## Ketubot Daf 34a

###### Ketubot 34a:1
[Ketubot 34a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34a:1)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה — לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה. הָתִינַח עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, אֶלָּא שְׁחִיטַת שַׁבָּת — שְׁחִיטָה רְאוּיָה הִיא! דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּשַׁבָּת וּבְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ — שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is Rabbi Shimon, who said:** The legal status of **slaughter that is improper,** in that it does not render the meat fit to be eaten, **is not that of slaughter.** Therefore, one is not liable for slaughter of the animal. The Gemara asks: **This** works out **well** with regard to **idolatry and** the **ox that is stoned,** as their slaughter is ineffective in rendering the meat fit to be eaten; **however, the slaughter on Shabbat is a proper** act of **slaughter, as we learned** in a mishna (*Ḥullin* 14a): In the case of **one who slaughters** an animal **on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, although he is liable to** receive the **death** penalty for desecrating Shabbat, **his slaughter is valid** and the meat may be eaten.


###### Ketubot 34a:2
[Ketubot 34a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34a:2)

סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר. דְּתַנְיָא: הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֹאכַל, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֹאכַל לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֹאכַל עוֹלָמִית. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג — יֵאָכֵל לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא לוֹ, בְּמֵזִיד — לֹא יֵאָכֵל עוֹלָמִית, לֹא לוֹ וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *tanna* of the *baraita* under discussion **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: 
With regard to **one who cooks on Shabbat,** if he did so **unwittingly, he may eat** the food he cooked; if he did so **intentionally, he may not eat** it at all. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.** 
**Rabbi Yehuda says:** If he cooked **unwittingly he may eat at the conclusion of Shabbat,** as the Sages penalized even one who sinned unwittingly in that they prohibited him from deriving immediate benefit from the dish that he cooked; if he sinned **intentionally, he may not eat** from it **ever.** 
**Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar says:** If he did so **unwittingly,** the food **may be eaten at the conclusion of Shabbat by others but not by him;** if he did so **intentionally, it may not be eaten ever, neither by him nor by other** Jews. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar, food prepared by means of intentional desecration of Shabbat is unfit to be eaten. That is true with regard to cooking food on Shabbat and with regard to slaughtering an animal on Shabbat.


###### Ketubot 34a:3
[Ketubot 34a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34a:3)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר? כִּדְדָרֵישׁ רַבִּי חִיָּיא אַפִּיתְחָא דְּבֵי נְשִׂיאָה: ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִיא לָכֶם״, מָה קוֹדֶשׁ אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה — אַף מַעֲשֵׂה שַׁבָּת אֲסוּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה. אִי: מָה קוֹדֶשׁ אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה — אַף מַעֲשֵׂה שַׁבָּת אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לָכֶם״ — שֶׁלָּכֶם יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the rationale** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar?** The Gemara explains: It is **as Rabbi Ḥiyya taught at the entrance to the house of the *Nasi*.** It is written: **“And you shall observe Shabbat, for it is sacred to you;** he who profanes it shall be put to death” (Exodus 31:14); **just as** with regard to **a sacred** item consecrated to the Temple, **eating** it **is prohibited, so too,** with regard to food produced through **action** that desecrates **Shabbat, eating** it **is prohibited.** The Gemara asks: **If** so, perhaps the analogy should be extended to include the following: **Just as** with regard to **a sacred item,** deriving **benefit** from it **is prohibited, so too,** with regard to the product of **an action** that desecrates **Shabbat,** deriving **benefit** from it should be **prohibited.** The Gemara answers: **The verse states:** “It is sacred **to you”** (Exodus 31:14), indicating that **it shall be yours** in the sense that one may derive benefit from it.


###### Ketubot 34a:4
[Ketubot 34a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34a:4)

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מְחַלְּלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת״, בְּמֵזִיד אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא בְּשׁוֹגֵג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Based on the analogy between actions that desecrate Shabbat and sacred items, one **might** have thought that **even** if the action was performed **unwittingly** it should be prohibited to eat its product, as is the case with regard to sacred items. Therefore, **the verse states: “He who profanes it shall be put to death”** (Exodus 31:14), indicating that it is **with regard to** one who desecrates Shabbat **intentionally** that **I stated to you** this analogy to sacred items, as the verse is clearly referring to one who is liable to receive the death penalty, **and not with regard to** one who desecrates Shabbat **unwittingly,** who is not executed.


###### Ketubot 34a:5
[Ketubot 34a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34a:5)

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂה שַׁבָּת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְחַד אָמַר: דְּרַבָּנַן. מַאן דְּאָמַר דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — כְּדַאֲמַרַן, מַאן דְּאָמַר דְּרַבָּנַן — אָמַר קְרָא: ״קֹדֶשׁ הִיא״, הִיא קוֹדֶשׁ, וְאֵין מַעֲשֶׂיהָ קוֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to** this matter. **One said:** The product of **an action** that desecrates **Shabbat** is prohibited **by Torah** law, **and one said** that it is prohibited **by rabbinic** law. With regard to the **one who said** that it is prohibited **by Torah** law, it is **as we said,** that it is based on the verse interpreted by Rabbi Ḥiyya. **And** the **one who said** that it is prohibited **by rabbinic** law holds that **the verse states: “It is sacred,”** from which he infers: **It is sacred, but** the product of **its actions is not sacred,** and therefore, by Torah law it may be eaten.


###### Ketubot 34a:6
[Ketubot 34a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34a:6)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּרַבָּנַן, מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן דְּפָטְרִי? כִּי קָא פָּטְרִי רַבָּנַן אַשְּׁאָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the **one who said** it is prohibited **by rabbinic** law, **what is the rationale** for the opinion **of the Rabbis who exempt** the thief from payment for the slaughter performed by his agent on Shabbat? By Torah law, the slaughter is valid. The Gemara answers: **When the Rabbis exempt** the thief from payment, it is with regard **to the rest** of the cases, i.e., one who slaughters for idolatry or an ox sentenced to stoning, not with regard to Shabbat.


###### Ketubot 34a:7
[Ketubot 34a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34a:7)

טוֹבֵחַ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁחַט בֵּיהּ פּוּרְתָּא — אִיתְּסַר לֵיהּ, אִידַּךְ כִּי קָא טָבַח, לָאו דְּמָרֵיהּ קָא טָבַח! אָמַר רָבָא: בְּאוֹמֵר בִּגְמַר זְבִיחָה הוּא עוֹבְדָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks the following question with regard to Rabbi Meir’s opinion that **one who slaughters for idolatry** is liable to pay the owner for the animal. **Once he slaughtered** the animal **a bit,** at the very start of the act of slaughter, **it is prohibited for him** to derive benefit from the animal because it is an animal sacrificed to idolatry; **and when he slaughters the rest,** it is **not** the animal that belongs **to its owner** that he **is slaughtering.** Since it is prohibited to derive benefit from the animal, it has no value and there is no ownership. **Rava said:** It is referring **to one who says,** prior to the slaughter, that **he is worshipping** the idol only **at the completion of the slaughter,** and therefore the prohibition takes effect only then.


###### Ketubot 34a:8
[Ketubot 34a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34a:8)

שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, לָאו דִּידֵיהּ הוּא דְּקָטָבַח! אָמַר רַבָּה: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁמְּסָרוֹ לְשׁוֹמֵר, וְהִזִּיק בְּבֵית שׁוֹמֵר, וְנִגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּבֵית שׁוֹמֵר, וּגְנָבוֹ גַּנָּב מִבֵּית שׁוֹמֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks the following question with regard to Rabbi Meir’s opinion that one who slaughters **the ox that is stoned** is liable to pay for the slaughter. Why is he liable? It is **not** the owner’s ox that **he is slaughtering,** since once the ox is sentenced to be stoned it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. **Rabba said: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the owners **entrusted** the ox **to a bailee and** the ox **injured** another person while **in the bailee’s house, and it was sentenced** to be stoned while **in the bailee’s house, and** the **thief** then **stole it from the bailee’s house** and slaughtered it.


###### Ketubot 34a:9
[Ketubot 34a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34a:9)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב, וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּאָמַר: אַף מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ הֶחְזִירוֹ שׁוֹמֵר לִבְעָלָיו — מוּחְזָר. וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר הַגּוֹרֵם לְמָמוֹן — כְּמָמוֹן דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this solution is based on the fact that **Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ya’akov and holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon. He holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ya’akov, who said: Even after** the ox **was sentenced** to be stoned, if the **bailee returned it to its owners, it is returned.** Despite the fact that the ox is now worthless, as no benefit may be derived from it, since the bailee returned an ox that is physically intact the owner has no claim against him. **And** Rabbi Meir **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who said** that the legal status of **an object that effects monetary** loss **is like** that of **money.** Even in the case of an object that is worthless, if its elimination causes monetary loss because it must be replaced, it is considered to have value. In this case, although the ox has no value in and of itself, slaughtering the animal prevents the bailee from returning it intact to the owner, requiring him to pay the owner the value of the ox before it was sentenced to be stoned. Consequently, the thief must reimburse the bailee, as the ox has value for the bailee.


###### Ketubot 34a:10
[Ketubot 34a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/34a:10)

רַבָּה אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם בְּטוֹבֵחַ עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: Actually,** contrary to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation of the *baraita*, it is referring **to one who slaughters** the animal **himself,**