Ketubot

R. Simeon, who says: An unfit slaughtering is not called  slaughtering. This might be right with regard to [the slaughtering for] idolatry and [the slaughtering of] the ox that is to be stoned, but the slaughtering on Sabbath is a fit slaughtering, for we learnt: If someone has slaughtered [an animal] on Sabbath or the Day of Atonement, although he is guilty of [a transgression for which he forfeits] his life,  his slaughtering is a fit one?  — He holds the opinion of R. Johanan ha-Sandalar,  for it has been taught: If someone has cooked on Sabbath, [if] by mistake, he may eat it, [and if] wilfully he may not eat it: This is the view of R. Meir. R. Judah says: [If] by mistake, he may eat it after the outgoing  of the Sabbath, [if] wilfully, he may never eat it. R. Johanan hasandalar says: [If] wilfully, others may eat it after the outgoing of the Sabbath, but not he, [if] wilfully, neither he nor others may eat it.  What is the reason of R. Johanan ha-Sandalar? As R. Hiyya expounded at the entrance of the house of the Prince:  [It is written:] 'Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you'.  [From this we derive:] As what is holy is forbidden to be eaten, so what has been prepared  on the Sabbath is forbidden to be eaten. If [so, you might say that] as what is holy is forbidden to be enjoyed,  so what has been prepared on the Sabbath should be forbidden to be enjoyed? — It says 'unto you'; from this we learn: It shall belong to you.  You might think [that it is forbidden to eat] even [what has been prepared on the Sabbath] by mistake,  [therefore] it is said: every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death.  [This teaches that only] when [the act was done] wilfully,  have I told thee [that it is forbidden as that which is holy] but not [if it was done] by mistake. R. Aha and Rabina differ concerning this. One says: What has been prepared on Sabbath [is forbidden] according to the Bible, and one says: [only] according to the Rabbis. He who says: According to the Bible — as we have [just] explained.  [And] he who says: according to the Rabbis — the verse says: 'It is holy', [that means]: 'it'  is holy, but what has been prepared on it is not holy.  According to him who says [that the prohibition is only] Rabbinical, what is the reason of the Rabbis who declare him  free?  — The Rabbis declare him free only with regard to other cases. But [with regard to] one who slaughtered for idolatry [one can ask:] as soon as he has cut  a little it  has become forbidden,  so when he continues the slaughtering  he does not slaughter what is the owner's?  — Raba said: [it speaks of a case] when he says [that] he worships it  with the completion of the slaughtering. [But with regard to] the ox that is to he stoned [one can ask]: he  does not slaughter what is his?  Here we speak of a case when he  handed it  to a keeper and it caused the damage  in the house of the keeper  and it was sentenced in the house of the keeper and a thief stole it from the house of the keeper. And R. Meir holds the view of R. Jacob and holds the view of R. Simeon. He holds the view of R. Jacob who says: If the keeper returned it even after the sentence had been pronounced, it is regarded as returned.  And he holds the view of R. Simeon who says: that which causes [the gain or loss of] money is regarded as money. Rabbah said: Indeed [it speaks of a case] when he  slaughtered it himself