Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DOUBLE LIABILITY

(a) (Mishnah): If he stole and slaughtered on Yom Kipur...
(b) Question: Why does he pay? Granted, he is not liable to die - but he is lashed, and one does not get lashes and pay!
(c) Answer #1: The Mishnah is as R. Meir, who says that one is lashed and pays.
(d) Question: If the Mishnah is as R. Meir, he should be pay even when he slaughtered on Shabbos!

1. Suggestion: Perhaps R. Meir says that one is lashed and pays, but one liable to die does not pay.
2. Rejection (Beraisa - R. Meir): A thief pays 4 and 5 even for stealing and slaughtering: on Shabbos; to idolatry; an animal sentenced to be stoned;
3. Chachamim say, he is exempt.

(e) Answer: Indeed, R. Meir says that one is lashed and pays, but one liable to die does not pay;

1. R. Yochanan explained, the Beraisa is when the thief made an agent to slaughter for him.

(f) Question: Must the thief pay for the transgression of his agent?!
(g) Answer #1 (Rava): This is an exception - "And he will slaughter or sell it" - just as (he is liable for) selling it, which involves another person, also for slaughtering it through another person.
(h) Answer #2 (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Or" includes that he is liable through (slaughter by) an agent.
(i) Answer #3 (Tana d'vei Chizkiyah): "In place of" includes that he is liable through an agent.
(j) Question (Mar Zutra): Do we ever find that Reuven would be exempt for doing something, he would be exempt, and if his agent does it, Reuven is liable?!
(k) Answer (Rav Ashi): If the thief would slaughter himself, really he is liable;

1. He is exempt from paying because he is liable to die.

(l) Question: If the thief made an agent to slaughter for him, why do Chachamim exempt the thief?
(m) Answer: Chachamim hold as R. Shimon, that slaughter which does not permit the meat is not considered slaughter.

(a) Question: This only explains slaughter for idolatry or of a sentenced ox;

1. But slaughter on Shabbos permits the meat!
2. (Mishnah): One who slaughters on Shabbos or Yom Kipur, even though he is liable to die, the slaughter is valid.

(b) Answer: Our Tana holds as R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar.

1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): One who cooks on Shabbos - if unintentionally, he may eat it (even on Shabbos); if intentionally, he may not eat it (on Shabbos);
2. R. Yehudah says, if unintentionally, he may eat it after Shabbos; if intentionally, he may never eat it;
3. R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar says, if unintentionally, others may eat it after Shabbos; if intentionally, even others may never eat it.

(c) Question: What is the reason of R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar?
(d) Answer (R, Chiya): "...Shabbos is Kodesh to you" - just as one may not eat Kodesh, also what is made on Shabbos;

1. Suggestion: Perhaps what is made on Shabbos should be forbidden to benefit from, just as Kodesh!
2. Rejection: "To you" - you may benefit from it.
3. Suggestion: Perhaps even what is made on Shabbos unintentionally should be forbidden to benefit from!
4. Rejection: "Those that profane (Shabbos) will die" - this was only said by intentional sinners.

(e) R. Acha and Ravina argued whether R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar forbids what is made on Shabbos mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan.

1. The one who says mid'Oraisa - as we expounded!
2. The one who says mid'Rabanan - "It (Shabbos) is Kodesh" - but what is made on Shabbos is not Kodesh.

(f) According to the opinion that it is forbidden mid'Oraisa - we have answered why Chachamim exempt the thief.

(g) Question: But according to the opinion that it is forbidden mid'Rabanan - why do Chachamim exempt him?
(h) Answer: Indeed, they only exempt him in the other cases.

(a) Question: Why does R. Meir obligate him for slaughter to idolatry - once he starts slaughtering, the animal becomes forbidden, it is no longer the property of the original owner!
(b) Answer (Rava): The case is, he said that he only serves the idolatry with the conclusion of the slaughter.
(c) Question: (Why does R. Meir obligate for slaughter of) a sentenced animal - it is forbidden, it is not the property of the original owner!
(d) Answer (Rava): The case is, Levi deposited his ox by a watchman (Shimon); while by Shimon, it gored and was sentenced. Reuven slaughtered it; R. Meir holds as R. Yakov and as R. Shimon.

1. R. Yakov says, even if a watchman returns an animal after it was sentenced, it is considered returned;
2. R. Shimon holds, something which is worth money to someone (even if it is worthless to all others - here, the ox has value only to Shimon, he can exempt himself by returning it), one who damages it is liable.

i. (Mishnah - R. Shimon): Sacrifices for which one must bring a substitute if it itself is not brought, one who damages them is liable.

(e) Question (Rav Zvid of Nehardai): How can R. Yochanan say that our Mishnah (which obligates for slaughter on Yom Kipur) is only as R. Meir (who obligates lashes and money), not as R. Shimon?

1. (End of the Mishnah): R. Shimon exempts in these 2 cases - this implies, he agrees to all the others!

(f) Answer (Rav Kahana): No, it only implies that he agrees to slaughter for dogs or medicinal needs, which were also taught in the last clause.

(a) (Mishnah): If he stole from his father and slaughtered or sold...
(b) Question (Rava): Reuven stole and slaughtered an ox of 2 partners, then he admitted to 1 of them (which exempts him of paying a fine to that partner) - what is the law?

1. The Torah said "Five cattle in place of the ox" - not 5 half-cattle;
2. Or - "Five cattle" - even 5 half-cattle.

(c) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): There is no payment of 5 half-cattle.

1. Question (Mishnah): If he stole from his father and slaughtered or sold, then his father died, he pays 4 and 5.

i. When the father dies, he inherits part and is exempt on his part - yet he pays 4 and 5 for the parts of his brothers!

2. Answer: The case is, Beis Din ruled that he is liable, and then his father died.

i. Inference: Had his father died before this, he would be exempt.

3. Question: If so, why does the end of the Mishnah speak of slaughtering after his father died - it should say, even when he slaughtered in his father's life, if his father died before the trial, he is exempt!
4. Answer: Indeed, that is true; the Tana preferred the case of slaughtering after the father died for parallel structure.

(d) Answer #2 (retraction - Rav Nachman): He pays 5 half-cattle.
(e) Question (end of the Mishnah): If he slaughters after his father died, he is exempt - why is this different than (the previous clause), when he slaughtered in the father's lifetime?
(f) Answer: "And he slaughtered it" connotes that this was totally forbidden - that is only in the father's lifetime;