Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IMPROPER SLAUGHTER

(a) Answer: The Chachamim hold as R. Shimon who says that a slaughter which does not permit the meat to be eaten is not considered slaughter.

1. This explains why they exempt a slaughter to an idol, or of an animal sentenced to die.

(b) Question: An animal slaughtered on Shabbos may be eaten!

1. (Mishnah): One who slaughters on Shabbos or Yom Kipur, even though he forfeits his life, the slaughter is acceptable.

(c) Answer: Chachamim hold as R. Yochanan ha'Sandler.

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): One who cooks on Shabbos - if he forgot, he may eat it; if he intentionally transgressed, he may not eat it;
2. R. Yehudah says, If he forgot, he may eat it after Shabbos; if not, he may never eat it;
3. R. Yochanan ha'Sandler says, if he forgot, after Shabbos others may eat it but not him; if not, even others may never eat it.

(d) Question: What is the source for R. Yochanan ha'Sandler?
(e) Answer: As R. Chiya expounded, "The Shabbos is Kodesh to you" - just as one may not eat Kodesh, so too things made on Shabbos.
(f) Suggestion: One might say, just as one may not benefit from Kodesh, so too things made on Shabbos!
(g) Answer: "To you" - it will be yours.
(h) Suggestion: Perhaps the prohibition applies even to things inadvertently made on Shabbos!
(i) Answer: "Those that desecrate it will die" - we only refer to intentional desecrators.
(j) Rav Acha and Ravina argued. One said that the Torah prohibits eating things made on Shabbos; the other says that it is a Rabbinic prohibition.

1. The one who says it is a Torah prohibition learns as above (e).
2. The one who says it is a Rabbinic prohibition expounds "It (Shabbos) is Kodesh" - but not things made on Shabbos.

(k) Question: According to the opinion that it is only a Rabbinic prohibition, why do Chachamim exempt the thief from paying 4 or 5?
(l) Answer: They do not! They only exempt in the cases of slaughtering to an idol or slaughtering an ox sentenced to die.
(m) Question: The moment one starts slaughtering to an idol, the animal becomes prohibited - for the completion of the slaughter, it does not belong to the original owner (so why does R. Meir say he pays 4 or 5)?
(n) Answer (Rava): The case is, he only serves the idol upon completion of the slaughter.
(o) Question: An ox sentenced to die does not belong to the original owner (so why does R. Meir say he pays 4 or 5)?
(p) Answer (Rabah): The case is, Shimon was guarding Reuven's ox. It gored, was sentenced to die, and was stolen while by Shimon.

1. R. Meir holds as R. Yakov and as R. Shimon.

i. He holds as R. Yakov who says that a watchman can return an animal which was sentenced to die.
ii. He holds as R. Shimon who says that something which is worth money to one person (even if it has no value to anyone else) is considered as having value. (Since Shimon could have returned the ox, the thief must pay for it).

(a) Answer #2 (to question 3:d, Daf 33B): Really, the thief himself slaughters. R. Meir holds that one is lashed and pays, but does not pay if he is killed. Fines are special, and are paid even if the person is killed.

(b) This is as another teaching of Rabah.
(c) (Rabah): If a thief stole a goat before Shabbos, and slaughtered it on Shabbos, he pays 4, since he was obligated to pay for the theft before breaking Shabbos;
(d) If he stole and slaughtered it on Shabbos, he is exempt, since if there is no (obligation for) theft, there is no (obligation for) selling or slaughtering.
(e) (Rabah): If a thief stole a goat before tunneling into a house, and slaughtered it the tunnel, he pays 4, since he was obligated to pay for the theft before tunneling;
(f) If he stole and slaughtered it in the tunnel, he is exempt, since if there is no (obligation for) theft, there is no (obligation for) selling or slaughtering.
(g) It is necessary to teach both these laws.

1. If he only taught the law by Shabbos, we would think that there he pays a fine (Rashi: there he is exempt for stealing), since he is forever liable for his sin; but tunneling, where he is only liable while in the tunnel, no.
2. If he only taught the law by tunneling, we would think that there he pays a fine (Rashi: there he is exempt for stealing), since he can be killed without warning; but Shabbos, for which he cannot be killed without warning, no.

(a) (Rav Papa): If a thief stole a cow before Shabbos, and slaughtered it on Shabbos, he pays 5, since he was obligated to pay for the theft before breaking Shabbos;
(b) If he borrowed a cow before Shabbos, and slaughtered it on Shabbos, he is exempt.
(c) Question: (Rav Acha Brei d'Rava): Is Rav Papa just coming to teach that Rabah's law applies to a cow as well?!
(d) Answer (Rav Ashi): No, he comes to teach the law of a borrowed animal.

1. Rav Papa had taught, from the time a borrower drags an animal to his premises, he is responsible to feed it.
2. One might have thought that from the time he drags it he is also responsible if it dies; he teaches that this is not so.

(e) (Rava): A father died, leaving a borrowed cow to his heirs. They may use it the entire time the father was allowed to use it; if it dies, they are exempt;
(f) If they thought it was their father's and slaughtered it, they pay a cheap price for its meat (2/3 of the normal price);
(g) If they inherited land, they must pay.

1. Some learn that this last statement applies to the 1st law (e); others say, it applies to the 2nd law (f).
2. The opinion that says it applies to the 1st law, all the moreso it applies to the 2nd law, and Rava argues on Rav Papa.
3. The opinion that says it applies to the 2nd law, but it does not apply to the 1st, in agreement with Rav Papa.

(a) We understand, R. Yochanan did not resolve the contradictory Mishnayos (asked at the end of 31B) as Reish Lakish, because he prefers to establish them as Chachamim.
(b) Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish say as R. Yochanan?
(c) Answer: Reish Lakish holds, since he is exempt from paying if he was warned (about the forbidden relation), he is exempt even if he is not warned.

1. They are consistent with what they said elsewhere.
2. (Rav Dimi): One who inadvertently transgresses a sin worthy of death or lashes, and also money: R. Yochanan says he must pay, Reish Lakish says he is exempt.

i. R. Yochanan says he must pay, since he was not warned!
ii. Reish Lakish says he is exempt, since he would be exempt if warned, he is exempt even if not warned.

(d) Version #1: Question (Reish Lakish): "If there will be no Ason (death), he will pay".