Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth
R. Simeon, who says: An unfit slaughtering is not called1 slaughtering. This might be right with regard to [the slaughtering for] idolatry and [the slaughtering of] the ox that is to be stoned, but the slaughtering on Sabbath is a fit slaughtering, for we learnt: If someone has slaughtered [an animal] on Sabbath or the Day of Atonement, although he is guilty of [a transgression for which he forfeits] his life,2 his slaughtering is a fit one?3 — He holds the opinion of R. Johanan ha-Sandalar,4 for it has been taught: If someone has cooked on Sabbath, [if] by mistake, he may eat it, [and if] wilfully he may not eat it: This is the view of R. Meir. R. Judah says: [If] by mistake, he may eat it after the outgoing5 of the Sabbath, [if] wilfully, he may never eat it. R. Johanan hasandalar says: [If] wilfully, others may eat it after the outgoing of the Sabbath, but not he, [if] wilfully, neither he nor others may eat it.6 What is the reason of R. Johanan ha-Sandalar? As R. Hiyya expounded at the entrance of the house of the Prince:7 [It is written:] 'Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you'.8 [From this we derive:] As what is holy is forbidden to be eaten, so what has been prepared9 on the Sabbath is forbidden to be eaten. If [so, you might say that] as what is holy is forbidden to be enjoyed,10 so what has been prepared on the Sabbath should be forbidden to be enjoyed? — It says 'unto you'; from this we learn: It shall belong to you.11 You might think [that it is forbidden to eat] even [what has been prepared on the Sabbath] by mistake,12 [therefore] it is said: every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death.13 [This teaches that only] when [the act was done] wilfully,14 have I told thee [that it is forbidden as that which is holy] but not [if it was done] by mistake.
R. Aha and Rabina differ concerning this. One says: What has been prepared on Sabbath [is forbidden] according to the Bible, and one says: [only] according to the Rabbis. He who says: According to the Bible — as we have [just] explained.15 [And] he who says: according to the Rabbis — the verse says: 'It is holy', [that means]: 'it'16 is holy, but what has been prepared on it is not holy.17 According to him who says [that the prohibition is only] Rabbinical, what is the reason of the Rabbis who declare him18 free?19 — The Rabbis declare him free only with regard to other cases.20
But [with regard to] one who slaughtered for idolatry [one can ask:] as soon as he has cut21 a little it22 has become forbidden,23 so when he continues the slaughtering24 he does not slaughter what is the owner's?25 — Raba said: [it speaks of a case] when he says [that] he worships it26 with the completion of the slaughtering. [But with regard to] the ox that is to he stoned [one can ask]: he27 does not slaughter what is his?28 Here we speak of a case when he29 handed it30 to a keeper and it caused the damage31 in the house of the keeper32 and it was sentenced in the house of the keeper and a thief stole it from the house of the keeper. And R. Meir holds the view of R. Jacob and holds the view of R. Simeon. He holds the view of R. Jacob who says: If the keeper returned it even after the sentence had been pronounced, it is regarded as returned.33 And he holds the view of R. Simeon who says: that which causes [the gain or loss of] money is regarded as money.34
Rabbah said: Indeed [it speaks of a case] when he35 slaughtered it himself
and R. Meir holds the view that [though generally] one may receive the lashes and pay, one cannot receive the death penalty and pay1 but these [cases]2 are different, because the Torah has enacted something novel in [the matter of] fine,3 and [therefore]4 he has to pay, although he has to suffer the death penalty.5 And Rabbah follows his own principle, for Rabba said: If he had a kid which he had stolen and he slaughtered it on Sabbath, he is bound,6 for he was already guilty of stealing before he came to the profanation7 of the Sabbath; [but] if he stole and slaughtered it on Sabbath he is free,8 for if there is no stealing9 there is no slaughtering and no selling.
Rabbah said further: If he had a kid which he had stolen and had slaughtered it at the place he broke into,10 he is bound,11 for he was already guilty of stealing before he came to the transgression of breaking in;12 [but] if he stole and slaughtered it in the place he broke into,13 he is free, for if there is no stealing, there is no slaughtering and no selling. And it was necessary [to state both cases]. For if he had let us hear [the case of the] Sabbath [I would have said that he is free from payment] because its prohibition is a perpetual prohibition,14 but [in the case of] breaking in, which is only a prohibition for the moment,15 I might say, [that it is] not [so].16 And if he had let us hear [the case of] breaking in [I would say that he is free from payment] because his breaking in is his warning,17 but [with regard to the] Sabbath, [in] which [case] a warning is required, I might say that [it is] not [so].18 [Therefore] it is necessary [to state both cases].
R. Papa said: If one had a cow that he had stolen and he slaughtered it on Sabbath, he is liable19 for he was already guilty of stealing before he came to the profanation of the Sabbath; if he had a cow that he borrowed and he slaughtered it20 on Sabbath, he is free.21 R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: Does R. Papa mean to tell us22 [that the same rule23 applies to] a cow? — He answered him: R. Papa means to tell us [that the same rules applies to] a borrowed [cow]. You might possibly think [that] because R. Papa said that he24 becomes responsible for its food from the time of [his taking possession of the cow by] 'pulling'25 here also he becomes responsible for any unpreventable accident [that may befall it] from the time of borrowing,26 so he lets us hear [that it is not so].27
Raba said: If their father left them28 a borrowed cow,29 they30 may use it during the whole period for which he borrowed it;31 if it died,32 they are not responsible for what happened.33 If they thought that it belonged to their father and they slaughtered it and ate it, they pay the value of the meat at the lowest price.34 If their father left them an obligation of property,35 they are bound to pay. Some refer it36 to the first case,37 and some refer it to the second case.38 He who refers it to the first case, so much the more [does he refer it] to the second case, and he differs from R. Papa.39 And he who refers it to the second case40 does not refer it to the first case, and he agrees with R. Papa.41
It is alright [that] R. Johanan42 does not say according to Resh Lakish,43 because he wants to explain44 it45 according to the Rabbis. But why does not Resh Lakish say according to R. Johanan? — He will answer you: since he is free46 if they warned him, he is also free [even] if they did not warn him.47
And they48 follow their own principles,49 for when R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he said: He who has committed inadvertently an act which, if he had committed it wilfully, would have been punishable with death or with lashes, and [which is also punishable] with something else,50 R. Johanan says [that] he is bound,51 and Resh Lakish says [that] he is free.52 R. Johanan says [that] he is bound, for they did not warn him.53 Resh Lakish says [that] he is free,54 for since he is free if they warned him, so he is free also when they did not warn him.
Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Johanan: [It is written]: If no harm follow, he shall be surely fined.55
- To Next Folio -