Shabbat 214

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 ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר ח' שרצים יש להן עורות ולא מטמאין [אמר רב] אדא בר מתנה תריץ הכי וחכמים אומרים לענין טומאה אין עור למה שמנו חכמים

[Whereon it was asked]: On the contrary, Those which the Sages enumerated have no skin?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since their skin is the same as their flesh. ');">¹</span> And 'Abaye said, This is what he [the Tanna] states: Only those not enumerated by the Sages have a skin distinct from the flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But those enumerated by them have no skin distinct from the flesh, and consequently wounding them involves no liability. On this interpretation the Rabbis differ even in respect of the Sabbath, which contradicts Rab. But on the following explanations there is no difficulty. ');">²</span>

ואכתי לענין שבת לא פליגי והתניא הצד אחד מח' שרצים האמורים בתורה החובל בהן חייב בשרצים שיש להן עורות ואיזו היא חבורה שאינה חוזרת נצרר הדם אע"פ שלא יצא רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר ח' שרצים יש להן עורות

Said Raba to him: But he states, which the Sages enumerated? Rather said Raba, This is the meaning: the skin of those [reptiles] only which the Sages enumerated defiles like the flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 518, n. 5. ');">³</span> Hence it follows that R. Johanan b. Nuri holds that even those which the Sages did not enumerate defile [in this way]? But it is stated, R. Johanan b. Nuri said: The eight reptiles have skins and do not defile? — Rather Said R. Adda b. Mattenah, Reconcile it thus: But the Sages maintain: In respect of defilement those which the Sages enumerated have skin.

אמר רב אשי מאן ת"ק רבי יהודה דאזיל בתר גישתא דתנן ר' 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

Still, however, do they not differ in respect of the Sabbath? But it was taught: He who catches one of the eight reptiles mentioned in the Torah, [or] he who wounds them, is culpable, [viz.,] in the case of the reptiles which have skins.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the four not enumerated by the Sages. This shows that they differ even in respect of the Sabbath. ');">⁴</span> And what is a wound that does not heal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., which leaves a permanent discolouring only such entails liability. ');">⁵</span>

בעא מיניה לוי מרבי מנין לחבורה שאינה חוזרת דכתיב (ירמיהו יג, כג) היהפוך כושי עורו ונמר חברבורותיו מאי חברבורותיו אילימא דקאי ריקמי ריקמי האי ונמר חברבורותיו נמר גווניו מבעי ליה אלא ככושי מה עורו דכושי אינה חוזרת אף חבורה אינה חוזרת:

If the blood becomes clotted, even if it does not issue. R. Johanan b. Nuri said: The eight reptiles have skins!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All involve culpability on the Sabbath. ');">⁶</span> — Said R. Ashi, Who is the first Tanna? R. Judah, who maintains that touch is the criterion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who goes after touch'. ');">⁷</span>

ושאר שקצים כו': הא הורגן חייב מאן תנא א"ר ירמיה ר"א היא דתניא ר"א 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

For we learnt, R. Judah said: The halta'ah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A species of lizard. ');">⁸</span> is like the weasel. But the Rabbis who disagree with R. Johanan b. Nuri in respect of defilement agree with him in respect of the Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah holds that the question whether the skin of reptiles is like their flesh or not in the matter of defilement is not settled by deduction from the verse, 'and these are they which are unclean, etc.' (quoted supra a), but is dependent on touch. I.e., if the skin, is thick and perceptibly distinct from the flesh, it is not the same as the flesh; otherwise it is. By this criterion the halta'ah is like the weasel, since both have thick skins; though if the matter were decided by Scriptural exegesis these two would be dissimilar, as is shown in Hul. 142a. Hence he holds that in respect of the Sabbath, too, three of these eight have no skin, i.e., if one wounds them he is not guilty, for the skin is thin and not distinct from the flesh. But the Rabbis in Hul. count the halta'ah as one of the reptiles whose skin is the same as their flesh, in spite of its thickness. This shows that they settle the matter solely by reference to the verse, and therefore their view, which disagrees with R. Johanan b. Nuri's, applies only to defilement, since the verse is written in that connection, but not to the Sabbath. ');">⁹</span>

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 א"ל אביי וכינה אין פרה ורבה והאמר מר יושב הקב"ה וזן מקרני ראמים ועד ביצי כינים מינא הוא דמיקרי ביצי כינים

If so, instead of 'this is the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri,' 'this is the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri and his opponents' is required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Rabbis agree with him. ');">¹⁰</span> — Learn: 'this is the view of R. Johanan b. Nuri and his opponents.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is probably not an emendation, but merely implies that it is to be understood thus. ');">¹¹</span>

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 ור' יהושע אלא דמר סבר דבר שאין במינו ניצוד חייב ומר סבר פטור אבל לענין הריגה אפילו רבי יהושע מודה:

Levi asked Rabbi: How do we know that a wound<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it to involve culpability on the Sabbath. ');">¹²</span> is such as is permanent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'return'. ');">¹³</span>

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

— Because it is written, Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots [habarbarothaw]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XIII, 23. ');">¹⁴</span> What does 'habarbarothaw' mean: shall we say, that it is covered with spots? Then instead of 'and a leopard habarbarothaw,'it should read, 'a leopard gawwanaw [its colours]'? Rather it is parallel to Ethiopian, — just as the skin of an Ethiopian cannot turn, so is a [real] wound one that does not turn [i.e., heal].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On this interpretation namer (E.V. leopard) is derived from mur, to change, and the verse is translated: Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or turn (i.e., heal) his wounds? habarbarothaw (E.V. spots) being derived from haburah, a wound. ');">¹⁵</span>

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

<a name="E6a"></a> BUT OTHER ABOMINATIONS, etc. But if one kills them, he is culpable: which Tanna [holds thus]? Said R. Jeremiah, It is R. Eliezer. For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: He who kills vermin on the Sabbath is as though he killed a camel on the Sabbath. R. Joseph demurred to this: The Rabbis disagree with R. Eliezer only in respect to vermin, which does not multiply and increase, but as for other abominations and creeping things, which multiply and increase, they do not differ [therein]. And both learn it from none but the rams.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which were killed for the sake of their skins, which were dyed red and used in the Tabernacle. Thus killing was a labour of importance in the Tabernacle, and hence ranks as a principal labour; v. supra 49b. ');">¹⁶</span>

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

R. Eliezer holds, It is as the rams: just as there was the taking of life in the case of the rams, so whatever constitutes the taking of life [is a culpable offence]. While the Rabbis argue, It is as the rams: just as rams multiply and increase, so are all which multiply and increase [of account].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that killing them renders one liable. ');">¹⁷</span> Said Abaye to him, Do not vermin multiply and increase? But a Master said: 'The Holy One, blessed be He, sits and sustains [all creatures], from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of vermin'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Eggs of vermin is assumed to mean its progeny. ');">¹⁸</span>

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

— It is a species called 'eggs of vermin'. But it was taught: Tippuyyi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Name of certain small insects. ');">¹⁹</span> and the eggs of vermin? — The species is called 'eggs of vermin'. But there is the flea, which multiplies and increases, yet it was taught, If one catches a flea on the Sabbath: R. Eliezer declares him liable, while R. Joshua exempts [him]? — Said R. Ashi: You oppose catching to killing! R. Eliezer and R. Joshua disagree only in that one Master holds: If the species is not hunted, one is liable; whilst the other Master holds: He is exempt. But in respect to killing even R. Joshua agrees.

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