see the general rule of separating.  Separating is only prohibited if it is done in a way that it is considered separating.  If it can be defined as another action, like eating (ועיין תוס' ד"ה וכי), then there is no prohibition whatsoever.

Next week we will discuss how this answers up questions asked earlier in the gemara.

Separating: Whatcha Say’n’? (IV)

Last week we continued explaining the enigmatic statement of the Gemara (Shabbos 74a) that says, “If you have in front of you types of food: separate and eat, separate and put down.  And don’t separate.  And if you separate, you are chayav chatas”.

The fourth explanation of this statement is given by Rav Hamnunah.  He explains, “Separate food from unwanted [i.e. the unwanted element of the mixture] and eat, separate food from unwanted and put down.  And unwanted from food, don’t separate, and if you do separate, you are chayav chatas.”

Rav Hamnunah explains that the separate parts of the statement are referring to different ways of separating.  If you take the wanted from the unwanted, it is permitted.  And the opposite is prohibited.  Rashi (ד"ה אוכל) explains that if you take the wanted from the unwanted, this is not the standard way of separating.  Normally if you have a mixture that you want to use, you take out the parts that you don’t want.

Abaye asks on Rav Hamnunah for technical reasons that the statement makes no reference to the food or the unwanted part.  Next week we will discuss the final explanation, that of Abaye.

Separating: Whatcha Say’n’? (IV)

Last week we continued explaining the enigmatic statement of the Gemara (Shabbos 74a) that says, “If you have in front of you types of food: separate and eat, separate and put down.  And don’t separate.  And if you separate, you are chayav chatas”.

The third explanation of this statement is given by Rav Yosef.  He explains, “Separate by hand and eat, separate by hand and put down.  With a k’non v’tachmchoy (plates which, although not made for separating, can assist in separating) don’t separate.  And if you do separate you are patur.  And with a sieve and sifter, don’t separate, and if you do separate, you are chayav chatas.”

Rav Yosef explains that the separate parts of the statement are referring to separate cases.  If one separates by hand, this is not considered separating at all (רש"י סוף ד"ה פטור), rather like eating.  Using a utensil that is made for separating is the prototypical case, and is chayav.  Using a utensil that assists in, but is not made for, separating is prohibited Rabbinically.

Rav Hamnunah asks on Rav Yosef that the statement makes no mention of using any vessels (רש"י ד"ה מידי), and seems to only discuss cases permitted and prohibited Biblically.  There seems to be no mention of any case that is Rabbinically prohibited (תוס' ד"ה מתקיף).  He therefore rejects Rav Yosef’s explanation for technical reasons.

Next week, we will hopefully discuss Rav Hamnunah’s explanation.

Separating: Whatcha Say´n´? (III)

Last week we started explaining the enigmatic statement of the Gemara (Shabbos 74a) that says, “If you have in front of you types of food: separate and eat, separate and put down.  And don’t separate.  And if you separate, you are chayav chatas”.

The second explanation of this statement is given by Rav Chisdah.  He explains, “Separate and eat less than the [minimum] amount [to be chayav], separate and put down less than the [minimum] amount [to be chayav].  And [more] the minimum amount, don’t separate, and if you do separate you are chayav chatas”. 

Rav Yosef immediately asks that just as it is prohibited to cook less than the minimum amount to be chayav, why should separating be any different?!  He says that the definition of a prohibited act never includes the amount which is processed.  He rejects Rav Chisdah’s explanation, and offers his own (which we will discuss next week).

It is very hard to understand Rav Chisdah explanation.  Why was he not bothered by the question of Rav Yosef?  Just one line before he asks an almost identical question about Oolah!  Tosfos (ד"ה וכי) explains that there is a fundamental difference between Rav Chisdah’s understanding of Oolah’s explanation and his own.  Oolah understood that only separating for future use is considered separating.  Rav Chisdah understood that separating a small amount is not considered separating; rather, it is considered to be an act of eating!  Rav Yosef’s question is not that amount doesn’t affect the prohibition (as Rav Chisdah asked); rather, he asks that a small amount does not define the action as one of eating.

Next week, we will hopefully discuss Rav Yosef’s explanation.