Commentary for Shabbat 213:2
איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אף אנן נמי תנינא אע"פ 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 ש"מ
Others state, R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We too learnt thus: EVEN IF THE FIRST [THEN] RISES AND DEPARTS, THE FIRST IS CULPABLE, WHILE THE SECOND IS EXEMPT: surely that means, he IS EXEMPT, and it is permitted? No: he is EXEMPT, yet it is forbidden. But since the second clause states, WHAT DOES THIS RESEMBLE? ONE WHO SHUTS HIS HOUSE TO GUARD IT, AND A DEER IS [THEREBY] FOUND TO BE GUARDED THEREIN, it follows that he is EXEMPT, and it is permitted. This proves it. Samuel said: Everything [taught as] involving no liability on the Sabbath involves [indeed] no liability, yet is forbidden, save these three, which involve no liability and are permitted. This [sc. the capture of a deer] is one. And how do you know that he is exempt and it is permitted? Because the second clause teaches: WHAT DOES THIS RESEMBLE? ONE WHO SHUTS HIS HOUSE TO GUARD IT, AND A DEER IS THEREBY FOUND TO BE GUARDED THEREIN. A second [is this]: If one manipulates an abscess on the Sabbath, if in order to make an opening for it, he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: either on account of building an opening, or because of mending, for there is no difference between mending a utensil and mending (i.e., healing) a wound. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Shabbat 213:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.