There are times when Chazal says something and the meaning is debated and there are other times when whether an entire category even exists. How is this so? To give specific examples of what I'm referring to. In Yore Dea Basar B'chalav there is a a debate about fish that came in contact with meat kelim and whether there is enough taste to then forbid eating with fish. The phrase the gemera uses is "alav" "to place". It discussed in shulchan aruch whether this can include cooking and if so what types are included with the phrase the gemera uses.

A different type of disagreement is where they disagree whether something exists at all. For example: The Rema holds there is rabbinical "chanon" (chatika nases nevela. something which becomes like a nevela) that can come for prohibitions aside from "basar b'chalav" (milk and meat) while the Mechaber holds there is no such Rabbinical catigory of "chanon" and there is only the Torah category of "chanon" which is the result of "basar b'chalav".

Either Chazal made the Rabbinical prohibition or they did not. How then could there be a disagreement like this?

  • Why can’t they argue in the meaning or the contour of what chazal assured. Like by chanan, there is definitely chanan by milk and meat, but if that applies elsewhere is debated, depending on how you understand chazal.
    – Chatzkel
    Sep 7, 2022 at 0:39
  • @Chatzkel the argument about chanon seemed to me more like did chazal asssur it or did they not rather than what did chazal mean
    – Dude
    Sep 7, 2022 at 0:42
  • 1
    The first Tosafot in Berachot 22b may be relevant.
    – Alex
    Sep 7, 2022 at 12:32
  • Not quite sure the issue. Chazal weren't clear in their gezeiros so they're arguing if they made a specific gezeiros or not, or what's included or not. You're right one is factually correct and one not. Probably not relevant to eilu veeilu
    – robev
    Sep 7, 2022 at 17:56


You must log in to answer this question.