Mesorat%20hashas for Shabbat 214:12

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

HE WHO CATCHES THEM BECAUSE HE NEEDS THEM, HE IS LIABLE, etc. Which Tanna [rules thus]? — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: It is R. Simeon, who maintains, One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 105b. ');">²⁰</span> Others learn it in reference to this: If one manipulates an abscess on the Sabbath, — if in order to make an opening for it, he is liable; if in order to draw the matter out of it, he is exempt. Which Tanna [rules thus]? Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: It is R. Simeon, who maintains: One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se. Others again learn it in reference to this: If one catches a snake on the Sabbath: if he is engaged therewith [in catching it] so that it should not bite him, he is exempt; if for a remedy, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. end of last chapter for notes. ');">²¹</span> Which Tanna [rules thus]? Said Rab Judah in Rab's name, It is R. Simeon, who maintains: One is not culpable on account of a labour unrequired per se. Samuel said: If one removes a fish from the sea,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi and Tosaf. both explain that this refers to a fish that was already caught before the Sabbath, In that case 'from the sea' is un- intelligible. Maim. in Hilchoth Sabbath beginning of ch. XI reads 'from a bowl', which is preferable. V. Marginal Gloss, [Rashi, however, did not seem to read 'from the sea']. ');">²²</span> as soon as the size of a <i>sela'</i> thereof becomes dry, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For taking life, as it cannot live after that. — There is no culpability for catching, since it was caught before the Sabbath. ');">²³</span> R. Jose b. Abin observed: provided it is between the fins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But a dryness in any other part does not mean that the fish can no longer live. ');">²⁴</span> R. Ashi said: Do not think literally dry, but even if it forms slimy threads.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it becomes partially dry only, so that the moisture adheres to one's finger in slimy threads. ');">²⁵</span> Mar Bar Hamduri said in Samuel's name: If one inserts his hand in an animal's bowels and detaches an embryo that is inside her, he is culpable. What is the reason? Said Raba: Bar Hamduri explained it to me: Did not R. Shesheth say: If one plucks cuscuta from shrubs and thorns, he is culpable on account of uprooting something from the place of its growth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not for detaching from the soil, as cuscuta was not held to be attached to the soil; v. 'Er. 28b, ');">²⁶</span> so here too he is culpable on account of uprooting something [sc. the embryo] from the place of its growth. Abaye said: He who plucks

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Shabbat 214:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.