Is it true that any destructive act, one is not obligated by Torah law for doing on Shabbat? What about burning a fire and inflicting a bodily injury? There is a debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. When is one obligated for trapping an animal, bird or fish? What are the differences between them? On what does it depend?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Shabbat 106
יִדְאֲגוּ כׇּל הָאַחִין כּוּלָּן. אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה שֶׁמֵּת — תִּדְאַג כָּל הַחֲבוּרָה כּוּלָּהּ. אָמְרִי לַהּ דְּמֵת גָּדוֹל, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ דְּמֵת קָטָן.
all of the brothers should be concerned, lest their death be approaching. Similarly, if one member of a group dies, the entire group should be concerned. Some say the concern is greatest if the eldest dies. If he, despite his virtues, could not avoid punishment, others will certainly not be saved. And some say the concern is greatest if the youngest dies, because the least significant people are punished first, and perhaps this is the start of a punishment for the entire group.
וְכׇל הַמְקַלְקְלִין פְּטוּרִין. תָּנֵי רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמְקַלְקְלִין פְּטוּרִין חוּץ מֵחוֹבֵל וּמַבְעִיר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק תָּנֵי לְבַרָּא, חוֹבֵל וּמַבְעִיר אֵינָהּ מִשְׁנָה. וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר מִשְׁנָה — חוֹבֵל בְּצָרִיךְ לְכַלְבּוֹ, מַבְעִיר בְּצָרִיךְ לְאֶפְרוֹ.
We learned in the mishna: And anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt. Rabbi Abbahu taught this baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: Anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt, except for one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go teach that outside. This baraita is not fit for discussion in the study hall. The opinion that deems one liable for inflicting a wound or kindling a fire on Shabbat is not an accepted teaching and should be ignored. And if you want to say that it is a legitimate teaching, one who inflicts a wound would only be liable in a case where he needed the blood to give to his dog, and one who kindles a fire would only be liable in a case where he needs its ashes.
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: כׇּל הַמְקַלְקְלִין פְּטוּרִין! מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בָּרָיְיתָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמִישְׁרֵא מִילָה, הָא חוֹבֵל בְּעָלְמָא חַיָּיב.
The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Abbahu teach this baraita? Didn’t we learn explicitly in the mishna: Anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt, including one who inflicts a wound or who kindles a fire? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable for performing labor which is not needed for its own sake, whereas the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who exempts in that case. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire on Shabbat liable even though these are destructive acts? From the fact that a verse was necessary to permit circumcision on Shabbat, by inference, in general, one who inflicts a wound is liable. If inflicting a wound was not prohibited on Shabbat, there would be no need to permit circumcision.
וּמִדַּאֲסַר רַחֲמָנָא הַבְעָרָה גַּבֵּי בַּת כֹּהֵן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מַבְעִיר בְּעָלְמָא חַיָּיב.
Similarly, from the fact that the Torah prohibited kindling a fire on Shabbat even with regard to the execution by burning of a priest’s daughter who committed adultery, conclude from it that in general, one who ignites a fire on Shabbat is liable.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? הָתָם — מְתַקֵּן הוּא, כִּדְרַב אָשֵׁי. דְּאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַה לִּי לְתַקֵּן מִילָּה, מַה לִּי לְתַקֵּן כְּלִי. מַה לִּי לְבַשֵּׁל פְּתִילָה, מַה לִּי לְבַשֵּׁל סַמָּנִין.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda address this proof? The Gemara answers: There, that is a case of a constructive labor in accordance with the explanation of Rav Ashi. For Rav Ashi said: What difference is there to me between repairing the child through circumcision and repairing a vessel? They are both constructive acts. And what difference is there to me between cooking a lead wick, as a melted lead wick was poured down the throat of the criminal sentenced to execution by burning, and cooking herbs used to produce dyes in the Tabernacle? The Torah addressed these cases specifically because they are constructive, and nothing can be derived from them with regard to liability for performance of destructive labors.
שִׁיעוּר הַמְלַבֵּן כּוּ׳. רַב יוֹסֵף מַחְוֵי כָּפוּל, רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אַמֵּי מַחְוֵי פָּשׁוּט.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for one who whitens and for similar prohibited labors is the full width of a double sit. Rav Yosef would demonstrate the width of a double sit by indicating the distance between the index and middle fingers and instructing the onlookers to double the measure. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami would demonstrate in a simple manner, as he calculated that the distance between the thumb and the forefinger is equal to a double sit.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַצָּד צִפּוֹר לַמִּגְדָּל, וּצְבִי לַבַּיִת — חַיָּיב. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: צִפּוֹר לַמִּגְדָּל
MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: One who traps a bird into a closet or cage, and one who traps a deer into a house is liable. The Rabbis say: One is liable for trapping a bird into a closet
וּצְבִי לַגִּינָּה וְלֶחָצֵר וְלַבֵּיבָרִין — [חַיָּיב]. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא כָּל הַבֵּיבָרִין שָׁוִין. זֶה הַכְּלָל: מְחוּסָּר צִידָה — פָּטוּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר צִידָה — חַיָּיב.
and for trapping a deer into a garden, or into a courtyard, or into an enclosure [bivar], he is liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all enclosures are identical. This is the principle: If the trapping of the animal is inadequate and it is still necessary to pursue and apprehend it, one is not liable. However, if one trapped a deer into an enclosure in which the trapping is not inadequate, he is liable.
גְּמָ׳ תְּנַן הָתָם: אֵין צָדִין דָּגִים מִן הַבֵּיבָרִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לִפְנֵיהֶם מְזוֹנוֹת. אֲבָל צָדִין חַיָּה וָעוֹף, וְנוֹתְנִין לִפְנֵיהֶם מְזוֹנוֹת. וּרְמִינְהוּ: בֵּיבָרִין שֶׁל חַיּוֹת וְשֶׁל עוֹפוֹת וְשֶׁל דָּגִים — אֵין צָדִין מֵהֶם בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לִפְנֵיהֶם מְזוֹנוֹת. קַשְׁיָא חַיָּה אַחַיָּה, קַשְׁיָא עוֹפוֹת אַעוֹפוֹת.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna there in tractate Beitza: One may not trap fish from the enclosures on a Festival, nor may one place food before them, because it is prohibited to feed an animal that may not be eaten on the Festival. However, one may trap an animal or a bird from its enclosures and slaughter them, and one may also place food before them. The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in the Tosefta: From enclosures of animals, of birds, and of fish, one may not trap on a Festival, nor may one place food before them. This is difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to an animal in the mishna and the ruling with regard to an animal in the Tosefta. This is similarly difficult due to the contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta.
בִּשְׁלָמָא חַיָּה אַחַיָּה לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא רַבָּנַן.
The Gemara says: Granted, with regard to the contradiction between the ruling concerning an animal in the mishna and the ruling concerning an animal in the Tosefta, it is not difficult, because this, the Tosefta that prohibits trapping and feeding the animals in the enclosures, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda cited in the mishna that an animal trapped into an enclosure whose trapping is inadequate, i.e., it is still necessary to pursue and apprehend the animal, is not considered trapped. That, i.e., the mishna in Beitza, which permits trapping and feeding the animals in the enclosures, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said that animals in an enclosure are considered trapped.
אֶלָּא עוֹפוֹת אַעוֹפוֹת קַשְׁיָא! וְכִי תֵּימָא, עוֹפוֹת אַעוֹפוֹת נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בֵּיבָר מְקוֹרֶה, הָא בֵּיבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקוֹרֶה — וְהָא בַּיִת דִּמְקוֹרֶה הוּא, וּבֵין לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וּבֵין לְרַבָּנַן צִפּוֹר לַמִּגְדָּל — אִין, לַבַּיִת — לָא!
However, concerning the contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta, it is difficult. And if you say that the contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta is also not difficult because this, the mishna, which permits trapping, is referring to a roofed enclosure, in which a bird is considered trapped, and therefore there is no prohibition against apprehending it on Shabbat; and that the Tosefta, which prohibits trapping, is referring to an unroofed enclosure in which a bird is not considered trapped and apprehending it is prohibited, that does not resolve the contradiction. As with regard to a house, which is roofed, there is no dispute, and according to both Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, trapping a bird into a closet, yes, it is considered trapped, while trapping it into a house, no, it is not considered trapped.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הָכָא בְּצִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר עָסְקִינַן, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְקַבֶּלֶת מָרוּת. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״צִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר״ — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּרָה בַּבַּיִת כְּבַשָּׂדֶה. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי — חַיָּה אַחַיָּה נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּבֵיבָר גָּדוֹל, הָא בְּבֵיבָר קָטָן.
Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Here, in the mishna, according to which a bird in a house is not considered trapped, we are dealing with a free bird, a sparrow, because it does not accept authority. That bird is not intimidated and evades capture even in a house, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why is it called a free bird [tzippor dror]? Because it dwells [dara] in a house as it does in a field. Therefore, the distinction between a roofed and unroofed enclosure resolves the apparent contradiction between the mishna and the Tosefta. The Gemara says: Now that you have arrived at this understanding, that the difference between the rulings in the two sources is predicated on different circumstances and not on a tannaitic dispute, the apparent contradiction between the ruling with regard to an animal in the mishna and the ruling with regard to an animal in the Tosefta is also not difficult. This, the ruling in the Tosefta which prohibits apprehending the animal, is referring to a large enclosure from which the animal cannot escape, but it can still avoid being apprehended. Therefore, the trapping is considered inadequate, and apprehending the animal constitutes trapping. That, the ruling in the mishna that permits apprehending the animal, is referring to a small enclosure in which the animal cannot evade its pursuers and requires no further trapping.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי בֵּיבָר גָּדוֹל, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי בֵּיבָר קָטָן? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּרָהֵיט בָּתְרֵיהּ וּמָטֵי לֵהּ בְּחַד שִׁיחְיָיא — בֵּיבָר קָטָן, וְאִידַּךְ — בֵּיבָר גָּדוֹל. אִי נָמֵי: כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּנָפֵיל טוּלָּא דִכְתָלִים אַהֲדָדֵי — בֵּיבָר קָטָן, וְאִידַּךְ — בֵּיבָר גָּדוֹל. וְאִי נָמֵי: כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא עוּקְצֵי עוּקְצֵי — בֵּיבָר קָטָן, וְאִידַּךְ — בֵּיבָר גָּדוֹל.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a large enclosure and what are the circumstances of a small enclosure? Rav Ashi said: Any enclosure where one can run after an animal and reach it in one lunge is a small enclosure. And any other is a large enclosure. Or perhaps: Any enclosure where the shadows from the different walls fall upon each other is a small enclosure, as all enclosures had a uniform height. And any other is a large enclosure. Or perhaps: Any enclosure that does not have a series of corners in which the animal could evade capture is a small enclosure, and any other is a large enclosure.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הֲלָכָה, מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַאי נָפְקָא לָךְ מִינַּהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ גְּמָרָא גְּמוֹר זְמוֹרְתָּא תְּהֵא?
We learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all enclosures are identical. It depends whether the trapping of the animal is inadequate, in which case one is liable for trapping, or whether the trapping is not inadequate, in which case one is exempt. Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in this matter. Abaye said to him: If you rule the halakha in accordance with his opinion, does that mean by inference that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps there is no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Yosef said to him: What difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. He answered him using a folk expression: Is it simply learn the lesson, let it be like a song? In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? Rather, it is necessary to examine the issue to understand it even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַצָּד צְבִי סוֹמֵא וְיָשֵׁן — חַיָּיב. חִיגֵּר, וְזָקֵן וְחוֹלֶה — פָּטוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי? הָנֵי עֲבִידִי לְרַבּוֹיֵי, הָנֵי לָא עֲבִידִי לְרַבּוֹיֵי. וְהָתַנְיָא: חוֹלֶה חַיָּיב! אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּחוֹלֶה מֵחֲמַת אִישָּׁתָא, הָא בְּחוֹלֶה מֵחֲמַת אוּבְצָנָא.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who traps a deer on Shabbat that is blind or sleeping is liable. One who traps a lame, old, or sick deer is exempt. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is different about these cases and what is different about those cases? Rav Yosef answered: These, the blind or sleeping deer, are likely to run away when they feel that they are being touched; therefore, they require trapping. However, these, the crippled, old, and sick deer, are not likely to run away and are therefore considered to be already trapped. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one who traps a sick deer is liable? Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult. This baraita, in which a sick deer is not considered trapped and one who traps it is liable is referring to a deer that is sick due to a fever, which can still flee; that baraita, in which the deer is considered trapped and one who traps it is exempt is referring to a deer that is sick with fatigue and is incapable of fleeing.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַצָּד חֲגָבִין, גַּזִּין, צְרָעִין וְיַתּוּשִׁין בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל שֶׁבְּמִינוֹ נִיצּוֹד — חַיָּיב, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ נִיצּוֹד — פָּטוּר. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הַצָּד חֲגָבִים בִּשְׁעַת הַטַּל — פָּטוּר, בִּשְׁעַת הַשָּׁרָב — חַיָּיב. אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַהֲבַאי אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיוּ מְקַלְּחוֹת וּבָאוֹת — פָּטוּר. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַהֲבַאי אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי, אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי? תָּא שְׁמַע: הַצָּד חֲגָבִין בִּשְׁעַת הַטַּל — פָּטוּר, בִּשְׁעַת הַשָּׁרָב — חַיָּיב, אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַהֲבַאי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁעַת הַשָּׁרָב, אִם הָיוּ מְקַלְּחוֹת וּבָאוֹת — פָּטוּר.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who traps locusts, cicadas, hornets, or mosquitoes on Shabbat is liable. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Not every insect is the same in this matter. If one traps any insect whose species is typically trapped for personal use, he is liable, and if one traps any insect whose species is typically not trapped for personal use, he is exempt. It was taught in another baraita: One who traps locusts when there is dew is exempt. Since it is cold at that time, the locusts are paralyzed. If one traps them when it is hot, he is liable. Elazar ben Mehavai says: If the locusts were swarming, one is exempt for trapping them, because no effort is necessary to apprehend them. A dilemma was raised before them: Does the statement of Elazar ben Mehavai apply to the first clause of the baraita, ruling stringently that one is liable for trapping locusts even when there is dew unless they are swarming; or does it apply to the latter clause of the baraita, ruling leniently that one is exempt when trapping locusts, even in the heat when they are swarming? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma based on a source that addresses the point explicitly: One who traps locusts when there is dew is exempt; one who traps locusts when it is hot is liable. Elazar ben Mehavai says: Even when it is hot, if they were swarming, one is exempt.
מַתְנִי׳ צְבִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַבַּיִת וְנָעַל אֶחָד בְּפָנָיו — חַיָּיב. נָעֲלוּ שְׁנַיִם — פְּטוּרִין. לֹא יָכוֹל אֶחָד לִנְעוֹל וְנָעֲלוּ שְׁנַיִם — חַיָּיבִין. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר.
MISHNA: If a deer entered a house on its own and one locked the door before it, he is liable for trapping. If two people locked the door, they are exempt, because neither performed a complete labor. If one person is incapable of locking the door and two people locked it, they are liable because that is the typical manner of performing that labor. And Rabbi Shimon deems them exempt as he holds that two people who perform a single labor are never liable by Torah law.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַצָּד אֲרִי בְּשַׁבָּת — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לַגּוּרְזָקִי שֶׁלּוֹ.
GEMARA: Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Shmuel said: One who traps a lion on Shabbat is not liable for trapping unless he traps it in its cage, and until that point it is not considered trapped.
מַתְנִי׳ יָשַׁב הָאֶחָד עַל הַפֶּתַח וְלֹא מִילְּאָהוּ, יָשַׁב הַשֵּׁנִי וּמִילְּאָהוּ — הַשֵּׁנִי חַיָּיב. יָשַׁב הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל הַפֶּתַח וּמִילְּאָהוּ, וּבָא הַשֵּׁנִי וְיָשַׁב בְּצִידּוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָמַד הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהָלַךְ לוֹ — הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב וְהַשֵּׁנִי פָּטוּר. הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה — לְנוֹעֵל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ לְשׁוֹמְרוֹ וְנִמְצָא צְבִי שָׁמוּר בְּתוֹכוֹ.
MISHNA: If one person sat in the entrance of a courtyard in which there is a deer, but did not fill the entire doorway, and a second person sat and filled it, the second person is liable because he completed the labor of trapping. However, if the first person sat in the doorway and filled it, and a second person came and sat next to him, the first person is liable and the second is exempt even if the first person stood and went away, leaving the second one to secure the deer. The mishna explains: To what is this second person’s action similar? To one who locks his house to secure it, and it turns out a deer that was trapped before Shabbat is also secured inside it. In that case, he is exempt even though he enhances security on the deer, because he did not trap the animal.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Daf Yomi One Week at a Time – Shabbat 152-157 +Siyum
August 11, 2020 | כ״א באב תש״פ
Shabbat 132: The Rock Paper Scissors of Overriding Shabbat
July 16, 2020 | כ״ד בתמוז תש״פ
Shabbat 129: Lenient about Shabbat, Strict about Health
July 13, 2020 | כ״א בתמוז תש״פ
Shabbat 128: Ostriches and Elephants and Chickadees (Oh My!)
July 12, 2020 | כ׳ בתמוז תש״פ
Shabbat 126: Hanging Doors, Container Covers, and Cleaning Up for Guests
July 10, 2020 | י״ח בתמוז תש״פ
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Shabbat 106
יִדְאֲגוּ כׇּל הָאַחִין כּוּלָּן. אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי חֲבוּרָה שֶׁמֵּת — תִּדְאַג כָּל הַחֲבוּרָה כּוּלָּהּ. אָמְרִי לַהּ דְּמֵת גָּדוֹל, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ דְּמֵת קָטָן.
all of the brothers should be concerned, lest their death be approaching. Similarly, if one member of a group dies, the entire group should be concerned. Some say the concern is greatest if the eldest dies. If he, despite his virtues, could not avoid punishment, others will certainly not be saved. And some say the concern is greatest if the youngest dies, because the least significant people are punished first, and perhaps this is the start of a punishment for the entire group.
וְכׇל הַמְקַלְקְלִין פְּטוּרִין. תָּנֵי רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמְקַלְקְלִין פְּטוּרִין חוּץ מֵחוֹבֵל וּמַבְעִיר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק תָּנֵי לְבַרָּא, חוֹבֵל וּמַבְעִיר אֵינָהּ מִשְׁנָה. וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר מִשְׁנָה — חוֹבֵל בְּצָרִיךְ לְכַלְבּוֹ, מַבְעִיר בְּצָרִיךְ לְאֶפְרוֹ.
We learned in the mishna: And anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt. Rabbi Abbahu taught this baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: Anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt, except for one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go teach that outside. This baraita is not fit for discussion in the study hall. The opinion that deems one liable for inflicting a wound or kindling a fire on Shabbat is not an accepted teaching and should be ignored. And if you want to say that it is a legitimate teaching, one who inflicts a wound would only be liable in a case where he needed the blood to give to his dog, and one who kindles a fire would only be liable in a case where he needs its ashes.
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: כׇּל הַמְקַלְקְלִין פְּטוּרִין! מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בָּרָיְיתָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמִישְׁרֵא מִילָה, הָא חוֹבֵל בְּעָלְמָא חַיָּיב.
The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Abbahu teach this baraita? Didn’t we learn explicitly in the mishna: Anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt, including one who inflicts a wound or who kindles a fire? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable for performing labor which is not needed for its own sake, whereas the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who exempts in that case. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire on Shabbat liable even though these are destructive acts? From the fact that a verse was necessary to permit circumcision on Shabbat, by inference, in general, one who inflicts a wound is liable. If inflicting a wound was not prohibited on Shabbat, there would be no need to permit circumcision.
וּמִדַּאֲסַר רַחֲמָנָא הַבְעָרָה גַּבֵּי בַּת כֹּהֵן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מַבְעִיר בְּעָלְמָא חַיָּיב.
Similarly, from the fact that the Torah prohibited kindling a fire on Shabbat even with regard to the execution by burning of a priest’s daughter who committed adultery, conclude from it that in general, one who ignites a fire on Shabbat is liable.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? הָתָם — מְתַקֵּן הוּא, כִּדְרַב אָשֵׁי. דְּאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַה לִּי לְתַקֵּן מִילָּה, מַה לִּי לְתַקֵּן כְּלִי. מַה לִּי לְבַשֵּׁל פְּתִילָה, מַה לִּי לְבַשֵּׁל סַמָּנִין.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda address this proof? The Gemara answers: There, that is a case of a constructive labor in accordance with the explanation of Rav Ashi. For Rav Ashi said: What difference is there to me between repairing the child through circumcision and repairing a vessel? They are both constructive acts. And what difference is there to me between cooking a lead wick, as a melted lead wick was poured down the throat of the criminal sentenced to execution by burning, and cooking herbs used to produce dyes in the Tabernacle? The Torah addressed these cases specifically because they are constructive, and nothing can be derived from them with regard to liability for performance of destructive labors.
שִׁיעוּר הַמְלַבֵּן כּוּ׳. רַב יוֹסֵף מַחְוֵי כָּפוּל, רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אַמֵּי מַחְוֵי פָּשׁוּט.
We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liability for one who whitens and for similar prohibited labors is the full width of a double sit. Rav Yosef would demonstrate the width of a double sit by indicating the distance between the index and middle fingers and instructing the onlookers to double the measure. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami would demonstrate in a simple manner, as he calculated that the distance between the thumb and the forefinger is equal to a double sit.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הַצָּד צִפּוֹר לַמִּגְדָּל, וּצְבִי לַבַּיִת — חַיָּיב. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: צִפּוֹר לַמִּגְדָּל
MISHNA: Rabbi Yehuda says: One who traps a bird into a closet or cage, and one who traps a deer into a house is liable. The Rabbis say: One is liable for trapping a bird into a closet
וּצְבִי לַגִּינָּה וְלֶחָצֵר וְלַבֵּיבָרִין — [חַיָּיב]. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא כָּל הַבֵּיבָרִין שָׁוִין. זֶה הַכְּלָל: מְחוּסָּר צִידָה — פָּטוּר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר צִידָה — חַיָּיב.
and for trapping a deer into a garden, or into a courtyard, or into an enclosure [bivar], he is liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all enclosures are identical. This is the principle: If the trapping of the animal is inadequate and it is still necessary to pursue and apprehend it, one is not liable. However, if one trapped a deer into an enclosure in which the trapping is not inadequate, he is liable.
גְּמָ׳ תְּנַן הָתָם: אֵין צָדִין דָּגִים מִן הַבֵּיבָרִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לִפְנֵיהֶם מְזוֹנוֹת. אֲבָל צָדִין חַיָּה וָעוֹף, וְנוֹתְנִין לִפְנֵיהֶם מְזוֹנוֹת. וּרְמִינְהוּ: בֵּיבָרִין שֶׁל חַיּוֹת וְשֶׁל עוֹפוֹת וְשֶׁל דָּגִים — אֵין צָדִין מֵהֶם בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין לִפְנֵיהֶם מְזוֹנוֹת. קַשְׁיָא חַיָּה אַחַיָּה, קַשְׁיָא עוֹפוֹת אַעוֹפוֹת.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna there in tractate Beitza: One may not trap fish from the enclosures on a Festival, nor may one place food before them, because it is prohibited to feed an animal that may not be eaten on the Festival. However, one may trap an animal or a bird from its enclosures and slaughter them, and one may also place food before them. The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in the Tosefta: From enclosures of animals, of birds, and of fish, one may not trap on a Festival, nor may one place food before them. This is difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to an animal in the mishna and the ruling with regard to an animal in the Tosefta. This is similarly difficult due to the contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta.
בִּשְׁלָמָא חַיָּה אַחַיָּה לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא רַבָּנַן.
The Gemara says: Granted, with regard to the contradiction between the ruling concerning an animal in the mishna and the ruling concerning an animal in the Tosefta, it is not difficult, because this, the Tosefta that prohibits trapping and feeding the animals in the enclosures, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda cited in the mishna that an animal trapped into an enclosure whose trapping is inadequate, i.e., it is still necessary to pursue and apprehend the animal, is not considered trapped. That, i.e., the mishna in Beitza, which permits trapping and feeding the animals in the enclosures, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said that animals in an enclosure are considered trapped.
אֶלָּא עוֹפוֹת אַעוֹפוֹת קַשְׁיָא! וְכִי תֵּימָא, עוֹפוֹת אַעוֹפוֹת נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בֵּיבָר מְקוֹרֶה, הָא בֵּיבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקוֹרֶה — וְהָא בַּיִת דִּמְקוֹרֶה הוּא, וּבֵין לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וּבֵין לְרַבָּנַן צִפּוֹר לַמִּגְדָּל — אִין, לַבַּיִת — לָא!
However, concerning the contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta, it is difficult. And if you say that the contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta is also not difficult because this, the mishna, which permits trapping, is referring to a roofed enclosure, in which a bird is considered trapped, and therefore there is no prohibition against apprehending it on Shabbat; and that the Tosefta, which prohibits trapping, is referring to an unroofed enclosure in which a bird is not considered trapped and apprehending it is prohibited, that does not resolve the contradiction. As with regard to a house, which is roofed, there is no dispute, and according to both Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, trapping a bird into a closet, yes, it is considered trapped, while trapping it into a house, no, it is not considered trapped.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: הָכָא בְּצִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר עָסְקִינַן, לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְקַבֶּלֶת מָרוּת. דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ ״צִפּוֹר דְּרוֹר״ — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּרָה בַּבַּיִת כְּבַשָּׂדֶה. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי — חַיָּה אַחַיָּה נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּבֵיבָר גָּדוֹל, הָא בְּבֵיבָר קָטָן.
Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Here, in the mishna, according to which a bird in a house is not considered trapped, we are dealing with a free bird, a sparrow, because it does not accept authority. That bird is not intimidated and evades capture even in a house, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why is it called a free bird [tzippor dror]? Because it dwells [dara] in a house as it does in a field. Therefore, the distinction between a roofed and unroofed enclosure resolves the apparent contradiction between the mishna and the Tosefta. The Gemara says: Now that you have arrived at this understanding, that the difference between the rulings in the two sources is predicated on different circumstances and not on a tannaitic dispute, the apparent contradiction between the ruling with regard to an animal in the mishna and the ruling with regard to an animal in the Tosefta is also not difficult. This, the ruling in the Tosefta which prohibits apprehending the animal, is referring to a large enclosure from which the animal cannot escape, but it can still avoid being apprehended. Therefore, the trapping is considered inadequate, and apprehending the animal constitutes trapping. That, the ruling in the mishna that permits apprehending the animal, is referring to a small enclosure in which the animal cannot evade its pursuers and requires no further trapping.
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי בֵּיבָר גָּדוֹל, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי בֵּיבָר קָטָן? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּרָהֵיט בָּתְרֵיהּ וּמָטֵי לֵהּ בְּחַד שִׁיחְיָיא — בֵּיבָר קָטָן, וְאִידַּךְ — בֵּיבָר גָּדוֹל. אִי נָמֵי: כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּנָפֵיל טוּלָּא דִכְתָלִים אַהֲדָדֵי — בֵּיבָר קָטָן, וְאִידַּךְ — בֵּיבָר גָּדוֹל. וְאִי נָמֵי: כׇּל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא עוּקְצֵי עוּקְצֵי — בֵּיבָר קָטָן, וְאִידַּךְ — בֵּיבָר גָּדוֹל.
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a large enclosure and what are the circumstances of a small enclosure? Rav Ashi said: Any enclosure where one can run after an animal and reach it in one lunge is a small enclosure. And any other is a large enclosure. Or perhaps: Any enclosure where the shadows from the different walls fall upon each other is a small enclosure, as all enclosures had a uniform height. And any other is a large enclosure. Or perhaps: Any enclosure that does not have a series of corners in which the animal could evade capture is a small enclosure, and any other is a large enclosure.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הֲלָכָה, מִכְּלָל דִּפְלִיגִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַאי נָפְקָא לָךְ מִינַּהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ גְּמָרָא גְּמוֹר זְמוֹרְתָּא תְּהֵא?
We learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all enclosures are identical. It depends whether the trapping of the animal is inadequate, in which case one is liable for trapping, or whether the trapping is not inadequate, in which case one is exempt. Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in this matter. Abaye said to him: If you rule the halakha in accordance with his opinion, does that mean by inference that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps there is no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Yosef said to him: What difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. He answered him using a folk expression: Is it simply learn the lesson, let it be like a song? In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? Rather, it is necessary to examine the issue to understand it even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַצָּד צְבִי סוֹמֵא וְיָשֵׁן — חַיָּיב. חִיגֵּר, וְזָקֵן וְחוֹלֶה — פָּטוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי? הָנֵי עֲבִידִי לְרַבּוֹיֵי, הָנֵי לָא עֲבִידִי לְרַבּוֹיֵי. וְהָתַנְיָא: חוֹלֶה חַיָּיב! אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּחוֹלֶה מֵחֲמַת אִישָּׁתָא, הָא בְּחוֹלֶה מֵחֲמַת אוּבְצָנָא.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who traps a deer on Shabbat that is blind or sleeping is liable. One who traps a lame, old, or sick deer is exempt. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is different about these cases and what is different about those cases? Rav Yosef answered: These, the blind or sleeping deer, are likely to run away when they feel that they are being touched; therefore, they require trapping. However, these, the crippled, old, and sick deer, are not likely to run away and are therefore considered to be already trapped. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one who traps a sick deer is liable? Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult. This baraita, in which a sick deer is not considered trapped and one who traps it is liable is referring to a deer that is sick due to a fever, which can still flee; that baraita, in which the deer is considered trapped and one who traps it is exempt is referring to a deer that is sick with fatigue and is incapable of fleeing.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַצָּד חֲגָבִין, גַּזִּין, צְרָעִין וְיַתּוּשִׁין בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל שֶׁבְּמִינוֹ נִיצּוֹד — חַיָּיב, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ נִיצּוֹד — פָּטוּר. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הַצָּד חֲגָבִים בִּשְׁעַת הַטַּל — פָּטוּר, בִּשְׁעַת הַשָּׁרָב — חַיָּיב. אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַהֲבַאי אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיוּ מְקַלְּחוֹת וּבָאוֹת — פָּטוּר. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַהֲבַאי אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי, אוֹ אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי? תָּא שְׁמַע: הַצָּד חֲגָבִין בִּשְׁעַת הַטַּל — פָּטוּר, בִּשְׁעַת הַשָּׁרָב — חַיָּיב, אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן מַהֲבַאי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁעַת הַשָּׁרָב, אִם הָיוּ מְקַלְּחוֹת וּבָאוֹת — פָּטוּר.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One who traps locusts, cicadas, hornets, or mosquitoes on Shabbat is liable. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Not every insect is the same in this matter. If one traps any insect whose species is typically trapped for personal use, he is liable, and if one traps any insect whose species is typically not trapped for personal use, he is exempt. It was taught in another baraita: One who traps locusts when there is dew is exempt. Since it is cold at that time, the locusts are paralyzed. If one traps them when it is hot, he is liable. Elazar ben Mehavai says: If the locusts were swarming, one is exempt for trapping them, because no effort is necessary to apprehend them. A dilemma was raised before them: Does the statement of Elazar ben Mehavai apply to the first clause of the baraita, ruling stringently that one is liable for trapping locusts even when there is dew unless they are swarming; or does it apply to the latter clause of the baraita, ruling leniently that one is exempt when trapping locusts, even in the heat when they are swarming? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma based on a source that addresses the point explicitly: One who traps locusts when there is dew is exempt; one who traps locusts when it is hot is liable. Elazar ben Mehavai says: Even when it is hot, if they were swarming, one is exempt.
מַתְנִי׳ צְבִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לַבַּיִת וְנָעַל אֶחָד בְּפָנָיו — חַיָּיב. נָעֲלוּ שְׁנַיִם — פְּטוּרִין. לֹא יָכוֹל אֶחָד לִנְעוֹל וְנָעֲלוּ שְׁנַיִם — חַיָּיבִין. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר.
MISHNA: If a deer entered a house on its own and one locked the door before it, he is liable for trapping. If two people locked the door, they are exempt, because neither performed a complete labor. If one person is incapable of locking the door and two people locked it, they are liable because that is the typical manner of performing that labor. And Rabbi Shimon deems them exempt as he holds that two people who perform a single labor are never liable by Torah law.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַצָּד אֲרִי בְּשַׁבָּת — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיַּכְנִיסֶנּוּ לַגּוּרְזָקִי שֶׁלּוֹ.
GEMARA: Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Shmuel said: One who traps a lion on Shabbat is not liable for trapping unless he traps it in its cage, and until that point it is not considered trapped.
מַתְנִי׳ יָשַׁב הָאֶחָד עַל הַפֶּתַח וְלֹא מִילְּאָהוּ, יָשַׁב הַשֵּׁנִי וּמִילְּאָהוּ — הַשֵּׁנִי חַיָּיב. יָשַׁב הָרִאשׁוֹן עַל הַפֶּתַח וּמִילְּאָהוּ, וּבָא הַשֵּׁנִי וְיָשַׁב בְּצִידּוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָמַד הָרִאשׁוֹן וְהָלַךְ לוֹ — הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב וְהַשֵּׁנִי פָּטוּר. הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה — לְנוֹעֵל אֶת בֵּיתוֹ לְשׁוֹמְרוֹ וְנִמְצָא צְבִי שָׁמוּר בְּתוֹכוֹ.
MISHNA: If one person sat in the entrance of a courtyard in which there is a deer, but did not fill the entire doorway, and a second person sat and filled it, the second person is liable because he completed the labor of trapping. However, if the first person sat in the doorway and filled it, and a second person came and sat next to him, the first person is liable and the second is exempt even if the first person stood and went away, leaving the second one to secure the deer. The mishna explains: To what is this second person’s action similar? To one who locks his house to secure it, and it turns out a deer that was trapped before Shabbat is also secured inside it. In that case, he is exempt even though he enhances security on the deer, because he did not trap the animal.
Follow
