Parallel
חולין 15
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
All metal lamps may be moved on the Sabbath, excepting a lamp that has been alight on this Sabbath. But perhaps it might be suggested that in the latter case the law is exceptional since [the lamp] has been put away by the hand of man! Rather said R. Ashi: It is the view of R. Judah expressed in the matter of ‘Cooking’. For it has been taught: If a man cooked food on the Sabbath inadvertently, [even] he himself may eat of it, but if deliberately, he may not eat of it: so R. Meir. R. Judah says: If inadvertently, he may eat of it only after the termination of the Sabbath, but if deliberately, he may never eat of it. R. Johanan ha-Sandlar says: If inadvertently, it may be eaten after the termination of the Sabbath by others only but not by himself, but if deliberately, it may never be eaten, neither by him nor by others. But may we not explain [the Mishnah] to be the case of a deliberate act and so in accord with R. Meir's view? — This cannot be, for [in our Mishnah,] Sabbath and the Day of Atonement are stated in juxtaposition, suggesting that as on the Day of Atonement the one who slaughtered may on no account eat of it whether he acted inadvertently or deliberately, so on the Sabbath he may not eat of it whether he acted inadvertently or deliberately. But how can you explain [the Mishnah] to be a case of inadvertence and in accord with R. Judah's view? Does it not read: NOTWITHSTANDING HE IS GUILTY AGAINST HIS OWN LIFE? — This is the interpretation: NOTWITHSTANDING HE IS GUILTY AGAINST HIS OWN LIFE had he acted deliberately, since in our case he has acted inadvertently, the slaughtering is valid. But may we not explain the Mishnah in accordance with R. Johanan ha-Sandlar who holds the view that whether he acted inadvertently or deliberately he may never eat of it? — Nay, for R. Johanan ha-Sandlar discriminates between him and others after the termination of the Sabbath, whereas the Tanna of our Mishnah states: THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID, without discriminating between him and others. A Tanna recited before Rab: If a man cooked food on the Sabbath inadvertently, even he himself may eat of it, but if deliberately he may not eat of it. Rab thereupon bade him to keep silent. Now why did Rab silence him? Was it because Rab accepts the view of R. Judah and the Tanna was reciting the teaching in accordance with R. Meir's view? [Is he then justified,] because he himself accepts R. Judah's view, in bidding one who recites according to R. Meir's view to keep silent? Moreover, is it true to say that Rab accepts R. Judah's view? Has not R. Hanan b. Ammi reported that whenever Rab laid down the rule to his disciples he would rule according to R. Meir's view, but whenever he lectured at the public session he would expound the law according to R. Judah's view because of the ignorant masses present? And if you will say that this Tanna was reciting the teaching in the presence of Rab at the public Session? — Would then the public pay attention to the Tanna? They would pay attention to the Amora! — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered that the Tanna recited before Rab the case of slaughtering, thus: If a man slaughtered on the Sabbath inadvertently, he himself may eat of it, but if deliberately, he may not eat of it. Whereupon [Rab] said to him, You are inclined, no doubt, to accept R. Meir's view; but even so, R. Meir adopts a lenient view only in the case of cooking, inasmuch as the food could indeed be chewed raw; but not in case of slaughtering, since the animal could not be eaten raw. But then our Mishnah is a case of slaughtering and [it has been remarked above that] R. Huna said that Hiyya b. Rab in an exposition [on the Mishnah] in the name of Rab said that the animal was nevertheless forbidden to be eaten that same day, and furthermore that the colleagues thereupon suggested that the view expressed was that of R. Judah. Now does it not follow, therefore, that R. Meir would permit it to be eaten [that same day]? — R. Meir only permits it in such circumstances
—
as when there was an invalid in the house on the eve of the Sabbath. If that be so, then why does R. Judah forbid it? — It must be the case of an invalid who recovered [on the Sabbath]. The above view agrees with the statement of R. Aha b. Adda in the name of Rab, (others say, with the statement of R. Isaac b. Adda in the name of Rab), viz., If a man slaughtered [an animal] on the Sabbath for an invalid, it may not be eaten by a healthy person, but if a man cooked food on the Sabbath for an invalid, it may be eaten by a healthy person. What is the reason? — In the latter case the food could be eaten raw, in the former the animal could not be eaten raw. R. Papa stated: In certain cases even when a man-slaughtered [for an invalid on the Sabbath], it may be eaten [by a healthy person], e.g., where the invalid was ill already on the eve of the Sabbath. And in certain cases even when a man cooked [for one who fell ill on the Sabbath], it may not be eaten [by a healthy person], e.g., where a pumpkin was plucked [out of the ground on the Sabbath and cooked]. R. Dimi of Nehardea said: The law is that where a man slaughtered on the Sabbath for an invalid, [the meat] may be eaten raw by a healthy person. What is the reason? — Inasmuch as one cannot have even an olive's bulk of meat without slaughtering [the animal], it is clear that the slaughtering was done for the sake of the invalid. But where a man cooked on the Sabbath for an invalid, it [the food] may not be eaten by a healthy person, for [otherwise] it is to be feared lest a greater amount will be cooked on account of the healthy person. MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED WITH [THE SMOOTH EDGE OF] A HAND SICKLE, WITH A FLINT OR WITH A REED, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID. ALL MAY SLAUGHTER; AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER; WITH ANY IMPLEMENT ONE MAY SLAUGHTER, EXCEPTING A SCYTHE, A SAW, TEETH OR A FINGER NAIL, SINCE THESE STRANGLE. GEMARA. The expression ‘IF ONE SLAUGHTERED’ implies that the slaughtering is valid only after the act but it does not imply a right in the first instance. Now this view is reasonable in the case of a hand sickle, for it is always to be feared lest one will slaughter with the other edge; but is it right to say that one may not slaughter with a flint or reed in the first instance? Is there not an obvious contradiction from the following [Baraitha]: With any implement one may slaughter. with a flint, with glass or with a reed haulm? — It is no contradiction, for the latter statement refers to [a reed or flint] that is detached [from the ground], whereas our Mishnah refers to [a reed or flint] that is attached [to the ground]. For R. Kahana reported: If one slaughtered with an implement that was attached to the ground. Rabbi declares the slaughtering invalid; but R. Hiyya declares it valid. And even R. Hiyya declares it valid only after the act, but there is no right to do so in the first instance. Now what is the position? [Our Mishnah is] in agreement with R. Hiyya and the slaughtering is valid only after the act! Then what of the following which was taught: With any implement one may slaughter, whether it be detached or attached, whether the knife be on top and the throat below, or the knife below and the throat on top? Who can be the author [of this Baraitha]? It can be neither Rabbi nor R. Hiyya: If R. Hiyya, the slaughtering is valid only after the act but not in the first instance; if Rabbi, such slaughtering is invalid even after the act! — In truth, the author is R. Hiyya and he is [indeed] of the opinion that such slaughtering is permitted even in the first instance; and as to the reason why the dispute is reported with regard to the validity of such slaughtering after the act it is in order to demonstrate the [strong] view of Rabbis. If this be so, what of our Mishnah which reads: IF ONE SLAUGHTERED, implying that it is valid only after the act but not a right in the first instance, who can be the author thereof? It can be neither Rabbi nor R. Hiyya; if R. Hiyya, the slaughtering should be permitted even in the first instance; if Rabbi, it is always invalid even after the act! — In truth, the author [of the Baraitha] is R. Hiyya who holds that such slaughtering is permitted even in the first instance; and as to our Mishnah, which reads: IF ONE SLAUGHTERED, the author of it is Rabbi. But is not Rabbi then contradicting himself? — There is no contradiction; for in the one case the implement had always been so attached [by nature], whereas in the other case the implement was first loose and subsequently attached. Whence do you know that a distinction is to be drawn between that which was always attached and that which was first loose and subsequently attached? — From the following [Baraitha] which was taught: If one slaughtered with a wheel, the slaughtering is valid; with an implement that was attached to the ground, the slaughtering is valid; if one inserted a knife into a wall and slaughtered, [moving the throat of the animal to and fro across the knife], the slaughtering is valid; if there was a sharp flint jutting from the wall, or a reed growing of itself, and one slaughtered therewith, the slaughtering is invalid.
—