Shabbat 106a (קו.) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one of the brothers dies

all the brothers should be concerned

lest they die.

If one of the members of a group dies, the entire group should be concerned.

Some say:

specifically

if the eldest dies

the brothers should be concerned, since the attribute of justice has prevailed over the head of the household.

And some say:

specifically

if the youngest dies

the calamity begins with the youngest.

We learned in the Mishna:

And all those who cause damage are exempt.

Rabbi Abbahu taught before Rabbi Yoḥanan: All those who cause damage are exempt, except for one who wounds and one who kindles

as we find a Mishna that one who wounds another on Shabbat is liable, and likewise there is a Mishna that one who kindles a stack of grain is liable, even though they are causing damage. It follows that these labors are exceptions with regard to causing damage.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Go and teach this outside

Go outside and recite that beraita there; that is to say, it is an error.

The statement concerning one who wounds and one who kindles is not a Mishna

for they too are exempt when causing damage.

And if you should say that it is a Mishna, the statement concerning “one who wounds” —

when he needs

the blood that emerges from the wound

for his dog

for it is considered constructive with regard to the dog.

“One who kindles” —

when he needs its ashes

and therefore he is liable; but in a case of complete damage, he is exempt.

And we challenge Rabbi Abbahu:

But didn’t we learn

in our Mishna:

All those who cause damage are exempt

indicating that this applies even to one who wounds and one who kindles; and this is difficult for Rabbi Abbahu’s beraita, which teaches: “except for one who wounds and one who kindles”?

And we resolve:

The Mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda

who holds that one is liable for a labor that he does not need for its own purpose. Consequently, there is no necessity to say that one who wounds and one who kindles differ from all other labors, since there are also circumstances in which they are not considered causing damage, as we said above: when he needs it for his dog and when he needs its ashes. Although with regard to the labor itself he is causing damage, and it is a labor that he does not need for its own purpose, he is nevertheless liable for it. But in a case of complete damage, he is exempt even for wounding and kindling.

The beraita is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon

who holds that one is exempt for a labor that he does not need for its own purpose. If so, there can be no case of wounding or kindling that is not considered causing damage, and even one who kindles wood for cooking is considered to be causing damage. For although it is constructive for other purposes, it is nevertheless a labor that he does not need for its own purpose. Rather, it must be that one who wounds and one who kindles are liable even when causing damage.

And we explain:

What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

Since a verse was necessary to permit circumcision

on Shabbat [as we expounded: It is written, “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,” whereas it could have said, “And on the eighth”; and we derive from the word “day” that this applies even on Shabbat]. Circumcision is considered causing damage through wounding; it follows:

in an ordinary case of wounding, one is liable

even when causing damage.

And since the Torah prohibited kindling with regard to the daughter of a priest

who committed adultery, whose punishment is burning, and we derive [in Yevamot 6b] that she is not burned on Shabbat,

infer from this: In an ordinary case of kindling, one is liable

even when causing damage.

Rabbi Sheshat of Santurya raised the following difficulty: Why does he not derive this from the very labors of wounding and kindling, which were enumerated among the primary categories of labor because they were performed in the Tabernacle? It is impossible that this involved anything other than causing damage, as we said above.

And Rabbi Yehuda

could say to you:

There

in the cases of circumcision and the daughter of a priest

it is constructive, as Rav Ashi said, for what difference is there between repairing a circumcision and repairing a vessel?

For in circumcision as well, he repairs the person. And likewise, in the case of the daughter of a priest,

what difference is there between cooking a wick and cooking dyes?

For the labor there is not kindling but cooking: They would cook a lead wick until it melted and place it in her mouth. This is complete cooking, and it is not causing damage; rather, it is constructive, as he completes and improves the wick, just as the cooking of dyes was performed in the Tabernacle. But in a case of complete damage, one is exempt for wounding and kindling.

We learned in the Mishna:

The measure for whitening

is the amount equal to the doubled width of a sit.

Rav Yosef demonstrated —

doubled.

He indicated with his fingers the distance between the middle finger and the index finger, and the measure is twice that distance.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami demonstrated the simple measure.

Once, he indicated the distance between the thumb and the index finger, which is twice the distance between the middle finger and the index finger.

Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: One who traps a bird in a tower

that is, he put it into a chest,

and a deer in a house, is liable.

But a bird in a house is not yet considered trapped, as it can escape through the windows; and likewise, a deer that one brought into a garden or courtyard is not considered trapped.