Chullin 15a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Yes! For we learned: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

All

the

metal lamps may be handled

on Shabbat, even if they are old, because lamps made of metal are not repulsive.

Except for the lamp in which they lit on that Shabbat,

for there was a burning wick inside it at the entrance of Shabbat, and it is forbidden to handle it throughout the entire Shabbat, even after the fire is extinguished, because it is muktze on account of a prohibition. For as long as the fire is burning, it is forbidden to move the lamp, lest through moving it he cause the fire to be extinguished; therefore it is muktze for the entire Shabbat.

Thus, Rabbi Judah holds: muktze on account of a prohibition.

And we reject this:

Perhaps there it is different

with the lamp,

for

by lighting with it,

he rejected it with his hands

and set it aside in his mind, so that he would not use it on Shabbat. But with an animal, although it is forbidden, he did not perform an act upon it to set it aside in his mind; therefore it may be said that it is not muktze.

And still we ask: From which law of Rabbi Judah can it be proved that an animal slaughtered on Shabbat is forbidden?

And we answer:

Rather, Rav Ashi said: It is Rabbi Judah with regard to one who cooks.

For we learned: One who cooks on Shabbat,

if it was

inadvertently, he may eat.

It is permitted for him [and all the more so for other people] to eat from the cooked food even today, on Shabbat.

And if he cooked

intentionally, he may not eat,

neither he nor others, from the cooked food until Shabbat has ended, and some time has passed during which it would have been possible for this cooked food to have been cooked. All this is in order not to derive benefit from work of Shabbat that was performed in violation, for by waiting until the stated time has passed, he does not derive benefit from the work,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says:

If he cooked

inadvertently, he may eat

only

after Shabbat,

both he and others, because even when it was cooked inadvertently, a transgression was committed here, and one may not derive benefit from something that was made through a transgression.

If intentionally, he may not eat

the person who cooked on Shabbat

forever

from the cooked food, for the Sages penalized him, so that he may never eat from it, since he desecrated Shabbat. But other people are permitted to eat from the cooked food after Shabbat.

And this is that same Rabbi Judah who, according to Rav, holds in our Mishna that an animal slaughtered on Shabbat is forbidden to every person on that day.

For our Mishna speaks of one who slaughtered inadvertently, as will be explained below, and it is Rabbi Judah who holds that one who cooks inadvertently is forbidden both to him and to others until after Shabbat; and the same law applies to slaughtering.

And the beraita continues:

Rabbi Yohanan the Sandalmaker says:

If he cooked

inadvertently, he may eat after Shabbat, but others.

And in this he agrees with the view of Rabbi Judah, that one may not derive benefit from work of Shabbat. But he is more stringent than he, and says:

But not he!

The one who cooked, even if he did so inadvertently, is forbidden ever to eat from the cooked food. For the Sages penalized one who transgressed inadvertently as though he had acted intentionally.

If intentionally, he may not eat forever, neither he nor others.

For according to Rabbi Yohanan the Sandalmaker, it is forbidden by Torah law for every person ever to eat something in which a prohibition was performed intentionally on Shabbat.

And the Gemara discusses: Why did we establish our Mishna, which forbids eating on Shabbat the animal slaughtered on that day, as referring to Rabbi Judah?

And let us establish it

as referring to a case in which he slaughtered

intentionally, and it is Rabbi Meir

, who also agrees that when one acts intentionally, it is forbidden for every person to eat it on that day?

And we answer:

It does not enter your mind

that our Mishna speaks specifically of an intentional act.

For it teaches

in the Mishna: “Shabbat and Yom Kippur.”

And we say: Shabbat is

analogous to Yom Kippur,

it resembles it:

Just as with Yom Kippur, it makes no difference

whether he slaughtered

inadvertently, and it makes no difference

whether he slaughtered

intentionally, he may not eat,

for it is impossible to eat from the animal on that day, since it is a day of fasting,

so too here,

on Shabbat,

also, it makes no difference whether inadvertently or whether intentionally, he may not eat.

And necessarily it is Rabbi Judah, who forbids eating it on that day even when it was done inadvertently.

And we are astonished:

Can you establish it

as referring to our Mishna

as inadvertent and

according to

Rabbi Judah, when it teaches, “Even though he incurs liability for his life,”

in the Mishna—and it is impossible to say that in an inadvertent case he incurs liability for his life?

And we answer:

This is what it says:

Even though the slaughterer

who acts intentionally incurs liability for his life, here, where he slaughtered inadvertently,

he slaughtered,

his slaughtering is valid.

And we still object:

And let us establish

our Mishna

as Rabbi Yohanan the Sandalmaker, who says: It makes no difference whether inadvertently or whether intentionally, he may not eat

on that day, neither he nor others?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan the Sandalmaker distinguishes with regard to after Shabbat,

for concerning permission to eat after Shabbat, in his view there is a distinction between the one who cooked and other people. Specifically,

for others

it is permitted to eat after Shabbat,

but not for him,

for he is forbidden forever even when he acted inadvertently. Whereas

our tanna

of the Mishna

teaches, “His slaughtering is valid,”

which implies

it makes no difference whether for him or whether for others

the animal is permitted for eating after Shabbat. And necessarily the Mishna does not hold like Rabbi Yohanan the Sandalmaker.

A tanna taught before Rav,

a student recited while standing before Rav; this beraita:

“One who cooks on Shabbat: if inadvertently, he may eat; if intentionally, he may not eat.”

And this is according to the view of Rabbi Meir,

and Rav silenced him

who said this.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the reason he silenced him,

Rav?

If you say it was because Rav held

that Rav held

like Rabbi Judah, while the tanna taught

a beraita that holds

like Rabbi Meir.

But is it that

because he held

that Rav held

like Rabbi Judah, one who teaches like Rabbi Meir—he silences him?!

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

Did Rav hold

Rav

like Rabbi Judah?!

For Rav Hanan bar Ami said: When Rav instructed his students,

when he ruled for his students individually concerning this question of one who cooks on Shabbat,

he instructed them according to Rabbi Meir,

who is the most lenient of all.

But when he lectured publicly,

when he expounded before many,

he expounded according to Rabbi Judah,

who is more stringent than Rabbi Meir,

because of the unlearned people,

so that they would not come to be lenient regarding the prohibition of Shabbat. Thus Rav fundamentally holds according to Rabbi Meir; why, then, did he silence the tanna?

And if you would say

that he silenced him for this reason, because this

tanna in his public lecture,

on the day of the lecture before the public, was

a tanna before him

Rav, and Rav was concerned lest the unlearned people hear his voice, and he silenced him.

It cannot be said so. For

do all people obey the tanna?

Do those present at the lecture incline their ears to hear from the students sitting there the Mishna that each one recites on his own? Rather,

they obey the amora,

the one who was standing before Rav and proclaiming to the public what Rav had whispered to him; it was him whom they heard.

And we answer:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

He silenced him because this

tanna

did not recite the beraita concerning “one who cooks on Shabbat,” but rather

“one who slaughters”

the tanna taught before Rav.

For this is what he used to recite:

“One who slaughters on Shabbat: if inadvertently, he may eat; if intentionally, he may not eat!”

And thus

he said to him

Rav:

“What is your view,

according to whose view did you recite this?

According to Rabbi Meir?!

You are mistaken! For

Rabbi Meir did not permit

eating it on that day when it was done inadvertently

except in the case of one who cooks

on Shabbat, since

it was fit

this food to be eaten even before it was cooked

raw,

that is, to eat it uncooked, and therefore it does not have the prohibition of muktze, since at twilight it was fit for eating.

But

the

one who slaughters

on Shabbat,

for

the animal

is not fit to be eaten raw,

to eat it before slaughtering,

not

did Rabbi Meir say that it is permitted on that day. For although it should not be forbidden because of the work of Shabbat performed with it, the animal has the prohibition of muktze, since at twilight on the eve of Shabbat it was muktze, because it was not fit for eating.

And we object:

But our Mishna is about “one who slaughters”?!

For in our Mishna we learned “one who slaughters on Shabbat,” and not “one who cooks on Shabbat,”

and Rav Huna said: Hiyya bar Rav expounded in the name of Rav: It is forbidden to eat it for the day,

on Shabbat.

And the colleagues were inclined to say

that Rav holds that our Mishna

is Rabbi Judah.

For only according to Rabbi Judah is the animal slaughtered on Shabbat forbidden to be eaten on that day.

But

according to

Rabbi Meir, it is permitted

to eat it today!? And this is difficult for Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak, who says that Rav silenced the tanna because he holds that with regard to an animal slaughtered on Shabbat, Rabbi Meir agrees that it is forbidden to eat it on that day, because of muktze?!

And we answer:

When Rabbi Meir permits it,

that is, what Rav said—that according to Rabbi Meir it is permitted to eat the animal on that day—...