Chullin 29

כל נרות של מתכת מטלטלין חוץ מן הנר שהדליקו בו באותה שבת

All metal lamps<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even old ones.');">¹</span>

ודלמא שאני התם דהוא דחי ליה בידים

may be moved on the Sabbath, excepting a lamp that has been alight on this Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the Sabbath began this lamp was alight, and so it immediately became mukzeh in consequence of the law prohibiting the moving of a lighted lamp for fear of extinguishing it, and it remains mukzeh the whole of the Sabbath.');">²</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי

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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mukzeh in this case is brought about by the definite act of man, that is, when he lights the lamp; whereas in our 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.');">³</span>

רבי יהודה דמבשל היא דתנן

Rather said R'Ashi: It is the view of R'Judah expressed in the matter of 'Cooking'.

המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל דברי רבי מאיר

For it has been taught: If a man cooked food on the Sabbath inadvertently, [even] he himself may eat of it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Immediately on the same day.');">⁴</span>

רבי יהודה אומר

but if deliberately, he may not eat of it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nor anybody else on the Sabbath.');">⁵</span>

בשוגג יאכל במוצאי שבת במזיד לא יאכל עולמית

so R'Meir.

רבי יוחנן הסנדלר אומר

R'Judah says: If inadvertently, he may eat of i only after the termination of the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He and also others, but only after the lapse of such time as would be taken to cook the food, so that no benefit be derived from cooking on the Sabbath.');">⁶</span>

בשוגג יאכל למוצאי שבת לאחרים ולא לו במזיד לא יאכל עולמית לא לו ולא לאחרים

but if deliberately, he may never eat of it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though others may eat of it after the Sabbath.');">⁷</span>

ונוקמה במזיד ורבי מאיר

R'Johanan ha-Sandlar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sandal maker; or, the Alexandrian. He was a disciple of R. Akiba.');">⁸</span>

לא סלקא דעתך דקתני דומיא דיום הכפורים מה יום הכפורים לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד לא אכיל אף הכא נמי לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד לא אכיל

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is suggested that in our Mishnah the slaughtering was done inadvertently, nevertheless the animal is permitted to be eaten only after the Sabbath, thus being entirely in agreement with R. Judah's view.');">⁹</span>

ומי מצית מוקמת לה בשוגג ורבי יהודה

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is a day of fasting.');">¹⁰</span>

והא אף על פי שמתחייב בנפשו קתני

so on the Sabbath he may not eat of it whether he acted inadvertently or deliberately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Meir, however, if he acted inadvertently he may eat of it immediately on the Sabbath.');">¹¹</span>

הכי קאמר

But how can you explain [the Mishnah] to be a case of inadvertence and in accord with R'Judah's view?

אע"פ דבמזיד מתחייב בנפשו הוא הכא דבשוגג שחיטתו כשרה

Does it not read: NOTWITHSTANDING HE IS GUILTY AGAINST HIS OWN LIFE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The death penalty is incurred only when one acts deliberately.');">¹²</span>

ונוקמה כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר דאמר

- 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.

לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד לא אכיל

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.

רבי יוחנן הסנדלר קמפליג במוצאי שבת לאחרים ולא לו תנא דידן שחיטתו כשרה קתני לא שנא לו ולא שנא לאחרים

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.

תני תנא קמיה דרב

Rab thereupon bade him to keep silent.

המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל ומשתיק ליה רב

Now why did Rab silence him?

מאי טעמא משתיק ליה

Was it because Rab accepts the view of R'Judah and the Tanna was reciting the teaching in accordance with R'Meir's view?

אילימא משום דסבירא ליה כרבי יהודה ותנא תני כרבי מאיר

[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?

משום דסבירא ליה כרבי יהודה מאן דתני כרבי מאיר משתיק ליה

Moreover, is it true to say that Rab accepts R'Judah's view?

ועוד מי סבר לה כרבי יהודה

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because of these, Rab would teach the stricter view, i.e., R. Judah's, merely as a precautionary measure.');">¹³</span>

והאמר רב חנן בר אמי

And if you will say that this Tanna was reciting the teaching in the presence of Rab at the public Session?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for this reason Rab silenced him.');">¹⁴</span>

כי מורי להו רב לתלמידיה מורי להו כר' מאיר וכי דריש בפירקא דריש כרבי יהודה משום עמי הארץ

- Would then the public pay attention to the Tanna?

וכי תימא

They would pay attention to the Amora!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. Rab's Amora. The official speaker attached to a school or synagogue who expounded aloud to the public what the Rabbi said to him in brief and in a low voice.');">¹⁵</span>

תנא בפירקיה תנא קמיה אטו כולי עלמא לתנא צייתי

- 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.

לאמורא צייתי

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that not only is there no infringement of the Sabbath laws, since the cooking was done inadvertently, but there is not even the prohibition of mukzeh since whilst raw it was also fit for food.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק

but not in case of slaughtering, since the animal could not be eaten raw.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whilst alive; so that it would be prohibited on the ground of mukzeh.');">¹⁷</span>

תנא שוחט תנא קמיה דרב

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.

השוחט בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל

Now does it not follow, therefore, that R'Meir would permit it to be eaten [that same day]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In contradiction to what has just been stated in the name of Rab as to the view of R. Meir.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר ליה

- R'Meir only permits it in such circumstances

מאי דעתיך כרבי מאיר

עד כאן לא קשרי רבי מאיר אלא במבשל דראוי לכוס אבל שוחט דאין ראוי לכוס לא

והא מתניתין דשוחט הוא ואמר רב הונא דרש חייא בר רב משמיה דרב

אסורה באכילה ליומא ונסבין חבריא למימר רבי יהודה היא

הא רבי מאיר שרי

כי שרי רבי מאיר