Shabbat 213

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> 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 ש"מ

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Abba said in R. Hiyya b. Ashi's name in Rab's name: If a bird creeps under the skirts [of one's garments], he may sit and guard it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prevent it from flying away. ');">¹</span> until evening. R. Nahman b. Isaac objected: IF THE FIRST SITS DOWN IN THE DOORWAY AND FILLS IT, AND A SECOND COMES AND SITS DOWN AT HIS SIDE, EVEN IF THE FIRST [THEN] RISES AND DEPARTS, THE FIRST IS CULPABLE WHILE THE SECOND IS EXEMPT. Surely that means, he IS EXEMPT, yet it is forbidden? — No: he is exempt, bind it is permitted. Reason too supports this: since 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, it follows that it means, he is EXEMPT, and it is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For obviously one may lock his house in order to guard it. ');">²</span>

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. ');">³</span>

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:

if in order to draw the matter out of it, he is exempt. And how do you know that he is exempt and it is permitted? Because we learnt: A small needle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hand.needle'. ');">⁴</span> [may be moved on the Sabbath] for the purpose of extracting a thorn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it pains him, and matter which causes pain is similar. ');">⁵</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך האורג</strong></big><br><br>

And the third: If one catches a snake on the Sabbath: if he is engaged therewith [sc. in catching it] so that it should not bite him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Mith'assek' may be understood in the sense of performing indirect labour, i.e., he catches it only incidentally, as he does not need the snake but merely desires to prevent it from dong harm. ');">⁶</span> he is exempt; if for a remedy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The snake's poison can be used medicinally. ');">⁷</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>שמנה</strong></big> 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:

he is liable. And how do you know that he is exempt and it is permitted? — Because we learnt: A dish may be inverted over a lamp, that the beams should not catch [fire], or over an infant's excrements, or over a scorpion, that it should not bite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is thereby caught. ');">⁸</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. AS FOR THE EIGHT REPTILES [SHERAZIM] WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE TORAH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As unclean, i.e., non-edible; Lev. XI, 29f. ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> 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 (ויקרא יא, לא) אלה הטמאים לכם לרבות שעורותיהן כבשרן אבל לענין שבת אפילו רבנן מודו

HE WHO CATCHES OR WOUNDS THEM [ON THE SABBATH] IS CULPABLE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These have a skin distinct from the flesh (v. infra), and a wound does not completely heal but leaves a scar; this is regarded as a minor degree of killing, i.e., part of the animal's life is taken away. ');">¹⁰</span> BUT [AS FOR] OTHER ABOMINATIONS AND CREEPING THINGS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., worms, insects, snakes, etc. ');">¹¹</span>

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

HE WHO WOUNDS THEM IS EXEMPT; HE WHO CATCHES THEM, BECAUSE HE NEEDS THEM, HE IS LIABLE; IF HE DOES NOT NEED THEM, HE IS EXEMPT, AS FOR A BEAST OR BIRD IN ONE'S PRIVATE DOMAIN, HE WHO CATCHES IT IS EXEMPT; HE WHO WOUNDS IT IS CULPABLE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Since he [the Tanna] teaches, HE WHO WOUNDS THEM IS CULPABLE, it follows that they have skin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 2. ');">¹²</span> Which Tanna [maintains this]? — Said Samuel, It is R. Johanan b. Nuri. For we learnt, R. Johanan b. Nuri said: The eight reptiles have skins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Hul. 122a. The Rabbis rule that the skins of four of these defile by the same standard as their flesh, viz., the size of a lentil. Thus they hold that their skin is not distinct from their flesh, and R. Johanan b. Nuri disputes it. ');">¹³</span> Rabbah son of R. Huna said in Rab's name, You may even say [that this agrees with] the Rabbis: the Rabbis disagree with R. Johanan b. Nuri only in respect of defilement, because it is written, And these are they which are unclean unto you,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹⁴</span> extending [the law to teach] that their skins are as their flesh; but in respect to the Sabbath even the Rabbis agree. But do they not differ in respect of the Sabbath? Surely it was taught: He who catches one of the eight reptiles mentioned in the Torah, [or] he who wounds them, is culpable: this is R. Johanan b. Nuri's view. But the Sages maintain: Only those which the Sages enumerated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As those whose skins are the same as their flesh. ');">¹⁵</span> have skin.