I have noticed that almost none of the shiurim mentioned in our gemara are brought down by the Shulchan Aruch. What do we paskin lmaashe when it comes to minimum shiuray hotzaa?
Thank you so much forthe work you do on behalf or the torah and on behalf of klal yisroel
Elie Rothberger, Passaic NJ USA
Seeing as the Gemara brings the Shiurim of literally dozens of commodities, it is not possible to answer your question fully. Suffice it to say that when it comes to food or the preparation thereof, the Shiur for which one is Chayav a Chatas is always a k'Gerogeres (a dried fig, which is more than a k'Zayis but less than a k'Beitzah), or the amount that is needed to prepare a k'Gerogeres.
You seem to be surprised that the Shulchan Aruch does not mention the Shiurim. frankly, I would be most surprised if it did. Why is that? Because, bearing in mind that even half a Shi'ur is forbidden (Chatzi Shiur Asur min ha'Torah),nowadays, when there is no Beis Hamikdash and no Sanhedrin, the Shiur that one carries out makes no practical difference to the Halachah. So why mention it?
Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler
Would there be a difference in case of a Choleh (that one should carry out less than the shiur if possible), similar to eating on Yom Kippur?
Kol Tuv,
Meir Eliezer Bergman, Manchester UK
It could mention it in order to tell us if there is an emergency (that can wait a little) you should take out less than a Shuir at a time. This is the reason Shulchan Orech mentions the Shiur of eating on Yom Kippur. But, granted, it probably too tedious to write all the Shiurim for all the things with just a Nafka Minah to carry out a half of Shiur at a time in an emergency.
Chaim Smulowitz
Certainly, one should always try and minimize a sin that one is forced to transgress in every way possible (to turn a d'Oraysa into a de'Rabbanan, a full Shi'ur into less than a Shi'ur, etc.). Still, since the practical difference only applies to a certain case, the Shulchan Aruch would not mention it, although it mentions it on Yom Kipur (where Piku'ach Nefesh due to fasting is more common).
I did not check to verify that the Shulchan Aruch does not mention other shiurim for carrying, but, theoretically speaking, this would be a normal thing for the Shulchan Aruch to do.
b'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler
Although it would seem logical that the rule of "Hakal Hakal" ("let the person transgress the lesser prohibition first" in cases of Piku'ach Nefesh) would apply with regard to carrying on Shabbos as well, I would like to point out that I have not found the rule of "Hakal Hakal" mentioned with regard to prohibitions that do not involve eating.
It is possible that Chazal were more particular with Isurim involving eating. When it comes to other types of transgressions, perhaps there is no difference between transgressing the Isur d'Oraisa of Chatzi Shiur or between eating a full Shiur.
This is just a suggestion; I have no proofs either way.
Best wishes,
M. Kornfeld
Re Chaim Smulowitz's comment
I would think that pikuach nefesh is more important than worrying about shiurim which apply to whether or not to bring a chatos.
Kol tuv
Steve katz
Steve
You are right that Pikuach Nefesh takes precedence over Shabbos or Yom Kippur. However, there are certain cases of Pikuach Nefesh where one can and should minimize the issur that he needs to transgress. This is what R' Chaim referred to as an "emergency that can wait".
Take for example a Choleh where fasting on Yom Kippur would be harmful if he fasts the whole day. If he spreads out his meal so that he eats less than a K'Koseves (large date) every K'dei Achilas Pras (4 to 9 minutes), then he avoids eating an amount which would incur a Korban Chatas if he were healthy. In this way he minimizes the sin, but at the same time is able to sustain his Nefesh.
This is the kind of Pikuach Nefesh where one worries about Shiurim.
Kol Tuv
P. Silverman
Dear Rabbi Kornfeld,
I once learned a halacha that if you perform a melacha that was chayav a chattas in the times of the Beis Hamikdash, nowadays you are obligated to give the amount of tzedaka equal to the price of the korban, which is why the gemara needs to mention all the shiurim of acts that require a korban. If this is the case, then the shiurim would make a difference in halacha limaaseh, so why doesn't the shulchan orech bring up the shiurim for chatas liability?
Thank you so much for all the Torah you have, and continue to teach to me and all of Klal Yisroel.
David Kornblum
To my knowledge, the Halachah that you cite is mentioned neither in the Gemara nor in Shulchan Aruch, in which case your question falls away.
The Gemara in Shabbos 12b records the case where Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha, who, upon bending a burning wick on Shabbos, wrote in his diary that he would bring a Chatas when the third Beis-Hamikdash is built (may it happen soon). It does not say that he gave Tzedakah.
Most likely someone went to a Rebbe for a Tikun, and was told to give Tzedakah to atone for his sin, or something like that. Not a bad idea actually, but it is not an obligation.
By the way, it is brought in Halachah that somebody who breaks Shabbos be'Shogeg should fast forty fasts. That too, falls under the category of a Kaparah, and is not an obligation per se. So even if some Poskim do rule that one should give Tzedakah to compensate the missing Chatas, it would be similar to that. Incidentally, even if one does fast or give Tzedakah, that will not remove the Chiyuv to bring a Chatas when the Beis Hamikdash will be rebuilt.
be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler.
The Tur (OC) in the beginning of Siman 301 writes: "If I were to write all the Halachos of Shabbos, the labor would be very big, for Hilchos Shabbos are numerous. Furthermore, the thirty-nine Avos Melachos and their Toldos are known and I do not have to delve in them and neither in their Shiurim, for the Shiurim are only consequential to liability [to punishment], but prohibition applies [even] to a Kol Shehu."
be'Kavod,
Mordechai Schwimmer
Although it would seem logical that the rule of "Hakal Hakal" ("let the person transgress the lesser prohibition first" in cases of Piku'ach Nefesh) would apply with regard to carrying on Shabbos as well, I would like to point out that I have not found the rule of "Hakal Hakal" mentioned with regard to prohibitions that do not involve eating.
It is possible that Chazal were more particular with Isurim involving eating. When it comes to other types of transgressions, perhaps there is no difference between transgressing the Isur d'Oraisa of Chatzi Shiur or between eating a full Shiur.
This is just a suggestion; I have no proofs either way.
Best wishes,
M. Kornfeld
I wonder if this relates to the idea of eating Bichedei Achilas Pras, i.e. we know that eating a Shiur must be within this time to be considered one unit. Maybe Chazal recommended that a Choleh on Yom Kippur eat less than the Shiur in this time (if this is sufficient for him), but if necessary he can eat more than the Shiur in a longer time (e.g. if a Choleh needs say 3 KeGroreros, we find out if it can be spaced out, so each Shiur takes longer than Bechedei Achilas Pras).
However, I presume that this concept does not apply to non-eating, i.e. if a person would need to do a Melocho for a Choleh, e.g. bringing food, we cannot say he should bring less than the Shiur now, and the rest later, since they would anyway combine for a Chiyuv (in one Ha'alomoh) [correct me if I am wrong]
Does this sound reasonable [and do we find a parallel idea to Bichedei Achilas Pras anywhere else?]
Meir Eliezer Bergman, Manchester UK
Your suggestion seems to be correct. It may be that the Tur etc. mentioned the Shiur for eating on Yom Kipur since it is possible to feed a person less than a Shiur at a time, separated by K'dei Achilas Peras. Therefore there is a practical ramification for the Shiurim l'Halachah. However, when it comes to other Isurim, such as Hotza'ah, the Tur left out the Shiurim since if one must carry more than a Shiur, he cannot avoid transgressing the Isur by splitting it into two halves.
Rashi does suggest (on Daf 105a) that if one lets half a day go by between writing two letters, the letters do not combine to make a shiur of Kesivah. However, besides the fact that he is referring only to a Shogeg, the Rashash makes a good point on 35b when he suggests that Rashi is only referring to Shigegas Shabbos and not Shigegas Melachos, see the Mishnah on 67b.
Thank you!
M. Kornfeld