Commentary for Pesachim 145:3

והא נמי פשיטא משום דהתם כשר הכא פטור אלא איידי דתנא שחטו שלא לשמו בשבת תנא נמי שלא לאוכליו והיא גופא למה לי משום דקבעי לאיפלוגי ר' אליעזר ור' יהושע

R. Huna b. Hinena said to his son, 'When you go before R. Zerika, ask him: On the view that he who causes damage through a wound is not liable, [when we learned] IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS, HE IS LIABLE, what [of positive value] has he effected? - He effected [this, viz.,] that if they [the emurim] ascended [the top of the altar], they do not descend. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT, AND IT WAS FOUND TO POSSESS A BLEMISH, HE IS LIABLE: what [of positive value] has he effected? - He effected [something positive] in the case of cataracts in the eye, this being in accordance with R. Akiba, who maintained: If they [the emurim] ascended, they do not descend, IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH INTERNALLY, HE IS NOT CULPABLE. Hence if it is in an exposed part, he is culpable; [yet] what has he effected? - He effected its withdrawal from the scope of nebelah. Rabina demurred: As to what was taught: He who slaughters a sin-offering on the Sabbath without [the Temple] to an idol, is liable on account thereof to three sin-offerings: -what has he effected? -Said R. 'Awira: Because he withdraws it from [the interdict of] a limb [cut] from a live animal. <br>

Explore commentary for Pesachim 145:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.