Chullin 28

Chapter 28

א התם כדקתני טעמא אמרו לו לרבי מאיר

1 [This case is quite different for] there the reasoning is expressly stated, viz. , They said to R'Meir: Do you n agree that if the cask were to break the result would be that this person has from the outset been drinking untithed wine?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is because of the possibility of such an event happening that R. Judah and his colleagues prohibit this procedure and not because they do not hold bererah.');">1

ב אי אתה מודה שמא יבקע הנוד ונמצא שותה טבלים למפרע

2 To this [R'Meir] replied: When it breaks. !2

ג אמר להן

3 Rather we can derive it,3

ד לכשיבקע

4 from the teaching of Ayyo.

ה אלא מדתני איו

5 For Ayyo taught: R'Judah says that a person cannot conditionally reserve for himself two contingencies simultaneously.4

ו דתני איו רבי יהודה אומר

6 [He may declare that] if a Sage comes to the east his 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Sabbath law no person is allowed to go on the Sabbath beyond two thousand cubits from the boundaries of his town. If, however, he desires to go further, he must make an 'erub, i.e., he deposits on the eve of Sabbath some food, enough for two meals, at a spot at the limit of the prescribed two thousand cubits' distance. This spot is regarded in law as his temporary abode and he may then go two thousand cubits beyond it. Having, however, gained two thousand cubits in one direction he forfeits his right of movement in any other direction outside the town boundaries. It is obvious that a person can make only one 'erub and place it in that direction in which he intends to go. It is, however, provided for, in the event of a person being undecided as to which direction he will take on the Sabbath, that he may place a conditional 'erub in each direction, and on the Sabbath when he makes his decision the 'erub in the particular direction chosen will be effective.');">5

ז אין אדם מתנה על שני דברים כאחד אלא אם בא חכם למזרח עירובו למזרח למערב עירובו למערב ואילו לכאן ולכאן לא

7 at the east should serve him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that he be enabled to attend the lecture of the Sage on the Sabbath which will be held at some place more than two thousand cubits beyond the boundaries of his town.');">6

ח והוינן בה

8 and if to the west his 'erub at the west should serve him; but on no account [may he make such conditions] in the event of two Sages coming one to this side and the other to that side.

ט מאי שנא לכאן ולכאן דלא

9 Now it was argued.

י דאין ברירה מזרח ומערב נמי אין ברירה

10 Why is it that in the event of two Sages coming one to this side and the other to that side that he may not make conditions?

יא ואמר רבי יוחנן

11 It is, is it not, because bererah is not held?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a conditional 'erub recourse must be had to the principle of bererah. For when each 'erub is placed, it is not known which is to be effective; it is only when the decision is made on the Sabbath that a particular 'erub is determined retrospectively to be the one intended to be effective from the outset.');">7

יב וכבר בא חכם

12 Then even in the event of the Sage coming [to one side only], either to the east or to - the west, he should not be allowed to make conditions.

יג אלא אמר רב יוסף

13 [for the very same reason] that bererah is not held?

יד רבי יהודה דכלים היא דתנן

14 And R'Johanan had explained that [in the latter case] the Sage had already arrived.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter case therefore does not come within the purview of bererah since it is actually known and determined before the Sabbath which 'erub is effective by the arrival of the Sage. All that remains is for this person to ascertain this fact. This Baraitha, however, clearly proves from the first clause that R. Judah does not hold bererah; hence the suggestion of R. Abba that the view in the Mishnah corresponds with that of R. Judah in the matter of 'Readiness' can no longer be maintained.');">8

טו כל הכלים הניטלין בשבת שבריהן ניטלין ובלבד שיהו עושין מעין מלאכה שברי עריבה לכסות בהן פי חבית שברי זכוכית לכסות בהן פי הפך

15 Rather said R'Joseph:9

טז רבי יהודה אומר

16 It is the view of R'Judah expressed in the matter of 'Vessels'.

יז ובלבד שיהו עושין מעין מלאכתן שברי עריבה לצוק לתוכן מקפה שברי זכוכית לצוק לתוכן שמן

17 For we have learnt: Whatsoever vessels, which may be moved on the Sabbath, fragments thereof10

יח מעין מלאכתן אין מעין מלאכה אחרת לא

18 may likewise be moved on the Sabbath, provided they can perform aught in the nature of work,11

יט אלמא כיון דלא איתכן מאתמול להך מלאכה אסירי

19 e.g. , fragments of a kneading trough that can be used for stopping the bung-hole of a cask, or fragments of a glass for covering the mouth of a flask.

כ הכא נמי כיון דלא איתכן מאתמול אסורה

20 R'Judah says: Provided they can perform aught in the nature of their former work, e.g. , fragments of a kneading trough that can have porridge poured into them, or fragments of a glass that can have oil poured into them.

כא אמר ליה אביי

21 Now according to R'Judah [they are permitted to be moved] only if they can perform aught in the nature of their former work, but not if they can perform aught in the nature of some other work.

כב מי דמי

22 This, therefore, shows that since they were not set in readiness on the eve of the Sabbath for that particular work, i is forbidden [to use them for such purpose on the Sabbath]; so, too.

כג התם מעיקרא כלי והשתא שבר כלי והוה ליה נולד ואסור

23 In the case of our Mishnah, since the animal was not set in readiness on the eve of the Sabbath for food, it is forbidden [to be so used on the Sabbath].

כד הכא מעיקרא אוכלא ולבסוף אוכל אוכלא דאיפרת הוא ושמעינן ליה לרבי יהודה דאמר

24 Thereupon Abaye said to him: What a comparison! There we are dealing with something that was originally a vessel and is now a fragment of a vessel, which is a case of nolad<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb, 'born, created'. An object which is Produced, and only becomes available for a particular use, on a festival or on the Sabbath, may not be so used on that day.');">12

כה אוכלא דאיפרת שפיר דמי

25 and consequently forbidden; whereas here [in our Mishnah] we are dealing with something that was originally [intended for] food<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is established according to R. Judah that an animal while living is kept in order to be slaughtered and used as food, for otherwise it would be forbidden to slaughter an animal on the Festival.');">13

כו דתנן

26 and now, too, is [intended for] food, it is therefore the same foodstuff merely more defined.14

כז אין סוחטין את הפירות להוציא מהן משקין ואם יצאו מעצמן אסורין

27 And we have already ascertained that according to R'Judah, where the foodstuff is the same but more defined it is permitted.15

כח רבי יהודה אומר

28 For we have learnt:16

כט אם לאוכלין היוצא מהן מותר ואם למשקין היוצא מהן אסור

29 One must not press fruit [on the Sabbath] in order to extract the juice, and even if the juice oozed out by itself it is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a precautionary measure lest one will press the fruit deliberately for the sake of its juice on the Sabbath, which would constitute a breach of one of the main classes of work prohibited.');">17

ל לאו אתמר עלה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל

30 R'Judah says.

לא מודה היה רבי יהודה לחכמים בסלי זיתים וענבים

31 If [the fruits were intended] to be eaten, the juice which oozed out is permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah does not regard the juice which oozed out of the fruit as nolad, i.e., something new issuing from the fruit, but as the fruit itself in a more particular and defined form.');">18

לב אלמא כיון דלסחיטה קיימי יהיב דעתיה

32 but if [they were kept only] for their juice, that which oozed out by itself is forbidden.

לג הכא נמי כיון דלשחיטה קיימא יהיב דעתיה

33 [R'Joseph replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement which follows is a counter argument against Abaye, and it further attempts to show that the view of R. Judah in the Mishnah quoted corresponds with the view of our MISHNAH:');">19

לד מידי הוא טעמא אלא לרב האמר רב

34 But] has it not been stated in connection therewith: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel that R'Judah accepts the opinion of the Rabbis in the case of baskets of olives and grapes?20

לה חלוק היה רבי יהודה אפילו בסלי זיתים וענבים

35 Now the reason for this is clear, namely, since these fruits are usually kept for pressing one would always be inclined to do so at all times.

לו אלא אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי

36 Similarly it must be said [here in the case of our Mishnah], since an animal is usually kept for slaughtering one would always be inclined to do so.21

לז רבי יהודה דנרות היא דתניא

37 - [Abaye replied].

לח מטלטלין נר חדש אבל לא ישן דברי רבי יהודה

38 Indeed, the whole argument is based upon Rab's original statement, is it not?

לט אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהודה במוקצה מחמת מיאוס מוקצה מחמת איסור מי שמעת ליה

39 And Rab has stated that R'Judah was in conflict with the Rabbis even in the case of baskets of olives and grapes!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case also, R. Judah maintains a lenient view. Accordingly a similar view should be adopted in our Mishnah; so that the original question remains open: Why, according to R. Judah, is the animal forbidden to be eaten on the Sabbath?');">22

מ אין דתנן רבי יהודה אומר

40 Rather said R'Shesheth B'Idi, It is the view of R'Judah expressed in the matter of 'Lamps'. For it has be taught: A new lamp may be moved [on the Sabbath] from place to place but not an old one;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A new earthenware lamp before being used for lighting might well be used for other purposes, but an old lamp having already had oil poured into it for lighting would rarely be used for another purpose - it would be nauseating to do so - and so would be regarded in law as mukzeh');">23 so according to R'Judah. But perhaps we are to understand R'Judah's view only in case of mukzeh on account of nauseousness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of an old lamp which has been used for lighting. In the case of our Mishnah, however, the animal is mukzeh in consequence of a ritual prohibition.');">24 but are we to understand that it applies also to cases of mukzeh in consequence of a ritual prohibition? - Yes, indeed, for it has been taught: R'Judah says,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter