Shabbat 106b — the Talmud in English

And the Sages say: A bird is considered trapped only in a tower,

like Rabbi Yehuda,

and a deer

even

into a garden, and into a courtyard, and into enclosures

a place within which animals are kept

he is liable.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: not all enclosures are alike

rather

this is the rule:

the

one requiring trapping

if he drove the deer into a large place where it is difficult to seize it there

he is exempt. One that does not require trapping

because the place is small

he is liable.

And in the Gemara it explains that the measure of a small place is: any place where he can seize it in one run only.

Gemara:

We learned there

in tractate Beitza:

one may not trap fish from the enclosures

water pools in which fish are raised

on a Festival

because the labor of trapping was not permitted on a Festival, since it is possible to trap them on the eve of the Festival.

And one may not place food before them

because once they are muktze [on account of the prohibition against trapping them], it is forbidden to trouble oneself on their behalf.

But one may trap an animal or a bird from the enclosures

because they are already trapped and standing

and one may place food before them

because they are not muktze.

And he poses a contradiction:

it was taught:

in enclosures of animals, birds, and fish, one may not trap from them on a Festival, and one may not place food before them.

The case of animal contradicts the case of animal; the case of birds contradicts the case of birds

for in the Mishna it is written that one may trap from them on a Festival, whereas in the beraita it is written that one may not trap?

Granted, the case of animal does not contradict the case of animal,

for

this

the beraita that prohibits trapping

is Rabbi Yehuda,

who says in the Mishna that one who traps a deer into an enclosure is not liable; it follows that an enclosure is not considered trapped with regard to an animal, and therefore it is forbidden to trap from it on a Festival.

This

the Mishna that permits trapping on a Festival

is the Sages,

who say in the Mishna that the deer is considered trapped in an enclosure, and therefore it is permitted to trap from it on a Festival.

Rather, the case of birds contradicts the case of birds

for according to both Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages, it is considered trapped only in a tower?

And if you say: the case of birds also does not contradict the case of birds,

for

this

the Mishna in Beitza, which permits trapping on a Festival, is

in a roofed enclosure,

which is considered trapped and standing,

whereas this

the beraita, which prohibits trapping on a Festival, is

in an unroofed enclosure,

which is not considered trapped.

It is impossible to say so.

But a house is roofed, and according to both Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages, a bird into a tower

yes,

specifically into it is it considered trapped, but

into a house it is not

considered trapped?

And we answer:

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: here

in the Mishna

we are dealing with a free bird,

which is not considered trapped in a house

because it does not accept authority,

but an ordinary bird is considered trapped in a house, and the same applies in a roofed enclosure. Therefore the earlier answer can stand: the Mishna in Beitza speaks of a roofed enclosure, and the beraita of an unroofed enclosure [according to the Rashash].

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Why is it called a free bird?

Because it dwells in a house as in a field,

flying from corner to corner.

Now that you have arrived at this

that we have settled the contradiction concerning birds according to the Sages,

the case of animal also does not contradict the case of animal,

and there is no need to explain as above, that this is Rabbi Yehuda and that is the Sages; rather, both are according to the Sages, and

this

the beraita that prohibits trapping an animal from enclosures is

in a large enclosure,

whereas

this

the Mishna in Shabbat, which prohibits trapping an animal into an enclosure, and the Mishna of Beitza, which permits trapping on a Festival from the enclosure, are

in a small enclosure,

which is considered trapped and standing there [as is explained in the Mishna, in the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that there is a distinction between one enclosure and another; and the Sages agree with him, as follows in the Gemara].

And we inquire into it:

What are the circumstances of a large enclosure, and what are the circumstances of a small enclosure?

Rav Ashi said: wherever he runs after it and reaches it

in one stride,

reaching it in one run, that is a

small enclosure. But the other,

if one run is not sufficient for him, is a

large enclosure.

Alternatively: wherever the shadows of the walls fall upon one another,

the walls are close, until the shadows of the walls touch one another,

a small enclosure. But the other,

if the walls are farther apart than this, is a

large enclosure.

And alternatively: wherever there are no corners upon corners,

because the house is round and has no corners to which the animal can escape,

a small enclosure. But the other,

if this is not so, is a

large enclosure.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says

not all enclosures are alike.

Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel.

Abaye said to him: From what you say,

“the halakha,” by implication they disagree

the Sages with him? But we said above that the Sages also distinguish between a small enclosure and a large one?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef:

What difference is it to you?

For if the Sages do not disagree, all the more so the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

He said to him,

Abaye:

Is a teaching that you have learned to be merely a song?

You are saying things without need, merely like a song.

The Sages taught: One who traps a blind deer or a sleeping deer is liable.

But a deer that is

lame,

limping,

or old, or ill, he is exempt.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is different about these, and what is different about those?

For, in truth, a blind or sleeping deer is considered trapped.

Rav Yosef said to him:

These are likely to multiply

the blind and the sleeping flee when they feel a human hand touching them, and are not considered trapped, whereas

these are not likely to multiply

the lame, the old, and the ill cannot flee, and they are considered trapped.

And we challenge this:

But was it not taught:

one who traps a deer

that is ill is liable?

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: It is not difficult: this

where he is liable

is an illness caused by fever,

an illness in which it can still walk.

This

where he is exempt

is an illness caused by exhaustion,

fatigue, in which it cannot move from its place, and it is trapped and standing.

The Sages taught: One who traps locusts, gazin

a species of pure locust permitted for eating [and likewise the locusts],

hornets, or mosquitoes on Shabbat is liable; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Anyone of whose species it is customary to trap

such as locusts and gazin, which people customarily trap for eating,

he is liable. And anyone of whose species it is not customary to trap

such as hornets and mosquitoes, which serve no purpose,

he is exempt.

It was taught in another beraita: One who traps locusts at the time of dew

when their eyes become dim,

is exempt,

because they are considered trapped.

At the time of heat he is liable.

Elazar ben Mahavai says: If they were streaming and coming,

that many locusts came together and they were ready to be taken,

he is exempt.

It was raised for them: Does Elazar ben Mahavai refer to the first clause,

to be stringent, that even at the time of dew he is exempt only when they are streaming and coming,

or does he refer to the final clause,

to be lenient, that even at the time of heat he is exempt when they are streaming?

Come and hear:

it was taught:

One who traps locusts at the time of dew is exempt; at the time of heat he is liable.

Elazar ben Mahavai says: Even at the time of heat, if they were streaming and coming, he is exempt,

and this is the lenient interpretation.

Mishna:

A deer that entered

of its own accord

into a house, and one person closed

a person

the door before it, is liable,

for this is its trapping.

If two closed it, they are exempt,

for every labor that two performed, both are exempt.

And all this applies specifically when each one separately could have closed it, but

not

could

one person have closed

the house

and two closed it,

both of them

are liable,

for in such a manner it is the usual way for two to perform the labor, and each one has a complete labor without which it would not have been performed.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts,

for Rabbi Shimon holds that even in this case—this one cannot do it and that one cannot do it—both are exempt [and above, 93a, he explains their dispute].

Gemara:

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said in the name of Shmuel: One who traps

a lion on Shabbat is not liable until he brings it into its own gurzaki,

into the cage designated for it; but outside the cage, even if he grasps it in his hand, this is not its trapping, for it can escape from him.

Mishna:

One sat at the opening,

where the deer was,

but did not fill it,

for his body did not fill the space of the opening, and afterward

the second sat

beside the first

and filled it,

the entire space of the opening;

the second is liable,

for the deer was trapped through him, while the first is exempt, for he did nothing.

The first sat at the opening and filled it, and the second came and sat beside him,

that is, inside the first, and he too filled the space of the opening,

even though the first stood up and left,

so that now the second causes the trapping of the deer,

the first is liable,

for he initially trapped the deer,

and the second is exempt,

since he performs no new act; rather, he guards the already trapped deer so that it cannot escape from the house, and this is not an act of trapping but guarding.

To what is

the second

similar?

To one who closes his house to guard it,

and did not know that a deer was there,

and it turns out

afterward that

a deer is safely guarded within it,

for they do not obligate him to open the door when he learns that the deer is there, since now he performs no act of trapping.