Black or White

May one separate the black chess pieces from the white ones?  The statement of the gemara that we have been discussing the past few weeks only mentions types of food.  Although the Taz entertains a possibility that borer is only prohibited with foods, he rejects this on the basis of a comment by Rashi, that refers to a prohibition of borer with regards to a non-food item.

However, there is another angle to examine.  Tosfos here says that in general, borer should only apply when one has a food and the unwanted mixed in; yet, our gemara refers to two types of food!  He concludes that when one wants only one of them, the other is considered like and intrinsically unwanted part of the mixture, and it is therefore prohibited to separate it.  According to this, it would be permitted to separate the chess pieces!  Although there is a mixture, because both are equally wanted and they just need to be separate, it is permitted even for later use.

The Rambam specifically discusses separating two items, of which both are wanted.  He learns that neither one need be considered “unwanted.”  Rather, the very fact that you want to separate them is enough to prohibit the separation.  According to this, it is obviously prohibited to separate the chess pieces, except for immediate use.  We rule in accordance with the Rambam.

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.

Separating: Whatcha Say’n’? (II)

Last week we mentioned 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 first explanation of this statement is given by Oolah.  He explains, “Separate and eat for [use on] that day, separate and put down for [use on] that day.  And for tomorrow, don’t separate, and if you do separate you are chayav chatas”.  Oolah understands that the prohibition of separating is only for the next day.  All separating done for use on the same day is permitted.

Rav Chisda immediately asks that just as it is prohibited to cook for use on shabbos, why should separating be any different?!  He says that the definition of a prohibited act never includes the time period for which it is done (עיין רש"י שם ד"ה וכי מותר לאפות)!  He rejects Oolah’s explanation, and offers his own (which we will discuss next week).  To understand how Oolah could respond, we will have to wait until we have discussed the final explanation.

Separating: Whatcha Say’n’? (I)

The gemara (Shabbos 74a) makes an incredibly enigmatic statement.  It 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”, that is to says that you violated a Biblical prohibition.  The gemara immediately asks, “What does this mean?”  This statement seems to be self-contradictory!

The gemara brings five different explanations of this statement.  In order to start to understand borer, we must discuss each of the five explanations, where they differ, and how they answer the questions that are asked against them.  After discussing this, we will discuss some other issues that are raised in this statement, as well as a few other cases discussed in the gemara in various places.