POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kesuvos 34
1) IMPROPER SLAUGHTER
(a) Answer: The Chachamim hold as R. Shimon who says that a
slaughter which does not permit the meat to be eaten is
not considered slaughter.
2) RABAH'S ANSWER
1. This explains why they exempt a slaughter to an
idol, or of an animal sentenced to die.
(b) Question: An animal slaughtered on Shabbos may be eaten!
1. (Mishnah): One who slaughters on Shabbos or Yom
Kipur, even though he forfeits his life, the
slaughter is acceptable.
(c) Answer: Chachamim hold as R. Yochanan ha'Sandler.
1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): One who cooks on Shabbos - if
he forgot, he may eat it; if he intentionally
transgressed, he may not eat it;
(d) Question: What is the source for R. Yochanan ha'Sandler?
2. R. Yehudah says, If he forgot, he may eat it after
Shabbos; if not, he may never eat it;
3. R. Yochanan ha'Sandler says, if he forgot, after
Shabbos others may eat it but not him; if not, even
others may never eat it.
(e) Answer: As R. Chiya expounded, "The Shabbos is Kodesh to
you" - just as one may not eat Kodesh, so too things made
(f) Suggestion: One might say, just as one may not benefit
from Kodesh, so too things made on Shabbos!
(g) Answer: "To you" - it will be yours.
(h) Suggestion: Perhaps the prohibition applies even to
things inadvertently made on Shabbos!
(i) Answer: "Those that desecrate it will die" - we only
refer to intentional desecrators.
(j) Rav Acha and Ravina argued. One said that the Torah
prohibits eating things made on Shabbos; the other says
that it is a Rabbinic prohibition.
1. The one who says it is a Torah prohibition learns as
(k) Question: According to the opinion that it is only a
Rabbinic prohibition, why do Chachamim exempt the thief
from paying 4 or 5?
2. The one who says it is a Rabbinic prohibition
expounds "It (Shabbos) is Kodesh" - but not things
made on Shabbos.
(l) Answer: They do not! They only exempt in the cases of
slaughtering to an idol or slaughtering an ox sentenced
(m) Question: The moment one starts slaughtering to an idol,
the animal becomes prohibited - for the completion of the
slaughter, it does not belong to the original owner (so
why does R. Meir say he pays 4 or 5)?
(n) Answer (Rava): The case is, he only serves the idol upon
completion of the slaughter.
(o) Question: An ox sentenced to die does not belong to the
original owner (so why does R. Meir say he pays 4 or 5)?
(p) Answer (Rabah): The case is, Shimon was guarding Reuven's
ox. It gored, was sentenced to die, and was stolen while
1. R. Meir holds as R. Yakov and as R. Shimon.
i. He holds as R. Yakov who says that a watchman
can return an animal which was sentenced to
ii. He holds as R. Shimon who says that something
which is worth money to one person (even if it
has no value to anyone else) is considered as
having value. (Since Shimon could have returned
the ox, the thief must pay for it).
(a) Answer #2 (to question 3:d, Daf 33B): Really, the thief
himself slaughters. R. Meir holds that one is lashed and
pays, but does not pay if he is killed. Fines are
special, and are paid even if the person is killed.
(b) This is as another teaching of Rabah.
3) A BORROWED ANIMAL
(c) (Rabah): If a thief stole a goat before Shabbos, and
slaughtered it on Shabbos, he pays 4, since he was
obligated to pay for the theft before breaking Shabbos;
(d) If he stole and slaughtered it on Shabbos, he is exempt,
since if there is no (obligation for) theft, there is no
(obligation for) selling or slaughtering.
(e) (Rabah): If a thief stole a goat before tunneling into a
house, and slaughtered it the tunnel, he pays 4, since he
was obligated to pay for the theft before tunneling;
(f) If he stole and slaughtered it in the tunnel, he is
exempt, since if there is no (obligation for) theft,
there is no (obligation for) selling or slaughtering.
(g) It is necessary to teach both these laws.
1. If he only taught the law by Shabbos, we would think
that there he pays a fine (Rashi: there he is exempt
for stealing), since he is forever liable for his
sin; but tunneling, where he is only liable while in
the tunnel, no.
2. If he only taught the law by tunneling, we would
think that there he pays a fine (Rashi: there he is
exempt for stealing), since he can be killed without
warning; but Shabbos, for which he cannot be killed
without warning, no.
(a) (Rav Papa): If a thief stole a cow before Shabbos, and
slaughtered it on Shabbos, he pays 5, since he was
obligated to pay for the theft before breaking Shabbos;
4) ONE WHO TRANSGRESSED WITHOUT WARNING
(b) If he borrowed a cow before Shabbos, and slaughtered it
on Shabbos, he is exempt.
(c) Question: (Rav Acha Brei d'Rava): Is Rav Papa just coming
to teach that Rabah's law applies to a cow as well?!
(d) Answer (Rav Ashi): No, he comes to teach the law of a
1. Rav Papa had taught, from the time a borrower drags
an animal to his premises, he is responsible to feed
(e) (Rava): A father died, leaving a borrowed cow to his
heirs. They may use it the entire time the father was
allowed to use it; if it dies, they are exempt;
2. One might have thought that from the time he drags
it he is also responsible if it dies; he teaches
that this is not so.
(f) If they thought it was their father's and slaughtered it,
they pay a cheap price for its meat (2/3 of the normal
(g) If they inherited land, they must pay.
1. Some learn that this last statement applies to the
1st law (e); others say, it applies to the 2nd law
2. The opinion that says it applies to the 1st law, all
the moreso it applies to the 2nd law, and Rava
argues on Rav Papa.
3. The opinion that says it applies to the 2nd law, but
it does not apply to the 1st, in agreement with Rav
(a) We understand, R. Yochanan did not resolve the
contradictory Mishnayos (asked at the end of 31B) as
Reish Lakish, because he prefers to establish them as
(b) Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish say as R. Yochanan?
(c) Answer: Reish Lakish holds, since he is exempt from
paying if he was warned (about the forbidden relation),
he is exempt even if he is not warned.
1. They are consistent with what they said elsewhere.
(d) Version #1: Question (Reish Lakish): "If there will be no
Ason (death), he will pay".
2. (Rav Dimi): One who inadvertently transgresses a sin
worthy of death or lashes, and also money: R.
Yochanan says he must pay, Reish Lakish says he is
i. R. Yochanan says he must pay, since he was not
ii. Reish Lakish says he is exempt, since he would
be exempt if warned, he is exempt even if not