Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 20, 2020 | 讻状讞 讘住讬讜谉 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 106

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?

讬讚讗讙讜 讻诇 讛讗讞讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖诪转 转讚讗讙 讻诇 讛讞讘讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚诪转 讙讚讜诇 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚诪转 拽讟谉:

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.

讜讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉: 转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜讘诇 讜诪讘注讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 转谞讬 诇讘专讗 讞讜讘诇 讜诪讘注讬专 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讘诇 讘爪专讬讱 诇讻诇讘讜 诪讘注讬专 讘爪专讬讱 诇讗驻专讜

We learned in the mishna: And anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt. Rabbi Abbahu taught this baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: Anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt, except for one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讬转讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬砖专讗 诪讬诇讛 讛讗 讞讜讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Abbahu teach this baraita? Didn鈥檛 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.

讜诪讚讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讘注专讛 讙讘讬 讘转 讻讛谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讘注讬专 讘注诇诪讗 讞讬讬讘

Similarly, from the fact that the Torah prohibited kindling a fire on Shabbat even with regard to the execution by burning of a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery, conclude from it that in general, one who ignites a fire on Shabbat is liable.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 诪转拽谉 讛讜讗 讻讚专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讛 诇讬 诇转拽谉 诪讬诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇转拽谉 讻诇讬 诪讛 诇讬 诇讘砖诇 驻转讬诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇讘砖诇 住诪谞讬谉:

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.

砖讬注讜专 讛诪诇讘谉 讻讜壮: 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞讜讬 讻驻讜诇 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪讞讜讬 驻砖讜讟:

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 岣yya 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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛爪讚 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇 讜爪讘讬 诇讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇

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

讜爪讘讬 诇讙讬谞讛 讜诇讞爪专 讜诇讘讬讘专讬谉 [讞讬讬讘] 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛讘讬讘专讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 驻讟讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 讞讬讬讘:

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.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬谉 爪讚讬谉 讚讙讬诐 诪谉 讛讘讬讘专讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讘诇 爪讚讬谉 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讘讬讘专讬谉 砖诇 讞讬讜转 讜砖诇 注讜驻讜转 讜砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讗讬谉 爪讚讬谉 诪讛诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转 拽砖讬讗 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 拽砖讬讗 注讜驻讜转 讗注讜驻讜转

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘谞谉

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.

讗诇讗 注讜驻讜转 讗注讜驻讜转 拽砖讬讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 注讜驻讜转 讗注讜驻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬讘专 诪拽讜专讛 讛讗 讘讬讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 讜讛讗 讘讬转 讚诪拽讜专讛 讛讜讗 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇 讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 注住拽讬谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 诪专讜转 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讚专讛 讘讘讬转 讻讘砖讚讛 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 拽讟谉

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚专讛讬讟 讘转专讬讛 讜诪讟讬 诇讛 讘讞讚 砖讬讞讬讬讗 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻讬诇 讟讜诇讗 讚讻转诇讬诐 讗讛讚讚讬 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讜拽爪讬 注讜拽爪讬 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇:

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讱 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专讗 讙诪讜专 讝诪讜专转讗 转讛讗

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛爪讚 爪讘讬 住讜诪讗 讜讬砖谉 讞讬讬讘 讞讬讙专 讜讝拽谉 讜讞讜诇讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讛谞讬 注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 讛谞讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讜诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讜诇讛 诪讞诪转 讗讬砖转讗 讛讗 讘讞讜诇讛 诪讞诪转 讗讜讘爪谞讗

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛爪讚 讞讙讘讬谉 讙讝讬谉 爪专注讬谉 讜讬转讜砖讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖讘诪讬谞讜 谞讬爪讜讚 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 谞讬爪讜讚 驻讟讜专 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛爪讚 讞讙讘讬诐 讘砖注转 讛讟诇 驻讟讜专 讘砖注转 讛砖专讘 讞讬讬讘 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 诪讛讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪拽诇讞讜转 讜讘讗讜转 驻讟讜专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 诪讛讘讗讬 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛爪讚 讞讙讘讬谉 讘砖注转 讛讟诇 驻讟讜专 讘砖注转 讛砖专讘 讞讬讬讘 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 诪讛讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 讛砖专讘 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪拽诇讞讜转 讜讘讗讜转 驻讟讜专:

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.

诪转谞讬壮 爪讘讬 砖谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讜谞注诇 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬讜 讞讬讬讘 谞注诇讜 砖谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬讻讜诇 讗讞讚 诇谞注讜诇 讜谞注诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专:

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛爪讚 讗专讬 讘砖讘转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讻谞讬住谞讜 诇讙讜专讝拽讬 砖诇讜:

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖讘 讛讗讞讚 注诇 讛驻转讞 讜诇讗 诪讬诇讗讛讜 讬砖讘 讛砖谞讬 讜诪讬诇讗讛讜 讛砖谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讬砖讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 讛驻转讞 讜诪讬诇讗讛讜 讜讘讗 讛砖谞讬 讜讬砖讘 讘爪讬讚讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖注诪讚 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讛诇讱 诇讜 讛专讗砖讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讛砖谞讬 驻讟讜专 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇谞讜注诇 讗转 讘讬转讜 诇砖讜诪专讜 讜谞诪爪讗 爪讘讬 砖诪讜专 讘转讜讻讜:

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鈥檚 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.

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time – Shabbat 102-109

This week we will learn 2.5 chapters! We will discuss the activity of building and completing items, writing, weaving, sewing,...
ilana k

Breast is Blessed

My baby woke up from his nap today just as I was sitting down to breakfast, and so I decided...

Shabbat 106

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 106

讬讚讗讙讜 讻诇 讛讗讞讬谉 讻讜诇谉 讗讞讚 诪讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 砖诪转 转讚讗讙 讻诇 讛讞讘讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚诪转 讙讚讜诇 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讚诪转 拽讟谉:

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.

讜讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉: 转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜讘诇 讜诪讘注讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 转谞讬 诇讘专讗 讞讜讘诇 讜诪讘注讬专 讗讬谞讛 诪砖谞讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诪砖谞讛 讞讜讘诇 讘爪专讬讱 诇讻诇讘讜 诪讘注讬专 讘爪专讬讱 诇讗驻专讜

We learned in the mishna: And anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt. Rabbi Abbahu taught this baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: Anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt, except for one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讬转讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬砖专讗 诪讬诇讛 讛讗 讞讜讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Abbahu teach this baraita? Didn鈥檛 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.

讜诪讚讗住专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讘注专讛 讙讘讬 讘转 讻讛谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讘注讬专 讘注诇诪讗 讞讬讬讘

Similarly, from the fact that the Torah prohibited kindling a fire on Shabbat even with regard to the execution by burning of a priest鈥檚 daughter who committed adultery, conclude from it that in general, one who ignites a fire on Shabbat is liable.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 诪转拽谉 讛讜讗 讻讚专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讛 诇讬 诇转拽谉 诪讬诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇转拽谉 讻诇讬 诪讛 诇讬 诇讘砖诇 驻转讬诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 诇讘砖诇 住诪谞讬谉:

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.

砖讬注讜专 讛诪诇讘谉 讻讜壮: 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞讜讬 讻驻讜诇 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪讞讜讬 驻砖讜讟:

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 岣yya 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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛爪讚 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇 讜爪讘讬 诇讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇

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

讜爪讘讬 诇讙讬谞讛 讜诇讞爪专 讜诇讘讬讘专讬谉 [讞讬讬讘] 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻诇 讛讘讬讘专讬谉 砖讜讬谉 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 驻讟讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜住专 爪讬讚讛 讞讬讬讘:

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.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬谉 爪讚讬谉 讚讙讬诐 诪谉 讛讘讬讘专讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讘诇 爪讚讬谉 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讘讬讘专讬谉 砖诇 讞讬讜转 讜砖诇 注讜驻讜转 讜砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讗讬谉 爪讚讬谉 诪讛诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讝讜谞讜转 拽砖讬讗 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 拽砖讬讗 注讜驻讜转 讗注讜驻讜转

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘谞谉

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.

讗诇讗 注讜驻讜转 讗注讜驻讜转 拽砖讬讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 注讜驻讜转 讗注讜驻讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬讘专 诪拽讜专讛 讛讗 讘讬讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜专讛 讜讛讗 讘讬转 讚诪拽讜专讛 讛讜讗 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 爪驻讜专 诇诪讙讚诇 讗讬谉 诇讘讬转 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 注住拽讬谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇转 诪专讜转 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讛 爪驻讜专 讚专讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讚专讛 讘讘讬转 讻讘砖讚讛 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讞讬讛 讗讞讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讛讗 讘讘讬讘专 拽讟谉

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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚专讛讬讟 讘转专讬讛 讜诪讟讬 诇讛 讘讞讚 砖讬讞讬讬讗 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻讬诇 讟讜诇讗 讚讻转诇讬诐 讗讛讚讚讬 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讜拽爪讬 注讜拽爪讬 讘讬讘专 拽讟谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讘讬讘专 讙讚讜诇:

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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讛 诪讻诇诇 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讱 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专讗 讙诪讜专 讝诪讜专转讗 转讛讗

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛爪讚 爪讘讬 住讜诪讗 讜讬砖谉 讞讬讬讘 讞讬讙专 讜讝拽谉 讜讞讜诇讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讛谞讬 注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 讛谞讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 诇专讘讜讬讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讜诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讞讜诇讛 诪讞诪转 讗讬砖转讗 讛讗 讘讞讜诇讛 诪讞诪转 讗讜讘爪谞讗

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鈥檛 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛爪讚 讞讙讘讬谉 讙讝讬谉 爪专注讬谉 讜讬转讜砖讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 砖讘诪讬谞讜 谞讬爪讜讚 讞讬讬讘 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 谞讬爪讜讚 驻讟讜专 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛爪讚 讞讙讘讬诐 讘砖注转 讛讟诇 驻讟讜专 讘砖注转 讛砖专讘 讞讬讬讘 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 诪讛讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪拽诇讞讜转 讜讘讗讜转 驻讟讜专 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 诪讛讘讗讬 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讗讜 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛爪讚 讞讙讘讬谉 讘砖注转 讛讟诇 驻讟讜专 讘砖注转 讛砖专讘 讞讬讬讘 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 诪讛讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注转 讛砖专讘 讗诐 讛讬讜 诪拽诇讞讜转 讜讘讗讜转 驻讟讜专:

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.

诪转谞讬壮 爪讘讬 砖谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讜谞注诇 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬讜 讞讬讬讘 谞注诇讜 砖谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诇讗 讬讻讜诇 讗讞讚 诇谞注讜诇 讜谞注诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专:

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛爪讚 讗专讬 讘砖讘转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讻谞讬住谞讜 诇讙讜专讝拽讬 砖诇讜:

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖讘 讛讗讞讚 注诇 讛驻转讞 讜诇讗 诪讬诇讗讛讜 讬砖讘 讛砖谞讬 讜诪讬诇讗讛讜 讛砖谞讬 讞讬讬讘 讬砖讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 讛驻转讞 讜诪讬诇讗讛讜 讜讘讗 讛砖谞讬 讜讬砖讘 讘爪讬讚讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖注诪讚 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讛诇讱 诇讜 讛专讗砖讜谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讛砖谞讬 驻讟讜专 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讚讜诪讛 诇谞讜注诇 讗转 讘讬转讜 诇砖讜诪专讜 讜谞诪爪讗 爪讘讬 砖诪讜专 讘转讜讻讜:

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鈥檚 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.

Scroll To Top