Perek XIII . 106a 131 . ט י״ג דב וד

Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba raised an objection to Rabbi Yoĥanan: It is stated: “And the nation worshipped the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the Elders, who lived many days after Joshua” ( Judges 2:7), indicating that the Elders lived long lives even though they did not eulogize Joshua properly. Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: Babylonian, you should be more precise in your reading. They indeed lived many days; however, they did not live many years. In fact, they did not live to the end of that year. Again he asked: But then with regard to the verse “So that your days and the days of your children will multiply on the land which the Lord your God swore to give to your fathers, as the days of the heavens over the earth” (Deuteronomy 11:21), would you also say that here the reward is to live many days but not years? He an-swered him: A blessing is different and should be interpreted in its most expansive sense.

And Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoĥanan said: If one of the brothers dies,

all of the brothers should be concerned, lest their death be ap-proaching. Similarly, if one member of a group dies,H the entire group should be concerned. Some say the concern is greatest if the eldest dies. If he, despite his virtues, could not avoid punish-ment, others will certainly not be saved. And some say the con-cern is greatest if the youngest dies, because the least significant people are punished first, and perhaps this is the start of a punish-ment for the entire group.

We learned in the mishna: And anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt. Rabbi Abbahu taught this baraita before Rabbi Yoĥanan: Anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt, except for one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire.HN Rabbi Yoĥanan said to him: Go teach that outside. This baraita is not fit for discussion in the study hall. The opinion that deems one liable for inflicting a wound or kin-dling a fire on Shabbat is not an accepted teaching and should be ignored. And if you want to say that it is a legitimate teaching, one who inflicts a wound would only be liable in a case where he needed the blood to give to his dog, and one who kindles a fire would only be liable in a case where he needs its ashes.

The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Abbahu teach this baraita? Didn’t we learn explicitly in the mishna: Anyone who performs labors destructively on Shabbat is exempt, including one who inflicts a wound or who kindles a fire? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable for performing labor which is not needed for its own sake, whereas the baraita is in accor-dance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who exempts in that case. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that Rabbi Shi-mon deems one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire on Shabbat liable even though these are destructive acts? From the fact that a verse was necessary to permit circumcision on Shabbat, by inference, in general, one who inflicts a wound is liable. If inflict-ing a wound was not prohibited on Shabbat, there would be no need to permit circumcision.

Similarly, from the fact that the Torah prohibited kindling a fire on Shabbat even with regard to the execution by burning of a priest’s daughter who committed adultery, conclude from it that in general, one who ignites a fire on Shabbat is liable.

י יוחנן: א לטב ט אב י חייא ב איתיביה טבע וכל ״ויעבדו העם את הפ כל ימי יהושאחטי ימים האטיכו ט אש הז נים ימי – ימים בלאי, ב ליה: אמט ע״! יהושה א מעת נים – לא האטיכוד אל האטיכו, ש״למען יטבו ימיכם וימי בניכם״ ימים ולא

אניד טכה ש נים?! ב ש

י יוחנן: א אמט טב ט אב י חייא ב ואמט טבת – מ אחד מן האחין ש

NOTESOne who rends – ה וטע: In the Jerusalem Talmud the question is raised regarding the halakha in the mishna in light of other halakhot that indicate that if the mitzva is performed by means of committing a transgression, the mitzva is flawed. However, the conclusion in the Jerusalem Talmud is that there is a distinction between a case where the transgression is an integral part of the action and a case where the one performing the action committed a transgression.

An upright person – ט ש כ According to most authorities, the :אדם obligation to rend one’s garment in mourning a worthy person is only when one was present when he died. Therefore, the Gemara is saying that one who rends his clothing to mourn the death of an upright person went beyond his obligation and is praiseworthy. Consequently, when this is done on Shabbat, it is not considered a destructive act (Ritva).

Rabbi Shimon’s opinion with regard to tearing – מעון י ש טב ת יט ש According to one approach, since after rending his garment :ב וטעupon the death of a relative, he may not sew it until the end of the seven-day mourning period, it is considered a constructive labor that endures. Therefore, one is liable for doing so (Rashba).

A Torah scroll that was burned – ט ה ש נ Rashi writes that :ס ט תוטה שa person’s death is comparable to the burning of a Torah scroll. Just as one must rend his garment in mourning over the burning of a Torah scroll, so too, one must rend his garment over the passing of a Jew. In-deed, both the Torah and a Jew are metaphorically described as lamps and light in the following verses from Proverbs: “For a commandment is a lamp, and the Torah is light” (6:23) and “The soul of man is the lamp of the Lord” (20:27).

Because he assuages his anger – עביד נחת טוח ליצטו Rav Hai Gaon :דhas a variant reading: And is he liable? Therefore, the question be-comes: Is a person liable for rending a garment and satisfying his evil inclination? That is destructive both to his garment and to his soul. In that case, one is certainly exempt (Ra’avad).

Anyone who is lazy in eulogizing a Torah scholar, it is fitting to bury

him alive – חייו ל חכם טאוי ל ובטו ב דו ש הס ל ב תעצ The punishment :המfor one who is lazy in eulogizing is an example of a punishment that fits the crime. One who does not eulogize a Torah scholar treats the scholar as if he was alive in his grave and does not require eulogizing. Therefore, he deserves to be buried alive (Maharsha).

HALAKHAAnyone who performs labors destructively – המ ל לין: One who performs a destructive act on Shabbat is exempt (Rambam Sefer Ze-manim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:17).

One who performs a labor destructively in order to repair – המ ל ל ן One who performs a destructive act in order to repair : על מנת לת is liable. The measure that determines liability in that case is equal to the measure that determines liability when he performs that labor constructively (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:18).

The measure that determines liability for one who whitens, or one who combs, or one who dyes, or one who spins – ן יעוט המלב שץ והצובע והטווה -The measure that determines liability for whiten :והמנ ing wool or any other material, for dyeing, and for spinning thread on Shabbat is double the distance between the index and middle fingers (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:18).

One who weaves – והאוטג: One is liable for weaving on Shabbat if he weaves two threads whose measure is double the distance between the index and middle fingers (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shab-bat 1:17–18).

One who rends in his anger or in his mourning over his dead rela-tive – חמתו ובאבלו ועל מתו Tearing an object in anger or in :ה וטע בmourning is not considered a destructive act but a constructive one. One who does so is liable (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:17).

One who rends…even though he desecrates Shabbat – …ה וטע ת ב ל את הש חל מ י ש One who rends his garment on Shabbat :ואב על to initiate mourning for a deceased relative fulfills the obligation, even though he desecrated Shabbat in the process (Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 340:28).

A Torah scholar dies – ת מ When a Sage, who is a halakhic :חכם שauthority, dies, everybody mourns his death. Upon hearing the news of his death, even up to thirty days later, everyone rends his garment. The custom of the Sages was each Sage rent a handbreadth for a col-league’s death. In most countries, Jews are lenient in this matter and only rend their garments for Sages from whom they actually learned Torah, from either his lessons or his writings (Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Evel 9:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 340:7; Rema based on the Rosh).

And if he was an upright person – ט הוא ש -An upright per :ואי אדם כson is one who is not suspected of transgressions or of failing to fulfill mitzvot. Rabbeinu Yona writes that this refers to one who actively seeks to fulfill the mitzva of loving-kindness (Shakh). One can be considered upright even if he is not a Torah scholar. When an upright person dies, one is obligated to rend his garment in mourning. Nevertheless, most authorities agree that this obligation only applies to those who were actually present at the time of death. However, others merely mourn his passing (Ran; Hagahot Maimoniyot; Ra’avya; Rema; Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Evel 9:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 340:6).

When the soul leaves the body – מה נש יציאת עת -One who wit :שnesses the death of any Jew is obligated to tear his clothing (Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Evel 9:11; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 340:5).

The trait of anger – עס ת הכ Rambam writes: Anger is an extremely :מדundesirable character trait, and it is appropriate for a person to uproot all vestiges of this emotion from his character. The early Sages said that one who becomes angry is as if he worships idols. If one wants to instill fear for educational purposes in the members of one’s household or as a community leader in one’s community, it is permitted to create the impression that he is angry (Rambam Sefer HaMadda, Hilkhot Deot 2:3 and Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Melakhim 6:10).

Anyone who is lazy in eulogizing a Torah scholar – ל תעצ המ כל חכם ל ש דו הס One who lacks diligence in eulogizing a Sage is :בpunished by dying before his time. One who mourns and cries over the death of an upright person is rewarded (Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Evel 12:2).

וד

Perek XIIIDaf 106 Amud a

ני חבוטה ןד אחד מב ל האחין כול ידאגו כה; אמטי ל החבוטה כול דאג כ ת – ת מ ש

מת טןד דול, ואמטי לה: ד מת ג לה: ד

הו י אב ני טב טוטין״ד ת ״וכל המ ל לין טוטין, ל המ ל לין י יוחנן: כ טב יה ד מ ו ליה: אמט ומבעיטד מחובל חוץ נהד מש אינה ומבעיט חובל לבטא, ני תצטיך נה, חובל – ב מצא לומט מש ואם ת

צטיך לא טוד לכלבו, מבעיט – ב

טוטין! המ ל לין ל כ נן: ת והאנן י טב – טייתא ב יהודה, י טב – מתניתין – מעון ש י טב ד טעמא מאי מעוןד שהא מילה, טא למיש טא איצטטיך מד

עלמא – חייב, חובל ב

ת כהן – י ב ב ג אסט טחמנא הבעטה ומדעלמא חייבד ה מבעיט ב מע מינ ש

If one member of a group dies – ת מ ני חבוטה ש :אחד מבIf one member of a group dies, the entire group should be concerned (Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Evel 13:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 394:5).

Anyone who performs labors destructively is exempt, except for one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire – ומבעיט טוטין, חוץ מחובל A person who :המ ל לין performs a destructive act is exempt. There is no liability if one inflicts a wound on a living being to cause damage. However, if one inflicts an injury for the blood from the wound, he is liable. Similarly, one who kindles a fire to cause damage is exempt on Shabbat, but if he does so for the ashes, he is liable (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:17, 8:7, 12:1).

HALAKHA

The opinions regarding one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire – דיני חובל ומבעיט יטות ב -This brief pas :השsage is pivotal in the comprehensive discussion among the commentaries and legal authorities with regard to the halakha of primary categories of labor not needed for their own sake. The Me’iri summarizes the issue as follows: If one performs a primary category of labor in its standard, constructive manner it is an act needed for its own sake. An example of this would be the primary category of win-nowing. Even though the main goal is to remove the chaff, it is still considered a primary category of labor needed for its own sake.

Some actions are considered destructive in one re-spect and constructive in another, with the constructive aspect not apparent at the time the act is performed. For example, if one digs a pit for the dirt, everyone agrees that he is exempt because there is no constructive aspect to that action. However, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree with regard to destructive acts whose construc-tive purpose is evident at the time of the act.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon also disagree with regard to a case where one inflicts a wound or kindles a fire as well, but their rulings are contrary to their standard opinions with regard to primary categories of labor not needed for their own sake. Rabbi Shimon holds that one is liable in these two cases by Torah law, while Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is exempt in these two cases because they are destructive acts.

NOTES

132 Perek XIII . 106b . :ט י״ג דב ו

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda address this proof? The Gemara answers: There, that is a case of a construc-tive labor in accordance with the explanation of Rav Ashi. For Rav Ashi said: What difference is there to me between repair-ing the child through circumcision and repairing a vessel? They are both constructive acts. And what difference is there to me between cooking a lead wick, as a melted lead wick was poured down the throat of the criminal sentenced to execution by burning, and cooking herbs used to produce dyes in the Tabernacle? The Torah addressed these cases specifically be-cause they are constructive, and nothing can be derived from them with regard to liability for performance of destructive labors.

We learned in the mishna: The measure that determines liabil-ity for one who whitens and for similar prohibited labors is the full width of a double sit.H Rav Yosef would demonstrate the width of a double sit N by indicating the distance between the index and middle fingers and instructing the onlookers to dou-ble the measure. Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Ami would demonstrate in a simple manner, as he calculated that the distance between the thumb and the forefinger is equal to a double sit.B

mishna Rabbi Yehuda says: One who trapsH a bird into a closet or cage, and one who

traps a deer into a house is liable. And the Rabbis say: If one traps a bird into a closet

or traps a deer into a garden, or into a courtyard, or into an enclosure [bivar],L he is liable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all enclosures are identical. This is the principle: If the trapping of the animal is inadequate and it is still necessary to pursue and apprehend it, one is not liable. However, if one trapped a deer into an enclosure in which the trapping is not inadequate, he is liable.

gemara We learned in the mishna there in trac-tate Beitza: One may not trap fish from

the enclosures on a Festival, nor may one place food before them, because it is prohibited to feed an animal that may not be eaten on the Festival. However, one may trap an animal or a bird from its enclosures and slaughter them, and one may also place food before them.N The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in the Tosefta: From enclosures of animals, of birds, and of fish, one may not trap on a Festival, nor may one place food before them. This is difficult due to a contradiction between the ruling with regard to an animal in the mishna and the ruling with regard to an animal in the Tosefta. This is similarly difficult due to the contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta.

דטב ן הוא, כ י יהודה – התם מת וטבן לת י ל מה י: אש טב אמט ד י: אשל י לבש לי, מה ל ן כ י לת מילה, מה ל

ניןד ל סמ י לבש תילה, מה ל

מחוי יוסב טב כופ״ד ן המלב יעוט ״ששוטד ט אמי מחוי כ ול, טב חייא ב

ד צ וט י יהודה אומט: הצ מתניפ טבית – חייבד וחכמים ל, וצבי לב גד למ

ל, גד אומטים: צ וט למ

NOTESThe opinions regarding one who inflicts a wound or ignites a fire – דיני חובל ומבעיט יטות ב -This brief passage is pivotal in the compre :השhensive discussion among the commentaries and legal authorities with regard to the halakha of primary categories of labor not needed for their own sake. The Me’iri summarizes the issue as follows: If one performs a primary category of labor in its standard, constructive manner it is an act needed for its own sake. An example of this would be the primary category of winnowing. Even though the main goal is to remove the chaff, it is still considered a primary category of labor needed for its own sake.

Some actions are considered destructive in one respect and con-structive in another, with the constructive aspect not apparent at the time the act is performed. For example, if one digs a pit for the dirt, everyone agrees that he is exempt because there is no constructive aspect to that action. However, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon dis-agree with regard to destructive acts whose constructive purpose is evident at the time of the act.

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon also disagree with regard to a case where one inflicts a wound or kindles a fire as well, but their rulings are contrary to their standard opinions with regard to primary categories of labor not needed for their own sake. Rabbi Shimon holds that one is liable in these two cases by Torah law, while Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is exempt in these two cases because they are destructive acts.

Rav Yosef would demonstrate a double sit – טב יוסב מחוי כ ול: The commentaries disagree about the meaning of this passage and in determining the measure of a sit. According to many authorities, the correct version of this text is not double [kaful] but bent [kafuf]. A bent sit is measured from the base of the thumb to the tip of the forefinger when they are touching, while a simple sit is the distance between the

thumb and forefinger when they are spread apart (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). Other commentaries say that a sit is the distance between the fore-finger and the middle finger, and the word kafuf, or kaful, means that one measures the distance between them when one finger is bent, which results in a larger measurement (Tosafot Rid). The measure of a sit is different according to each opinion.

HALAKHAIf one member of a group dies – ת מ ני חבוטה ש If one member :אחד מבof a group dies, the entire group should be concerned (Rambam Sefer Shofetim, Hilkhot Evel 13:12; Shulĥan Arukh, Yoreh De’a 394:5).

Anyone who performs labors destructively is exempt, except for one who inflicts a wound or kindles a fire – טוטין חוץ המ ל לין ומבעיט .A person who performs a destructive act is exempt :מחובל There is no liability if one inflicts a wound on a living being to cause damage. However, if one inflicts an injury for the blood from the wound, he is liable. Similarly, one who kindles a fire to cause dam-age is exempt on Shabbat, but if he does so for the ashes, he is liable (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:17, 8:7, 12:1).

The width of a sit – יט The width of a sit is equal to the greatest :טוחב הסdistance between the tips of the thumb and forefinger when stretched apart (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 9:7).

One who traps – ד One who traps a bird and places it into a cage :הצon Shabbat is liable. One who traps a deer in a building or pen which is small enough that he can then apprehend the deer with little effort, is liable for the primary category of trapping (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:19; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:1).

BACKGROUND

The width of a sit – יט :טוחב הס

Sit and double sit according to Rashi

ו:

Perek XIIIDaf 106 Amud b

יבטין – ]חייב[ד ה ולחצט ולב ינ וצבי לגלא אומט: מליאל ג ן ב מעון ש ן טבט לל: מחוס ויןד זה הכ ש יבטין ל הב כט צידה – אינו מחוס טוט, ש צידה –

חייבד

גים ד צדין אין התם: נן ת גמפ נותנין ואין טוב, יום ב יבטין הב מן ל ניהם מזונותד אבל צדין חיה ועוב, וטמינהו: מזונותד ל ניהם ונותנין ל וש עו ות ל וש חיות ל ש יבטין ביום טוב, ואין גים – אין צדין מהם ב דחיה יא ש מזונותד ל ניהם נותנין

יא עו ות אעו ות! אחיה, ש

The width of a sit – יט The width of a sit is equal to the :טוחב הסgreatest distance between the tips of the thumb and forefinger when stretched apart (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 9:7).

One who traps – ד One who traps a bird and places it into a :הצcage on Shabbat is liable. One who traps a deer in a building or pen which is small enough that he can then apprehend the deer with little effort, is liable for the primary category of trapping (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:19; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:1).

HALAKHA

Rav Yosef would demonstrate the width of a double sit – טב The commentaries disagree about the meaning of :יוסב מחוי כ ולthis passage and in determining the measure of a sit. According to many authorities, the correct version of this text is not double [kaful] but bent [kafuf]. A bent sit is measured from the base of the thumb to the tip of the forefinger when they are touching, while a simple sit is the distance between the thumb and forefinger when they are spread apart (Rabbeinu Ĥananel). Other com-mentaries say that a sit is the distance between the forefinger and the middle finger, and the word kafuf, or kaful, means that one measures the distance between them when one finger is bent, which results in a larger measurement (Tosafot Rid). The measure of a sit is different according to each opinion.

NOTES

The width of a sit – יט :טוחב הס

Sit and double sit according to Rashi

BACKGROUND

Enclosure [bivar] – יבט From the Latin vivarium, a place where :בanimals are kept.

LANGUAGE

And one may place food before them – ונותנין ל ניהם מזונות: In Tosafot the question of whether or not one is permitted to feed animals on a Festival depends on whether or not those animals are considered trapped by Torah law. Rashi’s opinion is supported in the Jerusalem Talmud that one may not tend to something that is not prepared for use on the Festival. Nevertheless, ravens and dogs may be fed on Shabbat because they are considered prepared for whatever use their owners keep them (Rashba).

NOTES

Perek XIII . 106b 133 . ט י״ג דב ו:

The Gemara says: Granted, with regard to the contradiction be-tween the ruling concerning an animal in the mishna and the ruling concerning an animal in the Tosefta, it is not difficult, be-cause this, the Tosefta that prohibits trapping and feeding the animals in the enclosures, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda cited in the mishna that an animal trapped into an enclosure whose trapping is inadequate, i.e., it is still necessary to pursue and apprehend the animal, is not considered trapped. That, i.e., the mishna in Beitza, which permits trapping and feeding the animals in the enclosures, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who said that animals in an enclosure are considered trapped.

However, concerning the contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta, it is difficult. And if you say that the contradiction between the ruling with regard to birds in the mishna and the ruling with regard to birds in the Tosefta is also not difficult be-cause this, the mishna, which permits trapping, is referring to a roofed enclosure, in which a bird is considered trapped, and therefore there is no prohibition against apprehending it on Shab-bat; and that the Tosefta, which prohibits trapping, is referring to an unroofed enclosure in which a bird is not considered trapped and apprehending it is prohibited, that does not resolve the con-tradiction. As with regard to a house, which is roofed, there is no dispute, and according to both Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, trapping a birdH into a closet, yes, it is considered trapped, while trapping it into a house, no, it is not considered trapped.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Here, in the mishna, according to which a bird in a house is not considered trapped, we are dealing with a free bird, a sparrow, because it does not accept authority. That bird is not intimidated and evades capture even in a house, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why is it called a free bird [tzippor dror]?B Because it dwells [dara] in a house as it does in a field. Therefore, the distinction between a roofed and unroofed enclosure resolves the apparent contradiction between the mishna and the Tosefta. The Gemara says: Now that you have arrived at this understanding, that the difference between the rulings in the two sources is predicated on different circumstanc-es and not on a tannaitic dispute, the apparent contradiction be-tween the ruling with regard to an animal in the mishna and the ruling with regard to an animal in the Tosefta is also not difficult. This, the ruling in the Tosefta which prohibits apprehending the animal, is referring to a large enclosure from which the animal cannot escape, but it can still avoid being apprehended. Therefore, the trapping is considered inadequate, and apprehending the animal constitutes trapping. That, the ruling in the mishna that permits apprehending the animal, is referring to a small enclo-sureH in which the animal cannot evade its pursuers and requires no further trapping.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a large enclo-sure and what are the circumstances of a small enclosure? Rav Ashi said: Any enclosure where one can run after an animal and reach it in one lungeN is a small enclosure. And any other is a large enclosure. Or perhaps: Any enclosure where the shadows from the different walls fall upon each other is a small enclosure, as all enclosures had a uniform height. And any other is a large enclosure. Or perhaps: Any enclosure that does not have a series of corners in which the animal could evade capture is a small enclosure, and any other is a large enclosure.

יא, הא – למא חיה אחיה לא ש ש בנןד י יהודה, הא – טב טב

וכי יא! ש אעו ות עו ות א, אליא; ימא עו ות אעו ות נמי לא ש תאינו יבט ש יבט מ וטה, הא – ב הא – בובין הוא, מ וטה ד ית, ב והא מ וטה; ל – גד נן, צ וט למ י יהודה ובין לטב לטב

ית – לא! אין, לב

צ וט ב הכא הונא: טב ט ב ה טב אמט לת מ ב אינה ש ל י עס ינן, טוט דה למ מעאל: יש י טב בי ד תנא ד מטותד טה ד ש ני מ – טוט ד צ וט מה ש נ טא אתית להכי – א ד ת דהד הש בש ית כ ב בביבט יא, הא – ב חיה אחיה נמי לא ש

ביבט טןד דול, הא – ב ג

יבט ב מי ד היכי דול, ג יבט ב מי ד היכי טהיט ד ל היכא כ י: אש טן? אמט טב יבט יחייא – ב חד ש תטיה, ומטי לה ב בל כ נמי: אי דולד ג יבט ב – ואידך טן, כתלים אהדדי – נ יל טולא ד היכא דדול, ואי נמי: יבט ג יבט טן, ואידך – ב ביבט א עו צי עו צי – ב ליכ ל היכא ד כ

דולד יבט ג טן, ואידך – ב

Trapping a bird – צידת צ וט: One who traps a bird inside a building is liable. In the case of a house sparrow, one is not liable until it is trapped in a cage (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:19–20; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:1).

A small or large enclosure – וגדול יבט טן Animals are :בconsidered trapped only if they have been enclosed in a building or pen in which one need not pursue them to apprehend them (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:19–20; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:1).

HALAKHA

Free bird – טוט The house sparrow [tzippor dror], Passer :צ וט דdomesticus biblicus, is found throughout the world in close proximity to human habitation. Since this bird lives among people and it sometimes enters their homes, one is not liable for trapping it in a house, because it continues to fly from place to place. The name tzippor dror, literally, a bird of freedom, connotes the fact that this bird, like many other birds, cannot live in captivity and survives in a cage with great difficulty.

House sparrow

BACKGROUND

In one lunge – יחייא חד ש -According to the version that ap :בpears in the Gemara, this is a small enclosure where one can apprehend the animal just by reaching out. A variant reading

of this passage is: One period [shehiyya instead of shiĥayya], meaning as long as one need not stop and rest while chas-ing the animal, but can catch it in a single pursuit (see Me’iri).

NOTES

134 Perek XIII . 106b . :ט י״ג דב ו

We learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all enclosures are identical. It depends whether the trapping of the animal is inadequate, in which case one is liable for trapping, or whether the trapping is not inadequate, in which case one is exempt. Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in this matter. Abaye said to him: If you rule the halakha in accordance with his opinion, does that mean by infer-ence that the Rabbis disagree, or perhaps there is no dispute and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? Rav Yosef said to him: What difference is there to you whether or not the Rabbis disagree? In either case the halakha is in accor-dance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. He an-swered him using a folk expression: Is it simply learn the lesson, let it be like a song?N In other words, is it sufficient to simply parrot the halakhic ruling? Rather, it is necessary to examine the issue to understand it even if it does not yield a practical halakhic difference.

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who traps a deer on Shabbat that is blind or sleeping is liable. One who traps a lame, old, or sick deerH is exempt. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is different about these cases and what is different about those cases? Rav Yosef answered: These, the blind or sleeping deer, are likely to run away when they feel that they are being touched; therefore, they require trapping. However, these, the crippled, old, and sick deer, are not likely to run away and are therefore considered to be already trapped. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a barai-ta that one who traps a sick deer is liable? Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult. This baraita, in which a sick deer is not considered trapped and one who traps it is liable is referring to a deer that is sick due to a fever,N which can still flee; that baraita, in which the deer is considered trapped and one who traps it is exempt is refer-ring to a deer that is sick with fatigue and is incapable of fleeing.

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who traps locusts, cicadas,B hornets, or mosquitoes on Shabbat is liable. This is the state-ment of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Not every insect is the same in this matter. If one traps any insect whose species is typi-cally trappedH for personal use, he is liable, and if one traps any insect whose species is typically not trapped for personal use, he is exempt. It was taught in another baraita: One who traps lo-custs when there is dew is exempt. Since it is cold at that time, the locusts are paralyzed. If one traps them when it is hot, he is liable. Elazar ben Mehavai says: If the locusts were swarming, one is exempt for trapping them, because no effort is necessary to apprehend them. A dilemma was raised before them: Does the statement of Elazar ben Mehavai apply to the first clause of the baraita, ruling stringently that one is liable for trapping locusts even when there is dew unless they are swarming; or does it apply to the latter clause of the baraita, ruling leniently that one is ex-empt when trapping locusts, even in the heat when they are swarming? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma based on a source that addresses the point explicitly: One who traps lo-custs when there is dew is exempt; one who traps locusts when it is hot is liable. Elazar ben Mehavai says: Even when it is hot, if they were swarming, one is exempt.

mishna If a deer entered a houseH on its own and one locked the door before it, he is liable

for trapping. If two people locked the door, they are exempt, because neither performed a complete labor. If one person is in-capable of locking the door and two people locked it, they are liable because that is the typical manner of performing that labor. And Rabbi Shimon deems them exempt as he holds that two people who perform a single labor are never liable by Torah law.

וכופ״ד אומט מליאל ג ן ב מעון ש ן ״טבאמט יהודה טב אמט יוסב טב אמט ן ב מעון ש ן טב כ הלכה מואל: ש״הלכה״, יי: אב ליה אמט מליאלד גנ א מאי ליה: אמט ליגי?! ד לל מכמוט ג מטא ג ליה: אמט ה? מינ לך

הא? זמוטתא ת

ן – חייב, ד צבי סומא ויש נן: הצ נו טב תיי טוטד אמט ליה אב ט וז ן וחולה – חיגנא הני? נא הני ומאי ש לטב יוסב: מאי שעבידי לא – הני לטבויי, עבידי – הני אמט חייב! – חולה והתניא: לטבוייד חולה ב – הא יא, ש לא ת: ש ש טב חולה מחמת א, הא – ב ת מחמת איש

אד אובצנ

צטעין זין, ג חגבין, ד הצ נן: טב נו תי מאיטד בטי טב ת – חייב, ד ב ש ין ב ויתושניצוד – מינו ב ש כל וחכמים אומטים: טוטד – ניצוד מינו ב אין ש וכל חייב, ל – עת הט ש ד חגבים ב ניא אידך: הצ תאלעזט חייבד – טב הש עת ש ב טוט, חות מ ל היו אם אומט: מהבאי ן בן עיא להו: אלעזט ב טוטד איב ובאות – י א אי? א אי או אס מהבאי, אטיש – ל הט עת ש ב חגבין ד הצ מע: ש א תאלעזט חייבד – טב הש עת ש ב טוטד טב, עת הש ש ן מהבאי אומט: א ילו ב ב

טוטד חות ובאות – אם היו מ ל

אחד ונעל ית לב כנס נ ש צבי מתניפ טוטין; לא נים – ניו – חייב, נעלו ש בנים – חייבין, יכול אחד לנעול ונעלו ש

מעון וטטד י ש וטב

Learn the lesson, let it be like a song – מוט זמוטתא מטא ג גהא :This is a folk expression applied to foolish students :תLearn everything, right and wrong, and you will be able to sing it (Rashi). Elsewhere, Rashi explains that Abaye’s teacher taught him that the halakha is in accordance with the opin-ion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Abaye answered: If there is no disagreement, why state the halakha at all? Is it just a song? It is impossible to explain that all Rav Yosef was saying was that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because it is clear that in a dispute with Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees with the Rabbis. Rav Yosef preferred to teach the halakha in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rather than in the name of the Rabbis (Rashba).

A deer that is sick due to a fever – א ת חולה מחמת איש The :בArukh explains this differently. If the animal is sick with a fever, it cannot run away. However, if it is merely sick or exhausted, then it can still flee.

NOTES

One who traps a deer that is blind or sleeping…a lame, old, or sick deer – וז ן ט ן…חיג ויש ד צבי סומא One who :הצtraps a deer that is blind or sleeping, or any other animal that will flee when touched, is liable. If the animal is sick or old or unable to flee, he is exempt (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:21, 24; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:2).

Any insect whose species is typically trapped – מינו ב כל ש By Torah law, one is liable only for trapping a creature :ניצודthat people typically trap. Nevertheless, it is prohibited to trap those animals that are not typically trapped, though he is not liable (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:24; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:3).

A deer that entered a house – ית כנס לב נ ש If a deer :צבי entered a building on its own (Mishna Berura) and someone locked it inside, he is liable for trapping. If two people locked the building together, although a primary category of labor was performed, because they did it together neither is liable, so long as one of them was capable of performing the act alone. However, if the action required both people, they are both liable (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10: 23; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:5).

HALAKHA

Cicadas – זין The Cicada orni is a species of cicada, an insect :גwith four wings of equal size. The cicada consumes primarily plant nectar, and its excrement is sweet and is apparently the

“honey” mentioned in certain sources. Male cicadas have a special body part that chirps and buzzes, and this seems to be the source of its onomatopoetic name in the Gemara, gazin, based on its buzzing sound.

Cicada

BACKGROUND

Perek XIII . 107a 135 . ט י״ג דב זד

gemara Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Shmuel said: One who traps a lion on ShabbatH is

not liable for trapping unless he traps it in its cage, and until that point it is not considered trapped.

mishna If one person sat in the entranceH of a court-yard in which there is a deer, but did not fill

the entire doorway, and a second person sat and filled it, the sec-ond person is liable because he completed the labor of trapping. However, 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 away, leaving the second one to secure the deer. The mishna ex-plains: To what is this second person’s action similar? To one who locks his houseN to secure it, and it turns out a deer that was trapped before Shabbat is also secured inside it. In that case, he is exempt even though he enhances security on the deer, because he did not trap the animal.

gemara Rabbi Abba said that Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: If a bird flew under the

flaps of one’s clothingH on Shabbat and cannot get out, he may sit and secure it until darkN and then take it. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak 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 permittedH 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’s 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 per-mitted, just like one who locks the door to his house. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that it is so.

Some say a slightly different version. Rav Naĥman bar Yitzĥak said: We too learned support for Rav’s 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 Naĥman said: That is impossible, from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: To what is this second person’s 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.

א אמט ט אב י יטמיה ב גמפ אמט טבת אינו חייב ב ש ד אטי ב מואל: הצ ש

לוד יכניסנו לגוטז י ש עד ש

תח ולא ב האחד על ה מתניפ יש – אהו ומיל ני הש ב יש אהו, מילתח ב הטאשון על ה ני חייבד יש השצידו, ב ב ויש ני הש ובא אהו, ומילעמד הטאשון והלך לו – י ש אב על טוטד הא למה ני הטאשון חייב, והשיתו לשומטו, זה דומה – לנועל את ב

תוכוד מוט ב ונמצא צבי ש

NOTESOne may place food before them – ונותנין ל ניהם מזונות: In Tosafot the question of whether or not one is permitted to feed animals on a Festival depends on whether or not those animals are considered trapped by Torah law. Rashi’s opinion is supported in the Jerusalem Talmud that one may not tend to something that is not prepared for use on the Festival. Nevertheless, ravens and dogs may be fed on Shabbat because they are considered prepared for whatever use their owners keep them (Rashba).

In one lunge – יחייא חד ש According to the version that appears in :בthe Gemara, this is a small enclosure where one can apprehend the animal just by reaching out. A variant reading of this passage is: One period [shehiyya instead of shiĥaya], meaning as long as one need not stop and rest while chasing the animal, but can catch it in a single pursuit (see Me’iri).

Learn the lesson, let it be like a song – הא מוט זמוטתא ת מטא ג This is a :גfolk expression applied to foolish students: Learn everything, right and wrong, and you will be able to sing it (Rashi). Elsewhere, Rashi explains that Abaye’s teacher taught him that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Abaye answered: If there is no disagreement, why state the halakha at all? Is it just a song? It is im-possible to explain that all Rav Yosef was saying was that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because it is clear that in a dispute with Rabbi Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees with the Rabbis. Rav Yosef preferred to teach the halakha in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rather than in the name of the Rabbis (Rashba).

A deer that is sick due to a fever – א ת חולה מחמת איש The Arukh :בexplains this differently. If the animal is sick with a fever, it cannot run away. However, if it is merely sick or exhausted, then it can still flee.

To what is this similar? To one who locks his house – ?למה זה דומה יתו Some commentaries compare the second person to :לנועל את בone who had a deer closed up in his house and he came and added a lock to the door. Even though he intends to further secure the deer, he is certainly exempt because the deer was already trapped (Ran).

HALAKHATrapping a bird – צידת צ וט: One who traps a bird inside a building is liable. In the case of a house sparrow, one is not liable until it is trapped in a cage (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:19–20; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:1).

A small or large enclosure – יבט טן וגדול Animals are considered :בtrapped only if they have been enclosed in a building or pen in which one need not pursue them to apprehend them (Rambam Sefer Ze-manim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:19–20; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:1).

One who traps a deer that is blind or sleeping…a lame, old, or sick deer – ט וז ן ן…חיג ד צבי סומא ויש One who traps a deer that is blind :הצ

or sleeping, or any other animal that will flee when touched, is liable. If the animal is sick or old or unable to flee, he is exempt (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:21, 24; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:2).

Any insect whose species is typically trapped – מינו ניצוד ב By :כל שTorah law, one is liable only for trapping a creature that people typi-cally trap. Nevertheless, it is prohibited to trap those animals that are not typically trapped, though he is not liable (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:24; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:3).

A deer entered a house – ית כנס לב נ If a deer entered a building :צבי שon its own (Mishna Berura) and someone locked it inside, he is liable for trapping. If two people locked the building together, although a primary category of labor was performed, because they did it together neither is liable, so long as one of them was capable of performing the act alone. However, if the action required both people, they are both liable (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10: 23; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:5).

One who traps a lion on Shabbat – ת ב ש ד אטי ב To be liable on :הצShabbat, one who traps a lion or other dangerous animal has to trap it in an appropriate cage (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:19).

One person sat in the entrance – תח ב האחד על ה If a deer entered :ישa building, and a person sat in the doorway without completely block-ing the entrance, and then another person came and completed the blocking of the entrance by sitting in the doorway as well, the latter is liable. If the first person completely blocked the entrance but left after the second person sat down, the first person is liable by Torah law and the second one is exempt. In this case, it is even permitted for the second person to sit there while the first one is securing the animal (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:23; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:6).

LANGUAGEEnclosure [bivar] – יבט -From the Latin vivarium, a place where ani :בmals are kept.

Cage [gorzeki] – גוטז י: May be related to the new Persian word gurca, meaning pit or jailhouse.

BACKGROUNDFree bird – טוט -The house sparrow [tzippor dror], Passer domesti :צ וט דcus biblicus, is found throughout the world in close proximity to human habitation. Since this bird lives among people and it sometimes enters their homes, one is not liable for trapping it in a house, because it continues to fly from place to place. The name tzippor dror, literally, a bird of freedom, connotes the fact that this bird, like many other birds, cannot live in captivity and survives in a cage with great difficulty.

House sparrow

Cicadas – זין The Cicada orni is a species of cicada, an insect with four :גwings of equal size. The cicada consumes primarily plant nectar, and its excrement is sweet and is apparently the “honey” mentioned in certain sources. Male cicadas have a special body part that chirps and buzzes, and this seems to be the source of its onomatopoetic name in the Gemara, gazin, based on its buzzing sound.

Cicada

זד

Perek XIIIDaf 107 Amud a

חייא א אמט טב אב י טב אמט גמפ צ וט לו נכנסה טב: אמט י אש ט בעד טו מ ומש ב יוש – נ יו כ חת תיצח : ט ב ךד מתיב טב נחמן חש ת שומלאהו, תח ה על הטאשון ב ישי על אב צדו, ב ב ויש ני הש ובא עמד הטאשון והלך לו – הטאשון שטוט לאו: מאי טוטד ני והש חייב הכי טד ומות טוט לא, אסוט? אבל תני סי א: למה מד טא, ב נמי מסתיתו לשומטו זה דומה – לנועל את בלל מכ תוכו, ב מוט ש צבי ונמצא

הד מע מינ ט, ש טוט ומות ד

ט ב נחמן טב אמט אמטי, ד א איכי נינא, אב על יצח : אב אנן נמי תעמד הטאשון והלך לו – הטאשון שטוט טוטד מאי לאו – ני חייב והשהא אסוטד אבל טוט לא, ט? ומות תני סי א: הא למה זה דומה – מדיתו לשומטו ונמצא צבי לנועל את בט, ומות טוט ד לל מכ תוכו, ב מוט ש

הד מע מינ ש

One who traps a lion on Shabbat – ת ב ש ד אטי ב To be :הצliable on Shabbat, one who traps a lion or other dangerous animal has to trap it in an appropriate cage (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:19).

One person sat in the entrance – תח ב האחד על ה If a :ישdeer entered a building, and a person sat in the doorway without completely blocking the entrance, and then another person came and completed the blocking of the entrance by sitting in the doorway as well, the latter is liable. If the first person completely blocked the entrance but left after the second person sat down, the first person is liable by Torah law and the second one is exempt. In this case, it is even permitted for the second person to sit there while the first one is securing the animal (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:23; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:6).

HALAKHA

To what is this similar? To one who locks his house – למה יתו Some commentaries compare the :זה דומה, לנועל את בsecond person to one who had a deer closed up in his house and he came and added a lock to the door. Even though he intends to further secure the deer, he is certainly exempt because the deer was already trapped (Ran).

NOTES

If a bird flew under the flaps of one’s clothing – נכנסת לו נ יו חת כ If a bird flew underneath the flaps of one’s :צ וט תclothing on Shabbat, he is permitted to guard it until after Shabbat, as stated by Rabbi Abba (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:23).

The first person sat in the doorway…he is exempt and it is permitted – ט טוט ומות תח… ב הטאשון על ה If a deer :ישentered a building and a person sat in the doorway com-pletely blocking the entrance, another person may come and sit next to him. If the first person leaves the second individual there, the first person is liable, while the second one is exempt from all liability and is permitted to stay (Ram-bam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:23; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:6).

HALAKHA

He may sit and secure it until dark – ך חש ת טו עד ש מ ב ומש :יושOne might ask: If the bird is already trapped, why does one need to sit and secure it until dark? Why can’t he simply carry it away?

The answer is unrelated to the issue of trapping. The bird is set aside and cannot be moved because it was not prepared before Shabbat (Rashba).

NOTES

136 Perek XIII . 107a . ט י״ג דב זד

With regard to this issue Shmuel said: With regard to all exempt rulings in the halakhot of Shabbat,H 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’s 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 pusH 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 permit-ted? 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,H 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’s 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.

טוט ת ב ש ד טוטי ל כ מואל: ש אמט טוט ד לת ת מהני לבט אסוט, אבל טוט ד אי וממ הא, – חדא ט; ומות תני סי א: למה זה דומה – ט – ד ומותצבי ונמצא לשומטו יתו ב את לנועל מוטסא יס המ ואידך: תוכוד ב מוט שחייב, – ה לה לעשות אם ת, ב ש בטוטד – לחה ה נ ממ להוציא אם מחט תנן: ד – ט ומות טוט ד אי וממואידך: ה וץד את ה ב ליטול יד ל שלא ת, אם מתעס בו ש ב ש ד נחש ב הצחייבד – לט ואה אם טוט, – כנו ישכו ין תנן: ד – ט ומות טוט ד אי וממאחוז ת לא ש ביל ש ב ט הנ על עטה ל טן, ועל ע טב וטה, ועל צואה ש ב

ךד יש לא ת ש

הדטן עלך האוטג

NOTESHe may sit and secure it until dark – ך חש ת טו עד ש מ ומש ב One :יושmight ask: If the bird is already trapped, why does one need to sit and secure it until dark? Why can’t he simply carry it away? The answer is unrelated to the issue of trapping. The bird is set aside and cannot be moved because it was not prepared before Shabbat (Rashba).

HALAKHA If a bird flew under the flaps of one’s clothing – חת נכנסת לו צ וט תנ יו ,If a bird flew underneath the flaps of one’s clothing on Shabbat :כhe is permitted to guard it until after Shabbat, as stated by Rabbi Abba (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:23).

The first person sat in the doorway…he is exempt and it is permit-ted – ט טוט ומות תח… ב הטאשון על ה If a deer entered a building :ישand a person sat in the doorway completely blocking the entrance, another person may come and sit next to him. If the first person leaves the second individual there, the first person is liable, while the second one is exempt from all liability and is permitted to stay (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:23; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:6).

All exempt rulings in the halakhot of Shabbat – ת ב ש טוטי ד ל The :כterm “exempt” used in the context of Shabbat means that the Torah does not obligate one to bring a sin-offering, nor does one incur excision for performing this act. Nevertheless, the Sages prohibited these acts. However, there are several exceptions to this rule, where the word “exempt” means that one is not merely exempt but that per-

formance of the action is in fact permitted (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:3).

One who drains an abscess containing pus – יס מוטסא One is :המpermitted to puncture a boil containing pus on Shabbat if the inten-tion is to drain the fluid from it, even if the boil also contains blood. This is allowed on the condition that one does not apply pressure to the wound, thereby extracting blood from it (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:17; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 328:28).

One who traps a snake on Shabbat – ת ב ש ד נחש ב One who traps a :הצsnake on Shabbat in order to use it is liable. However, it is permitted to trap a snake to prevent it from biting (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:25; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:7). All exempt rulings in the halakhot of Shabbat – טוטי ל כ

ת ב ש The term “exempt” used in the context of Shabbat :דmeans that the Torah does not obligate one to bring a sin-offering, nor does one incur excision for performing this act. Nevertheless, the Sages prohibited these acts. However, there are several exceptions to this rule, where the word “exempt” means that one is not merely exempt but that performance of the action is in fact permitted (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:3).

One who drains an abscess containing pus – יס המ One is permitted to puncture a boil containing :מוטסאpus on Shabbat if the intention is to drain the fluid from it, even if the boil also contains blood. This is allowed on the condition that one does not apply pressure to the wound, thereby extracting blood from it (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:17; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 328:28).

One who traps a snake on Shabbat – ת ב ש ב ד נחש :הצOne who traps a snake on Shabbat in order to use it is liable. However, it is permitted to trap a snake to prevent it from biting (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 10:25; Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 316:7).

HALAKHA