Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

First, some background:

In b.Hullin 104b - at the very beginning of the Gemara in pereq "Kol HaBasar" - there is a very strange and almost unintelligible section of argumentation which tries to prove that Rebi Yose is really the Tana Qama. However, in doing so it maintains that one could ask a question on the Mishnah that really does not seem at all possible.

The Mishnah there reads:

העוף עולה עם הגבינה על השולחן ואינו נאכל כדברי ב"ש וב"ה אומרים לא עולה ולא נאכל א"ר יוסי זו מקולי ב"ש ומחומרי ב"ה באיזה שולחן אמרו בשולחן שאוכל עליו אבל בשולחן שסודר עליו את התבשיל נותן זה בצד זה ואינו חושש

Poultry is put onto the table with cheese and is not eaten [together with it] according to the words of Beth Shamai, and Beth Hilel says it is not put [on the table] and is not eaten. Rebi Yose says, This is one of the leniencies of Beth Shamai and one of the stringencies of Beth Hilel. To which table are they referring? To the table on which one eats, but the table on which the food is set [to be served], one puts them side by side and there is no worry.

The Gemara then begins:

רבי יוסי היינו ת"ק וכ"ת אכילה גופה איכא בינייהו דקאמר ת"ק בהעלאה קא מיפלגי באכילה לא פליגי ואמר ליה רבי יוסי אכילה גופה מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי ב"ה

Rebi Yose is the Tana Qama and if we say that this isur of eating is actually what is between them [i.e. what Beth Shamai and Beth Hillel are arguing about in the Mishnah], as if the Tana Qama suggested that that they were only arguing about whether they can be placed on the table together, but regarding eating they do not argue [i.e. they both agree that they cannot be eaten together], and Rebi Yose responds to him that [eating] is one of the leniencies of Beth Shamai and the stringencies of Beth Hillel [i.e. that Rebi Yose holds that eating them together is allowed by Shamai and forbidden by Hillel].

I am aware of Rebi Yose's own position elsewhere in Mishnah Hullin that poultry is not included in the isur of basar b'halav, but I am not sure that it has real relevance here.

Now, for the question:

When the Mishnah explicitly says that both Beth Hillel and Beth Shamai maintain that poultry cannot be eaten together, how can the Gemara then answer a hawa mina of reading the Mishnah to the opposite?

Further, do any manuscripts not contain this section? Are there any Rishonim or Aharonim that emend this text?

Thanks in advance. Kol tuv.

share|improve this question
    
I don't understand the question. Rabbi Yossi is disagreeing with the Tanna Kamma. The Tanna Kamma says that both B'Sh and B'H at least agree that you can't eat the chicken, but B'Sh says you can hav it on the table and B'H says you can't. Rabbi Yossi argues, saying that even eating the chicken is disputed between the two schools. What is the issue that I am missing? –  Baby Seal Jun 13 at 17:11
2  
So the Gemara is not saying to read the Tanna Kamma's opinion differently. It is proposing that it could be argued that Rabbis Yossi's seemingly redundant statement is in fact arguing on the Tanna Kamma. –  Baby Seal Jun 13 at 17:16
    
The problem is that from the clear and simple meaning of the Mishnah, it is completely impossible to maintain that Rebi Yose (or anyone else) holds that Beth Shamai is matir eating `of and gevinah together. That is the question: i.e. how can the Gemara Bavli say this when it seems that even a tinoq shel beth raban could tell that the permissibility of eating them together is not even being discussed. Kol tuv. –  Maimonist Jun 13 at 22:12
    
Why is it impossible? I see no difficulty. Rebbi Yossi is responding to the Tanna Kamma, saying "No, wrong, in fact, this is from the leniencies of B'Sh with regard to eating". Thus, Rebbi Yossi is arguing with the TK and disagrees with him. As it is, R' Yossi's statement is redundant. It is not clear what he means, or why he is mentioned in the mishnah. We are clarifying this. I really don't understand what is so clear about anything that is giving you trouble. –  Baby Seal Jun 15 at 3:17
    
@Baby Seal, My point is that if that Rebi Yosi is really maintaining that, then how can he do so when the Mishnah explicitly says to the contrary (i.e. "wa-eino ne-ekhal...lo ne-ekhal"). That's all. If you understand that, then you have understood my question. If you think that the answer is obvious, then say so and state your answer. Why the down-voting? –  Maimonist Jun 16 at 4:48

1 Answer 1

The art scroll gemoro (104b English page 3) says that the gemoro is not saying that "Rabbi Yosi is the Tanna Kama", it is saying that in effect he is saying the same thing as the Tana Kama, so why is he in the Mishna.

Footnote 23 says that the hava amina (you might think) that this particular mishna is saying that the Tanna Kamma contends that Bais Shamai has only one leniency, whereas Rabbi Yosi holds that Bais Shammai has two leniencies. That is, the Tannah Kamma contends that Bais Shammai permit only the placement of fowl meat and dairy on the same table. Rabbi Yosi says that Bais Shammai permits both the placing and the eating of fowl meat and cheese.

Thus, Rabbi Yosi is arguing with the Tanna Kamma. The answer is that the mishnah is adding that the statement of the Tanna Kamma is that of Rabbi Yosi and it is putting his name in to give his reason and also to be mekayem

כל האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for your answer. I understand what the Gemara says and maintains about Rebi Yose's opinion is here. I also understand why one might think him redundant in the Mishnah. However, this is not my question. My question was how could one possibly maintain that Rebi Yose's statement represented a view that Beth Shamai was also maqel in eating, when it explicitly says to the contrary. That's all. You can also view my comment above. –  Maimonist Jun 16 at 4:50
    
@Maimonist If Rabbi Yosi and the Tanna kama are arguing, then it is two different positions in the mishna. we have a machlokes in what the original halcha is all the time. If it is a machlokes, then of course they can differ. –  sabbahillel Jun 16 at 9:25

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.