Chullin 30

כגון שהיה לו חולה מבעוד יום

as when there was an invalid in the house on the eve of the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of an invalid an animal, even alive, is always regarded as set aside for food, for in such circumstances it is permitted to slaughter it on the Sabbath, in accordance with the Rabbinic dictum: the duty of saving life supersedes the Sabbath laws.');">¹</span>

אי הכי מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה דאסר

If that be so, then why does R'Judah forbid it? - It must be the case of an invalid who recovered [on the Sabbath].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the animal was slaughtered after the invalid had recovered. Mukzeh of course does not apply, since on the eve of Sabbath the animal was set in readiness for food for the invalid. The difference of opinion between R. Meir and R. Judah is, therefore, only with regard to the breaking of the Sabbath by the slaughterer inadvertently; according to the latter he is to be penalized for his inadvertent act, whilst according to the former he is not.');">²</span>

כגון שהיה לו חולה והבריא

The above view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the explanation by R. Nahman b. Isaac as to why Rab bade the Tanna to keep silent, which introduced the distinction between foodstuffs which can be eaten raw and those which cannot.');">³</span>

וכי הא דאמר רב אחא בר אדא אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רבי יצחק בר אדא אמר רב

agrees with the statement of R'Aha B'Adda in the name of Rab, (others say, with the statement of R'Isaac B'Adda in the name of Rab) , viz. , If a man slaughtered [an animal] on the Sabbath for an invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who fell ill on this Sabbath.');">⁴</span>

השוחט לחולה בשבת אסור לבריא המבשל לחולה בשבת מותר לבריא

it may not be eaten by a healthy person, but if a man cooked food on the Sabbath for an invalid, it may be eaten by a healthy person.

מאי טעמא

What is the reason? - In the latter case the food could be eaten raw, in the former the animal could not be eaten raw.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For although there is no infringement of the Sabbath laws, since the work was done for the invalid, there is, however, in the case of slaughtering the prohibition of mukzeh involved.');">⁵</span>

האי ראוי לכוס והאי אינו ראוי לכוס

R'Papa<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M. Raba.');">⁶</span>

אמר רב פפא

stated: In certain cases even when a man-slaughtered [for an invalid on the Sabbath], it may be eaten [by a healthy person], e.g. , where the invalid was ill already on the eve of the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is here neither the profanation of the Sabbath, since the slaughtering was for the invalid, nor mukzeh, since the invalid was already ill before the Sabbath.');">⁷</span>

פעמים שהשוחט מותר כגון שהיה לו חולה מבעוד יום מבשל אסור כגון שקצץ לו דלעת

And in certain cases even when a man cooked [for one who fell ill on the Sabbath], it may not be eaten [by a healthy person], e.g. , where a pumpkin was plucked [out of the ground on the Sabbath and cooked].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is forbidden to be eaten because of mukzeh, since on the eve of the Sabbath the pumpkin was still attached to the ground. Cf. however Tosaf ad loc.');">⁸</span>

אמר רב דימי מנהרדעא הלכתא

R'Dimi of Nehardea said: The law is that where a man slaughtered on the Sabbath for an invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was ill already on the eve of the Sabbath.');">⁹</span>

השוחט לחולה בשבת מותר לבריא באומצא מ"ט

[the meat] may be eaten raw by a healthy person.

כיון דאי אפשר לכזית בשר בלא שחיטה כי קא שחיט

What is the reason? - Inasmuch as one cannot have even an olive's bulk of meat without slaughtering [the animal], it is clear that the slaughtering was done for the sake of the invalid.

אדעתא דחולה קא שחיט המבשל לחולה בשבת אסור לבריא גזירה שמא ירבה בשבילו:

But where a man cooked on the Sabbath for an invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was ill already on the eve of the Sabbath.');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוחט במגל יד בצור ובקנה שחיטתו כשרה

it [the food] may not be eaten by a healthy person, for [otherwise] it is to be feared lest a greater amount will be cooked on account of the healthy person.

הכל שוחטין ולעולם שוחטין ובכל שוחטין חוץ ממגל קציר והמגירה והשינים והציפורן מפני שהם חונקין:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE SLAUGHTERED WITH [THE SMOOTH EDGE OF] A HAND SICKLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An implement with two cutting edges, one being smooth and the other serrated.');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> השוחט דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא

WITH A FLINT OR WITH A REED, THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID.

בשלמא במגל יד דלמא אתי למעבד באידך גיסא אלא צור וקנה לכתחלה לא

ALL MAY SLAUGHTER; AT ALL TIMES ONE MAY SLAUGHTER; WITH ANY IMPLEMENT ONE MAY SLAUGHTER, EXCEPTING A SCYTHE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An implement with indentations.');">¹¹</span>

ורמינהי

A SAW, TEETH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Attached to the jaw bone of a dead animal.');">¹²</span>

בכל שוחטין בין בצור בין בזכוכית בין בקרומית של קנה

OR A FINGER NAIL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Attached to the person.');">¹³</span>

לא קשיא

SINCE THESE STRANGLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These implements do not cut but tear the organs of the throat and consequently strangle the animal. In the case of the finger-nail it is prohibited because it is attached to the person. V. infra 16a.');">¹⁴</span>

כאן בתלוש כאן במחובר

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>The expression 'IF ONE SLAUGHTERED' implies that the slaughtering is valid only after the act but it does not imply a right in the first instance.

דאמר רב כהנא

Now this view is reasonable in the case of a hand sickl for it is always to be feared lest one will slaughter with the other edge;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is serrated and so invalidates the slaughtering.');">¹⁵</span>

השוחט במחובר לקרקע רבי פוסל ור' חייא מכשיר

but is it right to say that one may not slaughter with a flint or reed in the first instance?

עד כאן לא קא מכשיר רבי חייא אלא בדיעבד אבל לכתחלה לא

Is there not an obvious contradiction from the following [Baraitha]: With any implement one may slaughter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the first instance.');">¹⁶</span>

במאי אוקימתא

with a flint, with glass or with a reed haulm? - It is no contradiction, for the latter statement refers to [a reed or flint] that is detached [from the ground whereas our Mishnah refers to [a reed or flint] that is attached [to the ground].

כרבי חייא ודיעבד

For R'Kahana reported: If one slaughtered with an implement that was attached to the ground.

אלא הא דתניא בכל שוחטין

Rabbi declares the slaughtering invalid; but R'Hiyya declares it valid.

בין בתלוש בין במחובר בין שהסכין למעלה וצואר בהמה למטה בין שהסכין למטה וצואר בהמה למעלה מני

And even R'Hiyya declares it valid only after the act, but there is no right to do so in the first instance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly our Mishnah is in agreement with R. Hiyya's view.');">¹⁷</span>

לא רבי ולא ר' חייא

Now what is the position?

אי ר' חייא דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא אי רבי דיעבד נמי לא

[Our Mishnah is] in agreement with R'Hiyya and the slaughtering is valid only after the act! Then what of the following which was taught: With any implement one may slaughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the first instance.');">¹⁶</span>

לעולם רבי חייא ואפילו לכתחלה והאי דקמיפלגי בדיעבד להודיעך כחו דרבי

whether it be detached or attached, whether the knife be on top and the throat below, or the knife below and the throat on top?

ואלא מתניתין דקתני השוחט דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא מני

Who can be the author [of this Baraitha]?

לא רבי ולא רבי חייא

It can be neither Rabbi nor R'Hiyya: If R'Hiyya, the slaughtering is valid only after the act but not in the first instance; if Rabbi, such slaughtering is inval even after the act! - In truth, the author is R'Hiyya and he is [indeed] of the opinion that such<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., slaughtering with an implement which is attached to the ground.');">¹⁸</span>

אי רבי חייא אפילו לכתחלה אי רבי דיעבד נמי לא

slaughtering is permitted even in the first instance; and as to the reason why the dispute is reported with regard to the validity of such slaughtering after the act it is in order to demonstrate the [strong] view of Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the slaughtering is invalid even after the act.');">¹⁹</span>

לעולם רבי חייא ואפילו לכתחלה ומתניתין דקתני השוחט רבי היא

If this be so, what of our Mishnah which reads: IF ONE SLAUGHTERED, implying that it is valid only after the act but not a right in the first instance, who can be the author thereof?

קשיא דרבי אדרבי

It can be neither Rabbi nor R'Hiyya; if R'Hiyya, the slaughtering should be permitted even in the first instance; if Rabbi, it is always invalid even after the act! - In truth, the author [of the Baraitha] is R'Hiyya who holds that such slaughtering is permitted even in the first instance; and as to our Mishnah, which reads: IF ONE SLAUGHTERED, the author of it is Rabbi.

לא קשיא

But is not Rabbi then contradicting himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah Rabbi maintains that slaughtering with an implement attached to the ground is valid after the act, yet in dispute with R. Hiyya he declares such slaughtering absolutely invalid.');">²⁰</span>

כאן במחובר מעיקרו כאן בתלוש ולבסוף חיברו

- There is no contradiction; for in the one case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In dispute with R. Hiyya, where Rabbi declares the slaughtering invalid.');">²¹</span>

ומנא תימרא דשני לן בין מחובר מעיקרו לתלוש ולבסוף חיברו

the implement had always been so attached [by nature], whereas in the other case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah, where Rabbi declares the slaughtering valid after the act.');">²²</span>

דתניא

the implement was first loose and subsequently attached.

השוחט במוכני שחיטתו כשרה במחובר לקרקע שחיטתו כשרה

Whence do you know that a distinction is to be drawn between that which was always attached and that which was first loose and subsequently attached? - From the following [Baraitha] which was taught: If one slaughtered with a wheel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A knife was fixed to the wheel so that it cut the throat of the animal whilst the wheel revolved.');">²³</span>

נעץ סכין בכותל ושחט בה שחיטתו כשרה היה צור יוצא מן הכותל או קנה עולה מאליו ושחט בו שחיטתו פסולה

the slaughtering is valid; with an implement that was attached to the ground, the slaughtering is valid; if one inserted a knife into a wall and slaughtered, [moving the throat of the animal to and fro across the knife], the slaughtering is valid; if there was a sharp flint jutting from the wall, or a reed growing of itself, and one slaughtered therewith, the slaughtering is invalid.