Chullin

All metal lamps1 may be moved on the Sabbath, excepting a lamp that has been alight on this Sabbath.2 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!3 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,4 but if deliberately, he may not eat of it:5 so R. Meir. R. Judah says: If inadvertently, he may eat of it only after the termination of the Sabbath,6 but if deliberately, he may never eat of it.7 R. Johanan ha-Sandlar8 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.9 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,10 so on the Sabbath he may not eat of it whether he acted inadvertently or deliberately.11 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?12 — 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?13 And if you will say that this Tanna was reciting the teaching in the presence of Rab at the public Session?14 — Would then the public pay attention to the Tanna? They would pay attention to the Amora!15 — 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;16 but not in case of slaughtering, since the animal could not be eaten raw.17 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]?18 — R. Meir only permits it in such circumstances prohibiting the moving of a lighted lamp for fear of extinguishing it, and it remains mukzeh the whole of the Sabbath. Mishnah the mukzeh comes of itself with the commencement of the Sabbath. In this latter case it is suggested that the mukzeh is not so strict, and if by some means it comes about that the animal is fit for eating it should be permitted. derived from cooking on the Sabbath. eaten only after the Sabbath, thus being entirely in agreement with R. Judah's view. the Rabbi said to him in brief and in a low voice. not even the prohibition of mukzeh since whilst raw it was also fit for food.