1)

IMPROPER SLAUGHTER

(a)

Question: If a Shali'ach slaughtered, why do Chachamim exempt the thief?

(b)

Answer: Chachamim hold like R. Shimon, who says that a slaughter that does not permit to eat the meat is not considered slaughter;

1.

This explains why they exempt slaughter to idolatry or of an animal sentenced to die.

(c)

Question: An animal slaughtered on Shabbos may be eaten!

1.

(Mishnah): If one slaughtered on Shabbos or Yom Kipur, even though he is Chayav Misah, the slaughter is Kosher.

(d)

Answer: Chachamim hold like R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar.

1.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If one cooked on Shabbos b'Shogeg, he may eat it. If he was Meizid, he may not eat it;

2.

R. Yehudah says, if he was Shogeg, he may eat it after Shabbos. If he was Meizid, he may never eat it;

3.

R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar says, if he was Shogeg, after Shabbos others may eat it but not him. If he was Meizid, even others may never eat it.

(e)

Question: What is R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar's source?

(f)

Answer: R. Chiya expounded "Shabbos is Kodesh to you" - just like one may not eat Kodesh, one may not eat things made on Shabbos.

(g)

Suggestion: Perhaps just like one may not benefit from Kodesh, also from things made on Shabbos!

(h)

Answer: "To you" - it will be yours.

(i)

Suggestion: Perhaps the Isur applies even to things done b'Shogeg!

(j)

Rejection: "Those who desecrate it will die" - the verse discusses only Meizid.

(k)

Rav Acha and Ravina argued about whether the Isur to eat things made on Shabbos is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan.

1.

The one who says that it is mid'Oraisa learns like above (f).

2.

The one who says that it is mid'Rabanan expounds "It (Shabbos) is Kodesh", but not things made on Shabbos.

(l)

Question: According to the opinion that it is mid'Rabanan, why do Chachamim exempt the thief from paying four or five?

(m)

Answer: They do not! They only exempt in the cases of slaughtering for idolatry or an ox sentenced to die.

(n)

Question: The moment one starts slaughtering for idolatry the animal becomes forbidden. During the rest of the slaughter, it does not belong to the original owner! (Why does R. Meir obligate paying four or five?)

(o)

Answer (Rava): The case is, he said that he serves the idolatry by finishing the Shechitah.

(p)

Question: An ox sentenced to die does not belong to the original owner! (Why does R. Meir say he pays four or five?)

(q)

Answer (Rabah): The case is, Shimon was guarding Reuven's ox. It gored, was sentenced to die, and was stolen while by Shimon;

1.

R. Meir holds like R. Yakov and as R. Shimon.

i.

He holds like R. Yakov who says that a watchman can return an animal that was sentenced to die;

ii.

He holds like R. Shimon who says that something that is worth money to one person (even if it has no value to anyone else) is considered to have value. (Since Shimon could have returned the ox, the thief must pay for it.)

2)

RABAH'S ANSWER

(a)

Answer #2 (to question 3:d, Daf 33b): Really, the thief himself slaughtered it. R. Meir holds that one is lashed and pays, but one who is killed does not pay. Fines are Chidushim (special), and one pays even if he is killed.

34b----------------------------------------34b

(b)

This is like another teaching of Rabah.

1.

(Rabah): If a thief stole a goat before Shabbos and slaughtered it on Shabbos, he pays four, since he was obligated to pay for the theft before desecrating Shabbos. (This is like R. Meir, who obligates for fines incurred while he is Chayav Misah.)

2.

If he stole (through Chilul Shabbos) and slaughtered on Shabbos he is exempt. Since he is exempt for the (principal of the) theft, he is exempt for selling or slaughtering. (The Torah obligates four times for a Seh and five times for cattle. Without the principal, it is only three for a Seh and four for cattle. The Torah never obligated this.)

(c)

(Rabah): If a thief stole a goat and then tunneled into a house and slaughtered it there, he pays four, since he was obligated to pay for the theft before tunneling (even though one may kill him in the tunnel, for we assume that he is ready to kill the owner of the house);

(d)

If he stole and slaughtered in the tunnel he is exempt. Since he is exempt for the theft, he is exempt for selling or slaughtering.

(e)

He needed to teach both of these laws:

1.

Had he taught only about Shabbos, we would have thought that there he is exempt from paying since he can be killed at any time (if witnesses will testify about him), but in the case of tunneling he must pay, since he can be killed only while in the tunnel;

2.

Had he taught only about tunneling, we would have thought that there he does not pay since he can be killed without warning, but regarding Shabbos he pays, for he cannot be killed without warning.

3)

A BORROWED ANIMAL

(a)

(Rav Papa): If a thief stole a cow before Shabbos and slaughtered it on Shabbos, he pays five, since he was obligated to pay for the theft before breaking Shabbos;

(b)

If he borrowed a cow before Shabbos and slaughtered it on Shabbos, he is exempt.

(c)

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): Does Rav Papa merely teach that Rabah's law also applies to a cow?!

(d)

Answer (Rav Ashi): No, he teaches about a borrowed animal;

1.

Rav Papa had taught that from the time a borrower drags an animal to his premises, he is responsible to feed it.

2.

One might have thought that from this time he is also responsible if it dies. He teaches that this is not so.

(e)

(Rava): If a man died and left a borrowed cow to his sons, they may use it as long as he was allowed to use it. If it dies, they are exempt;

(f)

If they thought that it was their father's and slaughtered it, they pay a cheap price for its meat (two thirds of the normal price);

(g)

If they inherited land, they must pay.

(h)

Version #1: This last statement applies to the first law (e).

(i)

Version #2: It applies to the second law (f).

1.

Version #1 says that it applies to the first law, and all the more so to the second law. Rava disagrees with Rav Papa;

2.

Version #2 says that it applies to the second law, but not to the first. This is like Rav Papa.

4)

ONE WHO TRANSGRESSED WITHOUT WARNING

(a)

Question: We understand why R. Yochanan did not answer the contradiction between Mishnayos (31b, 4:b) like Reish Lakish, for he prefers to establish them like Chachamim;

1.

Why didn't Reish Lakish answer like R. Yochanan?

(b)

Answer: Reish Lakish holds that since he is exempt from paying if he was warned (about lashes), he is exempt even if he is not warned.

(c)

They are consistent with what they said elsewhere:

1.

(Rav Dimi): One who incurred a monetary obligation at the same time that he transgressed b'Shogeg a sin punishable by death or lashes (for Meizid), R. Yochanan says that he must pay, and Reish Lakish exempts.

i.

R. Yochanan obligates, since he was not warned!

ii.

Reish Lakish exempts. Since if he was warned he would be exempt, he is exempt even if he was not warned.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF