Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 21, 2020 | כ״ט בסיון תש״פ

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.

Shabbat 107

Today’s daf is sponsored by Dr. Robin Zeiger and Professor Jonathan Ben-Ezra in honor of their daughter Bracha, of whom they are so proud that she is giving a siyum on Maseachet Taanit. And by Lillian Cohen in memory of her father Kurt Philipp, David ben Tzvi, z”l on what would have been his 91st birthday. And in honor of Father’s Day by Carolyn Benger in honor of her father, Bernhard Benger (Dov ben Zvi). “He was my first teacher and opened my eyes to Torah. I miss you everyday, Daddy, and am thinking of you this Father’s Day.” And in honor of Paul Gompers, an exemplary Dad in every way. Love, Sivan, Annika and Zoe. And in honor of Adam Cohen from his children. Your dedication to learning Daf Yomi as well as living a true Torah lifestyle is truly inspiring. We love you so much. Love, Max Hannah Sam and Celia.

If an animal or bird are already captured, one can prevent it from getting out and keep it captured. What are the three known cases where the tannaim say “one is exempt” and they mean that it is permitted even by Torah law? According to the mishna, if one captures one of the eight creeply crawling creatures listed in the Torah (whose dead bodies carry impurities) or injures it, one is obligated and any others one is exempt. Why? There is a debate in the gemara whether this is only according to Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri or the rabbis also? Rav thinks it is also the rabbis (they only disagree regarding impurity, not Shabbat). The gemara questions this opinion from two tanaitic sources which imply that they disagree also about Shabbat. From where do we learn what defines “an injury” that one would be obligated for? Other creatures according to the mishna, one is exempt for capturing or injuring – this would imply that they would be obligated for killing them. Is that a subject of debate or do all agree? If one captures a creature not for its own purpose but to prevent it from bothering or some other reason, one is exempt, according to the mishna. This is according to Rabbi Shimon who exempt in a case of melacha seaina tzricha legufa.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אבא אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב נכנסה לו צפור תחת כנפיו יושב ומשמרו עד שתחשך מתיב רב נחמן בר יצחק ישב הראשון על הפתח ומלאהו ובא השני וישב בצדו אף על פי שעמד הראשון והלך לו הראשון חייב והשני פטור מאי לאו פטור אבל אסור לא פטור ומותר הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני סיפא למה זה דומה לנועל את ביתו לשומרו ונמצא צבי שמור בתוכו מכלל דפטור ומותר שמע מינה

GEMARA: Rabbi Abba said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: If a bird flew under the flaps of one’s clothing on Shabbat and cannot get out, he may sit and secure it until dark and then take it. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raised an objection based on that which we learned in the mishna: 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. What, does this not mean here, as it does throughout tractate Shabbat, that he is exempt after the fact, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio? How then could Rav say one may sit and secure the bird ab initio? The Gemara rejects this: No, the statement in the mishna means that he is exempt and it is permitted ab initio. The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to explain the mishna that way from the fact that it was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: 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. By inference, he is exempt and it is permitted, just like one who locks the door to his house. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that it is so.

איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אף אנן נמי תנינא אף על פי שעמד הראשון והלך לו הראשון חייב והשני פטור מאי לאו פטור ומותר לא פטור אבל אסור הא מדקתני סיפא הא למה זה דומה לנועל את ביתו לשומרו ונמצא צבי שמור בתוכו מכלל דפטור ומותר שמע מינה

Some say a slightly different version. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too learned support for Rav’s statement in the mishna: Even if the first person stood and went, the first person is liable and the second is exempt. What, does this not mean that he is exempt, and it is permitted? The Gemara rejects this: No, he is exempt and it is prohibited. Rav Naḥman said: That is impossible, from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: 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. By inference, he is exempt and it is permitted, just like one who locks the door to his house. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that it is so.

אמר שמואל כל פטורי דשבת פטור אבל אסור לבר מהני תלת דפטור ומותר חדא הא וממאי דפטור ומותר דקתני סיפא למה זה דומה לנועל את ביתו לשומרו ונמצא צבי שמור בתוכו ואידך המפיס מורסא בשבת אם לעשות לה פה חייב אם להוציא ממנה לחה פטור וממאי דפטור ומותר דתנן מחט של יד ליטול בה את הקוץ ואידך הצד נחש בשבת אם מתעסק בו שלא ישכנו פטור אם לרפואה חייב וממאי דפטור ומותר דתנן כופין קערה על הנר בשביל שלא תאחוז בקורה ועל צואה של קטן ועל עקרב שלא תישך:

With regard to this issue Shmuel said: With regard to all exempt rulings in the halakhot of Shabbat, although one who performs the action is exempt by Torah law, his action is prohibited by rabbinic law, with the exception of these three for which he is exempt and it is permitted to perform the action.
One is this case of the deer. And from what source do we conclude that one is exempt and it is permitted? From the fact that it was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: 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.
And another example where he is exempt and it is permitted is: One who drains an abscess containing pus on Shabbat, if he did so to create a permanent opening in it, he is liable. However, if he did so to drain fluid from it, he is exempt. And from what source do we conclude that one is exempt and it is permitted? As we learned in a mishna: A hand needle used for sewing clothes may be moved on Shabbat to remove a thorn. Apparently, removing a thorn on Shabbat is permitted ab initio to the extent that one is even permitted to move a needle for that purpose.
And another case is: One who traps a snake on Shabbat, if he deals with it so that it will not bite him and in doing so traps it, he is exempt. However, if he traps it for medicinal purposes, he is liable. And from what source do we conclude that one is exempt and it is permitted? As we learned in a mishna: One may overturn a bowl on top of a lamp ab initio on Shabbat so that the fire will not take hold in the ceiling beam; and similarly, one may overturn a bowl on top of a child’s feces so that he will not touch it and dirty himself, and on top of a scorpion so it will not bite, and the ruling is the same with regard to a snake.

הדרן עלך האורג

 

מתני׳ שמנה שרצים האמורים בתורה הצדן והחובל בהן חייב ושאר שקצים ורמשים החובל בהן פטור הצדן לצורך חייב שלא לצורך פטור חיה ועוף שברשותו הצדן פטור והחובל בהן חייב:

MISHNA: With regard to any of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah, one who traps them or wounds them on Shabbat is liable. The Torah states: “The following shall be impure for you among the creeping animals that swarm upon the earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the dab lizard of every variety; and the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the skink, and the chameleon” (Leviticus 11:29–30). With regard to other abominations and crawling things, one who wounds them is exempt. One who traps them for a specific need is liable; one who traps them for no specific need is exempt. With regard to animals or birds that are in his possession, i.e., an animal that is domesticated and under someone’s control, one who traps them is exempt; and, however, one who wounds them is liable.

גמ׳ מדקתני החובל בהן חייב מכלל דאית להו עור מאן תנא אמר שמואל רבי יוחנן בן נורי היא דתנן רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר שמנה שרצים יש להן עורות רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי יוחנן בן נורי אלא לענין טומאה דכתיב אלה הטמאים לכם לרבות שעורותיהן כבשרן אבל לענין שבת אפילו רבנן מודו

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From the fact that it is taught in the mishna: One who wounds them is liable, by inference they have skins. One is liable for inflicting a wound only when there is skin covering the flesh and the blood pools beneath it. Who is the tanna who teaches this? Shmuel said: It is Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: The eight creeping animals that are listed in the Torah have skins. Their flesh transmits impurity, but their skin does not transmit impurity. The Rabbis say that both the skin and the flesh of some creeping animals transmit impurity. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri only with regard to the matter of impurity, as it is written after the Torah lists the creeping animals: “Those are for you the impure among the creeping animals, whoever touches them when they are dead shall become impure until evening” (Leviticus 11:31). The Rabbis derive from the extraneous term: “Those are for you the impure,” to include the fact that the skins of the creatures in the second verse transmit impurity just as their flesh does. However, with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, even the Rabbis concede that their skin is distinct from their flesh.

ולענין שבת לא פליגי והתניא הצד אחד משמנה שרצים האמורים בתורה החובל בהן חייב דברי רבי יוחנן בן נורי וחכמים אומרים אין עור אלא

The Gemara asks: And, with regard to Shabbat, they do not disagree? Wasn’t the following taught in a baraita? One who traps one of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah or one who wounds them is liable; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. And the Rabbis say: The term skin is utilized only

למה שמנו חכמים אדרבה למה שמנו חכמים אין להם עור ואמר אביי הכי קאמר אין עור חלוק מבשר אלא למה שלא מנו חכמים אמר ליה רבא הא למה שמנו חכמים קאמר אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר אין עור מטמא כבשר אלא למה שמנו חכמים מכלל דרבי יוחנן בן נורי הנך נמי דלא מנו חכמים מטמאין והא קתני רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר שמנה שרצים יש להן עורות ולא מטמאין [אמר רב] אדא בר מתנה תריץ הכי וחכמים אומרים לענין טומאה אין עור למה שמנו חכמים

with regard to those animals enumerated by the Sages as having skin, since their skin is considered by the Sages to be similar to their flesh. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, those that the Sages enumerated, whose skin and flesh are equated, do not have skins. And Abaye said: This is what the tanna in the baraita is saying: Only those that the Sages did not enumerate have skin discrete from their flesh. Rava said to him: Doesn’t the baraita say the opposite: That those enumerated by the Sages have skin discrete from their flesh? Rather, Rava said: This is what the baraita is saying: Only the skin of those animals enumerated by the Sages transmits impurity like flesh. The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds that even the creeping animals not enumerated by the Sages also transmit impurity? Isn’t the opposite taught, that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: The eight creeping animals have skin that does not transmit impurity? Rav Adda bar Mattana said to resolve it this way: And the Rabbis say: With regard to impurity, those animals enumerated by the Sages do not have skin. According to this explanation, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to the laws of impurity.

ואכתי לענין שבת לא פליגי והתניא הצד אחד משמנה שרצים האמורים בתורה החובל בהן חייב בשרצים שיש להן עורות ואיזו היא חבורה שאינה חוזרת נצרר הדם אף על פי שלא יצא רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר שמנה שרצים יש להן עורות

But still, is it clear that they do not disagree with regard to the matter of Shabbat? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who traps one of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah on Shabbat is liable, as is one who wounds them, if they are creeping animals that have skins? And what is considered to be an irreversible wound? It is a wound where the blood collects in a single spot beneath the skin, even if it does not emerge. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: The eight creeping animals have skins. Apparently, there is disagreement with regard to Shabbat as well.

אמר רב אשי מאן תנא קמא רבי יהודה דאזיל בתר גישתא דתנן רבי יהודה אומר הלטאה כחולדה אבל רבנן דפליגי עליה דרבי יוחנן לענין טומאה לענין שבת מודו ליה אי הכי האי דברי רבי יוחנן בן נורי דברי רבי יוחנן ומחלוקתו מיבעי ליה תני דברי רבי יוחנן בן נורי ומחלוקתו

Rav Ashi said: Who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who follows the texture of the skin. He does not distinguish between those creeping animals whose skin is considered like flesh and those whose skin is discrete from the flesh as the verses may imply; rather, creeping animals are distinguished based on the texture of their skin, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even though the lizard is mentioned in the verse, it has the same ruling as the weasel because the weasel has skin discrete from its flesh. However, the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to impurity, concede with regard to Shabbat and hold that all creeping animals have skins. The Gemara asks: If so, the phrase in the baraita: This is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, is difficult. It should have said: This is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and those who disagree with him, as the Rabbis who disagree with him with regard to impurity concede to him with regard to the laws of Shabbat. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Emend the baraita and teach: The statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and those who disagree with him.

בעא מיניה לוי מרבי מנין לחבורה שאינה חוזרת דכתיב היהפוך כושי עורו ונמר חברברתיו מאי חברברתיו אילימא דקאי ריקמי ריקמי האי ונמר חברברתיו נמר גווניו מבעי ליה אלא ככושי מה עורו דכושי אינה חוזרת אף חבורה אינה חוזרת:

Levi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: From where is it derived that a wound is defined as something irreversible? He answered him that it is derived as it is written: “Can a Cushite change his skin, or a leopard its spots [ḥavarburotav]?” (Jeremiah 13:23). The Gemara explains: What does ḥavarburotav mean? If you say that they are spotted marks on the leopard’s skin, that phrase: Or a leopard its spots, should have been: Or a leopard its colors. Rather, ḥavarburotav means wounds, and they are similar to the skin of a Cushite: Just like the skin of a Cushite will not change its color to white, so too a wound is something that does not reverse.

ושאר שקצים כו׳: הא הורגן חייב מאן תנא אמר רבי ירמיה רבי אליעזר היא דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר ההורג כינה בשבת כהורג גמל בשבת מתקיף לה רב יוסף עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר אלא בכינה דאינה פרה ורבה אבל שאר שקצים ורמשים דפרין ורבין לא פליגי

We learned in the mishna: And one who traps other abominations is exempt. The Gemara infers: If one kills them he is liable. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds this opinion? Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: One who kills lice on Shabbat is akin to one who kills a camel on Shabbat. Apparently, he is the Sage who holds that one is liable for killing any living creature. Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: Perhaps this is not so, as the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to lice, which do not procreate. However, with regard to other abominations and crawling things that procreate, they do not disagree with him.

ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מאילים רבי אליעזר סבר כאילים מה אילים שיש בהן נטילת נשמה אף כל שיש בו נטילת נשמה ורבנן סברי כאילים מה אילים דפרין ורבין אף כל דפרה ורבה אמר ליה אביי וכינה אין פרה ורבה והאמר מר יושב הקדוש ברוך הוא וזן מקרני ראמים ועד ביצי כינים מינא הוא דמיקרי ביצי כינים

And fundamentally they both derived this halakha from the reddened ram skins used to cover the Tabernacle. Rabbi Eliezer holds that liability for killing an animal on Shabbat exists only with regard to animals like rams. Just as rams have their lives taken and die, so too, one is liable for killing any animal whose life is taken, including lice. And the Rabbis also hold that liability for killing an animal on Shabbat exists only with regard to animals like rams. Just as rams procreate, so too, one is liable for killing any creature that procreates. One is not liable for killing lice, which do not procreate. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And lice do not procreate? Didn’t the Master say: The Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and sustains everything from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of lice? Apparently, lice reproduce by laying eggs. Rav Yosef answered him: There is a species of insect that is called lice eggs, but lice themselves do not actually lay eggs.

והתניא טפויי וביצי כינים מינא הוא דמיקרי ביצי כינים והרי פרעוש דפרה ורבה ותניא הצד פרעוש בשבת רבי אליעזר מחייב ורבי יהושע פוטר אמר רב אשי צידה אהריגה קרמית עד כאן לא פליגי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע אלא דמר סבר דבר שאין במינו ניצוד חייב ומר סבר פטור אבל לענין הריגה אפילו רבי יהושע מודה:

Again he asked: And wasn’t it taught in the baraita that lists types of creeping animals: Tefuyei, a type of insect, and lice eggs? He answered him: There is a species of insect called lice eggs. Again he asked: And still, there is the issue of a flea, which procreates according to all opinions, and nevertheless, it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who traps a flea on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable and Rabbi Yehoshua deems him exempt. Rav Ashi said: Are you raising a contradiction between trapping with killing? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree only in that one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that one is liable for trapping even a species that is not typically trapped; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, holds that one is exempt in that case. However, with regard to killing, even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that one is liable.

הצדן לצורך חייב וכו׳: מאן תנא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב רבי שמעון היא דאמר מלאכה שאין צריכה לגופה פטור עליה

We learned in the mishna that one who traps creeping animals for a specific need is liable, but one who traps them for no specific need is exempt. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds this way? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who said that for a prohibited labor performed not for its own sake, one is exempt.

איכא דמתני לה אהא המפיס מורסא בשבת אם לעשות לה פה חייב אם להוציא ממנה לחה פטור מאן תנא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב רבי שמעון היא דאמר מלאכה שאין צריכה לגופה פטור עליה

Some taught the statement of Rav in reference to this: With regard to one who drains an abscess in a boil containing pus on Shabbat, if his intention is to create an opening for it he is liable; if his intention is to remove pus from it he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds this way? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who said that for a prohibited labor performed not for its own sake, one is exempt.

ואיכא דמתני לה אהא הצד נחש בשבת אם מתעסק בו שלא ישכנו פטור אם לרפואה חייב מאן תנא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב רבי שמעון היא דאמר מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור עליה

Some teach the statement of Rav as referring to this: With regard to one who traps a snake on Shabbat, if he engages in its trapping so it does not bite him, he is exempt; if he does so for medicinal purposes he is liable. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds this way? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who said that for a prohibited labor performed not for its own sake, one is exempt.

אמר שמואל השולה דג מן הים כיון שיבש בו כסלע חייב אמר רבי יוסי בר אבין ובין סנפיריו אמר רב אשי לא תימא יבש ממש אלא אפילו דעבד רירי

Shmuel said: With regard to one who removes a fish from the sea, when an area on the skin of the fish has dried up the size of a sela, he is liable. A fish in that condition cannot survive, and therefore the individual who removed it from the water is liable for killing it. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: That is so as long as the skin that dried is between its fins. Rav Ashi said: Do not say that this halakha applies only in a case where it actually dried. Rather, it applies even if the fish has dried to the extent that mucus has formed, and if one were to touch that area it would stick to his fingers.

אמר מר בר המדורי אמר שמואל הושיט ידו למעי בהמה ודלדל עובר שבמעיה חייב מאי טעמא אמר רבא בר המדורי אסברא לי לאו אמר רב ששת האי מאן דתלש כשותא מהיזמי והיגי מיחייב משום עוקר דבר מגידולו הכא נמי מיחייב משום עוקר דבר מגידולו אמר אביי האי מאן דתלש

Mar bar Hamdurei said that Shmuel said: One who reached his hand into the innards of an animal on Shabbat and detached a fetus that was in its womb is liable. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? It does not make sense to consider the fetus as a full-fledged living creature. Rava said: Bar Hamdurei explained this to me. Didn’t Rav Sheshet say: One who detaches hops on Shabbat from the shrubs and thorns on which they are growing is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth? Here, too, in the case of the fetus, one is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth. Abaye said: One who detached

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.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

One week at a time

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 107

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 107

גמ׳ אמר רבי אבא אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב נכנסה לו צפור תחת כנפיו יושב ומשמרו עד שתחשך מתיב רב נחמן בר יצחק ישב הראשון על הפתח ומלאהו ובא השני וישב בצדו אף על פי שעמד הראשון והלך לו הראשון חייב והשני פטור מאי לאו פטור אבל אסור לא פטור ומותר הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני סיפא למה זה דומה לנועל את ביתו לשומרו ונמצא צבי שמור בתוכו מכלל דפטור ומותר שמע מינה

GEMARA: Rabbi Abba said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: If a bird flew under the flaps of one’s clothing on Shabbat and cannot get out, he may sit and secure it until dark and then take it. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raised an objection based on that which we learned in the mishna: 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. What, does this not mean here, as it does throughout tractate Shabbat, that he is exempt after the fact, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio? How then could Rav say one may sit and secure the bird ab initio? The Gemara rejects this: No, the statement in the mishna means that he is exempt and it is permitted ab initio. The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to explain the mishna that way from the fact that it was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: 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. By inference, he is exempt and it is permitted, just like one who locks the door to his house. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that it is so.

איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אף אנן נמי תנינא אף על פי שעמד הראשון והלך לו הראשון חייב והשני פטור מאי לאו פטור ומותר לא פטור אבל אסור הא מדקתני סיפא הא למה זה דומה לנועל את ביתו לשומרו ונמצא צבי שמור בתוכו מכלל דפטור ומותר שמע מינה

Some say a slightly different version. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too learned support for Rav’s statement in the mishna: Even if the first person stood and went, the first person is liable and the second is exempt. What, does this not mean that he is exempt, and it is permitted? The Gemara rejects this: No, he is exempt and it is prohibited. Rav Naḥman said: That is impossible, from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: 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. By inference, he is exempt and it is permitted, just like one who locks the door to his house. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that it is so.

אמר שמואל כל פטורי דשבת פטור אבל אסור לבר מהני תלת דפטור ומותר חדא הא וממאי דפטור ומותר דקתני סיפא למה זה דומה לנועל את ביתו לשומרו ונמצא צבי שמור בתוכו ואידך המפיס מורסא בשבת אם לעשות לה פה חייב אם להוציא ממנה לחה פטור וממאי דפטור ומותר דתנן מחט של יד ליטול בה את הקוץ ואידך הצד נחש בשבת אם מתעסק בו שלא ישכנו פטור אם לרפואה חייב וממאי דפטור ומותר דתנן כופין קערה על הנר בשביל שלא תאחוז בקורה ועל צואה של קטן ועל עקרב שלא תישך:

With regard to this issue Shmuel said: With regard to all exempt rulings in the halakhot of Shabbat, although one who performs the action is exempt by Torah law, his action is prohibited by rabbinic law, with the exception of these three for which he is exempt and it is permitted to perform the action.
One is this case of the deer. And from what source do we conclude that one is exempt and it is permitted? From the fact that it was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: 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.
And another example where he is exempt and it is permitted is: One who drains an abscess containing pus on Shabbat, if he did so to create a permanent opening in it, he is liable. However, if he did so to drain fluid from it, he is exempt. And from what source do we conclude that one is exempt and it is permitted? As we learned in a mishna: A hand needle used for sewing clothes may be moved on Shabbat to remove a thorn. Apparently, removing a thorn on Shabbat is permitted ab initio to the extent that one is even permitted to move a needle for that purpose.
And another case is: One who traps a snake on Shabbat, if he deals with it so that it will not bite him and in doing so traps it, he is exempt. However, if he traps it for medicinal purposes, he is liable. And from what source do we conclude that one is exempt and it is permitted? As we learned in a mishna: One may overturn a bowl on top of a lamp ab initio on Shabbat so that the fire will not take hold in the ceiling beam; and similarly, one may overturn a bowl on top of a child’s feces so that he will not touch it and dirty himself, and on top of a scorpion so it will not bite, and the ruling is the same with regard to a snake.

הדרן עלך האורג

 

מתני׳ שמנה שרצים האמורים בתורה הצדן והחובל בהן חייב ושאר שקצים ורמשים החובל בהן פטור הצדן לצורך חייב שלא לצורך פטור חיה ועוף שברשותו הצדן פטור והחובל בהן חייב:

MISHNA: With regard to any of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah, one who traps them or wounds them on Shabbat is liable. The Torah states: “The following shall be impure for you among the creeping animals that swarm upon the earth: The weasel, and the mouse, and the dab lizard of every variety; and the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the skink, and the chameleon” (Leviticus 11:29–30). With regard to other abominations and crawling things, one who wounds them is exempt. One who traps them for a specific need is liable; one who traps them for no specific need is exempt. With regard to animals or birds that are in his possession, i.e., an animal that is domesticated and under someone’s control, one who traps them is exempt; and, however, one who wounds them is liable.

גמ׳ מדקתני החובל בהן חייב מכלל דאית להו עור מאן תנא אמר שמואל רבי יוחנן בן נורי היא דתנן רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר שמנה שרצים יש להן עורות רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב אפילו תימא רבנן עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי יוחנן בן נורי אלא לענין טומאה דכתיב אלה הטמאים לכם לרבות שעורותיהן כבשרן אבל לענין שבת אפילו רבנן מודו

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From the fact that it is taught in the mishna: One who wounds them is liable, by inference they have skins. One is liable for inflicting a wound only when there is skin covering the flesh and the blood pools beneath it. Who is the tanna who teaches this? Shmuel said: It is Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: The eight creeping animals that are listed in the Torah have skins. Their flesh transmits impurity, but their skin does not transmit impurity. The Rabbis say that both the skin and the flesh of some creeping animals transmit impurity. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri only with regard to the matter of impurity, as it is written after the Torah lists the creeping animals: “Those are for you the impure among the creeping animals, whoever touches them when they are dead shall become impure until evening” (Leviticus 11:31). The Rabbis derive from the extraneous term: “Those are for you the impure,” to include the fact that the skins of the creatures in the second verse transmit impurity just as their flesh does. However, with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, even the Rabbis concede that their skin is distinct from their flesh.

ולענין שבת לא פליגי והתניא הצד אחד משמנה שרצים האמורים בתורה החובל בהן חייב דברי רבי יוחנן בן נורי וחכמים אומרים אין עור אלא

The Gemara asks: And, with regard to Shabbat, they do not disagree? Wasn’t the following taught in a baraita? One who traps one of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah or one who wounds them is liable; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. And the Rabbis say: The term skin is utilized only

למה שמנו חכמים אדרבה למה שמנו חכמים אין להם עור ואמר אביי הכי קאמר אין עור חלוק מבשר אלא למה שלא מנו חכמים אמר ליה רבא הא למה שמנו חכמים קאמר אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר אין עור מטמא כבשר אלא למה שמנו חכמים מכלל דרבי יוחנן בן נורי הנך נמי דלא מנו חכמים מטמאין והא קתני רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר שמנה שרצים יש להן עורות ולא מטמאין [אמר רב] אדא בר מתנה תריץ הכי וחכמים אומרים לענין טומאה אין עור למה שמנו חכמים

with regard to those animals enumerated by the Sages as having skin, since their skin is considered by the Sages to be similar to their flesh. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, those that the Sages enumerated, whose skin and flesh are equated, do not have skins. And Abaye said: This is what the tanna in the baraita is saying: Only those that the Sages did not enumerate have skin discrete from their flesh. Rava said to him: Doesn’t the baraita say the opposite: That those enumerated by the Sages have skin discrete from their flesh? Rather, Rava said: This is what the baraita is saying: Only the skin of those animals enumerated by the Sages transmits impurity like flesh. The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds that even the creeping animals not enumerated by the Sages also transmit impurity? Isn’t the opposite taught, that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: The eight creeping animals have skin that does not transmit impurity? Rav Adda bar Mattana said to resolve it this way: And the Rabbis say: With regard to impurity, those animals enumerated by the Sages do not have skin. According to this explanation, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to the laws of impurity.

ואכתי לענין שבת לא פליגי והתניא הצד אחד משמנה שרצים האמורים בתורה החובל בהן חייב בשרצים שיש להן עורות ואיזו היא חבורה שאינה חוזרת נצרר הדם אף על פי שלא יצא רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר שמנה שרצים יש להן עורות

But still, is it clear that they do not disagree with regard to the matter of Shabbat? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who traps one of the eight creeping animals mentioned in the Torah on Shabbat is liable, as is one who wounds them, if they are creeping animals that have skins? And what is considered to be an irreversible wound? It is a wound where the blood collects in a single spot beneath the skin, even if it does not emerge. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: The eight creeping animals have skins. Apparently, there is disagreement with regard to Shabbat as well.

אמר רב אשי מאן תנא קמא רבי יהודה דאזיל בתר גישתא דתנן רבי יהודה אומר הלטאה כחולדה אבל רבנן דפליגי עליה דרבי יוחנן לענין טומאה לענין שבת מודו ליה אי הכי האי דברי רבי יוחנן בן נורי דברי רבי יוחנן ומחלוקתו מיבעי ליה תני דברי רבי יוחנן בן נורי ומחלוקתו

Rav Ashi said: Who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who follows the texture of the skin. He does not distinguish between those creeping animals whose skin is considered like flesh and those whose skin is discrete from the flesh as the verses may imply; rather, creeping animals are distinguished based on the texture of their skin, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even though the lizard is mentioned in the verse, it has the same ruling as the weasel because the weasel has skin discrete from its flesh. However, the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan with regard to impurity, concede with regard to Shabbat and hold that all creeping animals have skins. The Gemara asks: If so, the phrase in the baraita: This is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, is difficult. It should have said: This is the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and those who disagree with him, as the Rabbis who disagree with him with regard to impurity concede to him with regard to the laws of Shabbat. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Emend the baraita and teach: The statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri and those who disagree with him.

בעא מיניה לוי מרבי מנין לחבורה שאינה חוזרת דכתיב היהפוך כושי עורו ונמר חברברתיו מאי חברברתיו אילימא דקאי ריקמי ריקמי האי ונמר חברברתיו נמר גווניו מבעי ליה אלא ככושי מה עורו דכושי אינה חוזרת אף חבורה אינה חוזרת:

Levi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: From where is it derived that a wound is defined as something irreversible? He answered him that it is derived as it is written: “Can a Cushite change his skin, or a leopard its spots [ḥavarburotav]?” (Jeremiah 13:23). The Gemara explains: What does ḥavarburotav mean? If you say that they are spotted marks on the leopard’s skin, that phrase: Or a leopard its spots, should have been: Or a leopard its colors. Rather, ḥavarburotav means wounds, and they are similar to the skin of a Cushite: Just like the skin of a Cushite will not change its color to white, so too a wound is something that does not reverse.

ושאר שקצים כו׳: הא הורגן חייב מאן תנא אמר רבי ירמיה רבי אליעזר היא דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר ההורג כינה בשבת כהורג גמל בשבת מתקיף לה רב יוסף עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה דרבי אליעזר אלא בכינה דאינה פרה ורבה אבל שאר שקצים ורמשים דפרין ורבין לא פליגי

We learned in the mishna: And one who traps other abominations is exempt. The Gemara infers: If one kills them he is liable. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds this opinion? Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: One who kills lice on Shabbat is akin to one who kills a camel on Shabbat. Apparently, he is the Sage who holds that one is liable for killing any living creature. Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: Perhaps this is not so, as the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to lice, which do not procreate. However, with regard to other abominations and crawling things that procreate, they do not disagree with him.

ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מאילים רבי אליעזר סבר כאילים מה אילים שיש בהן נטילת נשמה אף כל שיש בו נטילת נשמה ורבנן סברי כאילים מה אילים דפרין ורבין אף כל דפרה ורבה אמר ליה אביי וכינה אין פרה ורבה והאמר מר יושב הקדוש ברוך הוא וזן מקרני ראמים ועד ביצי כינים מינא הוא דמיקרי ביצי כינים

And fundamentally they both derived this halakha from the reddened ram skins used to cover the Tabernacle. Rabbi Eliezer holds that liability for killing an animal on Shabbat exists only with regard to animals like rams. Just as rams have their lives taken and die, so too, one is liable for killing any animal whose life is taken, including lice. And the Rabbis also hold that liability for killing an animal on Shabbat exists only with regard to animals like rams. Just as rams procreate, so too, one is liable for killing any creature that procreates. One is not liable for killing lice, which do not procreate. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And lice do not procreate? Didn’t the Master say: The Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and sustains everything from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of lice? Apparently, lice reproduce by laying eggs. Rav Yosef answered him: There is a species of insect that is called lice eggs, but lice themselves do not actually lay eggs.

והתניא טפויי וביצי כינים מינא הוא דמיקרי ביצי כינים והרי פרעוש דפרה ורבה ותניא הצד פרעוש בשבת רבי אליעזר מחייב ורבי יהושע פוטר אמר רב אשי צידה אהריגה קרמית עד כאן לא פליגי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע אלא דמר סבר דבר שאין במינו ניצוד חייב ומר סבר פטור אבל לענין הריגה אפילו רבי יהושע מודה:

Again he asked: And wasn’t it taught in the baraita that lists types of creeping animals: Tefuyei, a type of insect, and lice eggs? He answered him: There is a species of insect called lice eggs. Again he asked: And still, there is the issue of a flea, which procreates according to all opinions, and nevertheless, it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who traps a flea on Shabbat, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable and Rabbi Yehoshua deems him exempt. Rav Ashi said: Are you raising a contradiction between trapping with killing? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree only in that one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that one is liable for trapping even a species that is not typically trapped; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, holds that one is exempt in that case. However, with regard to killing, even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that one is liable.

הצדן לצורך חייב וכו׳: מאן תנא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב רבי שמעון היא דאמר מלאכה שאין צריכה לגופה פטור עליה

We learned in the mishna that one who traps creeping animals for a specific need is liable, but one who traps them for no specific need is exempt. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds this way? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who said that for a prohibited labor performed not for its own sake, one is exempt.

איכא דמתני לה אהא המפיס מורסא בשבת אם לעשות לה פה חייב אם להוציא ממנה לחה פטור מאן תנא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב רבי שמעון היא דאמר מלאכה שאין צריכה לגופה פטור עליה

Some taught the statement of Rav in reference to this: With regard to one who drains an abscess in a boil containing pus on Shabbat, if his intention is to create an opening for it he is liable; if his intention is to remove pus from it he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds this way? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who said that for a prohibited labor performed not for its own sake, one is exempt.

ואיכא דמתני לה אהא הצד נחש בשבת אם מתעסק בו שלא ישכנו פטור אם לרפואה חייב מאן תנא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב רבי שמעון היא דאמר מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה פטור עליה

Some teach the statement of Rav as referring to this: With regard to one who traps a snake on Shabbat, if he engages in its trapping so it does not bite him, he is exempt; if he does so for medicinal purposes he is liable. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds this way? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is Rabbi Shimon, who said that for a prohibited labor performed not for its own sake, one is exempt.

אמר שמואל השולה דג מן הים כיון שיבש בו כסלע חייב אמר רבי יוסי בר אבין ובין סנפיריו אמר רב אשי לא תימא יבש ממש אלא אפילו דעבד רירי

Shmuel said: With regard to one who removes a fish from the sea, when an area on the skin of the fish has dried up the size of a sela, he is liable. A fish in that condition cannot survive, and therefore the individual who removed it from the water is liable for killing it. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said: That is so as long as the skin that dried is between its fins. Rav Ashi said: Do not say that this halakha applies only in a case where it actually dried. Rather, it applies even if the fish has dried to the extent that mucus has formed, and if one were to touch that area it would stick to his fingers.

אמר מר בר המדורי אמר שמואל הושיט ידו למעי בהמה ודלדל עובר שבמעיה חייב מאי טעמא אמר רבא בר המדורי אסברא לי לאו אמר רב ששת האי מאן דתלש כשותא מהיזמי והיגי מיחייב משום עוקר דבר מגידולו הכא נמי מיחייב משום עוקר דבר מגידולו אמר אביי האי מאן דתלש

Mar bar Hamdurei said that Shmuel said: One who reached his hand into the innards of an animal on Shabbat and detached a fetus that was in its womb is liable. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? It does not make sense to consider the fetus as a full-fledged living creature. Rava said: Bar Hamdurei explained this to me. Didn’t Rav Sheshet say: One who detaches hops on Shabbat from the shrubs and thorns on which they are growing is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth? Here, too, in the case of the fetus, one is liable for uprooting an object from its place of growth. Abaye said: One who detached

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top