Chullin — Daf 15b

כגון שהיה לו חולה מבעוד יום

אי הכי מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה דאסר כגון שהיה לו חולה והבריא

וכי הא דאמר רב אחא בר אדא אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רבי יצחק בר אדא אמר רב השוחט לחולה בשבת אסור לבריא המבשל לחולה בשבת מותר לבריא

מאי טעמא האי ראוי לכוס והאי אינו ראוי לכוס

אמר רב פפא פעמים שהשוחט מותר כגון שהיה לו חולה מבעוד יום מבשל אסור כגון שקצץ לו דלעת

אמר רב דימי מנהרדעא הלכתא השוחט לחולה בשבת מותר לבריא באומצא מ"ט כיון דאי אפשר לכזית בשר בלא שחיטה כי קא שחיט אדעתא דחולה קא שחיט המבשל לחולה בשבת אסור לבריא גזירה שמא ירבה בשבילו:

מתני׳ השוחט במגל יד בצור ובקנה שחיטתו כשרה

הכל שוחטין ולעולם שוחטין ובכל שוחטין חוץ ממגל קציר והמגירה והשינים והציפורן מפני שהם חונקין:

גמ׳ השוחט דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא בשלמא במגל יד דלמא אתי למעבד באידך גיסא אלא צור וקנה לכתחלה לא ורמינהי בכל שוחטין בין בצור בין בזכוכית בין בקרומית של קנה

לא קשיא כאן בתלוש כאן במחובר דאמר רב כהנא השוחט במחובר לקרקע רבי פוסל ור' חייא מכשיר עד כאן לא קא מכשיר רבי חייא אלא בדיעבד אבל לכתחלה לא

במאי אוקימתא כרבי חייא ודיעבד אלא הא דתניא בכל שוחטין בין בתלוש בין במחובר בין שהסכין למעלה וצואר בהמה למטה בין שהסכין למטה וצואר בהמה למעלה מני לא רבי ולא ר' חייא אי ר' חייא דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא אי רבי דיעבד נמי לא

לעולם רבי חייא ואפילו לכתחלה והאי דקמיפלגי בדיעבד להודיעך כחו דרבי

ואלא מתניתין דקתני השוחט דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא מני לא רבי ולא רבי חייא אי רבי חייא אפילו לכתחלה אי רבי דיעבד נמי לא

לעולם רבי חייא ואפילו לכתחלה ומתניתין דקתני השוחט רבי היא

קשיא דרבי אדרבי לא קשיא כאן במחובר מעיקרו כאן בתלוש ולבסוף חיברו

ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין מחובר מעיקרו לתלוש ולבסוף חיברו דתניא השוחט במוכני שחיטתו כשרה במחובר לקרקע שחיטתו כשרה נעץ סכין בכותל ושחט בה שחיטתו כשרה היה צור יוצא מן הכותל או קנה עולה מאליו ושחט בו שחיטתו פסולה

as when there was an invalid in the house on the eve of the Sabbath.1 If that be so, then why does R. Judah forbid it? — It must be the case of an invalid who recovered [on the Sabbath]. 2 The above view3 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,4 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.5 R. Papa6 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.7 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].8 R. Dimi of Nehardea said: The law is that where a man slaughtered on the Sabbath for an invalid,9 [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,9 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,10 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,11 A SAW, TEETH12 OR A FINGER NAIL,13 SINCE THESE STRANGLE.14 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;15 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.16 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. 17 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,16 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 such18 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.19 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?20 — There is no contradiction; for in the one case21 the implement had always been so attached [by nature], whereas in the other case22 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,23 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. permitted to slaughter it on the Sabbath, in accordance with the Rabbinic dictum: the duty of saving life supersedes the Sabbath laws. of Sabbath the animal was set in readiness for food for the invalid. The difference of opinion between R. Meir and R. Judah is, therefore, only with regard to the breaking of the Sabbath by the slaughterer inadvertently; according to the latter he is to be penalized for his inadvertent act, whilst according to the former he is not. distinction between foodstuffs which can be eaten raw and those which cannot. in the case of slaughtering the prohibition of mukzeh involved. invalid was already ill before the Sabbath. ground. Cf. however Tosaf ad loc. the finger-nail it is prohibited because it is attached to the person. V. infra 16a. in dispute with R. Hiyya he declares such slaughtering absolutely invalid.