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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 12, 2018 | 讚壮 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 15

Two more answers are brought to explain what opinion of Rabbi Yehuda聽was Rav following? The gemara concludes that is was about the issue of one who cooks on Shabbat unintentionally. What types of knives or other sharp implements聽can/can’t be used to shechita?


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

讻诇 谞专讜转 砖诇 诪转讻转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞专 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 讘讜 讘讗讜转讛 砖讘转

One may move all metal lamps on Shabbat, even old ones, because they do not become repugnant like earthenware lamps, except for a metal lamp that one kindled on that same Shabbat and that was burning when Shabbat began, which it is prohibited to move for the entire Shabbat due to the prohibition against extinguishing.

讜讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讛讜讗 讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐

The Gemara rejects that analogy. And perhaps it is different there, in the case of the burning lamp, as he set it aside by direct action when he kindled the lamp. By contrast, in the case of an animal, he did not set it aside, and therefore, perhaps once it is slaughtered it is permitted.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讘砖诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讘砖诇 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rather, Rav Ashi 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 one who cooks, as we learned in a baraita: With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat what he cooked. If he acted intentionally, he may not eat what he cooked. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he cooked the food unwittingly, he may eat it at the conclusion of Shabbat, as the Sages penalized even one who sinned unwittingly by prohibiting him from deriving immediate benefit from the dish that he cooked. If he cooked it intentionally, he may never eat from it.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转 诇讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar says: If he acted unwittingly, the food may be eaten at the conclusion of Shabbat by others, but not by him. If he cooked the food intentionally, it may never be eaten, neither by him nor by others. According to Rav, the mishna is referring to a case where one slaughtered the animal unwittingly. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the slaughter is valid but it is prohibited to eat the animal on Shabbat.

讜谞讜拽诪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara challenges this: And let us interpret the mishna as referring to a case where he slaughtered the animal intentionally, and explain that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who rules that eating the animal in such a case is permitted only after the conclusion of Shabbat.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讗讻讬诇

The Gemara responds: That possibility should not enter your mind, as the case of slaughter on Shabbat is juxtaposed to and taught in a manner similar to the case of slaughter on Yom Kippur. Just as with regard to slaughter on Yom Kippur, it is no different whether one slaughtered it unwittingly and it is no different whether he slaughtered it intentionally, he may not eat it that day due to the fast, so too here, with regard to slaughter on Shabbat, it is no different whether he slaughtered it unwittingly and it is no different whether he slaughtered it intentionally, he may not eat it that day. Rabbi Meir, though, deems it permitted for one who cooked unwittingly to eat the cooked food on Shabbat.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚讘诪讝讬讚 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 讚讘砖讜讙讙 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And can you interpret the mishna as referring to a case of unwitting slaughter and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: Although he is liable to receive the death penalty? One is liable to be executed only if he intentionally performs labor on Shabbat. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: Although if he slaughtered it intentionally he is liable to receive the death penalty, here, in a case where he slaughtered the animal unwittingly, his slaughter is valid.

讜谞讜拽诪讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 拽诪驻诇讬讙 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讜 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 拽转谞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara challenges: And let us interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar, who says: It is no different whether he cooked unwittingly and it is no different whether he cooked intentionally; he may not eat it on Shabbat. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar draws a distinction with regard to the conclusion of Shabbat, in that he permits eating food cooked on Shabbat for others and not for him, while the tanna of our mishna teaches: His slaughter is valid, without qualification, indicating that with regard to his ruling it is no different for him and it is no different for others.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪讘砖诇 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜诪砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 专讘

The tanna taught a baraita before Rav: One who cooks on Shabbat unwittingly may eat the food that he cooked; if he did so intentionally, he may not eat the food that he cooked, and Rav silenced him.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜转谞讗 转谞讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖转讬拽 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav silenced him? If we say it is because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the tanna taught the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, can it be that merely because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda he silences one who teaches a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir?

讜注讜讚 诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讻讬 诪讜专讬 诇讛讜 专讘 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讛 诪讜专讬 诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讬 讚专讬砖 讘驻讬专拽讗 讚专讬砖 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 注诪讬 讛讗专抓

And furthermore, does Rav hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣nan bar Ami say: When Rav issues a ruling to his students, he issues a ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and when he teaches in his public lecture delivered on the Festival, he teaches in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, due to his concern that the ignoramuses would treat the prohibition of labor on Shabbat with disdain?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转谞讗 讘驻讬专拽讬讛 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇转谞讗 爪讬讬转讬 诇讗诪讜专讗 爪讬讬转讬

And if you would say that the tanna taught the baraita before Rav during the public lecture and Rav silenced him so that the ignoramuses would not learn from him, is that to say that everyone attending the public lecture listens to the tanna who is citing the baraita? There is no need to silence the tanna, because they listen to the disseminator [amora], the Sage who repeats what he hears from Rav loudly for the benefit of those attending the lecture, and the amora quoted Rav鈥檚 ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转谞讗 砖讜讞讟 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛砖讜讞讟 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽砖专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 讘诪讘砖诇 讚专讗讜讬 诇讻讜住 讗讘诇 砖讜讞讟 讚讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讻讜住 诇讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The tanna taught the halakha of one who slaughters before Rav: One who slaughters an animal on Shabbat unwittingly may eat from the slaughtered animal; if he slaughtered it intentionally, he may not eat from the slaughtered animal. Rav said to the tanna: What do you think, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Rabbi Meir deems eating permitted only in the case of one who cooks unwittingly on Shabbat, as even before he cooks the food it is fit to be chewed [lakhos], i.e., to be eaten uncooked, in a permitted manner, and therefore it was not set aside from use when Shabbat began. But in the case of one who slaughters an animal, where the meat was not fit to chew, Rabbi Meir does not permit eating it on Shabbat, because it was set aside from use on Shabbat.

讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚砖讜讞讟 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 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 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖专讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the mishna addressing the case of one who slaughters an animal, and Rav Huna says that 岣yya bar Rav taught in the name of Rav: 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, from which it may be inferred: But Rabbi Meir permits consumption of the slaughtered animal even on Shabbat, and he is not concerned that the animal was set aside from use when Shabbat began?

讻讬 砖专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Meir permits consumption of the slaughtered animal even on Shabbat,

讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

it is in a case where one had a critically ill person in his household while it was still day, before Shabbat, as it is permitted to slaughter the animal for such a person even on Shabbat. Therefore, the unslaughtered animal was not set aside from use.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗住专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讜讛讘专讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda prohibited consumption of the meat on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: He issued this ruling in a case where one had a critically ill person in his household before Shabbat and that person recovered. In that case, although the unslaughtered animal was not set aside from use when Shabbat began, it is prohibited to slaughter it on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Yehuda, if he slaughtered it unwittingly, its consumption is prohibited on Shabbat.

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜讞讟 诇讞讜诇讛 讘砖讘转 讗住讜专 诇讘专讬讗 讛诪讘砖诇 诇讞讜诇讛 讘砖讘转 诪讜转专 诇讘专讬讗

And that which Rav silenced the tanna for not stating that an unslaughtered animal is set aside from use, even when the prohibited labor of slaughter was performed unwittingly, is in accordance with that which Rav A岣 bar Adda says that Rav says, and some say it is that which Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Adda says that Rav says: In the case of one who slaughters an animal to feed an ill person on Shabbat, it is prohibited for a healthy person to partake of the slaughtered animal on Shabbat. In a case of one who cooks food to feed an ill person on Shabbat, it is permitted for a healthy person to partake of that food.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 专讗讜讬 诇讻讜住 讜讛讗讬 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讻讜住

What is the reason for this distinction? This food was fit to be chewed before it was cooked, and therefore it was not set aside from use when Shabbat began, and the meat of that animal was not fit to be chewed before the animal was slaughtered, and therefore it was set aside from use when Shabbat began.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛砖讜讞讟 诪讜转专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诪讘砖诇 讗住讜专 讻讙讜谉 砖拽爪抓 诇讜 讚诇注转

Rav Pappa says: There are times when one slaughters for an ill person on Shabbat and it is permitted for a healthy person to eat the meat on Shabbat, such as where he had a critically ill person in his household before Shabbat and the animal was designated for slaughter while it was still day, before Shabbat; in that case, it was not set aside from use. And there are times when one cooks on Shabbat for an ill person and it is prohibited for a healthy person to eat the food on Shabbat, such as where one cut a gourd that was attached to the ground for the ill person on Shabbat. Because it is prohibited to detach the gourd on Shabbat, it is set aside from use and forbidden.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讛诇讻转讗 讛砖讜讞讟 诇讞讜诇讛 讘砖讘转 诪讜转专 诇讘专讬讗 讘讗讜诪爪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诇讗 砖讞讬讟讛 讻讬 拽讗 砖讞讬讟 讗讚注转讗 讚讞讜诇讛 拽讗 砖讞讬讟 讛诪讘砖诇 诇讞讜诇讛 讘砖讘转 讗住讜专 诇讘专讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬专讘讛 讘砖讘讬诇讜

Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃 says that the halakha is: In the case of one who slaughters for an ill person on Shabbat, it is permitted for a healthy person to eat the raw meat [be鈥檜mtza]. What is the reason that it is permitted? Since it is impossible for an olive-bulk of meat to be permitted without slaughter of the entire animal, when he slaughters the animal, he slaughters it with the ill person in mind. Since slaughter of the animal was permitted, all its meat is permitted even for a healthy person. In the case of one who cooks for an ill person on Shabbat, it is prohibited for a healthy person to eat the food on Shabbat. What is the reason that it is prohibited? It is due to a rabbinic decree lest he increase the amount of food that he is cooking on behalf of the healthy person.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诪讙诇 讬讚 讘爪讜专 讜讘拽谞讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal with the smooth side of a hand sickle, which has both a smooth and a serrated side, or with a sharpened flint, or with a reed that was cut lengthwise and sharpened, his slaughter is valid.

讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讘讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讞讜抓 诪诪讙诇 拽爪讬专 讜讛诪讙讬专讛 讜讛砖讬谞讬诐 讜讛爪讬驻讜专谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诐 讞讜谞拽讬谉

All slaughter [hakkol sho岣tin], and one may always slaughter, and one may slaughter with any item that cuts, except for the serrated side of the harvest sickle, a saw, the teeth of an animal when attached to its jawbone, and a fingernail, because they are serrated and they consequently strangle the animal and do not cut its windpipe and gullet as required.

讙诪壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诪讙诇 讬讚 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚 讘讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讗诇讗 爪讜专 讜拽谞讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讘讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讬谉 讘爪讜专 讘讬谉 讘讝讻讜讻讬转 讘讬谉 讘拽专讜诪讬转 砖诇 拽谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara notes that the language of the mishna, which states: One who slaughters an animal with a hand sickle, with a flint, or with a reed, rather than: One may slaughter, indicates that after the fact, yes, the slaughter is valid, but one may not slaughter with those blades ab initio. The Gemara asks: Granted, one may not slaughter it with a hand sickle, lest he come to perform the slaughter with the other, serrated, side; but as a flint and a reed have no serrated side, is it so that one may not slaughter with those ab initio? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One may slaughter with any item that cuts, whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转诇讜砖 讻讗谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 专讘讬 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讻砖讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诇讗 讘讚讬注讘讚 讗讘诇 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. There, where the baraita permits slaughter ab initio, it is referring to slaughter with a flint and a reed when they are detached. Here, where the mishna says that the slaughter is valid only after the fact, it is referring to slaughter with a flint and a reed when they are attached to the ground, as Rav Kahana says: In the case of one who slaughters with a blade that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the slaughter not valid and Rabbi 岣yya deems it valid. The Gemara infers: Even Rabbi 岣yya deems the slaughter valid only after the fact; but one may not do so ab initio.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讚讬注讘讚 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讬谉 讘转诇讜砖 讘讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 讘讬谉 砖讛住讻讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讘讬谉 砖讛住讻讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the mishna? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya, and the slaughter is valid after the fact? But if so, with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: One may slaughter with any item that cuts, whether with a blade that is detached from the ground or with a blade that is attached to the ground, whether the knife is above and the neck of the animal is below or the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above; in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi nor with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya. If one would claim that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya, he says: After the fact, yes, the slaughter is valid, but it is not permitted to slaughter in this manner ab initio. If one would claim that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he says: Even after the fact, the slaughter is not valid.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚讬注讘讚 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬

The Gemara answers: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya, and he permits slaughter with these blades even ab initio. And the fact that the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi 岣yya were formulated such that they disagree concerning the halakha after the fact is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the slaughter is not valid even after the fact.

讜讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

But rather, the mishna here, which teaches: With regard to one who slaughters, after the fact, yes, it is valid, but it is not ab initio, in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi nor with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya. If one would claim that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya, he says: The slaughter is permitted even ab initio. If one would claim that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he says: Even after the fact, the slaughter is not valid.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讛砖讜讞讟 专讘讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi 岣yya holds that it is permitted to slaughter with these blades, and even ab initio; and the mishna here, which teaches: One who slaughters, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗讚专讘讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 诪注讬拽专讜 讻讗谉 讘转诇讜砖 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞讬讘专讜

The Gemara objects: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as in his dispute with Rabbi 岣yya he holds that the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara answers: This contradiction is not difficult. There, in his dispute with Rabbi 岣yya, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that slaughter is not valid in a case where the blade was attached from the outset; here, in the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the slaughter valid after the fact in a case where the blade was detached and ultimately he reattached it.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 诪讞讜讘专 诪注讬拽专讜 诇转诇讜砖 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞讬讘专讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诪讜讻谞讬 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 谞注抓 住讻讬谉 讘讻讜转诇 讜砖讞讟 讘讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讛讬讛 爪讜专 讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗讜 拽谞讛 注讜诇讛 诪讗诇讬讜 讜砖讞讟 讘讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that there is a difference for us between a blade that was attached from the outset and a blade that was detached and ultimately he reattached it? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters with a mechanism [bemukhni] of a wheel with a knife attached to it, his slaughter is valid; with an item that is attached to the ground, his slaughter is valid; if one embedded a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid. If there was a flint emerging from a wall or a reed arising from the ground on its own and he slaughtered with it, his slaughter is not valid.

  • 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 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 15

讻诇 谞专讜转 砖诇 诪转讻转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞专 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 讘讜 讘讗讜转讛 砖讘转

One may move all metal lamps on Shabbat, even old ones, because they do not become repugnant like earthenware lamps, except for a metal lamp that one kindled on that same Shabbat and that was burning when Shabbat began, which it is prohibited to move for the entire Shabbat due to the prohibition against extinguishing.

讜讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讛讜讗 讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐

The Gemara rejects that analogy. And perhaps it is different there, in the case of the burning lamp, as he set it aside by direct action when he kindled the lamp. By contrast, in the case of an animal, he did not set it aside, and therefore, perhaps once it is slaughtered it is permitted.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讘砖诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讘砖诇 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Rather, Rav Ashi 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 one who cooks, as we learned in a baraita: With regard to one who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly, he may eat what he cooked. If he acted intentionally, he may not eat what he cooked. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he cooked the food unwittingly, he may eat it at the conclusion of Shabbat, as the Sages penalized even one who sinned unwittingly by prohibiting him from deriving immediate benefit from the dish that he cooked. If he cooked it intentionally, he may never eat from it.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讜 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讜诇诪讬转 诇讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讗讞专讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar says: If he acted unwittingly, the food may be eaten at the conclusion of Shabbat by others, but not by him. If he cooked the food intentionally, it may never be eaten, neither by him nor by others. According to Rav, the mishna is referring to a case where one slaughtered the animal unwittingly. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the slaughter is valid but it is prohibited to eat the animal on Shabbat.

讜谞讜拽诪讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara challenges this: And let us interpret the mishna as referring to a case where he slaughtered the animal intentionally, and explain that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who rules that eating the animal in such a case is permitted only after the conclusion of Shabbat.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讗讻讬诇

The Gemara responds: That possibility should not enter your mind, as the case of slaughter on Shabbat is juxtaposed to and taught in a manner similar to the case of slaughter on Yom Kippur. Just as with regard to slaughter on Yom Kippur, it is no different whether one slaughtered it unwittingly and it is no different whether he slaughtered it intentionally, he may not eat it that day due to the fast, so too here, with regard to slaughter on Shabbat, it is no different whether he slaughtered it unwittingly and it is no different whether he slaughtered it intentionally, he may not eat it that day. Rabbi Meir, though, deems it permitted for one who cooked unwittingly to eat the cooked food on Shabbat.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚讘诪讝讬讚 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讛讜讗 讛讻讗 讚讘砖讜讙讙 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

The Gemara asks: And can you interpret the mishna as referring to a case of unwitting slaughter and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna: Although he is liable to receive the death penalty? One is liable to be executed only if he intentionally performs labor on Shabbat. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: Although if he slaughtered it intentionally he is liable to receive the death penalty, here, in a case where he slaughtered the animal unwittingly, his slaughter is valid.

讜谞讜拽诪讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘砖讜讙讙 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛住谞讚诇专 拽诪驻诇讬讙 讘诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讜 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 拽转谞讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara challenges: And let us interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar, who says: It is no different whether he cooked unwittingly and it is no different whether he cooked intentionally; he may not eat it on Shabbat. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yo岣nan HaSandlar draws a distinction with regard to the conclusion of Shabbat, in that he permits eating food cooked on Shabbat for others and not for him, while the tanna of our mishna teaches: His slaughter is valid, without qualification, indicating that with regard to his ruling it is no different for him and it is no different for others.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛诪讘砖诇 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜诪砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 专讘

The tanna taught a baraita before Rav: One who cooks on Shabbat unwittingly may eat the food that he cooked; if he did so intentionally, he may not eat the food that he cooked, and Rav silenced him.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖转讬拽 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜转谞讗 转谞讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖转讬拽 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav silenced him? If we say it is because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the tanna taught the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, can it be that merely because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda he silences one who teaches a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir?

讜注讜讚 诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞谞谉 讘专 讗诪讬 讻讬 诪讜专讬 诇讛讜 专讘 诇转诇诪讬讚讬讛 诪讜专讬 诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讻讬 讚专讬砖 讘驻讬专拽讗 讚专讬砖 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 注诪讬 讛讗专抓

And furthermore, does Rav hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣nan bar Ami say: When Rav issues a ruling to his students, he issues a ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and when he teaches in his public lecture delivered on the Festival, he teaches in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, due to his concern that the ignoramuses would treat the prohibition of labor on Shabbat with disdain?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转谞讗 讘驻讬专拽讬讛 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇转谞讗 爪讬讬转讬 诇讗诪讜专讗 爪讬讬转讬

And if you would say that the tanna taught the baraita before Rav during the public lecture and Rav silenced him so that the ignoramuses would not learn from him, is that to say that everyone attending the public lecture listens to the tanna who is citing the baraita? There is no need to silence the tanna, because they listen to the disseminator [amora], the Sage who repeats what he hears from Rav loudly for the benefit of those attending the lecture, and the amora quoted Rav鈥檚 ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转谞讗 砖讜讞讟 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛砖讜讞讟 讘砖讘转 讘砖讜讙讙 讬讗讻诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讚注转讬讱 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽砖专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诇讗 讘诪讘砖诇 讚专讗讜讬 诇讻讜住 讗讘诇 砖讜讞讟 讚讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讻讜住 诇讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The tanna taught the halakha of one who slaughters before Rav: One who slaughters an animal on Shabbat unwittingly may eat from the slaughtered animal; if he slaughtered it intentionally, he may not eat from the slaughtered animal. Rav said to the tanna: What do you think, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Rabbi Meir deems eating permitted only in the case of one who cooks unwittingly on Shabbat, as even before he cooks the food it is fit to be chewed [lakhos], i.e., to be eaten uncooked, in a permitted manner, and therefore it was not set aside from use when Shabbat began. But in the case of one who slaughters an animal, where the meat was not fit to chew, Rabbi Meir does not permit eating it on Shabbat, because it was set aside from use on Shabbat.

讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚砖讜讞讟 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 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 讛讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖专讬

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 the mishna addressing the case of one who slaughters an animal, and Rav Huna says that 岣yya bar Rav taught in the name of Rav: 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, from which it may be inferred: But Rabbi Meir permits consumption of the slaughtered animal even on Shabbat, and he is not concerned that the animal was set aside from use when Shabbat began?

讻讬 砖专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Meir permits consumption of the slaughtered animal even on Shabbat,

讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

it is in a case where one had a critically ill person in his household while it was still day, before Shabbat, as it is permitted to slaughter the animal for such a person even on Shabbat. Therefore, the unslaughtered animal was not set aside from use.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗住专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 讜讛讘专讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda prohibited consumption of the meat on Shabbat? The Gemara answers: He issued this ruling in a case where one had a critically ill person in his household before Shabbat and that person recovered. In that case, although the unslaughtered animal was not set aside from use when Shabbat began, it is prohibited to slaughter it on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Yehuda, if he slaughtered it unwittingly, its consumption is prohibited on Shabbat.

讜讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛砖讜讞讟 诇讞讜诇讛 讘砖讘转 讗住讜专 诇讘专讬讗 讛诪讘砖诇 诇讞讜诇讛 讘砖讘转 诪讜转专 诇讘专讬讗

And that which Rav silenced the tanna for not stating that an unslaughtered animal is set aside from use, even when the prohibited labor of slaughter was performed unwittingly, is in accordance with that which Rav A岣 bar Adda says that Rav says, and some say it is that which Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Adda says that Rav says: In the case of one who slaughters an animal to feed an ill person on Shabbat, it is prohibited for a healthy person to partake of the slaughtered animal on Shabbat. In a case of one who cooks food to feed an ill person on Shabbat, it is permitted for a healthy person to partake of that food.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 专讗讜讬 诇讻讜住 讜讛讗讬 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讻讜住

What is the reason for this distinction? This food was fit to be chewed before it was cooked, and therefore it was not set aside from use when Shabbat began, and the meat of that animal was not fit to be chewed before the animal was slaughtered, and therefore it was set aside from use when Shabbat began.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讛砖讜讞讟 诪讜转专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 讞讜诇讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐 诪讘砖诇 讗住讜专 讻讙讜谉 砖拽爪抓 诇讜 讚诇注转

Rav Pappa says: There are times when one slaughters for an ill person on Shabbat and it is permitted for a healthy person to eat the meat on Shabbat, such as where he had a critically ill person in his household before Shabbat and the animal was designated for slaughter while it was still day, before Shabbat; in that case, it was not set aside from use. And there are times when one cooks on Shabbat for an ill person and it is prohibited for a healthy person to eat the food on Shabbat, such as where one cut a gourd that was attached to the ground for the ill person on Shabbat. Because it is prohibited to detach the gourd on Shabbat, it is set aside from use and forbidden.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讛诇讻转讗 讛砖讜讞讟 诇讞讜诇讛 讘砖讘转 诪讜转专 诇讘专讬讗 讘讗讜诪爪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讻讝讬转 讘砖专 讘诇讗 砖讞讬讟讛 讻讬 拽讗 砖讞讬讟 讗讚注转讗 讚讞讜诇讛 拽讗 砖讞讬讟 讛诪讘砖诇 诇讞讜诇讛 讘砖讘转 讗住讜专 诇讘专讬讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬专讘讛 讘砖讘讬诇讜

Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃 says that the halakha is: In the case of one who slaughters for an ill person on Shabbat, it is permitted for a healthy person to eat the raw meat [be鈥檜mtza]. What is the reason that it is permitted? Since it is impossible for an olive-bulk of meat to be permitted without slaughter of the entire animal, when he slaughters the animal, he slaughters it with the ill person in mind. Since slaughter of the animal was permitted, all its meat is permitted even for a healthy person. In the case of one who cooks for an ill person on Shabbat, it is prohibited for a healthy person to eat the food on Shabbat. What is the reason that it is prohibited? It is due to a rabbinic decree lest he increase the amount of food that he is cooking on behalf of the healthy person.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诪讙诇 讬讚 讘爪讜专 讜讘拽谞讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal with the smooth side of a hand sickle, which has both a smooth and a serrated side, or with a sharpened flint, or with a reed that was cut lengthwise and sharpened, his slaughter is valid.

讛讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜诇注讜诇诐 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讜讘讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讞讜抓 诪诪讙诇 拽爪讬专 讜讛诪讙讬专讛 讜讛砖讬谞讬诐 讜讛爪讬驻讜专谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛诐 讞讜谞拽讬谉

All slaughter [hakkol sho岣tin], and one may always slaughter, and one may slaughter with any item that cuts, except for the serrated side of the harvest sickle, a saw, the teeth of an animal when attached to its jawbone, and a fingernail, because they are serrated and they consequently strangle the animal and do not cut its windpipe and gullet as required.

讙诪壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诪讙诇 讬讚 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪注讘讚 讘讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 讗诇讗 爪讜专 讜拽谞讛 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讘讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讬谉 讘爪讜专 讘讬谉 讘讝讻讜讻讬转 讘讬谉 讘拽专讜诪讬转 砖诇 拽谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara notes that the language of the mishna, which states: One who slaughters an animal with a hand sickle, with a flint, or with a reed, rather than: One may slaughter, indicates that after the fact, yes, the slaughter is valid, but one may not slaughter with those blades ab initio. The Gemara asks: Granted, one may not slaughter it with a hand sickle, lest he come to perform the slaughter with the other, serrated, side; but as a flint and a reed have no serrated side, is it so that one may not slaughter with those ab initio? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One may slaughter with any item that cuts, whether with a flint, or with glass shards, or with the stalk of a reed.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘转诇讜砖 讻讗谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 专讘讬 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讻砖讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诇讗 讘讚讬注讘讚 讗讘诇 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. There, where the baraita permits slaughter ab initio, it is referring to slaughter with a flint and a reed when they are detached. Here, where the mishna says that the slaughter is valid only after the fact, it is referring to slaughter with a flint and a reed when they are attached to the ground, as Rav Kahana says: In the case of one who slaughters with a blade that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the slaughter not valid and Rabbi 岣yya deems it valid. The Gemara infers: Even Rabbi 岣yya deems the slaughter valid only after the fact; but one may not do so ab initio.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讚讬注讘讚 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讻诇 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讘讬谉 讘转诇讜砖 讘讬谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 讘讬谉 砖讛住讻讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪讟讛 讘讬谉 砖讛住讻讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讜爪讜讗专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the mishna? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya, and the slaughter is valid after the fact? But if so, with regard to that which is taught in a baraita: One may slaughter with any item that cuts, whether with a blade that is detached from the ground or with a blade that is attached to the ground, whether the knife is above and the neck of the animal is below or the knife is below and the neck of the animal is above; in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi nor with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya. If one would claim that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya, he says: After the fact, yes, the slaughter is valid, but it is not permitted to slaughter in this manner ab initio. If one would claim that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he says: Even after the fact, the slaughter is not valid.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜讛讗讬 讚拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚讬注讘讚 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬

The Gemara answers: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya, and he permits slaughter with these blades even ab initio. And the fact that the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi 岣yya were formulated such that they disagree concerning the halakha after the fact is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the slaughter is not valid even after the fact.

讜讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

But rather, the mishna here, which teaches: With regard to one who slaughters, after the fact, yes, it is valid, but it is not ab initio, in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi nor with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya. If one would claim that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya, he says: The slaughter is permitted even ab initio. If one would claim that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he says: Even after the fact, the slaughter is not valid.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讛砖讜讞讟 专讘讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi 岣yya holds that it is permitted to slaughter with these blades, and even ab initio; and the mishna here, which teaches: One who slaughters, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讗讚专讘讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪讞讜讘专 诪注讬拽专讜 讻讗谉 讘转诇讜砖 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞讬讘专讜

The Gemara objects: This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as in his dispute with Rabbi 岣yya he holds that the slaughter is not valid. The Gemara answers: This contradiction is not difficult. There, in his dispute with Rabbi 岣yya, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that slaughter is not valid in a case where the blade was attached from the outset; here, in the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems the slaughter valid after the fact in a case where the blade was detached and ultimately he reattached it.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖谞讬 诇谉 讘讬谉 诪讞讜讘专 诪注讬拽专讜 诇转诇讜砖 讜诇讘住讜祝 讞讬讘专讜 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讘诪讜讻谞讬 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讘诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 谞注抓 住讻讬谉 讘讻讜转诇 讜砖讞讟 讘讛 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 讛讬讛 爪讜专 讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讻讜转诇 讗讜 拽谞讛 注讜诇讛 诪讗诇讬讜 讜砖讞讟 讘讜 砖讞讬讟转讜 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that there is a difference for us between a blade that was attached from the outset and a blade that was detached and ultimately he reattached it? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who slaughters with a mechanism [bemukhni] of a wheel with a knife attached to it, his slaughter is valid; with an item that is attached to the ground, his slaughter is valid; if one embedded a knife in a wall and slaughtered with it, his slaughter is valid. If there was a flint emerging from a wall or a reed arising from the ground on its own and he slaughtered with it, his slaughter is not valid.

Scroll To Top