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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 21, 2020 | 讻状讟 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 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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讻谞住讛 诇讜 爪驻讜专 转讞转 讻谞驻讬讜 讬讜砖讘 讜诪砖诪专讜 注讚 砖转讞砖讱 诪转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讬砖讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 讛驻转讞 讜诪诇讗讛讜 讜讘讗 讛砖谞讬 讜讬砖讘 讘爪讚讜 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 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讗 驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诪讻诇诇 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Abba said that Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: If a bird flew under the flaps of one鈥檚 clothing on Shabbat and cannot get out, he may sit and secure it until dark and then take it. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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. 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 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 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 诇讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诪讻诇诇 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Some say a slightly different version. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We too learned support for Rav鈥檚 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 Na岣an said: That is impossible, from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: 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. 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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 驻讟讜专讬 讚砖讘转 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 讞讚讗 讛讗 讜诪诪讗讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 讜讗讬讚讱 讛诪驻讬住 诪讜专住讗 讘砖讘转 讗诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讛 驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诪谞讛 诇讞讛 驻讟讜专 讜诪诪讗讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 讚转谞谉 诪讞讟 砖诇 讬讚 诇讬讟讜诇 讘讛 讗转 讛拽讜抓 讜讗讬讚讱 讛爪讚 谞讞砖 讘砖讘转 讗诐 诪转注住拽 讘讜 砖诇讗 讬砖讻谞讜 驻讟讜专 讗诐 诇专驻讜讗讛 讞讬讬讘 讜诪诪讗讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 讚转谞谉 讻讜驻讬谉 拽注专讛 注诇 讛谞专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转讗讞讜讝 讘拽讜专讛 讜注诇 爪讜讗讛 砖诇 拽讟谉 讜注诇 注拽专讘 砖诇讗 转讬砖讱:

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.
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鈥檚 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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗讜专讙

 

诪转谞讬壮 砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讛爪讚谉 讜讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讗专 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专 讛爪讚谉 诇爪讜专讱 讞讬讬讘 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 驻讟讜专 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 砖讘专砖讜转讜 讛爪讚谉 驻讟讜专 讜讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘:

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: 鈥淭he 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鈥 (Leviticus 11:29鈥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鈥檚 control, one who traps them is exempt; and, however, one who wounds them is liable.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 注讜专 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 注讜专讜转 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讛 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诇讻诐 诇专讘讜转 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri only with regard to the matter of impurity, as it is written after the Torah lists the creeping animals: 鈥淭hose are for you the impure among the creeping animals, whoever touches them when they are dead shall become impure until evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). The Rabbis derive from the extraneous term: 鈥淭hose are for you the impure,鈥 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.

讜诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛爪讚 讗讞讚 诪砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜专 讗诇讗

The Gemara asks: And, with regard to Shabbat, they do not disagree? Wasn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri. And the Rabbis say: The term skin is utilized only

诇诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚专讘讛 诇诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注讜专 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讜专 讞诇讜拽 诪讘砖专 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 砖诇讗 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讗 诇诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讜专 诪讟诪讗 讻讘砖专 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 注讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗讬谉 [讗诪专 专讘] 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谉 注讜专 诇诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐

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鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri holds that even the creeping animals not enumerated by the Sages also transmit impurity? Isn鈥檛 the opposite taught, that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to the laws of impurity.

讜讗讻转讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛爪讚 讗讞讚 诪砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘 讘砖专爪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 注讜专讜转 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讞讘讜专讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 谞爪专专 讛讚诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 注讜专讜转

But still, is it clear that they do not disagree with regard to the matter of Shabbat? Wasn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: The eight creeping animals have skins. Apparently, there is disagreement with regard to Shabbat as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讙讬砖转讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诇讟讗讛 讻讞讜诇讚讛 讗讘诇 专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讞诇讜拽转讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜诪讞诇讜拽转讜

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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri, is difficult. It should have said: This is the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri and those who disagree with him.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讜讬 诪专讘讬 诪谞讬谉 诇讞讘讜专讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 讚讻转讬讘 讛讬讛驻讜讱 讻讜砖讬 注讜专讜 讜谞诪专 讞讘专讘专转讬讜 诪讗讬 讞讘专讘专转讬讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗讬 专讬拽诪讬 专讬拽诪讬 讛讗讬 讜谞诪专 讞讘专讘专转讬讜 谞诪专 讙讜讜谞讬讜 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讻讜砖讬 诪讛 注讜专讜 讚讻讜砖讬 讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 讗祝 讞讘讜专讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转:

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: 鈥淐an a Cushite change his skin, or a leopard its spots [岣varburotav]?鈥 (Jeremiah 13:23). The Gemara explains: What does 岣varburotav mean? If you say that they are spotted marks on the leopard鈥檚 skin, that phrase: Or a leopard its spots, should have been: Or a leopard its colors. Rather, 岣varburotav 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.

讜砖讗专 砖拽爪讬诐 讻讜壮: 讛讗 讛讜专讙谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讛讜专讙 讻讬谞讛 讘砖讘转 讻讛讜专讙 讙诪诇 讘砖讘转 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讘讻讬谞讛 讚讗讬谞讛 驻专讛 讜专讘讛 讗讘诇 砖讗专 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讚驻专讬谉 讜专讘讬谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

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.

讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬诇讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讻讗讬诇讬诐 诪讛 讗讬诇讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻讗讬诇讬诐 诪讛 讗讬诇讬诐 讚驻专讬谉 讜专讘讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 讚驻专讛 讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬谞讛 讗讬谉 驻专讛 讜专讘讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讬讜砖讘 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讜讝谉 诪拽专谞讬 专讗诪讬诐 讜注讚 讘讬爪讬 讻讬谞讬诐 诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讬 讘讬爪讬 讻讬谞讬诐

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鈥檛 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讟驻讜讬讬 讜讘讬爪讬 讻讬谞讬诐 诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讬 讘讬爪讬 讻讬谞讬诐 讜讛专讬 驻专注讜砖 讚驻专讛 讜专讘讛 讜转谞讬讗 讛爪讚 驻专注讜砖 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 爪讬讚讛 讗讛专讬讙讛 拽专诪讬转 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 谞讬爪讜讚 讞讬讬讘 讜诪专 住讘专 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讛专讬讙讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讜讚讛:

Again he asked: And wasn鈥檛 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.

讛爪讚谉 诇爪讜专讱 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讛诪驻讬住 诪讜专住讗 讘砖讘转 讗诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讛 驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诪谞讛 诇讞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讛爪讚 谞讞砖 讘砖讘转 讗诐 诪转注住拽 讘讜 砖诇讗 讬砖讻谞讜 驻讟讜专 讗诐 诇专驻讜讗讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛砖讜诇讛 讚讙 诪谉 讛讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讬讘砖 讘讜 讻住诇注 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讘讬谉 住谞驻讬专讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讬讘砖 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讚注讘讚 专讬专讬

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.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇诪注讬 讘讛诪讛 讜讚诇讚诇 注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗住讘专讗 诇讬 诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚转诇砖 讻砖讜转讗 诪讛讬讝诪讬 讜讛讬讙讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 注讜拽专 讚讘专 诪讙讬讚讜诇讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 注讜拽专 讚讘专 诪讙讬讚讜诇讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚转诇砖

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鈥檛 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.

  • 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 107

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 107

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讻谞住讛 诇讜 爪驻讜专 转讞转 讻谞驻讬讜 讬讜砖讘 讜诪砖诪专讜 注讚 砖转讞砖讱 诪转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讬砖讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 讛驻转讞 讜诪诇讗讛讜 讜讘讗 讛砖谞讬 讜讬砖讘 讘爪讚讜 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 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讗 驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诪讻诇诇 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

GEMARA: Rabbi Abba said that Rav 岣yya bar Ashi said that Rav said: If a bird flew under the flaps of one鈥檚 clothing on Shabbat and cannot get out, he may sit and secure it until dark and then take it. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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. 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 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 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 诇讗 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 诪讻诇诇 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Some say a slightly different version. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We too learned support for Rav鈥檚 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 Na岣an said: That is impossible, from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: 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. 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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 驻讟讜专讬 讚砖讘转 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 转诇转 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 讞讚讗 讛讗 讜诪诪讗讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 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 讜讗讬讚讱 讛诪驻讬住 诪讜专住讗 讘砖讘转 讗诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讛 驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诪谞讛 诇讞讛 驻讟讜专 讜诪诪讗讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 讚转谞谉 诪讞讟 砖诇 讬讚 诇讬讟讜诇 讘讛 讗转 讛拽讜抓 讜讗讬讚讱 讛爪讚 谞讞砖 讘砖讘转 讗诐 诪转注住拽 讘讜 砖诇讗 讬砖讻谞讜 驻讟讜专 讗诐 诇专驻讜讗讛 讞讬讬讘 讜诪诪讗讬 讚驻讟讜专 讜诪讜转专 讚转谞谉 讻讜驻讬谉 拽注专讛 注诇 讛谞专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转讗讞讜讝 讘拽讜专讛 讜注诇 爪讜讗讛 砖诇 拽讟谉 讜注诇 注拽专讘 砖诇讗 转讬砖讱:

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.
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鈥檚 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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讗讜专讙

 

诪转谞讬壮 砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讛爪讚谉 讜讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘 讜砖讗专 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专 讛爪讚谉 诇爪讜专讱 讞讬讬讘 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 驻讟讜专 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 砖讘专砖讜转讜 讛爪讚谉 驻讟讜专 讜讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘:

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: 鈥淭he 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鈥 (Leviticus 11:29鈥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鈥檚 control, one who traps them is exempt; and, however, one who wounds them is liable.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 注讜专 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 注讜专讜转 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇讛 讛讟诪讗讬诐 诇讻诐 诇专讘讜转 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri, as we learned in a mishna that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri only with regard to the matter of impurity, as it is written after the Torah lists the creeping animals: 鈥淭hose are for you the impure among the creeping animals, whoever touches them when they are dead shall become impure until evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:31). The Rabbis derive from the extraneous term: 鈥淭hose are for you the impure,鈥 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.

讜诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛爪讚 讗讞讚 诪砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 注讜专 讗诇讗

The Gemara asks: And, with regard to Shabbat, they do not disagree? Wasn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri. And the Rabbis say: The term skin is utilized only

诇诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚专讘讛 诇诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注讜专 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讜专 讞诇讜拽 诪讘砖专 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 砖诇讗 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讗 诇诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 拽讗诪专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 注讜专 诪讟诪讗 讻讘砖专 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛谞讱 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 注讜专讜转 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗讬谉 [讗诪专 专讘] 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 转专讬抓 讛讻讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讬谉 注讜专 诇诪讛 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐

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鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri holds that even the creeping animals not enumerated by the Sages also transmit impurity? Isn鈥檛 the opposite taught, that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to the laws of impurity.

讜讗讻转讬 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛爪讚 讗讞讚 诪砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讛讞讜讘诇 讘讛谉 讞讬讬讘 讘砖专爪讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 注讜专讜转 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讞讘讜专讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 谞爪专专 讛讚诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 砖诪谞讛 砖专爪讬诐 讬砖 诇讛谉 注讜专讜转

But still, is it clear that they do not disagree with regard to the matter of Shabbat? Wasn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: The eight creeping animals have skins. Apparently, there is disagreement with regard to Shabbat as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 讙讬砖转讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛诇讟讗讛 讻讞讜诇讚讛 讗讘诇 专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪讞诇讜拽转讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转谞讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜诪讞诇讜拽转讜

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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri, is difficult. It should have said: This is the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri and those who disagree with him.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讜讬 诪专讘讬 诪谞讬谉 诇讞讘讜专讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 讚讻转讬讘 讛讬讛驻讜讱 讻讜砖讬 注讜专讜 讜谞诪专 讞讘专讘专转讬讜 诪讗讬 讞讘专讘专转讬讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽讗讬 专讬拽诪讬 专讬拽诪讬 讛讗讬 讜谞诪专 讞讘专讘专转讬讜 谞诪专 讙讜讜谞讬讜 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻讻讜砖讬 诪讛 注讜专讜 讚讻讜砖讬 讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转 讗祝 讞讘讜专讛 讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转:

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: 鈥淐an a Cushite change his skin, or a leopard its spots [岣varburotav]?鈥 (Jeremiah 13:23). The Gemara explains: What does 岣varburotav mean? If you say that they are spotted marks on the leopard鈥檚 skin, that phrase: Or a leopard its spots, should have been: Or a leopard its colors. Rather, 岣varburotav 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.

讜砖讗专 砖拽爪讬诐 讻讜壮: 讛讗 讛讜专讙谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讛讜专讙 讻讬谞讛 讘砖讘转 讻讛讜专讙 讙诪诇 讘砖讘转 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讘讻讬谞讛 讚讗讬谞讛 驻专讛 讜专讘讛 讗讘诇 砖讗专 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讚驻专讬谉 讜专讘讬谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

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.

讜砖谞讬讛诐 诇讗 诇诪讚讜讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬诇讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讻讗讬诇讬诐 诪讛 讗讬诇讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻讗讬诇讬诐 诪讛 讗讬诇讬诐 讚驻专讬谉 讜专讘讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 讚驻专讛 讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬谞讛 讗讬谉 驻专讛 讜专讘讛 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讬讜砖讘 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讜讝谉 诪拽专谞讬 专讗诪讬诐 讜注讚 讘讬爪讬 讻讬谞讬诐 诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讬 讘讬爪讬 讻讬谞讬诐

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鈥檛 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讟驻讜讬讬 讜讘讬爪讬 讻讬谞讬诐 诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讬 讘讬爪讬 讻讬谞讬诐 讜讛专讬 驻专注讜砖 讚驻专讛 讜专讘讛 讜转谞讬讗 讛爪讚 驻专注讜砖 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 驻讜讟专 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 爪讬讚讛 讗讛专讬讙讛 拽专诪讬转 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 谞讬爪讜讚 讞讬讬讘 讜诪专 住讘专 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讛专讬讙讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讜讚讛:

Again he asked: And wasn鈥檛 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.

讛爪讚谉 诇爪讜专讱 讞讬讬讘 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讛诪驻讬住 诪讜专住讗 讘砖讘转 讗诐 诇注砖讜转 诇讛 驻讛 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪诪谞讛 诇讞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讛爪讚 谞讞砖 讘砖讘转 讗诐 诪转注住拽 讘讜 砖诇讗 讬砖讻谞讜 驻讟讜专 讗诐 诇专驻讜讗讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛砖讜诇讛 讚讙 诪谉 讛讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讬讘砖 讘讜 讻住诇注 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讘讬谉 住谞驻讬专讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讬讘砖 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讚注讘讚 专讬专讬

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.

讗诪专 诪专 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇诪注讬 讘讛诪讛 讜讚诇讚诇 注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讛诪讚讜专讬 讗住讘专讗 诇讬 诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚转诇砖 讻砖讜转讗 诪讛讬讝诪讬 讜讛讬讙讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 注讜拽专 讚讘专 诪讙讬讚讜诇讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪砖讜诐 注讜拽专 讚讘专 诪讙讬讚讜诇讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚转诇砖

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鈥檛 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

Scroll To Top