Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 11, 2018 | 讙壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 14

If one slaughters an animal on Shabbat, the meat can be eaten. Rav points out that it cannot be eaten on Shabbat (even raw). They say that Rav said this according to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. The gemara tries to figure out which opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in laws of Shabbat are they referring to.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讘砖讘转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, although he is liable to receive the death penalty, his slaughter is valid.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚专砖 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诇讬讜诪讗 讜谞住讘讬谉 讞讘专讬讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: Rav Huna says that 岣yya bar Rav taught in the name of Rav: If one slaughtered an animal on Shabbat and Yom Kippur, although the slaughter is valid, consumption of the animal is prohibited for that day, and the members of the company of Sages, i.e., those in the academy, tended to say that this halakha is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讛讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讛讻谞讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪讞转讻讬谉 讗转 讛讚讬诇讜注讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛谞讘诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 谞讘诇讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗住讜专讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讻谉 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗住讜专讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讻谉 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗住讜专讛

The Gemara asks: Which opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Abba said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to preparation for Shabbat, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 156b): One may cut the gourds before an animal on Shabbat, provided that they were picked prior to Shabbat. And likewise, one may cut an animal carcass to place before the dogs on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was not already a carcass prior to Shabbat, it is prohibited to cut it or even move it on Shabbat because it is not prepared for use on Shabbat. Apparently, since it was not prepared from yesterday, it is prohibited. Here too, in the mishna where an animal was slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, since it was not prepared from yesterday, it is prohibited.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 讜讛砖转讗 诪讜讻谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讛讻讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 讜讛砖转讗 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 诪讬 住讘专转 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讻讬诇讛 注讜诪讚转 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讙讚诇 注讜诪讚转

Abaye said to Rabbi Abba: Are the cases comparable? There, in the mishna in tractate Shabbat, initially the animal is prepared for use by a person, as it was prepared for slaughter, and now that it died without slaughter on Shabbat it is prepared for dogs. But in the mishna here, initially the animal is prepared for use by a person and now after it was slaughtered it remains prepared for use by a person. Rabbi Abba rejects that distinction: Do you hold that an animal during its lifetime is designated for consumption and therefore is prepared for use by a person? On the contrary, an animal during its lifetime is designated for breeding.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讛诪讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讬讻讬 砖讞讟讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讜 注讜诪讚转 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜讘专专讛 讚诇讗讻讬诇讛 注讜诪讚转 诇讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜讘专专讛 讚诇讙讚诇 注讜诪讚转

Abaye asked: If that is so that an animal is not designated for consumption, according to Rabbi Yehuda, how do we slaughter an animal on a Festival? Rabbi Abba said to Abaye: During its lifetime, the animal is designated for consumption and designated for breeding. If it was slaughtered, it is retroactively clarified that it was designated for consumption; if it was not slaughtered, it is retroactively clarified that it was designated for breeding.

讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬专讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讚转谞讬讗

But isn鈥檛 it so that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation? From where do we derive that this is Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? If we say that we learn it from that which is taught in the following baraita, there is no proof.

讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛 注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 8:7): In the case of one who purchases wine from among the Samaritans just before Shabbat, and presumably teruma and tithes were not separated, he acts as follows: If there are one hundred log of wine in the barrels, he says: Two log that I will separate in the future are teruma, as the mandated average measure of teruma is one-fiftieth; ten log are first tithe; and a tenth of the remainder, which is nine log, are second tithe. And he deconsecrates the second tithe that he will separate in the future, transferring its sanctity to money, and he may drink the wine immediately, relying on the separation that he will perform later, which will clarify retroactively which log he designated for the tithes and for teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon prohibit this practice. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讜谞诪爪讗 砖讜转讛 讟讘诇讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讻砖讬讘拽注

The Gemara comments: That is no proof, as there, the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is as is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: Don鈥檛 you concede that perhaps the wineskin will burst before he manages to separate the teruma, and this person will have been found retroactively to be drinking untithed produce? Rabbi Meir said to the Rabbis: The mere possibility that this may occur is not a concern. When it actually bursts, I will be concerned. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is not due to his rejection of the principle of retroactive designation, but due to his concern that the wineskin will burst before the tithes are actually separated.

讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 讗讬讜

Rather, the fact that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation is learned from that which Ayo teaches with regard to the joining of Shabbat boundaries in a case where one knows that two Torah scholars are planning to deliver lectures on Shabbat outside the city limits, one east of the city and one west of the city, and on Shabbat eve one has not yet decided which of the lectures he wishes to attend. In that case, he may place the food for the joining of boundaries on both sides of the city and stipulate that he will be able to go beyond the city limits in whichever direction he chooses.

讚转谞讬 讗讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪转谞讛 注诇 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讘讗 讞讻诐 诇诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪讝专讞 诇诪注专讘 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪注专讘 讜讗讬诇讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇讗

As Ayo teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: A person may not stipulate that his joining of the boundaries will take effect on two matters as one. Rather, he may stipulate that if one Sage comes to the east, his joining of the boundaries takes effect to the east, and if he comes to the west, his joining takes effect to the west, while if he stipulates that it should take effect to here or to there and he will go in whichever direction he chooses, in that case, the joining does not take effect.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 诪讝专讞 讜诪注专讘 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

And we discussed this baraita: What is different in a case where one stipulates that it should take effect to here or to there such that the joining does not take effect? It is because there is no retroactive designation. If so, stipulating that the joining will take effect to the east or west, depending upon where the Sage goes, should also not take effect because there is no retroactive designation.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讘专 讘讗 讞讻诐

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is a case where when he makes the stipulation, the Sage has already come to either the east or the west, and the joining takes effect in that direction. He makes a stipulation because he does not know where the Sage came. The joining takes effect without the principle of retroactive designation. Nevertheless, since it is clear from the first case of Ayo that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation, the question remains: From where is it derived that an animal that is slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur is forbidden for the day that it was slaughtered?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 砖讘专讬讛谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讘专讬 注专讬讘讛 诇讻住讜转 讘讛谉 驻讬 讞讘讬转 砖讘专讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诇讻住讜转 讘讛谉 驻讬 讛驻讱

Rather, Rav Yosef said: When Rav said that the halakha that consumption of the animal is prohibited for that day is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the reference is to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to vessels, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 124b): With regard to all vessels that may be moved on Shabbat, their shards may be moved as well, provided that they are suited for some type of labor. Shards of a large bowl may be used to cover the mouth of a barrel. Shards of a glass vessel may be used to cover the mouth of a cruse.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻转谉 砖讘专讬 注专讬讘讛 诇爪讜拽 诇转讜讻谉 诪拽驻讛 砖讘专讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诇爪讜拽 诇转讜讻谉 砖诪谉

Rabbi Yehuda says: And it is permitted to use the shards provided that they are suited for a type of labor similar to their original use. In the case of shards of a large bowl, it must be possible to pour a thick broth into them, and in the case of shards of a glass vessel, it must be possible to pour oil into them.

诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻转谉 讗讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞专转 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讻谉 诪讗转诪讜诇 诇讛讱 诪诇讗讻讛 讗住讬专讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讻谉 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗住讜专讛

The Gemara infers: If they are suited for a type of labor similar to their original use, yes, they may be moved; but if they are suitable for another type of labor, they may not be moved. Apparently, since the shard was not prepared from yesterday for this type of labor, it is prohibited to move it. Here too, since the animal that was slaughtered was not prepared from yesterday, it is prohibited to eat it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讻诇讬 讜讛砖转讗 砖讘专 讻诇讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讜讗住讜专 讛讻讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讻诇讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇讗 讚讗讬驻专转 讛讜讗

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Are the cases comparable? There, in the mishna with regard to vessels, initially it was a vessel and now it is the shard of a vessel, and it is a case of an item that came into being, and it is therefore prohibited to move it. Here, in the case of an animal slaughtered on Shabbat, initially, during its lifetime, it was designated as food, and ultimately, after slaughter, it is food, so it is merely food that was separated [de鈥檌frat].

讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讜讻诇讗 讚讗讬驻专转 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 住讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉

And we heard that it is Rabbi Yehuda who says: Food that was separated is permitted, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 143b): One may not squeeze fruits on Shabbat in order to extract liquids from them. And if liquids seeped out on their own, it is prohibited to use them on Shabbat, lest one come to squeeze fruit on Shabbat.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专

Rabbi Yehuda says: If the fruits were designated for eating, the liquid that seeped from them on Shabbat is permitted. And if the fruits were designated for their liquids, the liquids that seeped from them on Shabbat are forbidden, lest he come to squeeze them on Shabbat. With regard to fruits that are designated for consumption, the liquid is considered food that was separated and is permitted. The same halakha applies with regard to an animal slaughtered on Shabbat: Since it was designated for consumption, its meat is food that was separated and should be permitted according to Rabbi Yehuda.

诇讗讜 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讘住诇讬 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐

The Gemara rejects that interpretation and states that, on the contrary, there is proof that Rabbi Yehuda would prohibit eating an animal that was slaughtered on Shabbat. Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Rabbi Yehuda conceded to the Rabbis in the case of baskets of olives and grapes that are typically designated for their liquids, even though one had planned to eat them, that liquid that seeps from them is forbidden?

讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇住讞讬讟讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讬讛讬讘 讚注转讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇砖讞讬讟讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讬讛讬讘 讚注转讬讛

Apparently, since olives and grapes are typically designated for squeezing, one sets his mind to use them for their liquids, and were it permitted for him to use their liquids that seep out on Shabbat, the concern is that he will come to squeeze them on Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages decreed that the liquids are forbidden. Here too, since the animal is designated for slaughter, a person sets his mind to eat it. Therefore, were it permitted for him to eat the meat on Shabbat, the concern is that he will come to slaughter it on Shabbat. Consequently, the Sages decreed that the meat is prohibited.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住诇讬 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐

The Gemara justifies Abaye鈥檚 interpretation of the mishna: This explanation is valid only according to Rav, who said that the ruling that it is prohibited to eat an animal slaughtered on Shabbat until after Shabbat is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Didn鈥檛 Rav say: Rabbi Yehuda was in disagreement with the Rabbis even in the case of baskets of olives and grapes? According to Rav himself, just as Rabbi Yehuda deems permitted liquids that seeped from olives and grapes on their own, Rabbi Yehuda should have also deemed an animal that was slaughtered on Shabbat permitted for that day.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚谞专讜转 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 谞专 讞讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬砖谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rather, Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: When Rav said that the halakha that it is prohibited to consume the animal that day is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the reference is to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to lamps, as it is taught in a baraita: One may move, for purposes other than lighting it, a new earthenware lamp that was never used. But one may not move an old lamp covered with residue of oil and soot, because a person sets it aside from use due to repugnance. Since it was set aside at the beginning of Shabbat, it is set aside for the entire Shabbat and it may not be moved even if a need to move it arises; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The same halakha applies with regard to an animal slaughtered on Shabbat: Since it was prohibited when Shabbat began as the limb of a living being, it remains prohibited for the entire Shabbat.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬讗讜住 诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讗讬住讜专 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

The Gemara rejects that analogy. Say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda rule that it is prohibited for the entire Shabbat in a case where it is set aside due to repugnance, like the old lamp. Did you hear that he said that it is prohibited for the entire Shabbat in a case where it is set aside due to a prohibition, like the animal? The Gemara answers: Yes, as we learned in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 14

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讘砖讘转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, although he is liable to receive the death penalty, his slaughter is valid.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚专砖 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗住讜专讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诇讬讜诪讗 讜谞住讘讬谉 讞讘专讬讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

GEMARA: Rav Huna says that 岣yya bar Rav taught in the name of Rav: If one slaughtered an animal on Shabbat and Yom Kippur, although the slaughter is valid, consumption of the animal is prohibited for that day, and the members of the company of Sages, i.e., those in the academy, tended to say that this halakha is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讛讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讛讻谞讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 诪讞转讻讬谉 讗转 讛讚讬诇讜注讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讗转 讛谞讘诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讘讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 谞讘诇讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讗住讜专讛 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讻谉 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗住讜专讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讻谉 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗住讜专讛

The Gemara asks: Which opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Abba said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to preparation for Shabbat, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 156b): One may cut the gourds before an animal on Shabbat, provided that they were picked prior to Shabbat. And likewise, one may cut an animal carcass to place before the dogs on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was not already a carcass prior to Shabbat, it is prohibited to cut it or even move it on Shabbat because it is not prepared for use on Shabbat. Apparently, since it was not prepared from yesterday, it is prohibited. Here too, in the mishna where an animal was slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, since it was not prepared from yesterday, it is prohibited.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 讜讛砖转讗 诪讜讻谉 诇讻诇讘讬诐 讛讻讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 讜讛砖转讗 诪讜讻谉 诇讗讚诐 诪讬 住讘专转 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讗讻讬诇讛 注讜诪讚转 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讬讬讛 诇讙讚诇 注讜诪讚转

Abaye said to Rabbi Abba: Are the cases comparable? There, in the mishna in tractate Shabbat, initially the animal is prepared for use by a person, as it was prepared for slaughter, and now that it died without slaughter on Shabbat it is prepared for dogs. But in the mishna here, initially the animal is prepared for use by a person and now after it was slaughtered it remains prepared for use by a person. Rabbi Abba rejects that distinction: Do you hold that an animal during its lifetime is designated for consumption and therefore is prepared for use by a person? On the contrary, an animal during its lifetime is designated for breeding.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讛诪讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讬讻讬 砖讞讟讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讜 注讜诪讚转 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜注讜诪讚转 诇讙讚诇 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜讘专专讛 讚诇讗讻讬诇讛 注讜诪讚转 诇讗 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜讘专专讛 讚诇讙讚诇 注讜诪讚转

Abaye asked: If that is so that an animal is not designated for consumption, according to Rabbi Yehuda, how do we slaughter an animal on a Festival? Rabbi Abba said to Abaye: During its lifetime, the animal is designated for consumption and designated for breeding. If it was slaughtered, it is retroactively clarified that it was designated for consumption; if it was not slaughtered, it is retroactively clarified that it was designated for breeding.

讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬专讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讚转谞讬讗

But isn鈥檛 it so that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation? From where do we derive that this is Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion? If we say that we learn it from that which is taught in the following baraita, there is no proof.

讛诇讜拽讞 讬讬谉 诪讘讬谉 讛讻讜转讬诐 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讛驻专讬砖 讛专讬 讛谉 转专讜诪讛 注砖专讛 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 转砖注讛 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜诪讬讞诇 讜砖讜转讛 诪讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜住专讬谉

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 8:7): In the case of one who purchases wine from among the Samaritans just before Shabbat, and presumably teruma and tithes were not separated, he acts as follows: If there are one hundred log of wine in the barrels, he says: Two log that I will separate in the future are teruma, as the mandated average measure of teruma is one-fiftieth; ten log are first tithe; and a tenth of the remainder, which is nine log, are second tithe. And he deconsecrates the second tithe that he will separate in the future, transferring its sanctity to money, and he may drink the wine immediately, relying on the separation that he will perform later, which will clarify retroactively which log he designated for the tithes and for teruma. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon prohibit this practice. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation.

讛转诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讗 讬讘拽注 讛谞讜讚 讜谞诪爪讗 砖讜转讛 讟讘诇讬诐 诇诪驻专注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 诇讻砖讬讘拽注

The Gemara comments: That is no proof, as there, the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is as is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: Don鈥檛 you concede that perhaps the wineskin will burst before he manages to separate the teruma, and this person will have been found retroactively to be drinking untithed produce? Rabbi Meir said to the Rabbis: The mere possibility that this may occur is not a concern. When it actually bursts, I will be concerned. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is not due to his rejection of the principle of retroactive designation, but due to his concern that the wineskin will burst before the tithes are actually separated.

讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 讗讬讜

Rather, the fact that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation is learned from that which Ayo teaches with regard to the joining of Shabbat boundaries in a case where one knows that two Torah scholars are planning to deliver lectures on Shabbat outside the city limits, one east of the city and one west of the city, and on Shabbat eve one has not yet decided which of the lectures he wishes to attend. In that case, he may place the food for the joining of boundaries on both sides of the city and stipulate that he will be able to go beyond the city limits in whichever direction he chooses.

讚转谞讬 讗讬讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪转谞讛 注诇 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讘讗 讞讻诐 诇诪讝专讞 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪讝专讞 诇诪注专讘 注讬专讜讘讜 诇诪注专讘 讜讗讬诇讜 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇讗

As Ayo teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: A person may not stipulate that his joining of the boundaries will take effect on two matters as one. Rather, he may stipulate that if one Sage comes to the east, his joining of the boundaries takes effect to the east, and if he comes to the west, his joining takes effect to the west, while if he stipulates that it should take effect to here or to there and he will go in whichever direction he chooses, in that case, the joining does not take effect.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讚诇讗 讚讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 诪讝专讞 讜诪注专讘 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛

And we discussed this baraita: What is different in a case where one stipulates that it should take effect to here or to there such that the joining does not take effect? It is because there is no retroactive designation. If so, stipulating that the joining will take effect to the east or west, depending upon where the Sage goes, should also not take effect because there is no retroactive designation.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讘专 讘讗 讞讻诐

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is a case where when he makes the stipulation, the Sage has already come to either the east or the west, and the joining takes effect in that direction. He makes a stipulation because he does not know where the Sage came. The joining takes effect without the principle of retroactive designation. Nevertheless, since it is clear from the first case of Ayo that Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation, the question remains: From where is it derived that an animal that is slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur is forbidden for the day that it was slaughtered?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 砖讘专讬讛谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讘专讬 注专讬讘讛 诇讻住讜转 讘讛谉 驻讬 讞讘讬转 砖讘专讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诇讻住讜转 讘讛谉 驻讬 讛驻讱

Rather, Rav Yosef said: When Rav said that the halakha that consumption of the animal is prohibited for that day is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the reference is to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to vessels, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 124b): With regard to all vessels that may be moved on Shabbat, their shards may be moved as well, provided that they are suited for some type of labor. Shards of a large bowl may be used to cover the mouth of a barrel. Shards of a glass vessel may be used to cover the mouth of a cruse.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻转谉 砖讘专讬 注专讬讘讛 诇爪讜拽 诇转讜讻谉 诪拽驻讛 砖讘专讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诇爪讜拽 诇转讜讻谉 砖诪谉

Rabbi Yehuda says: And it is permitted to use the shards provided that they are suited for a type of labor similar to their original use. In the case of shards of a large bowl, it must be possible to pour a thick broth into them, and in the case of shards of a glass vessel, it must be possible to pour oil into them.

诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻转谉 讗讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞专转 诇讗 讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讻谉 诪讗转诪讜诇 诇讛讱 诪诇讗讻讛 讗住讬专讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗讬转讻谉 诪讗转诪讜诇 讗住讜专讛

The Gemara infers: If they are suited for a type of labor similar to their original use, yes, they may be moved; but if they are suitable for another type of labor, they may not be moved. Apparently, since the shard was not prepared from yesterday for this type of labor, it is prohibited to move it. Here too, since the animal that was slaughtered was not prepared from yesterday, it is prohibited to eat it.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讻诇讬 讜讛砖转讗 砖讘专 讻诇讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讜讗住讜专 讛讻讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讻诇讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇讗 讚讗讬驻专转 讛讜讗

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Are the cases comparable? There, in the mishna with regard to vessels, initially it was a vessel and now it is the shard of a vessel, and it is a case of an item that came into being, and it is therefore prohibited to move it. Here, in the case of an animal slaughtered on Shabbat, initially, during its lifetime, it was designated as food, and ultimately, after slaughter, it is food, so it is merely food that was separated [de鈥檌frat].

讜砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讗讜讻诇讗 讚讗讬驻专转 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 住讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜讗诐 讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉

And we heard that it is Rabbi Yehuda who says: Food that was separated is permitted, as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 143b): One may not squeeze fruits on Shabbat in order to extract liquids from them. And if liquids seeped out on their own, it is prohibited to use them on Shabbat, lest one come to squeeze fruit on Shabbat.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 诇诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪讛谉 讗住讜专

Rabbi Yehuda says: If the fruits were designated for eating, the liquid that seeped from them on Shabbat is permitted. And if the fruits were designated for their liquids, the liquids that seeped from them on Shabbat are forbidden, lest he come to squeeze them on Shabbat. With regard to fruits that are designated for consumption, the liquid is considered food that was separated and is permitted. The same halakha applies with regard to an animal slaughtered on Shabbat: Since it was designated for consumption, its meat is food that was separated and should be permitted according to Rabbi Yehuda.

诇讗讜 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讘住诇讬 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐

The Gemara rejects that interpretation and states that, on the contrary, there is proof that Rabbi Yehuda would prohibit eating an animal that was slaughtered on Shabbat. Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that mishna that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Rabbi Yehuda conceded to the Rabbis in the case of baskets of olives and grapes that are typically designated for their liquids, even though one had planned to eat them, that liquid that seeps from them is forbidden?

讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇住讞讬讟讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讬讛讬讘 讚注转讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇砖讞讬讟讛 拽讬讬诪讗 讬讛讬讘 讚注转讬讛

Apparently, since olives and grapes are typically designated for squeezing, one sets his mind to use them for their liquids, and were it permitted for him to use their liquids that seep out on Shabbat, the concern is that he will come to squeeze them on Shabbat. Therefore, the Sages decreed that the liquids are forbidden. Here too, since the animal is designated for slaughter, a person sets his mind to eat it. Therefore, were it permitted for him to eat the meat on Shabbat, the concern is that he will come to slaughter it on Shabbat. Consequently, the Sages decreed that the meat is prohibited.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讛讗诪专 专讘 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住诇讬 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐

The Gemara justifies Abaye鈥檚 interpretation of the mishna: This explanation is valid only according to Rav, who said that the ruling that it is prohibited to eat an animal slaughtered on Shabbat until after Shabbat is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Didn鈥檛 Rav say: Rabbi Yehuda was in disagreement with the Rabbis even in the case of baskets of olives and grapes? According to Rav himself, just as Rabbi Yehuda deems permitted liquids that seeped from olives and grapes on their own, Rabbi Yehuda should have also deemed an animal that was slaughtered on Shabbat permitted for that day.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚谞专讜转 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 谞专 讞讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬砖谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rather, Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: When Rav said that the halakha that it is prohibited to consume the animal that day is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the reference is to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to lamps, as it is taught in a baraita: One may move, for purposes other than lighting it, a new earthenware lamp that was never used. But one may not move an old lamp covered with residue of oil and soot, because a person sets it aside from use due to repugnance. Since it was set aside at the beginning of Shabbat, it is set aside for the entire Shabbat and it may not be moved even if a need to move it arises; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The same halakha applies with regard to an animal slaughtered on Shabbat: Since it was prohibited when Shabbat began as the limb of a living being, it remains prohibited for the entire Shabbat.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬讗讜住 诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讗讬住讜专 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专

The Gemara rejects that analogy. Say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda rule that it is prohibited for the entire Shabbat in a case where it is set aside due to repugnance, like the old lamp. Did you hear that he said that it is prohibited for the entire Shabbat in a case where it is set aside due to a prohibition, like the animal? The Gemara answers: Yes, as we learned in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says:

Scroll To Top