## Chullin Daf 15a

###### Chullin 15a:1
[Chullin 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:1)

כׇּל נֵרוֹת שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת מִטַּלְטְלִין, חוּץ מִן הַנֵּר שֶׁהִדְלִיקוּ בּוֹ בְּאוֹתָהּ שַׁבָּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One may move all metal lamps** on Shabbat, even old ones, because they do not become repugnant like earthenware lamps, **except for** a metal **lamp that one kindled on that same Shabbat** and that was burning when Shabbat began, which it is prohibited to move for the entire Shabbat due to the prohibition against extinguishing.


###### Chullin 15a:2
[Chullin 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:2)

וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּהוּא דָּחֵי לֵיהּ בְּיָדַיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that analogy. **And perhaps** it **is different there,** in the case of the burning lamp, **as he set it aside by** direct **action** when he kindled the lamp. By contrast, in the case of an animal, he did not set it aside, and therefore, perhaps once it is slaughtered it is permitted.


###### Chullin 15a:3
[Chullin 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:3)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דִּמְבַשֵּׁל הִיא, דִּתְנַן: הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יֵאָכֵל, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֵאָכֵל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said:** When Rav said that the *halakha* that consumption of the animal is prohibited for that day is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the reference **is** to the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one who cooks, as we learned** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who cooks on Shabbat,** if he did so **unwittingly, he may eat** what he cooked. If he acted **intentionally, he may not eat** what he cooked. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


###### Chullin 15a:4
[Chullin 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:4)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יֵאָכֵל בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֵאָכֵל עוֹלָמִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says:** If he cooked the food **unwittingly, he may eat** it **at the conclusion of Shabbat,** as the Sages penalized even one who sinned unwittingly by prohibiting him from deriving immediate benefit from the dish that he cooked. If he cooked it **intentionally, he may never eat** from it.


###### Chullin 15a:5
[Chullin 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:5)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יֵאָכֵל לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא לוֹ, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֵאָכֵל עוֹלָמִית, לֹא לוֹ וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar says:** If he acted **unwittingly,** the food **may be eaten at the conclusion of Shabbat by others, but not by him.** If he cooked the food **intentionally, it may never be eaten, neither by him nor by others.** According to Rav, the mishna is referring to a case where one slaughtered the animal unwittingly. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the slaughter is valid but it is prohibited to eat the animal on Shabbat.


###### Chullin 15a:6
[Chullin 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:6)

וְנוֹקְמַהּ בְּמֵזִיד, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: **And let us interpret** the mishna as referring **to** a case where he slaughtered the animal **intentionally, and** explain that it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who rules that eating the animal in such a case is permitted only after the conclusion of Shabbat.


###### Chullin 15a:7
[Chullin 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:7)

לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּקָתָנֵי דֻּמְיָא דְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – מָה יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לָא שְׁנָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּמֵזִיד – לָא אָכֵיל, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּמֵזִיד – לָא אָכֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: That possibility should **not enter your mind, as** the case of slaughter on Shabbat is juxtaposed to and **taught** in a manner **similar to** the case of slaughter on **Yom Kippur. Just as** with regard to slaughter on **Yom Kippur,** it **is no different** whether one slaughtered it **unwittingly and** it **is no different** whether he slaughtered it **intentionally, he may not eat** it that day due to the fast, **so too here,** with regard to slaughter on Shabbat, it **is no different** whether he slaughtered it **unwittingly and** it **is no different** whether he slaughtered it **intentionally, he may not eat** it that day. Rabbi Meir, though, deems it permitted for one who cooked unwittingly to eat the cooked food on Shabbat.


###### Chullin 15a:8
[Chullin 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:8)

וּמִי מָצֵית מוֹקְמַתְּ לַהּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? וְהָא ״אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ״ קָתָנֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי דִּבְמֵזִיד מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ הוּא, הָכָא דִּבְשׁוֹגֵג – שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And can you interpret** the mishna as referring **to** a case of **unwitting** slaughter **and** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda? But isn’t it taught** in the mishna: **Although he is liable to** receive the **death** penalty? One is liable to be executed only if he intentionally performs labor on Shabbat. The Gemara answers that **this** is what the mishna **is saying: Although** if he slaughtered it **intentionally he is liable to** receive the **death** penalty, **here,** in a case **where** he slaughtered the animal **unwittingly, his slaughter is valid.**


###### Chullin 15a:9
[Chullin 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:9)

וְנוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר, דְּאָמַר: לָא שְׁנָא בְּשׁוֹגֵג וְלָא שְׁנָא בְּמֵזִיד – לָא אָכֵיל! רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר קָמְפַלֵּיג בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת, לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא לוֹ, תַּנָּא דִּידַן ״שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה״ קָתָנֵי, לָא שְׁנָא לוֹ וְלָא שְׁנָא לַאֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And let us interpret** the mishna **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar, who says:** It **is no different** whether he cooked **unwittingly and** it **is no different** whether he cooked **intentionally; he may not eat it** on Shabbat. The Gemara explains: **Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar draws a distinction with regard to the conclusion of Shabbat,** in that he permits eating food cooked on Shabbat **for others and not for him,** while **the *tanna* of our** mishna **teaches: His slaughter is valid,** without qualification, indicating that with regard to his ruling it **is no different for him and** it **is no different for others.**


###### Chullin 15a:10
[Chullin 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:10)

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יֵאָכֵל, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֵאָכֵל, וּמְשַׁתֵּיק לֵיהּ רַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The *tanna* taught** a *baraita* **before Rav: One who cooks on Shabbat unwittingly may eat** the food that he cooked; if he did so **intentionally, he may not eat** the food that he cooked, **and Rav silenced him.**


###### Chullin 15a:11
[Chullin 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:11)

מַאי טַעְמָא מְשַׁתֵּיק לֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְתַנָּא תָּנֵי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִשּׁוּם דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַאן דְּתָנֵי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְשַׁתֵּיק לֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that **Rav silenced him? If we say** it is **because** Rav **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda and the *tanna* taught** the *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** can it be that merely **because he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda he silences one who teaches** a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir?**


###### Chullin 15a:12
[Chullin 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:12)

וְעוֹד, מִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? וְהָאָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר אַמֵּי: כִּי מוֹרִי לְהוּ רַב לְתַלְמִידֵיהּ – מוֹרֵי לְהוּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְכִי דָּרֵישׁ בְּפִירְקָא – דָּרֵישׁ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִשּׁוּם עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore, does** Rav **hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda? But doesn’t Rav Ḥanan bar Ami say: When Rav issues a ruling to his students, he issues a ruling in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, and when he teaches in** his **public lecture** delivered on the Festival, **he teaches in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, due to** his concern that **the ignoramuses** would treat the prohibition of labor on Shabbat with disdain?


###### Chullin 15a:13
[Chullin 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:13)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: תַּנָּא בְּפִירְקֵיהּ תְּנָא קַמֵּיהּ, אַטּוּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְתַנָּא צָיְיתִי? לְאָמוֹרָא צָיְיתִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **the *tanna* taught** the *baraita* **before** Rav **during the public lecture** and Rav silenced him so that the ignoramuses would not learn from him, **is that to say** that **everyone** attending the public lecture **listens to the *tanna*** who is citing the *baraita*? There is no need to silence the *tanna*, because **they listen to the disseminator [*amora*],** the Sage who repeats what he hears from Rav loudly for the benefit of those attending the lecture, and the *amora* quoted Rav’s ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.


###### Chullin 15a:14
[Chullin 15a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:14)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תַּנָּא שׁוֹחֵט תְּנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יֵאָכֵל, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֵאָכֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? עַד כָּאן לָא קָשָׁרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא בִּמְבַשֵּׁל, דְּרָאוּי לָכוֹס, אֲבָל שׁוֹחֵט דְּאֵין רָאוּי לָכוֹס – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The *tanna* taught** the *halakha* of one who **slaughters before Rav: One who slaughters** an animal **on Shabbat unwittingly may eat** from the slaughtered animal; if he slaughtered it **intentionally, he may not eat** from the slaughtered animal. Rav **said to** the *tanna*: **What do you think,** that the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir? Rabbi Meir deems** eating **permitted only in** the case of **one who cooks** unwittingly on Shabbat, **as** even before he cooks the food **it is fit to be chewed [*lakhos*],** i.e., to be eaten uncooked, in a permitted manner, and therefore it was not set aside from use when Shabbat began. **But** in the case of one who **slaughters** an animal, **where** the meat was **not fit to chew,** Rabbi Meir does **not** permit eating it on Shabbat, because it was set aside from use on Shabbat.


###### Chullin 15a:15
[Chullin 15a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:15)

וְהָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּשׁוֹחֵט הוּא, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: דָּרֵשׁ חִיָּיא בַּר רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה לְיוֹמָא, וְנָסְבִין חַבְרַיָּא לְמֵימֵר: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר שָׁרֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t the mishna** addressing the case **of one who slaughters** an animal, **and Rav Huna says** that **Ḥiyya bar Rav taught in the name of Rav: Consumption** of the animal is **prohibited for** that **day, and** the members of **the company** of Sages, i.e., those in the academy, **tended to say** that this *halakha* **is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** from which it may be inferred: **But Rabbi Meir permits** consumption of the slaughtered animal even on Shabbat, and he is not concerned that the animal was set aside from use when Shabbat began?


###### Chullin 15a:16
[Chullin 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/15a:16)

כִּי שָׁרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When Rabbi Meir permits** consumption of the slaughtered animal even on Shabbat,